March 11, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 43 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1755-S1756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Paul B. Matey

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today having just voted no on the 
motion invoking cloture on Paul Matey's nomination to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  Now, I know speeches on procedure rarely make headlines, but I cannot 
be silent as the majority shreds long-held norms for political gain. 
Once again, the Republican majority has ignored the blue-slip process 
that allows Senators to either green light or prevent hearings on 
judicial nominees from their home States.
  Some Americans may wonder, why does this matter? Well, the blue-slip 
process gives the people a voice through their elected representatives 
on who ultimately renders justice in their State. Neither Senator 
Booker nor I have returned blue slips for Mr. Matey. In fact, Mr. 
Matey's confirmation hearing took place before Senator Booker--our 
State's voice on the Judiciary Committee--was even extended the common 
courtesy of meeting with Mr. Matey. It wasn't for lack of trying. 
Senator Booker requested time with Mr. Matey, but when he didn't 
receive it, the Judiciary Committee proceeded anyway.
  To add insult to injury, committee Republicans falsely claimed the 
White House had meaningfully consulted with myself and Senator Booker, 
the home State Senators, and that is simply not the case. There never 
was meaningful consultation between the White House and Senator Booker 
or me to identify a highly qualified consensus nominee--rather, we were 
informed about the decision to nominate Mr. Matey--nor did I receive 
any offer to meet with Mr. Matey, not before his nomination, not after 
his nomination, not even to date as we are voting on the Senate floor.
  Look, I have come to expect this behavior from the Trump White House, 
but in the Senate, Democrats always--always--respected the blue-slip 
process during our time in the majority. That is undeniable.
  Before President Trump took office, only five judges in the past 
century were confirmed with only one blue slip, much less no blue 
slips. Never has a Democratic-led Senate ever held a hearing or 
confirmed a judicial nominee without a blue slip from a Republican 
Senator. It is shameful.
  As long as the President keeps packing our courts with corporate-
friendly Federalist Society judges, the Republican majority is willing 
to destroy a process that Senator Orrin Hatch--former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee--once called ``the last remaining check on the 
President's judicial appointment power.''
  President Trump's nominees are now being confirmed at record speed, 
despite objections from home State Senators.
  My Republican friends claim to be the party of conservatism. Yet 
there is nothing conservative about sweeping aside century-old norms 
for political gain. They have put their party before country and show 
no fidelity to the institutions that have made this country great.
  Aside from the degradation of Senate norms surrounding Mr. Matey's 
nomination, I have real concerns with his record. The people of New 
Jersey have no appetite for a judge who served in Gov. Chris Christie's 
administration and was once even called a protege of our esteemed 
former Governor.
  As deputy chief counsel for Governor Christie, Mr. Matey said he 
tried to ensure that that administration followed ``the highest 
standards of propriety, ethics, and legality.''
  Somehow I question that. Consider what the people of New Jersey had 
to go through during Governor Christie's tenure: the Bridgegate 
scandal, the defunding of a Rutgers institute that was run by a Federal 
nominee, the spiteful removal of a security detail from former Governor 
Codey, and the rampant mismanagement of Superstorm Sandy relief 
contracts, which forced too many families to live in trailers for years 
on end. That is quite a list--quite a list.
  I struggle to believe that Mr. Matey, the second most senior attorney 
in the Christie administration, had no knowledge of this behavior.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Matey could not detail any of 
the steps he took to ensure ethics rules were followed and declined to 
offer any description of his supposed ``rigorous system'' of monitoring 
and oversight at his confirmation hearing.
  Apparently, Mr. Matey's system wasn't so rigorous, considering that 
Bridgegate--for those of my colleagues who may not know, although I 
think everybody knows, is when the operatives of the Christie 
administration closed access to the George Washington Bridge from the 
New Jersey side, which caused massive--massive--tieups on the New 
Jersey side, all to politically punish the mayor of the community where 
the George Washington Bridge leads from on the New Jersey side.
  Bridgegate amounted to one of the most egregious abuses of political 
power against everyday New Jersey families in our history. He was 
supposedly the guy who was making sure there was a rigorous system of 
monitoring and oversight. Well, I don't know how that happened.

  I also have concerns about Mr. Matey's career after working for 
Governor Christie.
  During his time as the senior vice president of University Hospital 
in Newark, a nationwide investigation gave the hospital an F--F, 
failure--for patient safety standards. Mr. Matey has acknowledged that 
while these issues were medical in nature, he did have some personal 
responsibility to mitigate risks to patients.
  Likewise, some of Mr. Matey's writings suggest a hostility toward 
plaintiff attorneys who help everyday Americans take on powerful 
corporate interests in class action lawsuits.
  In 2005, he authored an article with now-Supreme Court Justice Neil 
Gorsuch that lamented how the Supreme Court's ruling in Dura 
Pharmaceuticals was a missed opportunity to ``curb frivolous fraud 
claims'' and dismissed plaintiff attorneys as seeking ``free rides to 
fast riches.'' In other words, Paul Matey saw a very narrow question in 
the Dura Pharmaceuticals case as an opening for the Court to make a 
sweeping ruling on all securities class actions. Now, that is what you 
call an activist judge.
  Matey then goes on to decry the ``enormous toll on the economy'' 
securities fraud litigation takes on corporations but with little 
concern for the actual victims of security fraud.
  Most troubling to me is how Mr. Matey has done zero--I repeat, zero--
pro bono work throughout his legal career. His Senate Judiciary 
questionnaire lacks any record of pro bono representation. When he was 
asked about it, Mr. Matey claimed his work on behalf of the State of 
New Jersey satisfied the requirement. I couldn't disagree more. That is 
not pro bono work. You were paid for it.
  Cannon 2 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional 
Responsibility explicitly emphasizes the importance of pro bono work. 
For many corporate lawyers, representing the underserved is the only 
way to witness firsthand how the scales of justice in this country are 
too often tipped in favor of the wealthy and well connected. Pro bono 
work helps lawyers cultivate sound judgment and is especially important 
to those seeking to become Federal judges.
  Mr. Matey has done nothing to serve the disadvantaged, and that does 
not bode well for the fair administration of justice, nor does the 
Republican majority's disregard for procedures like blue slips bode 
well for the Senate's constitutional role to provide advice and consent 
or our responsibility to help build a judiciary that is responsive to 
the needs of the American people in the courtroom.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose confirmation 
of Paul Matey to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We are better than 
this.

[[Page S1756]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Delaware.