Justice antonin scalia, in prepared remarks. It was the content of Justice Scalias reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. If we can get this wonderfullyqualified, conservative woman on the court, well be making a statement to all young conservative women theres a place at the table for you. Your health care is on the lewin. A justice who on the line. A justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care act. Doesnt matter who judge barrett is, doesnt matter what shes done, doesnt matter her record, doesnt matter. Sandra here we go on to day two. Weve got todays hearing covered, bret baier, as mentioned, Chris Wallace, that maccallum, but we begin with chief Legal Correspondent shannon bream. Shannon, good morning. Here we go, day two. They want it in the books. 30 minutes of questioning from each of the senators today, thats about 31 hours, take us 11 hours, take us well into the evening. What are the cantations . Well expectations . Well, yesterday you saw a lot of large posters, pictures, personal remembrances and conversations about people who may be impacted by the issue of health care if judge barrett becomes Justice Barrett. Theres a lot there that these folks know is not painting the full picture. We had some discussion of this yesterday. She has not ruled on an Affordable Care act cause. We dont know how she would rule on this case before the court november 10th, but we to know its a very, very specific, narrow issue, and a lot of folks believe regardless how shld vote, there wont be enough other votes to sway or get rid of the Affordable Care act in its entire few. Almost nobody thinks thats actually going to happen. We dont see those mosters, they posters, they may arrive when the senators do. I think it was almost 70 times health care was mentioned yesterday in the Opening Statements even though it really is not part of the background or the examination of what weve seen in judge barretts record so far. We heard talk of coronavirus, all kinds of things that probably are not directly relatable to this particular nominee. Theyre going to push her on past writings, past records, past speeches. There was some controversy over a prolife ad that appeared in a newspaper that she signed her name to and why that wasnt disclosed earlier. Her team putting together a submission of additional materials to the Senate Judiciary committee here, flushing it out. So shes going to get asked about groups shes associated with, speeches that shes given, all kinds of things. Shes only billion on the federal bench for a short time, so so theres not that depth for these senators. But knowing that they unless something drastically unexpected happens, democrats do not have the votes or any procedural mechanism to stop this nominee. Itll continue to move along, and ive got to tell you as i mentioned yesterday because theres no public component to this, there are no outside spectators, it moved along much more quickly and smoothly yesterday than it did during the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh. So this pace might be a little bit more quick today than what weve seen in past confirmation hearings, but shell arrive shortly and will get down to business which is that head to head questioning. Sandra all right, were going to bring in the team now bill excellent point now. The only presence outside the lawmakers and and staff. Chris wallace, anchor of fox news sunday. Here we go, guys, i guess, bret, one of the things im looking forward to is trying to hear how republicans who are up for reelection in three weeks, in fact, from today, what kind of a line of questioning they go here. Senator feinstein on the list will go second. You remember three years ago when she talked about judge barretts faith and mentioned that nowinfamous quote, the dogma live ares loudly within you. I dont know if she will go there, my expectation is that she she will hold her fire on that comment from three years ago. I will give good odds, bill, that she will not use the word dogma, nor will any other senator on the democratic side. I dont think the faith issue is going to come up prominently at all because we are so close to this election, 21 days. Three weeks from today is this election. And remember, eight senators up for reelection on this committee, one Vice President ial nominee. But more importantly, as you think about the health care issue, as shannon mentioned, its not really a huge issue with this justicetobe. It is somewhat possible, i mean, its possible that the law could be voted down, but its not likely at all, and nobody in the field really believes it. But it is of enough to hang democrats hat on that peg and say this is an issue because its one of the top issues for voters around the country. And democrats see an opportunity here in this hearing to play this out not only for this justice where they dont have the votes, justicetobe likely, but also for voters in 201 days. Bill most of these senators appearing in person, Kamala Harris opting to go virtual. Well expect the same setup, but well anticipate that. Sandra and, that martha, when u looked at the focus line of attacks from the democrats, weve been digging through the transcripts of the hours of day ones hearings. Obamacare was used 140 times, aca said 56, obamacare, 17. What does that tell you about what we may hear from democrats as they begin their questioning in that hearing room this morning . I think when this whole process began, sandra, democrats felt like they had a lot of arrows in their quiver. They went after the people of praise part of her background which is a Christian Group that she has been part of, shes on the board of the schools of those, and it peoples like feels like they have decided the strongest arrow e is to sort of rock peoples belief that the aca, or obamacare, could be overturned by this court. Now, i mean, its not to say that it cant be, it could be, but we as we discussed yesterday, its such a flower row angle narrow angle, such a narrow sliver of the law thats under discussion right now that to sort of paint it with such a broad brush and to put up all of these posters and discuss all of these peoples different situations, you know, its clearly an emotional appeal to make people nervous as they go toward election day about whether or not this would be able to hold up under a new Supreme Court. And one of the things that im going to be watching for that i think may come up is that she has not served on the bench for that long. She was nominated and confirmed in 2017 to the seventh circuit, and she does not have a long experience. She has a much thinner record than many of the justices who sit on the bench now. And i think that that is sort of an appropriate question to raise about her experience and whether or not shes ready for this job. I think we heard a lot of reasons yesterday why many people feel that she is, and i think youre going to hear that from remoneys as well. Abortion republicans. Abortion will be another issue that im going to be listening for closely in whatever veiled way it comes up and how she responds, also very important. Sandra Lindsey Graham, the chairman, taking a seat. Dianne feinstein, the Ranking Member, just entered the room. We both noted that Lindsey Graham dropped the gavel before, and there she is, the nominee herself, walking into the room. He dropped the gavel, and schoen she walked in and took her seat. Bill noted that. Judge barrett is 48 now, highly acclaimed as a judge, seventh circuit out of chicago. Got about a minute before the gavel drops again today. Want to get to Chris Wallace what do you have your eye on . Well, its interesting. I think the push on the Affordable Care act is less about trying to derail this nomination, because i think democrats basically realize theyre going to be unable to do so. Its trying to make republicans pay at the ballot box. Remember, the Affordable Care act, protecting people with preexisting conditions, was the best issue for democrats in the 2018 midterm election. We should also point out it isnt crazy to bring it up, a texas judge struck down the entire law and, in fact, the Trump Administration, the Justice Department is saying they want the entire law to be struck down. But i think this is more about politics and the 2020 election than it is about the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Although itll be interesting to hear how she responds, because you can figure some of these democrats are going to say what about mica, and shes going to lose this, what are you going to do. On the one hand, youre not going to get Amy Coney Barrett say im going to rule one way or another on the law, but she will have to express human compassion for these cases. The goal is to get through the first 30minute period today and come back wednesday and finish up. Then well go on about our business. So i will try to ill make sure i stay within 30 minutes for sure. If i can shorten it up, i will. Lets get to it. You can start the clock. So you can relax a bit here, judge and take your mask off. So yesterday we had a lot of discussion about the affordable healthcare act. What i will try to do very briefly this morning is to demonstrate the difference between politics and judging. All of my colleagues on the other side had very emotional pleas about obamacare, charts of people with preexisting conditions. I want to give you my side of the story about obamacare. This is Lindsey Graham the senator from South Carolina talking. This is not a question directed at you. From my point of view, obamacare has been a disaster for the state of South Carolina. All of you want to impose obamacare on South Carolina. We dont want it. We want something better. We want something different. You know what we want in South Carolina . South carolina care, not obamacare. Why do we want that . Under the Affordable Care act, three states get 35 of the money, folks. Can you name them . Ill help you. California, new york, and massachusetts. They are 22 of the population. Senator feinstein is from california, nancy pelosi is from california, Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Senate is from new york. And massachusetts is elizabeth warren. Why do they get 35 of the money when theyre only 22 of the population . Thats the way they designed the law. The more you spend, the more you get. What does it mean for the people of South Carolina . If you had a perpatient formula where you got the same amount from the federal government to the state whether you lived in charleston, columbia, or San Francisco or new york city, if you leveled that out it would be almost a billion dollars more for us in South Carolina. So to my friends over there, we are going to fight back. We want our money. If you are going to have money allocated for obamacare we arent going to sit back and quietly let you give 35 of it to three states. What else has happened in South Carolina . Four rural hospitals have closed because the Revenue Streams are uncertain. 30 increase in premiums in South Carolina for those on obamacare. I was on obamacare for a few years before i got on tricare. My premiums went up 300 . Coverage was almost nonexistent. A 6,000 deductible. I want a better deal. And thats a political fight. Campaign at home. If it were up to me we would block grant this money, send it back to the states in a more fair allocation and require preexisting conditions to be covered as part of the block grant. I have an idea. I think South Carolina may be able to deal with diabetes better than and different than california. If you want good outcomes in medicine you need innovation. The best way to get innovation is to allow people to try Different Things to get better outcomes. So the debate on healthcare is consolidating all the power in washington, have some bureaucrat youll never meet running this program versus having it centered in the state where you live. Under my proposal, South Carolina would get almost a billion dollars more. The state of South Carolina would be in charge of administering obamacare. They couldnt build football stadiums with the money but have to cover preexisting conditions and spend it on healthcare. As a patient in South Carolina you would have a voice you dont have today. If you didnt like what was happening to you on the healthcare front you could go to local officials and complain. And the people you are complaining to live in your state. They send their family to the same hospitals you go. Thats a structural difference. Thats got nothing to do with this hearing. It has everything to do with politics. We on this side do not believe obamacare is the best way to provide quality healthcare over time. Our friends on the other side this is a place holder for single payer healthcare. If you dont believe me, just ask them. To thats the fight going into 2020. Doesnt make them bad, it just makes them different. If it were up to me bureaucrats wouldnt be administering healthcare from Washington People in South Carolina would be running healthcare. If it would up to me we would get more money under obamacare than we do today. 35 would not go to three states and sick people would be covered. Thats a political debate were involved in a campaign in South Carolina and my fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina. So thats what obamacare is all about. Now how do you play in here, judge . There is a lawsuit involving the Affordable Care act before the Supreme Court and well talk about in a bit. The difference between analyzing a lawsuit and having a political argument is fundamentally different and i hope to be able to demonstrate that over the course of the day. I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle will not feel shy about telling my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why we think we have a better idea on healthcare. Now, the bottom line here, judge, you said yesterday something that struck me and i want the American People to understand what you meant. You said you are an originalist, is that true . What does that mean in english . It means that press the button. We all love senator lee but in english. In english. In english that means that i interpret the constitution as a law, that i interpret its text as text and i under the meaning doesnt change over time and it is not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it. In other words, you are bound by the people who wrote it at the time they wrote it and keeps you from substituting your judgment for theirs, correct . Yes. People say you are a female scalia, what would you say . I would say that Justice Scalia was a mentor. As i said when i accepted the president s nomination that his philosophy is mine, too. He was a very eloquent defender of originalism and it was also true of textualism, which is the way that i approach statutes and their interpretation and similarly to what i just said about originalism. Textualism the judge approaches is texas it was meaning for the meaning it had at the time and doesnt insert their own meaning into it. If im confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett. Thats so because originalists dont always agree and neither do textualist. Others disagreed and my partner teaches a class scalia versus thomas. Not a mechanical exercise. Ill wait until the movie comes out. The bottom line there is a narrative building this in country. Justice ginsburg was progressive in personal thought, devout to her faith, she worked for the aclu. She was proudly prochoice personally but all of us on this side apparently when they voted accepted that she was highly qualified. What i want the American People to know i think its okay to be religiously conservative. I think its okay to be personally prochoice. I think its okay to live your life in a traditional catholic fashion. And you still be qualified for the Supreme Court. So all the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for you. I hope when this is all over that you there will be a place for you at the table. There will be a spot for you at the Supreme Court like there was for judge ginsburg. To President Trump, i dont know if youre listening or not, but picking judge barrett you have publicly said you find value in all of these characteristics but beyond anything else, you find judge barrett to be highly qualified. I would say you are one of the greatest picks President Trump could have made and from the conservative side of the aisle you are one of the most qualified peopl