June 18, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 102 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in Senate sectionPrev31 of 55Next
Nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (Executive Calendar); Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 102
(Senate - June 18, 2019)
Text available as:
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.
[Pages S3646-S3647] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, sometime tomorrow, this body will consider a number of nominations for final confirmation, among them the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. A Federal district judge serves a particular area of the country, but in fact, the whole country has a stake in this nomination because a judge helps to define and refine and apply the law of the United States, setting precedent that applies to the entire country. It isn't just the Northern District of Texas that has a stake in this nomination; it is the entire country. So this alarming and appalling nomination should be of particular interest to my colleagues. It is the result of a process that, very unfortunately, has been demeaned and degraded. It is a shadow of what it once was. In the scrutiny that is given and the time that is devoted, this process is failing to assure the independence of the judiciary. Now is the time when that independence must be assured because, from this time forward, these judges will be lifetime appointees and will have no accountability to this body or to any other elected official. In previous years, under other Republican administrations, there was an adequate time to debate; there were full and fair hearings; and nominees answered questions about their views on issues that were relevant to their service. That process has been severely undercut-- indeed, decimated now. What we have before us, again and again and again, are nominees who fail to meet the basic test of intellect and integrity and responsibility. I look at all of the records of nominees before us and ask them questions to determine what their basic values are--whether they think particular Supreme Court precedents were correctly decided, like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade--because it is a view into their basic commitments to constitutional principles that are deeply and ideally settled. Matthew Kacsmaryk fails that test. If there is a principle enshrined in our Constitution that matters more than any other, it is the idea that everyone is equal before the law. No one is above the law. No one is less entitled to rights than anyone else. Everyone is equal regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and regardless of who you are, how much you own, or where you were born. Mr. Kacsmaryk seems to lack respect for this basic principle. In fact, his career is defined by active opposition to the treatment of minority groups. In 2016, he submitted an amicus brief that supported a Virginia school board's policy that a student must use the restroom that corresponds to the student's biological gender. Also, in 2016, he sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and argued that the Department of Health and Human Services should not require hospitals to conduct sex reassignment surgeries for transgender individuals. He wrote in that letter that transgender people suffer from a ``psychological condition, in need of care'' and are ``not in a category of person in need of special legal protection.'' He went so far as to say the experiences of transgender people are ``irrational'' and ``delusional.'' In light of these and other statements, I have received numerous letters from the parents of transgender people. They have written in fear and alarm that someone with such offensive, extreme, medically inaccurate views could be promoted to a lifetime position within the Federal judiciary--a position that will give him power over the lives of exactly these individuals who seek equality under the law. Seventeen of our House colleagues--some of them parents and grandparents of transgender people--have written to us and expressed their concern that someone with such hostile views toward LGBTQ Americans could possibly be confirmed as a judge. Our colleagues in the House are concerned about the decisions we are making here because they respect these individuals. Kacsmaryk has also repeatedly made public his opposition to marriage equality and the equal treatment of same-sex couples. He submitted an amicus brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, urging the Supreme Court to not extend the right of [[Page S3647]] marriage to same-sex couples. He, thankfully, did not prevail in that view because the Court upheld the rights of same-sex couples to be married, and he continued his opposition to marriage equality by representing the owners of an Oregon bakery who refused to bake a cake for same-sex couples. He testified in favor of legislation the Texas Observer described as a ``license to discriminate'' adoption bill that would permit adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. Many in Congress, including myself, worked to pass the Equality Act, which would reflect the core of the Supreme Court's ruling by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Federal code's list of protected classes. He has referred to this effort as a weaponization of Obergefell that seeks the public affirmation of the ``erotic desires of liberated adults.'' Even as I recite these quotes, I can hardly believe that at this moment in our history, at this time of awareness among informed and tolerant people who believe in inclusiveness and equal justice under the law, that someone nominated to this position of paramount responsibility would have these views and articulate them in this way. If the Equality Act were to become law and face a challenge in Judge Kacsmaryk's court, could litigants feel comfortable or confident that they would receive a fair hearing? Is there any gay, lesbian, transgender, or nonbinary person who would feel their case would receive a nonbiased treatment in his court? I have such deep doubts, as should my colleagues, that I cannot vote for him. I will oppose his nomination, and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting no on Matthew Kacsmaryk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All in Senate sectionPrev31 of 55Next