Coronavirus

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Democratic leader seems to think that this had something to do with a 3-minute speech 30 years ago. I don't know where that comes from.

I can tell you that he has been involved in a systematic reversal of the longstanding precedent when it comes to the consideration of judges to the Federal bench by the U.S. Senate. I am a beneficiary, I suppose you could say, in some strange way of that. That was a major issue in my campaign in 2004. We made it about the blockade that the Democrats in the Senate at the time, led by the current Democratic leader, had started against a whole long list of nominees put forward by then- President George W. Bush.

I remind you of a few names: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, Judge Charles Pickering. There was a long list of judges who were blocked at the time by the current Democratic leader. In fact, as Leader McConnell has pointed out, it wasn't even sort of a random thing. It was a planned strategy to start playing politics with the Federal Judiciary instigated by the architect, the current Democratic leader, who, at the time, was holding workshops and seminars about how they could politicize the Federal judiciary and figure out new ways to block consideration of judges put forward to the Federal bench by then-President George W. Bush. That was a major issue in that campaign season, and, I would argue, one of the principle reasons that I am here in the U.S. Senate.

Then, of course, when the chickens came home to roost and the same tactics were used by the other side in the previous administration, as was pointed out again yesterday by Leader McConnell, the Democrats decided to break the rules to change the rules in 2013 to go to a simple majority to basically get and confirm judges on the Federal Judiciary.

We are where we are today, notwithstanding all the bluster that you just heard, because of a long, systematic strategy by the Democratic leader to block judges put forward by Republican Presidents.

Despite all of what you just heard, tomorrow we are going to get to vote to confirm one of the most outstanding judicial nominees whom I have had the pleasure of considering during my time in the Senate. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court.

By now, her accomplishments are well known: first in her class at Notre Dame Law School, Supreme Court clerk, beloved Notre Dame law professor, outstanding scholar, circuit court judge.

Americans, of course, got to see Judge Barrett's qualifications for themselves a couple of weeks ago during her Judiciary Committee hearing. For 2 days, she answered tough and probing questions from Democrats and Republicans, displaying a consummate command of the law and a calm and thoughtfulness that shows she has the kind of judicial temperament you want in a Supreme Court Justice.

Since Judge Barrett's nomination, the tributes have poured in from across the political spectrum: ``Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,'' said Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, one of the House Democrat's star impeachment witnesses.

Patricia O'Hara, former dean of Notre Dame Law School, sent a glowing letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein. The letter says:

I was the dean of Notre Dame Law School at the time that Judge Barrett first joined our faculty. In that capacity I was responsible for providing an environment in which she could flourish as a young faculty member, but also for evaluating objectively whether she met the University's high standards for scholarship and teaching required for advancement. This proved to be the easiest task of my ten years as a dean. Judge Barrett was (and remains) a stellar teacher beloved by students, a brilliant and nationally- recognized scholar, and generous colleague

She went on to say:

I am confident that if she is confirmed by the United States Senate, she will be an outstanding justice--brilliant, fair, impartial, and empathetic--and will serve to strengthen an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law.

Professor O'Hara also took care to note in her letter that she doesn't write glowing reviews for Federal judiciary nominees on a regular basis. In fact, she said the only similar letter she has ever written was in support of Democratic nominee Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

She went on:

I feel every bit as strongly about Judge Barrett's qualifications for a position as Associate Justice as I felt about Justice Kagan.

While I may not always agree with the American Bar Association's judicial rankings, they certainly got it right with Judge Barrett. That is I talking, not the professor. I am still struck by the testimony that the head of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary is the body that provides the ABA's evaluations of Federal judicial nominees.

In his testimony detailing the ``well-qualified'' rating that the ABA gave to Judge Barrett, the head of the ABA committee noted:

Lawyers and judges uniformly praised the nominee's integrity. Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character. Accordingly, the Standing Committee was not required to consider any negative criticisms of Judge Barrett.

That is quite a tribute.

But, of course, ratings of ``well-qualified'' do not just depend on character; they also depend on professional competence. Here is what the ABA's representative had to say about that:

Given the breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback we received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from so many parts of the profession, the Standing Committee would have been hard-pressed to come to any conclusion other than that Judge Barrett has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptional.

Along with her character, competence, and command of the law, Judge Barrett brings a clear understanding of the proper role of a judge. She understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make the law; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game; or, as Judge Barrett said in an answer to a Senator's question, ``I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy.''

As Judge Barrett made clear in her hearing, she will be the kind of Justice who leaves her personal beliefs and political opinions at the courtroom door. She will look at the facts of each case and judge accordingly to the law and the Constitution and nothing else.

When I came to the Senate, I hoped to have the opportunity to put judges like Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. I was proud to vote to confirm her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, and I look forward to voting to confirm her to the Supreme Court tomorrow.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source