[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6427-S6428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee advanced the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 
unanimously. It was unanimous because our Democratic colleagues sought 
to boycott the meeting. But what they basically did was expedite 
consideration of her nomination.
  It was really kind of puzzling to see the chairs that were set aside 
for our Democratic colleagues filled with large, blown-up pictures, and 
I will sort of get to that in a moment, the false narrative that we 
have seen here because our colleagues cannot successfully attack the 
character or the qualifications of this incredible nominee to this seat 
on the Supreme Court.
  Judge Barrett discussed everything from the separation of powers to 
the free expression clause of the First Amendment. Many of us marveled 
at her knowledge and her ability to recall facts and legal decisions 
without so much as even a note in front of her.
  It is no surprise that the American Bar Association, which the 
minority leader has called the gold standard, gave her their highest 
rating.
  The chair of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary said: ``[I]n 
interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who 
know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person 
uttered a negative word about her character.''
  That assessment is in line with the glowing letters of support we 
have seen from her former colleagues and students whose political 
philosophies and beliefs fall across the entire political spectrum.
  What we have repeatedly heard is about Judge Barrett's brilliance, 
her strong character, her great temperament, and her impressive 
humility. Judge Barrett, I am convinced, will serve our Nation well in 
the Supreme Court.
  It is clear that the mountains of evidence stand in sharp contrast to 
the portrait our colleagues across the aisle have attempted to paint of 
this nominee. Democrats have tried to claim that she is somehow ``too 
radical,'' despite the fact that in her 3 years on the Seventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals, she has agreed with her colleagues 95 percent of the 
time in the 600 cases they have decided.
  Back in 2017, when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit, she was 
attacked explicitly because of her Catholic faith, even though our 
colleagues know that under the Constitution, no religious test is 
permissible, really suggesting that because of her faith, she couldn't 
follow her oath to decide cases on the facts and the law that come 
before her--truly insulting and completely out of character with the 
person we saw in Judge Barrett in front of the Judiciary Committee.
  Our colleagues even went so far as to hold up a chart with more than 
100 cases listed and claimed that Judge Barrett would overturn every 
single one of those precedents. There is certainly no evidence of that. 
Nothing in the record would suggest it. With her fidelity to the law, 
do you think she would be so reckless? Well, of course not. There is 
just no evidence to support it.
  But we know that because they couldn't attack her on the merits, they 
decided to use fearmongering instead. Through innuendo, misinformation, 
and intellectually dishonest arguments, they have been trying to stoke 
fears about how she may rule on a case she has not even heard yet. This 
is sort of a sky-is-falling argument, a Chicken Little argument.
  It really has more to do with the way our Democratic colleagues view 
the judicial branch. They view it as another political branch, as 
opposed to an apolitical branch that is supposed to interpret the law 
and the facts and decide cases on their own merits.
  Instead of addressing her judicial philosophy, our Democratic 
colleagues eagerly shared their plan, should she be confirmed, to pack 
the Supreme Court with additional Justices to give them the political 
results they cannot achieve with the current composition of the Court.
  This is something that Ruth Bader Ginsburg explicitly condemned, 
saying that this would turn the Supreme Court into just another 
political body. You can imagine if Democrats, when they are in power, 
decide to add additional judges who may decide cases in the way they 
would like to see them decided, the temptation would be great for the 
other side of the aisle to add judges to the Supreme Court. It would 
completely destroy what has been rightly called the crown jewels of our 
Constitution, and that is our independent judiciary.
  For many Americans, the idea of mutating our only apolitical branch 
of government is absolutely terrifying. So, not surprisingly, our 
colleagues across the aisle have tried to rebrand and call this 
rebalancing the Court. Back home, this is what we call putting lipstick 
on a pig.
  Using words like ``rebalance'' is a way to obscure, really, what 
their goal is. They want to seize what they view as an unaccountable 
body and use it to secure wins they can't win in the rough and tumble 
of the legislative process. If you can't win an election, if you can't 
win a vote in Congress, well, get the Supreme Court, get the judiciary 
to bail you out. That is not the appropriate role of judges or the 
judiciary under our Constitution.
  Our Democratic colleagues seem absolutely fearful about judges who 
will actually apply the law as written. They want somebody to impose a 
result that they wish were required.
  They want judges to evaluate cases not by the letter of the law but 
through the same lens of personal and political biases. In short, they 
don't really want a fair and impartial judge

[[Page S6428]]

like Judge Barrett. They want a guaranteed result.
  Our Democratic colleagues repeatedly pushed Judge Barrett to say how 
she would rule on future cases. They asked her to share her personal 
views on controversial issues. They demanded a commitment from her to 
recuse herself from specific cases. But, once again, Judge Barrett 
proved why she is the right person for this job. She followed the 
precedent set by former and current Justices and respectfully refrained 
from answering those sorts of provocative questions.
  Contrary to what our Democratic colleagues believe, Supreme Court 
Justices are not life-tenured superlegislators. They are obligated to 
apply the law as written--no favors, no biases, no predetermined 
outcomes. That is what Judge Ginsburg said when she was confirmed, and 
that is why it is so important to confirm Amy Coney Barrett.
  She has artfully demonstrated her understanding of the role of the 
judiciary and shown she has the temperament, the intellect, and the 
experience to serve on the Nation's highest Court.
  She won't impose her personal beliefs. She said that time and again. 
And to suggest that she would somehow violate her judicial oath in a 
future case is inconsistent with everything we have come to know about 
Amy Coney Barrett.
  She won't impose her personal beliefs. She won't try to favor one 
side or the other, and she won't legislate from the bench. That is 
exactly the kind of nominee that Republicans and Democrats should want 
on the High Court.
  So I look forward to supporting Judge Barrett's nomination on Monday, 
when we finally vote to confirm her