Image
Watch the full interview here. 

Today, Senator Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined Chris Wallace to discuss the upcoming hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, and condemn the Democrat’s threat the blow up the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. 

"And it isn’t just one branch of government. What they’re really talking about… is the suicide bombing of two branches of government. What they’re talking about is blowing up the deliberative structure of the United States Senate by abolishing the filibuster and making it possible to turn the Senate into just another House of Representatives where every two years, by a 51-49 or 49-51 majority, major portions of American life change. And they’re going about doing that to pack the Supreme Court." 
 
"The reason I think that Amy Barrett is a rock star and should be on the court is because she is very clear about her jurisprudence. She’s an originalist and she is a textualist, which means when she puts on her black robe in the morning, she knows what it is to be a judge, and that is to cloak your personal preferences. Our judges don’t wear red or blue jerseys, they don’t advocate for policy positions and we shouldn’t be having either Democrats or Republicans on the committee trying to figure out how can they divine the future of how they’ll rule on particular cases."

Rushed transcript is available below: 

WALLACE: Joining me now, another member of the committee, Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Senator, let’s start where I left off with Senator Coons. What do you make of Joe Biden’s 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 to that non-answer for the next three weeks?

SASSE: Well, Chris, first of all, thanks for coming to Nebraska, glad to have you.

It’s grotesque that Vice President Biden won’t answer that really basic question. And it isn’t just one branch of government, what they’re really talking about or refusing to talk about, is the suicide bombing of two branches of government.

What they’re talking about is blowing up the deliberative structure of the United States Senate by abolishing the filibuster and making it possible to turn the Senate into just another House of Representatives where every two years by a 51-49 or 49-51 majority major portions of American life change. And they’re going about doing that to pack the Supreme Court.

This language - I apologize to you Chris, you live -- we live right next to a Union Pacific mainline and you’re about to hear America working as a big train is about to come by. So, I wanted to say -

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: That’s right. We’re going to --

SASSE: -- I’ll speak up just a little bit -- 

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Right, well let me get to the next question -- -- and I’ll -- guys, cut Senator Sasse’s mic while I ask the question and then we can hear him when he answers.

I want to discuss some of the key issues that a Justice Barrett would confront on the court.

Back in 2006, she signed a newspaper ad that called for overturning the, quote -- the words that she signed, “barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade. Then as a judge, she voted to rehear cases where other judges in the Seventh Circuit struck down restrictions on abortion.

Senator, aren’t you counting on a Justice Barrett to either end or restrict a woman’s right to abortion?

SASSE: The reason I think that Amy Barrett is a rock star and should be on the court is because she is very clear about her jurisprudence. She’s an originalist and she is a textualist, which means when she puts on her black robe in the morning, she knows what it is to be a judge, and that is to cloak your personal preferences.

Our judges don’t wear red or blue jerseys, they don’t advocate for policy positions and we shouldn’t be having either Democrats or Republicans on the committee trying to figure out how can they divine the future of how they’ll rule on particular cases. This is the so-called Ginsburg rule historically by the way-- --

WALLACE: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Senator -- Senator, you’re -- Senator, with respect, you’re being a little disingenuous here. You’re very staunchly pro-life. That’s a perfectly legitimate position to take, but aren’t you in fact counting on Justice Barrett to either end or restrict Roe v. Wade? And wouldn’t you be terribly disappointed if she failed to do that?

SASSE: There are two different jobs, Chris. You’re right, I’m pro-life and I stood for election before the voters of Nebraska and I get to do that again in 23 days and I asked them for their vote and I tell them my policy positions.

If Amy Barrett were running for the United States Senate from the state of Illinois, she would have policy positions that she’d layout to the American people. That isn’t what a judge’s job is.

The politicization of the court and some of -- Chris, I like Chris Coons, by the way, but some of his weirdly Orwellian language in that last segment claiming that court packing is filling open vacancies, that obviously isn’t what court packing means, we have seen a politicization of the courts since Robert Bork in 1987, where the left wants to turn it into a super legislature to advance things that they can’t get done through the electorate.

That is not what textualists want. I didn’t say --

WALLACE: And--

SASSE: -- that isn’t what conservatives want. That is not what people who know what a judge’s job is should want.


WALLACE: All right. Then there is also Obamacare, which is particularly timely because the court will hear a lawsuit that is seeking to strike down the Affordable Care Act the week after the election. I want to put up Barrett’s history here.

In 2017, this is what Coons was referring to, Barrett wrote this, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute” back in a 2012 case.

I mean, look, all we can judge a judge by -- a justice by is what they’ve said in the past. There’s a reason that President Trump chose her. There’s a reason that you’re going to be voting for her. Aren’t you in fact counting on Justice Barrett to overturn the Obamacare Act?

SASSE: So first of all, the 2012 case, the Roberts’ opinion there, which I disagree with, is a different case than the case that’s before the court now. And every time people have said they can predict how judges are going to rule in the future, they’re almost always disappointed and wrong.

And so obviously President Trump says a whole bunch of things and so he may say something that’s more outcomes-based, but for those of us who sit on the committee or those of us who are making the judgment about how we’ll vote in the United States Senate on Amy Barrett’s nomination and her ultimate confirmation, is because of how she spells out what the job of a judge is. And that is not outcome-based.

She is a rock star jurist, there’s nobody in the Notre Dame faculty, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, who’ve dissented from the fact that this woman is not just a great thinker, but she has the character to understand who a judge is, what their job is, and how you’re humble in that calling. And that’s why she was unanimously recommended by the Notre Dame faculty --

WALLACE: Right.

SASSE: -- including people whose politics are way to the left of mine.
 
WALLACE: Senator Sasse, thank you. Thanks for your time. Please come back and next time, hopefully, there won’t be a freight train going through during the interview. Thank you, sir.


END