[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 141 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5908-S5909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH

  Mr. HATCH. Now I would like to pivot to what would ordinarily be a 
subject unrelated to sports--the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to 
be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court--but this is no 
ordinary nomination. Not only is Judge Kavanaugh an avid sports fan, he 
also moonlighted as a sports reporter for the Yale Daily News.
  For Democrats looking to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of 
documents other than his judicial record, his writings about college 
sports are apparently a gold mine. Take, for example, Kavanaugh's 
account of a midseason game between Yale and Cornell: ``In basketball, 
as in few other team sports, it is possible for one person to 
completely dominate a game.''
  Prominent legal scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and 
adviser to Barack Obama--a friend of mine, actually--strained to make a 
connection between this casual observation and Judge Kavanaugh's 
judicial philosophy. He noted: ``Kavanaugh's seeming fascination with 
single-player domination might be a muscular view of executive power.'' 
I had a good laugh at this. The idea that Judge Kavanaugh's 
observations about basketball somehow reveal his views about Executive 
power is beyond absurd.
  What is next? What other hidden insights into the nominee's character 
can we glean from the most obscure sources? Should we do a deep dive on 
Judge Kavanaugh's zodiac sign to see what it might say about his 
judicial temperament? He is an Aquarius, by the way, and Mars is in 
retrograde. So we all know what that means: Judge Kavanaugh is going to 
destroy America. He is going to burn down the Capitol, coronate himself 
King, and make confetti of the Constitution. The stars are literally 
aligned for this man to usher in Armageddon. The real question is, How 
am I the only one seeing this? Why hasn't The New Yorker written a 
think piece about it already?
  It should go without saying that if you really want to understand 
Judge Kavanaugh's view on the constitutional separation of powers, you 
won't find it by reading sports articles from a college newspaper, and 
you won't find it by reading his wife's work emails; you will find it 
by reading Judge Kavanaugh's actual opinions as a Federal judge. Of 
course, Democrats know this, but like a kid procrastinating his 
homework--playing video games and microwaving Bagel Bites--they are 
looking for any distraction at all to avoid actually analyzing Judge 
Kavanaugh's judicial record. That is because Democrats know what they 
will find when they do: a nominee who is indisputably qualified for the 
Supreme Court.
  When my friends on the other side of the aisle decide they are done 
procrastinating and actually want to examine his judicial record on 
separation of powers issues, I would point them to Judge Kavanaugh's 
opinions in three cases I highlighted here on the Senate floor earlier 
this month: Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, 
Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, and PHH Corporation v. CFPB.
  Once you have gone through Judge Kavanaugh's highly regarded opinions 
and sterling record and concluded, as I have, that he is eminently 
qualified and possesses the judicial temperament and ability to be a 
great Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, you will by all means turn to 
his college sports writing for a little light reading. You are sure to 
walk away with insight into the championship prospect of Yale's 
basketball and football teams in the 1980s; I just wouldn't hold out 
for any insight into his judicial philosophy.
  While we are on the subject of documents outside his judicial record, 
I am surprised Democrats have yet to mention Professor Kavanaugh's 
student evaluations. The evaluations may not predict how Judge 
Kavanaugh would rule on hot-button issues, but they do add actual 
substance to the mountain of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh is, as 80 of 
his former students described him, ``a rigorous thinker, a devoted 
teacher, and a gracious person.'' Notably, the evaluations reveal that 
Judge Kavanaugh was fair and balanced in the classroom--the opposite of 
the partisan hack some are now trying to make him out to be. One 
student wrote that ``Judge Kavanaugh's presentation seemed very 
evenhanded.'' Another said that he ``presented the other side quite 
well, even though he likely shared most of those conservative views,'' 
adding that ``many of the Harvard Law School professors could learn 
from his acceptance of views across the political spectrum.''
  I am looking forward to Judge Kavanaugh's public confirmation 
hearings--now just 12 days away--where his judicial record on 
substantive legal issues will take center stage. That is what matters. 
But those things that are not front and center, be they his student 
evaluations or college sports reports, remind us that there is more to 
Judge Kavanaugh than his professional record and accomplishments, and 
they remind us that he is exactly the kind of standup person we should 
want on the Supreme Court.

[[Page S5909]]

  Of course, you wouldn't guess that judging by the way Democrats and 
the media have treated him over the past few weeks. For example, 
earlier this week, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
said she would cancel her meeting with the nominee, which, of course, 
she is free to do. What media reports ignored was that this same 
Senator had announced her resolute opposition before any nominee was 
even announced. Talk about jumping the gun.
  In an effort to stir up social media controversy, another colleague 
of mine suggested in dark and gloomy terms that the Judiciary 
chairman's use of committee confidentiality was some nefarious tool to 
hide salacious details about the nominee. In doing so, he neglected to 
inform the tens of thousands who retweeted his misleading message that 
committee confidentiality is, in fact, a common practice that has been 
used by past chairmen from both parties.
  Before our friends in the media report these disingenuous claims, 
they should apply rigorous fact-checking to see if Democrats are 
telling the truth or simply crying wolf to whip up their base.

                          ____________________