This is Jordan Sekulow. Judge Amy Barrett faces the first day of questions from the when I accepted the President's nomination that his philosophy is mine too.
You know he was a very eloquent defender of originalism and that was also true of textualism which is the way that I approach statutes and their interpretation and similarly to what I just said about originalism for textualism the judge approaches the text as it was written with the meaning it had at the time and doesn't infuse our own meaning into it. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. Judges can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose you know their will on the world.
You have to wait for cases and controversies which is the language of the constitution to wind their way through the process. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to JCEC Hill Live. This is Jordan Sekulow.
We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. This is really the key days of the hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She has been under questioning from US senators who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What we are seeing is something very different than her last confirmation hearing. In her last confirmation hearing, you had her faith being discussed. Dick Durbin asked her, do you consider yourself a, he made up a new term, Orthodox Catholic. And of course, I don't think that exists in the sense of like there's Orthodox Judaism, there's Orthodox Christianity and it's his own branch of the Christian faith.
He's got Greek Orthodox churches, Russian Orthodox churches, the list can go on. But an Orthodox Christian, I think what Dick Durbin, a lot of these liberal Catholics, I'm not speaking for Catholics, I'm not Catholic myself, but we have plenty of Catholic attorneys at the ACLJ and staff is that you're a Catholic who actually takes your faith seriously. And that's a problem with the secular elites in Washington DC, specifically on the left. And so they may have their faith, and I don't want to judge what it is, but they still kind of see the world through the secular vision.
They may go to church on Sunday, but somehow believe that you're some kind of nut if your faith impacts you more than just on Sunday, like every day, like what the scripture teaches. And we respect that, of course, in the United States of America and protect those rights in the United States of America. And our constitution doesn't allow anyone to be judged about that. But that was round one during her circuit court nomination.
So he, Durbin with the Orthodox Catholic question, of course, the famous, I mean, the dogma lives deeply within me and you always hope that he can live more deeply, right? I mean, with your faith, that word is not a bad word that Feinstein used. So, Than, the hearing now ends up mostly being about the Affordable Care Act, which is because there's a case at the court. She's not going to answer that question because literally she would be on the court for that case if she is confirmed.
And it's a provision of the Affordable Care Act. And it seems like they have taken a much softer tone so far with Judge Barrett and they realized that this is, they failed last time and they're reaping what they sowed. Yeah, I think they took their best shots the last time around and it backfired on them in a lot of different ways, Jordan, including politically. So they have decided to make this a hearing about the Affordable Care Act rather than about Judge Barrett. Probably a good move on their part though, Jordan, because just very quickly, my takeaways from today, she is clearly the smartest person in the room, but she's also humble enough to repeatedly acknowledge the strict limits that are on a judge. So look, kudos to the Democrats for politically taking the smart move and not trying to attack her again.
Didn't work so well for them last time. She should be the smartest person in the room. She's being nominated to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Folks, she has a notepad they give her.
Everyone gets when you testify. She has no notes with her. She's written no notes down. She's doing this all from memory, right there answering every question about specific decisions she's made in the past and judicial philosophy and analysis. No notes. You might see a notepad. She's not even writing anything down. We'll be right back taking your calls.
1-800-684-3110. What do you think of Judge Amy Barrett? The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.
Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to JCECO Live. We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. I really want your thoughts. I know, you know, we're three days, three weeks out, not three days, three weeks out from the Presidential election.
It will be three long weeks. So I think this moment in time where we have Judge Barrett in these couple days we have to be able to watch a hearing like this. And I will say in a much more respectful way than the last time around. I mean, with her, with her nomination to the circuit court, where it was disgusting what Feinstein and Durbin did about her faith, and also much different than these, the way they tried to just diminish, take down, destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life on live television. Very similar to kind of like what Joe Biden tried to do to Clarence Thomas, what Clarence Thomas called what Joe Biden and the late Ted Kennedy were doing on the Judiciary Committee, a high-tech lynching.
Remember that? That was Joe Biden that Clarence Thomas was talking to. He said, what you are doing as the committee chair, which Joe Biden was at the time of his hearing, is a high-tech lynching. You saw then, of course, what happened to Brett Kavanaugh.
It was nothing about judicial philosophy. It was, okay, he's got all the credentials. He's done everything.
He's done everything right to be a Supreme Court justice. But we've got to come up with a way to destroy him. So let's find somebody who'll make an accusation that can't be proven, but will, so it will just tarnish him and make him look bad and like some kind of, you know, out of control guy. And we'll choose someone who's got some kind of issues going on, who can't remember anything, who looks like she, looks like a nut kind of, to make this allegation. But then we'll just move on from her and then make him have to force to disprove something that she couldn't, there was no evidence of. So this time around with Judge Barrett, you know, it was all about, we shouldn't do it because of the election. We shouldn't do about the election. They know she's their worst nightmare.
They know. I mean, this is a justice who, I mean, they did this to Kavanaugh, but you know what? I mean, really, I think then Judge Barrett is is even more so, a lot of respect for Justice Kavanaugh. And I think he's a great justice with a good judicial philosophy and a similar judicial philosophy to Judge Barrett. But Judge Barrett by embracing that Scalia judicial philosophy so directly over and over and in the hearing today, I mean, it's like music to my ears when she says that, because that's more like Justice Alito.
He's very direct about that. There may be slight differences, like she said in some interpretation, but she does see like the statutory interpretation the same way, the legislative interpretation the same way. And so, I mean, she's going to be coming at it from that direction. She did admit that, again, you have those philosophies, you come at it the same way, but you can end up at different places. But that is what I think makes her the nightmare to the left. It's why Planned Parenthood is going nuts, why Democrats are going nuts, why liberals are going nuts.
It's not because it's right before an election year. This happened, Justice Ginsburg, who was a fighter, no one could have predicted that she would pass away and when she would pass away. And she was participating in oral arguments this summer. So this judge though, I think they've known a long time fan that if President Trump got another choice, she was at the top of the list. If she was willing to go through what she, potentially what she went through as a circuit court nominee on a much bigger scale. And she's been like kind of this nightmare waiting. And then the ultimate nightmare happened, Justice Ginsburg, unfortunately passing away after being such a fighter for so many years and suffering from cancer, fighting it, beating it, coming back, beating it again.
But ultimately succumbing to another round of it. And then you had Judge Barrett with now the time on the circuit court, because remember it was President Trump folks who nominated her to the court. She was a professor at Notre Dame that was identified as someone who'd be very good as a circuit court nominee. During her hearings for the circuit court, it became elevated because of the attacks on her. And so since she's been a judge, there's been a lot of focus on her decisions, her judicial philosophy in action, if you will.
And so fan, this is their worst nightmare coming true. But I don't think, I think you're right. After what they've done, what they did to Brett Kavanaugh and what they did to her the last time, that was not going to be a good look going into an election. I couldn't agree with you more.
A couple of points I'd make Jordan. Number one, it's on full display for the American people to see. So if they were attacking her, I don't think it would jive with what the American people are hearing from Judge Barrett. And just, you know, it's interesting, the couple of times there have been attacks, or maybe not even in this hearing room, but through articles and other media outlets, Jordan, they don't point to any of her cases that she's heard over the last three years on the circuit court, because there's not a substantive attack that they can make there. But the other point I would make Jordan, and you kind of alluded to this as well, is because it's all rooted in this posture of restraint. Judge Barrett has repeatedly acknowledged the restraint that the judiciary has to show. She has repeatedly educated the American people, who I think come to this naturally, that that law and policy have to be set by the elected branches. And that is not something that we have heard to this degree in previous confirmation battles. Yes, they always say we're not going to prejudge a case, but she has made a point of specifically saying the American people do not elect judges. We cannot make law.
And Jordan, I would just tell you, if we're going to be a people that self-govern, we have to embrace that philosophy. She has done that repeatedly this morning, and I think the Democrats on that panel realize that if they go after her, it's not only not going to make a difference in how this nomination ends up, but I think it would hurt them at the ballot box as well, because that's a principle that the American people of both sides largely embrace. We are going to get to your calls, and the judiciary committee is in a break right now, so you're not missing any part of the hearing right now as you're watching us, so we're listening to us live on the air.
But I want to play this. I think it's a little bit longer of a bite, but in case, you know, because most people don't have the time to watch these whole hearings. You might have been, you know, in the morning you might have been getting your kids to school. You might have been getting to work.
You might be working from home, having the background. But Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the committee, was on the broadcast Friday right before the hearings began yesterday. He asked a simple question to Judge Barrett about how it felt to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Take a listen, Bite 33. How does it feel to be nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States? Well, Senator, I've tried to be on a media blackout for the sake of my mental health, but, you know, you can't keep yourself walled off from everything, and I'm aware of a lot of the caricatures that are floating around. So I think what I would like to say in response to that question is that, look, I've made distinct choices. I've decided to pursue a career and have a large family.
I have a multiracial family. Our faith is important to us. All of those things are true, but they are my choices, and in my personal interactions with people, I mean, I have a life brimming with people who've made different choices, and I've never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on them, and the same is true professionally. I mean, I apply the law, and Senator, I think I should say why I'm sitting in this seat in response to that question too, why I've agreed to be here, because I don't think it's any secret to any of you or to the American people that this is a really difficult, some might say excruciating process, and Jesse and I had a very brief amount of time to make a decision with momentous consequences for our family. We knew that our lives would be combed over for any negative detail. We knew that our faith would be caricatured. We knew our family would be attacked, and so we had to decide whether those difficulties would be worth it, because what sane person would go through that if there wasn't a benefit on the other side, and the benefit, I think, is that I'm committed to the rule of law and the role of the Supreme Court in dispensing equal justice for all, and I'm not the only person who could do this job, but I was asked, and it would be difficult for anyone, so why should I say someone else should do the difficulty if the difficulty is the only reason to say no?
I should serve my country, and my family's all in on that because they share my belief in the rule of law. You know, I think that is just, again, acknowledging Thanh. She knew what would be coming at her family. She knew the discussions, the nastiness on TV, the mainstream media especially, and of course the CNNs, the MSNBCs of the world just attacking, looking at every part of her faith and making fun of her faith, calling her names, even questioning, you know, is it appropriate for her to have two adopted children from Haiti because they're black, and is that some kind of issue? I mean, they even tried that to float that before the hearings, after she was announced, of course, before the hearings began, as any way to kind of try and derail it.
It was pretty disgusting to see, but all of that kind of came to a close. I know there's still crazy liberals out there throwing that out, and she acknowledged that on TV, but for the most part, in the mainstream world of, like, Democrat politics, they seem to be, again, they don't want to, they know they can't prevent this, Thanh, so they, I don't think they want to hang their hat and make a bunch of, late in the cycle, right before an election, TV ads that Republicans can air. Jordan, she said, my life is brimming with people who have made different choices, and I don't try to impose my choices on them.
How good is that? Her life is better because she has people of different perspectives around her, and yet she stood unapologetically on the choices that she has made, especially around faith and family. I could say a lot more, Jordan, but I know we're out of break. Look, I think that answer that you just played, I think that was the whole hearing, Jordan, right there. We've got the petition still going, and we're getting it out to Congress. Sign the petition. Let's confirm Judge Baird to the Supreme Court.
We'll be right back. Welcome to the Pro-Life Battle for the Unborn. It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support, and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLU is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the road to protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.
And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, you're welcome. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. This is Jordan Sekula. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. I think it's important. I want to answer this question that's coming in as the hearing again is on break. So folks, if you're listening to us on the air, you're not missing the hearing right now.
And when they come back, we'll cut to it live and we think we need to, and we think it's good for you. But this is a great time to kind of discuss what's already happened because yesterday was opening statements. I thought Judge Barrett's opening statement was incredible. I think many of the Democrats, it was about the election. It had really kind of almost nothing to do with her hearings. And a lot of those questions today, again, from the Democrats on the committee, were about the Affordable Care Act, something they think is, I guess, more appealing to American voters. But remember, President Trump ran on literally gutting it, which he did by getting rid of the individual mandate and won by running against the Affordable Care Act. So now they want to, I guess, campaign for it because they think people have gotten used to it, but they've gotten used to it under President Trump, who made a lot of changes to it. He said it's really bad, but he told his team to run it as best as you can until we have something else and until we're able to put additional healthcare policies in place and while the court challenges are going on. And so, yeah, it's been run better.
Even President Trump has said that because he's been trying to do the best thing possible for the American people, like getting rid of the mandate, doing some other executive orders. So, I mean, it's kind of weird their campaign, but whatever. It's just interesting because what you're seeing is a very smart, eloquent judge, former professor, answering these questions. She has no notes. She has a notepad because they give everybody a notepad, but she didn't bring anything with her, no files with her, no notes, answering questions about judicial philosophy, previous cases before the court, going all right through achievement, held up.
Yeah, we're playing right. For people watching on Facebook and Periscope, nothing on her notepad. So, it wasn't like jotting things down like some kind of debate right before you go into a debate.
So, I just want to say that. It's very unique if you're watching because I think what you're seeing is that the left realizing they failed on this one. One, they could not sell enough Republicans this idea that they should not go ahead with a nomination and then a confirmation hearing and then ultimately a vote this close to an election.
So, they lost that initially. And they had already really injured themselves when they went after Judge Barrett during her circuit court nomination. They looked ridiculous, Feinstein and Durbin with the religious stuff. They also looked bad during Kavanaugh. So, I don't think, I think that's why Kamala Harris doesn't want to actually be in the room, even though her office is next door, and she's saying, oh, it's dangerous because of COVID. But she's in the same building walking around with the same people. They got people that have masks on. They have masks on. They're doing appropriately.
They follow the CDC guidelines. I don't think she wants to get an exchange. I think she wants it to kind of be like remote for her because she's the VP candidate. So, again, we're going to get your phone calls now. We've also brought Harry Hutchison in from our senior legal policy analyst, an attorney as well, and a former law professor like Judge Barrett. Let's get to Mary Ellen's call on line two, though, in Chicago, because there's so much talk about court packing because, one, you have Democrat candidates. I know that the Democrat governor in Montana who's running for U.S. Senate against Steve Daines said he'd be open to court packing. He said that in a discussion with the media. So, with adding more justices to the Supreme Court. Mary Ellen, welcome to JCECO Live.
You're on the air. Well, thank you, Jordan. Yes, the question prompted my curiosity because of one of the things I heard of some media activists saying, oh, yes, the people's right. They've got to choose, you know, so on. And then, of course, the President is elected for, you know, four years. So, and I heard you say yesterday that the number nine has been in place since 1869, I believe you said. So, my question really is, is that number nine written into the text of the Constitution? If not, why does the number always stay at nine? Is it a law? Does it have to be changed by a constitutional amendment if it is in there?
And if not, does it have to be changed how? So, it's the Constitution. I'll answer very quickly. The Constitution leads this to the Congress ultimately to determine the makeup of the Supreme Court. So, the Constitution requires that there be a Supreme Court, and then it allows Congress to then establish inferior courts as they believe necessary. So, we have the circuit courts and the federal district courts and some other specific courts to issues, federal patent courts, trade courts, things like that as well.
Some are article, you'd say the article three courts, some again are actually like article one courts that Congress has set up specific to other issues like the tax court, things like that. So, this is how it all started. The Judiciary Act of 1789, the initial number was six.
It didn't work out so great, right? It's six because that's an even number. That might be great when everybody's in unison. It might work when it's four-two, but when you get three-three, uh-oh, you know what happens? This is very early in our history as it's developing and figuring and figuring what this court is going to be like. So, then there was a Chief Justice there, but it was six. Then in 1807, they moved it up to seven.
So, it got to an odd number. In 1837, the number was expanded to nine. In 1863, it rose to 10. And in 1866, you'll see this is all happening kind of quickly once you make the jump from 1807, then it's really changing a lot in 1860s.
So, in 1863, rose to 10. In 1866, there was the Judicial Circuits Act, and it shrank the number of justices back down to seven. And that was actually a political move, which prevented Andrew Jackson at the time, the President, from appointing anyone new to the court. So, not a great part of the congressional history.
But I just want to be honest with you, that's how flexible, you know, that's the ability. It's the Constitution just says you have to have a Supreme Court. But in 1869, in 1869, in the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, and that's where it has been.
FDR tried to expand it, Congress didn't go along with it. So, since 1869, and you saw there was a lot of tumult, and you know why, that's post-Civil War, during and post-Civil War. But when the Civil War was over, and Reconstruction was going on, you get to 1869, Harry, you have nine justices, that's where it's been. And the late Justice Ginsburg believed that's where it should stay.
It's a good number, it's an odd number, so you get your five fours. Of course, there's issues, sometimes there's vacancies, but they'll rehear things if there's ties and things like that, or if something comes up, or the circuit court ruling may stand. But on both sides of the aisle, until very recently, no one liked what FDR was trying to do. It was kind of a power grab move. It didn't work in Congress at the time, even though he was so popular. Absolutely. So, Joe Biden is on record attacking FDR's attempt to pack the to pack the court.
Now, he says, voters should not know what his particular view is. I think nine is a good number. We've had that number for almost 150 years, and I think the American people are very comfortable with it, and I think the American people need to know, what does Joe Biden think about packing the Supreme Court? Yeah, we've got a, I did Sean Hannity's broadcast, radio broadcast yesterday, and he had a great piece right before I went on, because we were going to talk about the Supreme Court hearings, and they're actually going to, they allowed us to play it for you today, in case you missed it on Sean's broadcast yesterday.
So, we'll play it in the second half hour. Coming up on Jay Sekio Live. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you, and if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.
Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live.
This is Jordan Sekulow. So, if you're joining us right now, and you're listening to us live, or watching us on Facebook Live, and I encourage you, share this with your friends and family, because we're getting into analysis that if you are, most people are not able to watch the hours of the hearing. Our team, of course, is, and we are, and so we're able to pull the important parts that have already occurred. And if the hearing comes back while we're still in the air, we will go to some of that live as well, some of the questioning live. But we're able to kind of key it in for you, because, again, hardly anybody has the ability to just sit and watch these hearings, even with COVID, because you've got to be taking care of kids, you've got to be running errands, work, even if you're working from home.
And so, again, I think we're a good resource for you to kind of know. And, of course, anything that we don't get to today that happens after the broadcast today, we will cover tomorrow in the second round of these, the questioning. So, these are really these two key days, today and tomorrow, in the hearing. The rest of it is just kind of then other people's witness testimony, and then a vote next week. And that schedule has already been announced.
The vote will be on the 22nd, so likely, because Democrats will want it held over a week, and that means it will go to the full Senate in Mitch McConnell's hand, you know, sometime around after the 22nd, so maybe the 26th-ish for a vote, potentially. So, we're looking at that. I do want to take your calls, though. Let's go to George in Colorado online. George, welcome to JCQO Live. Yes, how are you? Hey, George.
Hey, just a question for you. If, in fact, the Democrats packed the court, if some organization, maybe you, ACLJ, brought a lawsuit against that move based upon it being purely political, which anybody would know that's what it is, could that go all the way to the Supreme Court? And the Supreme Court, would they actually be allowed to rule themselves to whether or not they... Absolutely not, George.
I went through it, so I'm not going to... I won't do it again for everybody, but what the Constitution says is that there must be a Supreme Court. Congress determines the makeup. I mean, it has to go through the Congress, so you have to go... There's a veto issue there. The President could override a veto, but, you know, but again, it's legislation. It's like the Judiciary Acts, and they can come up with any number they want. They can have 100, they can have 200, they can have 1,000, they can have three. They also determine if there's circuit courts and district courts and how many they are and how they're split up, and there's always debates about that as the country grows by population.
Do we need to add more circuits, separate more circuits, because it's just too big, the circuits, to handle? And so, again, the Constitution does not put any limits on Congress's ability to do that. Does it mean it's right to pack the court for political purposes? You know, there was a difference in our history. If you look at the history of how the court developed, they were trying to figure it out, and there was one big change in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, where the court really assumed this power as a real third branch of the government, an independent branch of the government that could have force with its rulings. There was a time in our history where it was just kind of, no one really knew what to do with the Supreme Court and what its role, it was in the Constitution, it was there, but why? And as we develop as a country, you see, again, a lot of shifts happening during the Reconstruction, post-Civil War. And then when you get out of that and you get to, again, 1869, post-Civil War Reconstruction, you get the nine justices.
That's where it's been. Most agree on both sides of the aisle, who don't let their politics get involved, that's where it should stay. When we come back, Senator Mike Lee discussed this.
He even brought up, you know, how Joe Biden said that FDR's move to pack the court was boneheaded when he was Senate Judiciary Committee chair, when Biden was Senate Judiciary Committee chair, he said, you know, court packing is boneheaded, especially for political purposes, not illegal, not unconstitutional, but wrong is what Joe Biden said. So we'll answer your questions. If you've got a question about this, you've got a question about Judge Barrett and also your thoughts on, do you think that these hearings, because in what people will see in the news too, might also encourage kind of, you know, the silent majority to come out in even greater numbers for President Trump, or maybe convince some of those who are on the fence that, you know what, I still want to stick with President Trump.
We'll be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.
And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.
If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.
Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash GIFT. All right, Jerry and Judy, you will be next coming up on the broadcast live.
So hang on, hang on there. I do want to play something important because there's so much talk about court packing right now. So it's coming up because of this nomination. It's coming up in the Presidential race. It's been discussed a number of times in our history. FDR tried it.
He failed, even though he had unbelievable support from the American people. This is a President in the House of the Senate, and they said no to that. They didn't think that was a good idea to change the court and to do that to help him politically, which is what he was trying to do. Not that it was prohibited, but like as Joe Biden said when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, before he participated in the high-tech lynching, that's in Clarence Thomas' own words, of Clarence Thomas, he called what FDR's decision to try and pack the court boneheaded.
Now he won't answer people on it. But a lot of people are now saying, even Eric Holder yesterday said that filling a vacancy on the circuit court that President Trump, someone has not been nominated for the circuit court, that filling that vacancy because the person wasn't a judge and doesn't have a ton of courtroom experience is packing the court. That's not packing the court.
He was widely slammed for that. It said there's an empty seat. You don't even have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the court. You don't have to be an attorney to be a Supreme Court justice.
They just usually go to attorneys and like all professors usually, that's how it usually ends up, that's how it usually ends up, but you don't even have to be an attorney. That's not in the Constitution. That's not in any congressional statute, these requirements. So I just want to play this for Mike Lee because a lot of this talk about court packing that you're hearing, what you're seeing today is not court packing, it's filling a vacancy. A justice died.
There's a seat open. The President nominated as every President has in the past, even during election years. And it just so happens that his party controls the Senate. And it just so happens in history that 17 out of 19 times it's been like that, those nominees get confirmed. So only two times they didn't. But let's go to Mike, listen to Senator Mike Lee.
Take a listen. Joe Biden himself as a US Senator, as a member of this body, in a proceeding of this committee in 1983, gave a rousing speech that I recommend to all, acknowledging that the Constitution doesn't require it, but our respect for the separation of powers really ought to lead to us sticking to the number nine. Don't pack the court.
Don't pack the court. But yet still, Joe Biden believes that you don't deserve to know his voters. You don't deserve to know his voters where he stands on that issue. Other Democrat candidates, by the way, all around the country are being open and honest about it.
Some are saying they're against it, but there's plenty who's saying they're for it. At least they're telling the people the truth. Like we said, it's not illegal to say you would add justices to the court.
You'd look at that. You would consider doing that to try and bring it more liberal again. And again, they're being open and honest to their voters. I respect that a lot more than what Joe Biden is doing. Sean Hannity's team, Sean Hannity's team. So I was on the broadcast yesterday, as I said earlier in the show, talking to Sean about the first day of the hearing and these opening statements by the various senators. And as we were about to go live on the air, he had this great opening kind of featuring that exchange between that reporter we played and Joe Biden, when he said, don't the American people deserve to know if you support this or not? And Joe Biden says, no, they don't. Americans don't deserve to know where I stand on the issue of court packing.
Take a listen. I thank the Hannity team for sending it on over to us and let us play in our show. President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate, the United States Congress, a proposal to pack the court. After 47 years in the swamp.
It was totally within his right to do that. Old Joe knows a thing or two about bad ideas. It was a bonehead idea. Clarify your position, Joe. What are the consequences of packing the Supreme Court?
And what will you do to safeguard the 150 year history of having nine justices? Don't the voters deserve to know? It's a simple question, Joe. Don't the voters deserve to know? Come on, Joe. Don't the voters deserve to know? Answer it. Don't the voters deserve to know?
No, they don't disagree. I'm not going to play his game. Not a game, Joe.
You want to man up and face the question? Because American voters deserve an answer, don't they? I mean, I just want to play it for people that that was great because it needs to get out there more and more because the idea that American voters don't deserve to know and that's his immediate response. No, they don't deserve to know. It just leads to other questions like what don't they deserve to know where you actually are on fracking because your website says one thing and you say something else and Kamala Harris says something else or where you are on the green new deal because your website says something else. Kamala Harris says something else and you say something else. Why you dismiss the Senate report on your son dealing with known sex traffickers and receiving millions of dollars from him. I mean, just dismissing it, not even telling us why that's a lie and wouldn't you want to put that to rest?
But no, he doesn't think you deserve to know. He's the typical Washington swamp creature fan who looks down and he gives you glimpses of it throughout his career who looks down on the voter and sees himself as kind of like this elevated statesman, figure, leader who doesn't have to tell you what he thinks even when he's running for President and they're bringing this issue up. Well, it's the opposite of what we've been hearing this morning, Jordan, of deferring to the people for self-governance. And you know, one of the follow-ups from the reporters to the former vice President was he said, it would be, if I answered that question, it would be the headline on every paper across America.
And I immediately thought to myself, you know, why in the world would that be a bad thing, Jordan? I mean, don't most politicians when they're running, try to get their message in front and for the American people and then convince the American people why their proposals are the ones that are correct for them. He's taking the exact opposite approach. He's saying, look, I understand that the idea that I may or may not support because I'm not going to tell you whether or not I do, I know it might not be popular with you, so I'm going to keep it from you, Jordan, that runs in the face of the idea of self-governance. Every candidate that's out there should be as transparent as they can on the policy positions that they hold and, Jordan, how they will go about it. Because like you said, does the constitution prohibit court packing?
No, it does not. But the way that it has gone about and when it has gone about, in this case, there hasn't been a change since 1869, Jordan, those things are relevant and the American people ought to make their decision based upon them. So I agree with you. This idea that you wouldn't put the specifics of both the procedure and how you would go about it in front of the American people, I think is just wrong. You know, Harry, there's all this talk about that this is court packing. And Mike Lee had this to say, and I want your thoughts on this. Senator Lee, who's an attorney in his own right and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And we spent a lot of time together during the impeachment trial because he was sitting right in front of, you know, right, like right in front of me. So again, you know, you're very close quarters there. And he had this to say, because in the media, the left is calling what Judge Barrett's hearing and confirmation, they're calling it court packing.
Take a listen to Mike Lee again. In recent days, I've seen some in the media and some in this body try to redefine what it means to pack the court. Some have suggested, well, court packing takes various forms.
And it can mean confirming a lot of people all at once. Some have defined it so as to suggest that it consists of doing that which the Trump administration and the Republican Senate have been doing over the last three and a half years, which is filling vacancies as they have arisen, and doing so with textualist, originalist judges. This may not be something that some like, but this is not court packing. Okay.
Harry, I mean, we're seeing it in the media over and over. Eric Holder's referenced another nomination that's been put forward for a circuit court and calling it court packing. He said this is court packing, and he put a link to it. He's a former attorney in the United States. It was a vacancy. Someone was nominated. They may not be confirmed.
They might be confirmed. You don't have to be an attorney to be a federal judge or a Supreme Court Justice even. It's not court packing to fill a vacancy.
Absolutely. And many Democrats are consistently defending, if you will, their own vacancy with respect to reading the Constitution. So instead, they want to redefine, recreate, and rewrite the United States Constitution, all while criticizing President Trump for fulfilling his constitutional duty, which is explicitly written out in the United States Constitution.
So we now live in essentially a postmodern era in which Democrats feel that they are entitled to their own lexicon, their own language, and it's all about pure politics and the pursuit of unlimited power. You know, again, folks, we come back from this break, and I want to let Jerry and Judy and those of you holding on the line, but Jerry and Judy are both been holding on. We are going to take your calls right off the top. The hearing is just about to start again. We'll go to that live as well, but I do want to take your phone calls for those of you holding on.
1-800-684-3110. I appreciate you doing that. I just want to make sure those listening to our broadcast right now are getting as educated as possible on this so they understand the attacks and what attacks are totally baseless. Like, this is court packing, and what that really means, and this whole this whole idea, of course, the attacks on Judge Barrett that it's really the media making now because the senators are afraid to on the left.
That didn't work so well for them last time, and they know it could be turned into a very dangerous TV ad in a this close to a major election, including a Presidential election and an election where the balance of the Senate and even potentially the House hangs hangs and hangs in the balance. So we'll take your calls as we get back. Than, we've delivered quickly our petition to Congress. Tell people about that because they can sign it at ACLJ.org today.
Yeah, currently more than 166,000 names on that. We're letting the committee know each and every day the additions, Jordan. I think that's had a big impact on why the Democrats understand that Judge Barrett has the support of the American people. Sign that petition if you have it so they do understand that ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. This is Jordan Sekulow.
We are Take Your Phone Calls 1-800-684-3110. Yes, I agree with our team. It's Senator Whitehouse who's up right now, Sheldon Whitehouse. And he is literally probably, I'd say the most, he leaves, it is that wrong taste in your mouth. To me, he's pulled out all these signs right now, all these boards fast, quickly. He's just another one of those elitists, thinks he's better than everybody else. He always comes across that way.
And I will tell you even, I wouldn't say so, but even like behind the scenes in this, most people are at least friendly. I mean, we're all Americans, even if we have serious political disagreements. You could tell this guy is like, his partisan politics are what drives him and just kind of how he treats different people.
I'll just say it like that. He's that partisan. He came and put it aside for a second, which is a little bizarre. It comes across as kind of strange too in the hearings. You want to play something?
Let's just let people hear him hug. He's throwing up all these different boards and statements and quotes. You've got a stake. And if you're one of the millions and millions of Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act, you've got a stake. It's not just the platform over and over again. Let's start by talking about the Affordable Care Act. He's got another board up right now.
I'm just talking through this with everybody. He's showing boards, these little boards that no one on TV could see to a circuit court judge who's been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States about the Affordable Care Act and the Republican Party platform, which says that they don't like it, which by the way, that's been in the platform since the Affordable Care Act came into existence. Republicans have been very open and honest about wanting to dismantle that. I don't know, again, what does it have to do with a judicial hearing?
It doesn't. So this is another example that even Sheldon Whitehouse, they just want to try and score some political points and scare Americans if they're going to lose their health care during a pandemic. Jordan, the board that he has up right now has politicians, the President of the United States, policymakers in the House and Senate and private citizens, private citizens that donate to campaigns advocating a position on a policy matter.
Jordan, that's what makes America great. We have debates about politicians. Private citizens are allowed to participate in that.
And then, oh, guess what? The elected officials of both the legislature and then the President who would sign it are the ones who enact the law. That is very different than a federal judge. Judge Barrett has said that time and time again. You know, Senator Whitehouse does have a habit of doing this. It throws up things that he does not like as accusations of someone who's not responsible for them. But I just want to remind people very directly who are watching this. What he is holding up, Jordan, is evidence of what makes America great. Private citizens get to elect politicians, elect lawmakers who make law and a President who signs them into law. The fact that they are engaging in a policy matter, Jordan, that is a positive for the United States of America, not a negative.
By the way, even if you disagree with that policy position, it's a good thing and you are free to take the opposing view. All right, let's go to the phones. We need to take these phone calls right now. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 1. And then, Judy, we're coming to you next. And then, Linda. Jerry, welcome to Jay Sekio Live.
Hello, team. On behalf of Reasonable Thinking Rhode Islanders, I apologize for Booth White House. Last time he held up a document was a calendar against Kavanaugh. I'm sorry for him. Yeah, now he just dropped all the signs a few minutes ago.
They were all like they're falling apart. Now he's got his Roe vs. Wade sign. I'm glad I'm on the phone with you guys and not watching this stuff. But in regards to the book, The Middle America, the reason they're not attacking Amy Barrett, the suburban housewives have a lot of control. You don't want to attack a professional working mother.
That's my comment. Let Judy talk. Well, yeah, I think it's unique, Jerry, because she is unique even as a nominee, not only because she's a woman. We've had plenty of women out on the Supreme Court. I mean, throughout history, obviously, it's more recent since Sandra Day O'Connor. But since Sandra Day O'Connor, you've had Justice Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor.
I mean, so again, it's becoming, which it should be, more balanced. And that's good. But I think that Judge Barrett, because of her background, her age, and as a mom, and she talks about with a big family, and both her and her husband are attorneys. She's unique. Each nominee is unique. Their philosophies, she might have a very similar philosophy to someone like Justice Alito or the late Justice Scalia. But she's still a unique person. I think you're right to some extent.
And Judy from Alabama, I think you're picking up on this as well, Judy. Thanks for holding on. You're on the air. We'll get you a book as well. Okay. You're on.
Okay, thank you. I've been enjoying this government entertainment in the last couple of days. I think that Judge Barrett rocks. I think she should be the idol of any person that's going in there. Any of these young ladies that are going into business and want to, don't know what they want to do. She's been answering those questions with poise, intelligence. She's not smirking at answers. She's being very professional. And those that are keep badgering her about packing the court are probably packing their pants. That's why they're asking her about this.
She is way out of her league. I think the truth is Judge Barrett, and this is nothing against Sotomayor or Kagan, I think because they were nominated and Justice Ginsburg was on the court and has been on the court until her passing recently. And so she did overshadow them, rightfully so, because of her role in women's rights and of course her notoriety and the time she spent on the court. So they have not had the same kind of opportunity to be as prominent as individually.
Doesn't mean they might not become that way, but that could take time. I think that for conservatives, like you're talking about, for conservatives Judge Barrett, if she becomes Justice Barrett, which I believe she will, may very well become that same kind of figure for conservatives that the notorious RBG was for the left. And listen, in some ways, it was not just that liberals appreciated Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Conservatives did too, because she did do a lot of work. And other than the abortion, it wasn't all abortion and far left. She did do a lot of work when it came to women's equality. I've got a daughter. I appreciate her for all that work, for standing up for doing that, for going to law school when there were hardly any women in law school.
And now there's more women in law school than men. And so I appreciate her for doing that. And I think having those role models is great to point to. And I think, again, I don't like to... Because we don't know how she'll be on the court exactly. You never want to say 100%. I feel pretty confident about this one, Thanh. But I think she has the potential... Final, just quick thoughts from Thanh and Harry.
I'll go to you first, Harry, and then Thanh. She has the potential, I think, to be that kind of inspirational figure and kind of transcend what people think of as a conservative judge. Absolutely. So she's articulate. She's brilliant. She is a mother, and she is a mother of seven kids. I think that says it all.
Thanh? Just so relatable, so in touch with everyday Americans. I would say maybe more than any other nominee that I can remember. I think people will relate to her. I think when she introduced her family, I think all of us saw a little bit of us in herself.
And Jordan, I think the American people are firmly behind her. I really do. All right, folks. Listen, the hearing's ongoing. So tomorrow, we'll continue to break it down for you today. Anything that happens today, we'll break down for you tomorrow on the broadcast. And of course, what happens before we're on the air, we'll break down as well. It is like we did today.
We need to go back to it. We will, but it looks like they're taking breaks while we're live on the air, which is good. So we're able to kind of bring it all to you. We encourage you to sign that petition at ACLJ.org and share this broadcast. Even if you're listening on radio right now, go back to the Facebook page, Jay Sekula Facebook page, and share it with your friends and family.
We'll talk to you tomorrow. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-05 01:01:50 / 2024-02-05 01:25:18 / 23
