[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 151 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5584-S5585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             The Judiciary

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week, the Senate confirmed President 
Trump's 150th judge. That is a significant milestone and one that has 
been harder to achieve than it normally would be thanks to the 
Democrats' determination to delay judicial confirmations. Again and 
again, the Democrats have used the time-consuming cloture vote process 
to delay the confirmations of President Trump's nominees--even of 
nominees they ultimately chose to vote for.
  By this point in President Obama's first term, the Republicans had 
required cloture votes on just three of President Obama's judicial 
nominees--three. Compare that to today. As of September 12, the 
Democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 71.7 percent of 
President Trump's picks for the bench--71 percent. Basically, for more 
than two out of every three judges, the Democrats have required cloture 
votes. That simply means they have filibustered that particular 
nominee. The way you end the filibuster is by invoking cloture.
  When the Republicans were in the minority when President Obama was in 
the White House, at this point in President Obama's first term, the 
Democratic majority had invoked cloture just three times for three 
judges whom the Republicans had tried to block. As I said, right now, 
at the same point in President Trump's first term, we are talking about 
almost 72 percent of all of the nominations combined having been 
filibustered. If you think about that and if you add it up totally, 
cumulatively, it is about 100 now compared to 3 during President 
Obama's first term at the same time in office.
  As I have said, many of these were nominees the Democrats ultimately 
went on to vote to confirm. In other words, it was not that President 
Trump nominated scores of extreme nominees whom the Democrats felt they 
couldn't support. Again and again, the Democrats have delayed a 
nominee, then turned around and voted in favor of him or her.
  In one particularly memorable example, in January of 2018, the 
Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four 
district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against 
their confirmations--not one single Democrat. These judges could have 
been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice votes. Instead, the 
Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their 
considerations--time that could have been spent on genuinely 
controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues that 
face our country.
  So far this September, the Senate has confirmed six district court 
judges. The Democrats forced cloture votes on four of them despite the 
fact that all four were eventually confirmed by huge bipartisan 
margins. In fact, one was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 94 to 0.
  If the Democrats had had a serious reason for their obstruction of 
the President's judicial nominees, they would not have been repeatedly 
turning around and voting for them. Their obstruction isn't based on 
principle; it is based on partisanship. They don't like this President, 
so they are obstructing his nominees even when they agree they are well 
qualified for their positions. As a result, we are forced to spend 
hours upon hours of Senate floor time on uncontroversial nominations--
time we could be using for other priorities.
  Democratic delays are also not helping the judicial vacancy rate, 
which is still high despite the Republicans' efforts to get judges 
confirmed. High numbers of vacancies result in there being long waits 
to get cases heard, which serves nobody.
  While Democratic obstruction is bad enough, unfortunately, we have a 
lot more to worry about. In recent months, the Democrats have moved 
beyond obstruction and into directly threatening the independence of 
the judiciary. Court-packing--an idea that pretty much everybody 
thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history almost a century 
ago--is enjoying a revival among members of the Democratic Party.
  For anyone who needs a refresher on this concept, the theory of 
court-packing is quite simple. If the Supreme Court is not deciding 
cases to your liking, add more judges to the Court until you start 
getting the decisions you want. It is not hard to see why this is a 
terrible idea, but that hasn't stopped it from gaining traction in the 
Democratic Party. In fact, five prominent Democrats--including a 
Democratic Presidential candidate and the second-

[[Page S5585]]

ranking Democrat in the Senate--recently filed an amicus brief with the 
Supreme Court that threatened the Court if it failed to rule according 
to the Democrats' preference.
  They wrote:

       The Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it. 
     Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands 
     it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of 
     politics.

  Translation: If you don't rule the way we want you to, you will not 
like the consequences.

  Threatening members of the judiciary is within the domain of 
dictators and despots, not Members of the U.S. Congress, and it is 
deeply disturbing that prominent Democrats apparently now see nothing 
wrong with trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that there are few lengths to 
which the Democrats will not go in their increasingly desperate 
partisanship. Just this week, we saw the Democrats leap on the 
opportunity to drag Justice Kavanaugh's name through the mud again 
based on yet another vague and unsubstantiated rumor.
  More than one Democratic Presidential candidate instantly cried that 
he should be impeached. What was the basis for such a drastic 
suggestion? It was a New York Times article that was, as the leader 
pointed out, so short on reporting that it ran on the opinion page of 
the New York Times instead of in the news section, not to mention that 
after running this piece, the Times had to quickly issue a correction 
and note a glaring omission in the original story. What was the 
omission? It was the fact that the supposed victim of Justice 
Kavanaugh's supposed behavior declined to be interviewed and that her 
friends said she had no memory of the alleged incident.
  It is not hard to see what is behind the Democrats' relentless 
campaign to smear Justice Kavanaugh's name. They are furious that it 
was a Republican and not a Democratic President who had the opportunity 
to choose a Justice to replace a perceived swing vote on the Supreme 
Court, and they are afraid that Justice Kavanaugh will not issue the 
rulings they want.
  Here we get to the heart of the problem with the Democrats' 
increasingly unhinged leftism and attacks on the judiciary. The 
Democrats aren't looking for judges or a judiciary that will rule 
according to the law; they are looking for a judiciary that will rule 
in accordance with the Democrats' preferred policies whether they have 
anything to do with the law or not, and that is a very dangerous goal.
  Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your 
political opinions reaches outside the meaning of the statute and rules 
for your preferred outcome. Yet what happens when that same judge 
reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protection do you have 
if the judge and not the law becomes the highest authority? The only 
way to ensure the protection of individuals' rights is to ensure the 
rule of law, and that means having judges who will make decisions 
according to the law, not according to their personal preferences or 
the principles of a particular political party's.
  In the wake of the Democrats' threat to the Supreme Court, all 53 
Republican Senators sent a letter to the Justices that underscored our 
commitment to protecting the independence of the judiciary. We noted in 
the letter:

       There is no greater example of the genius of our 
     Constitution than its creation of an independent judiciary. . 
     . . Time and again, our independent federal courts have 
     protected the constitutional rights of Americans from 
     government overreach even when that overreach was politically 
     popular.

  If we want our courts to continue protecting Americans' 
constitutional rights, then we need to ensure they remain independent.
  The Democrats' interest in having judges who will rule according to 
their preferred outcomes is not new, but in the past, their interest 
has not led them to attempt to bully judges into voting their way. I 
hope the Democrats will think better of their repressive tactics before 
our independent judiciary becomes the victim of their political agenda.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.