[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S407-S408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on one final matter, yesterday, 
President Biden and the Senate Democratic leader took time to boast 
about their judicial confirmations. There was something interesting, 
strange, and telling about their statements. Both the President and the 
Democratic leader focused their comments overwhelmingly on identity 
politics and demographic box-checking.
  The President's statement spent literally one part of one sentence 
paying lip service to the question of legal qualifications. The 
remaining five paragraphs were devoted solely to these new judges' 
demographic characteristics. It was really quite bizarre.
  President Biden informed the American people that a particular 
District Court in Puerto Rico will now have its first judge who is not 
heterosexual. He pointed out that men have been a small minority of his 
judicial nominees; that certain percentages of his nominees fit into 
certain demographic categories. He went on and on and on like this.
  Most Americans want our country to keep moving forward in a direction 
where people's physical characteristics

[[Page S408]]

do not define us. Do you know what share of Americans believe race or 
ethnicity should be a major factor in university admissions? Seven 
percent. Do you know what percentage believe that gender should be a 
major factor in university admissions? Four percent.
  But when these Democrats talk about our sacred legal system, they 
sound like the HR department at some liberal university.
  The White House statements singled out three judges by name. In all 
three cases, the President belabored some aspect of the judge's 
identity. In zero--zero--of the three cases did the President have 
anything to say about their knowledge, intellect, or professional 
distinction.
  It is offensive to all Americans who have a President seeming to view 
our judiciary as some kind of crude sociological math problem. This is 
just the kind of thing our Constitution cuts against.
  Ironically, when it came to how these new judges actually think, both 
the President and the Democratic leader went out of their way to 
celebrate the lack of diversity in their thinking. They bragged about 
their coordinated and deliberate effort to stuff the judiciary with an 
unprecedented volume of former criminal defense attorneys.
  Democrats have long said they want judges to have empathy. Well, that 
is good news if you happen to be the party for whom the judge has a 
special bias; not so good, however, if you are the other party and you 
are looking for a fair trial.

  Now, Democrats are helpfully telling us whom they want judges to 
empathize with: accused criminals, not innocent victims.
  Now, nobody is saying we shouldn't have any public defenders on the 
bench. But even the New York Times admits the Democrats' sweeping 
effort to tilt the playing field in one direction is ``a sea change in 
the world of judicial nominations.''
  When Republicans held the Presidency and the Senate, we spent 4 years 
confirming staggeringly qualified and incredibly brilliant men and 
women to the courts, from widely diverse professional and educational 
credentials.
  Back then, even the very liberal outlet Vox.com reported:

       Based solely on objective legal credentials--

  Objective legal credentials--

     the average . . . appointee has a far more impressive resume 
     than any past president's nominees.

  That was then. So where are we? These days, things are different. To 
name just one example, significantly smaller shares of this President's 
nominees have attained prestigious clerkships at the Supreme Court or 
the appellate level.
  To name another example, one person President Biden has put up for a 
lifetime appointment could not even tell the Judiciary Committee what 
is in article II or article V of the Constitution.
  Look, our courts uphold the rule of law and protect our citizens' 
rights. The American people deserve a judiciary that contains the 
smartest, most formidable, and most qualified legal all-stars in our 
country. And they deserve a President who takes this seriously.
  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.

                          ____________________