Supreme Court Defenders Coalition Update & Action Items

Below are action items, notes from Monday’s call, and other information (including links and forwarded emails) that will help you support Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. The hearings have ended now, but we need to continue our action and efforts to get her confirmed without delay.

The next coalition call is Monday, October 19th at 8:00pm ET.


Also, a special thank you to all of the conservative/center-right organizations and individuals who came together over the week in person and online to support Amy’s confirmation and get the word out to Americans that she is a most qualified nominee.


Thank you!


Jenny Beth & team


  • Help to dispute and refute the false notion – which is being used to oppose ACB and in the election generally – that health care is going to disappear if ACB is confirmed.
  • Help amplify the fact that the Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster and increase the court size.
  • Please write and submit letters to the editor of your local newspaper expressing support for Amy and asking others to call your state’s Senators urging them to support her confirmation without delay. If you need help writing a letter to the editor, first check for facts you can use to craft your letter, or let us know you need help by emailing
  • Call both of your Senators, even if they are Democrats and urge them to support Amy’s confirmation without delay. The Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. Simply dial the switchboard and ask to be transferred to your Senator’s office.
  • Organize pro-Amy sign-waving events locally. Go to week/ for tips on organizing these events and sign message suggestions.
  • Make a plan to be on the next coalition call on Monday, October 19th, at 8:00pm ET.



Senator Mike Lee

Spoke on the issue of Obamacare and Democrats’ claim that if ACB were confirmed, health care in America would disappear, and that the Supreme Court should even be involved in policymaking.


Also discussed the Democrats’ effort to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and then expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court (known as packing the court). 9 has been the number of Justices for around 150 years. Long-standing tradition that is an important part of our governing structure, even if not explicit in the Constitution. The Democrats are trying to redefine “packing the court” as filling vacancies as they have arisen – basically anything the Democrats don’t like.


Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network

Go to for facts and talking points. One of the most talented, outstanding, qualified judges to be nominated. First female originalist to sit on the Supreme Court.


Jim Neill, Leader McConnell’s Office

Thanked everyone who showed up to DC and all of the efforts from the grassroots to support Amy. A direct attack on separation of powers by radical leftists. That is what we are seeing. It’s about power, making the Court political. The goal is that the left wants to dictate your lives across the country from the coasts – San Fran and NYC – they know best.


Mike Fregoso

The Democrats aren’t actually worried about Obamacare. It’s bigger than that. They don’t want Amy on the Court because they are worried about a Constitutionalist on the Court. Fantastic nominee. First markup Thursday morning to account for Democrats attempts to delay.




No, Confirming Judge Barrett Won’t Cause Millions to Lose Health Care


Media Research Center coverage of hearings


Michael and Kelle Berry: Amy Coney Barrett should be judged on her credentials. Leave her kids alone


First Liberty: Majority of Americans oppose questioning Judge Barrett’s Faith, Court Packing


Biden Leaves Door Open To Adding Supreme Court Justices


USA Today: Amy Coney Barrett Hearings Conclude: Here’s What Happens Next In Supreme Court Confirmation


WSJ: Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, Oct. 13.


Jonathan Turley tweet about witness Laura Wolk —— Watch Laura Wolk’s testimony


Barrett confirmation unstoppable as Judge blanks flailing Democrat opposition





——–forwarded email———


Amy Coney Barrett: Healthcare

ATTACK:  Judge Barrett would strike down Obamacare and jeopardize healthcare for millions of Americans.  She said so in a law review article and in a radio interview. 

RESPONSE:  This false attack takes a book review and radio interview out of context.

  • It is absurd to suggest that Judge Barrett—a mother of seven children, one of whom has special needs—is insensitive to the healthcare needs of normal Americans.
  • The Left attacked her faith, they attacked her family, now they are attacking her for a book review and a radio interview.
  • Judge Barrett has neversaid that she would strike down Obamacare.
  • Democrats can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications, so they are falling back to pure scare tactics, the same thing they do every time they have no good argument.
  • Democrats and their allies are latching onto one sentence from a book review, from before she was a judge—not a ruling, not a case she heard.
  • The book review was discussing someone else’sview of the Supreme Court decision.  It does not suggest how Judge Barrett would have ruled on the case.
  • In the radio interview, Judge Barrett acknowledged that the resultin the second Obamacare case was “preferable” from a policy perspective.
  • In fact, when she participated in a mock trial exercise at William & Mary Law School, news reports indicate that she voted to uphold the statute.
  • Judge Barrett is a careful and fair-minded judge who has demonstrated that she will apply the law to the facts in every case.


———-forwarded email——–


Today Chairman Graham concluded the confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. Day four is the outside witness day, so Judge Barrett was in the clear and presumably getting some well-earned rest.


  1. Today in the outside witness panels we heard from the American Bar Association and then eight witnesses (four from the majority and four from the minority).


The ABA, which rated Judge Barrett “Well Qualified” had nothing but glowing things to say about her record. The ABA witnessed were Randy Noel, the Chairman of the Standing Committee, and Pam Roberts, Judge Barrett’s evaluator (and a South Carolinian—or as Chairman Graham put it someone “without an accent”). Chairman Graham asked them if, as practicing litigators they would both “feel comfortable going before Judge Barrett” to which they replied “absolutely.”


The outside witnesses were four somewhat different. The Democrats invited four witnesses, none of whom knew Judge Barrett and all of whom are involved in liberal political activism. It’s not a stretch to say that today Democrats continued to press their case against Judge Barrett only with the luxury of not having her respond to their attacks. It was watching the Washington Generals get tired of losing to the Harlem Globetrotters and decide play their own second string instead.


The Republican witnesses, on the other hand, were fantastic. Retired Judge Tom Griffith gave personal insights on why Judge Barrett would make a great justice. Her academic colleague Prof. Sai Prakash of UVA explained why her record as an originalist means she won’t be a Republican or Democrat justice but a justice who follows the Constitution. Amanda Rauh-Bieri explained how Judge Barrett mentored her as a young clerk. While Judge Barrett’s former student Laura Wolk told the Committee about then-Professor Barrett’s empathy to a young, blind student. Prof. Jonathan Turley said of Wolk’s testimony, “I have testified over 50 times in Congress. I have witnessed a many times that number. I have never seen a more powerful and moving testimony than that of Laura Wolk just now in favor of Judge Barrett.”


The hearing ended on a high note. For all the talk from Democrats and leftists about how “rushed” and “illegitimate” these hearings are, Senators Graham and Feinstein found common ground at the end. Sen. Feinstein observed, “I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings I have participated in. I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth. It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions, and even some ideas, perhaps some good bipartisan legislation we can put together to help make this great country even better.”


Chairman Graham said at the outset this Judge Barrett and Democrats would receive a full and fair process. As one of my predecessors in this job might say: Graham delivers.


  1. This morning the Committee also held its first markup for Judge Barrettduring which time it held over her nomination and set a time certain to vote to report her out of Committee: 1:00 pm on October 22, 2020. Unsurprisingly the Democrats played procedural games at the outset of the markup, attempting to deny the Committee a quorum with which to transact business just like Sen. Schumer promised. For a variety of reasons, they failed. The vote will be taken next Thursday at which point Judge Barrett will be reported to the Floor.

——–forwarded email——–


What You Need To Know | History is Clear: The Senate Has Had Ample Time to Move Forward with Judge Barrett’s Nomination


There are numerous past examples of Supreme Court confirmations taking 45 days or less after the Senate formally received the nomination.

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed in just 42 days in 1993.
  • Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 33 days after the Senate received her nomination in 1981.
  • John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 16 days after his nomination was received in the Senate in 1975.
  • Lewis Powell was confirmed 45 days after the Senate received the nomination in 1971.
  • Harry Blackmun was confirmed 27 days after the Senate received his nomination in 1970.
  • Warren Burger was confirmed 17 days after the Senate received the nomination in 1969.
  • Abe Fortas was confirmed 14 days after the Senate received his nomination 1965.
  • Arthur Golden was confirmed 25 days after his nomination was received in 1962.
  • Byron White was confirmed just 8 days after his nomination was received in the Senate in 1962.
  • Charles Whittaker was confirmed 17 days after his nomination was received in the Senate in 1957.
  • Sherman Minton was confirmed 19 days after his nomination was received in the Senate in 1949.
  • Tom Clark was confirmed 16 days after the Senate received his nomination in 1949.
  • Fred Vinson was confirmed 14 days after the Senate received his nomination in 1946.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has ample time to consider this nomination, as past proceedings show.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee has often promptly moved through public hearings and final committee votes within a week or two of receiving the nomination.

o   John Paul Stevens had a public hearing 7 days after his nomination was received and had a final committee vote 10 days after the nomination was received.

o   Warren Burger had a public hearing and committee vote 11 days after his nomination was received.

o   Byron White had a public hearing and committee vote 8 days after his nomination was received.

o   Abe Fortas had a public hearing 8 days after his nomination was received.

o   Tom Clark had a public hearing 7 days after his nomination was received.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee has held final votes on a Supreme Court nominee within just three days of receiving the nomination 14 times.