Groups that dont disclose their donors and take up to 250 million into the scheme, according to the washington post. Weird enough that people feel the need to run tv ads for judicial nominees, but when theyre taking a check for 17 million, two checks for 17 million if an anonymous donors or maybe two anonymous donors, yeah, if you think thats weird its because it is. That shoofnts happen that shouldnt happen anywhere around a court. And if theres one thing that we are entitled to there have been a lot of highminded speeches about the judiciary and its independence and all of that. The most important standard that a court must meet is that it is not a pantomime court. A pantomime court in which the rituals of adjudication get acted out. People come to the bench wearing their robes, hear the arguments, render decisions, read the briefs, buff at the end of the but at the end of the day, the decision is cooked by big special interest influence that insinuated its way into the court by controlling the selection of judges, by funding the p. R. Campaigns for those judges, and by being the orchestrating force behind the amici curiae. You might think im being a little aggressive suggesting that theyre orchestrated. Well, remember this group, the Bradley Foundation that i showed you from my Supreme Court checklist that funded eight out of the 11 groups in that case . Heres a memo of a grant theyre giving to something called the judicial education project which is a Sister Organization to that same judicial crisis network. This is a little birth of a pee in a shell game so forgive me. Pea in a shell game so forgive me. But they are directly related groups. And the staff recommendation says that at this highest of legal levels, its a request for funding for amici curiae in a Supreme Court in several cases. It is very important to orchestrate highcaliber amicus efforts, orchestrate. For petes sake, the secret funders use the word orchestrate themselves. So something is up. Something is not right. Something is rotten in denmark. And if the American People are good enough to entrust us with the ability to answer their questions about this mess, we will answer their questions about this mess. I will tell you i cannot get my questions answered, not without gavels, not in this senate, not in these committees. But i think it matters if an individual wrote 35 million 35 million worth of checks to influence the makeup of our United StatesSupreme Court to know whether they had business before the court, to know who they were, to be able to even do the capertin analysis of whether some partys Due Process Rights have been infringed by influence. So in some respects this is the end of things. This is the third of three nominees that have all had the same characteristics. Theyve been selected through this scheme. Theyve been campaigned for through this scheme. Theyve generated bizarre procedural behavior in this senate all three, three for three. Its like the triple trifecta. Three judges, three characteristics. Selected, campaigned for, bizarre procedural anomalies. And when you see that kind of behavior, thats a lot of branches moving the same way. That doesnt if that doesnt mean the wind is blowing, then give me a better explanation. But i think theres a foul wind blowing and we need to find out whos behind it and we need to find out what it means for our treasured Supreme Court. Ill close by saying that the results are already coming in. Even before judge barrett gets to the court. The results are already coming in from this effort. I did an article some time ago that we had pretty thoroughly fact checked, read to you, reviewed that at the time said there were 72 decisions by the United StatesSupreme Court under chief Justice Roberts that had the following characteristics. One, they were 54 decisions. The narrowest, barest majority. Ordinarily a Supreme Court likes to see bigger majorities than that because its conducive to the integrity and strength and credibility of the court. 72 54 decisions. They had an additional characteristic, not just 54. A partisan 54. No democratic appointee joined the five. So again if youre an institutionalist, you look at that and you think maybe thats not the court putting its best foot forward. Thats an awful lot of partisan 54 decisions. And then the third characteristic is that you can identify quite readily in those cases a big republican donors interest, something that they would want by way of an outcome. And what we calculated at the time in that article is that the score in those 72 54 partisan decisions with a Big Republican Party donor interest indicated is that the score was 720. Some pitching balls and calling balls and strikes. 720. Thats a route. And weve been tracking it since then. I put the number now at 800 because the article was written some time ago. Now were at 80 partisan 54 cases in which a big republican donor interest was implicated and in which 800 the big interests won. Now some of these are pretty fragrant flagrant. I think Citizens United is going to go down in history as a disgraceful decision of the United StatesSupreme Court, sort of the political equivalent of lachner. Shelby county in which the court made up facts in order to strip a section out of the Voting Rights act that in turn unleashed Voter Suppression laws across the states that had been held back by the preclearance provisions that the court summarily decided 54 that it didnt like any longer. Janus, a case that took down a 40yearold precedent involving labor law in which legal groups had an astonishing role. That case actually went through four cases along the way. Its a long saga. I wont burden this speech with that now. But at the end of the day is that the lawyers for the Labor Movement walking up to the Supreme Court for argument that day knew perfectly well how the court was going to rule. Thats not how courts should operate. Heller, the gun case, 54. A former Supreme Court justice had described the theory that heller adopted as a fraud on the public. But heller turned a fraud on the public into the law of the land. And guess what . The n. R. A. Is very active as a donor in these fights. The n. R. A. Was all over the kavanaugh nomination in particular. So you had these fragrant decisions. Flagrant decisions. I just mentioned those four. But there were 80. That leaves 76 others. And theyre usually often i should say about power. Theyre often about moving power into corporations, expanding corporate power. Allowing Unlimited Money into elections, allowing dark anonymous Unlimited Money to operate in elections. Who benefits from that . Entities with Unlimited Money and a motive to spend it like, say, the fossil fuel industry. Intervening in elections, allowing bulk gerrymandering to proceed. Multiple courts have figured out how to stop that nefarious practice. Its actually not complicated when youre dealing with bulk gerrymandering how to stop it. And over and over again these bulk gerrymandering efforts that take an entire delegation and try to cook it so that it doesnt represent the popular vote in that state, over and over again courts have seen through that, figured out how to respond to it until it got to the Supreme Court and then 54, sorry, folks, were not going to take an interest in that. Keep at it. Voter suppression. Well tear down the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights act. All of these election all this election mischief that leans heavily to supporting the republican side has been supported. Deregulation. If youre a big polluter, if youre a big donor, you probably dont like regulatory agencies. You probably would like to have some more freedom from regulatory agencies and over and over again these decisions try to hurt the independence and strength of regulatory agencies. Over and over. And then the last is the civil jury. My god, the civil jury is in the constitution for petes sake. We fought so hard over the civil jury that people didnt want to adopt the constitution until there was a seventh amendment that protected it in the bill of rights. Protect the civil jury was in the declaration of independence. Interference with the civil jury by the crown was a cause of war in the revolutionary era. The civil jury is an institution of governance in this country. It is a big deal and yet these supposed originalists on the court keep tearing down, whittling away at, diminishing and degrading the civil jury. Because guess what . If you are a big, powerful, wellfunded, lobbyistgreased corps or Interest Group corps or Interest Group, corporation or Interest Group, can you march around this place like a king. Throwing your money around, getting everybody to bow and scrape for you, lobbyists smoothing the path for you. You can wander into the executive branch if youve got the right control and get your stooges appointed to the regulatory agencies. You can be powerful. You can get your way. And then you have to suffer the indignity of showing up in a courtroom where you have to be treated equally before the law, where what you say has to be put to the test of perjury, where youve got to turn over your real documents and not phonied up position papers. Where if you tamper with the jury, its a crime. No wonder big special interests dont like civil juries. And no wonder this court 54 over and over again chops away at the institution of a civil jury. But dont tell me that you are being an institutionalist or an originalist when youre attacking an institution in the constitution, in the seventh amendment, the bill of rights. Thats the work that these 854 partisan decisions have been doing. That is to turn this court more and more into the servant of big corporations. And guess what . Americans are paying attention. There was a poll a little while ago that asked whether the Supreme Court favors corporations more than people or people more than corporations. And the polls showed 497. Seven times as Many Americans think that the Supreme Court views corporations more favorably than people. Than, say, the court views people more favorably than corporations. So somethings out, somethings up. A foul wind is blowing. There is way too much anonymous money in and around this court process. It is, by the way, at the same time the only court that does not have a code of ethics in the federal system. When judge barrett is elevated from her Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, she will go from a court that has a judicial code of conduct to a court that does not. She will go from a court that requires transparent disclosure of gifts, travel, and hospitality to a court that requires less disclosure not only in the Circuit Courts, it requires less disclosure than cabinet officials, requires less disclosure than members of congress. The highest court has the lowest standards for ethics and transparency. So to all of my colleagues who have given speeches about the integrity and value of the Supreme Court and our judicial branch, if you will help us as we try to look at what on earth is exactly going on over there. Why ameek i curiae amici curiae show up in Court Without disclosing who they are really there for. Why 17 millionplus checks are being written by anonymous individuals. What the relationship is between the 250 million that poured into leonard lee owes effort is and who got chosen. What the expectations were of the people who spent 250 million to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court. And why the highest court has the lowest standards for ethics and for transparency. We are not in a good place right now with this court. The things that are happening are truly bizarre, unprecedented, bad enough that there should be dark money in elections. Dark money in judicial selection . Please defend that if you think thats right. Please defend that if you think thats right. If you think that big special interests should be able to write big, anonymous checks and thereby gain a voice in the composition of the United StatesSupreme Court, please come and defend that proposition. Because i dont think you can. It has never been the case in the Supreme Court before. It has never been the case in the Circuit Courts of appeal before. It has never been the case in state Supreme Court, in my experience. The dark money influence in and around the court is unprecedented and it is wrong, and the American People are entitled to the truth about it. I have gone into my next speakers time a bit, so i will yield the floor. If i may check a minute and see if the floor needs to be put into a quorum call . Youre okay with that . Great. Then i will note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from wisconsin. Were in a quorum call. Ms. Baldwin i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Ms. Baldwin last tuesday, in my home state of wisconsin, inperson early voting started. Over the past week, people have shown up to vote in record numbers. As they have across our entire country because they want to be make sure their voices are heard. Why . Because they know how high the stakes are for them in this election, an election that will determine our next president and control of the United States senate. An recognizes that is just one week away. My position on President Trumps Supreme Court nomination has been very clear since the tragic passing of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Voters across america should be allowed to cast their ballots first and have their votes counted before this senate votes on a lifetime appointment to our nations highest court. The people should be heard first, but its clear that the majority leader and a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no interest in listening to the people. Thats why they are rushing and ramming President Trumps Supreme Court nomination forward just days before the election. This rigged and illegitimate process is wrong, and it follows a pattern of the majority leader and Senate Republicans abusing their power to break their own standards on Supreme Court nominations. Back in 2016, eight months before the election, president obama nominated Merrick Garland to a seat on the United StatesSupreme Court. After the passing of justice antonin scalia. Judge garland is a highly experienced and qualified judge, and i have no doubt that had he been given the opportunity, he would have earned more than 60 votes in the United States senate. But he was never given that opportunity because the majority leader decided to deny judge garland a hearing and a vote in the senate. With the standards broken on the garland nomination, the majority leader established a new one. No Supreme Court nominations by the senate during an election year. Here we are in an election year. However, majority leader mcconnell has broken his own rule and created yet another new one. Instead of applying the same standard that he imposed on president obama with the garland nomination in march of 2016, eight months before an election, he created a new standard now for President Trump with his nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett made 39 days before an election. The majority leader is rushing President Trumps nominee forward with a senate vote as people are voting as we stamped one week, one week before election day. As we stand one week, one week before election day. So whats the rush . My home state is a national red zone for covid19. We are experiencing our worst outbreak of infections since the pandemic began, breaking records for new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Right now, people want action, support, and relief from washington. The house passed the heroes act over five months ago. Was there a rush for the Senate Majority to take action to confront the Public Health and economic crisis that has only gotten worse since then . No. This legislation has been sitting on the majority leaders desk since may while businesses have closed, millions have lost their jobs, and hundreds of thousands of americans have died. At the beginning of this month, the house once again passed an updated version of the heroes act to provide local communities and Frontline Health care workers with the support they need to stop the spread of this deadly virus. T