[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6685-S6686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Judicial Confirmations

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, we confirmed Robert Luck, a 
Florida supreme court justice, to be a U.S. Circuit judge for the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals. With Justice Luck's confirmation, the Senate 
has now confirmed 47 appellate court judges during this administration 
and 163 Article III judges overall.
  That is more appellate court judges than had been confirmed at this 
point in any of the previous five Presidential administrations, and it 
is a particularly outstanding number when you consider that the 
Democrats have made confirming these judges as difficult as they 
possibly can. From day one of this administration, Democrats were 
determined to obstruct anything this President did, his nominations in 
particular.
  Again and again and again, they have attempted to block nominees for 
no other reason than the fact that they were nominated by this 
President. Democrats have subjected roughly 75 percent of the 
administration's judicial nominees to the time-consuming cloture 
process. Compare that to the treatment of President Obama's nominees. 
At this point in President Obama's administration, roughly 3 percent of 
his judicial nominees had been subjected to cloture votes--just 3 
percent, 3 percent versus 75 percent for President Trump.
  The difference in these numbers is not because this President has 
nominated scores of extreme nominees who Democrats felt they could not 
support. In fact, Democrats have repeatedly turned around and voted for 
the very same judges they have obstructed. In one particularly 
egregious example, in January of 2018, Democrats forced the Senate to 
spend more than a week confirming four district court judges, even 
though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmation. These 
judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, 
but Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their 
consideration, time that could have been spent on genuinely 
controversial nominees or on some of the important issues facing our 
country.
  Despite Democrats' obstruction, we have continued to move forward, 
and as I said, yesterday, we confirmed our 163rd judge to the Federal 
bench. Today, we will confirm our 164th. We are putting judges on the 
bench with a real respect for the law and for the Constitution and a 
commitment to applying the law as written.
  Now, those sound like basic requirements for a judge, but too often, 
it seems like my Democrat colleagues are interested not in judges who 
will uphold the law, but in judges who will act like superlegislators, 
rewriting the law and the Constitution when they do not fit with the 
Democrats' political opinions, and that is a very dangerous thing.
  When judges rule based not on what the law actually says, but what 
they think the law should be, they undermine a fundamental principle of 
our system of government. Our system is based on belief in the rule of 
law. In the American system, the law is supposed to be the final, 
impartial arbiter. Cases are to be decided based on what the law says, 
not on what a particular judge feels.
  Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge goes outside the 
meaning of a law and rules for your preferred outcome. But what happens 
when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What 
protection do you have if the law is no longer the highest authority? 
Equal treatment under the law, equal justice under the law, these 
principles can only be maintained as long as judges actually rule based 
on the law and not on their personal feelings or personal opinions.
  My Democrat colleagues have shown a disturbing tendency to believe 
that their opinions are the only ones that should prevail. They 
disapproved of the outcome of the last election, and so for 3 years, 
they have done everything they can to undermine a duly-elected 
President. They are upset by the fact that the President got to replace 
a perceived swing vote on the Supreme Court, and the solution floated 
by more than one member of their party was to pack the Supreme Court.

[[Page S6686]]

  For anyone who needs a refresher on an idea that most thought had 
been consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago, the theory of 
court-packing is as follows: If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases 
to your liking, add more Justices to the Court until you start getting 
the decisions that you want.
  Listen to Democrats question judicial nominees, and it soon becomes 
apparent that their biggest concern is not finding judges who will 
uphold the law and the Constitution, but judges who will uphold 
Democrats' political opinions and preferred policy outcomes. It is a 
disturbing trend. It is natural to want your party to prevail and to 
believe that your ideas are the best ones for the country. It is 
another thing entirely to start acting like your opinions are the only 
ones that should ever prevail, regardless of election outcomes or the 
wishes of the American people.
  I am proud that we are putting judges on the bench who will rule 
according to the law and to the Constitution, not their personal 
opinions, their political beliefs, or the political party of the 
individuals before their court. I am proud that we are putting judges 
on the bench who will help ensure that the rule of law is maintained 
and that everyone in their courtroom receives the equal protection of 
the law.
  I look forward to confirming more excellent judges in the near 
future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.