RECESS; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 28
(Senate - February 11, 2020)

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 S978-S979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:38 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. 
Capito).


                   Nomination of Andrew Lynn Brasher

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of Andrew Brasher for an Alabama seat on the 11th Circuit. 
This is over the objection of Senator Jones, who was not meaningfully 
consulted by the administration and did not return a blue slip. Senator 
Jones is as reasonable as they come; the fact that he was denied a 
voice in this process shows just how disinterested the White House is 
in being reasonable when it comes to selecting judges who will shape 
the laws in our States for decades to come.
  It is clear the President views the courts as a mere extension of his 
power, not as an independent body critical to the checks and balances 
of our constitutional system. The President knows that no matter who is 
nominated, whether or not qualified or within the mainstream, the 
Judiciary Committee of today and the Senate of today--led by a majority 
leader who describes the Senate's role as a mere conveyor belt for 
President Trump's nominees--will confirm them.
  The President likes to brag about the number of judges that have been 
confirmed under his administration. Less attention is paid to the cost. 
Of the last 20 circuit court nominees the Judiciary Committee has 
reported, 15 have been along party lines, and 13 had a negative blue 
slip. My friends across the aisle apparently no longer care about the 
constitutional principle of providing advice and consent to nominees in 
your home State, a tradition that, until recently, had been guarded by 
members of both parties.
  Blue slips aside, Andrew Brasher had served as district court judge 
for just 7 months before receiving this Presidential promotion. Every 
single Democrat opposed his nomination when it was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee and again when it was considered on the Senate 
floor. During his short tenure as a district court judge, he has 
presided over only three cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. 
In his questionnaire, when asked what significant opinions on Federal 
constitutional issues he has written, he simply wrote ``none.''
  But of course, the President did not select Brasher for his judicial 
experience. A partisan judicial philosophy, along with youth, seem to 
be the only qualifications of many of this administration's nominees. 
Before becoming a judge, Brasher spent his short legal career 
systematically restricting the

[[Page S979]]

rights of vulnerable populations, including opposing voting rights and 
LGBTQ rights and supporting an unconstitutional law mandating universal 
drug testing for food stamp applicants, which the 11th Circuit slapped 
down as stripping away peoples' privacy simply because they are poor.
  Brasher is opposed by literally hundreds of civil and human rights 
groups who represent millions of Americans. They all are afraid that 
with this elevation, he will continue to be a rubberstamp for the 
President's radical agenda and negatively impact 37 million residents 
of Alabama, Florida and Georgia--States that have often been on the 
frontlines of systemic voter disenfranchisement for years.
  For these reasons, I will oppose the nomination of Andrew Brasher. We 
all must commit to considering each nominee carefully and on his or her 
individual merit. I hope this body can reverse course and return to its 
historic roots: tackling our Nation's most serious problems in a 
bipartisan way, displaying comity even when we disagree, and treating 
our unique role in approving lifetime judgeships with the seriousness 
of purpose required by the Constitution.

                          ____________________