[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1735-S1736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a few 
minutes here.
  No. 1, the judge we just confirmed, I think to the 11th Judicial 
Circuit, Ms. Abudu, is an example of the system being broken. This 
nominee, whom I voted against in committee, is way beyond what I think 
the market should be bearing. This is, in my view, a partisan's dream.
  It is OK to be a litigant in causes I don't agree with. It is OK to 
represent organizations that I differ with. I don't hold a client 
against a lawyer, but I do hold positions against the lawyer when it 
comes to cause-driven litigation.
  This nominee, at every turn, has taken the left fork in the road, to 
the point of being in the ditch. As a lawyer, she sued a Florida 
community that was trying to protect children from sexual predators by 
having requirements of notice but also being away from schools certain 
distances, and she sued the community basically claiming that was 
unfair to the sexual abuser.
  It is moments like this that should be a wake-up call for this body. 
Her record as an advocate is not just representing liberal causes, but 
the rhetoric used and the arguments made convinced me in committee that 
this is an activist on steroids.
  I have tried to work with my Democratic colleagues, voting for 
circuit and district court judges, understanding that Democrats would 
pick someone I would not choose. That is the way the system works. But, 
in this case, it was a partisan vote. Not one Republican voted for this 
nominee, and her record, I think, is one of activism and stridency that 
will, in my view, shape her time as a judge and shape the court in a 
way that is inconsistent with the rule of law as I know it.
  So to my Democratic colleagues, you have confirmed this nominee, but 
I am sure this is not the last we will hear about Ms. Abudu.
  Today, it was announced that Rachael Rollins, the U.S. Attorney for 
Massachusetts, is going to resign, I think. She is under investigation 
for unethical behavior and using her office for revenge.
  She is one of the few and may be the only U.S. attorney that I voted 
against in this Congress. There may have been one other. But it was 
pretty obvious to those of us on the committee that the warning signs 
regarding Ms. Rollins were rampant and that we were buying a problem.
  The point I am trying to make to my colleagues is, after we changed 
the

[[Page S1736]]

rules of confirmation--you don't need one vote from the other side if 
you have the majority, and there will come a day, maybe, when we find 
ourselves in that situation--I always have worried that doing away with 
the collaborative process to get a nominee to move forward--judges or 
U.S. attorneys--is going to create a problem where you are down to 
picking people who have the most vocal support from the most active, 
extreme elements in both parties. And I think this is a case: Exhibit 
A, Ms. Rollins.
  And to my colleagues, all of us are going to have to understand that 
I respect the home State Senators' ability to nominate district court 
judges. The blue slip process I will honor for district court judges, 
U.S. attorneys. But it puts pressure on us to up our game, and Ms. 
Rollins I voted against in committee, and it was obvious that our 
concerns were justified.
  Mr. Delaney, nominated for the First Judicial Circuit, performed 
poorly in the committee. He represented a private school that was sued 
for allowing sexual harassment to be unchecked and to be covered up.
  It is OK to represent unpopular causes. Everybody needs a lawyer. But 
his answers about how he engaged one of the plaintiffs--a minor at the 
time--were terrible, and it seems to me that he should have been better 
prepared. He had a lot of support from people in New Hampshire, some on 
our side of the aisle. But I guess my point is that you have to be 
prepared to answer hard questions, and Mr. Delaney was woefully 
unprepared.
  And to my colleagues on the Republican side, I think you have done a 
very good job of asking hard, relevant questions to the nominees before 
our committee, and we have had a lot of bipartisan support for judges, 
and we have had some opposition.
  As to moving forward, I hope the White House will prepare these 
nominees better--a basic understanding of the Constitution, of a 
litigant practice, basic concepts of the law, like Brady motions, and 
just how the Constitution is set up. That is not too much to ask the 
people who want to be a judge for the rest of their life.
  So, to the White House, this process needs to change. You need to up 
your game. Your goal, I think, should be to try to find people who some 
of us can vote for on the Republican side and, when they get in front 
of the committee, make a good impression. I am not saying we did it all 
right on our side when we were in charge. There are probably examples 
where we didn't. But I tried to make sure that some people who were 
nominated didn't make it because some of us on the Republican side said 
no.
  There are more than a handful of judges coming out of the committee 
that I think should not be on the bench, and I say that with the 
understanding that my inclination is to vote for judges nominated by 
the other side, assuming that that is what I would like to have happen 
when it comes our turn--that if we all vote against the other party's 
judges, then you are going to put the judiciary in a world of hurt if 
you have a President of one party and a Senate made up of the other. 
And that is sort of--we will be there one day, and given the behavior 
of the body, I don't know how we deal with that.
  But between now and then, I am hoping that there will be more serious 
deliberation by colleagues on the Democratic side to make sure that the 
people we are putting forward can answer basic questions. And 
sometimes, maybe, we ask bad questions, but I don't believe that the 
questions being asked of these nominees are unfair. And it just is 
stunning that people have been in the law as long as some of these 
nominees have and can't answer the basics.
  So this idea that you are going to come through the Judiciary 
Committee and not be asked hard, relevant questions, I hope that has 
gone by the wayside. The idea that I will support Democratic nominees 
is real up to a point. And there have been several of us on this side 
who have probably voted for more Democratic nominees than we have 
opposed, and I would try to continue to honor the process.
  I want to keep the blue slip in place. I am asking colleagues from 
red States to work with the White House to see if they can find 
consensus. When I was chairman, there was a lot of pressure on me to do 
away with the blue slip so we could nominate anybody we wanted to at 
the district court level. If you had two Democratic Senators in the 
State, the blue slip would go away; we could nominate anybody we wanted 
to.
  I think that is bad for the Senate, and I think that, over time, 
would be bad for the judiciary. I didn't change the process; I don't 
want it changed now. And I do expect us on the Republican side to 
collaborate with the White House and find consensus where you can.

  But, having said that, the last several months have sort of been a 
disaster for the committee in the sense that people are not prepared, 
and you are picking folks who really shouldn't have lifetime 
appointments, from my point of view. And we can pass them all on party 
lines and make this problem worse, or you can get a handful of 
Democrats to do what I have done in the past: not only vote yes but 
sometimes say no.
  And Mr. Delaney, I think, will probably fall by the wayside. And I 
say that with no animosity toward him. I just think that is the right 
outcome here. So if that does happen, I would want to applaud the White 
House for understanding that sometimes you can't go beyond what the 
market would bear.
  I have shown a disposition and a willingness to work with you, but 
the recent nominee we just passed is way out of the mainstream, and I 
am hoping that we can get back on track and have nominees come before 
the committee who are prepared to make it, quite frankly, easier to 
find consensus. And if that doesn't happen, we are going to have less 
consensus. And there are a handful of nominees waiting to come to the 
floor whom I would vigorously oppose because I think they are not 
qualified.
  So, with that, Mr. President, I wish you a great break and hope we 
can go home and do our business at home and abroad--wherever that takes 
us--and come back safely.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The majority leader.