[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5036-S5037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been a little more than a week 
since President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh 
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the impending 
retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In that short period of time, we 
have seen some of our friends across the aisle run through an almost 
impressive set of rhetorical calisthenics in an attempt to tank Judge 
Kavanaugh's confirmation before it even had a chance to begin.
  ``He will overturn this case or this law,'' they claim. ``He will not 
be a check on the President,'' they have tried to say. They have even 
suggested that he charged too much for baseball season tickets on his 
credit card--horror of horrors. Multiple fact-checkers have debunked 
each of these claims, so they have moved on.
  More recently, we have heard from some of our Democratic colleagues 
that they want to review every single piece of paper--every email, 
every memo, every document that has passed across Brett Kavanaugh's 
desk at any point in his career.
  Reviewing relevant and important documents is a perfectly normal part 
of confirming a judicial nominee, but using that as an excuse to delay, 
foot-drag, and obstruct is not acceptable. We know that the effort to 
get every memo from the Bush White House during the time he served as 
Staff Secretary there is really laughable and is only a fishing 
expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the Supreme 
Court begins its work the first Monday in October.
  For example, as Staff Secretary, he would have had the responsibility 
to basically manage the paper flow across the President's desk. These 
aren't just documents that he, himself, has generated. In fact, I 
suspect that with the overwhelming majority of them, he would have had 
nothing to do with creating them. He wouldn't be the author. He 
wouldn't be making policy recommendations. Basically, he would have 
navigated all of the documents that went across the President's desk to 
make sure that they had been reviewed by the appropriate person and 
that they would have been checked for accuracy. The ideas that every 
single piece of paper that went across President George W. Bush's desk 
should be somehow relevant and that we should delay confirmation until 
we have all had a chance to read it are ridiculous. Is what President 
Bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's fitness 
to serve on the Supreme Court? Obviously not.
  Just as, in 2010, the committee quickly processed Justice Kagan, who 
spent many years in the Clinton White House, I am confident we can 
expeditiously and efficiently review Judge Kavanaugh's relevant 
background materials to make sure the vote on his confirmation occurs 
before the Supreme Court reconvenes in October.
  Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee will 
work to produce as many documents as are relevant and possible so that 
every Senator can do their due diligence. An important part of our 
constitutional responsibility is to provide advice and consent, as the 
Constitution itself says.
  The most important thing to remember is that unlike the Kagan 
nomination, we have 12 years of service on the bench by Judge 
Kavanaugh. He served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in what has 
often been called the second most important court in the Nation because 
it is located in the District of Columbia. Most of the major cases 
involving huge policy disputes confronting the Federal Government have 
made their way through his court, and he has written opinions--majority 
opinions and dissenting opinions--which have all been reviewed by the 
U.S. Supreme Court. I submit that would be the best evidence of what 
kind of Justice he would be on the Supreme Court. What kind of judge 
has he been on the DC Circuit? That is the best evidence.
  We shouldn't indulge requests for these fishing expeditions and paper 
chases that will lead to nothing other than delay. It is important that 
the vetting process be deliberative and thorough, and it will be. But 
the volume of documents requested shouldn't be just a pretext to draw 
this out for political purposes.
  Here is an important factoid: Nearly half of the Democratic caucus 
has already said that they will vote no on Judge Kavanaugh's 
confirmation to the Supreme Court. Are they going to be requesting 
documents? Are they going to be saying ``Well, I want to look at 
everything that came across his desk'' when they have already announced 
their public opposition?
  Five of them announced their opposition before Judge Kavanaugh was 
even named. In other words, they would oppose anyone who is nominated 
by this President. We saw an attempt to filibuster the nomination of 
Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the change of the 
precedent. We lowered the number of votes to close off debate from 60 
votes to 51 votes because we realized that some across the aisle were 
so determined to vote against any nominee of this President--no matter 
how well qualified--there was no way we could confirm a well-qualified 
candidate. So we changed that.

  Both Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch were confirmed just 66 days after 
they were nominated. In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, if that same 
timetable held up, we would be voting on his confirmation about 
September 13--well in advance of the October deadline when the Court 
reconvenes. We will have plenty of time to thoroughly vet this nominee 
in a similar timeframe, which is consistent with the confirmation 
process for both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
  I had the good fortune to sit down with Judge Kavanaugh last week and 
to renew my acquaintance with him, which first occurred in 2000. As I 
have recounted here on the floor, when I was attorney general of Texas, 
I had the privilege to argue a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. 
As one of the best qualified appellate lawyers in the country, having 
clerked on the Supreme Court, as well, he was one of the lawyers who 
helped me get ready for that oral argument.
  I had a chance not only to get to know him in 2000 but to follow his 
career on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently 
impressed me with his thoughtfulness, his deliberativeness, his 
outstanding legal and

[[Page S5037]]

academic credentials, and, of course, his experience on the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals. He was candid and open, professional and impressive.
  I hope all of our colleagues will meet with Judge Kavanaugh to see 
for themselves. I have been told that he has been making calls to some 
Democratic Senators' offices, and they refuse to see him at all.
  He is an accomplished jurist who will fairly and faithfully apply the 
law as written and adhere to the text of the Constitution, as judges 
are obligated to do, and leave the policymaking and the politics to the 
Congress and the executive branch. I look forward to continuing our 
vetting process and voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this fall--well 
in advance of the October term of the Supreme Court.
  On a separate note, Mr. President, this afternoon, we will vote to 
confirm another accomplished legal mind, Andy Oldham, to the Federal 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
  Andy will join two other judges whom we have already confirmed in the 
Fifth Circuit earlier this year: Don Willett, a former member of the 
Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, my former chief counsel, someone with 
impeccable legal credentials. They are already on the Fifth Circuit. I 
am delighted that Andy Oldham will be joining them.
  As we like to say in Texas, Andy wasn't born there, but he got there 
as fast as he could. He grew up in Richmond, VA, where his parents 
instilled within him a sense of hard work. His father put himself 
through college, and his mother was one of the first women to attend 
the University of Virginia.
  Following their examples, Andy attended the University of Virginia 
and was awarded the prestigious title of Jefferson Scholar. While he 
was at UVA, he helped found an advocacy group to prevent sexual 
assault. His group was particularly focused on educating young men on 
their responsibilities when it comes to sexual violence.
  From there, he attended the University of Cambridge as a Truman 
Scholar, graduated with first class honors, and then went to law school 
at Harvard--very impressive academic credentials.
  During law school, he helped represent a death row inmate in a habeas 
corpus petition and won a temporary stay of execution in the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Based on Andy's hard work, the then-Governor of 
Virginia, who is now a Member of the Senate, commuted the defendant's 
sentence to life without parole based upon Andy's legal representation.
  After law school, he went on to clerk for Judge Sentelle on the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals, which I spoke about in connection with Brett 
Kavanaugh. Then he served as an attorney to the Department of Justice's 
Office of Legal Counsel; that is, the lawyers for the lawyers at the 
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, who issue 
authoritative guidance for the Department of Justice. And then, of 
course, he served as a law clerk for Justice Alito on the Supreme 
Court.
  Following a period of private practice, the State of Texas came 
calling, and Andy became a deputy solicitor general in the office of 
the Texas attorney general; then it was Greg Abbott, whom he later 
followed to the Governor's office, where he now serves as Governor 
Abbott's general counsel.
  On behalf of the State of Texas, Andy has argued two cases before the 
U.S. Supreme Court and filed countless briefs in support of the State. 
Because of his background and experience, Andy has earned bipartisan 
support, receiving recommendations from the general counsel to the 
Obama Foundation, as well as the Texas attorney general's office.
  In his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Andy 
spoke about his transition from a role as an advocate to that of a 
jurist. He explained how he views the role of a jurist as 
``fundamentally different,'' which it is.
  He went on to say that ``the oath of a jurist is simply to administer 
justice impartially, to do equal right by rich and poor, and to 
discharge justice in an equal and fair manner.'' This is exactly the 
type of judge we should want serving on our courts--someone who is 
impartial, not someone who will push for a particular ideology or 
political agenda on the bench. I believe Andy will follow this 
philosophy of impartially and fairly administering the law.
  Andy spent all but 3 years of his career in public service, and he 
has advocated on behalf of Texans for many years. I am confident he 
will continue to serve them and the rest of the country well, and I 
look forward to supporting his nomination this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Utah.