[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 196 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Madam President, a couple of weeks ago, we confirmed one of the most 
qualified Supreme Court Justices in living memory. This week, we are 
confirming more district court judges, bringing the total number of 
judges we have confirmed over the last 4 years to nearly 230.
  Confirming good judges is one of the most important responsibilities 
that we have as Senators, and it is a responsibility that I take very 
seriously. In fact, one of the main reasons I was first elected to the 
Senate was to make sure that outstanding judicial nominees were 
confirmed to the Federal bench.
  It is hard to imagine now, but confirming judges used to be a pretty 
bipartisan affair. Presidents of both parties generally got the 
majority of their judicial nominees confirmed to the bench. But all of 
that changed back in the early 2000s.
  After President George W. Bush's election, Democrats decided that the 
President's judicial nominees might not deliver the results that 
Democrats wanted, and so they decided to adopt a new strategy: blocking 
judicial nominees on a regular basis. That became the routine here in 
the Senate.
  I was one of the many Americans who were upset by the blockade of 
impressive, well-qualified nominees, and it was one of the main reasons 
that I ran for the Senate in 2004. I promised South Dakotans that if 
they elected me, I would help put outstanding, impartial judges on the 
bench. I am proud to have delivered on that promise.
  The list of outstanding judicial nominees we have confirmed over the 
past 4 years is long. We have confirmed brilliant, accomplished men and 
women with superb qualifications, but most importantly, we have 
confirmed men and women who understand the proper role of a judge, who 
know that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make the law, 
to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite rules of the game.
  It is here that Republican judicial philosophy diverges from the 
judicial philosophy of a lot of Democrats. Republicans believe that the 
job of a judge is to look at the law and the Constitution and then rule 
based on how those things apply to the facts in a particular case. 
Judges, we believe, should leave their politics and their personal 
opinions at the courtroom door and base their opinions solely on what 
the law and the Constitution say.
  For Democrats, on the other hand, what matters most is not how judges 
reach their conclusion, not whether they apply the law, but what 
outcomes they deliver. If a judge can deliver the right outcome by 
following the plain meaning of the law, then great, but if she can't, 
then Democrats want a judge to reach beyond the plain meaning of the 
statute to deliver what Democrats see as an appropriate result.
  Then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama back in 2007 said:

       [W]hat you've got to look at is, what is in the justice's 
     heart? What's their broader vision of what America should be?

  Well, that is a very dangerous standard. It is not the job of a judge 
to impose his or her ``broader vision of what America should be''; it 
is the job of a judge to determine what the law says and then apply the 
law to the particular case before him.
  President Obama famously said that he wanted judges with empathy. 
Well, that is all very well until you are a party in a case, and you 
have the law on your side, but the judge empathizes with the opposing 
party. What happens then?
  The only way to preserve the rule of law in this country is to 
confirm judges who understand that their allegiance must be to the law 
and to the Constitution, not to their personal feelings, their personal 
beliefs, their political beliefs, or their ``broader vision of what 
America should be.'' Otherwise, you replace the rule of law with the 
rule of a bunch of individual judges.
  So I am very thankful that we have confirmed so many judges who 
understand that the job of a judge is to apply the law, not make it, 
and who won't try to usurp the role of Congress by legislating from the 
Federal bench. I thank the majority leader for making judicial 
confirmations such a priority. I look forward to confirming more 
outstanding judicial nominees this week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Vaden nomination be 
waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.