[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1732-S1735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Nancy G. Abudu

  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Nancy Abudu to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  I served as Governor for 8 years, and, in that time, I had the great 
privilege of appointing dozens of judicial appointments to Nebraska 
courts. I appointed four of the current Nebraska Supreme Court justices 
and many more to lower courts.
  When I considered a prospective nominee, I was often reminded of our 
State's motto: ``Equality Before the law.'' That motto reflects a 
commonsense American principle that all people should receive equal 
treatment and equal opportunity, regardless of one's race or 
background. The women and men who serve in our courts should reflect 
this motto.
  When I considered nominees, I looked at a few things. I looked at 
whether they were leaders with high integrity and character. I looked 
at their experience, and I looked at how they understood their role as 
a judge. Did they think the job of a judge was to make the law or to 
interpret the law?
  I looked at if they had a respect for the law and whether they had 
the temperament to bring a thoughtful and fairminded approach to each 
case they would have at hand. I looked at whether they were respected 
by their peers. And I am proud of the appointments that I made.
  Nancy Abudu is not someone I would have considered for a judgeship. 
Ms. Abudu is the kind of soft-on-crime, anti-police, activist we 
actually must keep off of the bench. And I want to take a moment to go 
over her record.
  Ms. Abudu has argued publicly and repeatedly that American voting 
laws and the criminal justice system are racist and discriminatory. She 
has specifically maligned the three States that comprise the Eleventh 
Circuit that she is being considered for. In Alabama, she said that Jim 
Crow continues to cast a long shadow on the State's elections.
  She said that Florida is engaged in a ``war to strip poor and low-
income people of all political power.'' And she accused Georgia State 
legislators of ``punishing voters and undermining democracy'' and said 
that the State is a ``bad actor'' and ``simply cannot be trusted to 
protect the rights of voters.''
  At a time when Americans require certainty and security of our 
elections, Ms. Abudu has consistently argued dangerous and misleading 
positions, trying to undermine the public's trust of our elections and 
our voting rights. She has argued that prohibiting felons from voting 
is ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' She argued that 
requiring voters to present identification is voter suppression.
  My colleague, Ranking Member Grassley, described Abudu as one of the 
``most activist judicial nominees we've ever seen.'' During her 
confirmation hearing, the Judiciary Committee heard Abudu double down 
in defense of her work in 2018 to challenge a Miami ordinance that 
banned sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school.
  Senator Grassley questioned Abudu about a 2016 article where she 
advocated for laws that ``would allow noncitizens to vote in local 
elections'' and suggested that opponents of such legislation are 
``trying to incite hysteria that undocumented immigrants are also 
taking over the ballot box in addition to our country.''
  When asked which election she thought noncitizens should be permitted 
to vote in, Abudu declined to substantively respond, saying:

       In the article, I noted that some cities allow noncitizens 
     to vote in local elections.

  Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Abudu 
about numerous partisan and inflammatory statements she has also made, 
including:

       Systemic racism [is] embedded in the criminal justice 
     system and other parts of our society.

  That the ``problem'' with southern States when it comes to voting 
laws ``is they're not always doing the right thing and the resentment 
they feel is that historically, the Federal Government has not allowed 
them to get away with it.''

       Governor DeSantis is digging his heels in to ensure poor 
     people in his State are blocked from voting.

  With respect to the privatization of schools, she said:

       [W]e are not in an environment or a culture where we want 
     to rely on our State legislators to do the right thing by our 
     children, especially if they are Black or Brown.

  Nancy Abudu's work at the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, since 
2019 and currently as the Strategic Litigation Director are also 
extremely concerning positions. For those unfamiliar, the Southern 
Poverty Law Center is a far-left activist organization that only 
targets conservatives whom they disagree with politically. The SPLC is 
well-known for, unapologetically and often without any justification, 
labeling conservative and religious organizations and individuals as 
``hate groups'' or ``extremists.''
  As a Federal judge recently found that the SPLC hate list does not 
``depend upon objective data or evidence'' and its application of the 
``hate group'' designation is ``entirely subjective.''
  Another Federal judge ruled that SPLC's ``representation or 
description'' of a nonprofit organization as a hate group ``is not one 
`of fact.'''
  SPLC's Hate Map, as they call it, is ``outright fraud'' and ``a 
willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks 
to the SPLC.''
  Their misinformation has real-world implications ranging from 
careless to incendiary and deadly. Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Family 
Research Council's headquarters with a 9-millimeter pistol, multiple 
ammunition clips, and a box of extra rounds, and the intent to ``kill 
as many people as possible.'' Fortunately, Corkins was stopped by the 
building manager from carrying out this mass shooting.
  Under FBI interrogation, Corkins said he chose to carry out the 
attack on FRC after it was labeled a ``hate group'' on the Southern 
Poverty Law Center's website.
  In 2018, the SPLC paid $3.375 million in damages after brandishing 
British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist.
  Similarly, the SPLC was compelled to issue an official apology for 
placing Dr. Ben Carson under their extremist watchlist back in 2014.
  In 2021, in Nebraska, we saw the Southern Poverty Law Center's 
reckless and misguided definition of ``hate groups'' used against 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln students. A Christian student 
organization called Ratio Christi filed a lawsuit alleging the 
University discriminated against the organization's conservative and 
Christian views when it denied funds for a speaker.
  I spoke out at the time urging the University to support speakers 
from a wide variety of viewpoints on campus, including Christian 
speakers. The group of students had secured legal defense from the 
Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious freedom organization. The 
Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of ADF as a hate group was 
then used against the students in media reports across the State.
  Fortunately, justice prevailed; and in a victory for free speech at 
public universities, a Federal court entered a partial judgment against 
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln officials who discriminated against 
Christian student organizations. The University revised its funding 
policies to provide

[[Page S1733]]

transparency and accountability in the process.
  In 2023, an FBI whistleblower revealed the Bureau issued an internal 
memo--now rescinded--on ``radical-traditionalist Christian ideology,'' 
citing the SPLC. The memo characterized radical traditionalist 
Catholics primarily by their rejection of church developments since the 
Second Vatican Council--Vatican II--and opposition to homosexuality. 
The memo suggests the FBI should monitor these Catholics through ``the 
development of sources with access,'' including in places of worship. 
It presents a list of hate groups published by the SPLC as a place to 
start with this work.
  The SPLC's hate label destroys civil discourse and breeds contempt 
for those with different views.
  Americans want judges that understand their role to interpret our 
laws, not make them. Americans want judges who want to give every 
litigant a fair shake. Americans want judges that believe in our 
Founding documents.
  Ms. Abudu has failed to demonstrate she understands the critical role 
that a judge should play in our legal system. Her record proves that 
she is far outside the mainstream. Far-left activists do not belong on 
the Federal bench. I call on my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
radical nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the members of this Senate have a 
chance to make history. We will vote to confirm Nancy Abudu to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  A graduate of Columbia University and Tulane Law School, Ms. Abudu 
has dedicated her career to defending the civil rights of all 
Americans. She has experience litigating and overseeing complex civil 
matters. She also has significant appellate experience, filing a number 
of briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and arguing five cases before 
Federal courts of appeals.
  Throughout her career, Ms. Abudu has defended voting rights, 
protected religious freedom, and advanced criminal justice reform. Her 
perspective and experience will be a valuable addition to the Eleventh 
Circuit, which currently has no former civil rights lawyers on the 
bench. And when confirmed, Ms. Abudu will also be the first Black woman 
ever to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. She was rated ``well qualified'' 
by the American Bar Association and has the strong support of her home 
state Senators: Mr. Warnock and Mr. Ossoff.
  As a lifelong champion of equal justice under law, Ms. Abudu will 
make an exceptional appellate judge. I am honored to support her 
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Nancy Abudu to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Abudu may well be the most radical judicial 
nominee nominated to date by President Biden.
  I have had concerns with Ms. Abudu's radical views and her apparent 
lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination. 
During her confirmation hearing, I asked her about allegations of 
potential judge shopping raised by Judge Burke of the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a series of cases brought 
by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of troubling attorney 
conduct.
  In this series of cases, the three Federal district courts in Alabama 
took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns 
raised by Judge Burke that Ms. Abudu's litigation team and their 
cocouncil brazenly abused the judicial process.
  Ms. Abudu is, to be clear, the Director of Strategic Litigation for 
the Southern Poverty Law Center. And strategic litigation is what they 
do. That is what they are about. She is the director of this division.
  When I asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this 
series of cases, she stated:

       As Director of Strategic Litigation, my responsibility is 
     to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but 
     it is the subject matter experts in the litigation team that 
     handle the day-to-day, including the filing of complaints, 
     the briefing, and any oral arguments.

  In response to my questioning, she refused to be forthright. She 
didn't deny her oversight of these cases. She simply refused to admit 
that she was responsible for the strategic decisions the three Alabama 
Federal district courts found so troubling.
  Her lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections 
built into our legal system disqualify her for a position on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  As I asked her about these--about these cases--pointing out only that 
the day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys--
which was obvious--she was openly, directly avoiding a direct line of 
inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination, to 
her confirmation process.
  But, unfortunately, my concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination do not 
end--and they didn't begin--with this troubling series of cases that I 
just described. You see, the attorneys general in every single State of 
the Eleventh Circuit--who are joined, by the way, by the attorneys 
general in a number of other States--but every single attorney general 
serving within the Eleventh Circuit is part of this letter articulating 
concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming Ms. 
Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit.
  These attorneys general, along with attorneys general from 15 
additional States, including my home State of Utah, recently sent a 
letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous 
concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination.
  The attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming 
before Ms. Abudu in Federal cases are justifiably worried about her 
potential confirmation today. These are people who really need to be 
able to have the confidence that when appearing before Judge Abudu, she 
will not only respect the law, but that she will handle their cases 
without any preconceived biases--biases that could lead her off course 
as she administers justice in her courtroom. If anyone has preconceived 
notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such 
that litigants could come to the conclusion that they won't get a fair 
shake in front of that judge--not to mention the preconceived 
prejudices against the good people living in the Eleventh Circuit--Ms. 
Abudu has certainly demonstrated that she does.
  Ms. Abudu is a longtime and current member and past leader of an 
entity called the National Lawyers Guild. This group identifies itself 
as consisting of a radical movement of legal activists--their words, 
not mine. After violent protests against Atlanta police officers, the 
National Lawyers Guild declared that ``policing is the true threat to 
our collective safety.''
  Imagine that. It is not crime, it is not other problems that police 
deal with; it is the police themselves policing--the act of policing.
  They didn't say specific police officers who may, unlike most 
officers, not be doing their jobs right. They said policing--policing 
itself--is the true threat to our collective safety.
  Imagine that.
  I agree with these attorneys general that Ms. Abudu's longstanding 
and ongoing association with this radical anti-police group is, alone, 
grounds for refusing, rejecting her nomination.
  I find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to 
having to come before Ms. Abudu find her track record dishonest and 
divisive. Let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns:

       We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness 
     to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well 
     the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she 
     would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role. 
     She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era 
     racists. She has aligned herself with self-proclaimed 
     ``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as 
     ``the true threat to our collective safety.''

  And the quote continues:

       And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is 
     ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These 
     spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that 
     she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity 
     required of a Federal judge.

  Now, to be clear, Ms. Abudu chose to associate herself with the 
Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself well known for leveling 
unfounded

[[Page S1734]]

charges of ``hate'' against any person or any group with which that 
organization happens to disagree.
  She became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its 
deplorable tactics, which are not intended to foster debate and 
understanding but rather to silence opposition.
  They are well known for publishing things. Their hate list has 
brought about hate. It led to a shooting in Washington, DC, of an 
entity here. Someone got shot after believing that the Southern Poverty 
Law Center had indicated that that was the appropriate action.
  She has made offensive and baseless assertions against the people in 
the Eleventh Circuit. Now I want to quote some more from the Attorneys 
General letter:

       Since becoming a leader [of the Southern Poverty Law 
     Center], Ms. Abudu has engaged in [the] deplorable tactics 
     [beloved by that organization] by disparaging those in her 
     way, including each of the three States within the 
     jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For 
     example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress 
     about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial 
     discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's 
     Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that 
     went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many 
     misrepresentations.

  The quote continues:

       Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms. 
     Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof 
     that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to 
     Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than 
     they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is 
     to--

  Now, these are her words--

       ``establish white supremacy in this State.''

  The letter continues:

       While some might see room for good faith debate, for 
     example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification 
     law, (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit)--

  The Court on which she has been nominated to serve--

       Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding 
     new ways to keep . . . Alabamians from making their voices 
     heard,'' all . . . part of a desperate attempt ``to 
     perpetuate majority white control.''

  Her words, not mine.
  The letter concludes:

       These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and 
     they are disqualifying for an aspiring Federal judge.

  To quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter 
says:

       Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of [the] facts, she 
     prefers to use her powerful position at [the Southern Poverty 
     Law Center] to sow division and erode trust among Americans--
     declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well [in the 
     South].'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any 
     fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the 
     South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple 
     professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable 
     bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows 
     unfitness for judicial office.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from these 
Attorneys General be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Alabama,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                   March 22, 2023.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell: 
     On behalf of the State of Alabama and other concerned States, 
     we write to warn you of the dishonest and divisive track 
     record of Nancy Abudu, who President Biden has nominated to 
     be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit 
     Court of Appeals. We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and 
     her willingness to demonize those with whom she disagrees, 
     and we know well the importance of the seat on the Eleventh 
     Circuit that she would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself 
     unfit for that role. She has compared her fellow Americans to 
     Jim-Crow-era racists. She has aligned herself with self-
     proclaimed ``radical movement legal activists'' who view 
     ``policing'' as ``the true threat to our collective safety.'' 
     And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is 
     ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These 
     spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that 
     she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity 
     required of a federal judge. Her nomination should be 
     rejected.
       As you know, Ms. Abudu has been the Director of Strategic 
     Litigation for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center 
     since 2019. The SPLC is infamous for leveling unfounded 
     charges of ``hate'' against political opponents.
       Since becoming a leader in that organization, Ms. Abudu has 
     engaged in those same deplorable tactics by disparaging those 
     in her way, including each of the three States within the 
     jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For 
     example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress 
     about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial 
     discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's 
     Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that 
     went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many 
     misrepresentations. Each misrepresentation served the 
     overarching theme of Ms. Abudu's report--that any 
     disagreement over policy is proof that her political 
     opponents are evil. Indeed, according to Ms. Abudu, things in 
     Alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965. 
     As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is to ``establish 
     white supremacy in this State.'' While some might see room 
     for good faith debate, for example, about the merits of 
     Alabama's voter identification law (which was upheld by the 
     Eleventh Circuit), Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless 
     commitment to finding new ways to keep Black Alabamians from 
     making their voices heard,'' all as part of a desperate 
     attempt ``to perpetuate majority white control.''
       These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and 
     they are disqualifying for an aspiring federal judge. For 
     decades, black and white voter registration and turnout in 
     Alabama has been at or near parity. In 2018, Alabama had the 
     second highest black voter registration rate in the entire 
     country.'' Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of these facts, 
     she prefers to use her powerful position at SPLC to sow 
     division and erode trust among Americans--declaring that 
     ``Jim Crow is still alive and well.'' But as the Supreme 
     Court has recognized (and as any fair-minded person 
     knows): ``Things have changed in the South.'' Ms. Abudu's 
     contrary contention doesn't show simple professional 
     disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable bias. It more 
     likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows unfitness 
     for judicial office.
       Ms. Abudu has a similar track record of misstatements when 
     it comes to Florida. She baselessly accused Governor DeSantis 
     of ``digging in his heels to ensure poor people in his state 
     are blocked from voting'' and suggested that Florida is 
     engaged in a ``war to strip poor and low-income people of all 
     political power.''
       She has also demonstrated marked hostility to the State of 
     Georgia and especially its law enforcement officers. Without 
     evidence, she has asserted that Georgia has a ``culture of 
     law enforcement that still targets Black and Brown people.'' 
     She has derided the entire State, claiming that ``Georgia 
     continues to be a bad actor,'' and that the state legislature 
     ``is committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.'' 
     How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh 
     Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, 
     and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already 
     believes that the State is a ``bad actor'' with a ``culture 
     of law enforcement'' that ``targets Black and Brown people''?
       It's also important to recognize that Ms. Abudu attempted 
     to leverage misrepresentations and invective to affect this 
     Chamber's vote on legislation. She derided the supposed 
     ``anti-voter legislatures . . . in the Deep South'' as 
     justification for a federal overhaul of State elections. She 
     even insisted on ``abolishing the filibuster'' to accomplish 
     her goal, referring to it as ``a legislative tool popular 
     with pro-Jim Crow senators of the past.'' Fortunately, the 
     Senate saw through this divisive narrative. But if the Senate 
     confirms Ms. Abudu to a seat on the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, she will be empowered to press her radical agenda 
     from a position of power checked only by the occasional 
     review of the United States Supreme Court. This Chamber must 
     not reward her behavior with a lifetime appointment to a seat 
     where she would decide appeals in important cases involving 
     the very States she says are irredeemably trapped in 1965.
       The SPLC's unethical conduct goes beyond Ms. Abudu's 
     misrepresentations to this body. Several SPLC attorneys are 
     currently being investigated by a three-judge federal 
     district court for attempts to circumvent court rules by 
     filing and then re-filing litigation against the State of 
     Alabama. Ms. Abudu protests that she ``was not involved'' in 
     the conduct under investigation but that's hard to square 
     with her job directing the SPLC's strategic litigation, 
     including her self-described role of ``the review and 
     approval of litigation requests.'' Even if it's true that 
     Ms. Abudu wasn't involved in the decision to try to 
     circumvent federal court rules, this conduct occurred on 
     her watch, which raises further questions about her 
     judgment.
       More recently, another SPLC attorney--presumably someone 
     under Ms. Abudu's supervision in her role as Director of 
     Strategic Litigation--was arrested and charged with domestic 
     terrorism in relation to violent ``protests'' related to 
     police facilities in Atlanta. The arrested attorney worked in 
     the same office that Ms. Abudu lists as her work address. In 
     response to the arrest, the SPLC tacitly approved its 
     employee's alleged terrorism, choosing instead to put out a 
     joint statement with the radical National Lawyers Guild 
     criticizing the supposed ``heavy-handed law enforcement 
     intervention against protesters.'' It's not clear whether Ms. 
     Abudu was involved with that attorney or the SPLC's response 
     to his arrest, but the SPLC's response shows the culture of 
     its office and its attitude toward the rule of law and law 
     enforcement.

[[Page S1735]]

       Ms. Abudu's status as a current member and past leader of 
     the National Lawyers Guild is similarly troubling. The NLG is 
     a self-described group of ``radical movement legal 
     activists.'' And in response to violent protests against the 
     Atlanta police facilities mentioned above, NLG declared that 
     ``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.'' Ms. 
     Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this 
     radical, anti-police group is yet another ground for 
     rejecting her nomination.
       It would be hard to overstate the importance of federal 
     circuit courts of appeals. Nearly every federal appeal ends 
     at the circuit court. Attorneys in our offices regularly 
     practice before these courts, and we have great respect for 
     these judges who dedicate their lives to the rule of law and 
     to ensuring that all litigants before them are fairly heard.
       Ms. Abudu's dishonest and divisive record shows that she 
     would not be such a judge. She is an activist. She has 
     repeatedly used misrepresentations and hateful rhetoric to 
     advance her political goals. And she has thus shown herself 
     unfit for this lifetime appointment. Because our judiciary 
     needs jurists who will uphold the rule of law, not ``radical 
     movement legal activists'' in robes, the Senate should reject 
     Ms. Abudu's nomination.
           Sincerely,
       Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Tim Griffin, 
     Arkansas Attorney General; Chris Carr, Georgia Attorney 
     General; Todd Rokita, Indiana Attorney General; Daniel 
     Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General; Lynn Fitch, Mississippi 
     Attorney General; Ashley Moody, Florida Attorney General; 
     Raul Labrador, Idaho Attorney General; Brenna Bird, Attorney 
     General of Iowa; Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General; 
     Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General; Mike Hilgers, 
     Nebraska Attorney General; Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney 
     General; Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General; Ken Paxton, 
     Attorney General of Texas; Alan Wilson, South Carolina 
     Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General; 
     Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General.

  Mr. LEE. She has shown marked hostility toward Alabamians, 
Floridians, and Georgians. She has accused them of suppressing 
minorities and poor people from voting. She has accused their police 
officers of targeting minorities, and all throughout her accusations is 
the threat of racism. It animates her every action, her every assault, 
her every view.
  She accuses Georgia of being ``committed to keeping us in the past 
and that is scary.''
  As the Attorneys General appropriately ask, ``How could Ms. Abudu 
impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving 
Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement 
officers, when she already believes the State is a `bad actor' with a 
`culture of law enforcement' that `targets Black and Brown people'?''
  There again, they are quoting her words. Ms. Abudu's record of 
hostility toward the people and the laws of the Eleventh Circuit is 
nothing short of alarming. When you combine that hostility with her 
lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a 
group of self-described ``radical movement legal activists,'' I simply 
don't know how any Member of this body can still believe she will serve 
the people of the Eleventh Circuit or, even less, our judicial system 
well.
  But the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one 
agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist 
approach. I am not, and I oppose her nomination in the strongest 
possible terms.