The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S3092-S3094 on June 18, 2020.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are in the midst of one of the greatest public health crises in our Nation's history. Over 2 million Americans have been infected by the COVID-19 virus. Over 115,000 Americans have died. Sadly, infections are still trending upward in many States. And what is the response of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to this public health crisis? This week, the majority leader, Senator McConnell has scheduled a vote on his family friend and former intern, Justin Walker, to be a judge on the DC Circuit, the second highest court in the land.
Colleagues, let's be honest. You cannot say with a straight face that Justin Walker, a 38-year-old with no practical courtroom experience and a few months' time on the district court bench, is the best person for the job of DC Circuit judge. He is not, and we know it. So why is he getting this nomination? I believe there are two main reasons: because Justin Walker is a protege of Senator McConnell and because he is an outspoken critic of the Affordable Care Act.
Justin Walker has made clear that he is willing to toe the Republican party line of hostility to Obamacare. Before he was confirmed as a district judge last October in a party-line vote, he called the NFIB case that upheld the ACA's constitutionality an ``indefensible decision.'' And in March, while he was a sitting judge, he cracked jokes about his opposition to the ACA at his ceremonial investiture.
These comments apparently put him on the fast-track for a promotion to the DC Circuit. I find it astonishing that Senate Republicans have rubberstamped so many nominees who have written articles or spoken publicly about their hostility to the ACA, nominees like John Bush, Steven Grasz, James Ho, David Porter, Neomi Rao, Mark Norris, Michael Truncale, and Sarah Pitlyk, not to mention Chad Readler, who filed the brief for the Trump Justice Department in the Texas v. U.S. case that called for striking down the entire ACA, including its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Chad Readler was nominated to the 6th Circuit within a day of filing that brief.
It is a pattern. And right after the vote on Justin Walker, Senator McConnell wants to vote on yet another nominee with a record of outspoken hostility to the ACA; 5th Circuit nominee Cory Wilson of Mississippi has repeatedly spoken, written, and tweeted criticisms of the ACA. In one of Wilson's newspaper columns, he wrote ``for the sake of the Constitution, I hope the Court strikes down the law.'' In another column, he described the ACA as ``big, intrusive government'' and as ``perverse'' and ``illegitimate.'' And he has tweeted negatively about the ACA more than 30 times.
Justin Walker's and Cory Wilson's public statements clearly show that they have already made up their minds about the Affordable Care Act's merits and its constitutionality. And yet, they have been unwilling to recuse themselves from ACA cases that might come before them if they are confirmed. This is important because the ACA has been under constant attack in the Federal courts. The Republican Party, from President Trump on down, has been obsessed with trying to get the ACA struck down as unconstitutional. There is a case pending before the Supreme Court right now where Republican officeholders and the Trump administration are trying to strike down the entire ACA. That would strip away health insurance and preexisting condition protections for millions of Americans. Even in the middle of a pandemic, the Republican Party is not stopping its attack on the Affordable Care Act.
They failed to overturn the ACA in Congress, of course. But clearly, Republicans are determined to attack it through the courts, no matter how many Americans might lose their coverage and protections. Make no mistake, the nominations of Justin Walker and Cory Wilson are part of the Republican assault on the Affordable Care Act. And the American people are watching.
I oppose these nominees.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Justin Walker to the DC Circuit. There are four main reasons for my opposition, and I would like to address each.
First, Judge Walker does not have the experience we would expect of a nominee to the DC Circuit, which is considered the second most powerful court in the Nation.
Judge Walker was confirmed to the Western District of Kentucky on October 24, 2019. He has just 7 months of experience as a sitting Federal district court Judge.
Moreover, as Judge Walker disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Judiciary Committee, in those 7 months he has presided over no bench or jury trials.
Although appellate judges don't preside over jury selection, sentencing, or decisions on the admissibility of evidence, they are regularly called upon to examine the decisions of district court judges on these and other matters.
In light of that, Judge Walker's lack of trial experience should alone be a bar to his elevation to the circuit.
Second, I have serious concerns about Judge Walker's views on Executive power and agency independence.
Questions around these issues frequently come before the DC Circuit, and so Judge Walker's views are highly relevant to his nomination.
Judge Walker has argued against the independence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, going so far as to claim that the FBI Director should be an ``agent'' of the President.
These views are troubling in the abstract, but they are even more troubling now, with an administration that too often views the Department of Justice as a political arm of the Presidency.
Judge Walker has also argued that Federal agencies have too much power when it comes to protecting the environment, consumers, and the workplace.
This is an especially troubling viewpoint at a time when we need agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as OSHA, to protect the health and safety of American workers who have continued working during the COVID-19 pandemic or will be returning to their jobs.
Judge Walker's views on the ability of federal agencies to protect Americans are particularly relevant to the DC Circuit, which hears critical cases surrounding workplace and environmental safeguards.
Third, Judge Walker has been an ardent opponent of the Affordable Care Act.
He has called the Supreme Court's decision upholding the ACA
``indefensible'' and ``catastrophic.'' He praised then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh for providing a ``roadmap'' by which the Court could strike down the ACA.
I simply cannot support a nominee who would put at risk the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, including those with preexisting conditions who might well lose coverage without the ACA's protections.
Finally, I have concerns that Judge Walker does not have the temperament required of a Federal judge.
In March of this year, when he was formally sworn in to the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Walker made a number of overtly political remarks.
He attacked the American Bar Association, stating that ``although we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and our country to critics who call us terrifying and who describe us as deplorable.''
He said that ``in Brett Kavanaugh's America, we will not surrender while you wage war on our work or our cause or our hope or our dream.''
These remarks raise questions as to whether Judge Walker can remain impartial and set aside political leanings.
For all of these reasons, I will vote against Judge Walker's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Walker nomination?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 42, as follows:
YEAS--51
AlexanderBarrassoBlackburnBluntBoozmanBraunBurrCapitoCassidyCornynCottonCramerCrapoCruzDainesEnziErnstFischerGardnerGrahamGrassleyHawleyHoevenHyde-SmithInhofeJohnsonKennedyLankfordLeeLoefflerMcConnellMcSallyMoranMurkowskiPaulPerduePortmanRischRobertsRomneyRoundsRubioSasseScott (FL)Scott (SC)ShelbyThuneTillisToomeyWickerYoung
NAYS--42
BaldwinBennetBlumenthalBookerBrownCantwellCardinCarperCaseyCollinsCoonsCortez MastoDuckworthDurbinFeinsteinGillibrandHarrisHassanHeinrichHironoJonesKaineKingKlobucharLeahyMenendezMerkleyMurphyPetersReedSchatzSchumerShaheenSmithStabenowTesterUdallVan HollenWarnerWarrenWhitehouseWyden
NOT VOTING--7
ManchinMarkeyMurrayRosenSandersSinemaSullivan
The nomination was confirmed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Walker nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
