Opening Statement in the Confirmation Hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett | October 13, 2020 | Hour One

Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
That is right. You are listening to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff. I'm trying to get video feed. There we go. Good morning, if you're watching on video. Okay, so yesterday we had day number one of the supreme court hearings for excuse me, while the nomination hearings for Amy Coney Barrett. And again, mostly what I saw predictable sort of things. We have folks who are effectively using their time for political grandstanding, folks that are using their time to talk about a lot of things that are not really relevant to the process. We have Camila Harris out there. We have chuck grassley reminding us as to what we're really looking at here. But what's really what's really at stake here. What is really and truthfully at stake here in the Supreme Court. In this nomination process, you heard Amy Coney Barrett, explain a little bit about her judicial philosophy. You heard her talk about the rule of law. You heard her talk about the role of the Supreme Court Justice, the seat that she would be filling on the courts. And we've talked about these things. As we've led up to this, but I just want to remind you as to what is really at stake what this is really and truthfully, about the radical left uses the Supreme Court. They use the supreme court for political purposes. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a body that creates law. In fact, we're watching, we're watching some of the things go through the court system. Now. Some things pertaining to the election, Wisconsin, there was just a victory in Wisconsin, because a judge arbitrarily extended, extended the deadline for which ballots can be counted. ballots, he said could be counted up until I believe a week after the election forget that the legislature is responsible for setting those rules forget the legislature clearly identifies and defines what the voting process should look like up and including when when balance can be counted. Which ballots qualify. I mean, folks, there have to be rules for elections. Again, I said before we are a half step away. We're a half step away for up from the radical left and wanting to count votes, just by having people drive by the local courthouse and yell out their window as they drive my vote for Biden, boom, Tally that baby up, add that to the list. They want no rules. They want to be able to interpret it to to enforce whatever they want to see for whatever political purposes they serve without being questioned without being held accountable to the American people. Now, another court has since stepped in to say that's not going to be the case in Wisconsin, but we still have other states that are doing this. Michigan, in North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. There's others I believe as well. Those are all the swing states. Michigan, by the way, folks, a judge had ruled there that ballots should count up to 14 days after being received. After after election, they I should say At 14 days, two weeks after election day balance should still be able to come in and, and be counted. I mean, it's it's remarkable to think it's remarkable to think what sort of opportunity that creates for existing voter fraud. I mean, there have been examples, examples of all sorts of issues with mail by voting. I'm not talking about absentee voting, that's largely, that's largely safe. I'm talking about mass, vote by mail stuff, everyone gets a ballot ballot to go into the wrong places. Wrong addresses placed on balance, dead people getting ballots, all sorts of stuff like this, the state of New York, is now sending out a second round of ballots. Because the first round of ballots, they said something was wrong with those ballots. So they tell people don't fill out the first set fill out the second set? Well, you don't think anyone's going to fill out the second set about what's going to happen to those ballots that are they still gonna, still gonna get counted? I mean, my point in bringing this up, is that the judge the judicial system in our nation is supposed to interpret the law to apply it. If they don't like the rules, or if they foresee a problem with the rules. It's not their job to fix it is simply to say, look, the law says this. There could be a problem here. legislature, you might want to take a chance, take an opportunity here to fix this. This is kind of a kind of a case in point as to what a judge Amy Coney Barrett, justice, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett would look like on the court as we compare and contrast her against that sort of judicial philosophy. She says it's the job of the justice, which is I think, newsflash to the radical left. And newsflash, the job of the justices on the Supreme Court is not to simply intervene and to create, implement your own personal policy, that is not the job of the Supreme Court. And it's amazing to me, how many people have no idea about that. It's amazing to me how much people are clueless, and I shouldn't be amazed. And in some senses, I'm not. But it's still it's still quite remarkable to hear some of the stuff that I hear and then subjected to whether it's through the media, through actual news, media sources, whether it's through the radical left, and those posing as representatives in the United States Congress, whether it is presidential candidates like Joe Biden, or maybe it's Camila Harris, for all we know, it's a Harris Biden ministration. As he told us, the comma Harris, Joe Biden, they refuse to tell us if they're going to pack the courts. And by packing the courts, that simply means increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so that they cannot, so that they can implement their policies once again, forget the way that it's supposed to be done that the way that it's been done for 150 years. Forget all that forget the fact that the American people have voted. They have spoken by the way they have spoken for this president and this Senate, the ones that are going through the confirmation process. Now. It's not as though they were silenced. Four years ago, when given the opportunity to cast their ballots and decide which President would be picking supreme court justices in that case in 2016, it was the fill the seat of the light Antonin Scalia. They chose Trump In fact, many people said they chose Trump. So I'm watching Trump dance on the stage. Back here at a at a Florida rally of fox news on in the background. But anyway, Anyway, I digress with that. So this is we're looking at fundamental This is fundamentally American stuff that we're watching happen in the US Senate. And you have two political parties. One that is diametrically opposed to the other one who wants to have judicial activists implement their liberal ideology, because candidly, folks, liberalism doesn't win. When it's on the ballot. That's why Joe Biden that's why Joe Biden is silent about submissions. That's why By the way, did you see Biden has is out there asking democrat senators not to press Amy Coney Barrett about her Catholic faith. Now, whether Biden really cares about that or not? I don't know. But I do know this. I do know this Biden and Kamala Harris do not want Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. But they also believe according to polling that Biden has a higher percentage of Catholic supporters then does President Trump at this point, whatever you want to make a polls, I'll leave that up to you to determine the accuracy And veracity of said polls But anyhow, anyhow, this is, you know, they they don't we have two diametrically opposed ideologies up here we have folks that want to hide behind, you know not not tell us what they think about things like packing the court. We have folks that don't want us to really understand their policies. They tell us that the Biden says that Trump has done so much wrong with COVID. Trump is basically caused, he's personally responsible for 200,000 deaths effectively is what we've been listening to. Mike Pence points out at the vice presidential debate last week that Biden has played plagiarized, plagiarize the Trump plan for battling Coronavirus, which is something Biden has some experience doing, as we know going back into the 1988 election when he was actually humiliated for stealing speeches, passing them off as his own. And then saying that effectively that who's to say, if I copy someone else's speech or not, these are all just ideas floating around out there. And I can just say the same thing verbatim. verbatim pass it off as my own Biden didn't see the I guess the problem with that back in 1988. But anyway, the point is, the point is, this is now the battleground. I've said before that we're in a cultural, political war, cultural, civil war. And politics is the battlefield where this is being this is being waged. And folks, I want to see, I want to see unity, and healing in this nation. But I am telling you, the first step is to achieve political victory. I'm not saying political victory at all costs, that sort of thing is the aim to some extent, as long as lore of moral, ethical and legal that went, when Biden in the left says victory at all costs, they mean, whatever it takes counting ballots, stacking, you know, stacking the ballot boxes, that sort of thing, counting ballots that come from mysterious places, weeks after the election. But we must return to a nation that believes in the rule of law, we must return to a nation that understands that as free people, certainly we have all sorts of opportunities at our fingertips. But we must never forget that. In addition to those freedoms, we also have, we also have personal responsibility. We also have personal responsibility. The founders wanted a moral people gasp. Today, it seems as though immorality is actually praised in this nation. It seems to be that the more that you can be, I don't know vulgar and things like that. The more attention you receive, the more that the more that you embrace, just morally bankrupt, bankrupt ideologies, at least on the radical left, the more that you are held up as some sort of a Savior. And I'll tell you what communism is in the midst of that communism is communism is morally bankrupt and inside ecology, yet we have leftists turning to that ideology on a regular basis, believing, believing, in fact, that those ideas that are antithetical to the American way of life American system as founded this nation is founded ideas that are the opposite the antithesis of the American ideal, those ideas are now embraced by the radical left. Those ideas are embraced by the radical left and we are in the midst of a non violent at the moment minus anTifa. Whatever they decide to set on fire. Today, whatever. rioters decide to burn down this afternoon, or whatever they decide to protest, protesting is one thing but protesting to the point of violence and rioting, something altogether different but whatever they decide to protest to the point to the point of burning it down, destroying it, etc. Those things are, they permeate our culture today, they permeate every aspect of our ability to function as a whole society, we have to politically defeat that we have to politically create a scenario whereby people who engage in that sort of behavior, face consequences legally and to where those folks who engage in that are dissuaded, if you will, from furthering that sort of behavior. We must get back to law and order we must get back to the Constitution. We must get Back, must get back to those founding principles that make I make America great. and dare I say, dare I say we must get back to God as well. And I've got to take a break. Talk a little bit more about this Supreme Court nomination process in a minute after this break, putting some soundbites sit tight, you're listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back in just a minute.

Welcome back. So, so so so we have this hearing again, let's let's recap what what's going on here? What we're dealing with here. We have a Supreme Court vacancy that has been created by the tragic passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is of course, a. I mean, she is a just just a, an icon for the left. There's other action figures I'm sure there still are of Ruth Bader Ginsburg a movie rbg. And I'm not credit. Look, I'm just saying that this is this is important to the left. And now talk about this vacancy. As though it's they said it was her seat. Remember, of course, she did hold the seat, but it doesn't belong to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Clarence Thomas, a seat does not belong to Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia seat did not belong to Antonin Scalia, they served. They served and they filled vacancies at the pleasure the President and the senate at the time that they were confirmed as justices. And again, their jobs, their responsibilities are to interpret the constitution and to apply the law, as it was intended, as it was written words of course mean things, words that are written into laws or into the text of the Constitution. Actually, believe it or not, it's shocking. I know, for radical leftist tins in this morning, they may be shocked to realize that words actually mean things when people take the time to record said words onto parchment or paper into computer systems today or wherever into their cell phones, it doesn't matter words are actually used to communicate ideas and concepts and the way that the law should work. And so the justices, the justices on the Supreme Court, when faced with questions about how to apply a law to a case, they interpret it and try to do such now I actually listened to all the Senator from Republican senator from from Louisiana drawn a blank on his name at the moment it'll come to me in a second but anyway yes, Kennedy. That's right. Thank you as republican senator, by the way, entertaining guy never know what he's gonna say. But anyway, he was talking yesterday, questioning very kindly course, Republicans, it's funny to watch this. You got republicans using their time to applaud and praise the justice and say nice things about her family and so forth in the the left comes up and talks about how terrible that mean, Kamala Harris basically sounded like we're one step away from our country falling apart if we nominate a Supreme Court justice. Amy Kony Barrett, if that is actually confirmed, not as the she's been nominated now. Now she's in the process of confirmation. So anyway, anyway, this is the process. This is how it goes. There's a lot of political grandstanding. There's a lot of comments, people talking about, of course, the pandemic, it's irresponsible to do anything during a pandemic. We shouldn't be doing this the American people should speak I saw Amy Klobuchar Look at the camera and says this is not Trump's Supreme Court seat. This is your Supreme Court seat. I don't know if Amy Of course she knows this. Amy Klobuchar knows that the American people do not in a pure democracy vote to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Of course, she knows that of course, she knows that the President was elected, even though he had fewer, see fewer votes in the popular vote. He won, you know, in the electoral college. And that's how presidents are selected. Now, you would think that these so called constitutional scholars could understand something as fundamentally basic as that. So assuming they actually do, which they do, and they're just trying to mislead you and try to get you riled up, get the American people riled up that the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton that Trump should not be making these nominations because the people actually wanted Hillary. And if it wasn't for Putin, this is actually Putin's pig. I'm waiting for somebody to say that maybe they did. And I dismissed it. Putin's pick for the Supreme Court. Never know. Never know what those say. But this, this is the Americans peep American people's choice. Through their elected representatives, we have a representative constitutional republic, what is so complicated that See, this is not about that this is all a facade. This is all a performance. This is all a show. This is a this is political. This is this is like a debate, if you will, this is political theater. And candidly, it's not even very good political theater. Not very good political theater, they just want you to believe they want you to buy into their talking points here. Three weeks away today, three weeks away from Election Day. They want they're these the rhetoric that we hear up there in this confirmation process is more I would say about trying to sway your vote between now and November 3, than it is about what what is actually going on, because there's absolutely positively nothing wrong with what's going on. In fact, anybody who has a problem with what Amy Kony Barrett says about the role of the Supreme Court Justice just doesn't I don't think understand what this what the role the justice is, because she's exactly 100%. Right? if Congress doesn't like the way that the Supreme Court rules on auto legal matter, on something brought before it before the High Court, if that is the case, if that is the case, then Congress assuming that the court actually interpreted the law, then Congress has the authority to change it. Now, if it's a constitutional matter, a constitutional amendment, that's a much higher bar to eclipse, the look if the American people want these things so badly, whatever it is that the left wants you to believe that Americans want, which is apparently other people's money, I guess, for people to pay for what they want to do in life, no personal responsibility to steal from those who have, apparently, more than the left thinks that they should, then of course, to make laws against basic human nature, implement policies and ideologies that run contrary to the nature of humanity, things like socialism and the like. But if the American people want these things so badly, then enact them into laws passed in through the legislative process. Of course, some of them may take this as a personal challenge and try to do that. I'm just simply saying the court isn't the place to do that. Amy Coney Barrett is 100% correct? 109 99% correct. 100% correct. In her role, as she described it yesterday for the for the supreme court justices. You don't like what the law is and change it, change it through the process known through the through the body known as Congress, the House and the Senate, change it that way. Don't be writing executive orders. Don't be engaging in judicial activism, pass it through the Congress. It's funny, nobody wants to do these things. These folks in Congress want to be what they're doing during this confirmation process is exactly what they want to do. They want to take to the microphone, do some political grandstanding, the writing's on the wall and less and less. Amy Coney Barrett makes some unexpected, really dramatically big mistake. Or that the the left Can you know, find a kink in the armor and make it look as though it's something massive and super, super troubling. Then she's going to be confirmed. And they know this but what they also understand they look they're looking past Now they're looking to the election. How can we use this to remind people that Trump is putting people at risk by nominating a Supreme Court justice during a pandemic? Right? Everybody having their masks, again, whatever about masks, but I've noticed that people have masks on when they're on in front of cameras even when no one's even remotely close to them. The reason for that, of course, this is to subtly remind you that I've got to wear this mask because Trump is causing death and destruction all across America. Forget that the death rates are plummeting. Forget that this is being treated much, much better than it was early on. Forget all that. They just want to now tell us the number of people who are who are infected. And remember, as pence pointed out in the in the vice presidential debates, 60 million people contracted swine flu back in 2000, whatever it was 2000 and I'm gonna say nine. Whatever The year was. We're still nowhere near that. But just the amount of misinformation. I heard someone last night David rodham Gergen is rush calls him. I was watching CNN and David Rotom. Gergen said 11% of those people at the Florida rally for Trump have COVID that is factually false. He's confusing. There's 11% positivity rate. So if you take a test in Florida, 11% of the people who take the test test positive, but the people who are taking the test are people who are already sick. These are people who have reason to believe they might have covid. So it's 11% of the people who are sick, David rotten burden, it's not 11% of the population Hector's 300 and 30 million people. According to his math, we would have already had 33 million confirmed cases I just looked this morning, it was a little over 7 million. We haven't had 11% of the population being affected by this unless of course, unless, of course, I didn't know that they had it, which is which is possible, but which is not what he's saying. He's saying 11% of the population actively have COVID 19 11% of the people at the Trump rally in Florida. And so these are called now super spreader events and all this sort of stuff. But this is these hearings are as much about those sorts of issues. COVID you know, just the whatever other campaign style, rhetoric and speech that they can make this about. Trump using his authoritarian trumping an authoritarian to push through the nominee and so forth. these hearings are as much about that as they are about Amy Kony Barrett. In fact, if you listen to the conversations happening behind closed doors, I can almost assure you that most of these things are about political talking points, not even about what the justice issues directly pertaining to the justice. Yes, if they can stop her they will. But this is an opportunity for political grandstanding and to try to get votes for Biden and against Trump. That's what we're witnessing. And I've gotta take a break. You're listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back in just a minute.

Welcome back. By the way, I should mention that 98% of scientists 98 that's 1% more of scientists than actually believe man is contributing to climate change. 1% more I agree that listening to this program can cause you to lean to the right so you have been advised this morning. I have given you an appropriate disclaimer. Listen at your own risk. If you're operating heavy machinery this morning, be careful. You might find yourself in fact, veering off to the right pay extra attention on the highways and byways across this fruited plain but look this nomination. This nomination. I'm reading some tweets here. There's again, the Hollywood crowd writer comedian Sarah Cooper. I don't even know who these people are folks. Maybe I should Amy Coney Barrett she tweeted. Sarah Cooper tweeted Amy Coney Barrett watched mitch mcconnell obstruct Obama Supreme Court Justice nomination eight months before the election but it is now fine being confirmed. While people are voting. had to say that loudly because it's an all caps. She knows this is wrong and she doesn't care vote them all out. Rights Sarah Cooper again, it's a false equivalency. I just the willing, just being willingly ignorant about this. There's just I'm trying to think of a way to explain this. This is so this is like if you're a husband and a wife, say, oh boy, which one's gonna be which? I don't know which one actually is better for a feminist to hear that the wife is the president, or the wife is the Senate will say the wife is the president just for the sake of this, the husband's the Senate. So they agree they're trying to work something out, they have a responsibility to their family. And they both do one of them. Let's say that the wife is the president says we should do X, the husband being the Senate would say, I don't agree with you know that right now. Let's wait eight months, and then we'll make that decision. That's what this is like. Versus they both agree. Hey, we need people like Amy Coney Barrett to be a supreme Supreme Court Justice we need and something in a family setting. We need to get our kid braces, they both agree that with that we both need to get our we need to get our kids braces. And they decide to work together at that point and do that. Like what is so hard to understand about this. There's two groups of people to wall one person in the president and then the Senate, and they have to they work together the Senate, the president just doesn't get to fill it, willy nilly with whomever he wants. Thankfully, by the way, can you imagine? Can you imagine the type of radical leftist we would have on the court at this point, if that was the case? The Senate and the President have to agree. advise and consent is the role the senate plays it's not rubber stamp. It's that's not what it is. The advice the senate gave Obama in 2016, when he nominated Merrick Garland was do not give us this nominee. It is our advice that the next president give us this nominee. We will not give our consent at this particular point in time. What is so hard to understand about that? What is so hard to understand about that is not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp a nominee especially when you have when when Amy Coney Barrett with how she has described the role of a judge when you have this clear definition? That's spot on accurate? That is 100%. Right. And they're against that, then what are they in favor of? If they're against the type of Judge justice serving on the Supreme Court that Amy Coney Barrett described? What are they in favor of? See, they don't want you to know this, just like they don't want you to know, if their court if they're going to court pack when Biden God forbid, the Harris Biden ministration takes power. God forbid, how Joe and Camila are going to cure all timers, how they're going to cure cancer, how they're going to cure diabetes, if and how they're going to cure COVID. They don't want you to know this. They don't want you to know this. And if they're going to court back they don't want you to know these things. Because liberalism operates in the dark. That's where it likes to operate. liberalism operates in the dark, it operates under phony narratives. It operates under incorrect talking points and operates using misleading inaccurate, untrue statements, liberalism. And of course, it's kissing cousins socialism and then of course, the distant cousin of communism, growing the government which that's the path that is the the the trail, those are the those are the cities you would you would hit as you move down the trail towards big government, liberalism, socialism, communism, as you move forward further towards that. As you move down that path, they require you to be misled and kept in the dark, they need you fighting they need us fighting about things. They need us divided. They need us talking about race they need us talking about an enemy ration matter but they want us divided along race they want us divided along socio economic factors. They want us divided on geography divided upon religion, all these things. Meanwhile, what they're doing behind the scenes is truly atrocious. accumulating power and taking away Liberty And I'm gonna take a break. You're listening here along with conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back in just a minute.

Welcome back. Yes, the left is in a bit of a panic mode. This, of course, is I still think they knew that this was coming. They knew that this was coming this nomination, this confirmation process. They knew it was coming. But they still, again, doing two things here. They're hoping against hope that they can derail this nomination. But I think even more so than that. I don't want to say that they've come to grips with this quite yet, because they haven't. They, again, are trying to use it to create more emotion, more emotion and to have folks come out and vote against President Donald J. Trump. Again, it's not to vote for Biden, of course, that's the only alternative, really, is Joe Biden. So it's not so much that they're trying to give you reasons to vote for Biden. They're trying to use this to inflame race to say that Donald Trump is going to take away women's rights and Amy Kony Bay, Tony Bennett, who's a woman by the way, I don't know. I heard Patrick, it was a Patrick Leahy yesterday during his questioning, it's not questioning it's just opening statements. She has to sit there and listen to these jokers pontificate about whatever it is. They want to talk about for the moment. Usually having nothing to do with her or anything in reality, but she listened to lay he I swear the guy doesn't know that she's female. He's talking about, you know, the risk associated with taking away or excuse me with the risk associated with women losing rights because of Amy Coney Barrett. I mean, he's managed to take their terms. He's mansplaining to Amy Coney Barrett a woman how Amy Coney Barrett is going to take away women's rights. They want to they want to use this I'm telling you to to drive out whoever may still not be ready to cast a ballot against Donald Trump and that's against Trump is not for Biden, it is against Trump. That's what they want. That's how they get people to go to vote for Biden. And I'm reading a tweet here from Robert rice. Trying to re define what court packing means. And this is what he score packing simply means that you have more than nine justices on the Supreme Court. That's what it means. They know this. They don't care. They don't live in the world of truth and light. They live in the world of darkness and deceit. This is what he says since 1969. democratic presidents have appointed four supreme court justices Republicans have appointed 15 four of them by presidents who lost the popular vote. McConnell refused to even hold a hearing on Obama's nominee that's what they're telling you court packing is the just the truth doesn't matter to these folks. Whatever can help them win elections. I gotta take a break. so tight, be back in just a minute.
Look, Robert rice wants to complain about losing elections, according to the Constitution, according to the electoral college according to the ways that this work and then have presidents who win elections according to the Electoral College, according to the Constitution, according to the way these things work. He wants to complain about that when those presidents exercise their constitutional authority and power, which includes nominating supreme court justices sending those to the Supreme Court for confirmation. He calls that court packing folks, that is deceitful. That is dishonest. That is incorrect. And I've got to go music telling me it's time to wrap up for the day. Thank you so much for listening. Have a great day. SDG see you tomorrow. Take care.