[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Page S2482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Conference

  Mr. President, now on judge shopping, last week, I was very pleased 
that the Judicial Conference announced commonsense policy reforms 
limiting the practice of judge shopping, by having civil cases with 
statewide or nationwide implications assigned to judges at random.
  Unfortunately not everyone was pleased--namely, those on the right 
who have made judge shopping their specialty. So today, I am sending a 
followup letter to the Judicial Conference encouraging them to defend 
their policy as it is implemented across the country.
  I am also writing the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, 
where judge shopping has been rampant, urging him to apply the reforms 
of the Judicial Conference as quickly as possible. When I wrote to the 
chief judge roughly a year ago about judge shopping, he said fixing the 
problem through random assignments presented logistical challenges.

  So, in my letter today, I will ask the judge to please explain: How 
many civil cases with statewide or national injunctions does his 
jurisdiction handle? How does the district create rules for case 
assignment? How will they implement the Judicial Conference's rules to 
ensure public trust? The answers to these questions would greatly 
inform us in the Senate as we think about ways to strengthen our 
judiciary.
  I must say, over the past week, I have really been troubled to hear 
some of my colleagues on the other side attack the Judicial Conference 
simply for doing its job, which Congress authorized it to do over a 
century ago. My Republican colleagues forget or ignore that even their 
side has acknowledged in the past that not only is judge shopping a 
problem but that the Judicial Conference itself has a role to play to 
address it. But now some Republicans are howling at the Moon over this 
announcement. My friend the Republican leader, for one, led his 
colleagues in writing a number of chief judges, urging them to 
basically ignore the Judicial Conference.
  Let me say this: Judge shopping as it is practiced here in Texas 
distorts the entire judicial system. There is only one judge sitting in 
one district. Hard-right plaintiffs from across the country know they 
can bring their cases and get them before a judge who has views that 
are way over. It jaundices the fairness of the legal system. When you 
know there is one judge sitting and he or she has a particular 
philosophy and you have to get that judge when you file a case, again, 
it attracts hard-right plaintiffs who are so unrepresentative of 
America, like bees to honey, and they all flock to those one or two or 
three judicial districts where there is one judge or a minimal number 
of judges sitting.
  My Republican colleagues actually refuse to explain why judge 
shopping is remotely defensible--because it so distorts the system and 
casts a cloud of unfairness over our whole judicial system, like the 
system is sort of rigged because you know you can get this judge, and 
you know what the outcome will be. The mifepristone case is the most 
glaring, immediate example.
  Of course, my Republican colleagues don't explain why, by the way, 
because, of course, they can't say the quiet part out loud: Judge 
shopping is a key part of the hard-right's toolkit, something they have 
built up over the years. Just take the example of the Amarillo Division 
of the Northern District of Texas, where a single district judge has 
become the darling of extremist litigants for his outlandishly fringe 
opinions on everything from birth control to affordable healthcare to 
LGBTQ discrimination. Republicans might not want to say it openly, at 
least those who opposed here, but nobody is being fooled. Conservatives 
go to this one judge because they know he is on their side 
ideologically--what an abuse of the functioning of our Federal courts.
  So, yes, the Judicial Conference was right to issue reforms to limit 
judge shopping. Neither party--no philosophy--should be able to cherry-
pick judges of their choice. Random assignment is the way it works for 
nearly every court in the country.
  I am always ready to work with Senators from either party to consider 
all commonsense ways to improve how our courts are administered. I 
wholeheartedly agree that Congress should take its role of judicial 
oversight seriously, particularly at a time when activist judges 
committed to special interests are eroding the rule of law. Congress 
must provide a check on the judiciary, and that is what the Founding 
Fathers intended in our legislation as decades, even centuries, also 
point out.
  In this instance, it is troubling Republicans can't seem to admit the 
obvious: Abuses like the ones we see coming out of the Northern 
District of Texas should come to an end.