Amy Coney Barrett (pictured) will praise her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and tell senators that courts ‘should not try’ to make policy in her opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday
Amy Coney Barrett will praise her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and tell senators courts ‘should not try’ to make policy during her opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A transcript of the remarks Barrett intends to deliver the first day of her confirmation hearing on Monday was released to the media on Sunday.
Barrett, 48, will speak to the Republican-led panel about how Scalia, whom she clerked for after law school, shaped not only her philosophies about the law, but also about family.
‘Justice Scalia taught me more than just law,’ her statement reads. ‘He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism.’
‘As I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective,’ it continues. ‘There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.’
Barrett’s remarks came to light as Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch Trump ally, predicted that Barrett will be confirmed no later than October 27.
Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, the South Carolina Republican said that a vote will be held a week after the hearing wraps up on October 22.
‘I believe she will be confirmed no later than Tuesday, a week before the election,’ Graham said.
‘That’s my hope. It will be up to Senator [Mitch] McConnell what do after the 22nd, but we can easily get her confirmed before the election.’
About a dozen activists dressed as characters from The Handmaid’s Tale staged a protest against Barrett’s confirmation hearing outside the Supreme Court on Sunday morning
Women dressed in red capes and bonnets protest Barrett’s upcoming confirmation hearing at the Supreme Court on Sunday
Praying for a SCOTUS block: Women’s rights activists are concerned Barrett’s confirmation would mean a reversal in women’s health rights – mainly that she would strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade and rid women of the right to an abortion
Among the key points in Barrett’s opening statement is her belief that policy decisions should be left up to political branches of government – Congress and the presidency – not the courts.
‘Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society,’ the Seventh Circuit judge’s statement says.
‘But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People.’
Women dressed as characters from The Handmaid’s Tale stand guard outside the Supreme Court on Sunday
One of the protester holds a sign that reads: ‘Vote while you still can!’
Activists opposed to the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, are dressed as characters from ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
In addition to praising Scalia, who died in 2016, Barrett will pay tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat she is hoping to fill.
‘When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat,’ her statement reads. ‘She told the Committee: ‘What has become of me could only happen in America.’
‘I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.’
Barrett will also talk about her seven children with husband Jesse Barrett, joking that she’s ‘used to being in a group of nine’.
She will say that she looks forward to bringing ‘a few new perspectives’ as the first mother of school-age children on the nine-member court.
In her opening remarks Barrett will pay tribute to Justice Antonin Scalia (left), whom she clerked for, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (right), whose seat she is hoping to fill
The confirmation hearing comes just three weeks before the 2020 presidential election and has been the subject of heated debate between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans who control the Senate are moving at a breakneck pace to put Barrett on the Supreme Court before the election – in the face of fierce criticism from Democrats who say President Donald Trump should have waited until after the election to nominate Ginsburg’s replacement.
The GOP is hoping to have Barrett – a conservative – confirmed in time for a high profile challenge to the Affordable Care Act and any election-related challenges.
Should Democrats take back control of the Senate in the election, confirming Barrett would become much more difficult.
In his Fox News interview on Sunday, Graham criticized some Democrats who have threatened to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices if Biden wins and his party takes over the Senate
Barrett would be Trump’s third Supreme Court justice. No Supreme Court justice has ever been confirmed so close to a presidential election.
Barrett’s nomination has been chaotic to say the least, worsened by suspicions that a coronavirus outbreak gripping the White House was sparked by an event where Trump ceremonially tapped her on September 26 in the Rose Garden.
The outbreak fueled Democrats’ cries that the confirmation hearing should be postponed because of the ongoing pandemic.
In his Fox News interview on Sunday, Graham criticized some Democrats who have threatened to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices if Biden wins and his party takes over the Senate.
‘It changes America as we know it,’ Graham said. ‘If we lost the House, the Senate and the White House they’re going to change the rules of the Senate… so you only need a majority, anything coming out of the House sails through the Senate.
‘They’re going to expand the court from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal… A liberal Supreme Court is a nightmare for business, it’s a nightmare for social policy.
‘If [Democrats] win, it’s not going to be about a health care debate, they’re going to structurally change the country.’
Biden has refused to reveal his stance on court-packing.
President Trump nominated Barrett in a Rose Garden ceremony on September 26 (pictured). That event was believed to have spawned a coronavirus outbreak in the White House
The country will get an extended look at Barrett over three days, beginning with her opening statement late Monday and hours of questioning Tuesday and Wednesday.
A mother of seven, Barrett will describe how she uses her children as a test when deciding cases, asking herself how she would view the decision if one of her children were the party she was ruling against.
‘Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law?’ she says.
A Catholic, she says she believes in the ‘power of prayer’, and she thanks those who have reached out with messages of support.
Ordinarily, she would get to show off her large family. But the White House event announcing her nomination, in which most of the audience did not wear masks, has been labeled a ‘superspreader’ for the coronavirus.
More than two dozen people linked to the September 26 Rose Garden event have contracted COVID-19 since then, including Republican Sens Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In an interview with the AP, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Sen Graham has ‘an obligation to be tested’ for COVID-19 before the hearing begins because he has been exposed to those with the disease.
Barrett and her family went maskless at the event. Barrett and her husband, Jesse, tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered, two administration officials have said.
Barrett and her family (pictured) went maskless at her nomination event on September 26
While senators will be able to participate remotely, it’s unclear whether anyone will do so. Most Democrats have said they will attend, and Tillis and Lee both said they hoped to be recovered and present.
Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly after their actions four years ago kept a seat open after Scalia died in February 2016, before that year’s election, and President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to take his place. The Senate did not grant Garland even a hearing, much less a vote.
Outside groups are pushing Democrats to make a strong case against what they call an illegitimate confirmation so close to the election, when people are already voting in some states.
‘The Democrats have a very strong hand to play politically, even if they do not have the votes to stop it,’ said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, which advocates against right-leaning nominees.
‘The public is with them that this shouldn’t happen before the election.’
Democrats have made clear that they will press Barrett on health care, especially with the imminent Supreme Court arguments, and abortion, among other issues where her vote could push the court further to the right.
‘I intend to, and I think everybody else on the Democratic side, will focus on the fact that she is being pushed on to the Supreme Court just in time for the November 10 hearing on the Affordable Care Act,’ Sen Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii) said. ‘That leaves millions and millions of families totally in the cold in regard to health care.’
Barrett also is the most openly anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee in decades and her vote could provide a majority to restrict if not overturn abortion rights. She also has voiced skepticism about some gun control laws.
Sen Richard Blumenthal (D – Connecticut), pointed to a dissenting opinion Barrett wrote last year in favor of allowing people convicted of nonviolent crimes to own guns. Federal law currently has a blanket prohibition on gun ownership by convicted felons. ‘She is extreme on this issue,’ Blumenthal said at a news conference.
Republicans will highlight Barrett’s belief in sticking to the text of laws and the original meaning of constitutional provisions, both Scalia trademarks as well.
Her personal story also will be a frequent topic of conversation when Republicans are asking questions.
‘She has proven a mom really can do anything,’ Sen Joni Ernst (R – Iowa) said after meeting with Barrett last week.
Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
Below is a transcript of the statement Barrett will deliver at the start of her confirmation hearing on Monday:
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.
I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.
I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.
As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.
My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, ‘Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.’ She said, ‘Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.’ I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.
Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.
My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.
My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, ‘Anything boys can do, girls can do better.’ At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.
I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.
My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.
Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.
In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.
When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.
I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, ‘What has become of me could only happen in America.’ I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.
If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.
As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.