[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6933-S6934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Lawrence VanDyke

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise today because of my firm 
opposition to Lawrence VanDyke's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over my home State of Nevada. Mr. 
VanDyke lacks the support of both his home State Senators, Jacky Rosen 
and I. His qualifications are inadequate and his ties to Nevada are 
minimal.
  His nomination sets a dangerous precedent for the Senate and would 
allow future administrations to nominate virtual outsiders to 
communities across the country over Senators' objections.
  The President could have chosen a better nominee. Senator Rosen and I 
tried to work with the administration to identify well-respected 
attorneys from Nevada as potential appeals court judges. Instead, the 
President decided to nominate someone with no current ties to our 
State, someone whom the American Bar Association has rated as ``not 
qualified'' for the Federal bench, someone who holds extreme beliefs 
about reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, gun violence prevention, and 
environmental protection.
  The American Bar Association interviewed 60 of Mr. VanDyke's former 
colleagues, and those colleagues characterized him as arrogant, lazy, 
an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice, 
including procedural rules.
  Mr. VanDyke's nomination is unprecedented for all of these reasons. 
If confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, Lawrence VanDyke would be the first 
judicial nominee appointed to the bench without the support of his home 
State Senators, with a ``not qualified'' rating from the American Bar 
Association, and without ties to the community whose appeals court seat 
he would occupy.
  I would like to ask my colleagues: What kind of message are we 
sending when we confirm individuals who don't have the support of their 
local communities?
  We need judges with the knowledge, the maturity, and experience to 
understand the impact their decisions will have on the States over 
which they preside. How will my colleagues feel when a future 
administration attempts to do the same thing to their State, when a 
Democratic President, perhaps, nominates a Californian to sit on a 
district court in Kentucky or a lifelong DC resident is sent to a court 
in Texas?
  Mr. VanDyke's qualifications and connections to Nevada are just one 
part of my objection to his confirmation. I also believe Mr. VanDyke's 
views are just too extreme to promote to the Federal bench. He signed 
the State of Montana on to a brief in an Arizona case that argued that 
Roe v. Wade ``should . . . be revisited.''
  On LGBTQ protections, Mr. VanDyke at his confirmation hearings broke 
down in tears of frustration at the very idea that he might be unfair 
to LGBTQ litigants. He insisted that he believes in treating ``all 
people . . . with dignity and respect,'' but he didn't treat LGBTQ 
people with dignity and respect when he wrote in a 2004 article that 
same-sex marriage hurts families, children, and society. It certainly 
doesn't reflect an attitude of dignity and respect to support extreme 
groups like the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending 
Freedom, both of which have been designated as anti-LGBTQ hate groups 
by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
  The people who can legitimately shed tears about Lawrence VanDyke's 
record on LGBTQ rights are those who are still shunned because of whom 
they love.
  On the issue of preventing gun violence, Mr. VanDyke made his stance 
clear in a questionnaire the NRA sent to him when he was running for 
the Supreme Court of Montana. In his answers to the NRA's questions, 
Mr. VanDyke said he believed that ``all gun control laws are 
misdirected.'' In Nevada, we believe in Second Amendment rights, but we 
also agree--as almost all Americans do--that commonsense measures like 
background checks keep us safer.
  Finally, Mr. VanDyke has done his best to erode environmental 
standards and protections. As solicitor general of Nevada, he signed on 
to a lawsuit that threatened the critical sage grouse protections. 
Governor Sandoval, the Republican Governor at the time, said that 
lawsuit ``did not represent the State of Nevada, the governor, or any 
state agencies.''

[[Page S6934]]

  The Western United States has some of the most fragile and iconic 
public lands in the Nation. I object to letting Mr. VanDyke oversee 
them when he seems to care so little for their values. Mr. VanDyke's 
record shows that he is not a neutral arbiter of the law. Because of 
his poor qualifications and because of his extreme activist approach to 
the law, I will vote against his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.