 |
SCREEN CAPTURE / MSNBC
Sen. Kamala Harris gave a searing speech questioning the hearings and Brett Kavanaugh's appointment. |
AT A SENATE Judiciary Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, two Asian American senators made strong opening statements challenging Kavanaugh and enumerating the huge stakes for this appointment.
U.S. Senators Kamala D. Harris, D-CA, and Mazie Hirono, D-HI, yesterday (Sept. 4) gave stinging commentary and didn't mince words when talking about what's at stake in filling the Supreme Court seat that opened up when Justice Antonin Scalia died last year.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, who refused to meet with Kavanaugh last month because she wanted him under oath while giving his answers.
“These ultra-right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment because they know that a single vote from one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of our country.
“It could take just one vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny women control over their reproductive rights.
“It could take just one vote to declare the ACA’s preexisting condition protections unconstitutional.
“It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our water clean to drink.
“It could take just one vote to dismantle common sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe," said Hirono, the only immigrant in the judiciary committee.Harris spoke out against Kavanaugh’s history of carrying out a conservative, partisan agenda, and questioned his position on whether a president is above the law.
Earlier, Harris joined the coordinated attempt to postpone the hearings because of the last minute release of those documents. Chairman Chuck Grassley, rather than risk that one or two Republicans on the committee might be swayed, refused to put the motion to a vote.
“This is a hearing about who will sit on the highest court of our land,” said Harris. “This is a hearing that is about who will sit in a house that symbolizes our system of justice in this country. And some of the most important principles behind the integrity of our system of justice, is that we have due process, and we have transparency. That is why we have public courtrooms. That is why we have requirements in courts of law in our country that there will be transparency, that both parties will be given all relevant information. We can argue, then, as to the weight of the documents and the significance, but not as to whether or not they're admissible. So I object.”
“In reviewing this nominee’s background, I am deeply concerned that what guides him is not independence or impartiality. It’s not even ideology," said Harris. "I would suggest it is not even ideology. What I believe guides him and what his record that we’ve been able to see shows, is what guides this nominee is partisanship."
"
This nominee has devoted his entire career to a conservative Republican agenda. Helping to spearhead a partisan investigation into President Clinton," she said. "Helping George W. Bush’s legal team ensure that every vote was not counted in Bush v. Gore. Helping to confirm partisan judges and enact partisan laws as part of the Bush White House. And in all of these efforts, he has shown that he seeks to win at all costs, even if that means pushing the envelope.”
"Judge Kavanaugh," continued Harris. "I am concerned whether you would treat every American equally or instead show allegiance to the political party and the conservative agenda that has shaped and built your career. I am concerned your loyalty would be to the President who appointed you and not to the Constitution of the United States.”
After seven hours, Kavanaugh finally got the chance to speak. He talked about his family and friends but failed to adequately answer many of the questions and issues presented by the Democratic senators.
He gave a familiar response used by other conservative judges. He said the court "must never be viewed as a partisan institution" and argued that "a good judge must be an umpire -- a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy."
The raucous hearing was interrupted repeatedly by demonstrators in the audience who yelled their objections to the Trump presidency and to Kavanaugh's nomination. Sixty-one demonstrators were removed from the hearing.
Dirct questioning of Kavanaugh will continue today.
Full transcript of Harris’ statement, as delivered:
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to restate my objection from earlier for the record, which is my motion to postpone this hearing. A number of comments have been made by my honored and respected colleagues. I’d like to address a few of them.
One, there was some mention of a concern about Elena Kagan’s hearing and that the White House at the time, there was an agreement that those certain records are sensitive and should therefore not be disclosed. It’s my understanding that as a point of distinction between that time and today, that those were active cases in the White House and for that reason there was an understanding and agreement that they were of a sensitive nature and should not be disclosed.
In terms of the point that has been made about playing politics and blaming the Supreme Court, I think that we have to give pause when those kinds of concerns are expressed to also think about the fact that there have been many a political campaign that has been run indicating an intention to use the United States Supreme Court as a political tool to end things like the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, and campaign finance reform. Which makes this conversation a legitimate one in terms of a reasoned concern about whether this nominee has been nominated to fulfill a political agenda, as it relates to using that Court and the use of that Court.
As it relates to the 42,000 documents, or 42,000 pages of documents, I find it interesting that we get those documents less than 24 hours before this hearing is scheduled to begin, but it took 57 days for those documents to be vetted before we would even be given those documents. So there is some suggestion that we should be speed-readers, and read 42,000 pages of documents in about 15 hours, when it took the other side 57 days to review those same documents. So the logic at least on the math is not applying.
Now, the Chairman has requested 10% of the nominee’s documents. That’s 10% of 100% of his full record.
The nominee’s personal lawyer has only given us 7% of his documents. 7% out of 100% of the full record.
Republicans have only given 4% of these records or made them public. That’s 4% of 100% of a full record.
96% of his record is missing. 96% of his record is missing. It is reasonable, it is reasonable that we should want to review his entire record and then we can debate among us the relevance of what is in his record to his nomination, but it should not be the ability of the leadership of this committee to unilaterally make decisions about what we will and will not see in terms of its admissibility, instead of arguing about the weight of whatever is made admissible.
The late Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called these hearings a Supreme Court nominee’s “job interview with the American people.”
And by that standard, the nominee before us is coming into his job interview with more than 90% of his background hidden.
I would think that anyone who wanted to sit on the nation’s highest court would be proud of their record and would want the American people to see it.
I would think that anyone privileged to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the Unites States would want to be confirmed in a process that is not under a cloud, that respects due process.
I would think that anyone nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States would want to have a hearing that is characterized by transparency and fairness and integrity and not shrouded by uncertainty and suspicion, and concealment and doubt.
We should not be moving forward with this hearing. The American people deserve better than this.
So Judge Kavanaugh, as most of us know, and I will mention to you and you have young children and I know they are very proud of you and I know you are a great parent and I applaud all that you have done in the community. And so as you know and we all know, this is a week when most students in our country go back to school.
And it occurs to me that many years ago, right around this time, I was starting kindergarten and I was in a bus, a school bus, on my way to Thousand Oaks Elementary School as part of the second class of students as busing desegregated Berkeley, California, public schools.
This was decades after the Supreme Court ruled Brown v. Board of Education that separate was inherently unequal.
And as I’ve said many times, had Chief Justice Earl Warren not been on the Supreme Court of the United States, he could not have led a unanimous decision and the outcome then of that case may have been very different.
Had that decision not come down the way it did, I may not have had the opportunities that allowed me to become a lawyer or a prosecutor.
I likely would not have been elected District Attorney of San Francisco or the Attorney General of California.
And I most certainly would not be sitting here as a member of the United States Senate.
So for me, a Supreme Court seat is not only about academic issues of legal precedent or judicial philosophy. It is personal.
When we talk about our nation’s highest court, and the men and women who sit on it, we’re talking about the impact that one individual on that Court can have. Impact on people you will never meet and whose names you will never know.
Whether a person can exercise their Constitutional right to cast a ballot, that may be decided if Judge Kavanaugh sits on that Court.
Whether a woman with breast cancer can afford healthcare or is forced off lifesaving treatment.
Whether a gay or transgender worker is treated with dignity or may be treated as a second-class citizen.
Whether a young woman who got pregnant at 15 is forced to give birth or in desperation go to a back alley for an abortion.
Whether a President of the United States can be held accountable or whether he’ll be above the law.
All of this may come down to Judge Kavanaugh’s vote.
And that’s what’s at stake in this nomination.
And the stakes are even higher because of the moment we’re in, and many of us have discussed this. These are unprecedented times.
As others have already observed, less than 2 weeks ago, the President’s personal lawyer and campaign chairman were each found guilty or pleaded guilty to 8 felonies.
The President’s personal lawyer, under oath, declared that the President directed him to commit a federal crime.
Yet that same President is racing to appoint to a lifetime position on the highest court in our land, a court that very well may decide his legal fate.
And yes, that’s essentially what confirming Judge Kavanaugh could mean.
So it is important, more important I’d say than ever, that the American people have transparency and accountability with this nomination.
And that’s why it is extremely disturbing that Senate Republicans have prevented this body, and most important, the American people from fully reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record, and have disregarded just about every tradition and practice that I heard so much about before I arrived in this place.
Judge Kavanaugh, when you and I met in my office, you said with respect to judicial decisions, that rushed decisions are often bad decisions.
I agree with you. I agree with you.
And when we are talking about who will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, I believe your point couldn’t be more important.
Mr. Chairman, when Judge Kavanaugh was nominated in July, he expressed his belief that “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.”
But in reviewing this nominee’s background, I am deeply concerned that what guides him is not independence or impartiality. It’s not even ideology. I would suggest it is not even ideology.
What I believe guides him and what his record that we’ve been able to see shows, is what guides this nominee is partisanship.
This nominee has devoted his entire career to a conservative Republican agenda.
Helping to spearhead a partisan investigation into President Clinton.
Helping George W. Bush’s legal team ensure that every vote was not counted in Bush v. Gore.
Helping to confirm partisan judges and enact partisan laws as part of the Bush White House.
And in all of these efforts, he has shown that he seeks to win at all costs, even if that means pushing the envelope.
And if we look at his record on the D.C. Circuit, and in his recent writings and statements, it is clear that the nominee has brought his political bias to the bench.
He has carried out deeply conservative, partisan agenda as a judge, favoring big business over ordinary Americans, polluters over clean air and water, and the powerful over the vulnerable.
Just last year, Judge Kavanaugh praised the dissent in Roe v. Wade and ruled against a scared, 17-year-old girl seeking to end her pregnancy.
He has disregarded the Supreme Court precedent to argue that undocumented workers weren’t really employees under our labor laws.
We have witnessed horrific mass shootings from Parkland to Las Vegas to Jacksonville, Florida.
Yet Judge Kavanaugh has gone further than the Supreme Court and has written that because assault weapons are in “common use,” assault weapons and high-capacity magazines cannot be banned under the Second Amendment.
When he was part of an Independent Counsel investigation into the Democratic president, the nominee was dogged in demanding answers.
And yet, he has since changed his tune, arguing that presidents should not be investigated or held accountable, a position that I’m sure is not lost on this President.
These positions are not impartial, they are partisan.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh’s classmate, insisted before this Committee that judges are not merely “politicians in robes.” I fear that Judge Kavanagh’s record indicates that is exactly what he may very well be.
Now, I know members of this Committee and the nominee’s friends and colleagues have assured us that he is devoted to his family, and supportive of his law clerks, and volunteers in his community. And I don’t doubt that at all.
But that’s not why we are here. I’d rather that we think about this hearing, in the context of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the impact it will have on generations of Americans to come. And do we want that Court to continue a legacy of being above politics and unbiased? Or are we prepared to participate in a process that is tainted and that leaves the American public questioning the integrity of this process?
And I’ll close by saying this. We have a system of justice that is symbolized by a statue of a woman holding scales. And she wears a blindfold.
Justice wears a blindfold because we have said in the United States of America, under our judicial system, justice should be blind to a person’s status.
We have said that in our system of justice, justice should be blind to how much money someone has, to what you look like or who you love, to who your parents are and the language they speak.
And every Supreme Court Justice must understand and uphold that ideal.
And sir, should those cases come before you, Judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned whether you would treat every American equally or instead show allegiance to the political party and the conservative agenda that has shaped and built your career.
I am concerned your loyalty would be to the President who appointed you and not to the Constitution of the United States.
These concerns I hope you will answer during the course of this hearing. I believe the American people have a right to have these concerns. I also believe the American public has a right to full and candid answers to the questions that are presented to you during the course of this hearing. I will be paying of course very close attention to your testimony and I think you know, the American public will be paying very close attention to your testimony.
Thank you.
The remarks of Sen. Hirono, as delivered on Tuesday:
Dana Sabraw. Michael Baylson. Ketanji Brown Jackson. Colleen Kollar Kotelly. Naomi Reice Buchwald. John Bates. Derek Kahala Watson.
These are the names of some of the federal judges across this country who have vindicated my faith in the rule of law over the last year and a half.
These are the women and men, appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents
– Who ordered the government to reunite parents with the children ripped from their arms at the border;
– Who rejected attempts to deny federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war on immigrants;
– Who stopped Executive Orders aimed at kneecapping public sector unions;
– Who stopped the implementation of an ugly ban on transgender Americans serving in our military;
– Who ruled that public officials cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds; and,
– Who stopped the government from banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
These judges stood firm in defense of the Constitution, the American values it expresses, and the system of checks and balances it enshrines.
At this moment of peril for our democracy, it is these judges, and others like them, who have pushed back against the efforts of a President eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power.
In normal times we would be here today to determine the fitness of a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness.
But these are not normal times.
Instead, we are here to decide whether or not to rubber stamp Donald Trump’s choice of a preselected political ideologue, nominated precisely because he believes a sitting president should be shielded from civil lawsuits, criminal investigation, and prosecution, no matter the facts.
Let’s not forget. During his campaign, Donald Trump needed to shore up support from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative.
To help, he turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to build a pre-approved list of names, and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the Supreme Court.
These groups are long-standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions.
The Heritage Foundation focuses on developing policy to, among other things, oppose climate change, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and reduce regulations for big business.
The Federalist Society focuses on changing the American legal system to align with an ultraconservative interpretation of the Constitution, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
When given the opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised.
He did not select someone who demonstrates independence and fidelity to the rule of law.
Instead, Donald Trump selected a pre-approved name in order to guarantee a 5th vote for his dangerous anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-women, pro-corporate, and anti-environment agenda.
And Donald Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh from this list for an even more specific reason.
The President is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, impartial, and dogged investigation of his abuse of power, before the walls close in on him entirely.
Because if there’s one thing we know about Donald Trump, it is that he is committed to selfpreservation every minute, every hour, every day.
Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment should be considered in a broader context. The President has been packing our courts with ideologically-driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas.
For example:
– Trump nominee James Ho – now a Judge on the 5th Circuit – has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and, in another case, publically aired his personal views in opposition to abortion.
– Trump nominee Don Willet – now a Judge on the 5th Circuit – has already voted to curtail the independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2008.
– Trump nominee Stephanos Bibas – now a Judge on the 3rd Circuit – wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe Title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms.
– Trump nominee Amy Coney Barret – now a Judge on the 7th Circuit – ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding, and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce.
– And Trump nominee John K. Bush – now a Judge on the 6th Circuit – ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting Judge’s view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward.
When these Trump-nominated judges came before the Judiciary Committee as nominees, my Democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did not give a clear enough direction as is often the case.
Time and again, we were told: Don’t worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan, political advocate.
Don’t worry about what I’ve done, written, or said until now. When I get on the bench, I’ll just follow the law.
But clearly they haven’t.
Why should we expect this Supreme Court nominee to be any different?
President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been a part of his entire professional life.
From his clerkship with Judge Alex Kozinski, to his apprenticeship with Ken Starr, to his work on George W. Bush’s legal team during the Florida recount and in the White House, Judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics.
The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican-aligned special interests fought for more than 3 years to get him confirmed.
And for the last 12 years as a judge, he has ruled, whether in dissent or majority, in ways in line with their political and ideological agenda.
Now, President Trump has selected Judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive 5th vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government.
There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. Most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely-divided Supreme Court hears very few cases – many times fewer than 100 – every year.
Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important Constitutional rights were hanging in the balance, decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes.
And now that Justice Kennedy has left the Court, the forces opposed to workers’ rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds, and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the Court to support their right-wing views.
These ultra-right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment because they know that a single vote from one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country.
It could take just one vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny women control over their own reproductive rights.
It could take just one vote to declare the ACA’s preexisting condition protections unconstitutional.
It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our water clean to drink.
It could take just one vote to dismantle common sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe.
And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions.
Since this nomination was announced, I have been asked many times why the Democrats would even bother going through the motions, when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this Administration’s judicial nominees.
There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, of someone who will provide the 5th vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting.
So, I intend to use this hearing to demonstrate to the American people precisely why who sits on the Supreme Court matters.
Why a 5th ideologically-driven conservative and political vote on the Court is dangerous for our country.
Why the Senate should reject this president’s latest attempt to rig the system in his favor.
As Senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says, and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing.
Just 18 months ago, Justice Gorsuch told us that, “[a]ll precedent of the United States Supreme Court deserves the respect of precedent, which is quite a lot. It’s the anchor of the law.”
Justice Gorsuch said, “It’s not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris. Because a precedent, once it’s decided, it carries far more weight than what I personally think.”
Justice Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But earlier this year, he joined a majority of the Court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union in a 5-4 decision.
I expect Judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed.
Our job here is important, because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
We owe it to the American people, and to all of the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, to preserve the integrity of our Constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long.
What may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing.
But don’t you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all the documents being requested because you have nothing to hide?
I agree with my colleague Senator Durbin. If you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness dictates that you join us in our call for this Committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them.
Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.________________________________________________________________________________
 |
SCREEN CAPTURE / U.S. SENATE FEED
Judge Brett Kavanaugh gave a rebuttal to the criticism coming from Democratic senators. |
Full transcript of Harris’ statement, as delivered:
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to restate my objection from earlier for the record, which is my motion to postpone this hearing. A number of comments have been made by my honored and respected colleagues. I’d like to address a few of them.
One, there was some mention of a concern about Elena Kagan’s hearing and that the White House at the time, there was an agreement that those certain records are sensitive and should therefore not be disclosed. It’s my understanding that as a point of distinction between that time and today, that those were active cases in the White House and for that reason there was an understanding and agreement that they were of a sensitive nature and should not be disclosed.
In terms of the point that has been made about playing politics and blaming the Supreme Court, I think that we have to give pause when those kinds of concerns are expressed to also think about the fact that there have been many a political campaign that has been run indicating an intention to use the United States Supreme Court as a political tool to end things like the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, and campaign finance reform. Which makes this conversation a legitimate one in terms of a reasoned concern about whether this nominee has been nominated to fulfill a political agenda, as it relates to using that Court and the use of that Court.
As it relates to the 42,000 documents, or 42,000 pages of documents, I find it interesting that we get those documents less than 24 hours before this hearing is scheduled to begin, but it took 57 days for those documents to be vetted before we would even be given those documents. So there is some suggestion that we should be speed-readers, and read 42,000 pages of documents in about 15 hours, when it took the other side 57 days to review those same documents. So the logic at least on the math is not applying.
Now, the Chairman has requested 10% of the nominee’s documents. That’s 10% of 100% of his full record.
The nominee’s personal lawyer has only given us 7% of his documents. 7% out of 100% of the full record.
Republicans have only given 4% of these records or made them public. That’s 4% of 100% of a full record.
96% of his record is missing. 96% of his record is missing. It is reasonable, it is reasonable that we should want to review his entire record and then we can debate among us the relevance of what is in his record to his nomination, but it should not be the ability of the leadership of this committee to unilaterally make decisions about what we will and will not see in terms of its admissibility, instead of arguing about the weight of whatever is made admissible.
The late Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called these hearings a Supreme Court nominee’s “job interview with the American people.”
And by that standard, the nominee before us is coming into his job interview with more than 90% of his background hidden.
I would think that anyone who wanted to sit on the nation’s highest court would be proud of their record and would want the American people to see it.
I would think that anyone privileged to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the Unites States would want to be confirmed in a process that is not under a cloud, that respects due process.
I would think that anyone nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States would want to have a hearing that is characterized by transparency and fairness and integrity and not shrouded by uncertainty and suspicion, and concealment and doubt.
We should not be moving forward with this hearing. The American people deserve better than this.
So Judge Kavanaugh, as most of us know, and I will mention to you and you have young children and I know they are very proud of you and I know you are a great parent and I applaud all that you have done in the community. And so as you know and we all know, this is a week when most students in our country go back to school.
And it occurs to me that many years ago, right around this time, I was starting kindergarten and I was in a bus, a school bus, on my way to Thousand Oaks Elementary School as part of the second class of students as busing desegregated Berkeley, California, public schools.
This was decades after the Supreme Court ruled Brown v. Board of Education that separate was inherently unequal.
And as I’ve said many times, had Chief Justice Earl Warren not been on the Supreme Court of the United States, he could not have led a unanimous decision and the outcome then of that case may have been very different.
Had that decision not come down the way it did, I may not have had the opportunities that allowed me to become a lawyer or a prosecutor.
I likely would not have been elected District Attorney of San Francisco or the Attorney General of California.
And I most certainly would not be sitting here as a member of the United States Senate.
So for me, a Supreme Court seat is not only about academic issues of legal precedent or judicial philosophy. It is personal.
When we talk about our nation’s highest court, and the men and women who sit on it, we’re talking about the impact that one individual on that Court can have. Impact on people you will never meet and whose names you will never know.
Whether a person can exercise their Constitutional right to cast a ballot, that may be decided if Judge Kavanaugh sits on that Court.
Whether a woman with breast cancer can afford healthcare or is forced off lifesaving treatment.
Whether a gay or transgender worker is treated with dignity or may be treated as a second-class citizen.
Whether a young woman who got pregnant at 15 is forced to give birth or in desperation go to a back alley for an abortion.
Whether a President of the United States can be held accountable or whether he’ll be above the law.
All of this may come down to Judge Kavanaugh’s vote.
And that’s what’s at stake in this nomination.
And the stakes are even higher because of the moment we’re in, and many of us have discussed this. These are unprecedented times.
As others have already observed, less than 2 weeks ago, the President’s personal lawyer and campaign chairman were each found guilty or pleaded guilty to 8 felonies.
The President’s personal lawyer, under oath, declared that the President directed him to commit a federal crime.
Yet that same President is racing to appoint to a lifetime position on the highest court in our land, a court that very well may decide his legal fate.
And yes, that’s essentially what confirming Judge Kavanaugh could mean.
So it is important, more important I’d say than ever, that the American people have transparency and accountability with this nomination.
And that’s why it is extremely disturbing that Senate Republicans have prevented this body, and most important, the American people from fully reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record, and have disregarded just about every tradition and practice that I heard so much about before I arrived in this place.
Judge Kavanaugh, when you and I met in my office, you said with respect to judicial decisions, that rushed decisions are often bad decisions.
I agree with you. I agree with you.
And when we are talking about who will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, I believe your point couldn’t be more important.
Mr. Chairman, when Judge Kavanaugh was nominated in July, he expressed his belief that “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.”
But in reviewing this nominee’s background, I am deeply concerned that what guides him is not independence or impartiality. It’s not even ideology. I would suggest it is not even ideology.
What I believe guides him and what his record that we’ve been able to see shows, is what guides this nominee is partisanship.
This nominee has devoted his entire career to a conservative Republican agenda.
Helping to spearhead a partisan investigation into President Clinton.
Helping George W. Bush’s legal team ensure that every vote was not counted in Bush v. Gore.
Helping to confirm partisan judges and enact partisan laws as part of the Bush White House.
And in all of these efforts, he has shown that he seeks to win at all costs, even if that means pushing the envelope.
And if we look at his record on the D.C. Circuit, and in his recent writings and statements, it is clear that the nominee has brought his political bias to the bench.
He has carried out deeply conservative, partisan agenda as a judge, favoring big business over ordinary Americans, polluters over clean air and water, and the powerful over the vulnerable.
Just last year, Judge Kavanaugh praised the dissent in Roe v. Wade and ruled against a scared, 17-year-old girl seeking to end her pregnancy.
He has disregarded the Supreme Court precedent to argue that undocumented workers weren’t really employees under our labor laws.
We have witnessed horrific mass shootings from Parkland to Las Vegas to Jacksonville, Florida.
Yet Judge Kavanaugh has gone further than the Supreme Court and has written that because assault weapons are in “common use,” assault weapons and high-capacity magazines cannot be banned under the Second Amendment.
When he was part of an Independent Counsel investigation into the Democratic president, the nominee was dogged in demanding answers.
And yet, he has since changed his tune, arguing that presidents should not be investigated or held accountable, a position that I’m sure is not lost on this President.
These positions are not impartial, they are partisan.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh’s classmate, insisted before this Committee that judges are not merely “politicians in robes.” I fear that Judge Kavanagh’s record indicates that is exactly what he may very well be.
Now, I know members of this Committee and the nominee’s friends and colleagues have assured us that he is devoted to his family, and supportive of his law clerks, and volunteers in his community. And I don’t doubt that at all.
But that’s not why we are here. I’d rather that we think about this hearing, in the context of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the impact it will have on generations of Americans to come. And do we want that Court to continue a legacy of being above politics and unbiased? Or are we prepared to participate in a process that is tainted and that leaves the American public questioning the integrity of this process?
And I’ll close by saying this. We have a system of justice that is symbolized by a statue of a woman holding scales. And she wears a blindfold.
Justice wears a blindfold because we have said in the United States of America, under our judicial system, justice should be blind to a person’s status.
We have said that in our system of justice, justice should be blind to how much money someone has, to what you look like or who you love, to who your parents are and the language they speak.
And every Supreme Court Justice must understand and uphold that ideal.
And sir, should those cases come before you, Judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned whether you would treat every American equally or instead show allegiance to the political party and the conservative agenda that has shaped and built your career.
I am concerned your loyalty would be to the President who appointed you and not to the Constitution of the United States.
These concerns I hope you will answer during the course of this hearing. I believe the American people have a right to have these concerns. I also believe the American public has a right to full and candid answers to the questions that are presented to you during the course of this hearing. I will be paying of course very close attention to your testimony and I think you know, the American public will be paying very close attention to your testimony.
Thank you.
 |
SCREEN CAPTURE
Hawaii's Sen. Mazie Hirono is a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. |
The remarks of Sen. Hirono, as delivered on Tuesday:
Dana Sabraw. Michael Baylson. Ketanji Brown Jackson. Colleen Kollar Kotelly. Naomi Reice Buchwald. John Bates. Derek Kahala Watson.
These are the names of some of the federal judges across this country who have vindicated my faith in the rule of law over the last year and a half.
These are the women and men, appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents
– Who ordered the government to reunite parents with the children ripped from their arms at the border;
– Who rejected attempts to deny federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war on immigrants;
– Who stopped Executive Orders aimed at kneecapping public sector unions;
– Who stopped the implementation of an ugly ban on transgender Americans serving in our military;
– Who ruled that public officials cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds; and,
– Who stopped the government from banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
These judges stood firm in defense of the Constitution, the American values it expresses, and the system of checks and balances it enshrines.
At this moment of peril for our democracy, it is these judges, and others like them, who have pushed back against the efforts of a President eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power.
In normal times we would be here today to determine the fitness of a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness.
But these are not normal times.
Instead, we are here to decide whether or not to rubber stamp Donald Trump’s choice of a preselected political ideologue, nominated precisely because he believes a sitting president should be shielded from civil lawsuits, criminal investigation, and prosecution, no matter the facts.
Let’s not forget. During his campaign, Donald Trump needed to shore up support from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative.
To help, he turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to build a pre-approved list of names, and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the Supreme Court.
These groups are long-standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions.
The Heritage Foundation focuses on developing policy to, among other things, oppose climate change, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and reduce regulations for big business.
The Federalist Society focuses on changing the American legal system to align with an ultraconservative interpretation of the Constitution, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
When given the opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised.
He did not select someone who demonstrates independence and fidelity to the rule of law.
Instead, Donald Trump selected a pre-approved name in order to guarantee a 5th vote for his dangerous anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-women, pro-corporate, and anti-environment agenda.
And Donald Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh from this list for an even more specific reason.
The President is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, impartial, and dogged investigation of his abuse of power, before the walls close in on him entirely.
Because if there’s one thing we know about Donald Trump, it is that he is committed to selfpreservation every minute, every hour, every day.
Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment should be considered in a broader context. The President has been packing our courts with ideologically-driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas.
For example:
– Trump nominee James Ho – now a Judge on the 5th Circuit – has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and, in another case, publically aired his personal views in opposition to abortion.
– Trump nominee Don Willet – now a Judge on the 5th Circuit – has already voted to curtail the independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2008.
– Trump nominee Stephanos Bibas – now a Judge on the 3rd Circuit – wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe Title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms.
– Trump nominee Amy Coney Barret – now a Judge on the 7th Circuit – ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding, and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce.
– And Trump nominee John K. Bush – now a Judge on the 6th Circuit – ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting Judge’s view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward.
When these Trump-nominated judges came before the Judiciary Committee as nominees, my Democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did not give a clear enough direction as is often the case.
Time and again, we were told: Don’t worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan, political advocate.
Don’t worry about what I’ve done, written, or said until now. When I get on the bench, I’ll just follow the law.
But clearly they haven’t.
Why should we expect this Supreme Court nominee to be any different?
President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been a part of his entire professional life.
From his clerkship with Judge Alex Kozinski, to his apprenticeship with Ken Starr, to his work on George W. Bush’s legal team during the Florida recount and in the White House, Judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics.
The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican-aligned special interests fought for more than 3 years to get him confirmed.
And for the last 12 years as a judge, he has ruled, whether in dissent or majority, in ways in line with their political and ideological agenda.
Now, President Trump has selected Judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive 5th vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government.
There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. Most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely-divided Supreme Court hears very few cases – many times fewer than 100 – every year.
Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important Constitutional rights were hanging in the balance, decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes.
And now that Justice Kennedy has left the Court, the forces opposed to workers’ rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds, and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the Court to support their right-wing views.
These ultra-right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment because they know that a single vote from one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country.
It could take just one vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny women control over their own reproductive rights.
It could take just one vote to declare the ACA’s preexisting condition protections unconstitutional.
It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our water clean to drink.
It could take just one vote to dismantle common sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe.
And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions.
Since this nomination was announced, I have been asked many times why the Democrats would even bother going through the motions, when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this Administration’s judicial nominees.
There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, of someone who will provide the 5th vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting.
So, I intend to use this hearing to demonstrate to the American people precisely why who sits on the Supreme Court matters.
Why a 5th ideologically-driven conservative and political vote on the Court is dangerous for our country.
Why the Senate should reject this president’s latest attempt to rig the system in his favor.
As Senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says, and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing.
Just 18 months ago, Justice Gorsuch told us that, “[a]ll precedent of the United States Supreme Court deserves the respect of precedent, which is quite a lot. It’s the anchor of the law.”
Justice Gorsuch said, “It’s not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris. Because a precedent, once it’s decided, it carries far more weight than what I personally think.”
Justice Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But earlier this year, he joined a majority of the Court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union in a 5-4 decision.
I expect Judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed.
Our job here is important, because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
We owe it to the American people, and to all of the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, to preserve the integrity of our Constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long.
What may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing.
But don’t you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all the documents being requested because you have nothing to hide?
I agree with my colleague Senator Durbin. If you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness dictates that you join us in our call for this Committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them.
Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.________________________________________________________________________________
