Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett vows to interpret laws 'as they are written'

ranking member Feinstein and members of the committee. I'm honored and humbled to appear before you today 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 be with us via the satellite, I am also grateful to former Dean Patio hair of the Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago, and she 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's been a privilege to meet you. As I said when I was nominated to serve as a justice, I'm used to being in a group of nine my family. Nothing is more important to me and I am very proud toe have them behind me. My husband just 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 you think marriage is hard? People are always saying that. I think it's easy. And she looked at me and said, Well, maybe you should ask Jesse If he agrees with that, 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 Vivian arrived. She was so weak that we were told she might never talk or walk normally. But now she dead. Lifts is much, is the male athletes in our gym, and I assure you she has no trouble. Talking Test 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 parent's 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 it's still his signature trait. Lamb is smart, strong and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and dad. 10 year old 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. On our youngest, Benjamin 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, I'm told, and he was calling out our names as he saw the kids in the back. My own siblings air here, some in the hearing room and some nearby Carrie, Meghan, 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 on. 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, principal, faith and love. I remember preparing for a grade school spelling bee against a boy in my class and to boost my confidence, My dad saying, Anything boys can do. Girls can do better. And 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 less capable than boys. My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen, English majors, and when I did my first presentation, which was on breakfast at Tiffany's, I feared I had failed. But my professor took the time to talk to me. 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, she gave me Truman Capote's collected works as a gift Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided that my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate Toe 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. He swore me in my investiture, and he's 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 Scalia's reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. Sometimes that approach met 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 that we have a government of laws and not of men. Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute and 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 and 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 as a professor I owed that to my clients, to my students and to 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 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 judgements of government must be made by the political branches elected by an accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try. That is the approach that 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 don 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 litigants involved. After all, cases air not like statutes, which are often named for their authors cases air 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 asked myself how I would view the decision if one of my Children was the party that I was ruling against, even though I would not like the result. What I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in law. That is the standard that I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard that I will follow so long as I am a judge on any court. When the president offered me 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 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're written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role. I come before this committee with humility, about the responsibility that I have been asked to undertake and with appreciation for those who have come 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 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 aged Children to serve on the court, and I know that it would make Senators Young and Bron happy to know that I would be the first justice to join the court from the seventh Circuit in 45 years. I would be the only sitting justice who didn't attend school at Harvard or Yale. But I am confident that Notre Dame could 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 pledged to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett declared Monday that Americans “deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written," encapsulating her conservative approach to the law that has Republicans excited about the prospect of her taking the place of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before Election Day.Barrett spoke about her judicial philosophy, her experience and her large family at the end of the first day of her fast-tracked confirmation hearings that Senate Democrats are using to try and brand her a threat to Americans’ health care during the coronavirus pandemic.After sitting in silence through nearly four hours of opening statements from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 48-year-old federal appeals court judge laid out her approach to the bench, which she has likened to that of her conservative mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.“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," Barrett said in a statement she delivered after removing the protective mask she wore most of the day.“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,.”She told senators that she is “forever grateful” for Ginsburg’s trailblazing path as a woman on the court.Yet Sen. Kamala Harris, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's running mate, said the court is “often the last refuge for equal justice” and a Barrett nomination puts in jeopardy everything Ginsburg fought to protect.Testifying from her office because of the pandemic, Harris said that not only health care but voting rights, workers' rights, abortion rights and the very idea of justice are at stake.Republicans called Barrett a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials.Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm her to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed quickly, she could be on the court when it hears the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a week after the election.One after another, Democrats sought to tie her nomination to the upcoming court case.“Health care coverage for millions of Americans is at stake with this nomination,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s senior Democrat.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said the nomination is a “judicial torpedo aimed” at the law's protection for people with pre-existing health conditions among its provisions. The Trump administration wants the court to strike down the entire law popularly known as “Obamacare” on Nov. 10. Barrett has criticized the court's two earlier major rulings supporting the law.Among Republicans, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, dismissed warnings Barrett will undo the Obama-era healthcare law as “outrageous.”Trump himself seemed to be watching, tweeting several times about the hearing. In one message, he tweeted that he’d have a “FAR BETTER” health care plan, with lower costs and protections for pre-existing conditions. But he has not, as yet, discussed an actual health care plan.Republicans also warned against making Barrett’s Catholicism an issue in the confirmation debate, especially in regard to her stance on abortion, with Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri lambasting what he called a “pattern and practice of religious bigotry” by Democrats. However, Democratic senators made clear in advance of the hearing that they didn't plan to question the judge on the specifics of her religious faith.Democratic presidential nominee Biden, also a practicing Catholic, told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Ohio that he doesn’t think “there’s any question about her faith.”Barrett’s religious views and past leadership role in a Catholic faith community pose a challenge for Democrats as they try to probe her judicial approach to abortion, gay marriage and other social issues without veering into inappropriate questions of her faith.The Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting on a federal holiday, kicked off four days of statements and testimony in an environment that has been altered by the coronavirus pandemic. Some senators were taking part remotely, and the hearing room itself was arranged with health concerns in mind.Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., opened the hearing acknowledging “the COVID problem in America is real." But he said, “We do have a country that needs to move forward safely.”Graham acknowledged the obvious: “This is going to be a long, contentious week.”Protesters rallied outside the Senate buildings with the hearing room largely closed to the public. Capitol Police said 22 people were arrested and charged on suspicion of crowding, obstructing or other violations.Republicans are moving at a breakneck pace to seat Barrett before the Nov. 3 election to secure Trump's pick, which would put her on the bench for any election-related challenges.Democrats are trying in vain to delay the fast-track confirmation by raising fresh concerns about the safety of meeting during the pandemic after two GOP senators on the panel tested positive for the novel coronavirus.Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of those who tested positive, was in the hearing room Monday after his spokesman said he was symptom-free. The other affected senator, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, was participating remotely, though he too is symptom-free, his spokesman said. Both tested positive 10 days ago.Trump chose Barrett after the death last month of Ginsburg, a liberal icon. It's the opportunity to entrench a conservative majority on the court for years to come with his third justice.Outside groups are pushing Democrats to make a strong case against what they call an illegitimate confirmation, when people are already voting in some states, saying the winner of the presidency should make the pick. No Supreme Court justice has ever been confirmed so close to a presidential contest.The country is getting an extended look at Barrett this week in hearings like none other during the heated election environment and the pandemic limiting public access.Faith and family punctuated her testimony, and she said she would bring “a few new perspectives” as the first mother of school-age children on the nine-member court.Barrett said she uses her children as a test when deciding cases, asking herself how she would view the decision if one of her seven 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 said.The hearing followed a White House event announcing her nomination just over two weeks ago, in which most of the audience did not wear masks. The event has been labeled a “superspreader” for the coronavirus.More than two dozen people linked to the Sept. 26 Rose Garden event, including the two GOP senators, have contracted COVID-19 since then. Barrett and her family went maskless at the event. She and her husband, Jesse, tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered, two administration officials have said.Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly having refused to consider President Barack Obama nominee after Scalia's death in February 2016, well before that year's election.

WASHINGTON —

Barrett spoke about her judicial philosophy, her experience and her large family at the end of the first day of her fast-tracked confirmation hearings that Senate Democrats are using to try and brand her a threat to Americans’ health care during the coronavirus pandemic.

After sitting in silence through nearly four hours of opening statements from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 48-year-old federal appeals court judge laid out her approach to the bench, which she has likened to that of her conservative mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“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," Barrett said in a statement she delivered after removing the protective mask she wore most of the day.

“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,.”

She told senators that she is “forever grateful” for Ginsburg’s trailblazing path as a woman on the court.

Yet Sen. Kamala Harris, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's running mate, said the court is “often the last refuge for equal justice” and a Barrett nomination puts in jeopardy everything Ginsburg fought to protect.

Testifying from her office because of the pandemic, Harris said that not only health care but voting rights, workers' rights, abortion rights and the very idea of justice are at stake.

Republicans called Barrett a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials.

Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm her to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed quickly, she could be on the court when it hears the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a week after the election.

One after another, Democrats sought to tie her nomination to the upcoming court case.

“Health care coverage for millions of Americans is at stake with this nomination,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s senior Democrat.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said the nomination is a “judicial torpedo aimed” at the law's protection for people with pre-existing health conditions among its provisions. The Trump administration wants the court to strike down the entire law popularly known as “Obamacare” on Nov. 10. Barrett has criticized the court's two earlier major rulings supporting the law.

Among Republicans, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, dismissed warnings Barrett will undo the Obama-era healthcare law as “outrageous.”

Trump himself seemed to be watching, tweeting several times about the hearing. In one message, he tweeted that he’d have a “FAR BETTER” health care plan, with lower costs and protections for pre-existing conditions. But he has not, as yet, discussed an actual health care plan.

Republicans also warned against making Barrett’s Catholicism an issue in the confirmation debate, especially in regard to her stance on abortion, with Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri lambasting what he called a “pattern and practice of religious bigotry” by Democrats. However, Democratic senators made clear in advance of the hearing that they didn't plan to question the judge on the specifics of her religious faith.

Democratic presidential nominee Biden, also a practicing Catholic, told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Ohio that he doesn’t think “there’s any question about her faith.”

Barrett’s religious views and past leadership role in a Catholic faith community pose a challenge for Democrats as they try to probe her judicial approach to abortion, gay marriage and other social issues without veering into inappropriate questions of her faith.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting on a federal holiday, kicked off four days of statements and testimony in an environment that has been altered by the coronavirus pandemic. Some senators were taking part remotely, and the hearing room itself was arranged with health concerns in mind.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., opened the hearing acknowledging “the COVID problem in America is real." But he said, “We do have a country that needs to move forward safely.”

Graham acknowledged the obvious: “This is going to be a long, contentious week.”

Protesters rallied outside the Senate buildings with the hearing room largely closed to the public. Capitol Police said 22 people were arrested and charged on suspicion of crowding, obstructing or other violations.

Republicans are moving at a breakneck pace to seat Barrett before the Nov. 3 election to secure Trump's pick, which would put her on the bench for any election-related challenges.

Democrats are trying in vain to delay the fast-track confirmation by raising fresh concerns about the safety of meeting during the pandemic after two GOP senators on the panel tested positive for the novel coronavirus.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of those who tested positive, was in the hearing room Monday after his spokesman said he was symptom-free. The other affected senator, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, was participating remotely, though he too is symptom-free, his spokesman said. Both tested positive 10 days ago.

Trump chose Barrett after the death last month of Ginsburg, a liberal icon. It's the opportunity to entrench a conservative majority on the court for years to come with his third justice.

Outside groups are pushing Democrats to make a strong case against what they call an illegitimate confirmation, when people are already voting in some states, saying the winner of the presidency should make the pick. No Supreme Court justice has ever been confirmed so close to a presidential contest.

The country is getting an extended look at Barrett this week in hearings like none other during the heated election environment and the pandemic limiting public access.

Faith and family punctuated her testimony, and she said she would bring “a few new perspectives” as the first mother of school-age children on the nine-member court.

Barrett said she uses her children as a test when deciding cases, asking herself how she would view the decision if one of her seven 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 said.

The hearing followed a White House event announcing her nomination just over two weeks ago, in which most of the audience did not wear masks. The event has been labeled a “superspreader” for the coronavirus.

More than two dozen people linked to the Sept. 26 Rose Garden event, including the two GOP senators, have contracted COVID-19 since then. Barrett and her family went maskless at the event. She and her husband, Jesse, tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered, two administration officials have said.

Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly having refused to consider President Barack Obama nominee after Scalia's death in February 2016, well before that year's election.

��vlog