HYGO News Lindsey Graham's opening statement in Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing
Lindsey Graham’s Opening Statement in Barrett Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing
On October 12, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) opened the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett by defending the constitutionality of the process, paying tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and presenting Barrett’s qualifications. Graham acknowledged that the confirmation was proceeding in an election year after voting had already begun, but argued that historical precedent supported the action when the presidency and Senate were held by the same party. He predicted a strictly partisan vote, with all Republicans voting yes and all Democrats voting no, but emphasized the importance of holding the hearing rather than simply “ramming it through.”
Tribute to Justice Ginsburg
Graham began with a tribute to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death on September 18 created the vacancy. He noted that Ginsburg had been confirmed 96 to 3, at a time when “almost every Republican voted for her,” despite her progressive credentials and work with the ACLU.
Graham recalled Justice Scalia’s praise of his close friend: “The leading and very successful litigator on behalf of women’s rights, the Thurgood Marshall of that cause.” Graham remarked, “What high praise. I can’t say any more than that statement says.”
He used the bipartisan confirmations of the past — Ginsburg at 96-3 and Scalia at 97 votes — to underscore how dramatically the process had changed. “I don’t know what happened between then and now,” Graham said. “We can all take some blame.”
Barrett’s Qualifications
Graham presented Barrett’s academic and professional record. He noted she graduated summa cum laude and first in her class from Notre Dame Law School in 1997, clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the DC Circuit and then for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, practiced law in Washington, DC, and joined the Notre Dame faculty in 2002.
He highlighted that Barrett had been named best professor by Notre Dame students three times during her tenure, calling her “academically very gifted.” He noted her publications in the Columbia, University of Virginia, and Cornell law reviews, and her service as a Seventh Circuit judge since 2017, during which she heard hundreds of cases.
Graham quoted Barrett’s own description of her judicial philosophy: “I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”
Beyond her legal career, Graham noted that Barrett and her husband had seven children, including two adopted, quipping, “Nine seems to be a good number.”
The Constitutional Case for Election-Year Confirmation
Graham addressed the central Democratic objection — that confirming a justice this close to an election was illegitimate — by citing both constitutional authority and historical precedent. He quoted Justice Ginsburg herself: “A president serves four years, not three.”
He laid out the historical record: “There’s never been a situation where you had a president of one party, and the Senate of another, where the nominee, the replacement, was made in an election year. It’s been over 140 years ago.” Of 19 vacancies filled in election years, Graham said 17 of the 19 were confirmed when the president’s party also controlled the Senate.
On timing, he noted that “more than half of all Supreme Court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee,” and cited specific examples: Stevens at 10 days, Rehnquist at 13, Powell at 13, Blackmun at 15, and Burger at 13. Barrett’s hearing was starting 16 days after her nomination.
Graham distinguished the Barrett situation from the Merrick Garland controversy in 2016, when Republicans blocked President Obama’s nominee. In that case, he noted, the vacancy occurred “in the early part of an election year” with the opposing party controlling the Senate — a different constitutional alignment than the current one.
Predicting the Outcome
Graham was unusually direct about how the vote would go: “This is probably not about persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes. And all Democrats will vote no. And that will be the way the breakout of the vote.”
Despite the foregone conclusion, Graham defended holding a full hearing rather than simply forcing a floor vote. “A lot of people on our side say just ram it through,” he acknowledged. “That’s why I don’t listen to the radio much anymore. The bottom line is, I think it’s important. This is a lifetime appointment. I would like the world and the country to know more about Judge Barrett.”
He urged the committee to consider Barrett’s qualifications on their merits, comparing her to Justices Sotomayor and Kagan: “Judge for yourself, is this person qualified? Is she as qualified as Sotomayor and Kagan? I think so.” He noted that while he disagreed with Obama’s nominees philosophically, “I never doubted one moment that they were not qualified.”
Call for Respectful Process
Graham closed with a plea to both parties to keep the hearing respectful. He referenced contentious past hearings involving Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, and said, “I hope we don’t take that path with Judge Barrett. She doesn’t deserve that.”
He addressed Democrats directly: “I respect y’all. We’ve done some things together and we’ve had some fights in this committee. I’ve tried to give you the time you need to make your case, and you have every right in the world to make your case.”
His final request was simple: “To the extent possible, let’s make it respectful. Let’s make it challenging. Let’s remember the world is watching.”
Key Takeaways
- Chairman Graham defended the constitutionality of the election-year confirmation by citing 17 of 19 historical election-year vacancies filled when the president’s party controlled the Senate, and noted that more than half of all Supreme Court hearings began within 16 days of the nomination.
- He praised Barrett’s academic excellence, clerkship with Justice Scalia, three-time best-professor awards at Notre Dame, and bipartisan 2017 confirmation to the Seventh Circuit, comparing her qualifications favorably to Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
- Graham predicted a strictly party-line vote but defended holding a full hearing rather than fast-tracking the confirmation, urging colleagues to avoid repeating the contentious episodes of the Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh hearings.