[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 184 (Sunday, October 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6450-S6451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me begin this afternoon with the 
following quote:

       [F]ew men in . . . society . . . will have sufficient skill 
     in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And . 
     . . the number must still be still smaller of those who unite 
     the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.

  That was Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78.
  The Framers knew the independent judiciary would be a crucial part of 
this new experiment in self-government. If the separation of powers 
were to endure and the people's rights were to be safe, we would need 
individuals of the highest quality on the courts. So how fortunate for 
our country that the Senate just advanced one of the most qualified 
nominees to judicial service that we have seen in our lifetimes.
  Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit is a stellar nominee in every single respect. Her intellectual 
brilliance is unquestioned. Her command of the law is remarkable. Her 
integrity is above reproach.
  First, as an award-winning academic and then as a circuit judge, she 
has worked her way up to the pinnacle of the law.
  But just as importantly, Judge Barrett has displayed zero willingness 
to impose personal views or clumsily craft new policy with her gavel. 
She has demonstrated the judicial humility, the neutrality, and the 
commitment to our written Constitution that are essential for this 
office.
  By now, as tends to happen by the end of these processes, the Senate 
knows Judge Barrett very well. Senators saw the Judiciary Committee put 
the nominee through her paces with days of exhaustive questioning. We 
have been able to study nearly 100 opinions she has issued in 3 years 
on the Federal bench. We have had another opportunity to examine the 15 
years of scholarly writings that most of us reviewed 3 years ago when 
Judge Barrett won bipartisan confirmation to her current job. And we 
have been deluged by personal testimonies from every corner of Judge 
Barrett's career and life to confirm just what a remarkable person this 
nominee is.
  One of Judge Barrett's former colleagues at Notre Dame is a leading 
expert in comparative constitutional law. That means he studies the 
courts and constitutions of countries all around the world. He meets 
judges from across the planet.

  Here is what this expert says about his colleague: ``I have had very 
many occasions to meet, observe, and work with high court judges from 
all over the world, from Argentina to Austria, from South Africa to 
South Korea . . . [and] I can say with great certainty that Judge 
Barrett stands out, on a par in her abilities with the most 
distinguished'' of them all. He goes on to say her legal work is ``as 
erudite as it [is] clear and accessible,'' and ``as honest and fair-
minded . . . as anyone could aspire to, with not a hint of personal 
bias.''
  Now, most of us would be thrilled to receive such praise once or 
twice in an entire career--in an entire career--but Judge Barrett seems 
to provoke this reaction in absolutely everyone. The highest 
professional compliments seem to be the default reaction of anybody who 
crosses her path, anybody who comes into contact with her.
  Eighty-one of her law school classmates from ``diverse backgrounds, 
political affiliations, and philosophies'' say the nominee embodies 
``the highest caliber of intellect . . . fair-mindedness, empathy, 
integrity, humility, good humor, and commitment to justice.'' They also 
said: ``As fellow students, we often learned more from Amy than the 
professor.''
  Three years ago, more than 70 fellow scholars wrote the Senate, 
calling her scholarship ``careful,'' ``rigorous [and] fair-minded.'' 
They said her ``personal integrity'' earns wide respect.
  Listen to this. Every one of the Supreme Court alumni who clerked 
alongside Judge Barrett wrote us to share their ``unanimous'' view that 
she is a ``woman of remarkable intellect and character.'' That means, 
colleagues, those were the clerks to Ginsburg and the clerks to Breyer 
as well--all of them, without exception.
  How did that clerkship come about? It came about, by the way, after 
one of her professors, who is now a university president, wrote Justice 
Scalia with one sentence: ``Amy Coney Barrett is the best student I 
ever had.''
  But before she clerked for the Supreme Court, she clerked for 
Laurence Silberman over on the DC Circuit, who, by his own admission, 
is an Ivy League snob. He got a call one day from a professor at Notre 
Dame, and he said: ``I know you only take clerks from mostly Harvard 
and Yale, but this is the best student I ever had at Notre Dame.'' So 
this Ivy League snob decided to take a chance on somebody who didn't go 
to Harvard or Yale. That was Amy Coney Barrett. And then he called his 
good friend Nino Scalia and said: ``Goodness, gracious, you don't want 
to miss this opportunity to have this clerk.''
  So we have here a uniquely qualified person, and the best evidence of 
it is you don't hear anything over there about her qualifications; not 
a peep about her talent, her intellect. We have, colleagues, the 
perfect nominee for the Supreme Court.
  A few weeks ago, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who leans left, 
wrote that Judge Barrett is ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who 
will analyze and decide cases in good faith.'' He said she ``meets and 
exceeds'' the ``basic criteria for being a good Justice.''
  So, as I was saying, no matter all the acrimony that has swirled 
around the process, nobody has attempted to dispute Judge Barrett's 
qualifications. To the contrary, no one can help being impressed.
  At one point during Judge Barrett's hearing, she was asked about an 
arcane legal doctrine. Her answer was so clear and so accessible that 
one of our Democratic colleagues--I won't name him; I don't want to get 
him in trouble--had to remark: ``That's quite a definition. I'm really 
impressed.'' Well, so are the American people.
  Some opponents of this nomination come right out and say ``It is not 
about qualifications.'' They deserve some credit for being honest about 
it. They say they aren't interested in whether Judge Barrett will 
smartly and faithfully apply our laws and our Constitution. They aren't 
interested in that. Instead, they want to make apocalyptic predictions 
about policy.
  Well, there are a few problems with that. One is that their political 
side

[[Page S6451]]

has been shopping the same horror stories for 50 years. They have been 
saying the same thing for half a century about every Supreme Court 
nominee by a Republican President, without exception. Many of those 
judges--not to the delight of some people on this side of the aisle--
went on to not disappoint the other side, which shows you how hard it 
is to predict what someone will be for life. Many have been surprised, 
some unpleasantly.
  It is almost as if jurists are not politicians with policy platforms. 
It is almost as though that is the wrong way to look at it. That is a 
deeper misunderstanding of what is at play here.
  Let me quote an expert: ``A judge must apply the law as written, not 
as she wishes it were.''
  Scalia used to put it this way. He would say: If you want to make 
policy, why don't you run for office? That is not what we do here. That 
is not our job.
  It takes a good deal of discipline to squeeze your personal opinion 
out of your decision-making. Those are the kinds of judges we have been 
confirming here for the last 4 years--people who are sworn to uphold 
the law and take it seriously.
  President Obama once said he wanted to appoint judges who had 
empathy. Think about it for a minute. If you are the litigant for whom 
the judge has empathy, you are probably in pretty good shape. But what 
if you aren't? That is not what we have been doing here for the last 4 
years with the judiciary. The reason that frightens these guys on the 
other side so much is because that is exactly what they want--another 
branch of legislators seeking outcomes that may or may not be reflected 
in the law or the Constitution that is before them. That is exactly 
what they want.
  Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which 
is critical to a free society, but the policy decisions and value 
judgments of the government must be made by the political branches 
elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect 
courts to do so, and courts should not try--shouldn't try.
  Now, who said that? That was Amy Barrett who said that. She 
understands the separation of powers far more keenly than her critics. 
She understands the job of a judge.
  Our Democratic colleagues should not have tried to filibuster this 
exceptional nominee. They should have listened and actually learned.
  I loved during the hearing when Senator Cornyn said: What do you have 
on your notepad? She held it up. Nothing. Nothing. No notes at all.
  We have a few former Supreme Court clerks on that committee: Senator 
Cruz, Senator Hawley. I have heard them say over and over--oh, three. 
Mike. Sorry. Three. So they have been around the best, at the highest 
level. Nobody has seen anything better than this. This is something to 
really be proud of and feel good about. We made an important 
contribution to the future of this country.
  A lot of what we have done over the last 4 years will be undone 
sooner or later by the next election. They won't be able to do much 
about this for a long time to come.
  Fortunately for Judge Barrett and for our Nation, history will 
remember what is already clear: The deficiency is with their judgment, 
not hers--their judgment, not hers. The Senate is doing the right 
thing.
  We are moving this nomination forward, and, colleagues, by tomorrow 
night we will have a new member of the U.S. Supreme Court
  I yield the floor.