[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3646-S3647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, sometime tomorrow, this body will 
consider a number of nominations for final confirmation, among them the 
nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas.
  A Federal district judge serves a particular area of the country, but 
in fact, the whole country has a stake in this nomination because a 
judge helps to define and refine and apply the law of the United 
States, setting precedent that applies to the entire country. It isn't 
just the Northern District of Texas that has a stake in this 
nomination; it is the entire country. So this alarming and appalling 
nomination should be of particular interest to my colleagues.
  It is the result of a process that, very unfortunately, has been 
demeaned and degraded. It is a shadow of what it once was. In the 
scrutiny that is given and the time that is devoted, this process is 
failing to assure the independence of the judiciary. Now is the time 
when that independence must be assured because, from this time forward, 
these judges will be lifetime appointees and will have no 
accountability to this body or to any other elected official.
  In previous years, under other Republican administrations, there was 
an adequate time to debate; there were full and fair hearings; and 
nominees answered questions about their views on issues that were 
relevant to their service. That process has been severely undercut--
indeed, decimated now. What we have before us, again and again and 
again, are nominees who fail to meet the basic test of intellect and 
integrity and responsibility.
  I look at all of the records of nominees before us and ask them 
questions to determine what their basic values are--whether they think 
particular Supreme Court precedents were correctly decided, like Brown 
v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade--because it is a view into their 
basic commitments to constitutional principles that are deeply and 
ideally settled. Matthew Kacsmaryk fails that test.
  If there is a principle enshrined in our Constitution that matters 
more than any other, it is the idea that everyone is equal before the 
law. No one is above the law. No one is less entitled to rights than 
anyone else. Everyone is equal regardless of race, gender, ethnicity 
and regardless of who you are, how much you own, or where you were 
born. Mr. Kacsmaryk seems to lack respect for this basic principle. In 
fact, his career is defined by active opposition to the treatment of 
minority groups.
  In 2016, he submitted an amicus brief that supported a Virginia 
school board's policy that a student must use the restroom that 
corresponds to the student's biological gender.
  Also, in 2016, he sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services and argued that the Department of Health and Human 
Services should not require hospitals to conduct sex reassignment 
surgeries for transgender individuals. He wrote in that letter that 
transgender people suffer from a ``psychological condition, in need of 
care'' and are ``not in a category of person in need of special legal 
protection.'' He went so far as to say the experiences of transgender 
people are ``irrational'' and ``delusional.''
  In light of these and other statements, I have received numerous 
letters from the parents of transgender people. They have written in 
fear and alarm that someone with such offensive, extreme, medically 
inaccurate views could be promoted to a lifetime position within the 
Federal judiciary--a position that will give him power over the lives 
of exactly these individuals who seek equality under the law.
  Seventeen of our House colleagues--some of them parents and 
grandparents of transgender people--have written to us and expressed 
their concern that someone with such hostile views toward LGBTQ 
Americans could possibly be confirmed as a judge.
  Our colleagues in the House are concerned about the decisions we are 
making here because they respect these individuals.
  Kacsmaryk has also repeatedly made public his opposition to marriage 
equality and the equal treatment of same-sex couples.
  He submitted an amicus brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, urging the 
Supreme Court to not extend the right of

[[Page S3647]]

marriage to same-sex couples. He, thankfully, did not prevail in that 
view because the Court upheld the rights of same-sex couples to be 
married, and he continued his opposition to marriage equality by 
representing the owners of an Oregon bakery who refused to bake a cake 
for same-sex couples.
  He testified in favor of legislation the Texas Observer described as 
a ``license to discriminate'' adoption bill that would permit adoption 
agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.
  Many in Congress, including myself, worked to pass the Equality Act, 
which would reflect the core of the Supreme Court's ruling by adding 
sexual orientation and gender identity to the Federal code's list of 
protected classes.
  He has referred to this effort as a weaponization of Obergefell that 
seeks the public affirmation of the ``erotic desires of liberated 
adults.''
  Even as I recite these quotes, I can hardly believe that at this 
moment in our history, at this time of awareness among informed and 
tolerant people who believe in inclusiveness and equal justice under 
the law, that someone nominated to this position of paramount 
responsibility would have these views and articulate them in this way.
  If the Equality Act were to become law and face a challenge in Judge 
Kacsmaryk's court, could litigants feel comfortable or confident that 
they would receive a fair hearing? Is there any gay, lesbian, 
transgender, or nonbinary person who would feel their case would 
receive a nonbiased treatment in his court?
  I have such deep doubts, as should my colleagues, that I cannot vote 
for him. I will oppose his nomination, and I hope my colleagues will 
join me in voting no on Matthew Kacsmaryk.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.