Thread by @NPRinskeep

"The Senate is doing its duty constitutionally," begins committee chairman Graham, who had publicly said on video that he would never try to confirm a justice in an election year, as he is now doing. "Our Democratic friends" will "have a chance to have their say."

Without mentioning his own prior commitments, Graham picks up on Mitch McConnell's argument that everything is different because the president is from his party.

"We've taken a different path at times - Bork, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh," Graham says. He urges Democrats not to attack Barrett the same way. "I think I know how the vote is going to come out," he says, predicting a fully partisan vote.

Feinstein notes Barrett's past criticism of the Court for upholding the ACA: "This well could mean that if Judge Barrett is confirmed, Americans could stand to lose the benefits that the ACA provides." Colleague @kelsey_snell reports that Democrats plan to raise the ACA all day.

"Senate Republicans are pressing, full speed ahead," to "consolidate" their power on the court, says Feinstein. She then reminds Graham of his own public promise on video not to do what he is doing. "I believe we should not be moving forward," she says.

"A good judge understands it's not the Court's place to rewrite the law," says Grassley, who quotes Barrett that judges are not policymakers.

Graham is 65; Feinstein and Grassley, who spoke next, are both 87. Barrett is 48--and her rulings could still be influencing the nation for decades after many of the senators on the committee have left public life.

Grassley defends against the charge the Barrett would overturn the ACA and protection for pre-existing conditions. "Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance of health care," he says. But tangles himself slightly: he quoted Barrett saying her policy views shouldn't matter.

Grassley notes past justices whose views on women's rights and other issues were questioned before their were confirmed. "Ultimately the left praised these very justices that they attacked," he says.

"Literally half the Senate had to break their word" about election year confirmations in order to support Trump's nominee, says Democrat Patrick Leahy.

Leahy asserts that Republicans want to make courts "an arm of the far right," and accomplish through the courts "what they cannot accomplish by votes." Notes that Trump promised that his appointees would overturn the ACA.

Leahy: "I do not suggest that Judge Barrett personally desires" to devastate the lives of people who depend on the ACA's protections for pre-existing conditions. "But these are nonetheless the consequences of her views."

"The Senate used to recognize that exceptional qualifications were all that was required for a seat on the Court," laments John Cornyn. In 2016, when blocking Garland in an election year, Cornyn explained: “The next justice could change the ideological makeup of the Court."

"You stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it," Cornyn says to Barrett, saying she will not bring her policy views to Court cases.

There are 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who seem generally to be taking about five minutes each. Should they continue this pace, Barrett's opening statement might come sometime roughly around 11am ET, though any break they take would change that.

Durbin: "My Republican colleagues marched in front of the cameras, looked down at their shoes, reversed their positions," and made "a shameless, self-serving, venal reversal." He says they might think Trump won't be re-elected.

I don't think any Democrat so far has failed to produce pictures of people with health problems who were protected by the ACA.

Durbin tells Barrett her nomination is under a cloud, because she was appointed by a president with "contempt for the Constitution," who "does not hesitate to tell his followers that you are being sent to the bench to do his political chores."

"We've heard this morning a number of arguments," says Mike Lee of Utah, "mostly policy arguments." This isn't a justice's job, he says. "Your job is to decide what the law says," by looking in the "rear view mirror" at what legislators meant when drafting the law.

"The 5 to 4 configuration is actually relatively rare," Lee says, insisting that many rulings are decided by substantial majorities, despite the different backgrounds and views of each justice, or the party of the president who appointed them.

"We have allowed for the politicization of the one branch of government that is not political," laments Lee. "I will object anytime anyone tries to attribute to you a policy position."

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island does not mention Mike Lee speaking without a mask despite having recently tested positive, but asks: "Who has been tested? Who should be tested? Who is a danger? What contact tracing has been done?" Calls the hearing an "irresponsible botch."

It's clear my math was wrong about the neighborhood 11am; as the speeches stretch out a bit, Barrett seems more likely to speak around midday, if not a good deal later depending on breaks.

As Whitehouse lashes out at John Cornyn, he removes his Texas-flag mask as if preparing to interject.

There is so much discussion at this hearing of the election that it seems relevant to drop in today's polling average from 538, which finds Biden now leading Trump by 10.6 points. Biden has led all year, but has steadily climbed since mid-September. projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/presiden…

Cruz correctly cites the Constitution's framers who set up checks and balances between the president and Senate. He does not mention the framers' suspicion of partisanship and factions.

"Every single member of the Senate" wants to protect pre-existing conditions, insists Cruz, who voted many times to repeal the ACA that protected them. Over the past four years, Senate Republicans have discussed alternatives but never passed one.

Klobuchar quotes the president, who said he wanted the Court to "look at the ballots." Trump has predicted that his Court, including his nominee Barrett, will rule on his baseless claims of widespread mail-in voter fraud.

"The reason people aren't going to fall for this, is because it's so personal," says Klobuchar, and describes how her husband contracted COVID early in the pandemic.

Klobuchar says the president has been irresponsible in his approach to the pandemic, "packing in people without masks to your nomination party, Judge Barrett." Barrett's task is to silently listen to all opening statements, 1 hour and 45 minutes so far.

Klobuchar says she has no procedural way to stop the confirmation, but "we have a secret weapon that they don't have. We have Americans who are watching" and "know that what Republicans are doing right now is very wrong."

Commenting on Klobuchar's speech, Sasse says he agrees with much of it, but "eighth grade civics" shows her points were irrelevant. "I even agree with parts" of her statement about "mismanagement of COVID by Washington, D.C.," he says. She had specified Trump's mismanagement.

"We decided to forget what civics are, and let politics swallow everything," says Senator Sasse. He asserts that party affiliation shouldn't matter in a judge's work. "Judges should be impartial."

Sasse expands the vocabulary of this hearing, twice cheerfully saying "Listen up, jackwagon," when imagining a conversation with his Democratic friend Chris Coons. New word to me. Here's a definition. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jackwagon….

Sasse: "Religious liberty is the basic truth, and whatever you, or I, or Judge Barrett believe about God, isn't anybody's business." Says Christians like him have "weird" beliefs like "forgiveness of sins, the Virgin Birth," and they are allowed.

Chris Coons of Delaware agrees that religious liberty is fundamental, and promises to focus on Barrett's rulings and legal writings. He says they show that if confirmed, she will do irreparable harm.

"They're doing it because they can," says Richard Blumenthal of the Republican effort to confirm Barrett before the election.

"You must recuse yourself" from any election dispute, Blumenthal insists to Barrett. "It's a break-the-glass moment."

Hirono of Hawaii refers to the confirmation process as not only hypocritical but "illegitimate."

Every Democrat has raised the cases of constituents whose health care was in some way protected by the ACA. Hirono, after discussing constituents, describes her own case of cancer.

Speaking to Barrett, Ernst accuses "the left" of "a plan to undermine you as a person, undermine your family, and undermine all you hold dear." Speaks as a "a fellow woman, a fellow mom."

Ernst adds an allegation that the left is trying to portray Barrett as "a cartoon version of a religious radical."

Booker alleges the Republicans hope to "subvert the will of the American people" by appointing a justice who will overturn Roe v Wade and the ACA.

Harris, testifying remotely from her office nearby, asserts that the in-person hearing without testing of senators is "reckless" and endangers cleaning staff and senate aides.

Much as she did several times in the vice presidential debate, Harris looks at the camera and takes the opportunity to talk not to Barrett, but directly to voters watching at home.

This appeared to be the children's book that Senator Harris positioned in the room with her as she spoke remotely: "I Dissent," about RBG. teacherspayteachers.com/Product/I-Diss…

Kennedy of Louisiana tells Barrett her critics predict that "you will be on a mission from God to deny health care coverage for pre-existing conditions." Says this tactic won't work because "the American people are not morons."

"The United States Congress either voluntarily or involuntarily has ceded a lot of its power to the executive branch or the federal judiciary," says John Kennedy. "But our founders intended federal judges to exercise judicial restraint."

Kennedy says judges should not be "politicians and rogues," and then tells Barrett she should not want the Court "to be like this," gesturing around the hearing room.

"Women have had to always fight for a seat at the table," says Blackburn of Tennessee, and then characterizes the left as a danger to women unless the women agree with them politically.

Indiana Senator @ToddYoungIN, introducing the Supreme Court nominee from Indiana, quotes Indiana writer Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. That's a hat trick for my home state, I think.

Indiana @SenatorBraun argues that Barrett has written that judges cannot bend the law to suit their faith. He contends that she would apply the law, not her religion.

In her opening statement, Barrett correctly employs the Indiana pronunciation for her law school. It's Noter Daym, not Note-ruh Dahm.

Barrett describes her family in detail, and adds: "I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life."

"Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches... The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try."

More Barrett: "I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law?"