[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 13485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, due to family commitments in Florida, I was 
unable to vote on the confirmation of Pamela Harris to the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Had I been present, I would have voted 
against Ms. Harris's confirmation.
  The Senate has few responsibilities more important than providing 
advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. These are 
lifetime appointments with great power, whose decisions directly impact 
the life, liberty, and property of the parties who come before them.
  Americans deserve a judiciary staffed by lawyers who are not just 
highly capable but who are also men and women of a particular 
character. We rightfully expect judges to understand their important 
but properly limited role to say what the law is, without bias, without 
agenda. As passionately as a judge may feel about a particular issue, 
when he or she puts on that black robe, all personal views must be set 
aside.
  No one can deny Ms. Harris has a first rate mind or that she has 
built an impressive career. Unfortunately, many of her statements 
during that career suggest that her mind is better suited to academia, 
or elective office, than it is to the bench. She has identified herself 
as ``profoundly liberal'' and said she views the Constitution as 
``profoundly progressive.'' These types of statements, along with 
troubling interpretations of the First Amendment among other issues, 
paint a picture of a nominee more likely to become a liberal activist 
judge than one who neutrally applies the law.
  For those reasons, I would not have supported granting Ms. Harris the 
profound power that comes with lifetime tenure on the Federal bench.

                          ____________________