March 5, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 39 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1641-S1642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Eric E. Murphy

  Mr. President, Senate Republicans have also scheduled to vote this 
week on Eric Murphy, a 39-year-old nominee to another Ohio-based seat 
on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Murphy is well known for his advocacy against 
LGBTQ rights, including the landmark Obergefell case, in which he 
argued against the right of same-sex couples to marry.
  He has a lengthy record of defending restrictive voting laws. He has 
fought for laws to make it more difficult for Ohioans to exercise their 
fundamental right to vote, including voter purge laws and laws limiting 
the ability of poll workers to assist voters.
  I know a little bit about Ohio's experience because, a few years ago, 
I chaired a subcommittee that held a hearing in Cleveland, OH, 
discussing their decision as a State to start limiting the opportunity 
of people to vote in Ohio. I called those witnesses before my 
subcommittee--election officials from both political parties, Democrats 
and Republicans--put them under oath and asked them a basic question: 
What was the incidence of voter fraud in Ohio that led you to restrict 
the access of people to vote, to require voter IDs, to limit early 
voting? What were the instances which led to that conclusion? They 
could tell me none, not one. I asked them: How many people have been 
prosecuted for voter fraud in Ohio that led to this? Well, maybe one 
several years ago--here or there--despite millions of votes being cast. 
Let's call this for what it is: voter suppression authored by 
Republicans at every level of government, even here in Congress, 
designed to fight demography.
  Republicans understand they are not doing well with growing segments 
of the U.S. population, so they are trying to restrict and limit the 
rights of some groups who may vote against them to actually show up and 
vote. They go to ridiculous lengths. It turns out that Mr. Eric 
Murphy--a nominee we will have before us this week for a circuit court 
position--agrees with their position on voter suppression.
  My Republican colleagues are largely silent about the outrageous 
incident that occurred in North Carolina last week. There was a glaring 
case of election fraud, and it involved their party, not the Democrats. 
It involved a gentleman whose conduct was so outrageous and criminal, 
they voided the congressional election. I can't remember that ever 
occurring. Why would the Republican Party ignore that occurrence in 
their own ranks and then try to restrict voting for people who, 
frankly, have a right, as all of us do, to legally vote in this 
country? Why are they appointing judges who would defend that approach? 
I think it is because of the endgame. The endgame is to restrict the 
number of people who are going to vote in the future and try to limit 
those who might vote against the Republican Party.
  I also am troubled that Mr. Murphy, the nominee before us, has 
declined to commit to recuse himself from matters involving tobacco. As 
the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids noted, Mr. Murphy personally and 
extensively represented the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds when he was 
in private practice. For example, Mr. Murphy was the attorney to R.J. 
Reynolds on a series of petitions to the Supreme Court that sought to 
limit that tobacco company's liability from a landmark lawsuit in 
Florida. Mr. Murphy's refusal to commit to recuse himself from matters 
where he clearly has expressed his opinions and has gotten paid for it 
raises serious questions about whether he can serve the cause of 
justice.
  The nominations of Eric Murphy and Chad Readler are being pushed 
through this week over the opposition of Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. 
Senator Brown testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his 
opposition to Murphy and Readler. He said: ``I cannot support nominees 
who have actively work to strip Ohioans of their . . . rights.'' I hope 
my colleagues will listen to Senator Brown. No one has fought harder 
for the rights and opportunities of Ohioans than that Senator.
  It is shameful that circuit court nominees like Murphy and Readler 
are being moved forward over the legitimate objections of their home 
State Senators. Each of us as Senators knows our State. We know when 
our State's legal community lacks confidence in a nominee's 
qualifications.
  The blue-slip procedure is the mechanism Senators use for each State 
to speak as to these nominees. This last week, when it came to a 
circuit court position in the Ninth Circuit, two Senators from the 
State of Washington

[[Page S1642]]

were denied their blue-slip rights, which have traditionally been given 
to them in the Senate. That broke the precedent last week and continues 
this week. The Republican Senate leadership will break every rule, 
every precedent--whatever is necessary--to fill these vacancies. 
Without blue slips, the White House can ignore home State interests and 
pick extreme judges like the ones before us this week.
  It pains me to watch my Republican colleagues systematically 
dismantling guardrail after guardrail in the judicial nomination 
process, all for the sake of stuffing the court with their ideologues. 
The nomination process in the Senate is breaking down before our eyes. 
Our ability to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to advise and 
consent is diminished under the Constitution we have all sworn to 
uphold and defend. That is a shameful chapter in the history of the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.