Transcripts For MSNBCW MTP Daily 20201012

My staff to get me a quick summary of it, that put, as i indicated somewhere between 5 and 600 billion into more Small Business loans, unemployment insurance, agriculture and farming assistance, Postal Service assistance, Education Assistance at the Higher Education levels and k through 12, Health Care Assistance for pandemic preparation for strategic stockpiles for testing, for contract tracing, billions for vaccine and therapeutic and diagnostic development, and the list goes on. We were stopped from proceeding with this legislation by a filibuster by those who now accuse of us not wanting to do something. We stand ready if you let us go to the legislation and pass it. So, now judge barrett, let me talk about you. Judge, you have an exemplary academic record and legal credentials and you are qualified to serve on our Supreme Court. Following your graduation from law school you clerk for the u. S. Court of appeals for the district of columbia and the u. S. Supreme court. At the Supreme Court you clerked as everyone knows for none other than the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Upon receiving your nomination to the Supreme Court, judge barrett reflected on her clerkship for judge scalia, citing his influence on her life. She also stated his judicial philosophy is hers too and a judge must apply the law as written. Thats what we need in our next Supreme Court justice. Rather than the activist justice you are being accused of being. Judges are not policy makers, and they are they must be resolute in setting aside policy views that they may hold. I know you know that. Should we not take judge barrett at her word . As a judge, Supreme Court or otherwise, she must be dedicated to interpreting the law as written with an unparalleled commitment to our constitution. Ive visited with her privately, ive reviewed her record, i have seen nothing that would indicate she is not telling the truth when she said that is her view of how a judge should conduct herself. Ive met with a number of Supreme Court nominees in my service in the senate and throughout i have continued to maintain an emphasis on following the law and upholding our constitution and that that must be a central characteristic of the justices we select for this highly influential part of our government. Judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their authority within the limits of the law. Our court system has the responsibility to preserve our Constitutional Rights, ensure a limited government, and provide speedy and fair justice. Following her clerkships, judge barrett spent time in private practice before beginning tenure as a professor. Her analysis of issues facing the federal courts make her well qualified to serve on our nations highest court. In particular, judge barretts thoughtful exploration of the precedent demonstrates shes both and intellectual and delibe in her understanding of the law. More so, it shows her role of a fair judge. In 2017 she came before this committee after being nominated to the u. S. Court of appeals, during that hearing she repeatedly expressed her commitment to independent and unbiassed decision making. I was proud to support her confirmation to the court of appeals in both the committee and on the senate floor. Her remarkable resume shows shes a pioneer in the legal field. She will be the fifth woman and first mother of School Age Children to serve on the Supreme Court. In many ways shes the ideal candidate to fill this vacancy. I look forward to hearing more about her experience and her judicial philosophy as we discuss with judge barrett the role of a proper judge in our legal system. Thank you. Thank you. I believe senator harris. Can you hear me . Yes, hello. Hello. We hear you. Mr. Chairman, this hearing just to sit inside a room for hours just wait just one second. We dont see you. Of course. You dont see me . One, congratulations on being on the ticket. I hadnt told you that. There we go. Can you see me now . I can see you now, hear you loud and clear. The floor is yours. I appreciate it. Thank you mr. Chairman. This hearing has brought together more than 50 people to sit inside of a closeddoor room for hours while our nation is facing a deadly airborne virus. This committee has ignored common sense requests to keep people safe including not requiring testing for all members, despite a coronavirus outbreak among senators of this very committee. By contrast, in response to this recent senate outbreak, the leaders of Senate Republicans, rightly, postponed business on the senate floor this week to protect the health and safety of senators and staff. Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons this hearing should have been postponed. The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facilities workers, janitorial staff, congressional aides and Capitol Police at risk. Not to mention while tens of millions of americans are struggling to pay their bills, the senate should be prioritizing Coronavirus Relief and providining financial suppo to those families. The American People need to have help, to make rent or their mortgage payment. We should provide Financial Assistance to those who have lost their job and help parents put food on the table. Small businesses need help. As do the cities, towns and hospitals that this crisis has pushed to the brink. A house bill would help families of Small Businesses get through this crisis. But Senate Republicans have not lifted a finger for 150 days, which is how long that bill has been here in the senate to move the bill. Yet, this committee is determined to rush a Supreme Court confirmation hearing through in just 16 days. Senate republicans have made it Crystal Clear that rushing a Supreme Court nomination is more important than helping and supporting the American People who are suffering from a deadly pandemic and a devastating economic crisis. Their priorities are not the American Peoples priorities. But for the moment, Senate Republicans hold the majority in the senate and determine the schedule. So here we are. The constitution of the United States entrusts the senate with the solemn duty to carefully consider nominations for Lifetime Appointments to the Supreme Court. Yet the Senate Majority is rushing this process and jamming President Trumps nominee through the senate while people are actually voting, just 22 days before the end of the election. More than nine million americans have already voted and millions more will vote while this is Illegitimate Committee process is under way. A clear majority of americans want whomever wins this election to fill this seat. And my republican colleagues know that. Yet, they are deliberately defying the will of the people in their attempt to roll back the rights and protections provided the Affordable Care act. And lets remember, in 2017, President Trump and Congressional Republicans repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care act. But remember, people from all walks of life spoke out and demanded republicans stop trying to take away the American Peoples health care. Republicans finally realized that the Affordable Care act is too popular to repeal in congress so now theyre trying to bypass the will of the voters and have the Supreme Court do their dirty work. Thats why President Trump promised to only nominate judges who will get rid of the Affordable Care act. This administration, with the support of Senate Republicans, will be in front of the Supreme Court on november 10th to argue that the entire Affordable Care act should be struck down. Thats in 29 days that that will happen. And thats a big reason why Senate Republicans are rushing this process. They are trying to get a justice onto the court in time to ensure they can strip away the protections of the Affordable Care act. And if they succeed, it will result in millions of people losing access to health care at the worst possible time. In the middle of a pandemic. 23 million americans could lose their Health Insurance altogether. If they succeed, they will eliminate protections for 135 million americans with preexisting conditions like diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer. A list that will now include over 7 million americans who have contracted covid19. Insurance companies could deny you coverage or sell you a plan that wont pay a dime toward treating anything related to your preexisting condition. If the Affordable Care act is struck down, you will have to pay for things like mammograms and cancer screenings and birth control. Seniors will pay more for prescription drugs and young adults will be kicked off their parents plans. These are not abstract issues. We need to be clear how overturning the Affordable Care act will impact the people we all represent. For example, micah, who is 11 years old and she lives in southern california. So micah enjoys being a girl scout and ice skating and reading and eating pasta and baking. Her mother says the only reason micah is able to live her life as she does now is because the Affordable Care act guarantees that her Health Insurance cannot deny her coverage or limit her care because its too expensive. See micah has a congenital heart defect, she goes to multiple specialists throughout the year and gets an mri with anesthesia every six months. At 11 months old her family had already hit 50,000 in medical expenses and her bi annual mri costs were 15,000 a correction, by 11 months old her family hit 500,000 in medical expenses. Children like micah would be denied coverage. Parents would be on their own. No one should face financial ruin to get their child or their spouse or their parent the care they need. And no family should be kept from seeing a doctor or getting treatment because an Insurance Company says that the treatment is too expensive. In america, access to health care should not be determined based on how much money you have. Health care and access to health care should be a right. Micah and millions of others who are protected by the Affordable Care act know this is fundamentally what is at stake with this Supreme Court nomination. And, of course, theres more at stake. Throughout our history, americans have brought cases to the United States Supreme Court in our ongoing fight for civil rights, human rights, and equal justice. Decisions like brown versus board of education, which opened up Educational Opportunities for black boys and girls. Roe v. Wade which recognized a womans right to control her own body. Loving v. Virginia, which recognized that love is love. And that Marriage Equality is the law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is often the last refuge for equal justice when our Constitutional Rights are being violated. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her life to fight for equal justice. And she defended the constitution. He advocating for human rights and equality. She stood up for the rights of women. She protected workers. She fought for the rights of consumers against big corporations. She sported lgbtq rights and she did so much more. But now, her legacy, and the rights she fought so hard to protect, are in jeopardy. By replacing justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, President Trump is attempting to roll back americans rights for decades to come. Every american must understand that with this nomination, equal justice under law is at stake. Our Voting Rights are at stake. Workers rights are at stake. Consumer rights are at stake. The right to a safe and legal abortion is at stake. And Holding Corporations accountable is at stake. And again, theres so much more. So, mr. Chairman, i do believe this hearing is a clear attempt to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take Health Care Away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 214,000 americans. I believe we must listen to our constituents and protect their access to health care and wait to confirm a new Supreme Court justice until after americans decide who they want in the white house. Thank you. Thank you, senator harris. Senator kennedy. You have a beautiful family, judge. We we claim you in louisiana. Were proud of the fact, in louisiana, that you were born in a suburb of new orleans. Were proud of the fact that you got a solid education. At st. Marys dominican high school. Come back and visit us. I know your mom and dad still live there. And were very proud of you and your career. This is a solemn occasion, as it should be. I cant think of another positi position, at least not a position that is for life, not a position in which the occupant is not elected by the people, that is more powerful, at least not in the western world, then an associate justice of the Supreme Court. And this process is not supposed to be the big rock candy mountain. Our job is to advise and consent. And thats a one way of saying that were supposed to make sure that the president hasnt whatever president makes a nomination hasnt made a mistake. We all, as you can see, take that job seriously, as you can see, and we know you respect that. Thats why i think over the next several days its appropriate for us to talk about your intellect, which is obvious by the way, and your temperament, your character, and your judicial philosophy. And i hope we can talk about something else. And and thats the role of the federal judiciary in american life. Now, look, judge, im not naive. I understand this thing can turn sour real fast. We all watched the hearings for justice kavanaugh. It was a freak show. It looked like the can tina bar scene out of star wars. And i know, for someone unaccustomed to it, that it hurts to be called a racist. I think its one of the worst things you can call an american. I know that it hurts to be called a white colonialist. And i know it must hurt for someone of deep Christian Faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot. And to have it implied that because you are a devout christian that youre somehow unfit for public service. Before its over with, they may call you rosemarys baby, for all i know. I hope not. I know, as weve seen this morning, i know you think its unfair. It is unfair. For my colleagues to suggest, some overtly, some more directly, that if youre put on the United States Supreme Court that youll be on a mission from god to deny Health Care Coverage for preexisting conditions for every american. I know that seems preposterous to you, and it seems that way because it is. Take comfort in the fact that the American People, some of my colleagues disagree with the statement, they believe in government. I believe in people. The American People are not morons. They can they can they can see dribble see drivel when they see it, and they can appreciate it when they see it for being what it is. Now, let me let me turn to what i hope quickly we can talk about today. Americans love democracy. Well even fight for it, and we have. And thats a wonderful thing. Its an important thing in todays world as this world becomes more authoritarian. And our founders but we dont have we dont have a pure democracy, as as a columnist i read this morning said we dont when we have to decide a complex issue dealing with social norms or economic issues, we dont all put on a toga and go down to the forum and vote. We have elected representatives. Those are members of congress. And it is our elected representatives jobs to decide social and economic policy. And if we dont like what they do, theyre accountable, we vote them out. But in the last 50 years, certainly in the last 25, the United States congress, either voluntarily or involuntarily, has seeded a lot of its power to the executive branch and to the federal judiciary. When i say the executive branch, im not necessarily talking about the president. Im talking about the Administrative State. The bureaucracy as some call it. Its this giant rogue beast that enjoys power now that only kings once enjoyed. Members of the Administrative State write their own laws, they interpret their own laws, they litigate their own laws in courts before judges they appoint. And congress has allowed that to happen. I think congress has also abdicated a lot of power to the federal judiciary. I do. And im not saying that federal judges dont make law, of course, they make law. They make law on the context of a specific case. Its called judicial precedent. But our founders intended federal judges to exercise judicial restraint and to understand the special role, scope, and mission of the federal judiciary, visavis, the United States congress. I dont think our founders intended judges to be politicians in robes. I think our founders intended judges, federal judges, to tell us what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. I think our founders intended, as the chief justice put it, i think our founders intended federal judges to call balls and strikes. I dont think our founders intended for the federal judges to be able to redraw the strike zone. I dont think our founders intended for judges to be politicians in robes. Politicians. You dont want the United States Supreme Court to turn into this. Trust me. Politicians get to vote their preferences under our democracy. Judges do not. Judges do not. And finally, unlike some of my colleagues, i dont think our founders intended the United States Supreme Court to become a mini congress. I dont think our founders intended members of the United States Supreme Court to try to rewrite our statutes, or the United States constitution every other thursday because they to prosecute a a social or an economic agenda that they cant get by the voters. And that goes on in america every day. Wi weve reached the point where one single solitary federal judge in a limited venue, can enjoin a federal statute or an executive order of the president of the United States for the entire country. And our founders never intended that. I want to close with two very short quoations. The first stated more elquantitily than i can is Justice Curtis in 1857. You probably read it. He was dissenting in the dread scott case, when a strict interpretation of the constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretations of laws is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. Were under the government of individual men. Who, for the time being, have power to declare what their constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean. And finally, a more contemporary statement from a gentleman that youre familiar with, justice scalia. He said it in real world terms. He said the American People of democracy and the American People are not fools. The American People know their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school. Maybe better. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on. Not dictated. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator kennedy. Senator black burn. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Judge barrett congratulations to you and your family, im delighted to see they are back in the room. And im thrilled that they are here with us today. You know, we have had 164 american citizens come before this committee for nomination to the Supreme Court. And today is the fifth time that we have had a female judge come before us. So we welcome you. And i will say this, unfortunately its neither rare nor remarkable to see the kind of performances my democratic colleagues have put on today. What theyre trying to do is to convince the American People that they should be terrified of judge Amy Coney Barrett. If you listen closely to their full statements, it betrays their true intent. Go back through the transcript, youll find not a coherent legal counter argument but a panic stump speech on behalf of their controversial platform, rather than reviewing your judicial philosophies, theyre instead choosing to project their own desires and their fears onto the American People. It sounds as if they are trying to create a panic. They decided to drum up indignation over the fact that you dared to present a counter argument over the constitutionally of the Affordable Care act. Apparently a difference of opinion between two brilliant jurists who often disagree is just too much for them. The rhetoric is unsettling, but after listening to them, i worry more about its underpinnings because my colleagues remarks have displayed their troubling belief that nothing but an activist judiciary will do for them. Given your track record, youd think that my colleagues would jump at the opportunity to support a successful female legal superstar who is highly regarded by both her democratic and republican colleagues. And who is a working mom. But as todays increasingly paternalistic and frankly disrespectful arguments have shown if they had their way, only certain kinds of women would be allowed into this hearing room. On that note not so long ago in another hearing they scrutinized your commitment to your catholic faith and tried to use that as a way to question your competency and your professionalism. They know that that is unconstitutional. The constitution forbids it. You are a brilliant jurist and a constitutional law expert. You will be an intellectual power house on the Supreme Court. And you will steer the panels focus towards textualism and originalism as rightful guiding philosophies. I love Justice Scalias definition of textualism. It begins and ends with the what the text says and fairly implies. He goes on to defend textualism and explains the method can lead to both conservative and liberal outcomes. Similarly, originalism doesnt always lead a jurist down the path they would most like to follow. This method of interpretation holds that the meaning of a legal document, such as the constitution remains fixed. Even when applied over time to new questions. Staying true to these guidelines requires more study and patience than other methods that allow judges to reinvent the law or be activists when things get tricky. Since taking the bench, i appreciate that you have written over 100 opinions, and have participated in over 900 appeals, where you have applied this complex reasoning. Thank you for that. We know that you are a prolific scholar and author of over a dozen articles on the courts and the constitution, the aba has rated you as well qualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice. I appreciate that many times youve probably done this with a child in your arms, on your hip or somewhere in tow. Maybe waiting for a ball game to begin. You have done all of this as you have been a friend, a mentor, a wife, and a mom. These are impressive qualifications by any standard. So it is no surprise that you are fielding attacks from other angles, many of my colleagues have wasted a lot of their time complaining that the process in an effort to delay and obstruct a legitimate constitutionally sound confirmation hearing. Lets not forget, it was the democrats who took an ax to process in 2018 when they dropped last minute, uns unsubstantiated Sexual Assault allegations against justice kavanaugh. We still dont have full story about their level and manner of coordination with activists and main stream media outlets. But what we do know is that they turned that confirmation into a circus and on that note it is hard to take seriously their complaints about moving too quickly. Weve heard about the timeline for justice oconnor, 33 days, Justice Ginsburg, 43 days. And just a word on Justice Ginsburg whose seat we are filling. She was indeed a role model for many, because she fought to open more doors for women in the law and beyond, and i sincerely hope that i am as effective an advocate in the senate as she was on the court. We know from studying American History that women have had to always fight for a seat at the table. This goes back to Abigail Adams who urged her husband john to please remember the ladies in their fight for independence and we know it took 150 years for women to get that right to vote. But the constitution allowed for that amendment process. Unfortunately what we see today is that radical activists would like nothing more than to take a hat chet to process. The favorite play is confronting the American People with the supposed illegitimate i of the constitution. They argue that our founders flaws and yes, they were flawed. All humans are. That the flaws invalidate the principles that bind this country together. This betrays a dangerously naive understanding of the point and purpose of our founding legal document. The timeless principles contained in the document were written to maintain individual rights absolutely. These principles include the separation of church and powers in our federalism. A system of checks and balances. If Congress Acts beyond the scope of its legislative authority or the president grows too power hungry, the judiciary has the authority to rein that branch back in. If the bureaucracy deares to overregulate, states and citizens can challenge that as being beyond the scope of power. Together the separation of power and federalism have protected our republic from falling into the hands of tyrants. Keep in mind the founders despised the tierney of british rule as much as they despised the whims of the mob. Flash forward to today when american exceptionalism is under attack from yet another mob. While most americans take pride in our heritage, vocal minority finds fault at every turn. They demand to know can we call the constitution a relevant valid source of law even if women or no people of color participated in the drafting. Are the principles still capable of curbing abuses of power. Can we have faith that the future of democracy remains strong despite a summer of looting and violence in the streets. The answer to each is yes. And over the next few days i expect that you, judge barrett, will explain why. So many families are watching today and were all going to be listening. Thank you for appearing before us. We look forward to your answers. Thank you, senator black burn. I have two letters id like to submit one from the architect of the capitol showing the room is cdc compliant. And we have the aba rating regarding judge barrett. Ill read it if if its okay. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the federal judiciary completed its valuation of the professional qualifications of judge Amy Coney Barrett who has been nominated by the president to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As you know, the Standing Committee confines its valuation to the qualities of integrity, professional confidence and judicial temperament, a substantial majority of the Standing Committee determined that judge barrett is well qualified. And a minority is of the opinion she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. The majority rating represents the Standing Committees official rating. Enter that into the record. Mr. Chairman yes. Could you explain what cdc compliant means . It means that the room is set up social distancing regarding the virus that the architect of the capitol measured the space and as to me, i was tested a week ago friday, brief contact with senator lee, i was negative. I was told by senator monahan and a physician in South Carolina theres no requirement to test me, i feel fine. My exposure is not such that i should be quarantined or tested. Anybody that wants to get tested they can. I made a decision to try to make the room as safe as possible but to come to work. Millions of americans are going to work today. Somebody may have tested positive in a restaurant, a military unit, a Fire Department or police department. You make it as safe as possible, you manage the risk and you go to work. Im not going to be told to be tested by political opponents. Im going to be tested as an individual when the cdc requires it. I think we can safely conduct this hearing. We have. I think its been its off to a good start. So i do care about everybodys safety. But as a lot of americans out there, we have to go to work and you cant demand not to show up to work unless everybody you come in contact with is tested whether they need to or not, were not going to do that here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator kennedy for the question. We have senator todd young and senator mike brohm. I know louisiana adopts our judge here, but she is living now in indiana. And the third is professor Patricia Ohara who i would like to introduce, a professor of law at notre dame law school. She has served on the faculty for 40 years. She first arrived at notre dame in 1971 as a first year law student. She graduated first in her class in 1974. Described as the heart and soul of notre dame for over 40 years, a current notre dame law dean g. Marcus cole, professor ohares career was that of a trail blazer. The fist woman to graduate first in her class from notre dame, first woman appointed by the board of trustees to serve as an officer of the university as Vice President for Student Affairs and the first woman to serve as dean of the law school. So with that well start with senator todd. I think all these individuals are remote. Senator todd . Thank you, chairman graham. Ranking member feinstein and members of the committee. Today i join you in the shadow of Monument Circle in indianapolis, indiana. I am honored to appear before you to introduce judge Amy Coney Barrett. She truly is an american original. In 2017, when there was an opening on the u. S. Court of appeals for the seventh circuit, my office began looking for an extraordinary american who would uphold the rule of law. In response we received dozens of applications from many of the finest legal minds in the state of indiana. My staff and i began researching in ernest to learn everything we could about each candidate to determine who among them would make the best judge. And i interviewed the best of the best. One of those was a constitutional law professor from the university of notre dame by the name of Amy Coney Barrett. I first met with then professor barrett in the spring of 2017. And it was abundantly clear that she was a star. A brilliant legal scholar. She was and is held in the highest regard by her peers in the legal world. Her integrity and character are unimpeachable. Shes a model of fairness. And simply she possessed all of the necessary qualities to be a great Appellate Court then and to be a great Supreme Court justice now. My colleague, former senator joe donnelly and i approved of her nomination and a hearing was set. Unfortunately, some resorted to attacks on judge barretts religious convictions. I can tell you that in indiana, in much of the country, faith is viewed as an asset in a public servant, not a liability. As notre dame president father jenkins reminded us then, being a person of faith doesnt interfere with ones ability to apply the law. Thankfully judge barretts qualifications out shown personal attacks and she was confirmed by a bipartisan majority to the u. S. Court of appeals for the seventh circuit. As a member of that court, judge barrett has proven that shes a brilliant jurist who interprets the constitution as written and carefully weighs the facts of a given case. Shes heard more than 600 indicates on the seventh circuit and authored nearly 100 opinions. And i should note she is the first woman from indiana ever to serve on that esteemed court. During that seventh circuit interview back in 2017, it was obvious that judge barrett loved the law and the constitution. Her love for her family, her husband jesse and their seven children was also clear. If confirmed, judge barrett will be the fifth woman and the first mother of School Aged Children to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Now, being a parent doesnt qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court. But it does give us hoosiers another reason to be proud of Amy Coney Barrett and the trail shes blazed leading her to this moment. Education, faith, family, community, equal justice under the law. These are all values that midwesterners hold dear. Indeed, they are values that americans hold dear. And they are all values embodied by judge barrett. Author curt von gat, another individual from indiana, said i dont know what it is about hoosiers but wherever you go theres always a hoosier doing something very important. Where Amy Coney Barrett has gone she has always been doing something very important. From raising a family to educating the next generation of scholars to administering justice on the court of appeals. Its my hope that this body will confirm judge barrett in a bipartisan fashion. So that we will soon find another hoosi another hoosier doing something important on the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you. Thank you, senator young. Senator brawn is were we able to connect with him . We were having technical problems. Were good . Senator braun. Were good. Can you hear me . I can hear you. All right. The floor is yours. Chairman graham . Yeah. Ing. Chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein, its an honor for me to join senator young and professor ohara to introduce a fellow hoosier who makes our state proud. Im doing this from my hometown, jasper, indiana, at city hall and were on main street. Figuratively from a place, town, state that represents a broad crosssection of our country. In 2013, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the federal judiciary is hardly a crosssection of america. Today its still easy to see what he meant. When confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett would become the only justice of the Supreme Court who spent the majority of her professional life in middle america. Not on the east coast. When confirmed, she will be the only sitting justice who did not receive her law degree from harvard or yale. Yet her notre dame law credentials are also from a first rate university. When confirmed, she will be only the second current justice to join the court from west of the nations capitol. When this vacancy arose i was the first to voice my support from a nominee from the midwest because i believe we need more judges who understand those midwestern values that guide our lives, faith, family, community, and a respect for the law. Amy Coney Barrett is that quintessential midwesterner, hardworking, generous, humble. Shes a top flight law scholar whos just as comfortable at the saturday morning tailgate as she is in the ivory tower, a legal titan who drives a mini van. I immediately supported judge barretts nomination not only because she is a highly qualified jurist but because shes proven both on and off the bench she has the decency and the fundamental respect for our country and its constitution to serve honorably. And now id like to say a word about faith. Much will certainly be made in the coming days of judge barretts catholic faith and how she practices it. Its a faith that i and Many Americans share. Our founders anticipated this question and as they so often do, got it right. Liberals and conservatives alike are bound by the constitutions firm edict that no religious test should ever been required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. I believe hostility toward judge barretts religious beliefs today could set a dangerous precedence of hostility toward other religious beliefs tomorrow. Judge barrett has been clear in her public life where she fall osts on the question of faith in the law as she concluded in a 1998 essay, were sure to hear cherry picked over the next few weeks. Judges should not, nor should they try to, align our legal system with the churchs moral teaching whenever the two diver diverge. Faith is important to most americans and i agree faith should be a key word in judge barretts confirmation. But i believe the most important question of faith should be, is she willing to faithfully interpret the constitution. Judge barretts record shows that she will. Throughout her nearly 100 written opinions on the Appellate Court, judge barrett has proven that she is a strong constitutional originalist who will not cut the American People out of their own the supreme co Third Chamber of commerce. On the bench her qualifications are beyond question. Off the bench, she exemplifies the generosity and character hoosiers are known for and she has lived a life rooted in those heartland values i mentioned before. Faith, family, community, and respect for the law. Hoosiers should be proud to have Amy Coney Barrett serving and representing our state currently, and i believe she will make all americans proud as a justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Professor ohara. Professor . Is the professor with us . Professor, could you count to ten, please . Could you speak . If you can hear me. Professor ohara, if you can speak up . If you hear me, please, speak up. Okay. I dont know, she must be in the 3g part of india. See if were in contact with her at all. Is it working . Professor, could you speak up, please . You need to unmute your mic, ive been told, professor ohara. How does she do that . Put a quarter in it, i dont know. Youre not going to give us a quarter, i know that. Can she hear us . Well, im afraid we have technical difficulties. And i guess what well do now, if you can fix them in the next 30 seconds, let me know. If not, judge barrett, well hear from you. Any progress with professor ohara . Okay. Judge, if you dont mind, you can take your mask off, please. Raise your right hand. Stand up, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony youre about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Thank you. Welcome to the committee, to your family, and a great job over there. The floor is yours, judge. Chairman graham let me make sure this is on. 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. And i also thank senator braun for his support. And while she could not with us via the satellite, i am also grateful to former dean patty ohara of the 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 very 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 every step of the way. I once asked my sister, why do people say marriage is hard . People are always saying that. I think it is easy. She said, maybe you should ask jesse if he agrees. I decided not to take her advice. Because i know that i am far luckier in love than i deserve. Jesse and i are parents to seven wonderful children. Our oldest daughter emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Next is vivian, who came to us from haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never talk or walk 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 j. P. s face when he got off the plane in wintertime chicago. Once that shock wore off, j. P. Assumed the happygolucky 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. 10yearold juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, one of which she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest, benjamin, who is at home with friends, benjamin has down syndrome and he is the unanimous favorite of the family. He was watching the hearing this morning, im told, and he was calling out our names as he saw all the kids in the back. 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. Weve 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 why i became 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. Marys dominican, my allgirls high school in new orleans. When i went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls less capable than boys. My freshman year, i took a literature class filled with upper classmen english majors. When i did my first presentation, on breakfast at tiffanys, i feared i had failed. But my professor took the time to talk with me, and she filled me with confidence about how well i had done and she became a mentor. And, when i graduated with a degree in english, gave me truman capotes collected works as a gift. 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 he continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my seventh circuit hearing and swore me in at my investiture and hes cheering me on from his living room right 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 Scalias reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward, a judge must apply the law as written, not as she 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. As i embarked on my own legal career, i resolved to maintain that same perspective