Amy Coney Barrett begins Supreme Court confirmation hearing

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., hit on the shame he said Republicans should feel as Barrett’s nomination ceremony took place just one week after the passing of Justice Ginsburg. 

“We should not have had a nomination ceremony before Justice Ginsburg was even buried, while the nation was mourning her passing,” Leahy said. “We should not be here, holding that hearing just 16 days later when the committee has afforded itself three times as long to vet other nominees to the nation's highest court.”

Leahy also noted the number of Republicans he said have gone “back on their word” as they push the nomination through when millions of Americans have already voted just three weeks from a presidential election. 

“Doing so requires literally half of the Senate, goes back on their word. Think of that for the Republican colleagues. Clearly half of the Senate had to break their word, contradicting every argument they've made for years, about the American people needing a voice during election year vacancies,” he continued. 

Leahy, as did Feinstein, said in addition to the rushed nature of the nomination, his constituents are “scared” about the fate of the Affordable Care Act should Barrett be confirmed to the court. 

“That is what weighs heavily on me as we begin these hearings and also weighs heavily on the minds of those I represent, and I have heard from them, as Justice Ginsburg's passing, they are scared, Judge Barrett,” Leahy said.

“They are scared that you will rip away the health care protections that millions of Americans ought to maintain and which Congress has repeatedly worked on eliminating. They're scared that the clock will be turned back to where women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace. They're scared that there is a time when we are facing the perilous impacts of climate change... And they're scared that your confirmation will result in the rolling back of voting rights, workers' rights, and the rights of the LGBTQ community to equal treatment," Leahy said.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, in his opening statement, quoted from Justice Ginsburg’s eulogy for Justice Scalia in a likely short-lived attempt to appeal to bipartisanship ahead of what will be a contentious week. 

“The Senate is now tasked with carrying out perhaps its most solemn duty under the Constitution, as we go through this process, we should heed Justice Ginsburg's words with a shared reverence for the Court, and its part of our constitutional system,” he said.

Gearing up for Democratic attacks, Grassley then said he expects his colleagues will do “anything to derail the confirmation of a Republican nominee" and cautioned them not to allow this hearing to unfold as Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s did.

Expecting her Catholic faith to come up in the hearing, Grassley also reminded everyone of Barrett's rights.

“Let me remind everyone that Article One clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office,” Grassley continued. “I expect that you will follow the example of Justice Ginsburg, a nominee should offer no forecast, no hints of how he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge,” he said, in an apparent reference to the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” con concerning what nominees can say at confirmation hearings.

Setting the tone for Democrats, Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave a nod to the legacy of the late Justice Ginsburg -- calling her a "standard-bearer for justice” -- before offering a preview of what her Democrats will focus on: Judge Barrett’s views on the Affordable Care Act and what she called the “consequences” of a rushed nomination.

“In filling Judge Ginsburg's seat, the stakes are extraordinarily high for the American people both in the short term and for decades to come. Most importantly, health care coverage, for millions of Americans, is at stake with this nomination,” Feinstein said. “So, over the course of these hearings, my colleagues and I will focus on that subject.”

“We will examine the consequences if, and that's a big " if," Republicans succeed in rushing this nomination through the Senate, before the next president takes office,” she continued, despite Republicans saying they're confident they can get a final vote before Election Day.

The Court is slated to hear oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump administration is seeking to overturn, one week after the election on Nov. 10., raising concern among Democrats on its fate amid a pandemic.

“We can't afford to go back to those days, when Americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts. That's what's at stake for many of us, for America, with this nomination,” she said. 

Feinstein also quoted Graham from when he previously said that a Supreme Court nominee shouldn't be confirmed when voting is underway. 

Graham began his opening statement by reminding his colleagues of the bipartisan Senate support for both the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia nominations.

“I don't know what happened between then and now. I guess we can all take some blame,” Graham said. “But I just want to remind everybody, there was a time, in this country, where someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen by almost everybody as qualified for the position of being on the Supreme Court.”

After he ticked through a list of Judge Barrett’s qualifications, he addressed the matter of the confirmation vote arising in an election year -- a point of contention with Democrats as Republicans prevented a hearing and vote on former President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016.

“We're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. What will happen is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they're right in this regard, I don't think anybody has been confirmed in an election year past July,” Graham said, before getting to what he called his "bottom line."

“The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally,” he said. “As to Judge Garland, the opening that occurred with the passing of Justice Scalia, was in the early part of an election year. The primary process had just started.”

Graham also said the hearing will likely not change Barrett's path to the court, noting that Republicans have the votes. 

“This is probably not about persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no. And that will be the way the breakout of the vote, but the hearing is a chance for Democrats to dig deep into her philosophy, appropriately ask her about the law, somehow she would be different, what's on her mind,” he said.