The Left Launches Disgusting Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Family & Religion

Today on Jay Sekulow Live, the Left already launching disgusting attacks on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's family and her religion. We'll talk about the war to confirm the next justice of the Supreme Court today on Jay Sekulow Live.

Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. I fully understand that this is a momentous decision for a President. And if the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability. I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine too. A judge must apply the law as written.

Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Jay Sekulow Live.

This is Jordan Sekulow. So you know now that President Trump is nominated to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, he originally nominated for that position about three and a half years ago. She formerly was a professor of law at Notre Dame. And again, this is someone who has a long academic background and of course has now got the judicial experience. And I think said it all right there with what you really need to know and what the left already understands, which is why their attacks are so nasty. And the process is going to move pretty quickly, but the process will not start for a couple of weeks.

That's what's interesting here. So the Senate Judiciary Committee process is going to start October 12th. Senator Graham wants to wrap it up by October 22nd.

There will only be two days of questioning. In that meantime, she'll be meeting with senators and the attacks will heat up. Some Democrats are saying they won't meet with her at all.

I say that's great because they were so nasty to her the first time. Diane Feinstein is nearly 90 years old. She is the ranking Democrat.

So she's the highest ranking Democrat. I think they have said they're very nervous about having her be the one in charge on the Judiciary Committee. So there is some talk that they may not go at all to the hearings, which I think would be wonderful for Judge Barrett. Please do it because we don't need your votes and we don't need your just harassment of the next Supreme Court Justice. Again, I think for all of you out there who want to know more about her judicial philosophy, we're going to bring Harry Hutchison on to talk about that later in the broadcast.

Rick Rinnell, also our special advisor on national security and foreign policy, he'll be joining us later in the broadcast as well to discuss this nomination and the debate tomorrow. But as she said, I clerked for Justice Scalia and his judicial philosophy is my judicial philosophy. That is exactly the kind of nominee President Trump has been looking for is in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, people like Justice Alito.

These are true originalists to the Constitution. Judge Barrett has authored 94 opinions since she's gone on the bench. She clerked, in addition to clerking for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the late great Justice Scalia, she also clerked for the former Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Lauren Silverman. So she has really sterling credentials in that regard. She's well respected. During her clerkship, she obviously worked with you come in as a year basically.

And in that year, everybody that worked with her, including people in Justice Ginsburg's chambers, the law clerks there wrote a previous letter saying she's eminently well qualified, one of the smartest people that they've ever met, and that she will do a fair, honest, and great job as a Supreme Court Justice, even though they don't agree with the position she was advocating. So I think this bodes well. Look, they're going to try the religious harassment. That's going to be the thing. When we come back from the break, I'm going to play you what Jeff Toobin from CNN said about that.

I think what Toobin said is absolutely fascinating. Let me give you a little hint. You're going to go after her faith again? You did that last time.

It didn't work out so well. Good luck with that. Those are going to be the words of Jeff Toobin. We'll be back with more in just a minute. Yeah, 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. That's 1-800-684-3110. Are you excited about this nomination?

Are you ready to go to war? Because Judge Barrett already facing attacks, calling her a civilizer of savage children because there are two adopted children from Haiti. That is Ibrahim Kendi, who's now a professor right now. He might not be much longer at Boston University, but he wrote that famous How to Be an Antiracist book and all that. He's now showing he's a racist.

You could be black and be a racist. He certainly is and disgusting. He should have no more profile anymore. So hopefully these people will start falling by the wayside. We'll be 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, 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. All right.

1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. So now, you know, as we know it has been confirmed because the President Trump made the announcement on Saturday. It was widely expected. We were already reporting on Friday that news was leaking out that it will be Judge Amy Coney Barrett from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who was the nominee, to fill the late Justice Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court in her announcement speech. She said this about her judicial philosophy. I think this is key for everyone listening right now because if you wonder about like where she comes at looking at the Constitution, she made it really clear in this statement.

I think this almost kind of says everything you need to know. I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine, too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.

So I mean, there you go. His judicial philosophy is mine, too. Harry Hutchinson is joining us. We're going to talk about some of these nasty attacks on Judge Barrett, but first I want to talk about the positive for all the conservatives out there. They're very excited about this.

You're seeing widespread praise. The White House put out a document that had our statement in it. It had all the senators' statements in it.

It had all of the even House members and groups like ACLJ. So we're all listed in there with this praise. This is the kind of nominee that gets people excited about where their philosophy comes from, Harry. And by making the statement about Justice Scalia, the late Justice Scalia, that his judicial philosophy is my judicial philosophy, that is very telling because he has got a long time—you know, he served on the Circuit Court and then in the U.S. Supreme Court. And as a clerk for him, she knows how to apply that philosophy as well. That statement should make conservatives very excited about Judge Barrett.

I think you're absolutely correct. I think Judge Barrett brings to the court an originalist, textualist understanding of both the Constitution and the rule of law. She understands for the nation to remain together as a union that the rule of law must be enforced.

Now, that approach is quite different from the approach favored by left-wingers. And if you look at specific decisions that Amy Coney Barrett has reached, particularly in a gun rights case called Cantor v. Barr, also in a case involving due process, involving John Doe v. Purdue University, and thirdly in a pro-life case, Planned Parenthood v. Commissioners, she took the position that the Constitution trumps policy analysis from judges. And certainly in the pro-life case, Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner, in that particular case an evenly divided vote of the Seventh Circuit denied Indiana's request that it review a three-judge panel's ruling that invalidated a state provision regulating the disposal of fetal remains. That lower panel, or the three-judge panel, held that the Indiana law violated the Constitution. Judge Amy Coney Barrett said no, and she dissented from the en banc panel and in a 7-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, a summary disposition judgment, a 7-2 ruling, Judge Barrett's analysis was upheld.

In other words, Judge Barrett is saying you must treat fetal remains just like, or at least as good as, the remains of cats and gerbils. Is there any indication, Harry, I know a lot of people ask this on Roe v. Wade, where she stands on that, on those kind of issues. Do we have any pretty clear analysis from her? Well, I think the record is a little bare on that, but in about, I think it's three cases, she did at least touch on the analysis which might lead to a decision in Roe v. Wade. And she basically steered very close to the United States Constitution and to an originalist understanding of the text. And if you look at the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that abortion is controlled by the United States Constitution. So then I think this issue goes back to the states.

All right, so we're taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. Yeah, there's another thing here I think that's important, and that is the last time she was up, she was really attacked for her faith. I mean, they made the, Diane Feinstein and Dick Dubin, let me play the Diane Feinstein attack about her dogma. When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country. The dogma lives loudly within you, which I think sounds like something out of Star Wars, but the fact that she even said that created a firestorm. In fact, CNN commentator Jeff Dubin said, you can thank Diane Feinstein for your next Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett.

Here's what he said, number eight. One person who was not thanked during this ceremony was one of the people who was most responsible for Amy Coney Barrett being nominated to the Supreme Court, and that's Senator Diane Feinstein, who in 2017, when she was the ranking Democrat on the committee, engaged in questioning of now Judge Barrett, that was so incompetent, so inept, so apparently religiously discriminatory that Amy Coney Barrett became a hero to religious conservatives. So there you go.

So that was that line of questioning created this entire problem. Now, to complicate it more, and I think good for Amy Barrett, I think she's going to be confirmed, and I don't think, she will be confirmed. She will be seated before the election and we will have a full nine panel, full Supreme Court in place for what is likely to be multiple cases that will be involved in at the Supreme Court of the United States. But Dubin went on to say, this is again, focusing on Feinstein, who is the leader of the opposition here to her. She's the Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

Here's also what he said about the continued attacks on her faith, number nine. Diane Feinstein was and is a distinguished public servant who has served for many years on the Supreme Court. She is now 87 years old and she has repeatedly engaged in behavior in recent months that seem out of step with what Democrats want to do. And she is going to be the leader of the Democratic forces on the Judiciary Committee. And all I can say is good luck with that, Democrats. I don't want to say much more than that. No, listen, they are burying themselves.

They already had buried themselves. Like two of them said and admitted that because they made her a name amongst conservatives, she came out of the academic world. So she was made a judge by President Trump to the Seventh Circuit. That hearing highlighted her, the dogma lives deeply within, you know, that has become a phrase conservatives understand that that means a key voting block to get them out to vote. These are the kind of notices they make that you're going to choose that person that came to attention because of Democrats attacks. But now they're attacking her for having adopted kids.

So you have Ibrahim Kendi. He is a professor at BU and he wrote the now pretty famous book, How to Be an Antiracist, like a number one seller on Amazon for the last year. He tweeted out some white colonizers quote adopted black children.

They quote civilized these quote savage children in the quote superior ways of white people while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. That is in response to Jenny Beth Martin from the Tea Party Patriots, a friend of ours, who wrote that with two adopted children from Haiti, it's going to be interesting to watch Democrats try to smear Amy Coney Barrett as racist. Then we saw Professor Harry from BU who wrote the How to Be an Antiracist book do exactly that. How do we make her racist? She adopted black children from Haiti.

She must be a white colonizer. Yes, it's highly ironic in terms of looking at Ibrahim Kendi because he has written a book on how to fight racism. But in reality, if you think about his book carefully, if you read his book, if you read what the social justice warriors are actually saying, they believe in fighting racism through racism and his statement attacking Amy Coney Barrett is quite frankly a racist statement. And it's too bad that individuals like Kendi are able to further advance their own racism because they receive huge contributions from the left. Now, what's interesting is that he is getting like contributions from the left, but it looks like he's going to lose his job as a professor at BU, that this attack went too far and his comments have gone too far, too radical, too almost too racist. He's becoming racist and this using this kind of rhetoric, not what they want from their university professors.

So even at mainstream institutions, I don't know if to say liberal, but BU certainly has lots of liberal professors at it. He crossed the line on his attack. These are line crossing where people are losing their jobs and their response. They're losing their minds. But who is really to blame here? I think, you know, you look at Daya Faisal, you look at the late Justice Ginsburg too, who did not resign under Obama when she was in her 80s and it's been sick. She left it up to politics. You leave it up to chance then. This is what happens.

We'll be back. 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, a 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. The timeline is interesting, too. So the hearings will start October 12th. You might say, well, that's kind of late if they want to get this done before the election.

But here's what they're thinking. And this would be, of course, Chairman Lindsey Graham. So they're going to have the hearings. So we'll start on October 12th.

They will be done within 16 days or less. And that includes the one week before they allow the markup. So basically, hearings Tuesday and Wednesday.

And on the 15th, they'll begin their markup. They'll hold it over to the 22nd. Then on the 22nd, it will go to Mitch McConnell. He could have the vote by the 26th, 27th, 28th. That means before the election, Judge Barrett, if all the people who are out will be on the Supreme Court, will have full nine justices on the court before the election. So if any election issues reach.

They focus a lot on the President. But there was an article over the weekend at, I don't know if it was New York Times or Wall Street Journal, about, or maybe Politico, how the left is lawyering up and how even Nancy Pelosi is figuring out the options on right now. See, the problem goes constitutionally if you go to the House, the Democrats, even though they have the majority in the House, don't have the majority when it comes to the state delegations. It's 26 22. And there's two states that are, that are 26 22 because Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are tied.

That's right. So they would actually, if no changes there in the House, they would kind of take themselves out. But there's also a legal question of whether it's the new house or whether it's the old house and they have to do this. She's now saying we got to target our races based off of house races, based off getting back, you know, making up the deficit we have in the House, not by seats, but by states, which means this is what I think. That's why I think the Amy Barrett nomination, Jordan and Harry, I think is going to go pretty quickly.

I think there'll be ranker, but it's going to get right through and she will be seated before the beginning of the first Monday in October. Now, having said that, I do think, and I mean, we would know this on firsthand basis, there will be a series of cases that ultimately on a very quick basis, we'll move to the Supreme Court of the United States on election issues. It may be electors.

It may be the issue of how ballots are verified, absentee ballots are verified or mail-in ballots are verified and maybe issues of harvesting. You're already seeing those developing. Now there's a case out of, we're keeping a very close eye on out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals involving South Carolina. There's a situation in North Carolina, Pennsylvania had the one just a few days ago. So there's a number of these cases that are developing and look, there's significant constitutional issues with each and every one of them.

So having nine members of the Supreme Court in place becomes very, very important as you move these issues forward. Now, having said that, let me tell you something, they're going to attack. I think they're going to have to stay away from her faith because they, as Jeff Toobin said, good luck with that.

That didn't work out so well. They're going to go back to it. They may, they may. They're putting out tweets of her with a dog collar. So they're saying that RBG, you know, with her weird lace collar, that's fine. That was her collar of descent. That's right.

But they've, yeah, but, but for Amy Coney Barrett, they tweeted out, you know, the, the meme that's going around the liberal world is a dog collar. And let me ask my husband. So by the way, let me ask my husband. It's just a joke, right? Like she she's the judge, her husband's attorney. They have seven kids to adopted, but who do you think is probably having to run a lot of the household there? The father that she said it.

Yes, her husband. I mean, so this is, it is a game they're trying to play. They only care about feminism and women succeeding if they're liberal women. Do you understand that? That's not feminism. That's anti-woman. That's anti-woman.

That means you have to pick and choose what woman is okay to be excited, to be excited about as a feminist. That's gross. That's disgusting. But that's the same thing on race. They're the racist. The liberals are the racist. The liberals are the ones who aren't actually feminist because they, they judge people based off politics, not based off of qualifications or even the fact that you could say.

Feminist should mean all women. If they're moving up to power, that's a good thing. Regardless if they're more conservative or liberal, they can't go there because they're so tied to ideology. They'll, they'll be racist. They'll be sexist.

They'll be bigots like they have it with religion. So they've been all three of those. That is them. They'll call you those three names, but really in reality, who are the racist, the liberal, the Democrats, Joe Biden, look at his time in office. I mean, he's the worst. He's one of the worst offenders of all politicians. Who are the, who are the sexist? Look at, look at the look at what the dog collar, for instance, who are the bigots. Look at what Diane Feinstein did. All Democrats, not just liberal. Let me say more specifically, Democrats are the racist, bigots and sexist. Republicans have been fighting that for decades. And it's not to say that Republicans are going to choose people because of that. She was just extremely qualified and she became more high profile because of what Democrats did to her.

So it's, it was twofold. She had the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. She does. And they gave her a bigger profile, which is typically what these, yeah, people came to know her. She wasn't necessarily a DC insider like Kavanaugh. She wasn't someone like Gorsuch who had maybe a decade of experience on the court, but because of her academic experience, her clerkships, what people have said about her. And then of course her time as a circuit court judge and the attack on her qualified.

So I want, it's Harry, this is a question I had for you and that I have for you. And that is on the legal issues, where are they going to go for the attack? What's going to be the, where are they going to say she's out of the mainstream of judicial thought, which is always their line? Well, I think one line of attack, which Joe Biden already highlighted is to argue that she would invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act. She has written a law review article questioning Judge Robert's analysis. And I think a first year law student could write a similar review of his analysis in the Affordable Care Act case because it was poorly written. It was poorly- And they're doing that politically also.

I mean, it's not just, it's not just the cases. They're using that as political- Absolutely. So they are going to use that particular fear tactic. They are also going to attack her on grounds that she will necessarily overturn Roe v. Wade. And it's far from clear from her judicial record that she will necessarily, she may carve it back a bit because she believes in originalism. But I think at the end of the day, because of Amy Coney Barrett's impeccable qualifications, and those qualifications, by the way, resonate with the American people, and because her judicial philosophy is unimpeachable, and because even left-wing Harvard Law professors like Noah Feldman agree that she is brilliant, conscientious, and that she will analyze decisions in good faith, I think the left is essentially left with the following approach. Attack Judge Coney Barrett largely on the basis of fictional claims, including either her affiliation with a Catholic group called People of Praise or the fact that she's adopted two children from Haiti. As a consequence, for instance, Newsweek magazine has published a highly fictional claim that Margaret Atwood's book, The Handmaid's Tale, is based on people of praise. The left maintains this bogus charge despite the fact that the author of the book denies that she based her novel on Amy Coney Barrett's religious affiliation. So there is no factual basis to claim that Amy Coney Barrett and her husband engaged, for instance, in an illegal adoption.

But if you look at the Twitterverse, you will find plenty of claims that there's something that demands an investigation. So I think, at the end of the day, this is a concession that Judge Barrett is highly qualified. October 12th, questions are coming in, Peggy on Facebook said, why are they waiting till October 12th? Well, this week she meets senators. Two weeks, so you got to set up that?

You got to do, that's part of the process. You can't shortchange that. It's going to move very quickly.

Yeah. Two days of hearings and then a markup. Two days, she'll maybe be under attack.

The Democrats might also, this is, they may boycott. So when we come back, second half hour coming up, but also we come back, we start taking your phone calls. A lot of you got questions about that because guess who's on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Kamala Harris. And we got a call about that as well.

So 1-800-684-3110. Is that a strategy Democrats are doing for Biden and Harrison saying, we're not even going to engage because when they do engage, they come off as racist and sexist. We'll be back. 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. So here's what we've already heard. This is from the managing director of NextGen America, former staffer for Senator Heinrich, Wendy Davis and NARAL. Of course, as an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstance of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children and the treatment of them since. Transracial adoptions fraught with trauma and potential for harm and everything I see here is deeply concerning.

There are two children from Haiti. She has been vetted by the U.S. government before. She's a circuit court judge, but that's not good enough for him. He needs to know more about her personal life. That's the only way they can attack now because he thinks, what, a federal judge went about some illegal adoption process?

I mean, you gotta be kidding me, right? They don't like the result that you now have appointed a conservative female for the first time in U.S. history to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sandra Day O'Connor was kind of pre-conservative. She was conservative-ish, I'd say.

I mean, she was conservative, but I'm talking about a conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia. This is the first time. So what do you have? They're going to come up with everything they can think of and more. But you know what?

Either that or, Jordan, as you said before the break, or not show up at all and boycott. We have a question about this. It's Frank from Florida Online 1. He's been holding on. Frank, welcome to Jay Sekio Live.

You're on the air. And let's not forget, we got the debate tomorrow. So this is a lot of news. We're a lot of focus on Amy Coney Barrett, but then everyone's going to be dissecting for a few days. Let's all remind ourselves, this is the Presidential debate. They're going to finally, for the first time, be on the same stage going at each other. Trump and Biden. And Biden is not going to have a teleprompter. So this is the first time. I think that that's going to overtake the news cycle for the rest of the week. But they're going to still be planning these attacks on Barrett. Frank, you're on the air.

Hi, guys. Thanks a lot for taking my phone call. My question is this. If Kamala Harris is on the committee for Amy Coney Barrett, can she still, can she recuse herself because she's a vice Presidential running mate? No, she doesn't have to recuse herself.

There's no requirement there. The only person that's discussing recusal of anybody is Jeff Toobin from CNN, suggesting that Dianne Feinstein, because she did such a horrible job, which he said elevated Amy Barrett to the status that she's not going to be a Supreme Court judge. She said she should recuse.

Listen to what he said. So explain what you're saying. You want her to recuse herself from all of this, give that responsibility of being the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to someone else? Yeah, she can leave the committee. She could become she could go to the Intelligence Committee.

You know, this this is not some joke. I mean, the committee, these committee assignments are done largely by seniority. Republicans don't do it entirely by seniority. They pick people, particularly in the House, based on who they think will do the best job. Democrats operate on the basis of seniority speeches. So I think where Jeffrey Toobin is, where Democrats want. So they either want Dianne Feinstein out.

That could happen the next two weeks. Yeah, she's probably enough of a team player. They're pretty good at that on their side of the aisle to keep things in line now. She's but she's 87 and a woman. Is she going to is that the look they want? They're going to push her out of, you know, probably not. So she'd have to really do it voluntarily unless they boycott, unless all of them. I think there's a likelihood because they're already saying you've got three judiciary committee members who say they will not even meet with her.

OK, so they're already setting the the the line of that. You know, we're not even going to show up because we don't want to give this. You know, they're going to say we don't want to make this real. We don't. You know, but honestly, we don't need their votes because I'm happy if they don't show up.

Romney said he's voting. Yes. Yeah.

And you didn't even have to have him. I mean, but that makes it much easier because you don't have to bring the vice President. But but my idea is that it also helps Kamala Harris. They'd still give all their floor speeches being nasty about her, but they wouldn't have to engage with her directly because they want Kamala Harris to be in a back and forth with Judge Barrett right now because now that she's up for Supreme Court, I mean, not a circuit court. It's different.

The way she answered the question is different. I think she could rip Kamala Harris head off if she wanted to. So do you want to risk that? Do you want to risk another dogma lives with deeply within you right before an election? I hope they do. I want them to have the hearings. I want them to bring everything they can at Judge Judge Barrett, because I think that only helps in the confirmation battle. I think it brings more senators on like Manchin and those Democrats.

They don't like these attacks. So let's see the true liberal attack on her. Let's see what Kamala Harris does three days before the Presidential election.

She's going to be doing wonderful. This democracy in action and we're watching it. We've got a brand new petition at aclj.org as well. Rick Renell, by the way, is going to be joining us tomorrow on the broadcast at Wednesday, focusing more on debate.

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 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, Planned 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, we're taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. Let's not forget too, in the midst, this is huge news for those of you who are ACLJ supporters and listen to our broadcast regularly.

I know you care deeply about the US Supreme Court, but we also know we're in the midst of election. So tomorrow night we have the first of three Presidential debates. This is at Case Western in Cleveland, and it was originally going to be at Notre Dame, but because of the COVID and things like that, they ended up not doing it. There's not going to be as big of a crowd at these. Now they're usually still very controlled crowds. They're not raucous crowds, but sometimes because it's not like the primary crowds that people get used to, or sometimes you could be in a room with like 8,000 people could be at a debate. And we've been at those before.

These are very usually in the halls of universities. Chris Wallace is the anchor, so it's one anchor, two candidates. This will be the first time that again, it's President Trump and Joe Biden. That's it. No teleprompter for Joe Biden.

No aides helping them. And he knows he's walking to a room to a debate with someone who will deliver very harsh blows. One liners. Yeah.

And you have to be quick on your feet. And often if you try to go to hit back, if you look at Joe Biden's debate history, this is not a guy who's hard to get upset and kind of then unraveled. But you got to also look at the fact that if you look at the debate between- But they've set a very low bar for Joe Biden.

They have. It's like if he has any energy, even if he says that thing- Right. So the bar is set so low right now that I think it's- If he could speak coherently- You should not set it that low, number one.

Number two- Speaking coherently is the bar right now. Look at the debate that Joe Biden did, and this was eight years ago, with Paul Ryan. Yeah. I mean, Biden had a very good 30 minutes, so the President needs to be prepared for that. But it was eight years ago. I mean, that's a long time for Joe Biden to be out of the spotlight, not necessarily debating for him. And I do think that the bar has been set for Joe Biden is can he put together coherent sentences. Yeah. Let me ask this- That's a pretty low bar.

Yeah, it is. But let's see what happens. We'll note it tomorrow. So Harry, let me ask you this.

Jordan, we kind of touched at it. There is this talk that the Democrats may not actually show up for the Judiciary Committee hearings. They may boycott them.

The idea being we're not even going to legitimize it by attending. What do you think from a policy perspective, dangerous for them? Well, I think it is, but I also think on the other hand, it might be the safest course of action because there is a significant number of Democrats in the Judiciary Committee who may ultimately make fools of themselves questioning this particular nominee, who I think is on her game, number one. Number two, I think she will be well prepared for their attacks.

And number three, she has demonstrated a clear and unmistakable ability to fire back, but to do it very gently. And I think that will make many of the Democrats look bad. So I think this is a huge risk for them. And I think many Democrats are not huge risk takers.

They prefer to simply be in the attack mode with an unprepared witness. And I don't think that will be the case here. Jordan, do you think they've already figured out, which is the political reality, that she's going to be confirmed? I mean, they're saying it already. Yeah. For the most part, they said they can't stand in the way to have to be four Republicans, four Republican senators.

And we have a couple and that's it. So they're out to... And I'm not sure if, by the way, the two that said no, they gave themselves room. It was no that we should vote. I'm not so sure it's going to be no if she clears the committee that they're going to say they're not going to vote.

I think they would vote and I think they'd vote. You can't say she's not qualified. No way you could say that.

Impossible to say that. Let's go ahead. Do you want to take one of those calls? Yeah, we can take another call, but I think, yeah, it's going to be down to... They've lost the votes of the Senate. They lost that very quick, that battle. They lost Cory Gardner and they lost Mitt Romney immediately. And as we played on here at the Dumb and Dumber ... Do we still have it in our system?

No, we don't. But since Jeff Daniels is now playing Jim Comey, he was more known from Dumb and Dumber. And he said the thing, sometimes you do something and then you redeem yourself. I don't say Mitt Romney is fully redeemed after the impeachment, being the one Republican to go along with a partisan impeachment, but he's on a path to redemption with me.

He's on a path to redemption, I think for some. And probably also the voters in Utah who also they elect people like Mike Lee. So they really want... Just because he has a strong base there, but you keep being the anti-conservative, not just... He doesn't like Donald Trump, okay, that's one thing, but he came around on this quickly and said, he's still a conservative. And he's not going to risk the future of the Supreme Court in the United States.

Well, he's the one who ran on being conservative on the judicial philosophy. It'd be weird. It just wouldn't make sense. So he came around very quickly.

So they lost immediately in that battle. There was no question. Let's go to Ronald in South Carolina on line three.

Ronald, welcome to Jay Sekio Live. Yeah, thank you for taking my call. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. One thing is I think that the way Democrats are so tough on President Trump and his Article II constitutional rights, I think they all need to take a refresher course in the constitution because they just don't seem to believe that he is doing everything within the boundaries of the constitution that was given him. And number two, I think that the constitution is an acid test, just like when we induct new citizens into this country. I believe that's the acid test to prove their loyalties.

And so far, the Democrats, I kind of wonder which side are they on anyway, because they keep doing everything to try and literally disrupt the fabric of this country and tear up the constitution while doing it. Well, yeah. No, I understand. I mean, this idea that... They haven't tried to say that. I think here, what they just said, it'd be better to wait until after the election. None of them said you can't...

They understand that you can do it. They don't like it, but they do understand that every President in the past has at least nominated, including President Obama. And then it's up to the Senate. The Senate can or can't take the nomination.

What is it? 17 out of the 19 times the Senate and the President were the same party, Harry. 17 out of the 19 times, the President has always nominated when there's a vacancy, and then 17 out of the 19 times, both were Democrats or both were Republicans, the nominee was confirmed in the election year. I think that's correct.

You have 35 days, 36 days out. I think the source of the discomfort for Democrats is the fact that indeed they have read the constitution, but they are truly afraid of anyone who wants to enforce the text of the constitution. Why? Because it limits their power. And that is clearly the case with respect to Amy Coney Barrett. She has read the constitution very carefully and it places clear and unmistakable limitations on both judges and on congressional power. It is clear also beyond question that the Democrats, when they have lost elections, they have looked to the Supreme Court to legislate on their behalf. And so Amy Coney Barrett is prepared to carve back those types of initiatives in the future. And so I think the Democrats are rightly afraid of her. All right, folks, we're going to continue to take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110.

I want you to listen to this. It's a large tribe, a liberal law professor, Harvard law professor on constitutional law. So he gets asked the direct question. He goes on Fox News Sunday. It's not Chris Wallace. I prefer Brit Hume. I wish he was the Fox News Sunday host. I think he's much better, much fairer than Chris Wallace, who I do have some concerns about with this debate. But again, we will see how Chris Wallace performs.

I'm no fan of his. Let me go to by 27 though, because Brit Hume hosted Fox News Sunday yesterday and he had large tribe on. And here's the question. Speaking of the constitution, sir, do you find any support for your argument in the constitution itself? Oh, I'm not suggesting it's unconstitutional to go ahead. It's perfectly constitutional. A lot of things that are constitutional are stupid here.

And this is the point. So it's, you got the right to do it, but you're stupid. You know, this is where Lawrence tribe has, has come to now calling people stupid for doing things that are illegal.

Absolutely. So what you have is Lawrence tribe and elitist, a globalized member of the elite hierarchy, who believes that his wisdom is superior to the wisdom of the founders to the individuals who actually wrote the constitution and ratified the constitution. No one has elected Lawrence tribe king.

And I think the American people are much better off because he doesn't control the United States constitution and he doesn't control, um, the, the, a nation as he might like to do. All right. Uh, folks, we're going to take phone calls 1-800-684-3110. Got again, another segment coming up at JSEC you alive. And I want to get into, you know, answer your question. So we've got questions about this nomination process. This is the time to get them in because here's here, here we go. We go, you know, we've got the nominee on Saturday. We've had the attacks from the left. Then we're going to go into a Presidential debate tomorrow night, you know, at nine o'clock Eastern time, uh, which all the major networks will be carrying. And the news is going to shift. Now they'll, they may discuss this in the debate, but it's going to be about how did Joe Biden perform?

Did he, was he coherent, you know, and, and who delivered the best punches really those first 30 minutes when you've got the kind of the attention of the country. And if it gets boring, people shut it off. If it becomes a knife fight, people keep it on. Um, and, and then, you know, the winner of the loser, I mean, that is it, this is not like, there's not 16 candidates. There's two, there's a winner and a loser, uh, from the each debate.

This is one of three. So it certainly, it sets the tone for the next, you know, uh, 40, less than 40 days, but then you've got two more and you've got the vice-Presidential debate as well, uh, which is not maybe not as key of a role, but certainly thinking this COVID world where Joe Biden is not on the campaign trail as much as Trump and Pinsock, that it does play probably a bigger role than it has in the past. So get your questions in now on the Supreme Court nominee because tomorrow is a lot of debate focus. And then of course, Wednesday will be debate analysis one 800-684-3110 and sign our petition at 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. 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. All right, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. We're going to take your phone calls now 1-800-684-3110. Chris called in from Michigan online for Chris. Welcome to Jay Sekio Live. You're on the air.

Thank you so much. A few points to make. I don't think it has anything to do with Amy Coney Barrett's religion, the cults they supposedly believe she belongs to, her adopted children, and that she's an unfit mother. It has all everything to do with wanting a left leaning judge to push their agenda. If vacating that seat was so important to them, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, if it was so important, who took that seat? Why didn't she retire under Obama, where she would have been guaranteed a liberal judge?

No, listen, it is because she's a concern. I mean, listen, President Trump was not going to nominate a liberal to the court. They were not going to like anybody he nominated. But because she happens to be a woman, it just kind of just shows that they're not really, they're not feminist, they're sexist. They're the bigots when it comes to religion. They're the racist, attacking her two adopted children, saying she's a racist colonizer because she adopted kids from Haiti, which the country's had a lot of issues.

And it went through a process to adopt them. I mean, it's absurd. So who are the racist? Who are the bigots? Who are the sexist? I'm not going to just say liberals. It's the Democrat Party specifically, because they have more of a lock on. You know, liberal is too broad. The Democrat Party, the racist, the sexist, the bigots, because they judge people based off their philosophy. So you can't be a feminist unless you're a liberal feminist. Liberal in the sense that you agree with Planned Parenthood and NARAL and everything, and that your judicial philosophy is one of a living constitution. So you have to be like RBG, in the mold of RBG, to be an actual feminist. I don't even think RBG would agree with that, by the way. She might say she disagrees with judicial philosophy, but she certainly, I think, would still be excited as a woman filling the role.

She might not like the philosophy that's filling that role, but she gave that chance, like you said, very important. Now, it's getting nastier out there, too, in the Presidential race, Harry. We've got now Joe Biden calling President Trump a Nazi. I have a feeling this is the kind of lines that he's going to try to debate as well, to try and paint the President as, again, that he's some kind of racist.

The worst thing you can call somebody is like a Nazi and a Nazi propagandist. Take a listen. How do you combat that lie when he keeps pushing it and some voters start to believe it? Well, I'm not sure anybody hadn't already made up their mind there for Trump, but who knows? But he's sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating, repeating, repeating.

It becomes common knowledge that they think. So Trump is a Nazi. He's a Nazi propagandist.

And I think that's the kind of line, is it? So Joe Biden is trying to say that in the debate, I really can't take him on. So I'm going to have to just name call. You're going to be in a name calling contest with the best of name callers. This is a guy that came up with a nickname for everybody.

And you could still remember, I don't want to have to go through it because many of those relationships have been patched. But I mean, well, you could say, I mean, you still know Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, these were things, boo, boo, and yeah, low energy. I think one-liners with him is very dangerous to try to do this. And then to preview them for him, we know he's watching. This is a President who's taking in the media. So he saw Joe Biden call him Goebbels and call him a Nazi. He's going to be ready for that.

He probably already has a comeback to that line that is so devastatingly nasty. And it probably has to do with the fact that Joe Biden was a friend of people like Fritz Hollings and KKK members in the U.S. Senate and piled around with KKK members. He was basically wearing the white hood with them, hanging out with these guys who were pretty bad when it came to their racial history. This was the Dixie Democrats. They were racist. But... Many apologized for that at the end of their lives and careers.

But he was with them before that. And his answer to that as well, I was just trying to get legislation done. And this is what you do to get legislation done.

Yeah, legislation to put more black people in jail. Yeah, right. That's what they were doing. Here's the question that I think is... And kill more black babies.

Right. Here's the thing that I think is going to be interesting. And that is from the policy stamp. They get to policy discussions in this debate, Jordan.

They get to policy if they actually get there. What is the one they're going to focus on? Harry, you alluded to this earlier, and that's going to be the Affordable Care Act.

We're in the middle of a pandemic. The President is trying to change it by the Supreme Court ruling on it. The whole healthcare system is going to go into jeopardy. That is going to be his line.

I think that is correct. But I also think that that line may lack a lot of resonance with the American people. Because I think the American people today are much more informed, for instance, about the coronavirus than they were three, four, five months ago. One of the things that I think impairs Joe Biden's ability to be persuasive on that is the fact that he has a very poor record on dealing with a virus himself. So when he and Joe, I'm sorry, when he and President Obama were in power, they had to deal with a virus that actually infected approximately 60 million American people. And President Obama and Joe Biden did virtually nothing about it. Number two, Joe Biden attacked, and this is in the record, President Trump on what he actually did, including banning flights from China. And it's clear beyond question that that move saved American lives. And so what did Joe Biden say? Oh, this is xenophobia.

And then you had Nancy Pelosi parading through Chinatown in San Francisco, basically encouraging people from China to come to the United States and bring your virus with you. Then we've got the New York Times. I'm going to say this, Jordan, because then I got the New York Times doing these tax pieces, which are incomprehensible. At one point, they say the President pays no taxes, and the other point said he was asking for an $80 million refund. But let me explain something as a former IRS lawyer.

Let me tell you what you don't get to do. You don't ask for an $80 million refund unless you paid at least that amount in taxes. So it's these inconsistencies. Put your document, we asked him, by the way, for the documents. You say you got information, I'd like to see your documents.

I'd like to know that. How do you know about what's going on in the audit, by the way, IRS? It's supposed to be, I mean, New York Times is supposed to be confidential. So how do you know what's going on in the President's audit? Oh, you mean somebody from the IRS is leaking this information?

Which is also a violation of the law. Somebody needs to be looking at this. Yes, it's because, again, I don't think anybody's paying attention to the tax issue, though. No, the truth is these numbers are beyond what most people can even comprehend. That's how wealthy Donald Trump is. It's beyond what most of us can ever comprehend, and the transactions he's dealing with are beyond what most of us could even comprehend dealing with. Most of us could not comprehend buying multiple billion dollar buildings or going into Miami and buying Doral out of bankruptcy and then rebuilding it, you know, and for hundreds of millions of dollars. And, of course, that means you're going to have losses because it was already bankrupt.

You bought a bankrupt asset, an asset that was in trouble, and try to bring it back. And so, again, most of us are never going to be in the position to have that kind of cash to even purchase a property like that. Go on the Trump website and see how many properties he's got. A lot more than you can think.

It's a lot more than just New York and a few that are well known. A lot more. So if you want to get into a contest with Donald Trump on who's more personally successful, it's not a guy who's been paid by taxpayers, and do you really want to get into that with your son taking the millions of dollars from the Russians and the sex trafficking? Because I have a feeling that's going to be line number one, and Joe Biden is going to be up against the wall the entire night. That's my prediction, because he cannot defend his son's action. Pretty indefensible, taking money from people linked to sex trafficking.

That's Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. And that is who I think will be paid to tomorrow night. And that has, because the media is not going to do that for Donald Trump. Even Fox News is not going to do that for Donald Trump. He has to do that. That's up to him as the candidate running to be reelected. He's up against the wall a little bit with polls right now. I think that's what he does best.

Donald Trump. So we'll talk about it more 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.