Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S5899-S5900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF AMY CONEY BARRETT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week, the Senators who are sitting
down with Judge Amy Coney Barrett are meeting an incredibly impressive
jurist and highly qualified nominee. They are hearing from the
professor whom former colleagues call ``mind-blowingly intelligent,''
``one of the most humble people you're going to meet,'' and ``the
complete package.'' They are meeting a law school valedictorian and
award-winning academic whom peers praise for her ``lucid, elegant
prose,'' ``piercing'' legal analysis, and ``absolute dedication to the
rule of law.''
Senators are meeting the distinguished circuit judge whom the liberal
law professor Noah Feldman says is ``a brilliant and conscientious
lawyer'' who is ``highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.''
Some of our Democratic colleagues have decided they will refuse to
meet with Judge Barrett. Several have volunteered their votes will have
nothing to do with her qualifications, as though that were something to
be proud of. The Democratic leader says: ``It's not her
qualifications.'' The junior Senator from Delaware says: ``This isn't
about her qualifications.''
Certainly, every Senator may define ``advice and consent'' how they
wish, but I think it is telling to see Senate Democrats openly
affirming that Judge Barrett's actual judicial qualifications do not
matter to them. Our friends on the left really do mistake the Court as
an unelected superlegislature. They are not interested in Judge
Barrett's legal qualifications because they think
[[Page S5900]]
judges are there to dictate policy outcomes rather than following the
facts and text wherever they lead.
That is why we have had the same scare tactics for almost half a
century. John Paul Stevens was going to end women's rights. David
Souter was going to send vulnerable people into the Dark Ages. John
Roberts was going to declare war on health insurance.
And now our Democratic colleagues want Americans to believe Judge
Barrett is on a one-woman crusade to hurt Americans with preexisting
conditions. One Senator has literally claimed the nominee would--listen
to this--``create a humanitarian catastrophe.''
They are the same old scare tactics, totally predictable and totally
dishonest.
These baseless attacks over healthcare are supposedly founded on a
technical argument in a 4-year-old scholarly article. Then-Professor
Barrett analyzed the Supreme Court's ruling on one piece of ObamaCare--
the unfair, unpopular individual mandate penalty, which we have since
zeroed out. The constitutional arguments over whether that terrible
idea was a ``penalty'' or a ``tax'' are now moot because, whatever you
want to call it, Republicans in Congress zeroed it out 3 years ago.
Working Americans are no longer penalized by that Democrat policy.
Americans with preexisting conditions are still protected and that
specific legal question is moot.
Our Democratic colleagues are grasping at straws. Now they want Judge
Barrett to promise to recuse herself from whole categories of cases. Of
course, that is ridiculous. It is hard to think of anyone in the
country over whom a President has less leverage than a judge with a
lifetime appointment. Nobody suggested Justice Sotomayor or Justice
Kagan needed to categorically sit on the sidelines until President
Obama left office. This is just a backdoor attempt to impugn Judge
Barrett's integrity.
If Senators believe this nominee is committed to impartial justice in
every case, if they believe she will mean her oath when she takes it,
they should vote to confirm her. If they don't, they should vote no.
But only one of these arguments has any basis in Judge Barrett's
resume, her reputation, and the praise that has been showered on her
jurisprudence even by famous liberal lawyers.
Judge Barrett has already stated in writing to the Senate that she
has given nobody in the White House any hints or any assurances about
any kind of cases, real or hypothetical. It is only Senate Democrats
who are trying to extract promises and precommitments. It is only
Democrats who are trying to undermine judicial independence.
Last night on national television, former Vice President Biden
refused to rule out the radical notion of packing the Supreme Court. He
ducked the question. In Washington, when you duck the question, you
know what the answer is. That is exactly what they are up to. That is
exactly what they intend to do.
Last year, our colleague Senator Harris said explicitly that she was
open to it. That is another way of saying that is what they intend to
do. Numerous of our colleagues have refused to rule out this radical
institution-shattering step.
Now Senate Democrats are trying to make Judge Barrett precommit to
handle hypothetical issues the way they want--more disrespect for
judicial independence.
Judge Barrett understands a judge's only loyalty must be to our laws
and our Constitution. She understands our system would collapse if
judges do not leave politics aside. If the Democratic Party feels
differently, if Democrats have decided that judicial independence is
simply an inconvenience to their radical agenda, it shows how little
weight we should afford their criticisms of this outstanding nominee
____________________
