Skip to main content

Mitch McConnell
  U.S. Senate Mc Connell on Barrett Nomination  CSPAN  October 1, 2020 7:39pm-7:55pm EDT

7:39 pm
♪ ♪ >> confirmation hearings for amy coney barrett's nomination to the supreme court begin october 12th. senate leaders mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer spoke on the floor thursday about the nomination. here's a look. >> at this time last week, the nation did not know whom president trump would be nominating to the supreme court. but amazing wily, we did know whatse kinds of false attacks te far left would deploy against whoever it was.
7:40 pm
democrats and special interests have been telling the country for 45 years, 45 years, that every supreme court vacancy underpr a republican president s going to bring about the apocalypse. john paul stevens, they said, vis anti-woman. david souter, they said, wanted to hurt vulnerable people. john roberts was out to get health insurance. and wouldn't you know the presidented had barely finished saying judge amy coney barrett r name before the same old attacks began rolling in. eur 77-year-old male former vice president and our 69-year-old male senate democratic leader have tried to inform american women that this 48-year-old workingin mom wants to roll back
7:41 pm
her own rights as a woman, roll back her own rights as a woman. democrats is have tried -- democrats have tried to fear monger around a 4-year-old aiademic paper that reenforced one unfair penalty in obamacare -- which congress, by the way, has already eliminated three years ago. as an aside, madam president, if the american people are interested in which senators are serious about protecting americans with pre-existing conditions, they can simply look up the vote senators took last night. last night. every single democrat voted against legislation from senator tillis that would have cemented protections for these vulnerable americans. democrats voted to block protections for pre-existing conditions just like they voted to block hundreds of billions of dollars for coronavirus relief. and just like they voted to block police reform.
7:42 pm
and a thousand other things they tell americans they support but vote against no block bipartisan progress. is so here's another one of the made-up attacks. democrats are demanding that judge barrett commit, in advance, in advance, to recuse herself from entire categories of cases for no reason. this is another totally invented standard nobody has ever suggested that supreme court justices could categorically sit on the sidelines until the president who nominated them has left office. iowhat an absurd suggestion. justice begins burg and breyer were confirmed during president winton's very first term. justices sotomayor and kagan were confirmed during president obama's first term. all four of these justices went on to participate in election-related proceedings while the president who nominated them was on the
7:43 pm
ballot. and justice breyer and ginsburg participated actively in clinton v. jones and other matters connected to president clinton's eventual impeachment. in fact, they urged and attempted to get the supreme court even more involved. this is a side show. a side show, madam president. if judge barrett is confirmed, she will swawr an oath. she -- swear an oath. she will have a life time appointment. nobody seriously is suggesting she lacks any bit of the integrity which everyone trusted justice ginsburg, justice breyer, justice sotomayor, kagan and countless others to exercise. in fact, her integrity and independence are precisely what judge barrett's peers across the political spectrum go out of their way to i applaud. judge barrett has no obligation
7:44 pm
to make any of the bizarre, bizarre prejudgments that our democratic colleagues are demanding. like i said, much of the script has been entirely predictable. i'lli' tell you one thing, i honestly did not expect the democratic leader to come to the senate floor and say that concerns about anti-religious discrimination are, quote, manufactured hysterics. didn't expect that. i to not expect we will hear the leader of the democratic caucus stand on the senate floor and say america's freedom of religion is, quote, an imaginary issue. the democratic leader claimed indignantly that his fellow democrats would never, never make an issue out of a nominee's personal i religious beliefs. he took great offense such a thing would even be suggested. but the whole country knows that three years ago when the
7:45 pm
judiciary committee was considering this very nominee, this one, for her current position, senate democrats did preicely that, exactly -- precisely that, exactly that. the senior senator from california literally implied in front of the entire country that judge barrett was too catholic. too catholic to be a judge. here was the quote. the dogma lives loudly within you, she said, and that's of concern. the senior senator from illinois asked judge barrett in the official record, listen to this, do you consider yourself an orthodox catholic? the junior senator from hawaii felt compelled to tell the nominee, quote, listen to this, be a catholic judge. you'd be a catholic judge. no one imagined these exchanges,
7:46 pm
but theyha happened. on video. before the entire nation. sitting senators threatened in an open hearing that judge barrett's religious views created doubt about her fitness to serve. chtside the senate it was imaginary in which one faith group in which judge barrett and her family participate reportedly came under cyber attack a few days ago. their membership directory was reportedly hacked just as judge barrett emerged as a front-runner. nobody had to imagine the ominous articles from ap, reuters, "the washington post" and "politico" all implying there was something questionable, questionable or
7:47 pm
problematic about judge barrett's faith practices. nobody had to imagine "politico" sending a contributing editor to snoop around the church buildings and report what a youth group had written on their white board. so, no, you know, americans don't have to imagine this elite disdain. all they have to do iss read it. it's not just this one nominee. nobody imagined it when the junior senator from vermont accused a different nominee of hatred and islamophobia because he'd previously expressed a personal view that christianity gets things right which islam
7:48 pm
gets wrong. it's not imaginary when the junior from california casts aspersions on yet another nominee for, listen to this, belongs to the knights of columbus. and another democrat implied he should quit q this mainstream catholic group if he wanted to hold public office. quit theit knights of columbus f you want to hold public office? in america? ehe democratic leader says these are manufactured hysterics. he said people who call us out are hysterical. frankly, it would be better for our country if that were true. but that's not the case. yesterday, 24 hours after the democratic leader swore that democrats would not make this an issue, the junior senator from hawaii tried to say judge barrett's faith is irrelevant
7:49 pm
but immediately preceded the question whether her closely-held views can be separated from her ability to make objective, fair decisions. no one, no one should be deceived by these thinly-veiled euphemisms. this is the exact form that religious discrimination has taken in america for decades. fores decades. especially when it comes to sblic service. we do not often hear people say they simply dislike a particular reelectricity altogether -- religion altogether. thank goodness we're mostly past that kind of bigotry. no, going all the way back to jack kennedy, the more common accusation has been something a ttlittle more subtle. that people of deep faith or
7:50 pm
certain faiths are uncapable of being fair or objective. that they're incapable of doing certain jobs well. that such americans are torn between divided loyalties and not to be trusted. here's what the left is trying to say: oh, we have no problems, no problems with judge barrett's faith inar an abstract sense. sewe just think it disqualifies her from this promotion. madam president, that is the definition of discrimination. about a century ago, openly anti-catholic cartoons pictured the pope or the catholic church
7:51 pm
as an octopus wrapping his tentacles around the institutions of american government. thank willfully, those displays are long gone. but the core attitude, clearly, is not. americans of faith are not imagining the increasingly hostile climate that the political left and the media have spent literally years sowing. and, no, there is no free press as some commentators are suggested, because many prominent liberal us voices or prominent democrats themselves identified as catholic. you don'tng get a free pass just by calling yourself a catholic. more thanif one-fifth of our country belongs to the same church as judge barrett. one-fifth of our country.
7:52 pm
tens and tens and millions of ,mericans. all of them, like all americans, must be free to live their faiths in diverse and different ways without being barred, ngwithout being barred if public service. from public service. these kinds of aspersions do not become any more seven bl if the -- acceptable if the call is coming from inside the house. sadly, none of these problems are imaginary. the americane people's concerns are not manufactured. the little sisters of the poor did not wake up thinking it would be good fun if the obama/biden administration tried to force them to violate their own consciences. these nuns did not manufacture their lengthy legal battle for
7:53 pm
the fun of it. it was the secularization, left, that went on offense. churches all across america did not go working for one of these cycles, this cycle's democratic presidential contenders to suggest places of worship should lose their tax-exempt status if their preach or practice traditional teaching. it was the secularization left that went on offense. avif parts of the elite american left is have become this out of touch to beliefs held by millions and millions of their fellow citizens, it will take more than victim blaming to dig out of it. they could start this week. they could start today. they could commit to evaluating judge barrett on her credentials
7:54 pm
and her qualifications. and they could stop gawking at deeply religious americans like they've encountered extraterrestrial life or bought a ticket for a safari. >> the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court has thrust the issue of health care back into the spotlight. her confirmation to the highest court in the land could put health care for hundreds of millions of americans at risk. as you'd imagine, taking away health care is deeply unpopular with the american people. so it seems the strategy from the republican majority is to invent some new distraction of fresh outrage to talk about. my colleagues on the other side would ratherer talk about anything besides the fact that