Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S1775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Judicial Nominations
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will continue to
fill vacancies across the Federal bench.
This afternoon, we will vote to confirm Paul Matey to be U.S. Circuit
Court Judge for the Third Circuit, and then we will move to the
nomination of Neomi Rao for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--
the seat that was vacated by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Throughout her career, Ms. Rao has served in all three branches of
government. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme
Court and Judge Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. She also worked here in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee
for then-Chairman Orrin Hatch.
She has worked as Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to
President George W. Bush and in her current position as Administrator
for the Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs--one of the
most important and least understood Federal Agencies.
In addition to her outstanding career in public service, Ms. Rao was
also an associate professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George
Mason University and is a leading scholar in the field of
administrative law.
Knowing her impressive background, it was no surprise to see that the
American Bar Association, once hailed by the minority leader as the
``gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged,'' rated her as
``well qualified.''
When considering this particular seat, it is hard to imagine anyone
better prepared. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has sometimes been
referred to as the ``second highest court in the land'' and is unique
because its caseload is disproportionately weighted toward
administrative law and litigation involving the Federal Government.
Despite her outstanding qualifications, our Democratic colleagues
have attempted to tank Ms. Rao's nomination over decades-old writings.
That sounds pretty familiar, although, as I recall, Justice Kavanaugh
was excoriated for things in his high school yearbook. At least we have
moved on to college when it comes to Ms. Rao.
During her confirmation hearing last month, critics reverted back to
that Kavanaugh playbook and began criticizing her for things she wrote
in college rather than asking her productive questions about maybe what
she has learned since that time or how her views may have changed or
how she has functioned as head of the OIRA or how her office has
reduced regulatory costs by more than $23 billion. Instead, critics
chose to focus on her decades-old writings in college.
Over the years, Ms. Rao has done what we have all done: She has grown
and learned from her experiences. She has repeatedly said that she no
longer holds the views that she wrote about back in college.
I believe we should judge a nominee not by views they expressed in
high school or college but what they have done since that time as
mature adults and professionals. So just add me to the long list of
people who believe Neomi Rao should be confirmed for the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Two dozen former Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Rao sent a
letter to the Judiciary Committee, touting her qualifications. They
said:
Many of us have worked in government, at both the federal
and state levels, some for Democrats and some for
Republicans. . . . While our professional and personal paths
may have diverged, one of things we have always shared is
admiration for Neomi. We are confident she will serve our
country well on the DC Circuit.
We have seen similar letters from her classmates at both Yale and the
University of Chicago Law School, as well as a group of more than 50 of
her former law students.
Her former students wrote:
Our views span the political spectrum; we have differing
positions on the role and work of the Federal judiciary; and
we have gone on to work in law firms, government, public
interest organizations, and judges' chambers. Yet despite her
differences, we all agree that Professor Rao would make an
outstanding addition to the bench. We have no doubt that, if
confirmed, she would be a brilliant and fair arbiter of the
cases that came before her.
I agree.
I supported Ms. Rao's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and I will once again look forward to supporting her nomination when
the full Senate votes on her nomination this week.