Judicial Nominations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate issue, I want to say a word about some nominations that are pending before the Senate this week.

As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I pay closer attention than some when it comes to the nominees who are suggested for Federal positions on the courts. These are positions that are lifetime positions. You take a person and state: We trust you with this responsibility and authority for as long as you live--for as long as you live. So it isn't a question of 2 years or 4 years and replacing someone if they aren't up to the job. We have got to look for people whom we can trust for the long haul.

The Senate will soon vote on the confirmations of Joshua Divine to serve as a judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri and Judge Cristian Stevens to serve for the Eastern District. I am concerned about these two nominees.

Mr. Divine is 34 years old. He received his law degree only 9 years ago. In addition to a lack of experience, Mr. Divine has taken some extreme positions on issues that are important to people across the United States, such as reproductive rights and ballot access.

Mr. Divine--if you can believe this, in this day and age, 2025--has argued in favor of literacy tests at the ballot box. Let me say that again. He has argued in favor of literacy tests at the ballot box.

He states:

Individuals who aren't informed about issues and platforms . . . have no business voting.

The fact that we are even considering his nomination under the circumstances is shocking.

Literacy tests have been tried in America. They are a racist relic from the Jim Crow era that we used to prevent immigrants and minorities from voting. It should not be controversial to say that no one who has argued for reviving racist Jim Crow laws belongs on the Federal bench, let alone for a lifetime.

Mr. Divine also referred to himself as a ``zealot'' for the anti- choice movement. Now, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you would think that someone who is that blatant and open in declaring himself a zealot on the issue would trouble you. This has been on full display in his role as Missouri solicitor general.

Mr. Divine has challenged women's ability to access the abortion drug mifepristone and has undermined the decision of Missouri voters to codify abortion access in their State constitution.

Previously, Mr. Divine wrote:

Because we know a genetically unique human comes into existence at fertilization, abortion should not be ethically permitted.

I know that is the position of some voters whom I represent and even of some members of my family. I disagree.

Taken at face value, this statement suggests that Mr. Divine opposes access to in vitro fertilization, IVF. Well, I have some beautiful grandkids who were the product of these IVF procedures. It was the only way that they could come to this Earth, and thank God they did. To think that this man who is seeking this lifetime appointment to the bench would not even answer the question on IVF is troubling.

Joshua Divine is too inexperienced to serve as a district court judge, and his radical views, I think, disqualify him.

I am also troubled by the nomination of Cristian Stevens. Following his confirmation hearing, I asked Judge Stevens whether he denounced the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol.

For those who don't remember, that was a time when a mob forced Congress to shut down the procedure of counting the electoral votes in the 2020 election. As a result of that decision, they stormed the Capitol; came into this Chamber; videotaped themselves vaping while sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer, going through the desks of Senators, tearing up the place, and, unfortunately, attacking a lot of innocent people.

I asked Cristian Stevens about the January 6 insurrection. He said the use of the word ``insurrection'' was a legal conclusion--a legal conclusion--and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on it because it was a highly contested political issue.

Here is the cold, hard truth: The violent mob that ransacked the Capitol Complex in an attempted insurrection to stop the counting of the votes of that election led to the deaths of 5 police officers and injuries to more than 140 others. It triggered the largest prosecution in the history of the Department of Justice. Over 1,000 individuals were convicted and prosecuted for their activity that day.

The fact that this nominee couldn't acknowledge what happened that day and denounce the violence perpetrated against law enforcement is troubling. If you can't stand up for the men and women who keep us safe at this very moment in this building--who risk their lives for the Members, their staffs, and the visitors in the Capitol--you have no place in a lifetime position as a Federal judge.

I am also concerned about a law review article Judge Cristian Stevens wrote in defending the infamous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

I voted for it in the House of Representatives. Why? The idea was that crack cocaine was such a deadly and threatening narcotic that we were going to pass a sentencing provision that was really tough. Well, this was tough. It said, if you were convicted of possessing powder cocaine or an exact same amount of cocaine in crack form--in crystal form--you would be receiving a sentence for the crack cocaine that would be 100 times that of powder cocaine.

What happened as a result of it?

The result, I am sorry to say, didn't work. You would think, with that kind of sentencing hanging over you, people would think twice. It didn't work. As a result, more people were using crack cocaine after we passed the law, and the price on the street was going down instead of up. We filled the Federal prisons primarily with African Americans who had lengthy sentences--some of them over 20 years--for the simple sale of crack cocaine.

We decided that was wrong. I led the effort here on the Senate side. I am proud that I did. I was joined by Chuck Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, and Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah. We passed a bill called the FIRST STEP Act, and it was sent to President Trump, who signed it into law in his first term.

Now comes Cristian Stevens, Judge Stevens, wanting a seat on the Federal bench. I am concerned about a law review article he wrote that defended the 100-to-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

He wrote:

There may be evidence to suggest that these kinds of sentencing provisions are beneficial to black communities hardest hit by the crack epidemic.

I am disappointed that Judge Stevens continues to stand by an article that defends crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity--it was wrong then; it is wrong now--and he is certainly doing no one a favor by supporting that kind of penalty.

My Republican colleagues will likely vote for both of these nominees I have described--Mr. Divine and Judge Stevens on the Federal bench-- without hesitation, but the American people deserve judges who will protect their basic fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law. Neither of these nominees has proven that they embody these attributes.

I will vote against both of these nominees. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source