Felonies and, if its not dangerous to you, to take someones constitutional right away, which is to own a gun, and the idea of how you vote and what conditions are placed on voting at the state level, not the federal level, i feel very comfortable that she is not antagonistic to Voting Rights and that she took a reasoned view of felonies, in terms of depriving the Second Amendment. The bottom line here is that its been a very good hearing, i think. I think senators have asked her very good questions, quite frankly, hard questions. I think she has comported herself well, and we will keep going. [indiscernible] i think shes done a pretty marvelous job of explaining textualism a regionalismnd and originalism. She cant tell you how she may rule. [indiscernible] sen. Graham i talked to tim last night. He felt like he needs to get out on the campaign trail. I think its good to be campaigning. You raised the issue of your own election. Is that appropriate . I think its appropriate for me to respond to political attacks in a political way. If you didnt catch it, all day yesterday was an attack on the aca. They mentioned three times south carolina, what would happen if the aca was repealed. I thought it would fare was fair for me to say theres a better position for south carolina. I think i have a right to respond to political arguments politically and i wanted to make sure the difference between our political debate about the aca and how it would be decided in court was reported. Thank you all. How subtle is that . Theres no subtlety there. It is in a composition of the courts question, making sure the how do you think she will be reacting . Do you think shes already had that conversation . She said she has not. When senator cornyn keeps saying this is insulting to suggest you are going to the court with an agenda, you want to direct that emotion to the white house. They are the ones who keep peddling this story every day and why we raise the question. Thanks, senator durbin. Day two of judge Amy Coney Barretts confirmation hearing got underway just after 9 00 a. M. Eastern this morning. Seven Committee Members have asked their questions, 30 members minutes allotted for each senator to ask questions. Four republicans have asked their questions, three democrats. Most senators using up their full 30 minutes, although, notably, chuck grassley, using just 20 minutes of his time this morning. John cornyn, the republican from texas, using just 12 minutes of his allotted 30 minutes this morning. The Judiciary Committee, breaking for lunch right now. When we come back, we will hear from Sheldon Whitehouse next, the democrat from rhode island. Until then, updating you on the latest, keeping tabs on whats happening both inside the hearing room and the Hart Senate Office building and also outside the hearing room as well. A couple of tweaks this morning offering some different tweets this morning offering some different images. This tweet from trish turner of abc news, showing the desk where judge Amy Coney Barrett is sitting, noting there are no notes there at the desk. There is that pad provided by the committee, but last time she was asked to hold up that pad, she hadnt written anything on that pad. Also inside the hearing room, you may have noticed that senators thom tillis and mike lee are both in the Senate Judiciary committee, both having tested positive for covid earlier this month. Neither hasng that said that they have tested negative, but both said they have been cleared by their doctors to return. Yesterdaye lee speaking on the opening day of Amy Coney Barretts confirmation hearing. Today, senator thom tillis released a doctors note, noting that he had been cleared to return to the hearings in person. That doctors note is available on his website. Am happy toaying, i report that come since the senator has had such a mild case of covid19 and has such a strong immune system, you are free to return without any restriction as of october 13, as of today. A few more tweets about the hearing and the substance of the hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts. Judge merrick sites the ginsberg cites judge barrett the ginsberg rule on how Supreme Court nominees should answer questions at their confirmation hearings about issues in the law that might come before the court if confirmed. When it comes to the ginsberg rule, here is what Political Rights about it. The phrase republicans have seized on comes from the standard delay Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg laid out during her 1993 hearing on her nomination to the high court. This is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. It would be wrong for me to say or do preview in this legislative chamber how i would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were i to rehearse here what i would say and how i would reason on such questions, i would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete issues. A judge can offer no hints, no previews. That topic coming up quite a bit over the first a little over three hours of todays confirmation hearing. One exchange in which judge barrett declined to offer her opinion has gotten a lot of attention. Here is a Washington Post story about it. Judge barrett declined to answer when senator feinstein, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, asked her whether the constitution gives the president the authority to unilaterally delay an election, and bang idea that trump has floated. The president has an idea that trump has floated. The president has no explicit power to take such a step. Parent said she would have to consult with colleagues barrett said she would have to consult with colleagues and if she gave an offthecuff answer, pundit. Be a legal Seven Members of the Judiciary Committee have asked their questions, have taken most of their 30 minutes. Some tweets from other members of the committee, coming up later today, watching the hearings, reacting on twitter. Senator cory booker, the democrat from new jersey, just after 10 00 a. M. This morning, said, it doesnt matter that donald trump and Mitch Mcconnell two donald trump and mitch andnnell to donald trump Mitch Mcconnell that millions of families rely on the aca. This rushed nomination process is a shameful attempt to strike down the legislation. Senator blackburn saying, rather than discuss judge barretts qualifications, Senate Democrats are creating hysteria over health care to toy with americans emotions. You can follow on cspans twitter feed the reaction from members of congress, members of the senate. You can subscribe to that list. We are keeping tabs on whats happening inside the hearing, but also outside the hearing room. Here is one of the scenes from capitol hill. This tweet from Burgess Everett of politico. Its the bus that was launched by the concerned women for america. Variouss tour hitting states. A picture of the judge on the side of that pink bus that has been driving around capitol hill this morning. We are expecting the committee to come back at about 12 45 eastern this morning. We are hoping to hear from you during this lunch break. We are asking you what question you would ask judge Amy Coney Barrett if you were in the Judiciary Committee hearing. What questions would you want her to answer . Here is how we are splitting up our phone lines. Republicans, 2027488921. 7488920. , 202 you can start calling in now. We would love to hear your questions, what you would ask if you were in the hearing room. As you are calling in, we want to show you some of the exchanges this morning between various senators and judge barrett, including with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, asking about judicial activism before the court. Also asking about her comments about the Affordable Care act. Here are some of those exchanges. Sen. Graham lets talk about the process in general. Lets talk about the heller case. That the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms. Sen. Graham my friends on the left may try to challenge the construct of heller. If they passed a law in defiance of heller, what would happen . That challenge the construct of heller, if it was brought in a lower court, heller binds. Lower courts always have to follow the Supreme Court precedent. Sen. Graham and if the Supreme Court wanted to revisit heller, what would they do . If someone has challenged heller below, the Supreme Court would have to take that case once it was appealed all the way up. The court would have to decide we want to overrule heller and we have enough votes to grant cert and then do so. Sen. Graham thats the way the process works . Yes. Sen. Graham is not true no matter the issue is that true no matter the issue . Does that process hold true for everything . Judges cant just wake up one day and say, i have an agenda, i like guns, i hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the constitution, to wind their way through the process. Recusal. My colleagues are asking you to recuse yourself from litigation around the Affordable Care act. Whats the precedent regarding the Affordable Care act, if any . Barrett the precedent that . Sen. Graham is there a precedent on the issue . Judge barrett it turns on a doctrine called severability, which was not an issue in either of the two big Affordable Care act cases. Sen. Graham the issue before the court was judge barrett that was the first, about the constitutionality of the mandate. The taxi standes and can it be severable . Judge barrett now that congress has zeroed it out, can it be called the tax or is it a penalty . If it is a penalty, cannot be cut out from the statute so that the rest of the statute, including protection for preexisting conditions, stands . Sen. Graham a lot smarter people than me suggest severability would be a challenge, but time will tell. Do you feel like you should recuse yourself from that case, because you are being nominated by President Trump . Senator, recusal itself is a legal issue. There is a statute. That governs when judges and justices have to read use recuse. There is precedent under that rule. Justice ginsburg, in explaining the way recusal works, said its always up to the individual justice, but it involves consultation with the other eight justices, so thats not a question i could answer in the abstract. Are graham if you appointed by obama, there is no need to recuse yourself in the law by obama . That would be a consideration, correct . Judge barrett that would be a consideration. Sen. Graham when it comes to recusing yourself, you will do what the Supreme Court requires of every justice . Judge barrett i will. With senatorett graham. Here are more exchanges from this morning. This between judge barrett and dianne feinstein. Sen. Feinstein a question that the chairman touched on. Its of great importance, i think, because it goes to a womans fundamental right to make the most personal decisions about their own body. As a college student, in the 1950s, i saw what happened to young women who became pregnant at a time when abortion was not legal in this country. I went to stanford. I saw the trips to mexico. Try to hurtwomen themselves. It was deeply concerning. During her confirmation hearing before this committee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked several questions about her views on whether the constitution protects a womans right to abortion. She unequivocally confirmed her view that the constitution protects a womans right to abortion, and she explained it like this, and i quote, the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a womans life, to her wellbeing and dignity. Its a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less then a fully adult human responsible less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choice. At one point, our former colleague, orrin hatch, then Ranking Member of the committee, committed her for being very forthright in talking about that. I hope, and you have been thus be equally forthright with your answers. In planned parenthood of southeastern versus casey, Justice Scalia, as was said earlier, joined the dissent, which took the position, and i quote, we believe that roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled, consistent with our traditional riedoach to story sto this in constitutional cases. Do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe was wrongly decided . Judge barrett i do want to be forthright. On that question, im going to invoke justice kagans description, which i think is perfectly put. When she was at her confirmation hearing, she said she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. I think in an area where precedent continues to be litigated, as is true of casey, it would be particularly it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. If i express a view on a president , whether i say i love it or hate it, it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another in a pending case. On somethingtein that is really a major cause, with major effect on over half of the population of this country who are women, after all, its distressing not to get a straight answer. Let me try again. Do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe was wrongly decided . Senator, itt completely understand why you are asking the question, but, again, i cant precommit or say yes, im going in with some agenda, because im not. I have no agenda to try to overrule casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come. Person, itein as a dont know if youll answer this one either, do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court . Judge barrett i think my answer is the same, because thats the case that is litigated. It is its contours do come up. They came up last term before the court. I think what they standard is and thats a contentious issue, which is, i know, one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer, but i cant express views on cases or precommit to approaching a case any particular way. That makesein well, it difficult for me and i think for other women, also, on this committee, because this is a very important case and it affects a lot of pepole people, millions and millions of women. You could be a very important vote. I had hoped you would say, as a person you have a lovely family. You understand all the implications of family life. You should be very proud of that. Im proud of you for that. But my position is a little different. Biggestoing on the court of this land with a problem out there that all women see, one way or another, in their life. Not all. But certainly married women do and others, too. And so the question comes, what happens . And will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now . Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not . Judge barrett senator, i will obey all the rules. If a question comes up before me about whether casey or any other case should be overruled, i will follow the law and apply it as the court has articulated it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts and laws. I promised to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I will follow the law. Sen. Feinstein in 2013, as you probably know, you asked u. S. V. Windsor, the u. S. Struck doma down. Two years later in alberts fellow, the u. S. Supreme court ergefell, the u. S. Supreme court recognized the right to marry could not be denied to citizens. Justice ginsburg was in the majority. Justice scalia dissented in both cases. You said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that Justice Scalias philosophy is your philosophy. Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalias view, that the u. S. Constitution does not afford gay people judge barrett senator feinstein, as i said to senator graham at the outset if i were confirmed, you would be getting justice barrett, not Justice Scalia. I dont think anybody should assume just because Justice Scalia decided a certain way, that i would too. I will not agree or disagree just for the same reason i have been giving. Justice ginsburg used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previous, no forecasts. That has been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the ginsburg rule because she stated it concisely and it has been the practice of every nominee since. I am sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalias position, but i cannot do that on any point of law. Sen. Feinstein that is really too bad because it is rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people in this country. I understand you do not want to answer these questions directly, but you identify yourself with a justice that you, like him, would be a consistent vote to rollback hardfought freedoms and pr