Vote on Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the colloquy here between our colleagues on election interference. I am privileged to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that has undertaken a 3\1/ 2\-year-long investigation of the election interference that occurred in 2016, and I think the five-volume report of the Select Committee on Intelligence--bipartisan report--is indicative of the seriousness with which we all treat this subject.

But I appreciate the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, for his comments, for refreshing all of our memories about the huge amounts of money that we have spent in assistance to State and local election authorities, as well as the good work being done by the Department of Homeland Security to help them secure their networks against cyber attacks, as well as other elements of the U.S. Government, including our intelligence community, the National Security Agency, and others.

This is important work, but I agree with him--this is not how we actually build bipartisan consensus here, by coming and asking for unanimous consent without going through the appropriate procedures and, frankly, the hard work that it takes to build consensus. Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Mr. President, on another matter, today the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court.

Throughout her hearing last week, Judge Barrett wowed America and certainly my constituents in Texas with her impressive knowledge of the law and her clear understanding about the limited but important role that judges play in our Republic.

She followed the precedent set down by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the so- called Ginsburg rule, and refrained from answering questions on how she would rule in future cases or commenting on contentious political issues. I think she was correct to do so. We shouldn't embroil judges in the political controversies that we debate here. Judges are not policymakers, primarily. They are certainly not accountable to the voters. They have lifetime tenure. That is why their responsibilities are limited but important at the same time. Nor by asking her questions back in 2017 about her religious beliefs, whether she is an orthodox Catholic, having to listen to statements like ``Well, the dogma lives loudly within you'' because she is a woman of faith, suggesting that somehow she would violate her oath as a judge and impose her own views instead of the law from the role--from the bench.

Well, I think Judge Barrett took all of us to school a little bit and reminded us very clearly that it is a judge's job to impartially apply the law as written, whether it is the Constitution itself or the laws that Congress passes. She not only stated her commitment to this most basic principle, but she also has a record to back it up. During her time on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Barrett has sided with her colleagues 95 percent of the time in more than 600 cases.

It is no surprise that the American Bar Association, which the minority leader has called the gold standard, gave Judge Barrett its highest rating, saying she is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. But we all knew that.

As I looked around the room during the first day of questioning, I noticed all the binders that people like me and my other colleagues had--notebooks, piles of paper, books, reference books on both the desks of Republican and Democratic members of the committee. If my colleagues' materials preparing for this historic hearing were anything like mine, they included previous decisions by Judge Barrett, academic writings, letters of support, and detailed background information about her career.

But I noted that, as Judge Barrett was answering our questions, she seemed to be doing so without even glancing down at any notes. So I asked Judge Barrett--I violated the No. 1 rule that you learn as a lawyer not to ask a question you don't know the answer to. I did it anyway because I had a hunch. I asked her to hold up the notepad sitting in front of her to show us what materials she had been using during the hearing. It was a memorable moment. She held it up and smiled, and it was blank. I think that spoke volumes about her competency, her preparation, her intelligence--all things that would commend her confirmation.

Well, with each question she answered, Judge Barrett demonstrated her vast knowledge of the law. She made clear she understood, as I said, the limited role of judges, and she showed compassion and heart as she poured herself into her work each and every day.

Numerous Senators have noted that, under ordinary circumstances, a nominee like this would get overwhelming support, but unfortunately these aren't normal circumstances. Our colleagues on the other side made clear from the get-go that, for them, this confirmation process wasn't even about the nominee or her qualifications. They attempted to hijack the hearing and use it for--well, it is a harsh word, but it is true--fearmongering.

Last week's hearing was like split-screen TV. On one half, Republican Senators asked the judge about her judicial philosophy, prior rulings, and a range of constitutional doctrines. On the other half, our Democratic colleagues delivered monologues about ObamaCare--about a future case that she may be called upon to participate in. They attempted to convince the American people that if she was confirmed, she would somehow take away their healthcare. Well, that is, at bottom, an insult to the judge. It somehow presumes that she is essentially auditioning for the job based on her ruling in a future case. That would violate every aspect of a judge's oath.

As Judge Barrett noted, judges don't make policy pronouncements; they decide cases. And she very carefully described the case that is pending in front of the Supreme Court. It is not about ObamaCare writ large; it is about a technical doctrine called severability: If one part of a statute is deemed unconstitutional--and this one, I believe, is, the individual mandate, because we zeroed out the penalty under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--the question is, Does the rest of the legislation-- does the rest of ObamaCare stand, or does it all have to be struck down?

Well, she noted that there had been a number of cases decided recently by the current Supreme Court that seemed to treat severability with particular care. Indeed, as a scholastic, as an academic, I think she and others noted that it is not exactly appropriate for judges to go out and strike down statutes except to the extent that they are unconstitutional.

They said: If she is not coming for your healthcare, she will serve corporate interests, destroy the environment, somehow chip away at our liberties.

These are nothing but baseless scare tactics and stunts from our Democratic colleagues. The latest one came this morning, when they actually boycotted the Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Barrett. They couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote against the nominee they claim is a threat to our democracy. So do you know what? Judge Barrett was confirmed unanimously by the Senators present today.

Instead, in their chairs, they had large photographs, much like we have seen at sports arenas and ballparks in the wake of the pandemic, since we have had to socially distance. You can't have a large crowd at the ballpark. So people have these cutouts. That is what it looked like in the Judiciary Committee today.

The truth of the matter is, Judge Barrett's qualifications speak louder than the unsubstantiated claims made by her opposition. She graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law School. She held two prestigious clerkships, including on the Supreme Court. She has litigated in the trenches before transitioning into academia, where she wrote and taught constitutional law, about our Federal courts and statutory interpretation. And, as I said, for the last 3 years, she has put all of that great experience and training to work on the Seventh Circuit.

This is an exceptional judge with a clear record of faithfully and impartially applying the law, and she will bring additional value to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the things I thought was so remarkable is that Judge Barrett is also an incredible role model. I think her elevation to the highest Court in the land should be an encouragement to young women who aspire to professional success and as a great role model on how to balance what we all try to figure out how to balance, which is your professional and your personal life. She and her husband do a marvelous job with their seven children, both being full-time professionals.

If confirmed, she would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve as a Justice and only the fifth woman to serve on the high Court. She would also be the first Justice on the current Court with a degree from a law school other than Yale and Harvard and bring much needed educational diversity to the bench.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett will serve our country well on the high Court, and I have full faith in her ability to faithfully and impartially apply the law as written.

I want to thank Chairman Graham for leading a fair and respectful hearing. The ranking member, Senator Feinstein, made that observation, and I thought that was very generous and civil of her. I would note that many of the more radical folks on the left have attacked Senator Feinstein for her civility, and they are just wrong. I think she remains a good role model for all of us. We can have our disagreements without being rude or uncivil or disagreeable. I think Senator Feinstein is a model for that.

I am proud to support Judge Barrett's nomination in the Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to voting for her next week on the Senate floor

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source