'Great day for American Jurisprudence!' Celebrities hail the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court



Various celebrities celebrated the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, expressing their excitement on social media.

The Senate vote was 53-47 — Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine voted in favor of confirming Jackson to the high court, while the rest of the GOP senators voted against confirmation. In June, 2021, Romney voted against confirming Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Jackson, who will replace Justice Stephen Breyer once he retires later this year, will be the first black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Her prescence will not shift the 6-3 balance of the nine-member court, which is currently comprised of three justices nominated by Democratic presidents and six justices nominated by Republican presidents.

Celebrities expressed their enthusiasm about Jackson's confirmation.

"Congratulation to JUSTICE Ketanji Brown Jackson on her elevation to the nation’s highest court. Well deserved, and well past time," George Takei tweeted.

"There have been 115 Supreme Court Justices, but there has never before been a Black woman appointed to the highest court of the land. Until now…and my heart swells! Congratulations, Justice Jackson," Alyssa Milano remarked.

"I mean…LOT OF BAD GOIN ON SO LET’S TAKE THIS HISTORIC WIN TODAY AND ENJOY IT," Kathy Griffin tweeted.

"History," Ben Stiller tweeted, along with several raised-hands emojis.

History https://twitter.com/sensherrodbrown/status/1512132628224294914\u00a0\u2026
— Ben Stiller (@Ben Stiller) 1649355654

"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson," Padma Lakshmi tweeted. "History is made! What a proud day for our country."

"Great day for American Jurisprudence! One of the most qualified people in Supreme Court history takes her rightful place on the bench. Congratulations Judge, now Justice, Jackson," Rob Reiner tweeted.

Reiner, an outspoken liberal, tweeted last week that "It’s long past time that we acknowledge the sure handed, effective, grace under fire, success of Joe Biden’s Presidency." While he made the post on April Fools' Day, considering his openly liberal leanings, he was not joking.

Jackson has noted that she does not have a position on the issue of whether people have natural rights.

"I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights," the jurist wrote in response to a written question from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing last month, GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana asked Jackson when she believes that life begins.

"I don't know," Jackson said. She noted that she has "a religious view" on the topic which she puts aside while making rulings.

Kennedy asked Jackson, "when does equal protection of the laws attach ... to a human being?"

Jackson told the lawmaker, "I actually don't know the answer to that question. I'm sorry."

Hawley grills Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson on 3-month sentence for child pornographer



During Tuesday's confirmation hearing, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley zeroed in on a child pornography case where Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gave an 18-year-old convicted of possessing illicit videos and images on his laptop only three months in prison.

Hawley called attention to statements Jackson made in U.S. v. Hawkins, a 2013 case in which Jackson made sympathetic comments toward the defendant and his family. The government had requested that the defendant be sentenced to 24 months in prison, but Jackson gave the offender a three-month sentence. Federal guidelines recommend at least a 10-year sentence for the crimes the defendant committed.

Reading from court transcripts, Hawley noted that Jackson had told the defendant she did not believe he was a pedophile. She also made statements expressing her opinion that sentencing guidelines "are in many ways outdated" because they "no longer adequately distinguish more serious child pornography offenders from the less serious child pornography offenders."

Judge Jackson opens by saying sentencing guidelines \u201care in many ways outdated\u201d and don\u2019t distinguish \u201cless serious child pornography offenders.\u201dpic.twitter.com/Y7frzxgErV
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@Senator Hawley Press Office) 1647996520

In portions of the transcript Hawley posted to Twitter, Jackson told the defendant it would not be "appropriate" to increase his sentence "on the basis of your use of a computer or the number of images or prepubescent victims as the Guidelines require because these circumstances exist in many cases, if not most, and don't signal an especially heinous or egregious child pornography offense."

Judge Jackson goes on to say \u201cthe number of images or prepubescent victims\u201d in the defendant\u2019s case \u201cdon\u2019t signal an especially heinous or egregious child pornography offense.\u201dpic.twitter.com/1Uf3G4wpS9
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@Senator Hawley Press Office) 1647996521

Hawley said he was "troubled" by these comments.

"I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it," he told Jackson. "We're talking about 8-year-olds, and 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds, and 12-year-olds. He's got images of these the government said added up to over 600 images, gobs of video footage of these children … What word would you use if it's not heinous or egregious, how would you describe it?"

"It is heinous, it is egregious," Jackson said, noting that while Hawley did not describe in detail the images collected, she had seen them while reviewing evidence for the case.

"What a judge has to do is determine how to sentence defendants proportionately, consistent with the elements that the statutes include with the requirements that Congress has set forward. Unwarranted sentencing disparities is something that the Sentencing Commission has been focused on for a long time in regard to child pornography offenses," Jackson said.

She pointed out that in this case, the government had not followed the sentencing recommendations either, telling Hawley, "The government in this case and in others has asked for a sentence that is substantially less than the guideline penalty."

Following up, Hawley asked about statements Jackson made that appear to mitigate what the defendant had done, including that his collection of child porn was "not as large as it seems" and that "this seems to be a case where you were fascinated by sexual images involving what were essentially your peers."

"Judge, he was 18. These kids are eight. I don't see in what sense they're peers," Hawley said.

Absolutely BRUTAL questions from @HawleyMO to Judge Jackson as he recites her own words back to her:\n\n"Judge, he was 18. These kids are 8. I don't see in what sense they're peers."pic.twitter.com/Xk9gZO4rtU
— Townhall.com (@Townhall.com) 1647986134

Jackson said that she did not have the records of the case in front of her and could not recall the exact details that led her to make those statements. But she did say that, "Congress has given the judges not only the discretion to make the decision, but required judges to do so on an individualized bases, taking into account not only the guidelines but also various factors including the age of the defendant, the circumstances of the defendant, the terrible nature of the crime, and the harm to the victims. All of these factors are taken into account."

She defended her record, and said that any examination of the "greater body" of her sentences would show she attempted to do "what it is that judges do," which is "to do justice individually in each case."

In another noteworthy exchange, Hawley asked about an apology Jackson offered to the defendant during the case.

This was maybe Josh @HawleyMO's strongest point in his back-and-forth with KBJ over sentencing of child sex predators -- he read from a sentencing in which she said she "feel[s] so sorry for" the perp's family "and for you and for the anguish this has caused all of you."pic.twitter.com/oL9CfxeJ6u
— Curtis Houck (@Curtis Houck) 1647985272

"I just have to tell you, I can't quite figure this out," Hawley said. "You said to him, ‘This is a truly difficult situation. I appreciate that your family’s in the audience. I feel so sorry for them, and for you and for the anguish this has caused all of you. I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction.’ And then you go on to say ‘sex offenders are truly shunned in our society.’

"I’m just trying to figure out, judge, is he the victim here? Or are the victims the victims?" the senator asked.

“Senator, I— again, I don’t have the entire record,” Jackson answered. “I remember in that particular case, I considered it to be unusual, in part for the reasons that I described. I remember in that case that defense counsel was arguing for probation, in part, because he argued, that here we had a very young man, just graduated from high school, he presented all of his diplomas and certificates and the things that he had done.”

She said that the argument the defense presented convinced her that the circumstances in which the defendant got into child pornography were different from other cases she had seen. Jackson said she had a responsibility as a judge to consider these factors and "disparities" in handing down her sentence, and that the "unusual" circumstances of the case suggested the guidelines were inappropriate.

“I sent this 18-year-old to 3 months in federal prison under circumstances that were presented in this case because I wanted him to understand that what he had done was harmful, that what he had done was unlawful, that what he had done violated the law and needed to be punished not only by prison but also by all the other things that the law requires of a judge who is sentencing in this area,” Jackson said.

Washington Post's lefty writer Dana Milbank says only John Roberts can save the Supreme Court — and he'd better do it ... or else



Since the moment Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed, the American left has been in panic over the makeup of the court.

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left after Ginsburg's death, the cries became more shrill.

Now that the Senate has confirmed Barrett to the high court and she is firmly ensconced on the bench, the left has increased their threats to pack the court by any means — including nuking the filibuster in the Senate — and find whatever ways they can to rein in a conservative court.

The New York Times even ran a special feature on "How to Fix the Supreme Court." It included creating a new court, term limits for justices, preventing the court from choosing its cases, increasing the threats to pack the court, actually packing the courts, and expanding the lower courts.

But one famous liberal writer is pretty sure he knows exactly who needs to come to the rescue: Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank's column Monday night declared, "It's up to John Roberts to save his court."

What did Milbank say?

After recounting and lamenting what he called the "pell-mell scramble" to get Barrett on the court, the liberal Milbank said Barrett's confirmation "shreds whatever remained of the high court's integrity and independence" — even though Barrett has yet to hear, much less rule on, a single case.

No matter, though, for Milbank. Only Roberts can save the U.S. now.

So, how should he do it? Milbank has ideas:

● Play the heavy.

He can lean heavily on Barrett to recuse herself from any case arising from the presidential election next week.

● Save Obamacare like he did before.

He can use his influence to make sure the court upholds the Affordable Care Act after it hears arguments next month — not a legalistic punt on technical matters of “severability" but a ruling that puts an end to the constant assaults on Obamacare.

● Reject religious freedom when it clashes with Obergefell.

He can persuade his conservative colleagues to join him in upholding the rights of LGBTQ Americans as established in the 2015 Obergefell case, by rejecting a challenge to it by Catholic Social Services that will be argued the morning after the election next week.

● Make Trump hand over his financial records.

He can forge a majority to reject Trump's latest tired attempt to use the Supreme Court to further delay handing over his financial records to New York prosecutors.

● Uphold Roe at any cost.

And he and his colleagues can agree to hear one of the many challenges to Roe v. Wade now making their way through lower courts — and vote to uphold Roe for now. That would be the surest sign that the Roberts Court is not going to turn (immediately at least) into the reactionary caricature that most expect.

If Roberts can't get the conservatives on the court to back the Milbank agenda, then, according to the writer, "they can count on being joined next year by a whole batch of new colleagues" nominated by President Joe Biden.

WATCH: Sen. Mazie Hirono votes 'hell no!' on Amy Coney Barrett nomination and storms off of Senate floor



Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii has been one of the most vocal Democratic opponents to the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court and she manifested her fury on the Senate floor during the roll call vote on Monday.

Hirono registered her vote against the nomination by saying, "hell no!" and stomping off. Her vote was caught on video.

A clip of her petulant vote was circulated on social media:

Stay classy, Mazie Hirono ... https://t.co/ViobYBWNBb
— Scott Morefield (@Scott Morefield)1603757138.0

Hirono was among the Democrats who questioned whether Barrett could be fair in her Supreme Court decisions given that she is so devoted to her Catholic faith. Others accused Hirono of religious bigotry over the suggestion.

"Look, it wasn't her religious views — it's anybody's views that they bring to their decision-making," Hirono said last month about Barrett's faith.

"So they keep telling us that none of the things they wrote or said yesterday should infringe on their decision, but how can we be assured that they can be objective?" she added. "Why should we say you get a lifetime appointment so that you can reflect your ideological agenda in your decision-making?"

Hirono reiterated her opposition to Barrett's nomination through her Twitter account.

"Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a clear and present danger to the rights and protections [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] fought for. The American people are paying attention and voting," she tweeted.

Hirono is also among the critics of the Barrett nomination who are demanding that Democrats pack the Supreme Court with extra seats for liberal justices after the election as revenge against Republicans.

Despite Hirono's opposition and that of the Democrats, Barrett's nomination was approved by Republicans in the U.S. Senate on Monday by a vote of 52 to 48. Barrett will take the constitutional oath in a ceremony at the White House administered by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Here's more about the vote to put Barrett on the Supreme Court:

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Courtwww.youtube.com

Poll: A majority of voters support Amy Comey Barrett's confirmation after hearings



Over the duration of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett earned the support of a majority of American voters, according to a new poll.

The latest Politico/Morning Consult poll shows that a majority of registered voters surveyed, 51%, said the Senate should vote to confirm her as a Supreme Court justice. Only 28% of those surveyed said the Senate should not vote to confirm her. About 1 in 5 voters, 21%, have no opinion on Barrett's confirmation.

Since Morning Consult began polling voters on Barrett's nomination in September, support for the judge has steadily grown. In September, only 37% of voters supported her confirmation to the Supreme Court. In early October that number grew to 46% of all voters and by mid-October it was 48%. Now at a 51% majority, support for Barrett has grown 14 points since her nomination was announced.

The biggest increase in support is among independent voters. On Sept. 26, only 28% of self-identified independents supported Barrett, while 31% of independents said they opposed the Senate voting to confirm Barrett. Now, 44% of independent voters support Barrett's confirmation and 24% oppose it.

Barrett even made strides with Democrats. While most Democrats still oppose her confirmation, in September only 14% said they supported her. Now, 32% of Democrats surveyed say they support a Senate vote to confirm Barrett, despite most voters expecting she will move the court in a more conservative direction.

"A slim majority of voters now back Senate confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — a level of support that has increased by double digits since President Trump nominated her last month," said Kyle Dropp, co-founder and president of Morning Consult. "Voters are also aware of the impact her confirmation could have on the court, as 54 percent believe her confirmation will make the Supreme Court at least somewhat more conservative."

The survey also asked voters if Congress should pass a law increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Only 24% of voters support packing the court, while 47% of voters said Congress should only allow nine justices to serve on the court. And 29% of those surveyed did not have an opinion on the size of the court.

Judge Barrett is meeting with senators on Capitol Hill this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote to advance her nomination on Thursday. The full Senate is expected to vote to confirm Barrett on Monday, Oct. 26.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week indicated he believes Republicans have enough votes to confirm Barrett to the high court. Only Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have each said they don't believe the Senate should vote on a Supreme Court nomination before the Nov. 3 election.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine says Biden shouldn't answer court packing question 'because it's not his business'



As Democrats and the Joe Biden presidential campaign hover between refusing to answer the question on packing the Supreme Court or redefining what "packing the courts" means, one Senate Democrat says it's none of Biden's business anyway.

Speaking Monday on Fox News, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the reason Democratic nominee Joe Biden won't give his opinion on packing the courts is because it's "not his business." He argued that under the Constitution it is Congress, not the president, who dictates the composition of the Supreme Court by law.

"Why won't he answer that question?" host Bill Hemmer asked Kaine.

"Well, I haven't asked him but I have a pretty good idea, Bill. Because it's not his business, the Constitution gives no power to the president or vice president to pack the court," Kaine said.

"It's not a presidential responsibility. Congress, according to Article I of the Constitution, sets the composition. So that's why it's not even a part of the campaign plan," he continued.

Several progressive Democrats have argued that if Senate Republicans are successful in confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the current vacancy on the court, the next Democratic Congress and president must expand the court to undo a potential 6-3 conservative majority.

Last Thursday, Biden again refused to answer the question when confronted by a reporter about his position on packing the Supreme Court.

"You'll know my position on court packing when the election is over," Biden said.

"You know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than focusing on what's happening now. The election has begun. There's never been a court appointment once an election has begun," he added.

Biden's running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) likewise dodged the question during her debate with Vice President Mike Pence last week, instead attacking President Trump for making 50 court of appeals appointments and not nominating any black judges.

Other Democrats have attempted to redefine the term, accusing Republicans of "court packing" by filling court vacancies with President Trump's nominees. Traditionally, "packing the court" refers to expanding the number of seats on the court to create a more favorable ideological makeup of the bench, not filling vacancies, which is the constitutional duty of the president and the Senate.

Biden himself pointed out in a 1983 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on nominations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the origins of the term "court-packing" go back to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court after several of his New Deal programs were ruled unconstitutional.

"President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct," a 40-year-old Biden told the commission. "But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America."

Sen. Kaine was asked about Biden's 1983 comments, which suggest that the composition of the court is, in fact, a president's business.

"You haven't heard Joe Biden say he wouldn't send a plan to the court — I don't think this is a matter for the president at all," Kaine said, likely misspeaking as a president would send a court packing plan to Congress, not the court.

Kaine then accused Republicans of making two "momentous changes" to the way the court is composed, warning "they're about to make a third."

"The first was they refused to entertain the nomination of Merrick Garland, depriving President Obama in a historic way of being able to fill a position," Kaine said. "Second, we used to require that a Supreme Court justice get 60 votes, a bipartisan measure of support, and we thought that was a good idea — Democrats thought that was a good idea, the Republicans changed that to elevate Neil Gorsuch to the court."

The third change, Kaine argued, would be hypocritically confirming Barrett during an election year after refusing four years ago to give Garland a hearing.

Kaine did not mention that it was then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who first ended the filibuster for circuit court level judicial nominations, creating the precedent that Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) invoked in ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.

Prompted by Hemmer, Kaine also predicted that Barrett will have enough votes to be confirmed to the Supreme Court before the election on Nov. 3 but said he hopes the confirmation hearings will persuade some Republicans to change their votes and the next inaugurated president fill the court vacancy.

VIDEO: Sen. Josh Hawley eviscerates media, Democrats for attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's faith



Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday sternly rebuked the press and his Senate Democratic colleagues for asking questions critical of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett's faith in his opening remarks for the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

"We've gotten to read a lot about you in the press, and in particular about your religious beliefs," Hawley said to Barrett. "One attack after another in the liberal media, one hit piece after another, many of them echoed by members of this committee."

In recent weeks, several articles were published putting the spotlight on Barrett's Catholic faith and her ties to "People of Praise," a small charismatic Christian fellowship group based in Indiana. The articles have raised questions about the group, suggesting that its Catholic doctrinal beliefs on abortion, contraception, IVF, and gender roles would have undue influence on Barrett's jurisprudence should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Republicans have criticized the questions as a "religious smear."

The point of the questions about Barrett's faith, Hawley surmised, is to question whether Barrett has "the independence to be a judge, a justice on the United States Supreme Court."

He called out Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who sits on the judiciary committee, for previously questioning judicial nominees about their relationships to Catholic groups:

And it's not just in the newspapers; it's members of this committee, including the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States, who has questioned past nominees who have come before this committee about their membership in Catholic fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus. And for those watching at home, that's right, you heard me correctly, Sen. Harris and others on this committee have repeatedly questioned judicial nominees' fitness for office because of their membership in the Knights of Columbus.

Hawley also referred to ranking member and California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein's infamous "the dogma lives loudly within you" comment from Barrett's confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, calling such language "the very terminology of anti-Catholic bigotry."

"Let's be clear about what this is: This is an attempt to broach a new frontier. To set up a new standard," Hawley said. "Actually, it's an attempt to bring back an old standard that the Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids. I'm talking about a religious test for office."

Hawley then cited Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."

Now that was big news in 1787 when it was written, and it's worth remembering why. It's because no country, no republic in the history of the world had ever guaranteed to its citizens the right to freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Every other country that had ever existed tied together the religious beliefs that would be approved by the powerful and the right to serve in office, or to vote, or just to be a citizen. In every other country across history, you had to agree with what those in power agreed with in order to hold office or be a citizen in good standing. ...

So when our founders put Article VI into the Constitution of the United States, they were making a very deliberate choice. They were breaking with all of that past history and they were saying in America it would be different. In the United States of America we would not allow the ruling class to have veto power over your faith, over what Americans believed, over who we gathered with to worship, and why and where and how.

Now, in this country, the people of the United States would be free to follow their own religious convictions. Free to worship, free to exercise their religion. And people of faith would be welcome in the public sphere ... they'd be welcome without having to get the approval of those in power, like those on this committee. They would be welcome to come and to bring their religious beliefs to bear on their lives, on their office, in all that they do. So long of course as they are peaceful citizens who'd follow the law.

Religious people of all backgrounds would be welcome in public life, and no person in power would be able to control what the American people, any American citizen, thought or believed or who they worshiped. This freedom of conscience and religious liberty undergirds all of our other rights, because it tells the government that it cannot tell us what to think or who we can assemble with or how we can worship or what we can say.

Hawley pointed out that Article VI comes even before the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in the Constitution, stressing its importance. He warned that the attacks on Barrett's faith undermine the principles and liberties the Constitution was written to protect.

"This bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack," he said. "That is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking Judge Barrett for her faith. That is what is at stake when my Democratic colleagues repeatedly question Judge Barrett and many other nominees about their religious beliefs, about their religious membership, about their religious practices, about their family beliefs and practices. That is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test. That is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American people. And that is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing."

WATCH: Sen. Josh Hawley's full opening statement in Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing www.youtube.com

Ted Cruz embarrasses Senate Democrats, points out they aren't even talking about Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing



Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday lambasted Senate Democrats for making policy arguments about the Affordable Care Act during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"Let me observe, as Sherlock Holmes famously observed, that 'what speaks the loudest is the dog that didn't bark.' Which is, to date, of every Democrat who's spoken, we've heard virtually not a single word about Judge Barrett," Cruz said.

Accusing Democrats of engaging in "political rhetoric" against President Donald Trump and other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cruz asserted that his colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not discussing Barrett's credentials because they are "impeccable."

He noted that the American Bar Association, "which typically leans hard left and has a long pattern of favoring Democratic nominees over nominees appointed by Republican presidents, had no choice" but to give Barrett its highest rating.

Cruz dismantled Democratic talking points that this Supreme Court nomination is "illegitimate" based on the timing or the fact that it is an election year. He reviewed the history of 29 Supreme Court appointments that occurred during an election year, reminding Democrats that 19 appointments were made when the president and the Senate majority shared the same party and that 17 of those 19 nominees were confirmed, even during an election year.

He added that partisan complaints over which party was in control of the Senate at a given time miss the point of the Senate's constitutional function when there is a court vacancy.

"The framers of the Constitution deliberately set up a system of checks and balances so that nobody could become a Supreme Court nominee without both the president and the Senate," Cruz explained. "Each was designed to check the other. That system of checks and balances limits power ultimately and protects the voters. And indeed, the voters made a clear choice."

Cruz said that the previous statements by both Democrats and Republicans Monday morning demonstrated that the parties have "fundamentally different visions of the court, of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, what its function is."

"Democratic senators view the court as a super-legislature, as a policymaking body, as a body that will decree outcomes to the American people," Cruz continued. "Now, that vision of the court is something found nowhere in the Constitution. And it's a curious way to want to run a country. Even if on any particular policy issue you might happen to agree with wherever a majority of the court is on any given day, who in their right mind would want the United States of America ruled by five unelected lawyers wearing black robes?"

"It's hard to think of a less democratic notion than unelected philosopher-kings with life tenure decreeing rules for 330 million Americans," he added. "That is not in fact the court's job. The court's job is to decide cases according to the law and to leave policymaking to the elected legislatures"

Cruz said policymaking is best left to elected representatives, like those in the Senate.

"If a rogue court implements policies you don't like," Cruz said, "you the American people have very limited ability to check them. If a rogue Congress implements policies you don't like, you have a direct ability to check us by throwing the bums out and voting them out and voting in new representatives."

Cruz castigated Democrats for making "policy arguments" over the Affordable Care Act instead of acknowledging Barrett's qualifications for the Supreme Court.

"Our Democratic colleagues simply want a promise from a judicial nominee that this nominee will work to implement their policy vision of health care," Cruz said. "That is not a judge's job. That is not the responsibility of a judge; in fact, making that promise would be violating the judicial oaths."

Cruz added that Democrats have made a "political decision" to make pre-existing conditions the "central issue" of this nomination.

"Every single member of the Senate agrees that pre-existing conditions can and should be protected. Period. The end," he said. "There it is, complete unanimity on this. Now, it so happens that there are a number of us on the Republican side that also want to see premiums go down. Obamacare has caused premiums to skyrocket, the average family's premiums have risen over $5,000 a year, millions of Americans can't afford health care because of the policy failures of Obamacare. Those questions should be resolved in this body. It's not a justice's job to do that, it's not a court's job to do that; it's the elected legislature's job to do that."

"Judge Barrett brings impeccable credentials, a judicial temperament, and a faithfulness to the law," Cruz continued. "That's what we should be looking for in Supreme Court justices. And if Democratic senators want to engage in policy arguments, they can do so here, not by filibustering every bill, as they have done over and over and over again. Whether it's pandemic relief or Obamacare relief to lower premiums and expand choices, today our Democratic colleagues filibuster everything and then complain nothing gets passed."

"This is the body that has to resolve those questions. This is also the body that, consistent with two centuries of precedent, can, should, and I believe will confirm Judge Barrett as Justice Barrett," he said.

Ted Cruz EMBARRASSES Dems, Points Out They Aren't Even Talking About ACB In the Hearing for Her www.youtube.com

New poll shows growing support for Amy Coney Barrett's SCOTUS confirmation, even among Democrats



Support to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court is growing, even among Democrats, a new Morning Consult/Politico poll shows.

While still shy of a majority, nearly half of voters, 46%, surveyed from Oct. 2-4 said the Senate should confirm Barrett — a 9-point increase since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26.

Voters back confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett by double-digit margin in new @MorningConsult poll:… https://t.co/uMxnXjpXrq
— John McCormack (@John McCormack)1602074589.0

Support for Barrett's confirmation has grown 71% among Democrats, from 14% supporting her confirmation in September to 24% — nearly 1 in 4 Democrats — supporting Barrett now.

Barrett's support is up among independents as well, with 36% now supporting her confirmation compared to 28% in September — a 29% jump.

"Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war," senior reporter Eli Yokley wrote for Morning Consult.

"The share of voters who said the Senate should reject her nomination dropped 3 points, to 31 percent, from polling conducted on Sept. 26," Yokley noted. "Both polls were conducted among roughly 2,000 registered voters each, with 2-point margins of error."

Additionally, more voters now think Barrett should be confirmed as soon as possible by the Senate, regardless of who wins the election.

On Sept. 26, 40% of voters said Barrett should be confirmed only if President Donald Trump wins re-election. Now, 37% think Barrett should be confirmed only if Trump wins, and 43% say she should be confirmed regardless of who wins the election in November.

"The numbers mark an even larger shift from polling conducted before Barrett's nomination, when half of voters said the winner of the presidential election should get to pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement and 37 percent said Trump should get to make the pick, regardless of the outcome in November. That poll did not mention Barrett's name," Yokley wrote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Barrett's nomination on Monday. Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced the hearings will last through Thursday, Oct. 15.

Fox News reported that Senate staffers are working to ensure the hearings are conducted safely and in accordance with public health recommendations after two GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee, Mike Lee (Utah) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), tested positive for the coronavirus last week.

"Committee staff is making sure that there are PPE and sanitary stations, and there will be strict limits on people allowed into the hearing room among other precautions," Fox News reported.

Members of the Senate will have the option to participate in the confirmation hearings virtually, though Chairman Graham will appear in person.

Mitch McConnell debunks 'myth' that the GOP won't have time to confirm a SCOTUS nominee



Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate Monday to debunk claims that the Senate does not have sufficient time to consider a Supreme Court nominee before the general election in November.

Citing historical precedent, McConnell argued that the Senate has plenty of time to confirm a nominee and promised that there will be a vote on President Donald Trump's nominee this year.

"President Trump's nominee for this vacancy will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate," McConnell said, reiterating a statement he issued Friday after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, passed away from complications due to pancreatic cancer.

"Now already, some of the same individuals who tried every conceivable dirty trick to obstruct Justice [Neil] Gorsuch and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh are lining up to proclaim the third time will be the charm," he continued.

"The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present, and more threats against our institutions from the same people who've already been saying for months — well before this — already been saying for months they want to pack the court."

Already, Democrats and some in the media have misrepresented the so-called "McConnell rule," claiming the Republicans are hypocrites for promising to move forward with a Supreme Court nomination during an election year after previously refusing to consider President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia's vacancy on the court in 2016. Though Democrats say McConnell's 2016 position was no Supreme Court confirmations during an election year, McConnell's actual position was that if the presidency and the Senate majority are of different political parties and cannot agree on a nominee, then the American people may resolve the matter with an election.

This year there is a GOP majority in the Senate and President Trump is a Republican president. Republicans have the constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court presidency and they say it is their obligation to do so.

McConnell also addressed "incorrect" claims that the Senate does not have time to complete the confirmation process before the election.

"We are already hearing incorrect claims that there is not sufficient time to examine and confirm a nominee," McConnell said. "We can debunk this myth in about 30 seconds."

"As of today there are 43 days until Nov. 3 and 104 days until the end of this Congress," McConnell said. "The late iconic Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed by the Senate 19 days after this body formally received his nominations — 19 days from start to finish."

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another iconic jurist, was confirmed 33 days after her nomination. For the late Justice Ginsburg herself it was just 42 days. Justice Stevens' entire confirmation process could've been played out twice between now and Nov. 3 with time to spare. And Justice Ginsburg herself could've been confirmed twice between now and the end of the year, with time to spare.

"The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear."

So far only two Senate Republicans have publicly stated their opposition to confirming Trump's nominee before the election.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters Friday she will not vote to confirm a new SCOTUS justice until after inauguration day, saying "fair is fair," presumably in reference to Republicans refusing to confirm Garland.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued a statement Saturday giving her support to holding confirmation hearings on Trump's nominee before the election but opposing a confirmation vote until afterward.

"In order for the American people to have faith in their elected officials, we must act fairly and consistently — no matter which political party is in power. President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials," she said.

"In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd."

On Friday, Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-Utah) communications director Liz Johnson refuted a claim that Romney "committed" to not confirming a nominee until after Inauguration Day.

This is grossly false. #fakenews https://t.co/HZuqAyYToz
— Liz Johnson (@Liz Johnson)1600478833.0

Romney is reportedly waiting to meet with Sen. McConnell at Tuesday's GOP conference lunch before making a statement on his position.

.@MittRomney doesn’t plan a statement on RBG seat vote until after Tuesday GOP conference lunch — he wants to hear… https://t.co/EmKMqJ8zZM
— Kasie Hunt (@Kasie Hunt)1600705082.0