Fox News "Sunday with Chris Wallace" - Transcript Interview with John Kennedy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Now let's turn to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee where those hearings will take place, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. Welcome back to Fox News Sunday, Senator. Nice to have you.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, (R-LA): Thank you, Brit. Nice to be here.

HUME: Now let me get your reaction -- we can now see, I think pretty clearly, the outlines of the case, at least a big part of the case is going to be made by Democrats against Judge Barrett, which is that she will be an inevitable vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act as it now exists.

What's your reaction to that?

SEN. KENNEDY: Senator Stabenow is my colleague and I consider Debbie a friend, so I say this gently, sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here. Unless Debbie is clairvoyant, I don't think she knows how the nominee is going to vote or any other member of the United States Supreme Court.

But Debbie makes the point the difference between Democrats and Republicans, in terms of the role of the Supreme Court, my Democratic friends think the Supreme Court ought to be a mini Congress, they're politicians without robes, they don't even need to hear cases. They already know how they're going to vote. And that's part of the problem.

That's not how I view the appropriate role of the Supreme Court. And I don't think that is how it operates. You're going to see a lot of evidence --

(CROSSTALK)

-- accusations -- sure.

HUME: Senator, let me just ask you this --

SEN. KENNEDY: Go ahead.

HUME: -- about the very process and the fact of the nomination. You, of course, were around when the nomination was made of Merrick Garland and the Senate simply refused to take it up in any way.

And the case was made by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, that the American people this closest (ph) in an election year, which that was, back when President Obama nominated Judge Garland, should have a say in a Supreme Court nomination made that close to an election.

Now it seems that the roles are reversed. A president has made a nomination. It is an election year, indeed it is very close to the election, and the view, and the other Republicans are prepared to move forward with this, in -- which is, distinct, obviously, from the course you took just four years or so ago. They are being accused of hypocrisy and double standards.

How do you answer?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, let me finish my last point first, to Debbie and my colleagues in the Senate. I hope they let us have a respectful process. We don't need another freak show. I mean, I hope they won't get into the foothills of KiKi (ph) and bring back Michael Avenatti and all that other stuff. Let us focus on the nominee.

Now to answer your question, I'm rather fond of the Constitution. I have read it. Its provisions about filling a Supreme Court vacancy are unaffected by the electoral calendar.

I realize that on both sides, Brit, there's been a lot of circumlocution and attempted Churchillian rhetoric about the president to be followed during an election year to fill a vacancy.

Here's as best as I can tell, here's the rule. When the Democrats are in charge of the process, they do what they think is right, consistent with the Constitution. When the Republicans are in charge of the process, they do what they think is right. And I think that's what our founders intended.

I think our founders intended elections to have consequences and when they send people to Washington of a particular party, they expect them to represent their voters. And I think that's been the tradition and the precedent.

HUME: It appears from a constitutional point of view that you are spot on with that. The Constitution certainly doesn't say anything, as you point out, about the electoral process in terms of the appointment of confirmation of Supreme Court justices.

But would you not acknowledge that what we have here is a serious case on both sides on this issue of shoe on the other foot disease?

SEN. KENNEDY: Sure, absolutely. And that's why I say if you -- in Washington, as you know better than I do, Brit, you have to watch what people do, not what they say. And if you watch what has happened, in the history of ever, I don't think there's ever been another instance where when the Democrats were in charge they didn't do what they wanted and when the Republicans were in charge they didn't do what they wanted. Consistent with the Constitution.

Right now we have a Republican president, we have a Republican Senate. If that shoe were on the other foot, then I can assure you Senator Schumer would do what the Republicans are doing right now.

As I said the other day, if you don't believe that, you probably peaked in high school.

HUME: So you're hoping, as I'm sure others are as well, that we will have something other than what you called a freak show in this, but there is some real history here, the Kavanaugh nomination being only the most recent example. Previously we had late and unexpected allegations made of sexual misconduct against now Justice Clarence Thomas.

Is it your sense that the Senate's appetite for allowing this kind of thing to go on is diminished? Because otherwise, if something like this comes along, I'm not sure what you can do about it. What can you do?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, if my Democratic friends want to turn it into an intergalactic freak show and bring back the protesters with the genitalia shaped head gear, I can't stop them. I just hope they won't (ph).

I'm going to do my job. I think she's a good nominee, but my job is to advise and consent. I'm going to probe her intellect, her temperament, her judicial philosophy, her character. I want to be assured that --

HUME: (INAUDIBLE).

SEN. KENNEDY: -- she doesn't think justices are politicians in robes.

I'm going to answer that in a second.

I want to be assured that she's not one of these justices that tries to rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday to advance a political agenda that the voters won't accept. I don't think her faith -- I mean, if the Democrats (INAUDIBLE) if she believes in God, therefore she is unqualified, I don't think that's illegal in America. I hope not. We have religious freedom and it should be jealously guarded.

They tried that when she came up for a Court of Appeal nomination. It didn't work out too well. They may try it again. As I say, before it's over with, they may bring back Michael Avenatti, but I hope so because it cheapens the process. I hope not rather.

HUME: Senator Kennedy, thank you very much for joining us today. Always good to talk to you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source