Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, two powerful phrases we often hear in America: one is ``We the People,'' another is ``equal justice under law.''

``We the People,'' the first three words of the Constitution, written in supersized script so that everyone could have no doubt that that is what that Constitution--our Constitution--was all about. You can see those words from across the room. They echo so often, how can we possibly forget the soul of our Constitution is, as President Lincoln described, ``of, by, and for the people''--``of, by, and for the people.''

That second phrase, ``equal justice under law''--a phrase so important to our system that it is carved above the doors of the Supreme Court. Just the across the hallway here from the Chamber in which I now stand, the Senate Chamber, you can go into the Johnson Room. It served, when Johnson was the majority leader of this Chamber, as his office. And you look out the window, you can see the Supreme Court Building with that phrase carved into it: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--two powerful phrases that, taken together, lay out the foundation for our democratic Republic.

They also represent a vision that is aspirational--one that we had not achieved when our Constitution was first written, one that we have not achieved yet today but that we work toward, we strive toward, generation after generation, knowing that, in our hearts, that is what we wish to achieve--a nation where everyone is created equal, in which everyone is afforded the same rights and privileges, they are all treated equally, have the full measure of opportunity to pursue their life ambitions.

Today, this evening, we are considering, in this final 30 hours of debate, a nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court for a person who will wear one of those nine black robes and sit in that Supreme Court Chamber across the plaza from where we now stand, a person who will sit in a Chamber behind the doors with ``Equal Justice Under Law'' inscribed.

But instead of making a stride toward that vision of ``equal justice under law,'' instead of making a stride toward that vision of government of, by, and for the people, this nomination imperils that vision. This nominee, if confirmed, will damage that vision.

We have a decades-long scheme by a powerful and privileged minority to destroy the ``we the people'' vision of equality and opportunity in our Constitution, to erode the foundation of our institutions so that they can rig the system in their favor.

This has always been a dynamic of republics--those who love that vision of a government ``of, by, and for the people'' and those who fear that vision of government ``of, by, and for the people'' because they want to rig the rules in their favor. They want to rig the rules with a vision that would never have a chance at the ballot box, that would never be embraced by the majority. They want to pull the levers of power from behind the scenes in their own favor, to accentuate income inequality, to accentuate wealth inequality, to prevent those people from voting who disagree with them with every type of contrivance to suppress and intimidate voters.

If there is anything in which freedom of speech has meaning, isn't it that speech that you make when you mark your ballot for whom you wish to be your representative--perhaps the most powerful moment of expression in a republic.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the nominee, is certainly not the architect of this scheme, but she is certainly a full-fledged partner, enthusiastically embracing The Federalist Society and its mission to thwart the will of the people of the United States of America.

She doesn't read those first three words of the Constitution--``We the People''--as meaning government of, by, and for the people; she reads it as we, the powerful, will decide what is best for ourselves and everyone else; thank you very much. Boy, talk about a philosophy that undermines the integrity of our Constitution. That is it.

And she is just one of a stream of jurists rushed through in the last 4 years, organized by the Federalist Society, to further undermine the rights of the worker, to undermine the civil rights of Americans, to undermine healthcare rights, to undermine environmental laws. It is an agenda that is the exact opposite of the vision of our Constitution.

And here we have the Members of the majority of this Chamber, facilitating this scheme. They stand determined to shatter any norm, to destroy any precedent, to break any rule that stands in the way, to abandon any principle they so recently passionately proclaimed in their single-minded grab for power, this single-minded mission of stacking the court with extreme rightwing jurists for the powerful over the people--jurists who, rather than standing firm in defense of the Constitution, will use those black robes for the dark, dark deed of destroying any pretense of government of, by, and for the people.

Just 4 years ago the majority of this Chamber, the same majority, the Republican majority, said they had discovered a new principle that they felt with all their hearts was the right thing to do; that never, under any condition, under any set of circumstances should this Chamber ever debate or vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court during an election year.

They made that argument though the election was far away. The vacancy occurred early in the year. The nominee was named by the President, President Obama, in March. But that distant election on the horizon, we have to protect it, and we should hear from the people before we decide to debate and vote.

You know, it is disturbing to see a so-called deeply held principle vaporize like light rain on hot summer asphalt. It is disturbing to see a so-called deeply held principle be so easily acquired when it violates the precedents of this Nation and so easily abandoned when it is convenient to do so.

There is just one principle here. It is the principle of power. It is the principle of ``we will because we can.'' It is the principle that we have no principle; we will toss our integrity to the winds; we will trash our arguments of yesteryear; we will forget the speeches in which we so passionately proclaimed our positions because we have a moment of opportunity to advance power for the powerful, and we will seize it.

What is different between this year and 4 years ago when the majority said there should never, under any circumstances, ever be a debate on a Presidential nominee during an election year? What is different?

Well, 4 years ago there was a vacancy. This year there is a vacancy. Four years ago it was an election year, a Presidential election year. This year it is a Presidential election year.

It is the same choice of whether to debate or whether to hear from the voice of the people before deciding how to fill this vacancy. It is the same choice, with one difference. That difference is that 4 years ago the vacancy occurred 10 months before the election and this year it occurred just a few weeks before the election.

We all recognize that, if one was really disturbed that this was a conflict, that disturbance would be much greater this year when there is no time, so little time--just weeks. In fact, it is not really weeks before the election because the election is underway. Fifty million Americans have already voted. So it is not just a year of an election; it is during an election.

I would love to see an outbreak of integrity in this Chamber, an outbreak of principle in defense of our Constitution. It is so often that we admire character. We admire it when someone says ``That person is as good as their word.''

I would like to be able to say that, when I heard my colleagues say they had a passionately, deeply held principle 4 years ago that there should be no debate in an election year, they were as good as their word.

That is what we admire: character, principle. We all have heard the quote: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'' It is a quote attributed to Voltaire by Beatrice Evelyn Hall. It was actually more a description of Voltaire's character, that he believed in a principle so firmly that, even when it disadvantaged him, to his point of death, he would defend it.

Who in this Chamber argued 4 years ago that during an election year there should be no debate or vote on a nominee and has that Voltairean character to defend it when it is inconvenient today--not even inconvenient to the point of death, just inconvenient because of some pressure you might receive politically? Who will stand up and be that voice of character in this Chamber?

We all await to see just a few people stand up and be a voice of principle in this Chamber. We all stand here and wait for just a few people to be a voice of integrity in this Chamber. The country waits for a position that can be admired, of principle, of character, and of integrity.

It is not just that passionate argument 4 years ago; it is also about breaking the rules. Just the other day, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee broke the committee rule that at least 2 members of the minority needed to be present for a quorum to advance Judge Barrett's nomination. And he broke another rule to close debate that says there has to be a minority member present

Well, why don't you just stand up and tear up the rules of the committee? The Parliamentarian of this body said that is OK--that is OK. So apparently there are no real rules to what happens here under this majority.

What is the end goal of this effort to break the norms, break the rules, break the passionate principles pronounced 4 years ago? Certainly not to ensure equal justice under law, certainly not to embody ``We the People'' governments, certainly not because there is a precedent for this action.

Oh, wait. I was standing here the other day, and I heard a Member say: We stand on precedent.

Well, we are under our 45th President, although some say it is the 44th because Cleveland was elected twice--in 1884 and then out of office and back in 1892. But anyway, we are under--we say it is our 45th President--President Trump.

Under our first 43 Presidents, this Senate never once--never once-- not a single time, refused to debate and vote on a nominee from the President of the United States for the Supreme Court--not once. But 4 years ago, under our 44th President, the Republican majority said: We are breaking that precedent, and for the first time in U.S. history, we are refusing to debate and vote.

Now, I would have had some respect for saying that we will debate and we will vote, because that is our responsibility under the Constitution. In fact, many times in our history we have debated here in the Senate, and we have voted, and we have struck down the nominee.

I was surprised to see that almost a quarter of the time--almost one out of four nominees has been turned down by this Chamber for the Supreme Court. That would have involved actually being here on the floor and making arguments. That would involve actually taking a vote so you could be evaluated, so your position could be evaluated by your constituents. That would have involved fulfilling your responsibilities and having the accountability that goes with fulfillment of those responsibilities.

But there was no fulfillment of responsibilities 4 years ago. There was no accountability because there was no vote taken--the first time in U.S. history. So don't tell me--don't tell me, colleagues--that you stand on precedent.

Or we can look back in history to a Republican President, President Lincoln. President Lincoln was concerned about filling a Supreme Court position during an election, so what did President Lincoln do? He delayed the nomination until after the election. How about that precedent? How about the Republican majority follow the precedent from President Lincoln?

And then there is the McConnell precedent. What is the McConnell precedent that he put forward 4 years ago? We never vote or debate a nominee during an election year. How about that precedent?

So precedent after precedent after precedent: The historical, centuries-long precedent of never failing to debate and vote--broken. The Lincoln precedent of not asking the Senate to do a nominee's hearing, debate, and vote during an election--broken. The McConnell precedent put forward with great passion 4 years ago--broken.

The goal is to transform the Supreme Court into a supermajority, a superlegislature for the superelite--a 6-to-3 supermajority and a nine- member superlegislature operating for the superelite.

That whole vision in our Constitution of having a Supreme Court that defends the rights of Americans from the excesses of law written by Congress or the excesses of the executive branch not following the laws, that is gone. This is not about nine referees in black robes. This is about having a supermajority in Republican robes for the superelite of this country.

Why is that such an important strategy for my Republican colleagues? Because the superelite understands something fundamental, which is that sometimes the people of the United States have a grassroots movement, and they, holding the Constitution near and dear in their heart, holding their freedoms near and dear to their heart, rise up against this manipulation by the superelite, and they pass laws to protect civil rights. They put forward a vision of protecting the environment. They say workers have to be treated fairly--a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. And the superelite doesn't like that.

But do you know what? If they can turn the Supreme Court into a superlegislature they control, they don't have to worry about it because they can have the laws written by that nine-member Court. They can pull the levers of power through the Court. And the Court doesn't have to stand for election ever--lifetime. It is done. It is locked in. That is the strategy, the very successful strategy, to undermine the vision of our Constitution.

That superelite, with their supermajority of the nine-member superlegislature, they can stand in the way of efforts to save our planet from climate chaos. They can stand in the way of tackling rampant economic inequality. They can stand in the way of taking on systemic racism and opportunity for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. They can stand in the way of equality of opportunity for LGBTQ communities. They can stand in the way of security and integrity for our elections.

They can tear down the work done. When these two Chambers, the House and the Senate, are mobilized to fight for the vision of our Constitution--pursuit of happiness, fair opportunity--they can strike it down. They can strike down healthcare. They can strike down reproductive rights.

Perhaps the most diabolical part is their effort to destroy the integrity of our election system. Now, one form of assault on the integrity is gerrymandering, where States draw the lines in order to favor a particular party. This has been done in States controlled by Democrats as well as States controlled by Republicans.

When the analysis is done across the country, when it comes to Representatives in the Chamber down the hall, the House of Representatives, political scientists estimate that it creates a 15- to 20-seat bias in favor of the Republicans--15 to 20 seats. That is a big deal in the House of Representatives.

It certainly, in terms of equal representation, is simply wrong because it is unequal representation. But the Supreme Court decided it was OK. They decided it was all right.

Or we can talk about the Voting Rights Act, designed specifically to stop tactics to suppress voting or to intimidate voters, because isn't voting the foundation of our electoral system? Isn't it the foundation of our democratic republic?

But in 2013, in a 5-to-4 decision, the five Justices in red robes gutted the Voting Rights Act to unleash voting suppression and intimidation across our country, and we see the results in county after county after county.

We see it in State after State after State. Here is the thing: Before the Supreme Court struck down the protection of the integrity of voting, we had a bipartisan majority--a large, extensive, huge bipartisan majority--in defense of election integrity in this Chamber. But once the Court struck it down and it massively favored one party over the other, the Republicans abandoned their principles on this and have blocked every effort to restore protection of voting integrity in our Nation.

We can look at the impact of money from corporations on elections. In Citizens United, 10 years ago, the Court decided that we need to give the ultimate source of massive power, ultimate influence on elections by freeing them up to put as much money into campaigns as they should like. So if a corporation--if I offend them, and I offend them all the time--chooses that they can put $100 million into campaigning against me in my State, it is like a stadium sound system designed to drown out the voice of the people.

Imagine you are at a ball game. You are there in the stadium, with all your community members, and you are trying to make your voice heard. Everyone should get a fair chance to have their voice heard. But the big speakers above you drown you out. That is Citizens United. It doesn't facilitate speech in the town square; it suppresses speech in the town square. It drowns out speech in the town square.

It is as if our Founders had said: We want everyone to have a chance to stand up and take their position, make it known in the town square, before the election is held for the mayor but thought it would be OK if a corporation bought the town square and prevented anyone else from speaking. That is Citizens United. That is the grotesque violation of free speech in America done by five jurists in red robes for the superelite.

That is a pretty good deal for the fossil fuel megapolluters. Our entire planet is at risk. They want to eliminate all the restrictions, regulations--the freedom to pollute--even though they know the people of this country really value clean air and clean water. So control the courts so they can strike down those rules to protect our air and our water.

There are many challenges involved in the revenue to support our country. I mention this because it is another reason the superelite want a supermajority in the nine-member superlegislature. It is because the rich don't want to pay for the infrastructure of this country.

Leona Helmsley once said that only the little people pay taxes. President Trump has said things very close to that. Very wealthy people have a lot of enterprises going on. Corporations have a lot of enterprises going on. They are using our legal system continuously, but they don't want to pay for it. They are using our transportation system continuously, but they don't want to pay for it. They are benefiting by hiring the products of our education system, but they don't want to pay for it.

Leona Helmsley said it well: For the superelite, only the little people pay taxes. That is the philosophy supported in this effort to control the courts.

Big banks like this. They want to make sure that there is not an uprising in the people that says you have to shut down that Wall Street casino that prevents us from putting the entire American economy at risk. They want to keep that casino in place. Companies that are trying to maximize profits and stock values certainly don't like laws that protect workers' rights and protections.

There are many ways the superelite can pull the levers of power from behind the scene. Hundreds of lawyers--that is very valuable. Hundreds of lobbyists work on Capitol Hill. There are far more lobbyists for the drug industry up here than there are Members of Congress. Media campaigns to influence public opinion cost a lot of money; that is another power. Think tanks generate ideas that can move the conversation in their direction. Of course, the money in elections is absolutely key. But the courts--the courts are the final defense against the people. If you can control the courts--who aren't elected, who are invulnerable to the people--that is your final defense.

At the heart of this court strategy is the Federalist Society, organized in the 1980s. They put high ideals on their website, saying they are ``founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution.''

It sounds pretty good. ``Preserve freedom.'' It is innocuous. But it is not about preserving freedom. That is the media strategy. It is about crushing the freedom of ordinary people to participate in our elections. It is about crushing the ability of ordinary people to get a fair day's pay. It is not about the separation of powers. They want the majority in the Senate to work to create a majority in the Court, closely connected to each other in this web of the powerful pulling the levers behind the scenes--the opposite of separation of powers.

As described in the book, ``The Lie that Binds,'' the Federalist Society sprang up to implement an anti-democratic policy agenda and political philosophy--a court system impervious to the will of the voters. That superelite--they realized long ago the powers and initiatives they wanted were not going to be popular--and thus this strategy, this strategy relevant to this confirmation.

The Federalist Society has been funded by that same group and expanded into a behemoth, with some 70,000 attorneys. It started in no small part by a grant received from the Olin Foundation, a conservative grant-making foundation that was the force behind business friendly law and economics at law schools throughout the country.

I have heard people say: Do you know what? I joined because they had the money to buy us dinner, and I was a poor law student

According to the New York Observer, the Olin Foundation gave out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants ``to conservative think tanks and intellectuals--the architects of today's sprawling right-wing movement--for a quarter century.''

The crown jewel of the Olin Foundation's work? The Federalist Society. The Olin Foundation wrote to its trustees in 2003: ``All in all, the Federalist Society has been one of the best investments the foundation ever made.''

Since its founding, the Federalist Society has put forward extreme, rightwing legal theories. And as their influence and power have grown, they have worked hard to bring those theories into the mainstream-- mainstream arguments, like originalism, which Judge Barrett, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all claim to hold.

This is how Judge Barrett explained her philosophy during her confirmation hearings: ``I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time.''

It is a great cover story. It is a great cover story, but it is a cover story. It is a cover story for the superelite to manipulate America. And it dissolves upon any detailed examination. We know, if we bother to read history, that virtually every clause of the Constitution had Founders who disagreed on what it meant. Yes, you had a pretty homogenous group--39 White, educated, wealthy men, signing that piece of parchment in Philadelphia, but they had multitudinous views of the clauses. There is a lot of ambiguity in those clauses that enabled them to come together and say: I can accept that. We will argue later over what it meant.

This originalist philosophy is saying: Well, here is the secret. There were a bunch of people who had different views at the time it was written, but I will choose the one meaning that benefits the powerful in America, that fits the ``we the powerful'' vision of our Constitution, not the ``We the People.''

That is pretty clever--pretty clever and pretty diabolical if, in your heart, you care about this Nation, you care about the beautiful, extraordinary vision that we will be a government not dedicated to those who are the elite, like the kingdoms of Europe, but will draw its power from the opinion of the people. That is the view I hold. That is the view our Founders aspired to. That is the view that is being undermined day in and day out by the Federalist Society.

Madison wrote: ``No language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as to not include many equivocally denoting different ideas.''

He is speaking directly to my point: The Founders had many different ideas about what each clause of the Constitution meant and what it would mean to be applied.

He went on to write: ``All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill . . . are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions.''

The words are ``more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be . . . ascertained by a series of particular discussions''-- again, noting that the right philosophy is to seek to understand the motivation, the principle in which those ideas were infused, not to cherry-pick one of the many conflicting positions in order to sustain power by the powerful.

We can see this in one of the early fights in the history of our United States, of our Constitution. The year was 1791, just 4 years after the Constitution was written. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was working on his financial plan to build up the country's credit, and he wanted Congress to charter a national bank. Hamilton had that goal in position. Madison and Jefferson did not like the idea of a national bank. They argued about the Constitution.

Hamilton said that as long as the Constitution didn't specifically say that the government couldn't do something, it then could do something. And the opposite position held by Jefferson and Madison was, no, the Constitution only allows something to be done if it is absolutely necessary to implement the enumerated power.

This argument is over a clause of the Constitution called the Necessary and Proper Clause. It says that government has the ability to enact laws for the necessary and proper fulfillment of the enumerated responsibilities.

But Hamilton read that as allowing something that is relevant and useful to facilitate an enumerated power. It would serve the purpose of that enumerated power. And Madison and Jefferson said: No, no, no, it only means something can be done if it is absolutely essential--not that it is relevant, not that it is useful, but it is absolutely essential to implement the enumerated power.

So one is a very expansive view of what is allowed by the Constitution, and one is a very constricted view. All these men were involved in writing the Constitution, all to my point about the differing views that were held about each clause of the Constitution.

We have the greatest minds of the age, including two who had worked together to not only write the Constitution but also the Federalist Papers that had completely different interpretations.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to say: I know exactly what the universal view was of a clause in the Constitution and to do so to get the end result you want, which is government for the powerful. That is a powerfully corruptive assault on the core vision of our Constitution.

Let's take a look at another piece of the so-called Federalist pro- business viewpoint, which is that corporations are people, and they have full freedom of speech. The originalists say: Isn't that obvious from the Constitution? Well, no, actually, it is not at all obvious because corporations in their current form did not exist when the Constitution was written. So it is not only not obvious; it is completely wrong. Corporations were created for very specific purposes in our early years.

Professor Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, wrote the following: ``Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions . . . used to organize municipal governments.''

Well, that is quite different from the corporations we have. Americans wondered if they should abolish them entirely or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence. They chose the latter, so the first American corporations ended up being cities and schools and charitable organizations. We don't really begin to see economic enterprises chartered as corporations until the 1790s.

The work being done on our current Constitution was being done when we were under the Articles of Confederation. They were in place from 1781 to 1787, a 6-year period. And during that period, corporations were not economic enterprises. As the professor points out, they became economic enterprises in the 1790s. Yet, somehow, these Justices of the Supreme Court and their red robes of the superelite say that the Constitution makes it absolutely clear that these massive business corporations have the same freedom of speech and the ability to participate in elections as if they are people, because they are people. But they are not people. And these economic enterprises did not exist when our Constitution was written.

If you want a single example of the complete corruption of the basic argument made by the Federalists, this is certainly an example to put forward.

Murphy continues:

The Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association--and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom.

Corporations could not vote. Corporations could not hold office. Early Americans had a far, more comprehensive understanding of corporations than the Court gives credit for.

Well, this is indeed the challenge that we have because we have a powerful elite that has created a system completely alien to the core philosophy of our Constitution of government of, by, and for the people. They have the money to create those hundreds of lawyers working day and night for their vision. They have the money to create the hundreds of lobbyists up here on Capitol Hill working for their vision. They have the money to create the media campaigns that flood the airwaves for their vision. They have the money to create the Federalist Society chapters to recruit people when they first start law school and indoctrinate them in this particular vision, promising them great support and reward in their careers to support this mission of government by and for the powerful.

The network is extensive in ways that need to be completely understood across the country, a network of affiliated groups. Take the case of the Freedom and Opportunity Fund, a nonprofit that Mr. Leo, who was very involved in the Federalist Society, launched in 2016. For over 2 years, the Freedom and Opportunity Fund gave $4 million to another group, the Independent Women's Voice. In fact, about half of that group's revenue came in that manner. In an indepth report from the Washington Post, when Kavanaugh's confirmation was running into trouble, leaders from the Independent Women's Voice sprang into action, mobilized to speak at rallies, wrote online commentaries, and appeared on FOX News. They went to extraordinary lengths to make sure the Federalist Society's nominee did not get the full examination by the people of this country.

Now, Mr. Leo is listed as president of three other groups: The BH Fund, Freedom and Opportunity Fund, and America Engaged. These aren't groups that have employees. They don't have office space. They don't have a website. And yet the BH Fund received $24 million from a single anonymous donor. It gave $3 million to two other groups, one of which, America Engaged, passed on $1 million of that money to the lobbying arm of the NRA that went on to carry on a $1 million ad campaign in supporting Neil Gorsuch. This is vast money in a vast web being deployed to influence Americans in every possible way because these folks hate the vision of government of, by, and for the people.

The Federalists don't just carry out public relations campaigns. They don't just recruit law students. They proceed to be in the very center of things presenting oral arguments. They presented every oral argument on every single abortion case that has come before the Supreme Court since 1992. They are involved in issue after issue after issue. They have been invested in litigation efforts against the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, by trying to strike down healthcare for millions of Americans well before the act was even signed into law and before there was even anything to litigate against. A Federalist Society member, Randy Barnett, coauthored a 16-page legal memo against the law, which became a source of talking points during congressional debate and laid the framework for subsequent court challenges.

Is it any wonder that so many of us across the Nation are terrified of Judge Barrett's confirmation and what it could mean for the health of our citizens? I was interested to hear a colleague on this floor--a Republican colleague say these are scare tactics. These are scare tactics to say that the Court might strike down healthcare. These are scare tactics.

Does that colleague not believe the President of the United States when he said he will nominate someone who will strike down the ACA and its healthcare bill of rights? It is not a scare tactic to say the individual who chose the nominee said he intended to strike down Roe v. Wade and pick somebody who would strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Now, the Affordable Care Act, in my home State, has meant 400,000 people gained access to Medicaid under the expansion of Medicaid. One of the ironies is, the largest percentage of beneficiaries are in the reddest parts of the State, and the biggest beneficiaries in terms of providing healthcare are rural hospitals and rural clinics because the people who previously came couldn't pay the bill, so they didn't have the resources to expand their operation, but now they do.

When I do my townhalls and people say: ``I just don't like this ACA'' because they have been hearing that from the rightwing media, I say: Well, let's have a vote of everyone here. You can step forward or step backward. Do you like the idea of children being on your policy until age 26 because that is in the bill of rights--the healthcare bill of rights of the ACA. No, no, no. We like that. Overwhelmingly, we like that. How about tax credits to enable middle-class Americans to be able to buy healthcare? No, no, no. We like that. How about comparing policies on the website so you can pick a policy that is right for your family? No, no, no. That is a step forward

But the Federalist Society, the President, and the Republicans in this Chamber have decided that they are going to tear down healthcare for 20 million Americans. So it is hardly a scare tactic because there are very powerful forces at work on that mission.

One of the healthcare bill of rights that people really love in my State, and actually in all States across this country, is the protection to get a policy at the same price, even if you have a preexisting condition.

I was at a fundraiser--a walkathon for multiple sclerosis, for MS, when a woman came up to me, and she said: Things are so much different this year.

I said: What do you mean? The weather is different? The turnout is different?

She said: No, no, no. A year ago, if someone was diagnosed with MS, we knew they would have a very hard time, if they didn't have good healthcare, getting the help they needed and then they might face lifetime limits or annual limits that would prevent them from actually getting care, even though they had insurance. But now we can get the care we need.

So that is the goal. That is the goal of the Federalist Society: tear down healthcare for millions of Americans.

You may wonder if when I noted that the Court was against the foundation of our democracy--the former five Justices, soon to be six Justices in red robes want to tear down the basic foundation of our democratic Republic. Well, let's look a little more closely at that.

Perhaps I can persuade you because the Court decided that corporations are people and that they can spend their unlimited concentrated assets in campaigns--the case, Citizens United. And why do we call it dark money? Well, because corporations can give their money to a 501(c)(4), so-called nonprofit, and the nonprofit gives their money to a super PAC, which runs an independent campaign, and the super PAC discloses the nonprofit as the donor but not the original donor, so it is laundered. Nobody knows who funded that super PAC that is attacking you with millions of dollars of ads.

So that certainly is the Court weighing in for the absolute suppression of the voice of the people and a voice drowned out by unlimited corporations from the largest, most powerful financial organizations that exist in the world.

Let's take a closer look at Shelby County. Shelby County, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, protecting the foundations for the citizens to fully participate, but the Court strikes it down--strikes it down. And, last year, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court said that gerrymandering is just fine. They knew that it violates the very premise of equal representation, and they decided that unequal representation was just fine. Instead of defending the vision of our Constitution, they supported it being struck down.

And we know the courts have a huge ability to legislate from the bench for the powerful. We see it time and time and time again. And, by the way, on that decision, Elena Kagan and Ginsburg and Breyer and Sotomayor noted: ``[T]he most fundamental of . . . constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,'' is assaulted by this decision.

Colleagues, we are in dark and dangerous, tumultuous times. It is exactly those times that require us to stand on principle, with integrity, to defend our institutions. This process, which has violated precedent after precedent after precedent--a 200-year precedent in which always a nominee is debated and voted on, violated 4 years ago to steal a Supreme Court seat; the Lincoln precedent of not putting forward a nominee during election; the McConnell precedent of saying we never debate and vote in an election year enunciated just 4 years ago; and the rules broken in the Judiciary Committee--all of this about one position, and that one position is power but not power for the vision of government of, by, and for the people but power for the powerful to undermine the ability of the people to have government of, by, and for the people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source