WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke on the Senate floor to express her support for the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as on the Supreme Court of the United States.

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: Mr. President, I tell you, it is quite an honor to

join my colleagues and talk for a few minutes about our Supreme Court

nominee, Judge Barrett.

  In the Judiciary Committee, where I hold a seat, we were doing one of

our most important duties--our constitutional duty to provide advice

and consent regarding the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Indeed, we do this with all of our Federal judges who come before us.

  Last week, we fulfilled that highest level of duty as we examined

Judge Barrett's record, her character, and to see if she is qualified

to sit on the Supreme Court. As you were hearing from my colleagues

today, yes, indeed, she is qualified.

  Now, I will tell you that unfortunately some of my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle spent their time fishing for sound bites and

feigning confusion over the fact that Judge Barrett takes her cues from

the Constitution and not from the latest polling and not from the 24-

hour news cycle.

Honestly, I think that said more about them than it did about her.

  That is what happens when leaders who really ought to know better

allow politics to take control of their vetting process and their

thought process. That is what most Americans took away from those

hearings last week, that in the eyes of those on the Democratic side of

the dais, there was no way Judge Amy Coney Barrett was ever going to

make them happy because, to them, only answers that tracked with their

views--views on the left--on abortion, on religion, and on socialized

medicine would pass muster. This is an absurd standard, I will tell

you, and it is no standard at all because those views shift and change

depending on what the loudest megaphone on the National Mall has to say

on any given day.

  So, in the interest of refocusing on our duty to offer advice and

consent, I think we could all stand a quick recap of last week's

hearing.

  Here is what we know: Judge Barrett is exceptionally smart, she is

focused, and she is a mindful jurist. Her colleagues, students, former

clerks, and professional associates from all backgrounds and all world

views wholeheartedly believe she is competent and prepared to hold a

seat on the Supreme Court. Her record is consistent with the

originalist lens she puts over the cases and controversies that come

across her desk. Over the course of 2 days of intense questioning, she

did not contradict that record or violate the rules of judicial ethics

by offering a preview of future rulings.

  The American Bar Association rated her as ``well qualified'' to serve

on the Court. Based on the testimony and evidence offered to the

committee, I will tell you, I definitely agree with them.

  I will vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, and I

would encourage all my colleagues who plan on voting no to think long

and hard about why that is. If they have not taken the time to get to

know Judge Barrett--her background and her record--I encourage them to

get to know a little bit about her and also to ask themselves how smart

was it to have spent the past month signaling their willingness to

dismantle our constitutional framework to score a few cheap points

against the White House during a political season.

  I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I was in Alaska when Judge Amy Coney

Barrett was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but since then I

have been able to catch up on those hearings. I want to commend my

colleagues, particularly Senator Graham for conducting those hearings

in a way that befitted such an occasion--with respect and good

questioning. I think the American people--certainly my constituents--

learned a lot and were very, very impressed with Judge Barrett.

  As you know, the advice and consent responsibility of the Senate is

one of the most important responsibilities we have in the Constitution.

The process that I will have gone through and go through with every

single judge is to evaluate Judge Barrett's qualifications on her

record, the hearings, and, of course, in discussions I have had with

her. This has been an extensive evaluation. I have read hundreds of

pages of the decisions she has authored. I have listened to and read

the views of Alaskans both for and against her nomination. In my

meeting with Judge Barrett, we discussed in great depth her viewpoint

on a variety of national and Alaska-focused legal issues.

  She clearly understands the separation of powers and federalism,

holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of Federal

Agencies, and is a strong protector and proponent of the Second

Amendment--all issues that my constituents care deeply about.

  Why are these issues so important to Alaska and central to our

realizing our potential? Let me give a brief but recent example of an

issue that recently made its way to the Ninth Circuit, which often is

the bane of our existence in Alaska, to the Supreme Court not once but

twice, and was unanimously agreed to by the Supreme Court. It is a case

that some of the media here would be familiar with, Sturgeon v. Frost--

a moose hunter, a hovercraft, the wild interior of Alaska. It made for

some great headlines. But the issue being litigated in that case was

one of control, one of freedom--control of our lands, our waters, our

fish, and game. The Federal Government, in essence, told John Sturgeon

he couldn't use his hovercraft on Federal waters to go hunting. ``Yes,

I can,'' said Sturgeon. He knew the law.

 

  Then there was litigation. It is one that comes up time and again in

Alaska--the issue of Federal overreach, agency creep. In Alaska, we

have a front row to this problem.

  We have seen it happen to us consistently by the courts--

particularly, as I mentioned, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit. When they interpret statutes involving my

State--and they are many--Federal statutes can only relate to Alaska in

a way that fits with their ideas and policy notions about the way the

Federal lands in Alaska should be managed. In essence, they typically

think that less control by the people and more control by the

government is what is needed.

  But that often is not what Congress wrote and what Congress intended.

It is the absolute opposite of judicial humility, failing to read the

statutes as we, in this body, wrote them. It is failing to exhibit the

kind of textualism that Judge Barrett ascribes to and was so on display

during our hearings.

  So why is this important? When the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth

Circuit twice in 3 years, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for

the majority in Sturgeon v. Frost that the Federal laws that govern

land management in Alaska are often ``different'' from the laws

governing land management in any other part of the country.

  These laws are often carefully crafted by this body and the House,

and they are essential for Alaskans, both culturally and economically.

And when judges misinterpret these laws--as they often do, and this is

what I talked to Judge Barrett about--they often directly impact the

lives of my constituents, usually in a negative way.

  Just ask John Sturgeon and countless other Alaskans who, over the

decades, have seen their rights to legally enjoy our lands--and it is

our lands--that they call home whittled away, decision by decision, by

Federal agencies.

  Over the years, various Federal agencies have acted as if Federal

laws governing Alaska didn't exist. Commercial use permits weren't

being issued. People couldn't partake in their traditional activities.

They couldn't harvest their traditional foods. Alaskans couldn't make a

living on the land.

  I don't know how Judge Barrett would vote on these specific issues,

but I trust her temperament, on great display during the hearings, her

stated skepticism about Federal overreach, her strong belief that the

Second Amendment ``confers an individual right, intimately connected

with the natural right of self-defense.''

  I trust what others have said about her on both sides of the aisle:

``brilliant,'' ``humble,'' ``a woman of unassailable integrity,'' and

``a role model for generations to come.''

  All of this was on display during her hearing and in my meeting with

her, and I trust that all of this will come to play when these kinds of

cases--the Alaska-specific cases--make their way up to the High Court,

which they inevitably do. I don't believe that it is an overstatement

to say that the future of my constituents depends on these kinds of

issues.

  It is for these reasons, and others, that I will vote to confirm

Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I encourage all of my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same for this

exceptional jurist who is very qualified for this position.

  I yield the floor.

You can read the transcript recorded in the Congressional Records below or click here.
MRS. BLACKBURN: Mr. President, I tell you, it is quite an honor to join my colleagues and talk for a few minutes about our Supreme Court nominee, Judge Barrett.  In the Judiciary Committee, where I hold a seat, we were doing one of our most important duties--our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent regarding the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. Indeed, we do this with all of our Federal judges who come before us.  Last week, we fulfilled that highest level of duty as we examined Judge Barrett's record, her character, and to see if she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. As you were hearing from my colleagues today, yes, indeed, she is qualified.  Now, I will tell you that unfortunately some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent their time fishing for sound bites and feigning confusion over the fact that Judge Barrett takes her cues from the Constitution and not from the latest polling and not from the 24-hour news cycle.Honestly, I think that said more about them than it did about her.  That is what happens when leaders who really ought to know better allow politics to take control of their vetting process and their thought process. That is what most Americans took away from those hearings last week, that in the eyes of those on the Democratic side of the dais, there was no way Judge Amy Coney Barrett was ever going to make them happy because, to them, only answers that tracked with their views--views on the left--on abortion, on religion, and on socialized medicine would pass muster. This is an absurd standard, I will tell you, and it is no standard at all because those views shift and change depending on what the loudest megaphone on the National Mall has to say on any given day.  So, in the interest of refocusing on our duty to offer advice and consent, I think we could all stand a quick recap of last week's hearing.  Here is what we know: Judge Barrett is exceptionally smart, she is focused, and she is a mindful jurist. Her colleagues, students, former clerks, and professional associates from all backgrounds and all world views wholeheartedly believe she is competent and prepared to hold a seat on the Supreme Court. Her record is consistent with the originalist lens she puts over the cases and controversies that come across her desk. Over the course of 2 days of intense questioning, she did not contradict that record or violate the rules of judicial ethics by offering a preview of future rulings.  The American Bar Association rated her as ``well qualified'' to serve on the Court. Based on the testimony and evidence offered to the committee, I will tell you, I definitely agree with them.  I will vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, and I would encourage all my colleagues who plan on voting no to think long and hard about why that is. If they have not taken the time to get to know Judge Barrett--her background and her record--I encourage them to get to know a little bit about her and also to ask themselves how smart was it to have spent the past month signaling their willingness to dismantle our constitutional framework to score a few cheap points against the White House during a political season.  I yield the floor.  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I was in Alaska when Judge Amy Coney Barrett was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but since then I have been able to catch up on those hearings. I want to commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Graham for conducting those hearings in a way that befitted such an occasion--with respect and good questioning. I think the American people--certainly my constituents--learned a lot and were very, very impressed with Judge Barrett.  As you know, the advice and consent responsibility of the Senate is one of the most important responsibilities we have in the Constitution. The process that I will have gone through and go through with every single judge is to evaluate Judge Barrett's qualifications on her record, the hearings, and, of course, in discussions I have had with her. This has been an extensive evaluation. I have read hundreds of pages of the decisions she has authored. I have listened to and read the views of Alaskans both for and against her nomination. In my meeting with Judge Barrett, we discussed in great depth her viewpoint on a variety of national and Alaska-focused legal issues.  She clearly understands the separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of Federal Agencies, and is a strong protector and proponent of the Second Amendment--all issues that my constituents care deeply about.  Why are these issues so important to Alaska and central to our realizing our potential? Let me give a brief but recent example of an issue that recently made its way to the Ninth Circuit, which often is the bane of our existence in Alaska, to the Supreme Court not once but twice, and was unanimously agreed to by the Supreme Court. It is a case that some of the media here would be familiar with, Sturgeon v. Frost--a moose hunter, a hovercraft, the wild interior of Alaska. It made for some great headlines. But the issue being litigated in that case was one of control, one of freedom--control of our lands, our waters, our fish, and game. The Federal Government, in essence, told John Sturgeon he couldn't use his hovercraft on Federal waters to go hunting. ``Yes, I can,'' said Sturgeon. He knew the law.
  Then there was litigation. It is one that comes up time and again in Alaska--the issue of Federal overreach, agency creep. In Alaska, we have a front row to this problem.  We have seen it happen to us consistently by the courts--particularly, as I mentioned, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. When they interpret statutes involving my State--and they are many--Federal statutes can only relate to Alaska in a way that fits with their ideas and policy notions about the way the Federal lands in Alaska should be managed. In essence, they typically think that less control by the people and more control by the government is what is needed.  But that often is not what Congress wrote and what Congress intended. It is the absolute opposite of judicial humility, failing to read the statutes as we, in this body, wrote them. It is failing to exhibit the kind of textualism that Judge Barrett ascribes to and was so on display during our hearings.  So why is this important? When the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit twice in 3 years, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the majority in Sturgeon v. Frost that the Federal laws that govern land management in Alaska are often ``different'' from the laws governing land management in any other part of the country.  These laws are often carefully crafted by this body and the House, and they are essential for Alaskans, both culturally and economically. And when judges misinterpret these laws--as they often do, and this is what I talked to Judge Barrett about--they often directly impact the lives of my constituents, usually in a negative way.  Just ask John Sturgeon and countless other Alaskans who, over the decades, have seen their rights to legally enjoy our lands--and it is our lands--that they call home whittled away, decision by decision, by Federal agencies.  Over the years, various Federal agencies have acted as if Federal laws governing Alaska didn't exist. Commercial use permits weren't being issued. People couldn't partake in their traditional activities. They couldn't harvest their traditional foods. Alaskans couldn't make a living on the land.  I don't know how Judge Barrett would vote on these specific issues, but I trust her temperament, on great display during the hearings, her stated skepticism about Federal overreach, her strong belief that the Second Amendment ``confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense.''  I trust what others have said about her on both sides of the aisle: ``brilliant,'' ``humble,'' ``a woman of unassailable integrity,'' and ``a role model for generations to come.''  All of this was on display during her hearing and in my meeting with her, and I trust that all of this will come to play when these kinds of cases--the Alaska-specific cases--make their way up to the High Court, which they inevitably do. I don't believe that it is an overstatement to say that the future of my constituents depends on these kinds of issues.  It is for these reasons, and others, that I will vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same for this exceptional jurist who is very qualified for this position.  I yield the floor.