[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 119 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6252-H6255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     HIGH STAKES ON THE HIGH COURT: JUSTICE HANGING IN THE BALANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Estes of Kansas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Clarke) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I 
rise today to anchor this CBC Special Order hour. I would like to thank 
our Congressional Black Caucus chairman, Representative Cedric Richmond 
of Louisiana, for his leadership in this effort.
  For the next hour, we have an opportunity to speak directly to the 
American people about issues of great importance to the Congressional 
Black Caucus and the 78 million constituents we represent. Tonight's 
Special Order hour theme is High Stakes on the High Court: Justice 
Hanging in the Balance.
  As one-fourth of the Democratic Caucus, we are emphatic in our 
opposition of Donald Trump's USA Supreme Court nominee, Brett 
Kavanaugh.
  During the 2016 election, a then-candidate Trump, in his sole attempt 
to appeal to African American voters, asked: ``What do you have to 
lose?''
  Well, it turns out, my fellow Americans, we have so much to lose. In 
fact, we have lost already under Donald Trump.
  Every time Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans undermine 
and sabotage healthcare, Black and Brown folks lose.
  When congressional Republicans and Donald Trump give their 
billionaire donors and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans such a 
massive tax cut and then raise taxes on low and middle class families, 
working class families, Black and Brown folks, lose.
  When Donald Trump threatened temporary protected status, TPS, Black 
and Brown folks lost.
  And with the recent announcement of Brett Kavanaugh as the 
President's nominee, Black and Brown folks now have even more to lose.
  The stakes have never been higher. For nearly eight decades, African 
Americans have arduously, through generations of sacrifice and protest, 
successfully fought to secure historic legal victories that have 
significantly bent the moral arc of the universe towards justice. 
Republicans want to destroy a generation of progress for civil rights, 
women's rights, LGBTQ rights, workers' rights, and healthcare.
  Brett Kavanaugh's nomination solidifies the Republican agenda to roll 
back major social legislative victories that would impede our 
advancements in social justice. With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, 
we are looking at the most conservative Supreme Court in over 75 years. 
Everything we hold dear as American ideals--our freedom, our tolerance, 
our values and progress in improving the human condition in our 
Nation--are at risk.
  We know Brett Kavanaugh has a record of ruling against affordable 
healthcare and women's rights, but what is even more troubling is how 
his record on racial issues have flown under the radar.
  We cannot consider a Supreme Court Justice without analyzing their 
views on such issues as voting and workforce rights that will have an 
overwhelming effect on the life and liberty of all people of color.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the chairwoman of the judicial task 
force of the Congressional Black Caucus, whom it is now my honor and 
privilege to present and who has an extraordinary record of legal 
acumen and has been an outspoken advocate for criminal justice reform, 
social justice, and has been scrutinizing judicial nominations so that 
we can provide for the American people an analysis of what we have to 
lose.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, and I 
particularly thank her for her very cogent remarks and wish to 
associate myself with those remarks in every sense of the word; and I 
say so to the good lady from the State of New York as the leader of the 
CBC task force on Federal court nominations, including the Supreme 
Court nomination, where I have had the opportunity to look deeply at 
the decisions of this nominee now serving on the court of appeals, as 
it turns out, for the District of Columbia, Brett Kavanaugh.
  I think the gentlewoman's remarks are telling in their understanding 
of the extreme damage he would do--and I must add not only to African 
Americans, but to the rule of law as we have known it.
  I rise to indicate that the Congressional Black Caucus stands in 
strong opposition to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and we 
will be doing all we can to keep that nomination from proceeding to the 
floor of the Senate. We do have two members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we are working 
closely with them as well.
  We in the Congressional Black Caucus are not the only Members of 
Congress opposed to this nomination, but we represent those Americans 
who have been disproportionately dependent on a fair Supreme Court. 
African Americans have always been a minority group in our country. For 
that reason, from slavery on to the days of discrimination in the 19th 
and 20th centuries, the African American community has been 
particularly dependent on the courts of the United States to protect 
them from unequal treatment by the majority.
  We have had every reason to know that, if we are in the hands of the 
partisan majority, given 400 years of history, we have no protection. 
African Americans are disproportionately dependent on an objective 
Supreme Court. Now, that doesn't mean a Supreme Court of our choosing, 
but a Supreme Court that is open to all points of view and capable of 
seeing beyond partisanship.
  Brett Kavanaugh is not that nominee. We know so because he has 
perhaps the longest record of opinions of names submitted to 
Republicans for review.
  The D.C. circuit, which is the federal Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, which happens to be my district, has been a 
circuit where Kavanaugh has been very mindful of the Supreme Court. I 
say that because he has so often written in dissent from his own 
colleagues on a Republican Court that it has been as if he were trying 
to write his way onto the Supreme Court.
  Remember Kavanaugh's background. He started his career as a political 
operative in the Bush administration, and he has brought that extreme 
partnership, as a political operative, straight into the D.C. circuit.
  We are not asking the Senate for a nominee of the kind we would have 
chosen. That is not our demand. But because this is the most partisan 
Congress since the Civil War, I believe we are within our rights in 
asking for a Court that would be a stabilizing influence so the 
American people could see that not all is lost because there is an 
objective actor on the scene, and that actor is the Supreme Court of 
the United States.
  It is that Court which has protected us, we who are African 
Americans, from unequal treatment ever since Brown v. Board of 
Education in 1954. That does not mean that African Americans have 
always won at the Supreme Court level, but they have always had reason 
to believe that there was a court of last resort that would be open to 
them.
  We no longer would have that sense of openness to their views if 
Brett Kavanaugh becomes the nominee put

[[Page H6253]]

forward in this session. We have seen no evidence that he would adhere 
to equal protection of the laws.
  I will cite some examples that illustrate where his views in his 
cases lead that he would not protect the long-held holding of the 
courts that no American can be arrested without probable cause, that he 
would not protect even the separation of powers, and that he would not 
uphold the rights of Americans to qualify for affordable healthcare.
  All of those notions have a disproportionate effect on African 
Americans, though they affect every American in the United States.
  Remember, Judge Kavanaugh would be appointed to a Court that already 
has a majority appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet, while sitting 
on the D.C. court of appeals, he has distinguished himself by seeking 
to overturn long-existing precedent, even when members of that court, 
also appointed by Republican Presidents, have disagreed with him.
  Let me give an example in an area of criminal law.
  We now see African Americans in the streets protesting overzealous 
law enforcement because African American men have been shot and killed 
and people go to the streets because, if you can't get justice to the 
courts, that is all they have.

                              {time}  2030

  Yet, Judge Kavanaugh has suggested that it is appropriate for the 
probable cause standard to be more ``flexible.'' Why?
  Virtually no police have indeed been indicted, even given the 
evidence of African Americans shot down in the streets. Why do we need 
to narrow the ancient probable cause requirement?
  He has indicated that police searches without a warrant or 
individualized suspicion should be allowed. He has even praised 
narrowing the rights long ago afforded to all defendants against 
incriminatory statements against themselves. How deep does that go in 
American constitutional law? How dangerous would it be to have a 
justice who would question the right against self incrimination?
  Judge Kavanaugh's extreme views also show no respect for the 
fundamental right of women to make decisions about their own bodies, 
even though, 45 years ago, the Supreme Court itself established the 
right to abortion. That is a controversial right in our country, but it 
has withstood the test of time.
  Let me offer an indication from a recent decision by Brett Kavanaugh, 
which his own court had to overturn, that shows he has no respect for 
precedent. That is perhaps our chief issue with this nominee. Precedent 
must be respected or else we are all open to whatever Congress or the 
Court wants to do.
  A young woman, immigrant, undocumented, sought an abortion. As it 
turns out, she had gone through the most rigorous of requirements, 
those required by Texas, because that is where she entered the country. 
This matter came to the D.C. court of appeals, however.
  Judge Kavanaugh found, with the time running--remember, if abortions 
are to be performed, they are to be performed, according to the Supreme 
Court, as early as possible--found that more time was needed because 
she needed a sponsor, something that the Supreme Court has never 
required, in order for that abortion to occur. The court overturned 
Judge Kavanaugh's opinion. Look how dangerous it would have been. She 
could have gone past the 12-week, the 15-week, the 20-week deadline, 
which the House has approved on occasion.
  These are rights not to be tampered with, but he has already tampered 
with them on the court of appeals. This court, the Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia--and I won't go into all the cases--has shown 
that he is an executive-oriented justice. That is to say, whatever the 
President wants, the President gets. This is the court that looks at 
most administrative law decisions before they go anywhere else.
  Kavanaugh tried to strike down the net neutrality rule. Now, that is 
controversial here in Congress. But the basis he used for the courts to 
do it, the majority said--remember, this is a majority which our 
Republican President has appointed--the majority noted that the dissent 
was, using their words, ``misconceived'' because Kavanaugh claimed a 
First Amendment protection for large internet service providers never 
found by any court, and certainly not the Supreme Court but found to 
be, again, by his Republican colleagues on the D.C. Circuit, to be 
``counterintuitive.''
  I cannot go through each and every one of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions 
here, but I must point to perhaps his most extreme opinion. In a 
decision on the Affordable Care Act, this is what a jurist in the 
United States of America said, and I quote:
  ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a 
statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the 
statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the 
statute constitutional.''
  That is bold. It says that the President may choose to rise above the 
law and enforce a law even if found unconstitutional. The Congress of 
the United States should not be willing to go along with this. I cite a 
case on my side of an issue but surely you can see the implications for 
yours.
  The President is supposed to make sure to ``take care that the laws 
are faithfully executed.'' To faithfully execute that law, you would 
have to enforce whatever the Congress or the Courts had found.
  Of course, most concerning for many is his view of the special 
counsel where he has opined that it may be unconstitutional, and there 
is every reason to believe that he may well believe that Mueller's 
special counsel role should be struck down.
  A Republican President is entitled to a Republican nominee. He is not 
entitled to a nominee whose opinions fly in the face of the law for the 
last 75 years.
  Judge Brett Kavanaugh's long list of opinions mark an extreme 
departure from established American constitutional and other law. We 
ask that every effort be made to oppose a man who would ignore 
established precedent, even precedent that his own conservative 
colleagues agree with, and who, I believe, cannot uphold the law fairly 
to protect the rights of all American citizens.
  We believe that the first to feel the effect of such a nominee would 
be the millions of Americans who are of African American ancestry whom 
the Congressional Black Caucus represents.
  I thank my good friend, again, from New York, for permitting me to go 
on at length about some of the precedents I have discovered that I 
thought would be particularly troubling, not only to the African 
American community, but to the American people.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia for her scholarship, her legal acumen, and really 
providing a snapshot--because I am sure there are many more troubling 
decisions that you have uncovered--but giving us this snapshot into the 
breaking of norms that this nominee presents to the American people.
  It is really important that we do everything within our power to 
educate and inform the public so that they can make an informed choice 
in terms of how they would like to proceed in appealing to the United 
States Congress, which has the authority for the nomination process. At 
this time, again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), 
who is my classmate and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for the time today to address this august body.
  Let me first compliment the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a true legal scholar, a legal 
patriot, and a fighter for justice throughout her life.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to issue this quote to you: ``No President has 
ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more 
backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.''
  Mr. Speaker, those were the first words spoken by Supreme Court 
nominee Brett Kavanaugh, introduced to the American people during 
President Trump's prime-time reality show announcement this past Monday 
night.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to voice my deep concerns regarding the 
President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh

[[Page H6254]]

for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of 
America. It is more than a little disquieting that the first thing to 
come from a newly named Supreme Court nominee's mouth was a 
demonstrably false statement claiming that the search to replace 
retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of the most far-reaching and 
thorough in the history of the republic.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that President Trump nominated Brett 
Kavanaugh from a preapproved list of prospective right-wing ideologue 
nominees prepared by the extremist Heritage Foundation, in consultation 
with the cultish right-wing Federalist Society, each of those nominees 
having been certified as having passed the Federalist Society, Heritage 
Foundation litmus test on overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down 
critical protections in our current healthcare system.
  Just 10 days after Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, Judge 
Kavanaugh makes the absurd statement that no President has ever 
consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds 
to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.
  We have come to expect knowing false Trumpian statements from the 
President's employees, his doctor, communications directors, his press 
secretaries, but not from a nominee for the branch of government 
designated to be a check on his administration.
  In just a few words, Judge Kavanaugh aligned himself with the likes 
of erstwhile press secretary Sean Spicer, who claimed that Trump's 
inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's. He put himself in the same 
league with the disgraced doctor who felt it necessary to tell the 
world the spurious claim that the President was the healthiest human 
being in world history.
  That a distinguished Federal appellate judge felt the need to debase 
himself with obvious untruths just moments after his nomination to the 
highest court in the land was announced should cause each and every one 
of us to fear that a Justice Kavanaugh would willingly prostrate 
himself before a demanding President if called upon to do so.
  Moreover, each and every one of us has good cause to believe that the 
nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is a blatant attempt by President Trump 
to dominate the judiciary.

                              {time}  2045

  A President with the power and the predisposition to place his heavy 
hand on the delicate scales of justice would inevitably lead our dear 
Nation to the precipice of a constitutional crisis. That is why it is 
of such concern to me that nominee Kavanaugh felt it necessary to 
flatter this insecure President during their prime time reality show at 
the White House last week.
  In Washington, we talk a lot about the balance of powers, but at 
home, in Georgia, we feel it. We feel the 5-4 Shelby decision striking 
down important parts of the Voting Rights Act. We feel Roe v. Wade 
guaranteeing women the right to choose. We feel Citizens United. And we 
feel Brown v. Board of Education. We recall the power of the courts to 
decide so much more than individual cases. We have seen its ability to 
change the course of history. When one considers the U.S. Supreme 
Court's decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, we know firsthand 
that the U.S. Supreme Court can turn the American Dream into the 
American nightmare.
  Without digressing, I must point out that to conclude that a 
sycophantic debut is where Judge Kavanaugh's problems begin and end 
would be dangerously naive. The briefest of examinations of his record 
reveals numerous positions contrary to the values held by most 
Americans.
  He has opposed EPA protections, workers' rights, consumer 
protections, and the right to choose. And his personal statements call 
to question his ability to be an independent check on the President, 
such as his declarations that investigations of presidents should be 
deferred while that president is in office, and his opinion that a 
sitting president is immune from criminal charges.
  These statements should be particularly troubling for all Americans, 
as the Supreme Court may soon be called upon to consider whether 
President Trump can be subpoenaed to appear before a Federal grand 
jury, or whether a sitting president can be indicted. Our democracy 
will need an unbiased and principled Supreme Court functioning at its 
finest, with due respect for the rule of law, when that time comes, and 
a justice who has prejudged, as Judge Kavanaugh has, would jeopardize 
that responsibility.
  To avoid any appearance of impropriety, the Senate should not 
consider a Supreme Court appointment from a president who is under the 
cloud of investigation for conspiracy to violate the law and the 
obstruction of that investigation. Judge Kavanaugh's statements clearly 
make him suspect, and his confirmation would undermine the credibility 
of the Nation's highest court and impugn that court's ability to 
protect public confidence in the rule of law.
  With this cloud hanging over Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, it is 
necessary that the Senate refrain and keep with its tradition and 
follow the McConnell rule. Elections are less than 4 months away and we 
should allow the American people to speak at the ballot box before the 
Senate is asked to confirm a nominee for the highest court in the land. 
The delay would help ensure that Justice Kennedy's replacement is free 
from suspicion and bias and the inability to appreciate balance of 
powers concerns.
  Judge Kavanaugh has gone beyond his clear proclivity for being an 
activist judge out of line with the rest of the country. He has 
revealed himself to be beholden to another branch of government, which 
would imperil our Constitution's delicate balance of powers.
  Americans deserve a United States Supreme Court justice who is up to 
the task of protecting the rule of law without fear or favor, and, 
unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh's appointment is ill-considered, ill-
timed, and should not move forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the 
Fourth District of Georgia for sharing his analysis this evening. 
Indeed, he has raised some very important points that we need to 
consider and that I would like the American people to consider.
  There is a McConnell rule. That rule held up the nomination of 
Merrick Garland for almost a year. The context which that was done was 
that apparently there were going to be elections down the road and the 
American people should speak.
  Well, here we are less than 5 months out before there will be an 
election here in the United States of America. I think the people have 
an opportunity, and should use that opportunity through their 
franchise, to register their concerns about this nomination process.
  Nearly 150 years ago, Black Americans were granted the right to vote. 
It will be another 100 years before people of color could freely vote 
in every State, county, and city in the United States of America. We 
have fought tooth and nail for the most sacred power in America--the 
power to vote--and now that power is being challenged with the 
nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
  In 2012, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that upheld South 
Carolina's restrictive voter ID laws, despite knowing they would 
disenfranchise voters and disproportionately harm people of color.
  Voter ID laws are another thinly veiled attempt at preventing people 
of color from participating in elections. Kavanaugh's support of these 
laws show what side of history he is on.
  This isn't the only questionable decision he has made regarding race 
relations. He has a long history of concerning decisions and writings.
  In 1989, Kavanaugh published his first piece of legal writing 
challenging a Supreme Court ruling that barred prosecutors from 
excluding jurists based on race. Imagine that: 1989.
  Kavanaugh also wrote a brief for the Center for Equal Opportunity, a 
conservative think tank that opposed affirmative action and opposed the 
issue in a number of different court cases.
  Kavanaugh is also a firm supporter of the NSA, and its surveilling 
techniques that have been known to disproportionately target people of 
color.

[[Page H6255]]

  The NAACP opposed Kavanaugh's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court, 
and their concerns were only strengthened by his proven track record of 
only supporting the already wealthy and powerful.
  In 2000, Kavanaugh was on the legal team that helped stop the Florida 
recount and secure the Bush Presidency.
  Just last year, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion concerning 
whether a pregnant 17-year-old being held by immigration authorities 
was allowed to leave their custody to obtain an abortion.
  We are not dealing with someone who is a mystery here. It is very 
clear where he stands in terms of turning back the hands of time. And, 
as my colleagues have already stated, his opinions have been so far to 
the right of even a Republican D.C. Circuit Court, that it is alarming 
that at a time when we need justice at the Supreme Court level that is 
blind, that will advance humankind, this is the nominee, the nominee 
that was put forth by the Heritage Foundation, the nominee that is a 
part of the Federalist society: very telling.
  Well, let me just say this: In Texas, the court ruled in agreement 
that that teenager, who was seeking an abortion, was legally entitled 
to access it.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will just say a few remarks. As a Black 
woman, I know how critical the Supreme Court is to American liberty and 
freedom. It was the Supreme Court that ended segregation with Brown v. 
Board of Education, ended the process of poll taxes and voter 
suppression with Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, and has 
continued to stand up for American justice when Donald Trump and our 
Congress could not. The legacy of this great institution will crumble 
if we confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressional Black Caucus 
and Congresswoman Yvette Clarke for anchoring this important Special 
Order.
  On the 150th Anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, a 
landmark moment for progress and equality, the President announced his 
nominee to fill a seat on the highest court in the land.
  Unfortunately, however, the search for the next jurist to take a seat 
on the United States Supreme Court resembled a circus and I am 
concerned that the person selected, Brett Kavanaugh, will be 
antagonistic and hostile to the progress that the 14th Amendment has 
helped achieve.
  As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I am appalled by 
the manner in which the President is pursuing this solemn obligation 
and concerned by the choice this process may yield.
  The President has used the levers of his office to divide, rather 
than unite.
  The Supreme Court is not just any court.
  In our great Republic, it is the tribunal of last resort and 
routinely resolves constitutional questions of first impression.
  The American people rely on it to interpret some of society's most 
difficult policy concerns, and to correct the excesses of the 
popularly-elected branches.
  The nature of the Court requires justices, not ideologues, and 
individuals who have integrity and empathy.
  This is why this task requires seriousness and solemnity, and not 
spectacle.
  Instead, this process resembled a circus: contenders were selected 
based on their ability to pass a litmus test of a narrow perspective of 
conservativism which limits justice; a group of judges, similar in 
background, training and experience, curated by the hyper-conservative 
Federalist Society; and, a heavily-promoted, prime time television 
announcement, replete with different frontrunner candidates on 
different days.
  Given this reality, Americans are rightly concerned that the 
President's jurist selection to one of this country's three coequal 
branches of government is being outsourced to the whims of a narrow 
ideological and partisan organization when, in actuality, a seat on the 
Supreme Court should be reserved for only the most profound jurists in 
the nation.
  By great numbers, the American people support reform in any number of 
areas.
  In a time of mass incarceration and overcrowded prisons, a poll 
conducted earlier this year by a Republican-leaning organization 
indicates that over three-quarters of the American people support 
significant criminal justice reform.
  Americans are also skeptical of comments made by this President, 
advocating for the deprivation of due process rights for a variety of 
individuals, from refugees seeking safety within our borders, to those 
already here, charged with crimes.
  Indeed, a poll commissioned by the Bucknell Institute for Public 
Policy within the last year reveals broad and deep support for due 
process rights.
  In a time when our political parties appear polarized, 67 percent of 
Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents 
support due process for individuals who face serious criminal charges.
  Last, the Supreme Court is also the tribunal that resolves major 
questions about the form and contours of our federal government, 
including sensitive questions like ``can a sitting president pardon 
himself?'' or ``can a sitting president be indicted?''
  In fact, for over the past year of this President's administration, 
the country has been forced to consider these questions as it learned 
that the Russians interfered with the 2016 presidentia election and 
associates of the president may have abetted that endeavor.

  Recent polls indicate that, by clear margins, the American people do 
not believe the President is above the law or that a president can 
pardon himself.
  It is vital that this extremely influential position is filled by 
someone who subscribes to these core principles.
  Brett Kavanaugh, however, has demonstrated a long-standing record of 
troubling opinions, including the beliefs that: the president is above 
the law and should never be criminally indicted; the Affordable Care 
Act should be dismantled; religious expression trumps individuals' 
right to health coverage for birth control; access to abortion should 
be diminished; and Obama-era environmental regulations should be rolled 
back.
  The Supreme Court is also required to examine contemporary policies 
through the prism of our nation's long history.
  In that regard, the ongoing struggle for civil rights cannot be 
subjugated as a priority of a nation seeking to bind the wounds of the 
slavery, the Civil War and its vestiges.
  The next jurist will replace a Supreme Court justice who recognized 
the importance of affirmative action as a necessary means to help heal 
the scars of segregation and Jim Crow.
  The next jurist will likely be required to further calibrate the 
balance of power between labor unions and their employing entities.
  Given the importance of these and other issues, like voting rights, 
reproductive rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community, and countless 
others, scholars of the Supreme Court and others who believe the Court 
is the arbiter of fair justice are looking to this nomination and are 
looking for a jurist who will dispense justice which is not one-sided 
or tilts to the right, but rather fair justice.
  As I stated before the nomination, I call upon the United States 
Senate to reject any nominee that is a well-documented ideologue and to 
nonetheless probatively, seriously, and deeply question whether and how 
this jurist could damage rights of minorities, women, children, and 
society's most vulnerable.
  When confronted with a replacement to the Supreme Court's swing vote, 
this President has chosen an ideologue and a foot soldier of the 
Republican Party and the conservative movement.
  Among other swing decisions, Justice Kennedy acted as the deciding 
vote in almost every reproductive health case since his confirmation, 
including casting the deciding vote to ensure abortion remained legal 
in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
  The President has stated numerous times that he will appoint someone 
who will reverse Roe v. Wade, and many anti-choice groups have rallied 
behind Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
  In addition to women's rights and health care, other paramount issues 
are on the line, such as voting rights and affirmative action.
  Bedrock civil rights principles such as Brown v. Board of Education 
could be at stake.
  To be sure, Brett Kavanaugh has very good credentials but an 
undistinguished record as a jurist on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  But it is not his credentials or his pedigree that is worrisome.
  Rather, throughout his entire career--as a deputy in the right-wing 
crusade against President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, as a political 
operative fighting against the statewide recount in Florida in 2000, 
paving the way for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, and as 
a conservative stalwart on the country's most important federal 
appellate court--Brett Kavanaugh has used his talents in the service of 
decidedly and uncompromisingly reactionary causes.
  I urge the United States Senate to reject this nomination and send 
this President a message: select a nominee that will not politicize the 
Court and one who will protect the rights of minorities, women, 
children, and society's most vulnerable.

                          ____________________