[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 203 (Monday, December 11, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5891-S5892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Madam President, late last month, Democrats did something 
unprecedented in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee: They 
blocked the opposing party from speaking on judicial nominees ahead of 
rollcall votes. This was a gross violation of committee rules. It is 
not something we generally see take place in the Judiciary Committee. 
But if you look at the track records of some of these radical, far-left 
nominees, you can see why the Democratic Party does not want these 
individuals to be up for discussion.
  Let me give an example of some of these individuals who have been 
nominated for the Federal bench. Now, bear in mind that appointments to 
the Federal bench--for the district court, for the appellate court, 
and, of course, the Supreme Court--are lifetime appointments. So the 
only time the representative of the people--that the people can be 
heard pro or con on these nominees is in the committee, is in this 
Chamber, because it is a lifetime appointment.
  Judge Mustafa Kasubhai is one of these nominees. There were several 
of us on the Republican side of the aisle who wanted to speak about 
him, but we were blocked from talking about him.
  The concern that I have with him is that Judge Kasubhai has actually 
defended Marxism. In his words, in his writings, he has defended 
Marxism. He has argued against private property rights, and he has 
called our Nation ``deeply Islamophobic.'' That is what he believes, 
and that is what he has written and talked about.
  He has also made some deeply disturbing comments about sexuality, 
women, and rape. For example, he helped promote a radical, leftist view 
that all heterosexual relationships--all; not some but all--are infused 
with violence and that all sexual acts should be viewed as rape. That 
is his point of view. This appalling argument silences women who have 
actually been victims of sexual assault. Yet my colleagues across the 
aisle, the Democrats, want this man in the courtroom, making life-and-
death decisions about women. They want him making decisions about rape 
and sexual violence. They want him making decisions about property 
rights when he has spoken out against property rights.
  Worst of all, Judge Kasubhai has shown alarming leniency when it 
comes to violent criminals. As a prosecutor, he recommended a sentence 
far below guidelines for a man who drugged, raped, and brutally abused 
girls as young as 10 years old. He wanted leniency for this guy for 
those crimes of drugging, abusing, and raping girls as young as 10 
years old. How many of you know a 10-year-old girl?
  Judge Kasubhai didn't just say that because it was one count or two 
counts; this guy had done this for 15 years. That is what you call a 
serial perpetrator--15 years. Think about that. But, no, let's let him 
off. Let's give him leniency. And let's not protect private property of 
individuals. Let's not protect women who have been sexually abused. 
Astounding.
  Judge Kasubhai, on that case, with a guy who had drugged, raped, and 
brutally abused girls as young as 10 years old over a 15-year period of 
time--he wanted just over 10 years in prison for this guy. And he had 
committed these crimes for 15 years--for 15 years. He committed some of 
the most heinous crimes imaginable against children. Even though this 
guy's risk of recidivism was very high, Judge Kasubhai was willing to 
let him go with 10 years in prison.
  I am telling you, Judge Kasubhai's track record is disturbing. It is 
despicable. It is disqualifying. But the thing that probably should 
disturb each of us is that not only is this guy unqualified, so are a 
host of others. Let me tell you about some of the others who have been 
up for discussion. Some of these have moved on through the system.
  There is Nancy Abudu. Nancy Abudu endorsed political violence against 
conservatives. Go read her Twitter feed. It would be astounding. She 
was very involved with the Southern Poverty Law Center, but she 
supported violence against conservatives--against me. Would you want to 
go into a court and be in front of a judge who was an activist and 
supported violence against people? I would think not.
  There is Todd Edelman. He has been the nominee, and he is there with 
the DC district court. Todd Edelman used his authority to release a 
known criminal. This is someone with a record who then went on to 
participate in the murder of a child. So the guy has a criminal record, 
and he gets off. Then he goes on and he participates in the murder of a 
child. That was a decision from Todd Edelman.
  Then, for the California District, Marian Gaston. She opposed 
residence restrictions for convicted child sex offenders. So she 
doesn't even want them to have home confinement. Just let them go, let 
them be out there.
  DeAndrea Benjamin over at the Fourth Circuit released violent 
criminals on bond. Well, guess what happened when DeAndrea Benjamin 
released them on bond. What happens when violent criminals are let go? 
They go do it again.
  It is as if this White House does not understand who needs to be on 
the Federal bench.
  There is another one I want to talk about: Seth Aframe. He is a First 
Circuit nominee. He is out of New Hampshire. Mr. Aframe's background is 
something that I think is disqualifying for someone to be on the 
Federal bench, and let me explain why I believe this.
  Mr. Aframe gave lenient sentences to pedophiles who abused children.

[[Page S5892]]

  Let me give you a couple of examples of this abuse. One was a 
pedophile who apprehended, kidnapped a 14-year-old girl who was deaf. 
So this pedophile kidnaps a 14-year-old girl and he takes her across 
the State line into Vermont and he takes her to an abandoned motel and 
he rapes her. This is what the guy did.
  Now, the second one he let off, that he went for leniency, was a 3-
year-old child that he repeatedly raped.
  Now, showing you that this pedophile had planned all this out, he 
befriended the parents of the 3-year-old girl and then he abused that 
friendship and he raped this child. This guy was sick.
  The sentencing guidelines for each of these two pedophiles and their 
crimes--the sentencing guidelines call for life in prison. That makes 
sense. You go out, you kidnap a 14-year-old girl; you take her across 
State lines; you take her to an abandoned motel, and you rape her--and 
this is a 14-year-old who is deaf. You take a precious little 
3-year-old girl, after you have befriended her parents, knowing you are 
going to do this because you have got a record, and you rape a 3-year-
old child and then you produce videos of yourself carrying out these 
crimes--these are sick, sick, sick animals.
  But, no, Mr. Aframe, he goes for leniency. Instead of going for life 
in prison, he wanted that sentence lowered. He got his way.
  Now, here is what he said about the pedophile who had raped the 14-
year-old girl who was deaf. Of that pedophile, he said--following his 
sentencing and giving him the lower sentence--that by the time he got 
out of prison, he should be over 60 years old and maybe his desire 
would have passed. This is sick.
  These people are not qualified, and I am going to continue to talk 
about these judges who are not qualified.