[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 183 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7138-S7140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Steve Grasz

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to share my strong 
support

[[Page S7139]]

for Steve Grasz, who has been nominated by President Trump to fill a 
vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The junior 
Senator from Nebraska and I asked Nebraskans to express their interest 
in this position, and we conducted a thorough process of the 
applicants. I must say that, with more than 5,700 lawyers, Nebraska 
proved itself to have a talented legal community that has demonstrated 
an unwavering dedication to the rule of law.
  However, in our search, one candidate stood out above the rest, and 
that was Steve Grasz. He is an outstanding Nebraskan and a talented 
legal mind. The President agreed. That is why he accepted our 
recommendation in August, and he nominated Steve for the Eighth 
Circuit.
  Like so many other Nebraskans I have heard from during this process, 
the President recognized Steve's temperament, intellect, and skill as 
worthy on the Federal bench.
  Steve excelled in his education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
and the University of Nebraska College of Law. He then built a 
distinguished legal career, practicing appellate litigation over the 
past three decades. For 12 years, Steve served Nebraska as the chief 
deputy attorney general. He did so with dedication to justice, 
passionately defending our citizens and upholding the laws of our 
State.
  Steve has handled numerous constitutional litigation matters in the 
Nebraska Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 
U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, he has earned the respect of the 
Nebraska legal community.
  For many years Steve has earned the Martindale-Hubbell ``AV 
Preeminent'' peer review rating, the very highest available. This peer-
reviewed rating is based on legal knowledge and ethical standards, a 
nonpartisan litmus test.
  Steve also serves on the executive committee of the appellate 
practice section of the Nebraska Bar Association, and he was selected 
as a fellow by the Nebraska State Bar Foundation, an honor reserved 
only for the top lawyers in my State. Nebraskans agreed that Steve has 
the extensive legal experience needed to serve on the Eighth Circuit. 
Yet the American Bar Association has rated Steve as ``not qualified'' 
for this position on the Federal bench.
  As someone who spent months reviewing Steve's extraordinary 
qualifications for this judgeship, I was shocked when I heard the 
assessment. Something didn't add up.
  But after a review of how the evaluation was conducted, things became 
more clear. The ABA rating of Steve Grasz appears to be based on his 
work defending Nebraska's pro-life laws as well as his personal views, 
which he shares with a majority of Nebraskans. Both evaluators 
discounted his remarkable legal career, choosing instead to focus on 
innuendo in their report because he associates with political 
organizations they disagree with.
  There is nothing wrong with participating in the democratic process. 
Indeed, Steve's own evaluators have done just that. Steve's first 
evaluator, Cynthia Nance, has received several awards from the 
Democratic Party of Arkansas. His second evaluator, Laurence Pulgram, a 
San Francisco attorney, works as a liberal activist and has donated 
thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. Again, the fact that 
these Americans have decided to engage in the political process is not 
shameful. They have every right to do so, just like everyone else. But 
here is the problem. They claim to be leading an impartial evaluation 
of Steve, when in fact they are really trying to take down his 
nomination and further their own political agenda.
  A deeper review of the ABA evaluation shows a report that is long on 
anonymous sources and short on substantiated evidence.
  This is not the first time that the ABA has been criticized for using 
anonymous sources, either. In 2006, while discussing Vanessa Bryan's 
ABA rating, the senior Senator from Connecticut stated:

       I have even greater concern with the credibility of 
     anonymous sources when those sources are used as evidence for 
     a subjective characteristic such as judicial temperament. . . 
     . I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to only consider 
     anonymous criticisms when such criticisms can be verified 
     from other sources.

  Even worse, the sourced evidence the ABA produced for their report 
doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either. One of the Nation's leading 
experts on judicial appointments also agrees that the facts are few 
when it comes to Steve's ABA rating. In his examination, Ed Whelan, the 
president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the ABA 
evaluation ``feeble beyond the point of incompetence'' because it 
``selectively quotes'' portions of an article written by Grasz to 
misrepresent his views. Whelan concludes that ``it would thus seem that 
. . . the ABA . . . is unable to distinguish between its role as 
advocate and its role as adjudicator of the merits of judicial 
nominees.''
  As we learned more about this evaluation process, it is clear that 
the ABA uses its power as a reviewer of judicial nominees as a way to 
support its partisan agenda, instead of making a determination based on 
the merits of judicial temperament.
  During Steve's confirmation hearing last week, my colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee asked good questions that brought even more details 
to light. That is how we discovered that Steve was asked a number of 
inappropriate, leading questions during his ABA evaluation. These 
questions had no relevancy toward his ability to serve our Nation as a 
judge. He was asked for his personal opinion on social issues, 
including abortion, and he was later questioned about where his 
children went to school.
  In response to a line of questions from the junior Senator from 
Arizona, Steve explained that his ABA evaluator continued to use the 
term ``you people'' during the interview. When Steve finally asked what 
he meant by ``you people,'' the evaluator told him he meant 
``conservatives and Republicans.''
  Steve also told the committee:

       At least a half hour of that time was devoted to discussing 
     a white paper that I had written on the judicial selection 
     process for state judges in Nebraska. There was one paragraph 
     in that rather lengthy article [where] I had criticized the 
     oversized involvement of the American Bar Association in that 
     process, and I had mentioned some of their political 
     activities including their role in the debate over abortion 
     rights as well as Second Amendment rights of individuals.

  He continued:

       It seemed to be a topic of great concern to the 
     interviewer.

  These tactics used by the ABA are not right. They show contempt for 
ideas that do not fit the interviewer's personal beliefs and in no way 
portray an attempt to consider carefully whether or not Steve Grasz is 
capable of being a fair judge. This wasn't an evaluation. It was a 
partisan, shameful attack. It was intended to further the political 
agenda of the two evaluators and damage Steve's sterling legal 
reputation.
  In the days since the biased ABA rating was released, Nebraskans have 
spoken out, and I couldn't be more proud of them. In letters, online, 
on Facebook, and in the pages of our State's newspapers, our citizens 
have come to Steve's defense.
  Richard Kopf, a senior U.S. district judge for Nebraska said he was 
``stunned'' reading the ABA assessment of Steve. The ABA interviewed 
Judge Kopf about Steve, and although he did not know Steve personally, 
on two occasions he told the evaluator he believed Steve was ``well 
qualified.''
  Judge Kopf wrote in the Omaha World-Herald:

       One can only speculate, and my speculation was that Mr. 
     Grasz, who is by all accounts a brilliant and honorable 
     person, would do his best. I certainly have and had no 
     evidence to the contrary. . . . I respectfully suggest that 
     the committee got it wrong when it gave Mr. Grasz a ``not 
     qualified'' rating.

  Additionally, the president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, 
Timothy Engler, quickly responded to the evaluation by noting that his 
organization did not participate in the report or the ABA's grade. Mr. 
Engler also noted that his own personal view was that he always found 
Steve ``to be professional, civil, and ethical in all respects'' and 
that Grasz ``would have no questions regarding his judicial temperament 
as a member of the Judiciary.''
  We received numerous letters of recommendation on Steve's behalf. 
Nebraskans from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's 
thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant 
abilities as a jurist.
  The respect and admiration for Steve is also bipartisan. This 
includes former

[[Page S7140]]

Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve 
was ``an asset to our state and Nebraskans benefitted from having such 
a capable and thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is 
unquestionably one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, 
making him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals 
court.''
  Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat 
appointed by President Obama, wrote:

       Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty, 
     impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He 
     possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and 
     always acts with respect to all that interact with him.

  Those who have known Steve his entire life have vouched for him as 
well. For example, Bill Lydiatt of Bellevue, NE, wrote a letter to the 
editor to the Omaha World-Herald that said:

       As a classmate of Grasz in Chappell, Nebraska, from 
     kindergarten through high school and as a lifelong friend, I 
     can personally vouch that Steve holds all of the attributes 
     to be a successful judge.

  Furthermore, pointing to his integrity and fairness, he concluded:

       I don't share all his political views, but I can say 
     without any hesitation that Steve Grasz is exactly the kind 
     of person we need as a judge and is perfectly suited to the 
     high honor of joining the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  In Nebraska, the truth holds more value than partisanship. Madam 
President, everyone serving in this Chamber swears an oath to support 
and defend the Constitution. One of the ways we do that is by 
confirming judges who we know will faithfully honor that pledge while 
serving our Federal court system. The Constitution states that we in 
the Senate, not the American Bar Association, are to advise and consent 
when it comes to judges. We have a duty to do so thoroughly, without 
bias, and through the use of all the information available to us.
  Both the junior Senator from Nebraska and I trust Steve Grasz to 
support and defend the Constitution. So do those who know him best--the 
people of Nebraska who have worked with him for nearly three decades. 
The Senate should as well.
  I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance his nomination. The 
American people deserve to have talented and fair lawyers like Steve 
Grasz on the Federal bench.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.