[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4866-S4867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last evening I joined many of my Senate 
colleagues at the White House as the President introduced Judge Brett 
Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the 
country. I heard the President last night refer to him as a judge's 
judge. He is an outstanding choice to serve as a Justice of the Supreme 
Court.
  Judge Kavanaugh is a former law clerk of the Justice he has been 
nominated to replace, and that is Justice Kennedy. I talked about 
Justice Kennedy's service on the Supreme Court and to the people of 
this country in my speech yesterday. Judge Kavanaugh earned both his 
undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He then clerked for 
judges on the Third and Ninth Circuit before joining the chambers of 
Justice Kennedy as a law clerk. He served in the Office of the 
Solicitor General and also the Office of the Independent Counsel.
  After several years in private practice, Judge Kavanaugh returned to 
public service, working in the White House Counsel's office and as 
staff secretary for President George W. Bush. In 2006, he was confirmed 
to the DC Circuit, where he has served since. He is also a well-
regarded law professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.
  Judge Kavanaugh is a leader not only in the law but throughout his 
community. As examples, he volunteers at Catholic Charities on a 
regular basis and coaches both daughters' youth basketball teams.
  The committee has received a letter from former law clerks of Judge 
Kavanaugh, people who represent views across the political and 
ideological spectrum. Many judges describe their former law clerks as 
adopted family members. In other words, law clerks know their judges 
best.
  So I turn to what some of those said through letters they sent to our 
committee. Judge Kavanaugh's former law clerks write that he is a 
person with immense ``strength of character, generosity of spirit, 
intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, 
colleagues, and us, his law clerks.''
  I want to read a longer quote from that letter.

       He is unfailingly warm and gracious with his colleagues no 
     matter how strongly they disagree about a case, and he is 
     well-liked and respected by judges and lawyers across the 
     ideological spectrum as a result. . . . He always makes time 
     for us, his law clerks. He makes it to every wedding, answers 
     every career question, and gives unflinchingly honest advice. 
     That advice often boils down to the same habits we saw him 
     practice in chambers every day: Shoot straight, be careful 
     and brave, work as hard as you possibly can, and then work a 
     little harder.

  His judicial record is extraordinary. The Supreme Court has adopted 
his view of the law in a dozen cases. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions 
demonstrate profound respect for the Constitution's separation of 
powers. He understands that it is Congress' job to pass laws, and where 
he sits, in judicial chambers, it is the role of those people--and he 
figures it is his role--to faithfully apply those laws as Congress 
intended. That is why his opinions emphasize that judges must focus on 
the text and apply laws as written by those of us elected to the 
Congress, not by unelected and, in turn, largely unaccountable, Federal 
judges. It is meant that they aren't to be accountable except to the 
Constitution and the laws of this country. Courts may not rewrite laws 
to suit their policy preferences.
  Judge Kavanaugh has a record of judicial independence. He has shown a 
willingness to rein in executive branch agencies when they abuse or 
exceed their authority. You don't have to be in Congress very long to 
understand that it is a daily habit of people in the executive branch 
of government to go way beyond--or to feel their way, way beyond--what 
the law allows that person or that program to do. As Judge Kavanaugh 
has explained in numerous opinions, executive branch agencies may not 
assume more power than Congress has specifically granted them, and he 
has emphasized that judges may not surrender their duty to interpret 
laws to executive branch agencies. Now, that is pretty common sense for 
anybody who has had eighth grade civics, high school government, or 
political science classes in college, but it isn't something that all 
judges agree with.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination in the coming weeks.
  As I noted in my remarks to this body yesterday, liberal outside 
groups and Democratic leaders decided weeks ago to block whomever the 
President nominates. They are already pushing feeble arguments to cause 
needless delays. For example, some Democratic leaders and Democratic 
Members of the Senate who aren't leaders say that we shouldn't confirm 
a nominee nominated during a midterm election year. Where did they get 
that idea? The Senate has never operated the way they would suggest. 
Sitting Justices Breyer and Kagan--prominent examples that I can freely 
give to you but also numerous of their predecessors--were nominated and 
confirmed in midterm election years. Where do my colleagues get that 
idea, that just because this is a midterm election year, you can't take 
up these nominations? It happens that Kagan was approved in August 
2010, as an example.
  The American people see this argument for what it is--obstruction, 
pure

[[Page S4867]]

and simple. After all, Democratic leaders announced that they will 
oppose anyone nominated by President Trump--anyone. In fact, some 
Democratic Senators announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh mere 
minutes after the President nominated him. It is clear that a number of 
my Democratic colleagues have chosen the path of obstruction and 
resistance, not, as the Constitution offers, every Senator giving 
advice and consent.
  We have a highly qualified nominee who has authored numerous 
influential judicial opinions. I stated how they have been respected 
even when those same cases got to the Supreme Court. Leading liberal 
law professor Akhil Reed Amar endorsed Judge Kavanaugh in the pages of 
the New York Times. But some of my colleagues can't even bring 
themselves to at least consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
  As I mentioned yesterday, liberal outside groups and their allies are 
trying to convince Senators to ask Judge Kavanaugh his views on 
specific cases and Supreme Court precedent. I want to emphasize that 
these questions are inappropriate. In greater detail, I said that 
yesterday.
  Justice Ginsburg announced--a famous statement of hers--during her 
own confirmation hearing that a nominee should offer ``no hints, no 
forecasts, no previews'' of cases that can potentially come before the 
Court.
  Maybe some of my colleagues think, well, if some are going to come in 
a couple of months after you are on the Court, why can't you give us 
your views on that? But they might be asking questions about something 
10 years down the road, so how legitimate are the views? Are you going 
to overturn this President, or are you going to rule this particular 
way in a particular case?
  We also have Justice Kagan declining to state her views on Roe v. 
Wade, saying: ``The application of Roe in future cases, and even its 
continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the 
future.''
  So you expect a Justice to look at the facts of a case, look at the 
law, or look at the Constitution, and leave their own personal views 
out of it, but you expect them to do it independent of anything they 
said in their hearing before the Judiciary Committee because nothing 
should be said there that is going to influence something 10 years down 
the road.
  I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will likewise decline to comment on his 
views of particular cases decided by the Supreme Court.
  I congratulate Judge Kavanaugh on this nomination. I had the 
opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh earlier today. I know he looks 
forward to answering questions from my colleagues in the coming weeks. 
I look forward to hearing from him again when he appears before our 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.