Democrat Senators Ask Judge Barrett Repulsive Questions

Today on Jay Sekulow Live, you thought we'd get through this confirmation hearing in a very classy, classy way?

No, no, no, no. Repulsive questions hit Amy Coney Barrett. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. There's one group in America I think has had a hard time of it, and that's conservatives of color and women conservatives.

There's an effort by some in the liberal world to marginalize the contribution because you come out on a different side of an issue, particularly abortion. So this hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You're going to shatter that barrier. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. This is history being made, folks. This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who's unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she's going to the court. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. That's right. This is Logan Sekulow sitting in for my dad and brother here on Jay Sekulow. I've got my buddy Will Haynes. Got Dan Bennett in Washington, D.C. Wasn't planning on being here, but I'm here for you today.

That's right. Sometimes you've got to call in some of the people from the bench and say you've got to come up here and talk about what's happening here, Will. And you heard in that open, Amy Coney Barrett, obviously we're into day three now of the hearings. Yesterday was like the first real day where, like, they actually went back and forth. She didn't just have to sit there and do one opening statement. First questions day.

First questions day. We were all expecting after day one, it would be kind of mild. Like, I mean, for the most part, a lot of it is. However, some senators threw out some pretty nasty questions, threw out some nasty comments. There's a lot of pop culture reference, which I appreciate. There was like two or three Star Wars references, but then there was a cantina scene reference.

There was an eclectic Senate, Imperial Senate reference. I was pretty cool with that. Like, at least keep it interesting. But overall, there were some moments, Will, we're going to talk about them coming up in the next segments.

It got pretty hardcore, as they said. These are moments where a conservative female is up there. You would think there would be some respect there.

Her kids are in the audience. That would be a little bit different. And Lindsey Graham mentioned shattering the barrier. And to paraphrase something that my dad would say, when you shatter the barrier, the demons and the zombies would come out.

This is Halloween season. And it felt that way in the Senate for the confirmation hearing, Will. That's right. And we'll get into it in the next segment. But after what started out seeming a pretty tame hearing and really what all the media outlet is, well, it shows the Democrats know that she's just going to sail through.

They're not really trying to go too aggressive. They mainly framed it around the Affordable Care Act for most of the hearing and trying to make it more political, which she called out many times, like, you're talking about policy here. Which they do every time. They always bring up, are you going to vote on Roe? I can't answer that question.

No kidding. That's not the process. And that's not the process it's ever been. But for some reason, they feel like that's a gotcha question, as if the people who are watching these hearings haven't watched the last few. Yeah, Logan, I mean, I think it is also evidence they don't have a whole lot substantive to ask. I think it's evidence of what you just had the conversation with Will, that they know she's going to be confirmed. In fact, we had a couple of senators, specifically Sheldon Whitehouse today, say something along the lines to Judge Barrett of, when you get up to the court, keep this in mind, as if it's almost a foregone conclusion. But I do think it's evidence that they know it's fait accompli. They know that Judge Barrett did very good job yesterday.

They know they can't stop her. I know we're waiting to the next segment to get into this, Logan. But look, some of the lines of questioning, over the line. I've got to tell you, over the line.

Absolutely over the line. We'll get to those. You actually get to hear them coming up in the next segment, so stay tuned.

Share this with your friends. We've got a big show ahead to really break down everything that happened yesterday, day one. And now we are, they're on break right now, which is good for us, because we're able to talk to you on day three of the confirmation hearings. Give us a call also. 1-800-684-3110.

Again, 1-800-684-3110. I also did want to say, thanks to the work of the ACLJ, we also have just launched the first video on the Bald Beagle YouTube channel. If you have kids, check out Bald Beagle on YouTube or just go to BaldBeagle.com. Our first video, George Washington Love to Dance, is available right now.

It's a great informational video when you kids need it the most. So check it out there and support that work at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back with more on JSEQ Live. 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. Playing 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 Jay Sekulow Live! This is Logan Sekulow and Will Haynes of the Logan Sekulow Reprogram. I also joined my fan Bennett in Washington, D.C. And I thought it was important to make sure we have Than on because this stuff will happen in Washington, D.C. Obviously, we're into day three of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.

That's right. Supreme Court. As Than said, it's almost a predetermined situation of her passing and making it through.

But you never know the kind of curveballs. We thought that with Brett Kavanaugh as well. That had already sort of wrapped up when everything reopened. People were expecting that kind of fireworks, definitely a calmer situation. However, Than, that did not stop a few choice senators hitting some low blows.

Yeah, no doubt about it. I mean, I thought the low point in the hearing yesterday, Logan, was when Senator Hirono was questioning Judge Barrett. She had a whole line of questioning. But then at one point, she decided that she was going to ask a 48-year-old mother of seven whether or not she's ever committed sexual assault. I kid you not.

I think you're probably going to play the sound. But Logan, I mean, she said since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors? Went on to ask about sexual assault. Look, Logan, I mean, we're supposed to have a presumption of innocence on everything in the United States of America. But especially when you're talking about a sitting judge with a record that she has with a family and children sitting behind her. To go down this line of questioning without any evidence, without any reason or inclination to go down it, Logan, that's what bothered me.

They're obviously referring, they're trying to make a reference, make people remember about the Kavanaugh hearings. But also, can you imagine? We're currently at the ACLJ, we're currently in a season of actually hiring. There's actually some job openings. We're doing a lot of interviews.

Can you imagine sitting down an interview, like Than said, with no reason to ask this question? No, you know, version of this saying, okay, it's a quick question. Let's take a listen to the senator from Hawaii. This is Senator Hirono, bite 18.

Let's roll it. To ensure the fitness of nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench or to any of the other positions for any of the committees on which they appear, I ask each nominee these two questions and I will ask them of you. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? No, Senator Hirono.

Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct? No, Senator. Well, there you go. I mean, a pretty direct answer there, but also a question that I think made everyone cringe in the audience, made everyone feel a little strange, the lack of audience they had, obviously, but even the people there, everyone watching at home, made a lot of headlines.

This is one of the questions. I mean, I heard about this last night. People brought it up to me. Did you see this? Can you believe this?

Yes, of course, I can believe it. This is the times we're living in where nothing is off base, like you said, regardless of who's in the audience or if you feel like this, there's even any sort of claim to this that you can hit them with something so egregious. It's really inappropriate. It's really disturbing.

And I'm glad to see that overall, it does actually seem to have a shrunken nerve with people on maybe both sides here. Well, and the other thing to me is her family is in the audience. They're sitting there right behind her and she's being asked these demeaning questions. They do that, though. I mean, that's part of their entire game plan, but it's the subtext of what she's asking, why she's asking to this accomplished judge. And it was just really repulsive.

And I think to a lot of people, it was as well. I know that Senator Hirono tries to put forward that I'm asking everyone this. I mean, since the Kavanaugh, it's all for political points. It doesn't. It's just if there were ethics violations or things of that nature, that would be a different way to go about that.

Not in just a weird, open-ended, pointed question like this when there's no allegation of any of the sort against the judge. We have a decent amount of listeners in Hawaii. If you're listening right now in Hawaii, give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. I want to know how you feel about this senator representing you and your Hawaiian values, because I think that's something that I know a lot of people didn't. I've met many people from Hawaii. I feel like this is not the kind of questions they want to ask great family people there. Well, there's other topics she obviously hit, ones that are very important to our listeners, whether it was abortion and pro-life situations.

And a lot of times, they were trying to get that gotcha answer. And she was pretty straightforward, said that she believes what she believes, but is also here to uphold the rule of law. She's really just done a fantastic job of stating her judicial philosophy, being an originalist, a textualist, and also saying her mentor was Scalia, the late Justice Scalia. But that she's not Scalia. Right, but also that she's saying, you know, because of this philosophy, this judicial philosophy, because it's not so political where you can kind of look at a liberal judge and know how they're going to rule every time, almost based on the politics of it, that it's refreshing to hear the way she describes originalism, that there are differences within that philosophy, that judicial philosophy. And I think that she's done a very good job showcasing that as well as presenting herself as someone who will be an impartial judge. And speaking of it being political, I think you had obviously Kamala Harris made a few appearances so far throughout this, really using this as a campaign stop and grandstanding. And Than, I think if you look at really her statements, I'm not sure if we have any polls specifically, she talks about what's happening with Amy Barrett, but it's certainly not holding back on this being a good moment for her to get some viewers and get some ratings in the terms of the election.

Yeah, a couple of thoughts on that, Logan. First of all, once again, she was participating virtually from literally one floor down from the hearing room. And they still couldn't get a good connection.

I know, I don't understand that, Logan, but I also don't understand how it's safe one floor down but not in the room that CDC has actually certified as compliant. But that aside, she got an opportunity last night in primetime to issue questioning. And yeah, she largely turned it into a canned pain speech.

Judge Barrett didn't have a whole lot of opportunity to respond. But to your point about bringing up hot topic issues, again, she lectured a 48-year-old mother of seven about abortion frequently. And she did it, ironically, Logan, while submitting for the record two letters of opposition, one from Planned Parenthood and one from Planned Parenthood Action. So clearly it's not disqualifying for Kamala Harris to have a pro-abortion view, but apparently it might be for Judge Barrett to have a pro-life view. So I hope the irony of that wasn't lost on the American people watching.

I don't think it was. And I think people look and they do say, look, we're in election season, we're not telling you who to vote for, but elections have consequences. You've heard us say that ad nauseam. But they do, and this is one of them, look, you're hopefully putting up justices that not only are going to uphold the law, but are part of what the American people are looking for.

And I think that this is one of those picks, hopefully. You know, you never know. I think we've all been in those situations where you think of justice, that's one, maybe the good and the bad of it is going to go one way and they definitely go the other. It's just part of it. So that's why I am not the person who I'm not going to wear my Amy Coney Barrett t-shirt. I'm not going to buy the coffee mug and say that this is the great savior. You know, that's not that's not how this should roll.

I think that there is a want to do that because you're it's a refreshing moment. Look, and I hope she does a great job and hope she rules how she feels is correct. However, you never know. You know, people did that for Roberts. People have done that for other other Supreme Court justices. They've certainly had mixed opinions, to say the least.

So I kind of always want to put that caveat in there before you go put on the bumper sticker and the t-shirt. Yes. Do we think she should be confirmed? Absolutely. And do I think that she represents a lot of the views that we do here at the ACLJ?

I believe she does as well. However, you never know and you never know until they're actually there ruling. And I think it changes a lot. Let's see. We got two minutes. We take a call. Sure.

Yeah. Let's go to Scott calling on line three from Colorado. Scott, you're on Jay Sekulow live. Welcome, Scott. Thanks for tuning in with me and Will.

Okay, well, Logan, thanks for my call. Yeah, my first comment was I just loved ACB's poise when she didn't get trolled into speculative positions. And what she would, you know, if ACA came up or Roe v. Wade. And because they haven't happened yet. So, you know, they didn't do that with others, you know, and trying to commit herself to being recused. Yeah, not falling for it.

Yeah. My question is this, I thought I saw maybe an apparent contradiction. Obviously, they use this to score political points. Several Democratic senators mentioned COVID, which I have no idea what that has to do with ACB. But they also were trying to protect their tender idol of the Affordable Care Act. And, you know, if the Affordable Care Act was meant to help minorities particularly and the death toll was highest among minorities. Isn't that sort of an argument against the Affordable Care Act that it didn't work as well? Yeah, I mean, I don't necessarily want, Scott, it's great, it's an interesting comment.

I certainly don't want to get into the science of COVID and what, you know, who is being targeted and not targeted. I don't know enough about that information for me to personally comment on it. However, I think you are right that that does show some of the growing failures within this. And Will, we talked about this and Thanh as well. That was clearly, they all got together and said, Right. This is the talking point. We're going to mention some pro-life stuff here. We don't like she's pro-life. We're going to mention some of the other social topics. We're going to mention some other things. But really the big hit is how dare you take away or want to take away, though she didn't say it, the Affordable Care Act.

As they now say, ACA. Right. And to Scott's point, they were clearly trying to get her to make political statements, policy statements. And she every time went back to that is not my job as a judge or justice on the Supreme Court to make policy decisions. That is for the legislative branch. I am here to rule on the letter of the law.

All right. We get back. We want to take some more of your phone calls. The phone lines are lighting up.

There are some people who are calling calling calls from Hawaii. So we're going to take some of those. We get back on J-Secula Live. Check out the Logan Secularly Program on YouTube. 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 J Secula Live.

This is Logan Secula, me and Will and Thea Bennett, but me and Will do the Logan Secula reprogram. Sitting in for the first half hour of J Secula Live, so thanks for having us. We are going to take some phone calls and I want to hear about what your thoughts are on Amy Coney Barrett, the third day now of the hearings. It was a really extreme conversation that went back and forth from the senator from Hawaii. And we talked about this, her essentially asking about sexual assault and things of that nature.

And a really inappropriate, really, again, kind of a cringe moment that happened. We do have a phone call from a caller from Hawaii, from Lina. That's right, Lina, line one in Hawaii, you're on J Secula Live. Thank you so much for taking my call.

I appreciate it. I totally agreed with your comments about the woman from Hawaii. I am from Hawaii.

I am an Islander. And it was such a disgraceful, shameful, the way she asked such a question as sexual with her family there. The people on this island do not represent what she's doing.

And with her family sitting there, that was not an appropriate question. It was nothing pertaining to her excuse me, confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. And so I wanted to call in because I saw that on Facebook and on social media and I put word out for the people on the island to call her office and let her know how we are so disappointed. And how she is not representing the people on the island well. I don't know why we voted her back in.

I didn't. But I'm sorry to say that she did the same thing for Justice Kavanaugh, how women are to be believed and men should step up. What a shameful representative from Hawaii. Lina, thank you so much for calling everyone from Hawaii. I think that you represent the voice of Hawaii that I think a lot of people want to hear and I believe in it.

And look, you could say whatever you want. I mean, Hawaii maybe tends to be more liberal than not. However, I've been there.

I've experienced it. These are family people. These are people who are amazing islanders who do amazing stuff and have just great passion for their families. And we put in that sort of not only uncomfortable, but inappropriate setting. You're right. Just does not seem to represent the people who I've met, the people I know from that state. And I would say the same, look, we're from the South.

I'd say the same thing. If this was coming from Tennessee or this is coming from Georgia or Alabama, I think you would be surprised and shocked at something like this. Just doesn't feel like it invokes the emotion of what the person is supposed to be representing from the state. Well, and as Lina brought up that it wasn't, it didn't feel like it was on par with the values of the people of the state. And I think sometimes the senators get in this Washington bubble and obviously the senator was trying to score political points. She was trying to make that an issue by doing this on this grand stage and make this point to try to tarnish the reputation of the judge by bringing up what happened in the Kavanaugh hearings.

And I think Thanh can probably speak to this too. Sometimes, even outside of the left and right issues on policy, that a senator or a congressman or a congresswoman gets to D.C. and forgets some of the values of their representatives and just goes straight for the raw political points and it doesn't play well back home. I would say it's probably the rule rather than the exception. And I think it's probably why the cry for term limits has gotten louder and louder. Look, Senator Hirono is a duly elected senator from the state of Hawaii and she has a complete right to have a different view, different view on judicial philosophy than Judge Barrett. She has a complete right to vote against Judge Barrett, both in the committee and on the floor of the Senate. But what I don't think she has a right to do is put forward baseless insinuations and accusations.

I mean, the presumption of innocence goes to all American citizens, including those who are putting their names on the line to serve. So look, I would just say to Senator Hirono, stay in your lane. If you want to vote against the judge, fine.

But reflect the views and the values of your residents who voted for you. And maybe not grandstand this because they had other options also to write in a question. There's other things you can do other than make this big TV moment. No question about it. I mean, actually, I think that's probably been the most important impressive thing about Judge Barrett is these senators, Logan, have a full staff.

They've had two full weeks to prepare. They can take these questions in any direction that they want. It's Judge Barrett who has no idea what's coming. That's what makes her reliance on no notes so impressive. I mean, Senator Hirono was literally reading from a binder full. She selected that question to read. She prepared to read it. Judge Barrett is the one that didn't know what was coming.

But yeah, Logan, it's a great point. Senator Hirono could have gone in any direction she wanted. She chose to go in that one. Well, and with a question like that, doesn't that make the importance of the senators meeting with the candidate before the hearings as they were given the opportunity to do?

But all the Democrats declined to do that. Wouldn't that have been a more appropriate place for a question like that instead of grandstanding, putting it on television in front of her family? If you're in a private meeting and you're trying to get to know someone and I don't think that'd be the question I would go with. Wouldn't that have been a more appropriate setting? But they chose not to meet there. I think the question is if you're trying to glean information from the nominee, then that would have been the more appropriate setting to ask that question in. But Will, if you're looking for a TV moment, if you ask that question behind closed doors, it never gets up on TV.

I think that's the distinction. Yeah, we never mention her. She never gets her name said on radio. And here we are doing it ourselves. Let's take one call before we go into break. Also Brian in Hawaii calling, I believe, on Line 2. Brian on Line 2, you're on Jay Sekulow Live.

Hey, thanks for taking my call, guys. I just wanted to echo everything that Lena had shared earlier. Now, Senator Hirono's position is not the position that the majority of the people here in Hawaii feel. Now, the majority of people in Hawaii here, they're very family oriented.

The state of Hawaii, because it's blue, unfortunately it's been that way for about 65 years. It is corrupt as the day is long. And that's probably the reason why we remain a heavily Democratic controlled state. But the very fact that she went after the judge in this manner is just, it's an indication of what we deal with during every election cycle, whether it's in between major Presidential elections or just for state or county seats. And it's just, she's continued to do this. And it's an embarrassment.

It really is. And for a lot of people, they come here and they have this bad taste in their mouth because they feel that everyone looks at it that way. Now, there's great Democrats across the board, and there's also some that have just lost their mind. Now, with Senator Hirono, unfortunately she has lost her mind. I have no idea why she would choose to, you know, go down that path and ask these particular questions of a woman who is clearly outstanding and a well-deserved choice for the Supreme Court and ask an outrageous question. But I just wanted to call and say that we as, she does not speak, and oftentimes she said this, that I speak for the people of Hawaii.

She does not. Her 10 seconds of fame and relevance is, you know, that's really, to me, all she's ever done in her career is to try and be relevant. And this is just more fodder that the Democratic Party here, you know, for the most part, those that are in control, they've lost their minds.

Yeah. Hey, Brian, I think that's a really solid point. We've got a minute before we head to break. I want to encourage people to keep listening to the show. If you don't get the second half hour to find us online, we're on Facebook Live right now on the Jay Sekulow page.

We're also available on demand later on on all social media platforms, as well as the podcast. Brian, I appreciate it. I appreciate people calling from Hawaii and showing what their state really represents.

And I think there will be change and people will grow and you will see movement in different states in different directions. People like Brian are some of those really great people who are out there trying to make sure that the people in Washington actually represent them. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Check out our new kids channel, Bald Beagle. That's right, Beagle with a B on YouTube or BaldBeagle.com to support the work and to see that latest video. And check out Will and I each and every day on the Logan secular reprogram on YouTube and join us on the Logan secular reprogram Facebook group.

You do that right now. If you're watching, you should join. You have a lot of fun. We'll be right 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. This is Logan Sekulow. We're talking about day three and also covering day two of the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court hearings. So my brother, Jordan Sekulow, we're going to do a passing of the baton in this segment.

Jordan's going to take back over what he won this show. I want to thank everyone who is listening and who has enjoyed our first half hour. Again, if you like the content that we do each and every day on YouTube, we do the Logan Sekulow reprogram. You can find it on my YouTube channel.

That's at YouTube.com slash Logan Sekulow reprogram or just search Logan Sekulow. Subscribe to the channel. I will really appreciate it. We'd love to have you as one of our viewers as well. Cover a lot of similar content, maybe from a little bit of a different point of view. I think you'll like it.

And it's a really great time. Well, I know I'll do that. Well, should we encourage people to call in?

Let's call at 1-800-684-3110. If you want to be heard on air, we're talking about day three of the Barrett confirmation hearings. And I actually wanted to get to this really quickly before and get Jordan's thoughts on it as well. Yesterday, Senator Blumenthal had a line of questioning about an opinion that Judge Barrett had written.

And he was very fixated on something that he thought was in the opinion. Should we play the sound? Yeah, we definitely should play the sound because this just shows you Senator Blumenthal, you know, he's a known liar. He lied about his service in Vietnam. He did it again. The Senate Judiciary Committee, I mean, it's ridiculous. They have huge staffs.

They got 55, 60 people working for him and they can't figure out the right question. Take a listen. Your opinion in Cantor goes farther than Justice Scalia in Heller. In fact, you characterized it as kind of radical.

It is, in effect, an outlier. And it is, in fact, radical. Did I say it was radical in the opinion? I think you said, quote, it sounds kind of radical to say felons can have firearms. That's a direct quote. Oh, I didn't remember that particular language.

You can... I'm not, I'm not, I just don't recall it, but I'm not nitpicking about it. We can look it up.

That's fine, Senator. I don't think you're making it up, trust me. No, I'll check it and look it up, but I know that's not the thrust of your question. It sounds kind of radical because it is. That was not in the opinion. He made all of that up. Well, clearly he was reading it off as some kind of, someone gave him that line, right? But this is very, this shows you, this is why I believe Democrats are not in the position that the polls show them in because there's something wrong with their teams.

Their teams are not getting the job done. I don't know if they feel defeated because Judge Barrett, like you were talking about, I'm not ready to crown her as the notorious ACB yet, but she certainly has the potential to be. And, you know, it took Justice Ginsburg years to develop that persona. I think she has the potential to be this awesome example to young women to say, you know, you can be a liberal, you can be a conservative, and you can make it to the U.S. Supreme Court if this is what your passion is. You can have children and you can do it all, which is always what Justice Ginsburg was about as well, but you don't have to be a liberal to do so. Now, you have to go through a lot more as a conservative, but I think it will be great for conservative families out there, and if your child grows up with and wants to go to law school, has that philosophy, to know there's someone out there, especially women like her, if you have daughters who made it and had the position, had the notoriety, I mean, in a lot of ways when I listen to it, when I listen to Judge Barrett, I hear Alito and I hear Scalia if you just wrote the words down, but it's a different tone.

It's a different, and the tone does matter with a judge, so it's tougher for these Democrats to not look absurd, but the lying, I mean, that's their biggest problem with her is you said something was radical and then it wasn't even there, so Blumenthal lies again, but this is a guy who literally, he's lied about his entire life, so he never fact checks anything, including his own bio. Absolutely. All right, we get back. Jordan's taking over. There's also going to be, I believe, some other guests coming in who are going to come sit in here. Harry Hutchison's going to be sitting in. We got Scott Thad Bennett. Check out the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Thanks for dealing with me, and you can find me each and every day on the Logan Secular reprogram.

Again, that's on YouTube. Find me there. Subscribe.

I'll see you soon. 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. Welcome back to Jay Sekio Live.

It was great to have my brother. I think it was nice to have this back and forth the first 30 minutes with Logan and Will, because it's serious, obviously, to have the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court nominee, but you have seen now the Democrat Party, specifically, and Democrat Senators turn this into a joke. Either they give political speeches and people just turn it off.

This is not the best place to give them. Yeah, everybody's covering it, but do you think they really want to hear Kamala Harris again? You want to hear her on the Affordable Care Act?

You can hear her all over the country. Instead, you know, you've got the President, he's doing actual campaign rallies, he's back out there. You've got both, and I think this needs to be underscored as well, that whole idea that there's not going to be a quorum, there's not going to be a vote, they can't get this through committee.

Guess what? The Republicans will be there. Yeah, it's going to be the Republicans in the room providing the quorum. They were saying there might not be a quorum because the Republicans were sick and they wouldn't provide it, and yet it seems to be the Republicans are the only ones that are willing to be in the room.

Jordan, I just quickly wanted to tag on, just kind of on that same thought. We just heard from Sheldon Whitehouse this morning, Senator Whitehouse, he was attacking a meekie participation in the process, and I don't want to go all the way down that rabbit trail, but I do want the American people to understand what that attack was because we engage as a meekie on their behalf in the judicial process all of the time. And look, Jordan, you know this better than I do, but it is a feature, not a bug, of the American judicial process that the American people can participate in it as a meekie. So when Sheldon Whitehouse tries to throw all these terms like dark money around and anonymous donors and that they shouldn't be able to participate in the meekie process, Jordan, what he is attacking is our members, the American people's ability to participate in the judicial process.

And I'll say it again, that is a feature, not a bug, of the American judicial process, and we should not eliminate it. I want to go right to Harry Hutchison. I want to take your phone calls too on this.

1-800-684-3110. How outrageous. For Senator Mazie Hirono, who said, well, you know, I asked this to all the nominees now. She acts like she has this long history of doing that. The first time she did it was to Judge and now Justice Kavanaugh, which was completely made up, whatever, Blasey Ford, liar, investigation goes on, no evidence of this. But yet she wants to continue with this question about, you know, did you ever sexually assault anyone?

Did you ever, have you ever made a, did you ever have to settle? This is someone who has already gone through, they have gone through the process of becoming a university professor at a top law school. They have gotten, they are a member of the bar. They also went, she, Judge Barrett, went through confirmation hearings that were very nasty to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And then all of a sudden we need to ask her in front of her children if she sexually assaults people. And by the way, Senator Hirono, if she really believes that this is a question that now needs to just be asked and put on the record for everybody and that you treat men and women the same, why not meet with Judge Barrett, do it there, or if you want a more official response, put it in writing.

Judge Barrett had to issue, had to answer a number of written questions, Harry. And if that's one that Senator Hirono wanted to put in, I wouldn't have, I'd still think it was ridiculous, but it's not the same kind of criticism. She's trying to trash someone who I'm pretty confident could say now is going to be on the Supreme Court of the United States.

And, you know, I think there's a danger. You end up, you take someone who's got a conservative judicial philosophy and you're just pushing them, pushing them further to the right. Absolutely. I think Senator Hirono continues to engage in a pattern which she commenced in the Kavanaugh hearing.

She basically creates a fictional parade of horribles. She then presumes that the nominee is guilty without a scintilla of probative evidence. And so one of the questions that listeners should ask Senator Hirono, has she asked her fellow Democrats about their pattern of sexual assault?

Absolutely. Has she asked fellow Democrats about whether or not they retain a sense of smell enabling them to become serial hair sniffers? So Senator Hirono, just like many Democrats, continues to engage in a pattern of cringe-worthy conduct which is unworthy of a Senator.

Absolutely unworthy. I mean, Thanh, taking aside, the hearing is back now. Actually, I want to go to Senator Klobuchar because she can get nasty too.

So I kind of want to see where she's going on day two of this. Let's take a listen. More than 800 businesses have closed every day. 30 million people were out of work at the height of the pandemic.

We're still down 10 million jobs. And so one of the things that's been going on here is we've seen more and more consolidation and leading me to antitrust. And that part of this, I think, is the COVID relief package we have to pass, but also antitrust.

Competition is a driving force of our economy. I'm going to jump in right there. The COVID relief package that they have to pass that they won't pass. How about Amy Klobuchar? Go call Nancy Pelosi and tell her.

Pass something. Get it done for the American people. Or else the President is going to have to do it through executive order.

I think he ultimately will. And what are you going to do? Probably, Senator Klobuchar, you'll end up challenging that executive order in court. Then it's hypocrisy after hypocrisy that it is the Republicans who are not willing to pass more COVID relief. They've put it on the table. They've tried to compromise.

They've gone up in the amount. And Nancy Pelosi's House will not let it through. In fact, she's not letting the House take a vote on it. I think if Nancy Pelosi let the House take a vote on it then, a lot of Democrats, because they were all up for reelection in the House, would be voting for that compromise. Oh, the so-called centrists in her caucus.

I think that's probably an unfair name for them, Jordan. But the so-called centrists are actually demanding that she do just that. Put the measures on the floor that everybody agrees with. The President has already said repeatedly he would sign them. The direct checks for Americans, the replenishing of the Paycheck Protection Program, the education funding, all of those items would pass. And Jordan, here's the other thing that these senators on the committee are just conveniently omitting. Jordan, Leader McConnell has already said that the next item that's going to be on the Senate floor when they reconvene next week, it's not going to be the nomination of Judge Barrett. She'll still be in committee.

They'll be waiting for them to move out. Jordan, it's going to be another COVID relief package. They're talking about they don't want to move Judge Barrett because they want to do COVID relief first. Jordan, it's already scheduled to be the next item on the floor.

And guess what? These same senators that are calling for it, they're going to go down to the Senate floor and what are they going to do? They're going to vote no. They're going to go vote no against the package that they are asking Leader McConnell to put on the floor right now. Folks, I want you to hear this out. I want your thoughts too.

1-800-684-3110. Do you believe, I mean, you know, we are getting closer and closer to election day. I mean, early voting is beginning all over the country if it wasn't already started. So even the states that started later, that's beginning. You're starting to see the lines outside of precincts. I saw it today on my way in and it's exciting to see. But I think these hearings may set a new tone because Judge Barrett, who was nominated by President Trump, these are the kind of individuals he chooses to be on the Supreme Court, whether it's to be his advisors, his cabinet members. And people are getting to see that again.

Really smart, really good people. And you combine all of that, different factors here with the Supreme Court Justice. And I just think this is why we're seeing Judge Barrett, who, Harry, could have been treated like the female version of Kavanaugh, I think.

I don't think they would have been as aggressive because it just doesn't look good. I'm not trying to be sexist, but I think that they're playing politics. They can only go so far on, you know, the allegations of misconduct.

But I think that what they were hoping to do was try to make her sound dumb or try to make her look stupid. And instead, she went up there and did what only I think John Roberts has maybe done and can just give siliquies on every opinion she's authored, but also on all of the major Supreme Court cases that are being addressed. She's now getting into, I broke away from it because it's not the top issue I know for our audience, but into antitrust, which these are a lot of these cases that make it to the Supreme Court that aren't the big ticket. They're not abortion. They're not free speech cases.

They're not, but they're huge case of implications that affect us all because of the economy. And she is just, I mean, I see her sitting there right now. She takes it all in and you can see the mind working, ready to respond. And she does it in that legal way, point by point by point.

Absolutely. And so one of the characteristics of Amy Coney Barrett, besides her brilliance, is that she is incredibly calm. She is self-possessed and she has a memory of more than 600 cases which have, excuse me, the Supreme Court has decided. I think the Democrats have decided that the Kavanaugh hearings backfired and now the senators, the Democratic senators, are left with doing what? They are simply lobbing Judge Amy Coney Barrett, presuming that she will indeed be confirmed and hoping that she will vote their way. That is what they have been reduced to because of Amy Coney Barrett's brilliance.

Let me tell you something, folks. I'm not going to prejudge anything that's going to come before Judge Barrett. But what I can tell you is that I'm pretty excited when someone says my philosophy, keep repeating it over and over, is Justice Scalia's. That did show on the Seventh Circuit. Let's see if it holds on the Supreme Court.

We don't need to put the crown like the notorious ACB crown on her yet. But certainly, certainly she's got the potential, the potential to be the example of the new kind of conservative on the court. 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, playing 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. Again, the second round of questioning. I will tell you, folks, other than some nastiness, which had nothing to do with substance, Judge Barrett appears to be sailing through. I think that when you saw Senator Tillis return, Senator Mike Lee return, we were on path, Than, to get this through the committee. They're going to, tomorrow, she's done after today. What time could they go until, Than, just so people know? Like, how long could this potentially go today?

Because yesterday's finished up fairly early. Yeah, it depends what the appetite of the senators is. There's a possibility they could go to a third round. The second round will likely be wrapped up by the dinner hour, Jordan, and I suspect the way it's going, that's probably basically the end of it. I think if a couple of senators wanted a third round, my guess, and this is just my guess, I think Chairman Graham would probably give it to them because she's been so impressive, but my guess is around the dinner hour.

Yeah, and so, and then that's it. That's all we're going to hear from Judge Barrett, because then, Than, it's going to be witnesses who support her and don't support her, and honestly, the American people don't pay a lot of attention to that. I'm not saying it's not important. It's a part of the process, and of course, it's great to hear from people who can kind of tell their story of knowing Judge Barrett, and then you'll have people who say why she's not quality of the plan. Do you know yet who the Democrats are bringing?

I don't have that, no. I wonder if it's going to be the Planned Parenthood world, the ACLU world, because, you know, Harry, you come from the world of higher education as a law professor, and they made a big deal yesterday, they screwed up again, because they said all these Notre Dame professors have signed a letter against Judge Barrett's confirmation. Interesting fact, though, out of all those professors, Harry, not one, not a single one was on the faculty of Notre Dame's law school.

Absolutely. So one of the things that the media likes to do is to conflate two things. The law school vis-a-vis the liberal arts faculty, and in many universities, law professors are left-wing loons, but even more true, many liberal arts faculty members are strongly from the left. They're like Antifa at this point in the liberal arts world. I wouldn't say the law professors are, but I'd say that liberal arts world, they're like embracing that. Absolutely. And also, I would say Notre Dame has a reputation, the law school does, as being a middle-of-the-road law school with some conservative lawyers and some liberal lawyers, but the liberal arts faculty, particularly the librarians, the anthropologists, they want Amy Coney Barrett essentially to recuse herself to postpone her nomination.

This is absolutely nonsense. The President is fulfilling his constitutional duty, he is nominating Amy Coney Barrett, and she deserves an up or down vote by the United States Senate. You know, it's interesting, we're looking at the names of some of the people who are going to be, they just released that on the panels, and I'm going through right now, some are from law firms, maybe they worked for her, worked with her. I see Memphis, Tennessee, I know she went to school in Rhodes in Memphis in her undergraduate. Another attorney at Columbia, South Carolina. I'm just looking through here, there's a retired judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of D.C. I would assume that's someone who she got to know maybe as a clerk at the D.C. Court of Appeals. Not for that judge, but again, you would get to know. It sounds like some potentially liberal groups, you've got some law professor, but these are not big names then, I'll tell you that.

They did not get the big hitters. Yeah, no, I don't recognize a lot of the names on the list, Jordan. I suspect they'll probably continue what the Democrats have done and tried to tell sympathetic stories of people that have pre-existing conditions.

By the way, that's something that Judge Barrett knows an awful lot about with her family, I won't go into detail, but I think she can certainly sympathize with that situation. Jordan, I did want to just quickly mention this though, it's not going to work. I mean, she had a plus three rating among voters as far as, more people wanted to confirm her than didn't when she was nominated. Jordan, that number, according to Morning Consult and Politico, which is not exactly inclined to support conservatives, that is up to a number of 17. She has a 17 percentage margin among voters that want her confirmed and don't want her confirmed. That's pretty overwhelming, Jordan. Especially because they show you those polls, Harry, that say people think you should be waiting until after the election.

You know what? Those polls are all done before they get to see the nominee. They got to see Judge Barrett and they say, you know what? President Trump made a good decision here, who cares about that this is near an election? This is the kind of person that should be on the Supreme Court. I would want her to be a justice if I had a case before the court.

And we often do at the ACLJ. I think Amy Coney Barrett has made a very convincing case on her behalf. That's number one. Number two, the initial poll results reflected Democratic lobbying against nominating anyone. But I think once the American people have had the opportunity to listen to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, they realize that this is a brilliant nomination. You know, a lot of this hearing, though, has been about issues that are political, that Congress can determine, like COVID relief funding, like the Affordable Care Act and then, you know, addressing the downfalls of it, the problems within it. You know, President Trump has said he's run it as best as he can. So it is better now than it was before he got rid of the individual mandate, still kept coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I mean, in fact, he gutted it because without the individual mandate, there really isn't an Affordable Care Act the way it was intended to force you to be on it. But it's still not great, as he said. It's not perfect. They can't fix it. It's still a disaster.

It takes a lot of hard work just to keep it up and going. So this idea, again, I think the Democrats are actually pointing to the fact that President Trump does what he says. He helps the American people. That's his number one priority is taking care and protecting the American people.

So even if he's got a bad program to run, he's going to run that bad program and put the people in to run it as best as possible. And now you've got Democrats running on something that they were running away from. Remember, I mean, President Trump got elected in 2016 saying, I'm going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. I'm going to gut it. I'm going to get rid of the individual mandate on day one.

And lots of other Republicans did, too. It's in the platform. It's not a real popular. And so I think maybe because he's done a little bit better job. But also this I've got to play. Do we have some time here?

Yeah, let's play it. Because Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy, too, with Wolf Blitzer. Take a listen. You evidently do not respect the chairman of the committees. I respect all of you. And I wish you would respect the knowledge that goes into meeting the needs of the American people.

But again, you've been on JAG, defending the administration all this time with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills. And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that to you in person. Madam Speaker, these are these are incredibly difficult times right now. And we'll leave it on that note.

Thank you so much for joining us. We'll leave it on the note that you are not right on this, Wolf, and I hate to say that to you. It's not about me. It's about millions of Americans who can't put food on the table, who can't pay the rent. And we represent them. And we represent them. And we represent them.

These long food lines that we're seeing. I know you are. We know them.

I'm just saying. We represent them and we know them. We know them. We represent them. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say here in Washington. It is nowhere near perfect. Madam Speaker.

Always the case, but we're not even close to the good. All right. Let's see what happens, because every day is critically, critically important.

Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents' needs. I am sensitive to them because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.

Madam Speaker, thank you so much. Have you fed them? We feed them. We feed them. I don't know what she's talking about, because she's not providing the COVID relief.

We've got only 20 seconds left. Here's the problem with Nancy Pelosi. This is good if you're a conservative. Picking up on something that we picked up on last election cycle? When Nancy Pelosi starts getting into a fight with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, there's a problem inside the Democrat Party. They're not in sync.

And you don't want to not be in sync. 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.