[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6419-S6420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate took the first 
step toward concluding our consideration of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's 
nomination to the Supreme Court. The judge is one of the most 
brilliant, admired, and impressive nominees for any public office in a 
generation. Tomorrow, we will vote on advancing her nomination toward 
final confirmation on Monday.
  Our recent debates have been heated, but, curiously, talk of Judge 
Barrett's actual credentials or qualifications has hardly featured in 
it. The Democratic leader summarized his view yesterday: ``It's not 
about qualifications''--his words.
  Instead, our Democratic colleagues have tried to claim the Senate's 
process itself is not legitimate. These claims are supposed to lay 
groundwork for radical, institution-wrecking changes down the road.
  But, of course, they are not true. We live in a constitutional 
Republic. The legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings 
it provokes in politicians. Let me say that again: The legitimacy of an 
outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes in politicians. 
Legitimacy comes from precedence, rules, and, ultimately, the 
Constitution.
  Let's restate a few facts for posterity. No. 1, there is no 
inconsistency between the Republican Senate's decision in 2016 and our 
decision to confirm Judge Barrett this year.

[[Page S6420]]

  Here is what I said in my very first floor speech following the death 
of Justice Scalia: ``The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an 
election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 
years ago''--not setting some new precedent, just stating a fact.
  Fifteen times in American history, during a Presidential election 
year, new Supreme Court vacancies have arisen and Presidents have made 
nominations. Seven of those 15 times, voters had elected an opposite-
party Senate to check and balance the sitting President. Not 
surprisingly, in those situations, only two of the seven were 
confirmed, and none since 1888. The other eight times, the same party 
controlled the Senate and the White House. Seven of those eight were 
confirmed--all but one. The one exception unraveled in a scandal.
  We followed precedent in 2016, and we are following precedent this 
week.
  No. 2, it has been claimed that Chairman Graham broke the rules by 
reporting out Judge Barrett's nomination--not so. As the 
Parliamentarian confirmed on Thursday, standing rule XXVI and Senate 
precedent are crystal clear. If a majority of a committee is physically 
present and votes in favor of a nomination, reporting it to the floor 
is a valid action, irrespective of what committee rules may say.
  Chairman Graham didn't even violate the rules of his own committee. 
Past chairmen of both parties have done precisely what Chairman Graham 
did on Thursday morning. In 2014, for one example, Chairman Leahy and 
the committee's Democratic majority voted multiple Federal judges to 
the floor without two members of the minority present--just a few years 
ago. Nothing remotely unprecedented took place--not in committee, not 
on the floor.
  No. 3, timing. Some colleagues kept repeating the absurd claim that 
this is the most rushed confirmation process in history. Well, that is 
flatout false. From the announcement of the nomination to the start of 
hearings, eight Supreme Court nominations in the last 60 years moved 
more quickly than this one. Eight in the last 60 years moved more 
quickly than this one. Then, from the end of the hearing to the 
committee vote, half of all confirmations since 1916 actually moved 
faster than this one.
  Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 19 days, from start to 
finish; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in about 4 weeks. In the past, 
Justices have been confirmed in 1 week; some in 1 day. There is no 
argument that Judge Barrett's nomination has moved at a breakneck pace. 
Facts are facts.
  No. 4, contrary to what has been claimed, the Senate has absolutely 
confirmed Supreme Court nominees later in Presidential election years 
than this one. Multiple Justices were confirmed after elections had 
already happened. We have had multiple Supreme Court Justices confirmed 
in December of election years. Senates have even confirmed nominees for 
lameduck Presidents who just lost. That is another nonissue.
  All of these false claims embarrass those who repeat them, but the 
most important point is this: In this country, legitimacy does not flow 
from the whims of politicians. Legitimacy does not depend on which 
political party makes that decision. Legitimacy comes from traditions, 
rules, and the Constitution.
  Our Democratic colleagues have spent months obsessively demanding 
that our President repeatedly acknowledge that the election will be 
legitimate even if he loses. But here in the Senate, with this 
confirmation process, Democrats are flunking their own test. Let me say 
that again. Democrats want President Trump to keep repeating that the 
election will be legitimate regardless of whether he wins, but here in 
the Senate, the very same people are saying our vote on Monday will 
only be valid if they like the outcome.
  Our Republic cannot abide any political faction making 
``illegitimate'' a sloppy synonym for ``we are not happy.'' Of course, 
they are not happy. That doesn't make anything about this illegitimate.
  That kind of recklessness leads down a road that none of us should 
want to travel. That is why I keep correcting the record, even though 
it might seem silly. After all, if Republicans have the votes, why not 
ignore our colleagues and their statements and move on? I have chosen 
not to do that. It remains our duty to separate right from wrong, fact 
from fiction, for the good of the Senate and for our country.
  Judge Barrett's confirmation process has followed every rule. It has 
followed the Constitution in every respect. We have abided by the norms 
and traditions dictated by our history, and we are going to vote 
tomorrow.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.