Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the confirmation of Judge Barrett to become Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I will be voting in favor of her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do just the same.

As was made clear to millions of Americans who watched her hearing, Judge Barrett has the temperament, the modesty, and the humility that we should all expect in a judge. She approaches cases without bias or personal agenda. She made that very clear to almost every question asked to her by every member of the Judiciary Committee.

Most importantly, Judge Barrett understands the proper role of members of the Judiciary and our constitutional system of separated powers. That is, a judge should interpret--not make--the law. Making law is, under the Constitution, the responsibility of the Congress, not the Supreme Court. She also made that very clear in almost every question that she was asked by members of the Judiciary Committee.

Judge Barrett has an impressive command and, of course, the respect for the law and the Constitution. Clearly, from her testimony, she respects precedent, and she practices judicial restraint. In her words: ``A judge who approaches a case as an opportunity for an exercise of will has . . . betrayed her judicial duty.''

She went on to explain to the committee her legal method, how she considers statutes and the Constitution and how she interprets and applies the statutes and the Constitution. Her judicial method is rigorous and exacting but fair. She testified that she would listen to both sides in every case. She said: ``We want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.''

When pressed on how she might rule in a particular case, Judge Barrett promptly applied what we all know as the Ginsburg rule, and she did it just like every other recent nominee to the Supreme Court for the last 30 years when Ginsburg first told the Judiciary Committee that there would be no hints, no previews, or forecasts, and Judge Barrett demonstrated her independence by often repeating the Justice Ginsburg rule.

I specifically asked Judge Barrett if she had made any promises or guarantees to anyone about how she might rule on a case. She responded this way to my question:

The answer is no. . . . No one ever talked about any case with me. . . . I can't make any pre-commitments to this body either. It would be inconsistent with judicial independence.

To quote further:

I'm not willing to make a deal--not with the committee, not with the president, not with anyone. I am independent.

That quote or similar words were spoken by Judge Barrett to almost every suspicious Judiciary member about whom she might have made some deal ahead of time to get on the Supreme Court.

Contrary to critics' claims about her being biased, Judge Barrett is evenhanded and has ruled for both plaintiffs and defendants in all kinds of cases. She believes in justice for all, in accordance with the law and the Constitution, just like we would expect everybody to say who is a lifetime appointee to the Judiciary, but we don't see all of them following that practice.

She went on to tell the committee: ``I am fully committed to equal justice under the law for all persons.''

When asked if she will follow the law wherever it leads, she said: ``Yes.'' Then she said: ``I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.'' Yet that wasn't good enough for our Democratic colleagues and their leftist allies.

However, throughout the hearings, the Democrats and many in the media deliberately misrepresented Judge Barrett's views on the Affordable Care Act. They claimed her critique of Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning in the 2012 ACA case will dictate how she will vote in some upcoming cases. They obviously didn't listen to her when she had no preconceived notions about any case and had made no promises to anybody.

The Democrats even pushed the story line that Judge Barrett signaled to President Trump that she would support invalidating the ACA if she were confirmed to the Supreme Court. That is nonsense. Judge Barrett made it clear that she didn't have an agenda. She testified: ``I have no hostility to the ACA.''

Legal scholars critique court decisions all the time even when they don't disagree with the outcome. For instance, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before her nomination, criticized the Court's reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but no one claimed that Ginsburg didn't support the outcome of Roe v. Wade.

Judge Barrett's critique of Roberts' reasoning was shared by many legal commentators across the political spectrum, including by ones on the other side of the aisle. Even President Obama rejected the notion that the Affordable Care Act was a tax instead of a penalty. The question of its being a tax or a penalty and the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of the ACA was what they were critiquing based on Roberts' decision to uphold the constitutionality of the ACA, for it could be constitutional under the taxing powers of the Congress. Even Roberts didn't pay any attention to that fact. We even had Democrats saying that the penalty for the individual mandate was a penalty and that it wasn't a tax. Moreover, Judge Barrett's critique of Justice Roberts' reasoning dealt with an interpretation or a provision that is no longer in effect because we did away with the individual mandate.

The question before the Supreme Court this fall, then, will be entirely separate, and it is pointless to speculate. Yet the Democrats wasted much time on that type of speculation--question after question, Democrat after Democrat, on that side--when they were questioning her.

Senate Democrats want to portray Judge Barrett as a threat to healthcare. They want to distract from the fact that they recently filibustered a COVID relief bill that would have protected preexisting conditions. This all is just a Democratic election year scare tactic, and they are using it almost totally as a reason to vote against Judge Barrett.

It happens, though, that the voters aren't buying it, that the public is not buying it. A recent Politico poll shows a majority of Americans wants the Senate to confirm Judge Barrett, and a recent Huffington Post poll says: ``Voters favor the confirmation of the Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by a 9-point margin.''

She will be confirmed. That is what we are going to do on Sunday into Monday. Maybe our Democratic colleagues will finally show up for work, do their job, and give Judge Barrett an up-or-down vote on the merits because I think the public knows now, if it were listening in to the Judiciary Committee as it was voting her out, that the Democrats boycotted the committee's deliberation. Let's not forget that, just 4 years ago, the same Senate Democrats declared that the Court needed nine to function properly. Judge Barrett is that ninth. Only 4 years later, they don't seem to think so.

Judge Barrett is a jurist of honor, of integrity, and of great principle. The Judiciary Committee received a number of letters in support of her nomination. They all praised her intellect, her judgment, her collegiality, and her kindness. We all saw that kindness as she testified over a 3-day period of time.

Judge Barrett won't be a politician on the Bench. She will make decisions as they should be decided--in an impartial manner and in accordance with the law and the Constitution. I am pleased to vote in favor of Judge Barrett's confirmation to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and I urge my colleagues to support her as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source