[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.