[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 187 (Wednesday, November 28, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7169-S7170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Jonathan Kobes

  Mr. President, I would also like to explain my opposition to another 
nominee being considered this week: Jonathan Kobes for the Eighth 
Circuit Court of Appeals from South Dakota.
  Mr. Kobes received a ``not qualified'' vote from a substantial 
majority of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. They 
reported that Kobes has ``neither the requisite experience nor evidence 
of his ability to fulfill the scholarly writing required of a United 
States Circuit Court Judge.''
  They continued, saying: ``The Standing Committee had difficulty 
analyzing Mr. Kobes' professional competence because he was unable to 
provide sufficient writing samples of the caliber required to satisfy 
Committee members that he was capable of doing the work of a United 
States Circuit Court judge''; hence, their ``not qualified'' vote for 
him.
  In normal times, this sort of negative evaluation from the ABA would 
be given to the White House before the White House decided to nominate 
someone, and the person would never be nominated. But these are not 
normal times.

[[Page S7170]]

  Instead of following normal procedure, the White House has nominated 
someone not fit to serve for a lifetime on the circuit court, but 
nevertheless will be confirmed on a party-line vote.
  Mr. Kobes has demonstrated a hostility toward women's reproductive 
rights. His anti-choice activism is on par with so many other Trump 
nominees who are relatively young, as he is, and profoundly 
inexperienced.
  In 2005, Mr. Kobes represented, as a volunteer, so-called crisis 
pregnancy centers, which were seeking to uphold the South Dakota law 
requiring doctors to inform women seeking abortions that ``the pregnant 
woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and 
that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States 
Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota.'' That is not the 
state of the law, by the way.
  Mr. Farr and Mr. Kobes are two of the worst of President Trump's 
judicial nominees, and that is saying a lot. They are two more examples 
of President Trump's relentless pursuit to pack the Federal courts with 
ideologues who will rule in favor of conservative causes. Clearly, 
Donald Trump does not believe in the independent judiciary envisioned 
by the Framers of our Constitution and respected by every President 
until now.
  We see in his single-minded efforts to pack the courts that he is 
nominating judges who he believes will be his political allies. He 
tells us as much. He believes the judges he appoints are ``Trump 
judges'' and that they will be loyal to him, protect him and his 
policies when the time comes.
  Chief Justice John Roberts could not have been clearer in his 
response last week to Donald Trump's criticism of judges who don't rule 
his way. The Chief Justice told the AP:

       We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or 
     Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of 
     dedicated judges doing their very best to do equal right to 
     those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is 
     something we should all be thankful for.

  The independence of the judiciary is not something Donald Trump 
acknowledges, values, or even believes in. What he wants are Trump 
judges who will rule in favor of his policies and decisions and who 
will satisfy his ideologically conservative base. It is no wonder that 
Chief Justice Roberts felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step 
of reminding the President and the country that the judiciary must be 
independent.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Mr. Farr and 
Mr. Kobes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 20 minutes as in morning business; further, that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, 
be recognized; that we have permission to engage in a colloquy; and 
that at the conclusion of Senator Markey's remarks, Senator Shaheen of 
New Hampshire be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.