[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15302-15303]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF AMY BARRETT

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss how we allow 
religious believers to participate in public life.
  From the founding of our country, religious believers have played a 
central role in our government. The Declaration of Independence was 
signed by a Presbyterian minister, John Witherspoon, and Charles 
Carroll, the cousin of our first Catholic bishop.
  The importance of religious participation was in the air the Founders 
breathed, and the benefits religious believers of all backgrounds 
contributed to the common good was understood by the Framers of the 
Constitution. That is why they made it clear in article VI of the 
Constitution that no public officers could be subject to a ``religious 
test.'' This new country wouldn't be a country for Anglicans or for 
Congregationalists or for Quakers; it would be a country for all 
Americans and all faiths--all of those who are committed to the 
Constitution and the common good.
  Unfortunately, the religious test clause is no longer just the 
subject of history lessons. During this Congress, there have been a 
number of cases where my friends in the minority have seemed to ask 
nominees about their substantive religious beliefs. I find this 
particularly troublesome because, as a Mormon, I am a member of a faith 
that, while it is growing rapidly, still counts fewer adherents than 
many other religions. It is religious liberty, espoused in 
constitutional provisions like article VI and the First Amendment, that 
has allowed my faith, despite a very difficult history, to flourish in 
the United States, and it is religious liberty that is threatened when 
we seem to evaluate the fitness of nominees for higher office on 
religious orthodoxy.
  The most recent example of this was the recent Judiciary Committee 
nomination hearing of Professor Amy Coney Barrett of the Notre Dame Law 
School. During the hearing, she was asked repeatedly about her Catholic 
faith and faced what bordered on ridicule when she repeatedly stated 
that she would perform her judicial duties without interference from 
the doctrines of the Catholic faith. It was stated by one questioner: 
``The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern.'' What does 
that statement mean in this context, if not to question Professor 
Barrett's judicial fitness based on her religious beliefs?
  Liberal groups have been relentless in their opposition to Professor 
Barrett, mischaracterizing her record to paint her as some kind of 
fringe ideologue waiting to take orders from the Pope or others in 
clergy on how to decide cases. Just last week, the New York Times ran a 
1500-word story on where Professor Barrett worships. As it turns out, 
apart from her parish church, Professor Barrett has been part of an 
ecumenical charismatic community.
  I should note that charismatic Christianity is gaining a lot of 
ground among Latinos in the United States and throughout Latin America. 
It is a vibrant and very diverse religious tradition.
  According to the Times, Professor Barrett should have disclosed her 
participation in this charismatic community to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  Professor Barrett's former professor and colleague, Professor Cathy 
Kaveny of Boston College, went so far as to ask: ``[Nominees] have to 
disclose everything from the Elks Lodge to the alumni associations we 
belong to. Why didn't she disclose this?'' Well, I am no law professor, 
but I can tell you why: because in the United States of America, it 
doesn't matter where you worship when you are being considered for 
Federal office, and that is as it should be.
  The Judiciary Committee does not require disclosure of religious 
affiliation, and I trust my colleagues would join me in strenuously 
objecting if it did.
  It is ironic that a Notre Dame professor is a target of this kind of 
animus. Notre Dame, of course, has long been at the forefront of 
fighting prejudice in this country.
  Early in its years, Notre Dame helped rid America of the scourge of 
slavery. Many artists have rendered Notre Dame professor, Father 
William Corby, giving the Irish Brigade general absolution during the 
Battle of Gettysburg.
  The school then faced down the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. At a time 
when a large number of White men in Indiana were members of the Klan, 
Notre Dame students made it clear that the Klan's brand of nativist, 
anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic hate was not welcomed in South Bend.
  Four decades later, Notre Dame's president, Father Ted Hesburgh, 
received a call about a rally at Soldier Field being organized by Dr. 
Martin Luther King. Hesburgh was told that Mayor Daley and Cardinal 
Cody had declined invitations to appear at the civil rights rally, and 
the organizers wondered if he would be willing to appear. In response, 
Hesburgh drove to Chicago, locked hands with Dr. King, and sang ``We 
Shall Overcome.''
  Whether it is slavery, nativism, or Jim Crow, Notre Dame has stood up 
to it and has triumphed. In that same tradition, I am confident that 
Professor Barrett is up to that task. What is remarkable is that I need 
to say this in 2017.
  It bears repeating that a Roman Catholic can be a faithful steward of 
the law. So can an Episcopalian. So can a Mormon. So can a Muslim. Of 
course, so can an atheist.

[[Page 15303]]

  We in the Senate give the President advice and consent on judicial 
nominations. We therefore should examine their jurisprudential views 
and their qualifications. We must not examine their relationships with 
the Almighty.
  I sincerely hope this body will step back from this dangerous ledge 
and evaluate Professor Barrett based on her impeccable qualifications, 
not where she attends church.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________