Views that make her nonqualified to serve. President trump has said he would only nominate someone who would overturn the Affordable Care act, taking away Health Care Protections for more than 100 million americans. Both President Trump and members of the majority on this committee have said they would only vote for a nominee that would overturn roe v. Wade. As i will lay out in my questioning this week, we should not be having this hearing with two members of the committee infected with covid. It is rushed, constitutes court packing, and her views are too extreme to qualify her to serve on this court. If elected, will you try to change one of the three branches of government by adding the number of justices on the court . Can he hold out on that issue for three weeks . For the coming week, what i am holding out is hope that there are still two more republicans that might join with the republicans who have already said based on what they did four years ago in refusing to give a hearing or a vote to merrick garland, they should not be doing this now. Senator michalski said fair is fair. If that is what we did four years ago, then with the election already underway, we should not be racing ahead. I am concerned and so are some members i just have to say that it is a different issue than packing the court. It is different than changing the number of justices on the court. What do you make of joe bidens refusal to answer the question, if elected, will you change the number of justices on the court and do you think he can continue to hold out on that nonanswer for the next three weeks . Chris, thank you for coming to nebraska. Glad to have you. That the vicee president will not answer that basic question. They are talking about the suicide bombing of two branches of government, blowing up the structure of the senate by abolishing the filibuster, making it possible to turn the senate into another house of representatives. Where every two years major portions of American Life change. They are doing that to pack the supreme court. The reason i think that amy barrett should be on the court is because she is very clear about her jurisprudence. She is an originalist and a textualist, which means that when she puts on her black robe, she knows what it means to be a judge. That is to cloak your personal preferences. We do not wear red or blue jerseys. We should not have democrats or republicans on the committee trying to figure out how they can divine the future of how they were rule on particular cases. This is the socalled ginsberg rule senator, senator, senator, with respect you are being disingenuous. You are very staunchly prolife. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take, but arent you in fact counting on Justice Barrett to either end or restrict roe v. Wade and wouldnt you be terribly disappointed if you failed to do that . Those are two different jobs. I am prolife and i stood before election before the voters in nebraska and i get to do that again in 23 days. I tell them i policy position. If amy barrett were running for the United States senate from illinois, she would have policy positions that she would lay out to the american people. That is not what a judges job is