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 empathy.

president obama said on a number of occasions that he wanted judges that had empathy for parties. well, the problem with that, if you're not the party for whom the judge has empathy, you're in for a pretty rough ride. this administration, the trump administration, has taken the approach, the rather quaint approach that the judge of a judge is try to interpret the law as it's written. justice scalia used to say if you're not uncomfortable occasionally with the outcome you've reached, you're not a very good judge. justice gorsuch said, judges don't wear red, don't wear blue, they wear black. we are this week going to confirm four circuit junction. chairman grassley has done an extraordinary job of processing the judges and getting them out

and available for us to move forward and that's what we intent to do beginning this week. we often hear our democratic friends talking about the war on women, three or four judges that will be before the senate this week are women. 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 committed roman catholic and has spoken passionately about the role that her faith plays in her life. this isn't inconsistent with

her being a federal judge. at the hearing, some of the questions from my colleagues crossed the line and we heard a question whether professor barrett considers herself, quote, unquote, orthodox catholic. she was told quote, unquote, the dogma lives loudly within her. these remarks were entirely inappropriate. at the beginning of the hearing, i gave professor barrett the chance to clarify the meaning of an article that she co-wrote as a law student 20 years ago which outside groups have misinterpreted. i wanted to allow her to set the record straight. here is what she said, quote, if there is ever a conflict between judge's personal conviction and the judge's-- and that the judge's duty under

the rule of law, it is never ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decisions of a case rather than what the law requires, end of quote. that should be the end of this matter. but my democrat colleagues insisted on engaging in ugly anti-catholic rhetoric. i want to express my sincere hope that my colleagues behaviors won't discourage religious americans from seeking public office and committing to public service. you will see tomorrow that professor barrett will be confirmed as the newest judge on the 7th circuit. congressman young. >> senator young. >> well, thank you, chairman. thank you, leader. it's good to be with members, my colleagues on the judiciary committee for this important press conference. we're joined today by three groups that i'd like to quickly

introduce. penny young nance, representing concerned women for america, thank you for being here, penny. joshua mchague representing the catholic bar association, thank you, sir. and professor mark reinsey representing religious liberty. thank you all. as a u.s. senator for indiana, it's a distinct honor to speak for amy coney barrett, a fellow hoosier who has been nominated by this president for the 7th circuit. she's a distinguished scholar at notre dame. she's clerked for justice antonin scalia. impeccable credit he thinks dids. unfortunately some of my colleagues made usual not of professor barrett's of her

qualifications, but instead of her catholic faith. i want to go with what senator mcconnell said, we do not have a religious test for an office in the united states of america period. it's frankly concerning that we're having this conversation. i applaud every who has spoken up in defense of religious freedom throughout this process, including notre dame's president reverend john jenkins who expressed deep concern with a line of questioning one of my colleagues pursued with professor barrett in her hearing before the judiciary committee. reverend jenkins put into words what i believe many of us were thinking when this colleague of ours said that dogma lives loudly within professor barrett and that's of concern. he wrote, quote, it is chilling to hear from a united states senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge, unquote. dogma, he says, quote, lived loudly in the hearts of those

who founded our nation, as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology, unquote. i happen to agree with reverend jenkins that attempt to live faith while upholding the law should look at with respect, not concern. and i also take very seriously our responsibility to safeguard religious freedom. and so, my vote for professor barrett's confirmation will be both a vote for an outstanding nominee and a vote for religious freedom. i now turn it over to penny young nance. penny. >> thank you. thank you, senator and thank you senator mcconnell, senator grassley. thank you so much for including me. let me also say thank you to all the other senators standing here today in support of professor coney barrett.

in standing for her you stand for women of faith who are routinely mocked and derided for our beliefs. as the ceo and president of concerned women for america, the largest public policy organization for women in the nation, i'm-- to support professor barrett as a more than qualified candidate for the 7th circuit court of appeals. in fact, no one's really questioned her qualifications because she is a standout professional and academic. however, i was disappointed to see in her confirmation hearing the inappropriate questioning of her faith and by the way, we saw this also with russell's confirmation omb. it's a concerning trend. the christian dogma that a few find appalling embodies the best of humanity. it calls us to love others as we do ourselves, to speak for those who can't speak for themselves, to feed the hungry,

clothe the naked, attend to the widow and the orphan and to care for those in prison. it teaches us to be truthful, honorable and content. it teaches us to respect governmental authority and, yes, it teaches judges to be impartial and to love justice. these character traits should be celebrated in any judicial nominee, religious or not. for any senator who chooses to vote against professor barrett, based on her religious beliefs, i would suggest that you can do that, but it says more about you than it says about her. democrats should support professor barrett and confirm her with their most sincere apologies and i'm grateful to be here, thank you.

>> thank you, senators, for this opportunity to be here today. my name is joshua mchague, and this is an organization of catholic legal professionals, the catholic bar association was established, there was concern about the founding members about growing intolerance to catholic professionals serving in public office. sadly, our fears were confirmed during the recent senate confirmation hearing of notre dame law professor amy barrett. despite a distinguished legal and academic career, certain members of the senate judicial 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 ruling elite through arbitrary and subjective standard may dictate the agree for which a person of

faith could be religious and still qualified for office. and saw a country in which my children are being raised catholic, won't be allowed because of that tradition. is this a vision of a vibrant and free united states of america that respects the diver diversity, sadly it's not. the attack was the an unconstitutional attack against her catholic faith or any person of faith who takes his or her religion seriously. we ask the senate to take a stand all citizens regardless of faith, background or lack thereof are to be judged on professional qualifications to serve not on their religious affiliation, thank you. >> thank you, senators.

had the constitution forbids the government from imposing religious tests. under our constitution we are all free to serve, to be evaluated on our own individual merits rather than on your religious beliefs. that rule goes for catholics, for jews, for atheists, for muslims and everyone else. professor barrett happens to be catholic, but the principle is much, much broader. when some said that democratic congressman keith ellison, who is muslim, should not be allowed to take his oath on the koran, we said that was a violation of the no religious test clause. they're wrong then and wrong now. the arguments against a highly qualified catholic nominee that her religious beliefs are somehow incompatible with government service could be

used against people of any faith. they are terrible echoes of tired and bigoted arguments that for centuries supported religious tests in england and those were anti-catholic, anti-presbyterian, anti-quaker, anti-methodist, anti-jewish, anti-atheist religious tests. in this country some more arguments or religious tests were used to are years to keep jews and atheists from serving under state and colonial laws. our constitution rightly puts those arguments in the dust bin of history so here everyone is free to serve and no one is excluded because of her religious beliefs. whatever your views on religion we should all reject any efforts to impose religious tests for public office anymore. that's what the constitution demands and it's also the right thing to do. we're all better off when everyone is free to serve. thank you.

>> thank you for teeing up these important judicial nominations this week. the outcome of these votes is not in doubt. that's thanks to former majority leader harry reid who, because of his abuse of the senate rules, created a mechanism whereby 51 senators can vote to confirm these nominees and so they will be confirmed by the end of this week and we think our democratic colleagues understand that, which is why they have so desperately reached for any excuse not to vote to confirm well-qualified people like amy barrett for the circuit court of appeals. but we know that this is one of the main reasons why president trump was elected over hillary clinton in the first place, because of the importance of these nominees and the service of these judges from the supreme court down to the court

of appeals, down to the district courts. but unfortunately, we have seen a concerted effort to drag out the confirmation process, even among judges who ultimately get 70, 80 votes, and so, there is no real effect on the outcome, it's only to burn more time on the senate calendar to prevent this president the opportunity to have his team serving on this administration. and that includes judges as well. but we're determined not to stand for that and that's why we are here standing together to say these four judges will be confirmed by the end of this week and there are many more voted on the judiciary committee for the coming weeks and months confirmed to fill the vacancies on the federal court left for president trump. senator hatch. >> as former chairman. judiciary committee, an

asortment of the finance committee today, i have to say that we stood-- if we start to raise questions of religious belief, that somebody could serve on the federal judiciary. now, i hope that that type of questioning will hit the dust bin of history where it belongs. and amy barrett is a very qualified person. she should not be disqualified because she has a firm religious belief. i think it's too bad, if we say to people who are really good people that because of your religious belief you cannot serve on the federal judiciary. and if we go down that route, then can you imagine all the other issues that can be raised about various people and how

difficult it would be to pick federal judges? there's precedence involved here and it's hard for me to understand why some of my colleagues feel the way they do on these issues. i think a lot of this has been driven-- people say it's now established, well, it is. it's hard for me to understand-- it's not hard for me to understand why that particular case has created so much division in the law because there was no justification whatsoever for deciding the case that way. all i can tell you is that that case shouldn't stop somebody from serving on the federal judiciary either way. and to make a long story short, amy barrett is a highly qualified woman and has great experience, somebody we would want on the federal bench if we have any brains at all. and i really recent the

implication of a religious test because she's devout in her faith. you can be devout in your faith and still uphold the law. even sometimes when you disagree with the law. as a judge less than the supreme court, and on the supreme court you need to uphold the law as well under most circumstances. so, i'm proud of my colleagues for being willing to stand up and i think it's time that we get rid of this type of thinking. and make sure that this type of thinking does not prevent qualified, outstanding people from serving on the federal judiciary, which is the benefit to all of us. . >> there was a time when an anti-cat athletic bigotry could

regularly be heard in the halls of congress. a time where former leaders of the klan were treated as respected members of the senate. a time where blain amendments were being adopted across the country explicitly as an effort to bar catholics. to erect legal barriers to catholics being accepted in our society. i think a great many of us had hoped we'd put those dark days behind us, but that sorry chapter in our history had been relegated to the history books. and yet, we are seeing a reemergence of that same hostility to faith and that same hostility to the catholic church. the previous administration persecuted the little sisters of the poor in a way that was

truly indefensible. and today, in this senate, we have seen repeatedly nominees grilled not for their qualifications, not for their record, but for their faith. we saw professor barrett, a distinguished professor at notre dame, a respected academic, someone whose credentials are impeccable grilled by democratic senators, one democratic senator demanding, are you an orthodox catholic, with the obvious presumption being if the answer were yes, you're not fit to serve on the federal bench. another democratic senator calling out the dogma lives strongly in this one. almost as if we'd gone back decades in in institution's history. we saw another nominee being questioned by the runner up for

the democratic presidential nominee in this instance, the nominee is an evangelical christian and having his views about salvation, what does your faith teach about salvation? those questions have no place in the senate hearing. i recognize that today's democratic party is not the party of jfk anymore. today's democratic party is much more secular, happily embraces atheists, but if the message of democrats is catholics need not apply, if the message of democrats is evangelical christians are unfit to serve in office, if the message of democrats are, it's okay if you serve so long as you are not in the word of one democratic senator, a quote, orthodox catholic, then that is a sad, sad testament to where this body is. now, i hope and believe we're not there. i hope and i want to believe

that these are abberations, but we have an opportunity, we're going to have four judicial nominees before the senate this week. there's an opportunity for every democrat voting to decide where he or she stands. are you part of establishing an unconstitutional religious test contrary to article 6 of the constitution? are you part of saying the democratic party does not welcome orthodox catholics? or will you stand for religious liberty and religious faith? it's my hope that professor barrett will be confirmed 100-nothing, based on what we've seen i don't think that's likely, but i do think we're seeing a test. but it's not a test of the nominees, it is of the test of the united states senate. >> 179 years ago this past friday we marked the 179th

anniversary of an executive order issued by the governor of missouri who wrote that the mormons must be driven from the state and if necessary, exterminated. interestingly enough, that executive order wasn't lifted until the 1970's and remained a lasting testament to religious bigotry and the fact that it occurred, that it has its seat in some of our history, but we can't let it repeat itself. this was something that the founder of the mormon church, joseph smith, decried against when he talked repeatedly that the civil magistrate should have the power to punish guilt, but never to suppress the freedom of the soul. it's one of the reasons why, as a life long member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, i'm a firm believer of the exercise clause and establishment clause and the prohibition against any type of religious test in government. and this is not an issue that is shared only by republicans,

this is not a left versus right issue. as christopher krueger, the president of principalton dn princeton, who served, like professor barrett, served as a law clerk to justice stevens. he said the questions to professor barrett have no place in this setting. they don't. and her religious beliefs and religious affiliation, they have nothing to do with her qualification toss to serve as a federal appellate court judge. and in some respects, the way they were asked is worse than someone asking are you a catholic. they weren't just asking, are you a catholic? do you actually believe that stuff, doctrine of your church, do you believe it deeply, sincerely, suggesting, if so, that was somehow a problem.

this is a problem, we cannot allow it to persist and i look forward to confirming professor barrett to the court of appeals this week. thank you. >> it's one of the grand issues of our day that amazingly enough is unresolved. can you have a faith in america and live it? are we going to be a nation where you can have freedom of worship, where if you want to worship at that place and time no one sees it that's okay, but if you bring it into the public square that's a problem. that seems to be the primary issue of debate at this point. our constitution is clear, we don't have freedom of worship we have the free exercise of religion, meaning you can have a faith and live your faith and not get in the way of public service or public enterprise. as add as it may seem, this, i thought, was an issue that was revolved in the 1960's when a president named jfk was

running. john kennedy stood in front of a group of protestant ministers in houston, texas and says if i run in this election and lose i'll happily return to the senate. but if i fail to be elected because of my faith, then 40 million americans have lost their right to be able to be president the day they were baptistiz baptistized. the question we're dealing with, dealing with judges, is again resolving this issue of echl freedom of religion. do americans need not apply to be judges, in public office in the federal government if they have their faith and live their faith. or can we, we've said over 200 years, have your faith, live your faith, or have no faith at all and still be an american. and i'm shocked this is still a conversation, that people become afraid of people of faith. you can have a faith and have a name on your faith and just

don't let anyone see it. that's not who we are and who we should be. i'm glad we're moving forward on amy barrett's nomination, saying let's base on qualifications not based on their private faith. >> well, i think we've heard about amy barrett, we've heard about her qualifications and who she is. we've heard wonderful things about her, i think of all the endorsements she's had, the best one, the one that means the most to me is the endorsement of all the clerks. she's a clerk for scalia and all of them know what she does and they know her well. so, that was the right thing when this whole issue came up, i think it's outrageous, but i want to mention one thing that happened last week, you may have forgotten about. we had a guy from our state of oklahoma. he was one who was actually nominated, not by president trump, but by president obama and in--

ended up getting 79 votes out of 100 votes so you know he was qualified, but they still had to go through 30 hours to show, now, what's the reason for that? the reason is just to be obstructionist, so, i hope that we're seeing now that this isn't going to work and i'm looking forward to endorse-- to voting for amy barrett, she's going to be a great justice. >> anybody have any questions for senator grassley or anybody else up here on this topic? >> i have a question about a different catholic named paul manafort. [laughte [laughter] >> that's why i said this topic. anybody have any questions on this topic? >> you're saying you can't have a religion-- how do we square that with the support for roy moore, [inaudible]

. >> i'll be glad to try to respond to that. i think just because you're a member of a political party doesn't mean you agree 100% with what some other office holder or candidate for office feels. so i would disagree with that statement. and i dare say that if you ask each one of the members up here what they would feel about that, they would say the same thing. >> yes, ma'am. >> a former-- paul manafort was indicted today and-- >> this isn't our job, that isn't our wheel house, and that. >> my question is-- >> no, no. >> and if you all would just hold on just a second. the special counsel was appointed by the department of justice and that is the person you need to be asking the questions of. that's not our responsibility. >> any about-- my question is do you think

that the president's ability to do his job? >> well, i will tell you as far as congress doing our job, i believe that the investigations into the russia active measures having election are continuing apace, both in the judiciary committee by chairman grassley and the ranking member feinstein, as well as the senate intelligence committee and i suggest-- i don't see how the indictment changes the president's ability to do his job. there is a process for this to go forward and i tress that it will happen. >> qualities put forward that would prevent the president from interfering with bob mueller's investigation. should republican leaders put those bills to a vote in the event the president tries to interfere. >> since you all don't have any more questions on the subject of the-- she is a law professor nominated to the 7th circuit

where the notre dame case is pending, is there any conflict of interest there, since she had a background against the birth control benefit-- >> the place to look at recusal by judges, is ordinarily left up to the judge, the initially determination is subject to appellate review so we'll have to leave it to the process. any more questions about this. >> senator, are you concerned that the manafort matter today will interfere with your ability to pass tax reform, sucking oxygen away from that answer at this point. >> short answer is no. any more questions about the judicial nomination. >> and-- some have not returned our questions for comment on what they've said. do you fear that this could be become a new normal for questions like this?

are there any repercussions for senators who question nominees in this way? >> well, that's the reason we're here today is to say this should not be become the new normal where people's deeply held faith somehow disqualifies them for any service of position in government, including the federal judiciary. the questions ought to be directed towards the senators who seem to make that test which as we've all said here today is unconstitutional. >> do you have a question on manafort, senator cruz? >> plenty of time for that. >> we'll have plenty of time for that, since there are no more questions on this topic, we'll be glad to talk to you on one-on-one basis in the press conference. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and the senate about to gavel in to resume work on nomination of notre dame law professor amy barrett to the 7th circuit court. if all the debate time is used her confirmation would take place in the middle of night, followed by a vote to limit

debate j joan larson to the 6th circuit. take you now live to the floor of the senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord of the universe, we pray today for all who