[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 123 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 16, 2018

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express deep concern and 
opposition for the President's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett 
Kavanaugh. I appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
recognize the threat Judge Kavanaugh poses to Americans' most 
fundamental rights and the impartiality required for any jurist filling 
a Supreme Court seat.
  If my colleagues truly want to know how Judge Kavanaugh will rule on 
cases addressing Roe v. Wade, voting rights, affirmative action, Brown 
v. Board of Education and affordable health care, all they need to do 
is review his track record.
  On the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--Judge Kavanaugh wrote in a 2011 
decision that the ACA could be considered a tax because it requires 
individuals to buy health insurance. In his opinion, as a tax, the ACA 
is unconstitutional because it violates the Anti-Injunction Act--
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts over tax-related matters. 
What Judge Kavanaugh and Republican supporters seeking to repeal the 
ACA ignore is the ACA's success in: keeping insurance companies from 
charging women more than men; stopping insurers from denying coverage 
to individuals with pre-existing conditions; and preventing seniors 
from having to choose between their medications or daily meals.
  On Voting Rights--Again in 2011, following the Obama administration's 
findings that a South Carolina voter ID law would disenfranchise tens 
of thousands of minority voters, Judge Kavanaugh sided with South 
Carolina government and expressed his approval of states enacting 
stronger voter ID laws.
  On Roe v. Wade--The President said he will not ask his nominee how 
they would rule on Roe v. Wade, and there really is no need. The 
President clearly stated he would nominate ``pro-life judges'' who 
would overturn Roe. We already know how Judge Kavanaugh will rule in 
any case regarding a woman's reproductive rights. In 2015, he sided 
with religious groups refusing to provide contraceptive coverage, as 
required through ACA. Then, in 2017, he dissented from a decision that 
permitted an undocumented immigrant teen to have a legal abortion.
  That brings me back to my earlier statement of the threat to 
impartiality on the bench. Judge Kavanaugh stated in a 2009 law review 
article that sitting presidents should receive ``a temporary deferral 
of civil suits and of criminal prosecutions and investigations.'' With 
the continuing legal implications mounting against the President in the 
Mueller and Cohen investigations and the emoluments lawsuit filed by 
200 congressional Democrats, if it were left up to Judge Kavanaugh, he 
would make the President untouchable. It is clear why Judge Kavanaugh 
would be a great pick for a President experiencing an unprecedented 
number of legal woes while in office--great pick for the President, but 
terrible for America and the progress we've made.
  I urge Republicans in the Senate to reject this nomination and uphold 
their responsibility--stop avoiding vetting protocols put in place to 
ensure qualified jurists protect the fundamental rights of all 
citizens, and not just the chosen few.

                          ____________________