-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a few minutes here.

No. 1, the judge we just confirmed, I think to the 11th Judicial Circuit, Ms. Abudu, is an example of the system being broken. This nominee, whom I voted against in committee, is way beyond what I think the market should be bearing. This is, in my view, a partisan's dream.

It is OK to be a litigant in causes I don't agree with. It is OK to represent organizations that I differ with. I don't hold a client against a lawyer, but I do hold positions against the lawyer when it comes to cause-driven litigation.

This nominee, at every turn, has taken the left fork in the road, to the point of being in the ditch. As a lawyer, she sued a Florida community that was trying to protect children from sexual predators by having requirements of notice but also being away from schools certain distances, and she sued the community basically claiming that was unfair to the sexual abuser.

It is moments like this that should be a wake-up call for this body. Her record as an advocate is not just representing liberal causes, but the rhetoric used and the arguments made convinced me in committee that this is an activist on steroids.

I have tried to work with my Democratic colleagues, voting for circuit and district court judges, understanding that Democrats would pick someone I would not choose. That is the way the system works. But, in this case, it was a partisan vote. Not one Republican voted for this nominee, and her record, I think, is one of activism and stridency that will, in my view, shape her time as a judge and shape the court in a way that is inconsistent with the rule of law as I know it.

So to my Democratic colleagues, you have confirmed this nominee, but I am sure this is not the last we will hear about Ms. Abudu.

Today, it was announced that Rachael Rollins, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, is going to resign, I think. She is under investigation for unethical behavior and using her office for revenge.

She is one of the few and may be the only U.S. attorney that I voted against in this Congress. There may have been one other. But it was pretty obvious to those of us on the committee that the warning signs regarding Ms. Rollins were rampant and that we were buying a problem.

The point I am trying to make to my colleagues is, after we changed the rules of confirmation--you don't need one vote from the other side if you have the majority, and there will come a day, maybe, when we find ourselves in that situation--I always have worried that doing away with the collaborative process to get a nominee to move forward--judges or U.S. attorneys--is going to create a problem where you are down to picking people who have the most vocal support from the most active, extreme elements in both parties. And I think this is a case: Exhibit A, Ms. Rollins.

And to my colleagues, all of us are going to have to understand that I respect the home State Senators' ability to nominate district court judges. The blue slip process I will honor for district court judges, U.S. attorneys. But it puts pressure on us to up our game, and Ms. Rollins I voted against in committee, and it was obvious that our concerns were justified.

Mr. Delaney, nominated for the First Judicial Circuit, performed poorly in the committee. He represented a private school that was sued for allowing sexual harassment to be unchecked and to be covered up.

It is OK to represent unpopular causes. Everybody needs a lawyer. But his answers about how he engaged one of the plaintiffs--a minor at the time--were terrible, and it seems to me that he should have been better prepared. He had a lot of support from people in New Hampshire, some on our side of the aisle. But I guess my point is that you have to be prepared to answer hard questions, and Mr. Delaney was woefully unprepared.

And to my colleagues on the Republican side, I think you have done a very good job of asking hard, relevant questions to the nominees before our committee, and we have had a lot of bipartisan support for judges, and we have had some opposition.

As to moving forward, I hope the White House will prepare these nominees better--a basic understanding of the Constitution, of a litigant practice, basic concepts of the law, like Brady motions, and just how the Constitution is set up. That is not too much to ask the people who want to be a judge for the rest of their life.

So, to the White House, this process needs to change. You need to up your game. Your goal, I think, should be to try to find people who some of us can vote for on the Republican side and, when they get in front of the committee, make a good impression. I am not saying we did it all right on our side when we were in charge. There are probably examples where we didn't. But I tried to make sure that some people who were nominated didn't make it because some of us on the Republican side said no.

There are more than a handful of judges coming out of the committee that I think should not be on the bench, and I say that with the understanding that my inclination is to vote for judges nominated by the other side, assuming that that is what I would like to have happen when it comes our turn--that if we all vote against the other party's judges, then you are going to put the judiciary in a world of hurt if you have a President of one party and a Senate made up of the other. And that is sort of--we will be there one day, and given the behavior of the body, I don't know how we deal with that.

But between now and then, I am hoping that there will be more serious deliberation by colleagues on the Democratic side to make sure that the people we are putting forward can answer basic questions. And sometimes, maybe, we ask bad questions, but I don't believe that the questions being asked of these nominees are unfair. And it just is stunning that people have been in the law as long as some of these nominees have and can't answer the basics.

So this idea that you are going to come through the Judiciary Committee and not be asked hard, relevant questions, I hope that has gone by the wayside. The idea that I will support Democratic nominees is real up to a point. And there have been several of us on this side who have probably voted for more Democratic nominees than we have opposed, and I would try to continue to honor the process.

I want to keep the blue slip in place. I am asking colleagues from red States to work with the White House to see if they can find consensus. When I was chairman, there was a lot of pressure on me to do away with the blue slip so we could nominate anybody we wanted to at the district court level. If you had two Democratic Senators in the State, the blue slip would go away; we could nominate anybody we wanted to.

I think that is bad for the Senate, and I think that, over time, would be bad for the judiciary. I didn't change the process; I don't want it changed now. And I do expect us on the Republican side to collaborate with the White House and find consensus where you can.

But, having said that, the last several months have sort of been a disaster for the committee in the sense that people are not prepared, and you are picking folks who really shouldn't have lifetime appointments, from my point of view. And we can pass them all on party lines and make this problem worse, or you can get a handful of Democrats to do what I have done in the past: not only vote yes but sometimes say no.

And Mr. Delaney, I think, will probably fall by the wayside. And I say that with no animosity toward him. I just think that is the right outcome here. So if that does happen, I would want to applaud the White House for understanding that sometimes you can't go beyond what the market would bear.

I have shown a disposition and a willingness to work with you, but the recent nominee we just passed is way out of the mainstream, and I am hoping that we can get back on track and have nominees come before the committee who are prepared to make it, quite frankly, easier to find consensus. And if that doesn't happen, we are going to have less consensus. And there are a handful of nominees waiting to come to the floor whom I would vigorously oppose because I think they are not qualified.

So, with that, Mr. President, I wish you a great break and hope we can go home and do our business at home and abroad--wherever that takes us--and come back safely.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source