[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5038-S5039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week, President Trump nominated 
Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. People have 
begun looking over his extensive record, and he has been getting rave 
reviews around the country. Just look at a few of the headlines we have 
seen across the country.
  The New York Times, July 10: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise 
for his intellect and civility.'' The New York Times--it is 
astonishing.
  The Wall Street Journal said: ``Trump's nominee will be an 
intellectual leader on the bench.''
  The Detroit News said his record suggests that ``he will maintain a 
commitment to interpreting the law as it is written, and not how he may 
wish it had been crafted.'' That is exactly what Americans should be 
looking for in a Supreme Court Justice because a judge's job is to 
apply the law, not to rewrite it.
  People looking at Judge Kavanaugh's record and reaching the 
conclusion that he knows the right way to approach this very important 
job.
  It is not just newspapers that are saying wonderful things and 
singing the praise of Judge Kavanaugh; legal scholars are lining up to 
commend his independence and his wisdom as a judge. Some of them are 
extremely liberal people he has worked with over the years. They just 
respect him that much as a judge who they find has been devoted to the 
law and the Constitution. Imagine that. That is what we

[[Page S5039]]

should expect in anybody who serves as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
  A law professor from Yale wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last 
week titled ``A liberal's case for Brett Kavanaugh.'' The professor 
called Judge Kavanaugh ``a superb nominee'' and said that ``it is hard 
to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge 
Kavanaugh.''
  Another liberal law professor called him a ``highly qualified 
mainstream conservative judge.'' He cited Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning 
as ``an example of the judging ideal, setting aside ideology and party 
politics, and just trying to get the law right.'' That is a liberal 
former law professor. He said Judge Kavanaugh gives ``an independent 
judiciary the job it is supposed to do: Interpret the law.''
  There are lawyers who have appeared before Judge Kavanaugh who said 
the same things. I am not a lawyer, I haven't done these sorts of 
things, but I understand there are surveys of lawyers who appear before 
judges in court, people who have won cases and people who have lost 
cases. They put up their ideas about what they thought about the judge 
afterward.
  Across the board, they called him ``an excellent judge.'' They said 
that he ``has a history of excellent legal argument and analysis,'' 
someone who can think intellectually, think clearly, and come up with a 
legal argument and analysis to make the assessment, to apply the law as 
written. One lawyer actually said: ``It is daunting and humbling to be 
in front of that brainpower.'' This was an anonymous survey of lawyers 
who appear before Judge Kavanaugh. I don't know if they won or lost, 
but people get to put in their opinions, winners and losers, after 
cases in anonymous surveys. ``It is daunting and humbling to be in 
front of that brainpower.'' This wasn't people just trying to kiss up 
to the judge to win favor in a case; these are results from people 
after the case who were just telling it like it is. ``Excellent legal 
judgment,'' they say.
  If you look beyond the courtroom, people are just as willing to talk 
about Judge Kavanaugh's character as a person, not just a judge. That 
is part of it--to look at somebody's legal philosophy, their intellect, 
and their character--when trying to assess a judge who has been 
nominated, to say: Is this person the right person to be a Justice on 
the Supreme Court?
  The Washington Post even ran a piece by a woman who knows Judge 
Kavanaugh because he coaches her daughter's basketball team. She wrote 
that she was impressed by ``his traits of personal kindness, 
leadership, and willingness to help when called on.''

  There are three things I look for in a nominee for the Supreme Court: 
judicial philosophy, a strong intellect, and a solid character. What we 
are hearing is overwhelming evidence from people who know him that 
Judge Kavanaugh has all of these qualities. He is someone who takes the 
law and the Constitution at face value.
  The Constitution is a legal document, not a living document, and it 
was built for certainty. He knows that a judge's job is to ``interpret 
the law,'' not to legislate from the bench, ``not to make the law or 
make policy.'' That is what he actually said in a speech last year.
  He has an extremely strong intellect, and I can't imagine there is 
anyone out there who can deny that. ``It is daunting and humbling to be 
in front of that brainpower''--this is what one of the lawyers who 
appeared before him said. And he is a person of solid character. That 
is what we are hearing from people who have known him over the years 
from being extremely active in the community. The New York Times 
summarized it: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise for his intellect 
and civility.''
  So what is there for Democrats to come to the floor and object to? 
Why are they objecting to all of this? Why are some Democrats already 
saying they oppose a judge known for his intellect and civility? They 
were actually saying it before he was even named by President Trump. 
Whomever President Trump names, they are going to vote no. It is 
astonishing to see Democrats making that decision. Then they are asking 
for reams and reams of documents after they have already said they are 
against Judge Kavanaugh. What are they looking for? It is amazing.
  That is what I believe the big difference is between Republicans and 
Democrats in Washington: Republican Presidents choose judges and 
justices to follow the law; Democratic Presidents seem to pick judges 
and justices who are guaranteed to push liberal policies and liberal 
agendas, preconceived notions of how they should rule on a case before 
they hear the facts. They know the way they are going to go, maybe 
using things like emotion, sympathy, and empathy. The Constitution is a 
legal document.
  Even though you have legal experts from around the political world 
and around the spectrum of all sides of the aisle who praise his 
intellect and civility, it is not good enough for the liberal activists 
in this country. They don't even want to consider Judge Kavanaugh's 
qualifications, and they have said it here on the floor of the Senate 
and on television, if you listen. They are already making opposition to 
his nomination a liberal litmus test for Democrats in this Senate, and 
I am sorry to say that more than a few Democrats seem to be playing 
along. We have seen Democrats in the Senate who have already said that 
they don't care about Judge Kavanaugh's intellect; they don't care that 
he is ``just trying to get the law right''; they don't care that, as 
one lawyer said, ``it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials 
as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.''
  When you have someone with these qualifications, Senators ought to be 
looking at his record. They should look at the 300 decisions he has 
written in 12 years on the bench. It is absolutely the right thing to 
look at. They should meet him and talk with him.
  We have just begun this confirmation hearing process. I hope that 
more Democrats in the Senate will have an open mind about this nominee. 
I hope they will consider the kind of person we should have on the 
Supreme Court and then make their decisions about whether Judge 
Kavanaugh has those qualities. From what I have seen, he absolutely 
does.

  I plan to continue to look into his record and listen to people who 
know him best. I plan to sit down and talk with him. Everything I have 
seen so far tells me that this is someone who is exactly the kind of 
Justice we need on the Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.