[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6800-S6801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Sarah E. Pitlyk
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
nomination of Sarah Pitlyk to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri. Ms. Pitlyk's record is extremely
troubling and raises a number of questions about her ability to be a
fair and impartial judge.
Ms. Pitlyk was deemed by the American Bar Association to be Not
Qualified, one of only 3 percent of people reviewed by the Bar over the
past 3 years. This is the first that I have had occasion to review in
total. A district court judge, as you well know, must hit the ground
running. Ms. Pitlyk's lack of practical knowledge and experience would
significantly disadvantage the litigants appearing before her.
I also want to acknowledge the highly unusual nature of a ``Not
Qualified'' rating by the Bar; 97 percent of President Trump's nominees
have been rated at least ``Qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
This means that Ms. Pitlyk falls in the small minority--just 3
percent--of candidates deemed not qualified by the American Bar
Association. This shows how rare that rating is. The ABA has been
reviewing the qualifications, as you already know, of judicial nominees
since 1989. They know what they are doing, and those of us on the
committee take their evaluations very seriously.
[[Page S6801]]
Next, I want to discuss Ms. Pitlyk's record opposing women's
reproductive rights and limiting access to healthcare. Ms. Pitlyk
defended a State law banning abortion at 6 weeks, she opposed the
Affordable Care Act's coverage for contraception, and she defended
President Trump's Title X gag rule.
The Trump administration's Title X gag rule prohibits referrals for
abortion care and imposes onerous requirements on abortion clinics,
among other things. The rule effectively pushed Planned Parenthood out
of the Title X program, curtailing access to healthcare for millions of
low-income women and families.
Ms. Pitlyk has also filed multiple legal briefs that contain
misinformation. Last year, she argued without any credible evidence
that ``racism plays a profound role in the delivery of abortion
services.''
In another case, Ms. Pitlyk claimed--again without evidence--that in-
vitro fertilization leads to ``higher rates of birth defects, genetic
disorders, and other anomalies.''
I think it is disqualifying for any judicial nominee to make
unfounded and unsupported claims, especially in a court of law.
Ms. Pitlyk has also made statements in her personal capacity opposing
access to healthcare. Just last year, she called the Supreme Court's
decision upholding the Affordable Care Act ``unprincipled.'' Earlier
this year, she said that the Supreme Court's reproductive healthcare
cases have ``gross defects.''
These statements and Ms. Pitlyk's legal work raise serious concerns
about her ability to apply the Supreme Court's important precedents
fairly and impartially. I am deeply troubled by her record, her lack of
experience, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing her
nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from Politico
and a letter from the American Bar Association dated September 24,
2019, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the POLITICO, Nov. 19, 2019]
Susan Collins to Oppose Trump Judicial Nominee
(By Marianne Levine)
Sen. Susan Collins will oppose Sarah Pitlyk, President
Donald Trump's nominee to become a federal judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
In a statement to POLITICO, the Maine Republican voiced
concern about Pitlyk's lack of trial experience, as well as
her stance on abortion given previous comments on gestational
surrogacy and past legal work.
``Her lack of trial experience would make it difficult for
her to transition to a district court judgeship,'' Collins
said.
She also cited Pitlyk's comments in a brief she co-wrote in
2017 as a lawyer for the Thomas More Society, an anti-
abortion law firm. The brief stated surrogacy leads to the
``diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother-
child bond; exploitation of women; commodification of
gestation and of children themselves; and weakening of
appropriate social mores against eugenic abortion.''
Collins said Pitlyk is entitled to her personal views on
abortion, but she questioned ``given her pattern of strident
advocacy, whether she could put aside her personal views on
these matters.''
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Pitlyk's nomination
along party lines in October, and a floor vote is likely in
the coming weeks.
While Collins supported Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to
the Supreme Court, she has voted against several Trump
judicial nominees this year.
In addition to Pitlyk, Collins opposed Steven Menashi's
nomination to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Chad
Readler's nomination to the 6th Circuit, Howard Nielson for
the District of Utah, Matthew Kacsmaryk for the Northern
District of Texas and Jeffrey Brown for the Southern District
of Texas.
All of those judges were confirmed by the GOP-controlled
Senate.
____
American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary,
Columbia, SC, September 24, 2019.
Re Nomination of Sarah E. Pitlyk to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The ABA
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has received a
full report on Sarah E. Pitlyk and a supplemental report by a
second reviewer. The Committee has unanimously determined
that Ms. Pitlyk is ``Not Qualified'' for the position of
federal district judge. I write to offer a brief explanation
of this rating. Our rating is based on the Standing
Committee's criteria as set forth in the Backgrounder. The
Standing Committee believes that Ms. Pitlyk does not have the
requisite trial or litigation experience or its equivalent. I
would like to point out that based on its peer review, the
Standing Committee's rating does not rest on questions about
Ms. Pitlyk's temperament or integrity.
The Backgrounder that provides guidance to our evaluation
process explains that a nominee to the federal bench
ordinarily should have a minimum of 12 years' experience in
the practice of law. This 12-year experience guideline is
neither a hard-and-fast rule nor an automatic disqualifier.
The Standing Committee's criteria provide that a nominee's
limited experience may be offset by the breadth and depth of
the nominee's experience over the course of his or her
career. Nominees with fewer than 12 years at the bar (as is
the case with Ms. Pitlyk, both due to the calendar and
periods of inactive status), but with substantial trial or
courtroom experience and/or compensating accomplishments in
the field of law, can and have been found qualified by our
Committee. However, Ms. Pitlyk's experience to date has a
very substantial gap, namely the absence of any trial or even
real litigation experience. Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case
as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. She has
never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one
case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition.
She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial
court. She has never picked a jury. She has never
participated at any stage of a criminal matter.
The Standing Committee believes that a nominee should be
professionally competent to manage and resolve the many
diverse matters facing a federal judge on a daily basis. The
accumulation of experience and legal knowledge that is
acquired by a practicing lawyer both inside and outside of
the courtroom prepares a lawyer over time to handle a broad
spectrum of legal issues in a wide variety of subject matters
and to manage a courtroom over which he or she will preside
as a judge. The judicial system, the public, the trial bar,
and the nominee are not well served by appointing to the
bench a lawyer who, despite great intelligence, high
character, and experience researching and writing briefs,
lacks adequate trial court or equivalent experience.
While we respect the clerkship for which the nominee served
after graduation from law school, her legal practice to date
does not compensate for the short time the nominee has
actually practiced law and her lack of litigation, trial, and
courtroom experience. It is the Standing Committee's judgment
that Ms. Pitlyk does not meet the minimum professional
competence standard necessary to perform the responsibilities
required by the high office of a federal district court
judge.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain our rating to you.
Very truly yours,
William C. Hubbard.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________