July 25, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 126 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5093-S5094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday we confirmed two more excellent 
judges in the Senate. Despite Democratic obstruction, we continue to 
move forward on confirming nominees to the Federal bench.
  Some of our Democratic colleagues have criticized the amount of time 
the Senate spends on judges. We have spent a substantial amount of time 
on judges because we have had to.
  Back in the day, most of the judicial nominees we are considering 
would have been confirmed without the time-consuming cloture vote 
process. By this point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had 
required cloture votes on just three--three--of President Obama's 
judicial nominees. Let's compare that to today.
  As of yesterday, July 24, Democrats had required cloture votes on a 
staggering 94 judicial nominees--94--to 3 at this same point under 
President Obama.
  It is not because they are fiercely opposed to all of these nominees. 
In fact, again and again, Democrats have turned around and voted for 
the very same judges they delayed.
  Just a couple of weeks ago in the Senate, we confirmed three district 
court judges by huge bipartisan margins: 78 to 15, 80 to 14, and 85 to 
10. Clearly, these were not nominees that Democrats bitterly opposed. 
Yet Democrats insisted on the same old delaying cloture vote tactic 
they have used with so many judicial nominees.
  I, too, am frustrated that we have had to spend a lot of time on 
judges. I

[[Page S5094]]

miss the days when uncontroversial nominees regularly passed without 
cloture votes, but if my Democratic colleagues are going to insist on 
delaying the vast majority of nominations, we are going to have to keep 
spending time on judges because, let's remember, we are not doing these 
nominations for fun. This is part of our job. We are working to fill a 
substantial number of vacancies on the Federal bench.
  Despite the Senate's efforts, the vacancy rate currently stands at 
13.8 percent--higher than the rates faced by President Obama, President 
George W. Bush, and President Clinton at this point in their first 
terms.
  Vacancies on the Federal bench have consequences. Primarily, they 
result in long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody.
  It would be nice if my colleagues across the aisle would abandon 
their delaying tactics on noncontroversial nominees and speed up the 
process of filling these vacancies, but, regardless, Republicans will 
continue moving forward with judicial nominees.
  I am very proud of the judges we are confirming. We are putting 
excellent Federal judges on the bench who are committed to upholding 
the law. That sounds like a pretty obvious requirement for a judge--a 
commitment to upholding the law--but too often it seems like many on 
the left would prefer activist judges who act as superlegislators, 
rewriting laws they disagree with when the law doesn't reach a result 
that fits with Democrats' political opinions. Those kinds of judges--
judges who move beyond the law when the law doesn't line up with their 
political agenda--are not a good thing for anybody.
  Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your 
political opinions reaches outside the plain meaning of the statute and 
rules for your preferred outcome, but what happens when that same judge 
reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protections do you have 
if the law is no longer the highest authority? The answer is none. You 
don't have any protection because at that point the judge, not the law, 
has become the supreme authority, and you are at the mercy of his or 
her personal opinions.
  Security, justice, equality under law, these principles can only be 
maintained as long as we have judges who are committed to upholding the 
law as it is written and not as they would like it to be.
  If we have bad laws, we can and should change them, but any changes 
should be made by the people's elected representatives, as our 
Constitution dictates. They should not be made by unelected judges. 
Judges are meant to interpret the law, not make it. I am proud we have 
been putting judges on the bench who will uphold the rule of law in 
this country by interpreting the law as it is written, regardless of 
their personal opinions.
  As I said earlier, we confirmed two excellent judicial nominees this 
week. Unfortunately, one ran into some Democratic opposition during the 
confirmation process because he was Catholic. That is right. 
Apparently, the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senate will be in order. Take your conversations outside of the 
Chamber.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Apparently, the fact that he takes his faith seriously 
enough to participate in a Catholic charitable group, the Knights of 
Columbus, is enough to make him suspect as a judge.
  I had hoped we were done with Democrats' flirtation with religious 
tests for public office when they questioned the fitness of Judge Amy 
Coney Barrett because she takes her Catholic faith seriously, but 
apparently Democrats think it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that 
you can't be both a person of faith and a nominee for the U.S. 
judiciary.
  Let me just remind my colleagues what article VI of the Constitution 
has to say about that. Article VI states: ``No religious test shall 
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under 
the United States.'' I repeat: ``No religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the 
United States.''
  It is deeply troubling that we have Democrats in the U.S. Senate 
suggesting that religious faith disqualifies you from public office. If 
Democrats are using their objections to these candidates' religious 
faith as cover for the fact that Democrats don't want to confirm anyone 
who doesn't share their most extreme political opinions, that is deeply 
troubling too.
  Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of this Nation. Our Founders 
considered it so important that it is the very first freedom mentioned 
in the Bill of Rights. By freedom of religion, they didn't mean it is 
OK to pray or have religious beliefs if you do it quietly inside your 
home; they meant freedom to practice your faith in the public square, 
even if that means having different political opinions from Democrats.
  I hope Judge Buescher is the last nominee who will have his fitness 
for public office questioned simply because he chooses to live out his 
faith. I was glad to vote to confirm him yesterday, and I look forward 
to confirming more qualified judicial nominees in the near future.
  I hope the Democrats will drop their delaying tactics and join us as 
we work to fill these important vacancies on the Federal bench.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________