[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6500-S6501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Judicial Confirmations

  Ms. BLACKBURN. Madam President, over the past few months, pro-
democracy protestors in Hong Kong have captivated the American 
consciousness with one of the most stunning mass protests in recent 
memory. Hong Kong people are no strangers to suppression. They are used 
to the censorship, digital stalking, and persecution embraced by their 
overlords in Beijing, and they have seen firsthand the dangers of 
tyranny.
  Watching these protests play out got me thinking about the core 
values that

[[Page S6501]]

we as the American people share with the Hong Kong people and with so 
many others around the globe. There is really an interesting dichotomy 
at play: You can turn on the TV right now and see an entire population 
fighting desperately on behalf of free speech, self-expression, and the 
right to question their leaders' decisions.
  Meanwhile, just a few countries away, the loudest voices in the 
newsroom are begging for just the opposite. Here in the U.S., Americans 
are constantly being asked if freedom is really worth the fight. Is it 
worth the never-ending battle to maintain it? The answer is absolutely.
  When Americans look at the protests in Hong Kong, they do not see a 
foreign policy gray area; they see scores of revolutionaries fighting 
an evil regime. They identify with the disrupters, and they cheer for 
the underdogs who do not pull their punches, which is why, in 2016, 
they sent a disrupter to the White House.
  They watch the hysteria that is cable news commentary and get the 
sense that the people on the screen have completely missed the point. 
The fight is not and never will be about one person or one movement. It 
is about the decision to protect liberty or to let liberty die; to 
protect justice or to let it die. To dismiss this point is to disparage 
the most important feature of the collaborative American psyche. When 
asked if freedom is worth fighting for, the answer will always be yes.
  The calculus flows into discussions on almost every aspect of 
American life. Most recently, at home and in this Chamber, debate has 
centered on the ideological makeup of the Federal judiciary. We have 
repeatedly asked ourselves: Will the judges we are confirming respect 
and protect the core values of the American people? The answer is yes, 
they absolutely will.
  This is not the first time the American public has swung back around 
to consider our ``first principles.'' We talked about them in the early 
90s and again--perhaps more passionately--in the early 2000s. Last 
week, I was fortunate enough to attend an event at the White House 
celebrating our success in confirming well-qualified, constitutionalist 
judges to the Federal bench. We have filled 158 vacancies since 2017, 
and we are far from done.
  I am sure, however, that my friends in the minority wish we would 
give it a rest, but we won't. After all, they have had to work overtime 
trying to convince the American people that our job is to impose by 
judicial decree policies that were rejected at the ballot box. They 
want to do this without the benefit of legislative debate or public 
comment, which means that confirming constitutionalist judges is far 
from being in their best interest.
  So here they come, insisting that ``constitutionalist'' is a dog 
whistle for racism, sexism, homophobia, and holding regressive and 
extreme ideas.
  What a ridiculous strategy. The bipartisan nominees this body has 
confirmed proved they are capable of resisting the urge to get creative 
with the law when it suits the loudest voices in the room. Instead, 
they apply the same foresight employed by the Founding Fathers. These 
judges know that permitting the government more powers to mold and 
manipulate society will give rise to a government that will never 
resist the temptation to overstep its bounds.
  Our courts are not courts of public opinion, and my friends in the 
minority would do well to remember the cost of treating them as such. 
Constitutionalism is our legacy and our inheritance. I urge my 
colleagues to remember this because we are going to vote to confirm 
judges who have proven themselves committed to defending our core 
values and the rule of law in the United States of America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized as in morning business for such time as I use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.