amy barrett's nomination has received outstanding reviews. she's clearly well-qualified for the office to which she has been nominated. as the president of notre dame recently wrote, quote, her experience as a clerk for judge silverman on the u.s. court of appeals and u.s. supreme court antonin scalia is of the highest order. so, too, is her scholarship in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. amy barrett is going to make an outstanding federal circuit court judge. so, too, will ms. larsen, ms. eids and mr. bibas. i look forward to the senate confirming autumconfirming -- cf them next week. now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the p

we are going to lead off with professor amy barrett, at notre dame, who is a nominee for the 7th circuit. professor barrett says faith is important to her, her faith is important to her. she's spoken freely about it. she's allowed to do that in this country, by the way. but she also understands the role of a judge, which is to not let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. my colleagues on the judiciary committee are here today and will discuss professor barrett's nomination and how democrats raise concerns about her religious faith during her hearings. and with that, let me turn to our chairman, chuck grassley. >> thank you, leader. our country has benefitted from leaders from a variety of religious faiths, our political leaders don't have to abandon their religious faith to hold public office. article six of the constitution quote no religious test shall ever be required as a qualitycation to any under the united states. professor barrett is a brilliant legal scholar who has earned the respect of colleagues and students from across the political spectrum. she's also a committe

fears were confirmed during the recent senate confirmation hearing of notre dame law professor amy barrett. despite a distinguished legal and academic career, certain member of the senate judiciary committee launched an unfair attack to discredit professor barrett because of her catholic faith. while i watched this confirmation hearing my heart sank. before my eyes flashed a vision of a nation in which the ruling elite through an arbitrary and subjective standard may dictate the degree to which it is acceptable for a person of faith to be religious and still be qualified for public office. i saw a country in which my children who are being raised catholic may be disqualified from participating in the civic life of their beloved nation for their faith. is this a vision of a vibrant, free, united states of america that respects the rich and diverse religious pluralism of its citizens? it is not. the attack on professor barrett was not just inappropriate and likely unconstitutional personal attack against her and her catholic faith but also an attack against any person of faith who takes his

they handle some incredibly difficult constitutional cases but what is good about this is that amy barrett meets the standard for those high qualifications. professor barrett received her ba in english literature magnum cum laude from rose college. her jd summa culottes from notre dame university law school where she served as a get executive editor of the notre dame law review. she currently serves as a research professor of law at notre dame university law school. professor barrett teaches and researchers in the areas of the federal courts constitutional law, statutory interpretation. she's published in scholarship and leading legal jurors such as columbia, virginia and the texas law review. those aren't easy areas to be able to publish for and an easy professorship to be able to land. for joining the notre dame faculty she clerked for justice , the support of united states andte for judge silverman of the us court of appeals in the dc circuit. following her clerkship she was an associate where she litigated constitutional and commercial creasess in a trial and appellae courts. she also

that will surely be true of professor amy barrett. i look forward to voting to confirm this accomplished law professor and devoted mother of seven later today and i would urge our colleagues to join me. once we do, the senate will advance another of president trump's well qualified circuit court nominees, michigan supreme court justice joan larsen to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. justice larsen is the second of three accomplished women whom the senate will consider this week for appointment to our circuit courts. i assume that all three of these impressive women will receive strong support from our democratic colleagues who never seem to miss an opportunity to talk about the war on women. here's what nominees like larsen and barrett and the others will consider -- we'll -- and the others we'll consider this week represent for our judiciary. equal justice under the law for all. a share shake to every litigant. what a refreshing departure from president obama and his so-called empathy standard for selecting j

we are going to lead off with professor amy barrett at notre dame who is a nominee for the seventh circuit. professor barrett says faith is important to her, her faith is important to her, she's spoken freely about it. she's allowed to do that in this country, by the way. but she also understands the role of a judge, which is to not let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. my colleagues on the judiciary committee are here today and will discuss professor barrett's nomination and how democrats raised concerns about her religious faith during her hearings. with that, let me turn to our

the first of these for circuit court nominees will confirm this week is professor amy barrett who was nominated by the president serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the 7th circuit. a mother of seven professor barrett again her legal cover your working for judge lawrence silberman of the d.c. circuit and then justice scalia. these prestigious clerkships gave her the opportunity to work closely with two giants of the legal field. today she is a respected professor at the university of notre dame whereby the way she was honored as a distinguished professor of the year, twice. or this or barrett will bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench. professor barrett happens to be a catholic. her faith is important to her. she has spoken freely about it and the impact on her life but she also understands the role of the judge which is not to let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. unbelievably some on the political left including some of our democratic colleagues are criticizing her because in a lawsuit she wrote a law journal article that argued just that. her co-author of the ar

coney barrett -- let's send amy coney barrett to the seventh circuit where she belongs. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i rise to speak in support -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. young: may we dispense with the quorum call, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: i rise to speak of a fellow hoosier who has been nominated to serve on the seventh circuit court of appeals. she is the mother of seven children, a distinguished legal scholar at the university of notre dame law school where she graduated with high honors and served as editor of the notre dame law review. she clerked for justice antonin scalia on the supreme court of the united states and judge silverman on the circuit court for the district of columbia and she's an expert on the federal courts. unfortunately some of my colleagues on the left have

aisle during amy barrett's nomination which we'll be voting on this week. ms. barrett's qualifications are well-known. the american bar association, which rates judicial nominees, has given her its highest rating of well-qualified. as my colleague the minority leader has said, the bar association's evaluation is and i quote, the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged, end quote. mr. president, despite her judicial qualifications, it became clear in the hearing on her nomination that some of my colleagues think she should be disqualified because she is a practicing catholic. that's right, mr. president. apparently practicing your religion is now grounds for declaring you unfit. -- to be a judge. here's what the constitution has to say about that. this is from article 6. and i quote, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. let me repeat that, mr. president. no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. in ot

where it says there will be no religious test for public office, both in judge amy, law professor amy barrett hearing and another hearing in the loft working at omb -- there were questions about their religious beliefs. that is unconstitutional and it's the path we should not start down. i'm sure that these judges will be confirmed but in law professor barrett's case her former law clerk colleagues talked about what a great lawyer she was, 450 of her law students wrote a letter urging she be confirmed. in articles she's when she made the point that if a religious police ever got in the way of a decision, she would step back from that decision but still the questions were asked as if her religious beliefs mattered. they do not matter under the constitution and can't matter. she will be confirmed along with the other three nominees this week. the protection of the minority in the senate rules is only there until the minority takes advantage of those protections. anytime those protections have been abused in the history of the country the senate walks back from protections that are there to be u

it says there will be no religious test for public office both in judge a amy -- law professor amy barrett's hearing and in another hearing in the last few weeks on somebody working at omb. there was questions about their religious beliefs. that's not -- it's unconstitutional, it's a path we should not start down. i'm sure that these judges will be confirmed, but in law professor barrett's case, her former law clerk colleagues talked about what a great lawyer she was. 450 of her law students wrote a letter urging she be confirmed. in articles she's written, she made the point that if her religious beliefs ever got in the way of a decision, she should step back from that decision. but still the questions were asked as if her religious beliefs mattered. they don't matter under the constitution and can't matter. she'll be confirmed along with the other three nominees this week. and the protection of the minority in the senate rules is only there until the minority takes advantage of those protections. anytime those protections have been abused in the history of the country, the senate walks bac

and this nominee is amy coney barrett. as a professor at the university of notre dame law school, miss barrett's scholarly writings reveal a nominee who questions the need to follow precedent and who outlines specific conditions under which a judge does not have an obligation to follow precedent. in a texas law review article entitled "precedent and judicial disagreement" she wrote, i quote, i tend to agree to those who say a justice's duty is to the constitution and this it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it. end quote. in a university of colorado law review article stare decisis and due process she wrote, -- again i quote her -- unconstitutionally deprives a litigant of the right to a hearing on the merits of her claim. end quote. and in a third piece, statutory stare decisis in courts of appeal published in the george washington law review. she goes further in saying, quote, whatever the merits of statutory

district judge and another debate on amy barrett to be the seventh circuit court.more work on judicial nominations are expected this week and also let you know in rush investigation, bail has been set for paul manafort and rick gates, former trump campaign staffers. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

in a little over 30 minutes, the senate will return to debate the nomination of amy coney barrett tohe 7th circuit court of appeals. they voted 54-52 to limit debate on the nomination yesterday. three democrats, joined the republicans in voting yes. ahead of that vote, several republican senators and religious liberty advocates spoke out about ms. barrett's nomination on capitol hill. here is a look. >> well, thank you for joining us today. for eight years we had an administration that had a particular approach to judges that could best be described as the

when i look at dick durbin, i remember the same man who just about a month ago was asking amy comey barrett essentially are you now or have you ever been an orthodox catholic? i take his kind of interrogations with a grain of salt. there are three things they're talking about. one, the murder rate is chicago that is very high and whether it has anything to do with illegal immigrants, i don't know. but second, the administration, i think, is perfectly within its rights to deny funds to cities not cooperating with the federal government about illegal immigration. chicago's free to keep that policy. they are not free to get the money from the administration as they do that. it's a legitimate question but i'm not sure that senator durbin is on the stronger side of that argument. >> it seems like most of the time federal law trumps all when you are at the state and local level except when some of these local governments decides federal law doesn't trump it. >> except for progressives. they want their cake and taxpayer dollars, too, to pay for it. >> all right. bill mcgurn. we'll continue to keep

most recent example of this was the recent judiciary committee nomination hearing of professor amy barrett of the notre dame law school. during the hearing she was asked repeatedly about her catholic faith and faced what bordered on ridicule when she repeatedly stated that she would perform her judicial duties without interference from the doctrines of the catholic faith. it was stated by one questioner, quote, the dogma that is loudly within you, and that's a concern. what does that statement mean in this context if not to question professor barrett's judicial fitness based on her religious beliefs? now liberal groups have been relentless in their opposition to professor barrett mischaracterizing her record to paint her as some kind of fringe ideologue waiting to take orders from the pope or others in clergy on how to decide cases. just last week "the new york times" ran a 1,500 word story on where professor barrett worships. as it turns out, apart from her parish church, professor barrett has been part of an ecumenical charismatic community. i should note that charismatic christianity is

he recently wrote the following amy barrett, a law professor at notre dame, was grilled by democrats on the senate judiciary committee about an article we wrote together in 1998 when i was a law professor and she was my student. in that article, we argued that the death penalty was immoral, as the catholic church teaches in common with quakers, episcopalians, methodists and the 38 member communions in the national council of churches. we went on to say that a catholic judge who held that view might in rare cases have to recuse -- recuse herself under the federal statute that asks a federal judge to step aside when she has conscientious scruples that prevent her from deciding a case in conformity with the facts and the law. president garvey went on to write perhaps the alliance for justice which has mounted a campaign to discredit professor barrett didn't get that far in reading the article. the website says this: stunningly, barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. in fact, this group claim

. >> mitch mcconnell and the minority whip talk about judicial nominations including amy barrett to the seventh circuit court.