NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Sen. McConnell calmly rebuts heated attacks on Republicans by pro-abortion Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

by | Oct 28, 2020

Praises qualifications of now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett

By Dave Andrusko

Newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

You’d expect pro-abortion Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to be bitter at the prospect of the Senate voting to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Happy, yes, that in a 52-48 vote to confirm, not a single Democrat voted for now-Justice Barrett. (Even Justice Kavanaugh, the target of an unprecedented smear campaign, got one Democrat to vote to confirm). But he was distraught that an overwhelmingly qualified woman whom the entire Abortion Industry opposed, brilliantly navigated the gauntlet.

But in his diatribe on Monday, Schumer said the following:

“At the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, in the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people. Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination.”

Hyperbole aside, for any pro-abortion Democrat to suggest that “Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination,” is cheeky even by Sen. Schumer’s standards.

Contrast that with comments on the Senate floor made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who, along with Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R- S.C.), masterfully ushered the nominee through to confirmation.  Sen. McConnell focused on soon-to-be Justice Barrett’s qualifications which were extraordinary, and rebutted Sen. Schumer’s ill-tempered remarks.

We’re excerpting from his remarks made just prior to the October 26 confirmation vote. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Senate will render one of the most consequential judgements it can ever deliver. We will approve a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court. Since the ink dried on the Constitution, only 114 men and women have been entrusted to uphold the separation of powers, protect people’s rights, and dispense impartial justice on the Supreme Court.

In a few minutes, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana will join their ranks.

This body has spent weeks studying the nominee’s record. We’ve examined fifteen years of scholarly writings. About one hundred opinions from the Seventh Circuit. And testimonials from legal experts running the gambit from close colleagues, to total strangers.

There have been one on one meetings for every Senator who wanted one. And a week of intensive hearings. All of it has pointed to one conclusion: this is one of the most brilliant, admired, and well-qualified nominees in our lifetime. Intellectually, Judge Barrett is an absolute all-star.

She graduated number one in her class at Notre Dame Law School. She clerked on the second highest federal court and the Supreme Court. Then she returned to her alma mater and became an award-winning academic.

Judge Barrett’s mastery of the Constitution gives her a firm grasp on the judicial role. She has pledged to ‘apply the law as written, not as she wishes it were.’ Her testimony, her writings, and her reputation confirm a total commitment to impartiality.

And the nominee’s personal integrity and strength of character are literally beyond reproach.

She earned the highest rating from the left leaning American Bar Association. They marveled at the, ‘breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback [they] received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions.’

If confirmed, this daughter of Louisiana and Indiana will become the only current justice with a law degree from any school not named Harvard or Yale.

She’d be the first mother of school-aged children to ever sit on the Court. By every account, the Supreme Court is getting not just a talented lawyer, but a fantastic person.

We’ve heard moving testimony from former students whom Judge Barrett went out of her way to help and to mentor. Her past clerks describe an exemplary boss. Her fellow scholars describe a winsome, respectful colleague who is tailor made for the collaborative atmosphere of the Court.

By any objective standard, Judge Barrett deserves to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The American people agree. In just a few minutes, she’ll be on the Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, a CNN journalist made this observation. ‘Let’s be honest — in another [political] age… Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes or more in the U.S. Senate because of her qualifications.’

Now, we know that’s not going to happen.

These are not the days when Justice Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. And by the way, I voted for both Ginsburg and Breyer. It seems like a long time ago now. …

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. We just heard the Democratic Leader [Sen. Schumer] name all of these things that are threatened by this nominee. It sounds very similar to the tunes we’ve heard before.

We, like many Americans, want judges to fulfill a limited role the Constitution assigns to them: Stick to text, resolve cases impartially, and leave policymaking to the people and their representatives, which is what we do here.

We just spent four years confirming brilliant, qualified constitutionalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts who understand their roles.

53 circuit judges, over 200 judges in total, and we’re about to confirm the third Supreme Court Justice. What they all have in common — brilliant, smart, and know what a judge is supposed to be.

But the left thinks the framers of our country got this all wrong. They botched the job. 

The people who wrote the Constitution didn’t understand what a judge ought to be. As several Senate Democrats have reaffirmed in recent days, they find it quaint and naive to think a judge would simply follow the law.

[Justice] Scalia used to say if you want to make policy, why don’t you run for office? That’s not what we do here.

[Justice] Gorsuch said we don’t wear red robes or blue robes. We wear black robes. What they want is activist judges. They’ve made it quite clear. The Democratic Leader just a few minutes ago made it quite clear.

So what they are looking for is a small panel of lawyers with elite educations to reason backward from outcomes and enlighten all the rest of us with their morals and political judgment. Whether the Constitution speaks to the issue or not. They know best what’s for us. No matter what the Constitution or the law may say. ..

Let me just say this — there is nothing innate about legal training that equips people to be moral philosophers. …

The difference of opinion on the judicial role is something the Senate and our system are built to handle. But there is something else our system cannot bear. As you have heard tonight, we now have one political faction essentially claiming they now see legitimate defeat as an oxymoron. …

Our democratic colleagues keep repeating the word illegitimate as if repetition would make it true. We’re a constitutional republic. Legitimacy does not flow from their feelings. Legitimacy is not the result of how they feel about it. You can’t win them all, and elections have consequences.

And what this Administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States.

The irony indeed. Think about how many times our Democratic friends have berated President Trump for allegedly refusing to accept legitimate outcomes he does not like. How many times have we heard that? ‘President Trump won’t accept outcomes he does not like.’

Well, they’re flunking that very test right before our eyes. That’s their problem. They don’t like the outcome. …

In March, the Democratic Leader stood outside the Court and threatened multiple Justices by name. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!’ ‘You will pay the price!’

That’s the Democratic Leader of the Senate in front of the Supreme Court mentioning justices by name and in effect saying, if you rule the wrong way, bad things are going to happen.

For multiple years now, Democrats in this body and on the presidential campaign stump have sought to revive the discredited concept of court-packing. Every high school student in America learns about Franklin Roosevelt’s unprincipled assault on judicial independence. Now the left wants to repeat it.

And former Vice President Biden, who spent decades condemning the idea here in the Senate, obediently says he’ll look into it.

Most importantly, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last year: ‘nine is the right number.’

That’s the vacancy we’re filling right now. I don’t think any of them have quoted her on this issue lately, have you? Ruth Bader Ginsburg said ‘nine is the right number.’

These latest threats follow decades of subtler attempts to take independent judges and essentially put them on political probation.

How many consecutive nominees have Democrats and the media insisted would ‘tip the balance’ of the Court?

Has anyone tallied up how many hard right turns the courts have supposedly taken in our lifetimes? All this ominous talk is a transparent attempt to apply improper pressure to impartial judges.

“Rule how we want, or we’re coming after the Court. Vote how we want, or we’ll destroy the Senate.”

These have been the Democratic demands. This is not about separation of powers. It’s a hostage situation.

Elections come and go. Political power is never permanent.

But the consequences could be cataclysmic if our colleagues across the aisle let partisan passions boil over and scorch the ground rules of our government. …

The framers built the Senate to be the nation’s firewall.

Over and over, this institution has stood up to stop recklessness that could have damaged our country forever.

Tonight, we are called to do that again.

Tonight, we can place a woman of unparalleled ability and temperament on the Supreme Court.

We can take another historic step toward a judiciary that fulfills its role with excellence, but does not grasp after power that our constitutional system intentionally assigns somewhere else.

And we can stand loud and clear that the United States Senate does not bow to intemperate threats.

Voting to confirm this nominee should make every single Senator proud.

So I urge my colleagues to do just that.”

Categories: Politics
Tags: