[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5885-S5886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF AMY CONEY BARRETT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Saturday evening, President Trump
announced his nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett earlier today. I
left our discussion even more convinced that President Trump has
nominated exactly the kind of outstanding person whom the American
people deserve to have on their highest Court.
Americans deserve brilliant judges with first-rate legal minds. Judge
Barrett is that and then some. She attended Notre Dame Law School on
full scholarship, graduated No. 1 in her class, and was executive
editor of the Law Review.
She secured top-flight clerkships on the DC Circuit and the Supreme
Court. After a few years in private practice, she returned to academia
and built a national reputation as an award-winning professor and legal
scholar. Judge Barrett is brilliant.
Americans also deserve judges who are committed to fairness and
impartiality, to following the facts in every case. They deserve judges
who understand that their job is to interpret the text of our laws and
Constitution as they are written, not as the judge might personally
wish they had been written differently.
Again, Judge Barrett passes with flying colors. Her 3 years of
rulings on the Seventh Circuit are the record of a judge who sets out
to do impartial justice under law--nothing more and nothing less. This
nominee could not be more fully qualified to serve on the Supreme
Court.
Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman is a fierce critic of President
Trump. He was one of the House Democrats' star witnesses in their
impeachment. He has known Judge Barrett professionally for more than 20
years. Despite some philosophical differences, he went out of his way
this past weekend to write that she is ``highly qualified to serve on
the Supreme Court.''
Here is what Professor Feldman wrote:
I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who
will analyze and decide
[[Page S5886]]
cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles
to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for
being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.
And if you ``believe in an ideal judicial temperament,'' Professor
Feldman went on, ``then rest assured that Barrett has it.''
It is the same story from everyone--everyone--who knows Judge Barrett
well.
The dean of Notre Dame Law School says she is ``an absolutely
brilliant legal scholar and jurist [and] one of the most popular
teachers we have ever had here.''
One of her faculty colleagues said: ``She is a principled, careful
judge, admired legal scholar, and amazing teacher.''
Six young women who all studied under now-Judge Barrett say she
drilled into them ``the necessity of setting personal beliefs aside
when evaluating the answer to a legal question.''
These objective qualifications and credentials are what matter most.
Judge Barrett deserves to be judged by her record.
But a few more things bear notice. As our Nation continues to honor
the trailblazing life of the late Justice Ginsburg, it seems fitting
that President Trump has nominated another brilliant woman who has
climbed to the very top of the legal field. Young women who know Judge
Barrett well describe her as not just an excellent teacher but a
gracious mentor and an inspiring example of female leadership.
As the only congressional leader not from New York or California, I
applaud the President's decision to look to the heartland. If
confirmed, Judge Barrett would be the only current Supreme Court
Justice with a law degree from anywhere besides Harvard or Yale--from
anywhere besides Harvard or Yale. I would say this nominee would bring
welcomed diversity on multiple fronts.
As I predicted last week, the far left is rushing to make this
nomination about anything but Judge Barrett's qualifications. The
instant she was announced, they started with the same unhinged attacks
they have recycled for every Supreme Court nomination by every
Republican President since the 1970s.
Remember, the far left said Justice Stevens opposed ``women's
rights,'' that Justice Kennedy would be ``a disaster for women,'' and
that Justice Souter would put the ``health and lives'' of Americans at
risk.
Well, Saturday went like clockwork. The political left took one more
look at Judge Barrett's qualifications, gave up on debating the merits,
and headed right at the same old scare tactics. Our colleague, the
Democratic leader, informed Americans that this 48-year-old working
mother was going to ``turn back the clock on women's rights.'' This 48-
year-old working mother was going to ``turn back the clock on women's
rights,'' so said the Democratic leader.
The junior Senator from California said the nominee would ``harm
millions of Americans.''
The junior Senator from Connecticut said ``Amy Coney Barrett would
create a humanitarian catastrophe.''
Well, here we go again. Here we go again. One of the preselected
scare tactics is that Judge Barrett is out to steal Americans'
healthcare coverage. That is the claim. This mother of seven, including
multiple children who were born or adopted facing preexisting medical
challenges, is just itching to block families like hers from accessing
medical care. What a joke. What a joke.
When Senate Democrats were trying to attack Chief Justice John
Roberts, long before ObamaCare even existed, they claimed he had sought
to ``put millions of American consumers and families at risk of losing
coverage.'' They have been recycling these same attacks since before
they even passed the law they now say they are worried about.
On this occasion, their entire argument seems to come down to a
technical analysis Judge Barrett put forward in a 4-year-old academic
paper about one part of ObamaCare, which Congress has already zeroed
out in the meantime. Let me just say that again. The entire argument
seems to come down to a technical analysis that Judge Barrett put
forward in a 4-year-old academic paper about one part--just one part--
of ObamaCare, which Congress has already zeroed out in the meantime.
These hysterical claims collapse under the slightest examination,
but, sadly, they are just beginning. Three years ago, Senate Democrats'
bizarre attacks on Judge Barrett's religious faith became a national
embarrassment for their side of the aisle.
The senior Senator from Illinois asked now-Judge Barrett: ``Do you
consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?'' This was actually during a
U.S. Senate hearing. The senior Senator from California told her that
``the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern.''
This was not, regretfully, an isolated incident. Over the past few
years, multiple Senate Democrats, on multiple different occasions, have
openly suggested that certain kinds of religious beliefs might
disqualify citizens from public service.
In 2017, the junior Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, told an
executive branch nominee that he had made an ``indefensible, hateful,
Islamophobic'' statement because he had articulated a personal belief
that Christianity gets things right which Islam gets wrong.
In 2018, the junior Senator from California, who is now asking for
Americans' votes to be Vice President, attacked a different nominee for
participating in the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus? This
is a massive, noncontroversial Catholic men's association that is known
for things like shoveling snow off church sidewalks and hosting pancake
breakfasts.
``Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman's right
to choose,'' Senator Harris asked, as though it were remotely
controversial that a famous Catholic organization would subscribe to
Catholic teaching on the right to life.
The junior Senator from Hawaii suggested this nominee would need to
quit the organization, quit the Knights of Columbus to serve as a
judge. You would think the national backlash to all of this would have
taught the political left a lesson.
Here is what happened in just the past few days. The Associated
Press, Reuters, POLITICO, Newsweek, and the Washington Post have
already run up major stories on the Barrett family's private faith
practices. Each strongly implied there might be something worrisome or
disqualifying if a Federal judge were a faithful Christian with strong
ties to spiritual groups. POLITICO's contributing editor literally went
and peered around the physical grounds of a religious facility in South
Bend so he could report what the youth group had written on their
whiteboard. Less than 72 hours in, this is where we are. The elite
class is already treating Americans of faith like exotic animals on
display in a menagerie.
Look, I understand the far left had committed to opposing this
nominee before she was even named. I understand some politicians have
decided to oppose Judge Barrett before they even considered her record.
But every time they choose to use the nominee's personal faith as a
political weapon, they will only be reminding millions of Americans why
it is so essential to have judges just like Judge Barrett on the bench.
In this country--our country--citizens have religious liberty. In
this country--our country--there is no religious test for public
office. In this Country--our country--we have the right to seek the
protection of the courts when our free exercise of religion is
threatened. That is why we need judges like Judge Barrett who
understand our laws and Constitution and will uphold our freedoms
accordingly. If the reflexive opponents of Judge Barrett's nomination
want to argue otherwise, they will only be proving how much better she
understands our Constitution than they do.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________