[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Page S540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. President, now, on another matter, the quality of President 
Biden's judicial nominees has been in the headlines recently--for all 
the wrong reasons. Recently, the White House celebrated their 100th 
judicial confirmation with a bizarre press release that spent less than 
one sentence talking about legal qualifications before devoting five 
paragraphs to the nominees' demographics.
  Then, a newly published analysis pointed out that the nominees whom 
Democrats have been confirming have been significantly less likely to 
have clerked at the Supreme Court, clerked at a circuit court, or 
graduated law school with top academic honors compared to the judges 
that Republicans spent the previous 4 years confirming--fewer 
prestigious clerkships, fewer academic honors.
  Not terribly surprising, it appears this qualifications gap may also 
be leading to a job performance gap. A law professor at the University 
of Iowa has found that the first 10 Biden-appointed appellate judges 
have written about 140 majority opinions between them, or an average of 
about 14 opinions each.
  By contrast, the first 12 appellate judges confirmed during the 
previous administration had written 415 majority opinions--that is 140 
for the Biden nominees and 415 for the previous administration's 
appointees--by February 2019, or 34 each, over a comparable period of 
time--14 opinions each for the Biden first 10, and 34 for the previous 
administration's first 10.

       It appears President Biden's Court of Appeals judges are 
     publishing opinions . . . less frequently than other recent 
     judges.

  So tomorrow, our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will meet for 
a markup to consider a slate of nominees, including the now-infamous 
nominee from Washington State who was actually unable to recall what 
article V or article II of the U.S. Constitution were about. This is 
not exactly the bar exam; this is basic constitutional literacy. And 
this person on whom President Biden wants to bestow a lifetime 
appointment flunked.
  Democrats are also trying to push forward the nomination of Michael 
Delaney, an attorney from New Hampshire who threatened a teenage Jane 
Doe victim of sexual assault that he would fight to strip away her 
anonymity and make her name a national story if she and her family did 
not settle their civil suit against the powerful prep school before it 
went to trial. Even some of our Democratic colleagues seem troubled by 
this. Senator Blumenthal says he ``has concerns'' about this nominee. 
Chairman Durbin admitted Delaney had ``a rough hearing.'' Senator 
Feinstein sent this nominee from her own party's White House a long 
list of detailed written questions.
  This is the caliber of judicial nominees this administration is 
sending to the Senate--folks who couldn't pass a high school civics 
exam on the Constitution and folks who threaten a high school girl when 
she demands accountability for being attacked.
  By the way, this brave young lady is outraged that President Biden is 
trying to reward her legal tormentor with a lifetime appointment and 
that our two Democratic colleagues from New Hampshire are actually 
backing this person. She just explained in a courageous op-ed for the 
Boston Globe how she received rape threats and death threats; how 
photos of her and her sisters were uploaded to hateful websites; how 
people took out inappropriate classified ads using her family's 
information--all because she dared to speak out and seek justice for 
what she had suffered.
  This young lady wrote:

       Biden's nomination as well as the nominee's support from 
     Senators . . . Shaheen and . . . Hassan of New Hampshire show 
     me and other survivors that they approve of what Delaney and 
     St. Paul's School put me and my family through. . . . Michael 
     Delaney's nomination must be withdrawn.

  That is from the victim.
  The American people deserve the best and brightest. It appears the 
Democrats are producing something else.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.