Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that was quite a speech from our friend from Delaware. If I had to categorize it, I would say this is really the Chicken Little argument: The sky is falling. Amy Coney Barrett-- this is the end of civilization. This is the end of the world as we know it.

The irony to me and, frankly, the hypocrisy of the argument is that if the shoe were on the other foot, Senator Schumer, who has said everything is on the table ``if we win the majority''--Court packing, making DC, making Puerto Rico States--they would somehow show this superhuman self-restraint and not fill this seat.

This is entirely consistent with the practice, given the fact that President Trump's first term doesn't run out until January 20 of next year. All of the Senators elected are serving through the end of this year, at least. So it is somewhat entertaining but beside the point to suggest that this good judge, this really extraordinarily decent human being is part of some vast conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and overrule all these precedents that the Senator from Delaware considers sacrosanct.

Well, I am happy with the fact that tonight the Senate is set to confirm an exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is as impressive as they come. America saw it. Initially they didn't know her, but when they came to know her through her testimony on the Judiciary Committee, she became very popular. In my State, 59 percent of the people in a recent poll said they wanted us to confirm Judge Barrett now before the election--59 percent.

It is no wonder why. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She clerked for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and on the Supreme Court and practiced law before transitioning to academia, where she has written and taught constitutional law, Federal courts, and statutory interpretation for nearly two decades. And, of course, for the last 3 years, she has served with distinction on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her time in both the classroom and the courtroom have given her understanding of the law that few can rival. Over her confirmation hearing, she skillfully answered questions about legal doctrine, constitutional issues, and a myriad of precedents without so much as having a page of notes in front of her.

As impressive as Judge Barrett's deep knowledge of the law is, it is only part of what I believe makes her an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court. Now, more than ever, the judiciary, along with our other elected officials, tends to function not by what the law says but through a lens of personal and political bias. It is polarizing. We know that people are highly agitated, including my friend from Delaware, and trying to stoke the turnout of their partisans in the runup to the election. It should go without saying--but I will say it anyway--that judges don't do that. They can't do that and still be judges.

In order for the High Court to serve the proper role under our Constitution, it has to be made up of men and women of great integrity, restraint, and self-discipline, who will discharge their duties on the Bench free from bias, which means you don't announce the decision in a case before you have even heard it. You don't offer predictions or promises of how you will decide these contentious matters, which I know frustrates our friend from Delaware and others, but Judge Barrett has not only committed to doing this, not clouding her decisions by personal or political motivation or favor for any party; she has a record to back it up.

During her time on the Seventh Circuit, she has joined with her colleagues in 95 percent of the 600 cases she has decided--95 percent consensus on a three-judge panel. That is no record of an outlaw or a radical or somebody who is going to disregard their judicial oath. She has consistently shown in each of these decisions a fidelity to the law and an impartiality, which are essential qualities for a Supreme Court Justice.

But despite the judge's unassailable qualifications, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly tried and failed to make this nominee out to be a radical, suggesting that she would violate her oath--the same oath to uphold and defend the Constitution that we take as Senators. But there is nothing in her background or her character which would suggest she would do something so brazen and so wrong.

Some folks on the left have attacked her because of her Catholic faith. They have also tried to convince the American people she is on some sort of crusade to take healthcare away from American families-- How ridiculous is that?--or that she would slowly chip away at our freedoms and our liberties.

The reason we have seen such hysterical attacks that are completely out of touch with reality is that this is all they have. They have nothing else

There is no legitimate reason to oppose the nomination of Judge Barrett. Her stellar credentials and deliberate body of work prove that she understands the role of a judge--as important as it is but as limited as it is under our constitutional system--and I think that is part of what terrifies our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

You see, they have become accustomed to a Supreme Court that is more political than judicial, that feels free to make policy judgments to bail out the Congress or those who have either lost the vote or lost an election. That is why our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly pressed her to commit to an outcome in cases before the Court. She won't do it, and she shouldn't do it, and she didn't do it.

They asked her everything from healthcare to abortion to climate change. They want to know right now--before she is even on the Court, before she has even heard the case--how she would rule.

Well, Judge Barrett rightly declined. She invoked what is known as the Ginsburg rule from the 1993 confirmation hearing--presided over by Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee--of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and had been known for her pioneering work on behalf of women's rights, but she held some personally pretty radical views. So the Senators, out of curiosity if nothing else, wanted to ask her about those, and she declined, as she should have, because she said: It is inappropriate to make predictions or provide hints of how I might decide cases in the future.

This is the most basic principle of our judicial system. Judges are not legislators. They shouldn't advocate for policy outcomes or promote a specific agenda. They certainly shouldn't commit to an outcome on a hypothetical case during the confirmation process.

How would you feel if the judge you came before had previously said: Well, if I hear a case like that, I am going to decide against this litigant, this party for the lawsuit. That would be outrageous, and she shouldn't and didn't do that. Neither did Justice Ginsburg.

Chief Justice Roberts reminded us last year: ``We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.'' And I agree that is the ideal.

Men and women in black robes can't stick their thumbs on the scales of justice and supply wins to any cause, any individual, or any party. It is antithetical to our constitutional system.

So I hope this process will help begin a way to guide our courts back to their proper function in our Constitution and to remind all of us of what has rightly been called the crown jewels of our Constitution, and that is an independent judiciary--judges whose pay can't be cut during their tenure in office, and they serve for life if they want to. That is the ultimate in political independence. Those are the crown jewels because judges apply the law that Congress writes, interpret the precedents of other courts, and interpret the Constitution. To give an unelected individual the power to make policy and to have an agenda to accomplish their personal or political goals would be the opposite of what our Constitution comprehends.

There is no question that Judge Barrett has a brilliant legal mind, a deep respect for the Constitution, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Her resume and her record are spotless.

How do I know that? Well, if it wasn't, you would have heard about it. It is spotless. Her character is beyond reproach, and virtually everyone who has worked with or learned from Judge Barrett has offered their full-throated endorsement of her nomination. All the evidence-- all the evidence--points to one simple fact: Amy Coney Barrett is exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I have faith in Judge Barrett's ability to fairly interpret the law and apply it to cases before her--nothing more and nothing less.

I believe Amy Coney Barrett will be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice, and I am proud to support her nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source