[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 188 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S7288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        American Bar Association

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, the consideration of Federal judges with 
lifetime appointments is perhaps the most important and long-lasting 
work this body will do between now and the end of the year.
  Every Senator--Republican and Democrat--took an oath to perform this 
duty. Nobody took an oath to outsource this duty to any outside 
organization. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee are apparently willing to hand over their voting 
cards to the American Bar Association, based on the claim that the ABA 
is an unbiased, indifferent umpire that just calls balls and strikes.
  The American Bar Association is not neutral. The ABA is a liberal 
organization that has publicly and consistently advocated for left-of-
center positions for more than two decades now. The ABA has no right to 
special treatment by Members of this body.
  It is pretty simple. If you are playing in the game, you don't get to 
cherry-pick who the referees are.
  Take, for just a moment, a look at the amicus briefs they have filed 
in recent years.
  In the District of Columbia v. Heller, the ABA supported denying an 
individual their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
  In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the ABA supported forcing 
Christian organizations on campuses to accept members that reject their 
faith.
  In Medellin v. Texas, the ABA supported forcing States to recognize 
the judgments of the world court in order to stop the execution of a 
gruesome murderer.
  In United States v. Windsor, the ABA supported the recognition of 
same-sex marriage through judicial fiat rather than through legislative 
debate.
  In Arizona v. United States, the ABA supported a constitutional ban 
on State and local law enforcement assisting in enforcing Federal 
immigration laws.
  The list goes on. In each of these cases, the ABA decided to weigh 
into divisive and contentious issues. This is their right, indeed, but 
it is definitely not neutral. In each of these cases, and many more, 
the ABA took what can only be described as a left-of-center position. 
In each of these cases, the ABA was picking a side.
  Again--to be clear--they are absolutely allowed to do this. It is 
what makes this country great. But it is laughably naive to suggest 
that they are an objective and neutral organization. They are not.
  The ABA cannot make liberal arguments to the nine members of the 
Supreme Court, and then walk across the street and seriously expect 
that the 100 Members of this body in the Senate will be treating them 
like unbiased appraisers. That is essentially what Attorney General 
Bill Barr said in 1992 when the ABA first began to openly take pro-
abortion positions--which, by the way, led to thousands of members 
quitting in protest because those members knew that the ABA claims to 
neutrality about political issues were no longer even possibly 
defensible.
  Then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr commented on the ABA's pro-
abortion advocacy at the time by saying: ``By adopting the resolution 
and thereby endorsing one side of this debate, the ABA will endanger 
the perception that it is an impartial and objective association.''
  Twenty-five years later, Barr's words were right. His words ring 
true.
  Again, I want to be perfectly clear. The ABA is allowed to have any 
view that its members want to have, and they are allowed to advocate 
and to protest on behalf of those views and on behalf of their members. 
This is America, and that is exactly what the First Amendment is about. 
That is fine. But what is not fine is that the ABA, which is a liberal 
advocacy organization, would masquerade as a neutral and objective 
evaluator of judicial candidates.
  The ABA cannot take blatantly liberal positions on the one hand, and 
then masquerade as a neutral party on the other, and then demand a 
special seat at the table in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the 
Senate--in this body--to try to tell us who is and isn't supposedly 
qualified to be a judge.
  Just as the ABA has every right to advance its liberal policy 
positions, every Senator has the right--and indeed, the duty--to give 
our advice and consent on judicial nominees. If Senators decide that 
they like and value the ABA's policy positions and they like and value 
the ABA's rating, they are free to give them due deference and 
consideration, but don't hide behind it.
  Don't pretend that the ABA is something that it is not. Do not ignore 
the facts of what the ABA has become. The American people deserve 
honesty, not thinly veiled partisanship.
  Thank you.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.