[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.

                          ____________________