>> Sreenivasan: TOMORROW THE

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL

BEGIN HEARINGS ON PRESIDENT

TRUMP'S NOMINEE-- JUDGE AMY

CONEY BARRETT-- TO REPLACE THE

LATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH

BADER GINSBURG.

SENATORS WILL SPEAK FOR SEVERAL

HOURS BEFORE JUDGE BARRETT MAKES

HER OPENING STATEMENT.

HER REMARKS WERE RELEASED TODAY

AND INCLUDE HER BELIEF THAT

GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE COURTS

SHOULD MAKE POLICY AND THAT THE

COURTS ARE "NOT DESIGNED TO

SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM OR RIGHT

EVERY WRONG IN OUR PUBLIC LIFE."

FOR MORE ABOUT THE NOMINEE AND

WHAT'S AHEAD IN THE HEARINGS I

SPOKE WITH AMY HOWE, CO-FOUNDER

OF "THE SCOTUS BLOG" WHO JOINED

US FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMY, IN ANY OTHER WORLD, THE

SUPREME COURT NOMINATION WOULD

BE FRONT PAGE ABOVE THE FOLD

EVERY DAY.

BUT SINCE WE SPOKE LAST AT THE

PASSING OF R.B.G.'S DEATH, THIS

STORY HAS GOTTEN ECLIPSED BY SO

MANY OTHER THINGS.

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT TOMORROW?

>> SO, THEY'RE GOING TO KICK IT

OFF WITH STATEMENTS,

INTRODUCTIONS FROM INDIANA

SENATORS AND FROM PATRICIA

O'HARA, WHO IS A FORMER DEAN OF

NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL.

AND THEN WE'LL HEAR STATEMENTS

FROM JUDGE BARRETT HERSELF AND

FROM THE SENATORS ON THE SENATE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

AFTER THAT, THEY WILL MOVE ON TO

QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE BARRETT FROM

THE SENATORS ON THE COMMITTEE,

WHICH IS REALLY WHERE THE MEAT

OF THE HEARINGS WILL BE.

AND THEN WE'LL HEAR TESTIMONY

FROM LEGAL EXPERTS AND PEOPLE

FROM JUDGE BARRETT'S LIFE

SUPPORTING HER NOMINATION AND

PROBABLY SOME OPPOSING HER

NOMINATION.

>> Sreenivasan: AT THIS POINT,

IF ANYBODY'S WATCHED ANY OF THE

PREVIOUS TWO NOMINATION

HEARINGS, YOU HAVE THE TEAM THAT

SUPPORTS THE JUSTICE.

THAT PARTY ASKS EASY QUESTIONS.

AND THE TEAM THAT OPPOSES THE

NOMINEE ASKS VERY DIFFICULT

ONES.

GIVEN THE COMPOSITION OF THE

SENATE, IT'S SORT OF A FOREGONE

CONCLUSION AT THIS POINT.

>> IT CERTAINLY DOES SEEM THAT

WAY.

THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NEED

SEVERAL SENATORS TO DEFECT, AND

THERE'S NO SIGN OF THAT AT THIS

POINT.

THERE ARE TWO SENATORS, SENATOR

LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA AND

SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE,

WHO HAD SAID THAT THEY WANTED

REPUBLICANS TO WAIT AND NOT VOTE

ON A NOMINEE BEFORE THE

ELECTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT

EITHER ONE OF THEM HAS COMMITTED

TO NOT VOTING FOR JUDGE BARRETT.

SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE SHE HAS THE

VOTES AT THIS POINT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK

THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE

DISCUSSIONS.

IT'S SORT OF AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CIVICS

LESSON, YOU KNOW, IN WHICH THE

PARTY THAT IS OPPOSING THE

NOMINEE IN PARTICULAR CAN USE

THE SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO, SORT OF,

EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE

NOMINEE.

BECAUSE, REMEMBER, UNLIKE THE

SENATE, THE SUPREME COURT

PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT TELEVISED.

AND RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ACTUALLY

HEARING THEM BECAUSE OF THE

PANDEMIC LIVE AUDIO, BUT WE

DON'T SEE THE SUPREME COURT IN

ACTION, SORT OF.

SO WE LEARN A LOT MORE ABOUT

THIS PERSON.

>> Sreenivasan: IF THE SENATE

AND THE PRESIDENT HAVE THEIR

WAY, THIS NOMINATION WRAPS UP

RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

WHAT ARE THE BIG CASES THAT

SHE'S GOING TO FACE?

>> THERE ARE TWO VERY BIG ONES

THAT SHE WOULD FACE ALMOST

IMMEDIATELY.

THE DAY AFTER ELECTION DAY, THE

SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR ORAL

ARGUMENTS IN A CASE CALLED

"FULTON VERSUS CITY OF

PHILADELPHIA."

AND THIS IS A CASE ABOUT THE

BALANCE BETWEEN RELIGIOUS

BELIEFS ON THE ONE HAND, AND

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS,

PARTICULARLY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

LAWS AGAINST L.G.B.T.Q. PEOPLE,

ON THE OTHER HAND.

AND IT'S A, SORT OF A SECOND

ROUND OF CASES.

MANY OF YOUR VIEWERS MAY

REMEMBER FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS

AGO A CASE INVOLVING A COLORADO

BAKER WHO REFUSED TO MAKE CAKES

FOR A SAME SEX WEDDING.

AND THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT

CASE RULED FOR THE BAKER,

BUT IN A VERY NARROW WAY THAT

DIDN'T RESOLVE THE BROADER

QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU BALANCE

SOMEONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

AGAINST ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

LAWS?

AND SO, THE QUESTION IS BACK IN

A CASE BROUGHT BY CATHOLIC

SOCIAL SERVICES IN PHILADELPHIA

AGAINST THE CITY OF

PHILADELPHIA, WHICH WON'T NOW

GIVE CONTRACTS TO CATHOLIC

SOCIAL SERVICES BECAUSE CATHOLIC

SOCIAL SERVICES WON'T WORK WITH

FOSTER CARE PARENTS WHO ARE SAME

SEX COUPLES.

>> Sreenivasan: HMM.

>> AND THE SECOND ONE IS A WEEK

AFTER ELECTION DAY, AND THAT IS

THE CHALLENGE TO THE INDIVIDUAL

MANDATE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE

ACT.

AND THAT IS A CASE THAT BACK IN

2012, AGAIN, MANY OF YOUR

VIEWERS MAY REMEMBER, THE CHIEF

JUSTICE, JOHN ROBERTS, JOINED

THE COURT'S THEN FOUR MORE

LIBERAL JUSTICES IN UPHOLDING

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER, THE

CONGRESS CHANGED THE MANDATE.

THEY REDUCED THE PENALTY FOR NOT

GETTING HEALTH INSURANCE TO

ZERO.

AND SO, TEXAS AND SOME OTHER

SO-CALLED RED STATES WENT TO

COURT, SAID, WELL, IF THERE'S NO

LONGER A PENALTY FOR NOT GETTING

HEALTH INSURANCE, IT CAN'T BE A

TAX.

AND THEY SAID IF THE MANDATE'S

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, THE WHOLE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS TO GO

WITH IT.

AND SO, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY

CONSEQUENTIAL CASE THAT IS GOING

TO BE ARGUED ON NOVEMBER 10 AT

THE SUPREME COURT.

>> Sreenivasan: ONE THING A LOT

OF PEOPLE ARE CURIOUS ABOUT IS

WHAT IF THE ELECTION, SIMILAR TO

2000, ENDS UP IN FRONT OF THE

SUPREME COURT?

WOULD SHE PLAY A ROLE IN THAT?

>> I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY A

QUESTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO

HEAR ASKED AT THE HEARINGS IN A

VARIETY OF DIFFERENT

FORMULATIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW

WHAT HER ANSWER WILL BE.

I THINK THAT SHE IS LIKELY TO

PLAY A ROLE.

AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT AND

SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE SUGGESTED

THAT THAT IS, IN FACT, A REASON

WHY WE NEED A NINTH JUSTICE ON

THE SUPREME COURT IN ADVANCE OF

THE ELECTIONS.

CERTAINLY ANY LITIGATION ARISING

OUT OF THE ELECTIONS ISN'T GOING

TO ARRIVE ON THE SUPREME COURT

ON, YOU KNOW, NOVEMBER 4, RIGHT.

IT WOULD TAKE A WHILE TO BUBBLE

UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT, SORT OF THE BROADER

QUESTION I THINK SHE IS LIKELY

TO PLAY A ROLE.

>> Sreenivasan: AMY HOWE, "THE

SCOTUS BLOG."

THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.