[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 194 (Thursday, December 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6864-S6865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, while we wait for 
our Democratic colleagues to let this legislation move forward, the 
Senate has used the time to confirm more of President Trump's 
impressive nominees for the Federal courts.
  Some of my friends across the aisle complain that we devote too much 
time to nominations. First, I would like to remind everyone that 
district judges are the kinds of nominations that, historically, have 
sailed right through the Senate in big groups by voice votes. If our 
Democratic colleagues want to spend less time voting on district 
judges, they should take it up with the Democratic leader, who is 
forcing us to take cloture vote after cloture vote. As of this morning, 
we have taken cloture votes on 81 district judge nominees.
  By this point in President Obama's Presidency, we had taken one 
cloture vote on a district judge nominee. Let me say that again. As of 
this morning, we have taken cloture votes on 81 district judges. By 
this point in President Obama's Presidency, we had taken one cloture 
vote on a district judge nominee--just one.
  At the comparable point in the five Presidencies preceding President 
Obama's, combined, we had not taken a single cloture vote on a district 
judge's nomination--not one. Yet, 3 years into the Trump Presidency, 
there have been 81 cloture votes and counting just on district judges. 
So there is your answer on floor time.
  More broadly, I want to take a moment to help clarify why I and 
millions of other Americans care so much about having Federal judges 
who believe in the radical notion that words matter and that a judge's 
job is to follow the law and the Constitution.
  Take, for example, the subject of religious freedom. The liberty of 
conscience and the freedom to live out our faiths has been a 
foundational principle from the Republic's earliest days. Many of the 
first Europeans who arrived in the New World came here after having 
fled religious persecution.
  James Madison wrote that religion ``must be left to the conviction 
and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to 
exercise it as these may dictate.''
  Samuel Adams said in the summer of 1776 that America would be the 
``last asylum'' for ``freedom of thought and the right of private 
judgment.''
  Let me contrast the Founders' understanding with a couple of current 
events. Last month, New York State convinced a district judge to throw 
out the Trump administration's conscience protection rule for 
healthcare providers. This straightforward rule ensured that healthcare 
workers could not be forced to perform or assist with medical 
procedures that profoundly violated their religious beliefs. Yet the 
radical Democrats in New York could not abide by this basic protection 
for people of faith. Instead, they wanted to force Christians and other 
people of faith who work in healthcare to either assist in procedures 
like abortion or lose their jobs--so much for freedom of conscience.
  New York's behavior is part of a disturbing trend. Powerful interests 
on the left want to shrink freedom of religion until it means freedom 
to go to church for an hour on Sundays as long as it doesn't impact the 
rest of your life. That shrunken interpretation is nothing like what 
our Founders intended, and, candidly, I am not sure how much longer the 
modern Democratic Party will even believe in that.
  A few months ago, a Democrat who is running for President told CNN 
that the government should take away the tax-exempt status of churches 
and religious institutions that disagree with leftwing positions. He 
was not some fringe candidate. He was a guy whom the Democrats and the 
mainstream media had likened to John F. Kennedy. He was openly 
suggesting the Federal Government should punish churches if liberals 
don't like their social views--how appalling.
  These disturbing signs have not been limited to the courts or to the 
Democratic campaign trail. Absurd anti-religious arguments have 
appeared right here in the Senate. In the last several years, some of 
our Democratic colleagues have tried, literally, to impose religious 
tests on nominees for Federal office. Just take the ``no religious 
test'' clause and the First Amendment and throw them right out the 
window. Get rid of them.
  Judge Brian Buescher, now a district judge in Nebraska, was attacked 
by two Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary for being a faithful 
Catholic and a member of the mainstream, worldwide Catholic group the 
Knights of Columbus. He was attacked for being a member of the Knights 
of Columbus? In written questions, one Senator called standard Catholic 
teachings ``extreme positions'' and asked if he would dial down his 
personal faith practice if confirmed. That happened in the Committee on 
the Judiciary of this Senate.
  As our colleague Senator Sasse observed at the time, the Democrats 
were transparently implying that Brian's religious beliefs and his 
affiliation with his Catholic, religious, fraternal organization might 
make him unfit for service. It was plainly unconstitutional.
  Judge Amy Coney Barrett, now a circuit judge on the Seventh Circuit, 
was likewise subjected to a religious test during her confirmation 
hearing. One Democratic Senator literally asked: Do you consider 
yourself an orthodox

[[Page S6865]]

Catholic? She was asked that in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Another offered this bizarre and ominous remark: ``The dogma lives 
loudly within you, and that's a concern.''
  So, look, these warning signs on religious freedom are literally 
popping up everywhere the modern political left rears its head.
  Religious freedom in America has never--never--meant and will never 
mean solely the freedom to worship privately. It has never meant and 
will never mean the ability to practice only a subset of faiths 
acceptable to some subset of politicians. What it means is the right to 
live your life according to the dictates of your faith and your 
conscience, free from government coercion.
  If those statements strike anybody in this Chamber as remotely 
controversial, that is exactly why President Trump, Senate Republicans, 
and millions of Americans are focused on confirming Federal judges who 
will apply our Constitution as it was originally written.

                          ____________________