WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke on the Senate floor on the upcoming confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

To watch Senator Blackburn’s speech, click below or here.

You can read the transcript recorded in the Congressional Records below or click here.

 

MRS. BLACKBURN: Madam President, I really appreciate the opportunity

to come to the floor and have time to talk about this nomination.

  As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I want to express my

appreciation to Chairman Lindsey Graham for the great work that he has

done and to Leader McConnell for the way he has given us the

opportunity to work through this process of completing this

confirmation.

  As I have talked to Tennesseans from one end of our State to another,

I have heard from them, time and again, how important they think it is

to have a judge and a Supreme Court Justice who is not an activist.

  As we went through the hearings last week, I will tell you that I

thought it was so interesting. One of our colleagues said: Oh, we fear

that you will usher in an era of conservative activism.

  They fear that, but do you know what? Conservatives do not want

activist judges of any stripe. They want constitutionalists. They want

judges to abide by the rule of law. They want Supreme Court Justices

who will call balls and strikes. That is what those of us on this side

of the aisle want--Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents, who

are there in the center. Do you know? That is what they see in Judge

Barrett.

  I have found it so interesting, as we have worked through this

process, that people, whether they are Democrat, Independent, or

Republican, have said: I was so impressed with her--the way she

retained knowledge and information, the way she represented her views,

the way she talked about the law and precedent, the way she talked

about the Constitution, the way she talked about her relationship with

Justice Scalia. They also liked the way her students and her professors

and her colleagues spoke of Amy Coney Barrett. They like that because

these are people with whom she works. Her children are in school with

them. They are in church together. So they have come to know her

through the many different and varied facets of her life, and they

appreciate who she is and the life that the Barrett family is leading

and how that represents their thoughts and their beliefs.

  There are a couple of things I would like to discuss and points of

clarity that deserve to be made in this debate.

  As we were in committee, our friends across the aisle chose to take

much of their time not to get to know Judge Barrett or to question her

about opinions that have been written, and she has written right at 100

opinions or has writings that have been published. They chose to take

their time to discuss the Affordable Care Act and to talk about

individuals and the concern for losing healthcare.

  I think it is right that the American people know we would all like

for every American to have access to affordable healthcare. I think we

can say that it is a goal of ours. How we get there and what the system

looks like is going to be something that is, really, quite different.

They are very wedded to the Affordable Care Act and would really like

to push this all the way to government-run healthcare. That is their

goal.

  As many people watched the hearings, they asked: Why did they keep

talking about the Affordable Care Act?

  Of course, the case that is coming before the Supreme Court is a case

on severability. It is not about the constitutionality of the ACA. So

it was curious to them.

  I would offer that the reason they probably continued to talk about

it was that our friends across the aisle, those in the Democratic

Party, are very emboldened right now. They feel as if they are going to

do a clean sweep and that they are going to keep the House, take the

Senate, and take the White House and that, when they do, they will have

a very aggressive, 100-day agenda, and we have heard quite a bit of

conversation about this 100-day agenda: statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. They want to abolish the electoral college. They want to begin

implementing the Green New Deal. They are going to repeal the Trump tax

cuts and implement a new corporate tax. The list goes on and on. The

list includes what they want to do with healthcare, which is to have a

government-run, government-controlled system.

  See, they don't want anybody to tell them they can't do this. They

don't want constitutionalists on the Supreme Court who are going to

stop them from doing this.

  When you look at the numbers and at what the numbers tell us, you

have right at 8\1/2\ million people right now who are enrolled in the

Affordable Care Act--or the ObamaCare program--8\1/2\ million. Yet here

is the outlier in that: In order to reach their goal of government-run

healthcare, which is, basically, a Medicaid program for all, what you

would have to do is strip away the health insurance from 153 million

Americans who have employer-provided health insurance or who have

purchased healthcare on the open market. Those are 153 million

Americans. Plus, you would have to take away the Medicare benefits from

57 million Americans who have paid into Medicare with every paycheck

they have earned all of their working lives.

  We have 66 million Americans who are currently in Medicaid. So think

of what is going to happen if, on top of the 66 million who are in the

Medicaid delivery system, you take everybody from Medicare--57

million--and they become part of that pool. Then you will have taken

health insurance away from 153 million Americans. That is where they

are headed. That is their goal.

  Quite simply, when they were going through the process with the

Affordable Care Act and you had President Obama and Vice President

Biden, what we would hear many times from some of the Democratic

leaders was, ``Well, ObamaCare is a stop along the road to government-

controlled healthcare.''

  That is their goal, and how dare we have a Supreme Court that would

get in their way.

  That is also why they continue to talk about court-packing. While

they are trying to redefine the meaning of the word ``court-packing''--

oh, let's not have it be offensive--oh, no--they are wanting to expand

the Court so they can get their way.

  As my friends across the aisle come down and talk about this

nomination, I think it is important that we look at the reason behind

some of their work and their words and where they think they are going,

because they have not made this nomination about Judge Barrett.

  They have not made it about the Supreme Court; they have made it

about themselves. They have made it about themselves, their wish list,

their desire for activist judges.

  How about that? They fear conservative activism. What are they going

for? Liberal activism. That is the kind of judge they are looking for,

not a constitutionalist, not somebody who calls balls and strikes. They

are looking for somebody who is going to do their work for them so they

don't have to pass something through Congress. They don't have to deal

with ``we the people.'' They want to just say: Well, according to the

Supreme Court, this is the law of the land.

  So that is why they chose not to get to know Judge Barrett, and I

will tell you I found her to be one of the most impressive women I have

ever had the opportunity to get to know. And she made it very clear,

yes, she is qualified to sit on the Court. Her record really speaks for

itself.

  But as we saw, the judge didn't rest on her laurels. She was well

prepared. She was patient, thorough, respectful, and she was a credit

to her profession. I wish I could say the same for my Democratic

colleagues about being thorough and respectful, because I found it to

be very disrespectful of the process, of the institution, and of Judge

Barrett that they chose not to show up for our hearing. They were not

there. AWOL. Gone. Didn't come.

  And you see, why did they do that? Judge Barrett, a highly qualified,

highly skilled female, is just not the right kind of woman. She does

not submit to the leftist agenda so, therefore, they don't see her as

the right kind of woman.

  And as we know from many of their antics, some from them and some

from their echo chamber, the mainstream media, they feel as if a woman

who is pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business--that kind of

woman, in their eyes, does not deserve a seat at the table.

  I find it so interesting. My colleagues across the aisle speak often

of how they value diversity, and I agree. Diversity is a strength, and

we should seek to hear all voices. That should be a goal--to hear from

everyone. But when it comes to diversity of viewpoint and hearing from

a conservative woman, an independent woman, a right-of-center woman,

this side of the political spectrum--when it comes to diversity of

viewpoint, what do they do? They repeatedly choose intellectual

isolation--intellectual isolation. Their mind is made up. They are in

total submission--total submission to the agenda of the left.

  So do not confuse them. Don't confuse them with facts. Don't confuse

them with a counterpoint. Don't look at them and say: How about being

open minded? You know, what you are saying might be true, but what if

this is true? Would that change the outcome?

  I find it so very sad that what they have done is to choose

intellectual isolation. I find it very sad that that is what they are

role-modeling for young adults, college students, high school students.

Don't hear out somebody who is different from you. Don't show respect

or a listening ear to someone who is different from you. Don't take the

time to provide the common courtesy of listening to what someone may

have to say.

  To my friends across the aisle, I know many of you, and some of you I

served with when I was in the House, and may I just offer a thought--

that you are better than that. This Chamber is better than that. And

individuals who are nominated for judgeships, for Justices on the

Supreme Court, they deserve to be heard.

  So I would encourage my colleagues to think this through. Judge

Barrett is moving through this process. We are going to confirm Judge

Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, and as we do this, we know

that she is going to take that seat as a capable, competent, skilled

jurist, and we know that she is going to be someone who is going to sit

on that Court, and, yes, she is going to call balls and strikes.

  Our friends need not worry about an era of conservative activism. Let

me assure them, conservatives don't want that any more than they want

an era of liberal activism.

  What they want is a constitutionalist Court that is going to be fair

to everyone and is focused on equality and justice for all.

  I yield the floor.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.