[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 8641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     CONFIRMATION OF AMUL R. THAPAR

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I could not support Judge Amul 
Thapar's nomination to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Sixth Circuit. I was extremely concerned about Judge Thapar's 
views about how the law applies to the issue of money in politics. 
According to Judge Thapar, ``there is simply no difference between 
saying that one supports an organization by using words and saying that 
one supports an organization by donating money.'' His opinion on the 
role of money in politics in Winter v. Wolnitzek was so extreme that, 
even in this post-Citizens United era, it was unanimously overruled by 
the Sixth Circuit. Judge Thapar's willingness to dismiss ethical rules 
created to avoid partisanship and to ensure impartiality is troubling 
and prevented me from supporting his nomination.
  Ever since the Supreme Court rulings in Citizens United v. FEC and 
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536, our political 
system has been infiltrated by dark money. The untraceable and 
unlimited amount of money pouring into elections has changed our 
political system for the worse, and Americans across party lines agree. 
Eighty-four percent of Americans think that money has too much 
influence in politics, and over half of Americans think that 
politicians only promote policies in support of their donors and not 
their voters. President Trump has nominated a judge who wants to erode 
what few protections currently exist to limit money in politics and 
whose views are outside of the mainstream.
  Judge Thapar's views on money in politics may be among the reasons 
why the conservative Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation 
included Judge Thapar on the short list of possible Supreme Court 
nominees that they prepared for President Trump. I find President 
Trump's outsourcing of the judicial selection process to third-party 
organizations alarming. Traditionally, Presidential administrations 
have consulted with Senators of both parties as they selected judicial 
nominees. The Trump administration consults with partisan organizations 
instead.
  The very fact that this vacancy existed is another example of 
Republican obstructionism and the unnecessary politicization of the 
judiciary. Former-President Obama nominated Judge Lisabeth Tabor Hughes 
to fill this vacant seat in March 2016. Much like the Supreme Court 
seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans 
refused to hold a hearing or fill the seat.
  The seat should have been filled long ago, but regardless, Judge 
Thapar is not the right person to fill it now.

                          ____________________