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.
____________________