[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 124 (Monday, July 21, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4496-S4497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate issue, I want to say a word 
about some nominations that are pending before the Senate this week.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I pay 
closer attention than some when it comes to the nominees who are 
suggested for Federal positions on the courts. These are positions that 
are lifetime positions. You take a person and state: We trust you with 
this responsibility and authority for as long as you live--for as long 
as you live. So it isn't a question of 2 years or 4 years and replacing 
someone if they aren't up to the job. We have got to look for people 
whom we can trust for the long haul.
  The Senate will soon vote on the confirmations of Joshua Divine to 
serve as a judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri and 
Judge Cristian Stevens to serve for the Eastern District. I am 
concerned about these two nominees.
  Mr. Divine is 34 years old. He received his law degree only 9 years 
ago. In addition to a lack of experience, Mr. Divine has taken some 
extreme positions on issues that are important to people across the 
United States, such as reproductive rights and ballot access.
  Mr. Divine--if you can believe this, in this day and age, 2025--has 
argued in

[[Page S4497]]

favor of literacy tests at the ballot box. Let me say that again. He 
has argued in favor of literacy tests at the ballot box.
  He states:

       Individuals who aren't informed about issues and platforms 
     . . . have no business voting.

  The fact that we are even considering his nomination under the 
circumstances is shocking.
  Literacy tests have been tried in America. They are a racist relic 
from the Jim Crow era that we used to prevent immigrants and minorities 
from voting. It should not be controversial to say that no one who has 
argued for reviving racist Jim Crow laws belongs on the Federal bench, 
let alone for a lifetime.
  Mr. Divine also referred to himself as a ``zealot'' for the anti-
choice movement. Now, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you would 
think that someone who is that blatant and open in declaring himself a 
zealot on the issue would trouble you. This has been on full display in 
his role as Missouri solicitor general.
  Mr. Divine has challenged women's ability to access the abortion drug 
mifepristone and has undermined the decision of Missouri voters to 
codify abortion access in their State constitution.
  Previously, Mr. Divine wrote:

       Because we know a genetically unique human comes into 
     existence at fertilization, abortion should not be ethically 
     permitted.

  I know that is the position of some voters whom I represent and even 
of some members of my family. I disagree.
  Taken at face value, this statement suggests that Mr. Divine opposes 
access to in vitro fertilization, IVF. Well, I have some beautiful 
grandkids who were the product of these IVF procedures. It was the only 
way that they could come to this Earth, and thank God they did. To 
think that this man who is seeking this lifetime appointment to the 
bench would not even answer the question on IVF is troubling.
  Joshua Divine is too inexperienced to serve as a district court 
judge, and his radical views, I think, disqualify him.
  I am also troubled by the nomination of Cristian Stevens. Following 
his confirmation hearing, I asked Judge Stevens whether he denounced 
the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol.
  For those who don't remember, that was a time when a mob forced 
Congress to shut down the procedure of counting the electoral votes in 
the 2020 election. As a result of that decision, they stormed the 
Capitol; came into this Chamber; videotaped themselves vaping while 
sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer, going through the desks 
of Senators, tearing up the place, and, unfortunately, attacking a lot 
of innocent people.
  I asked Cristian Stevens about the January 6 insurrection. He said 
the use of the word ``insurrection'' was a legal conclusion--a legal 
conclusion--and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on it 
because it was a highly contested political issue.
  Here is the cold, hard truth: The violent mob that ransacked the 
Capitol Complex in an attempted insurrection to stop the counting of 
the votes of that election led to the deaths of 5 police officers and 
injuries to more than 140 others. It triggered the largest prosecution 
in the history of the Department of Justice. Over 1,000 individuals 
were convicted and prosecuted for their activity that day.
  The fact that this nominee couldn't acknowledge what happened that 
day and denounce the violence perpetrated against law enforcement is 
troubling. If you can't stand up for the men and women who keep us safe 
at this very moment in this building--who risk their lives for the 
Members, their staffs, and the visitors in the Capitol--you have no 
place in a lifetime position as a Federal judge.
  I am also concerned about a law review article Judge Cristian Stevens 
wrote in defending the infamous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between 
crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
  I voted for it in the House of Representatives. Why? The idea was 
that crack cocaine was such a deadly and threatening narcotic that we 
were going to pass a sentencing provision that was really tough. Well, 
this was tough. It said, if you were convicted of possessing powder 
cocaine or an exact same amount of cocaine in crack form--in crystal 
form--you would be receiving a sentence for the crack cocaine that 
would be 100 times that of powder cocaine.
  What happened as a result of it?
  The result, I am sorry to say, didn't work. You would think, with 
that kind of sentencing hanging over you, people would think twice. It 
didn't work. As a result, more people were using crack cocaine after we 
passed the law, and the price on the street was going down instead of 
up. We filled the Federal prisons primarily with African Americans who 
had lengthy sentences--some of them over 20 years--for the simple sale 
of crack cocaine.
  We decided that was wrong. I led the effort here on the Senate side. 
I am proud that I did. I was joined by Chuck Grassley, a Republican of 
Iowa, and Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah. We passed a bill called the 
FIRST STEP Act, and it was sent to President Trump, who signed it into 
law in his first term.
  Now comes Cristian Stevens, Judge Stevens, wanting a seat on the 
Federal bench. I am concerned about a law review article he wrote that 
defended the 100-to-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine.
  He wrote:

       There may be evidence to suggest that these kinds of 
     sentencing provisions are beneficial to black communities 
     hardest hit by the crack epidemic.

  I am disappointed that Judge Stevens continues to stand by an article 
that defends crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity--it was wrong 
then; it is wrong now--and he is certainly doing no one a favor by 
supporting that kind of penalty.
  My Republican colleagues will likely vote for both of these nominees 
I have described--Mr. Divine and Judge Stevens on the Federal bench--
without hesitation, but the American people deserve judges who will 
protect their basic fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and 
integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law. 
Neither of these nominees has proven that they embody these attributes.
  I will vote against both of these nominees. I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________