Sen. Coons: 'there is no precedent in our history for the Senate confirming a presidential nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election'

WILMINGTON, Del. - On Monday, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined The Story with Martha MacCallum to discuss President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and the risks that her nomination may pose to the Affordable Care Act.

"We are just 36 days out from a presidential election, and we should not be having this rushed process. We should have the time to consider Judge Barrett's writings, her opinions, things that she said as a law professor so that we really can weigh her nomination," Senator Coons said. "More than a million votes have already been cast in the presidential election. That's why I think it would be more appropriate for the voters to choose the next president, the next president to choose Justice Ginsburg's successor."

On Judge Barrett's upcoming confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Coons said, "What's at issue is her judicial philosophy, her policies, and so I look forward to questioning her about that. President Trump, before he chose her, said that he would only pick someone for the Supreme Court who would overturn the Affordable Care Act."

Senator Coons continued, "It'd be a great surprise if she actually upheld the Affordable Care Act. Great because that would leave in place protections for the hundred million Americans who have pre-existing conditions, the 7 million more who've been infected in this out of control pandemic, and thus have a new pre-existing condition."

Full text and audio available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMCNM6E5ytc&feature=youtu.be. A transcript is provided below.

Q: Democrat Senator Chris Coons also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and joins me now. Senator, thank you for being here, good to have you here tonight.

Sen. Coons: It's always good to be on with you, Martha, we've got a lot to talk about tonight.

Q: We sure do, so what do you think about them saying they won't meet with her, and I understand that you do plan to meet with her?

Sen. Coons: Yeah, Martha, look, we are in the middle of a pandemic, so whether I will meet with her in person or talk with her by phone, I think that's part of the normal process of considering a nominee, but this is not normal timing. We are just 36 days out from a presidential election, and we should not be having this rushed process. We should have the time to consider Judge Barrett's writings, her opinions, things that she said as a law professor so that we really can weigh her nomination.

Q: She was just confirmed a couple of years ago by a decent margin, so it's not as if you're starting from scratch. We have seen these sorts of processes take place in the time frame that we do have, correct?

Sen. Coons: That's right, but there is no precedent in our history for the Senate confirming a presidential nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election where I will remind you more than half of the American states have already started voting. Twenty-seven states have folks, more than a million votes have already been cast in the presidential election. That's why I think it would be more appropriate for the voters to choose the next president, the next president to choose Justice Ginsburg's successor.

Q: Well, some of the polls definitely agree with you and some of the folks that we spoke here with in Ohio agree with you as well. I'm curious, you know, I would imagine that then Senator Hirono and Senator Blumenthal would probably not - they would also not ask questions at the hearing I would imagine, given that they don't seem to have any questions for her if they don't want to even do the initial meeting.

Sen. Coons: I'm sure they have questions. Martha, speaking for myself, I certainly intend to question her. I questioned her in her previous hearing, and I think Judge Barrett, who's got a strong record of teaching at an admirable university, a beautiful family, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is her judicial philosophy, her policies, and so I look forward to questioning her about that. President Trump, before he chose her, said that he would only pick someone for the Supreme Court who would overturn the Affordable Care Act. And, as you know, that's on the docket of the Court just a week after the election. So if she is newly confirmed, she will be joining the Supreme Court to hear that important landmark case and she has previously criticized the decision by which Chief Justice Roberts upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

Q: But as you know, the president said they didn't discuss how she would decide on any cases. And given her history and her writings, I would find it very unusual if they had discussed any specific cases or how she would decide on them since they are not before her yet. The other thing that I would just mention is that the case that you just referred to with regard to Justice Roberts was looking at the health care bill in a very different light. It was all in one piece at that point. Now the individual mandate has been dropped out and the case they are about to hear has to do with severability, whether or not the rest of the law still stands having had that part removed. And typically, a conservative jurist is likely to lean on the side of allowing the rest of the law to stand. Just given the history of how conservatives have tended to judge that sort of case. Of course, I can't say how she would at this point.

Sen. Coons: Well, it'd be a great surprise if she actually upheld the Affordable Care Act. Great because that would leave in place protections for the hundred million Americans who have pre-existing conditions, the 7 million more who've been infected in this out of control pandemic, and thus have a new pre-existing condition. And Martha, as you well know, Justice Ginsburg dedicated her life to fighting for gender equality and one of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against women for being women. It's hard to believe, but insurance companies have in the past charged women more just for being women and have treated pregnancy as a preexisting condition. That is something the ACA bans and that is why I think it's so important that and it's on the docket of the Supreme Court.

Q: I think most Americans would probably agree that that would be unjust. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. It was good to see you tonight. Thanks for your time as always.

Sen. Coons: Thank you, Martha.

Read this original document at: https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/video-sen-coons-on-judge-barrett-we-should-not-be-having-this-rushed-process