[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 181 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6384-S6385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Madam President, this morning, the Judiciary Committee reported the 
nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the floor. Their 
recommendation was that she be confirmed. It was actually unanimous. As 
one CNN journalist stated last week, ``Let's be honest, in another 
[political] age . . . Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes 
or more in the U.S. Senate because of her qualifications.''
  It is supremely ironic that our Democratic colleagues delivered 
through a temper tantrum what they should have delivered through a fair 
appraisal: a unanimous endorsement. They, of course, were not there.
  All last week, the legal brilliance and judicial temperament our 
Nation deserves in a Supreme Court Justice were on full display. We saw 
why legal peers, fellow scholars, nonpartisan evaluators, students, and 
clerks from across the political spectrum have praised this nominee in 
the very highest terms.
  In just a few days, she will receive a vote on this floor. I 
anticipate we will have a new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of 
the United States. That is exactly what the American people want to 
happen. Clear majorities of Americans want Judge Barrett confirmed. Of 
our fellow citizens who formed an opinion, roughly two out of three 
want confirmation.
  The Democratic leader's histrionics are proving just as unpersuasive 
outside the Chamber as they have proven inside it. His anger and false 
statements failed to persuade the Senate and failed to persuade the 
American people. Day after day, our colleague from New York performs 
the same angry speech with the same falsehoods and forces a vote on 
some pointless impermissible motion.
  The Democratic leader is just lashing out in random ways. A few weeks 
ago, he torpedoed a bipartisan counterintelligence briefing for no 
reason. This week, he blocked a pandemic rescue package and tried 
repeatedly to adjourn the Senate for multiple weeks.
  Today, I understand he stood outside the Senate to shout that 
Democrats would be boycotting the committee vote, and the committee 
vote had already ended.
  Look, I understand that some outside pressure groups have been 
badgering the Democratic leader to act more angry. I am just sorry for 
the Senate that he obeys them. I am sorry our colleague felt the need 
to publicly brag that he had scolded the senior Senator from California 
for being too civil. Scolding somebody for being too civil, one of our 
colleagues? It is not a good idea to be civil?
  Really, I am sorry that he feels the need to constantly say things 
that are false. The American people know that we disagree. They do not 
expect ``kumbaya,'' but they deserve an adult discussion.
  Let's review some facts. First, the timeline. The Democratic leader's 
claims this process has been rushed are simply false. Sixteen days 
passed between President Trump's announcement and the start of the 
hearings. In the last 60 years alone, eight Supreme Court confirmations 
moved faster. Only eight moved faster in the last 60 years. Then 1 week 
elapsed between the end of Judge Barrett's hearings and today's 
committee vote. Half of all the confirmations since 1916 have moved 
faster than that. Half of all the confirmations since 1916 have moved 
faster than that.
  Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 19 days from start to 
finish. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took just over a month. Chief 
Justice John Marshall was confirmed in 1 week after John Adams already 
lost reelection. John Adams appointed Chief Justice John Marshall after 
he had already lost the election. President Lincoln got someone 
confirmed in 1 day.
  Obviously, it is completely false to say that this has been anywhere 
close to the fastest process ever. It is just disinformation.
  Here is another nonsense claim: that Judge Barrett is somehow the 
most partisan or politicalized nominee ever. Really? Andrew Jackson 
nominated a political operative to the Court at the end of his 
Presidency. Lincoln put his own campaign manager on the Court. 
Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren after Warren had stopped competing 
with him in the 1952 election and campaigned for him.
  But this professor from Indiana who got multiple Democratic votes for 
confirmation to her current job just 3 years ago is going to be the 
most political confirmation ever? In the previous century, they put 
their campaign chairman on the Supreme Court. That is pretty political. 
Eisenhower put the Governor of California who ran against him for the 
nomination on the Court. That is pretty political.
  I will give you an example.
  The great John Marshall Harlan, from Kentucky, had a partner who was 
a Cabinet member in the Grant administration--a guy named Benjamin 
Bristow. Bristow was sort of thought of as ``Mr. Clean'' in the Grant 
administration, which had a lot of scandal problems. The GOP convention 
in 1876 was going to be in Cincinnati. In those days, of course, if you 
wanted to be President, you couldn't admit it. You sort of had to act 
like you were being drafted. So John Marshall Harlan, the largely 
unknown partner of the better known Benjamin Bristow, went to 
Cincinnati, to the GOP convention, to get his law partner, Mr. Clean, 
the nomination--the perfect choice after 8 years of scandal in the 
Grant administration.
  It became clear after a few rounds of voting that he wasn't going to 
be able to pull it off for his partner, Benjamin Bristow, so Harlan 
threw Bristow's votes to the Governor of Ohio, Rutherford B. Hayes. 
Amazingly enough, right after President Hayes was sworn in in March of 
1877, it was John Marshall Harlan, not Benjamin Bristow, who ended up 
on the Supreme Court.
  He served for 30 years with great distinction and was the sole 
dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson. He was the one Member of the Court in 
1896 who got it right with regard to desegregation and public 
accommodations. That actually became the majority opinion 58 years 
later in Brown v. Board of Education.
  Talk about a political appointment. That was a political appointment. 
Amy Coney Barrett is not the most political appointment ever to the 
Supreme Court by any objective standard. So these are not really 
arguments. They are just kind of angry noises.
  The Democratic leader said: ``Abraham Lincoln, when [he] had the 
opportunity to fill a Supreme Court seat,

[[Page S6385]]

said it would be unfair to do it so close to an election.''
  That is not true. It never happened. President Lincoln never said 
that nor did he do that. The Washington Post already debunked this 
disinformation when another Democratic Senator tried to spread it.
  Now the Democratic leader is claiming Chairman Graham did something 
unprecedented in committee this morning. That would be news to Senator 
Leahy, who had a Democratic majority vote multiple judges to the floor 
in 2014 when there were not two Republicans present. Chairmen of both 
parties have done the same thing multiple times.
  The Democratic leader continues to misstate what the Republicans said 
in 2016. Let me quote verbatim from my very first floor speech after 
Justice Scalia passed away. Here is what I said: ``The Senate has not 
filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided 
government since 1888.'' That is what we had then, a divided 
government--a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. Now, my 
friend the Democratic leader may be emotionally invested in this idea 
that I said something else, but that is, in fact, what I said. 
Historical precedent supported no confirmation in 2016, and it supports 
confirming Judge Barrett now.
  Look, everybody knows what is going on here. We know why the 
Democratic leader feels this need to keep saying things that aren't 
true. Our colleague is trying to invent a justification to declare war 
on judicial independence and pack the Supreme Court if the Democrats 
should win power. That is what this is all about.
  Back in March, he walked across the street and threatened Justices by 
name if they ruled against his wishes, and now, even though this Court 
ended up delighting the political left with several decisions this very 
year, he still wants an excuse to pack the Court.
  The American people know what a terrible idea this is. Polls show 
majority support for confirming Judge Barrett and overwhelming 
opposition to court-packing. The American people are glad that Franklin 
Roosevelt didn't get to blow up our independent judiciary in 1937, and 
they strongly oppose Democratic threats now.
  The Democratic leader may support court-packing, and former Vice 
President Biden may call it a ``live ball,'' but the American people 
know these threats are anathema to the rule of law.
  This Senate majority will not let falsehoods drown out facts. We will 
not reward hostage-taking, and we will not be bullied out of doing what 
is right. We are going to follow history and precedent and do our job.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.