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.
“NOMINATION OF MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S3647-S3649 on June 18, 2019.
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:
NOMINATION OF MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
June is the month that we recognize as Pride Month to celebrate the lesbian and gay community and to acknowledge that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation; yet, today we are voting on a nominee, Mr. Kacsmaryk, whose career has been defined by opposition to the rights of LGBT Americans. He has argued against marriage equality and defended a company that refused to provide service to a same-sex couple, simply based on their sexual orientation.
It is disappointing that the Senate is moving forward on his nomination, and even more disappointing that the majority has scheduled this vote during Pride Month.
Mr. Kacsmaryk 's long record of opposing civil rights protections for LGBT Americans should disqualify him from service on the bench. They demonstrate that he puts his personal opinion above Supreme Court precedent.
Specifically, I want to highlight some key positions in his record.
In 2015, Mr. Kashmir made comments deeply critical of United States v. Windsor, the case that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed that the Obama administration, which refused to defend DOMA, had ``effectively collaborated with the adversary.'' Mr. Kacsmaryk's comments make clear that he believes those fighting for the right of LGBT American, including the right to marry, are adversaries. Someone making a statement like this should quite simply not be a Federal judge.
He likewise claimed in a radio interview that efforts to achieve marriage equality were marked by ``lawlessness,'' adding that the Justice Department's refusal to defend DOMA was an ``abuse of rule of law principles.''
Also in 2015, Mr. Kacsmaryk submitted a brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case that guaranteed marriage equality.
Mr. Kacsmaryk urged the Court to deny that the 14th Amendment extended to the right of same-sex couples to marry. He argued that finding a nationwide right to marriage equality would violate the free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and he claimed that allowing gay couples to marry would
``silence religious dissenters who continue to hold to their millennia-
old definition of marriage.'' The Supreme Court disagreed.
In 2016, Mr. Kacsmaryk continued his efforts opposing the civil rights of LGBT individuals by defending a company that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, simply because they were gay.
Mr. Kacsmaryk denied that the business had refused to sell the cake because of the customers' sexual orientation. Instead, he claimed that the law prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals ``forc[ed] business owners to publicly facilitate ceremonies, rituals, and other expressive events with which they have fundamental'' disagreements.
Businesses should not be permitted to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation, but in Matthew Kacsmaryk's opinion, it is completely acceptable to do just that.
Throughout his career, Mr. Kacsmaryk has taken particularly offensive positions on the rights of transgender Americans, including transgender youth.
He has argued that being transgender is a ``delusion.''
He also signed onto a letter claiming that transgender people are suffering from a ``psychological condition in need of care,'' and are
``not a category of persons in need of special legal protection.''
Taken together, these positions show that Mr. Kacsmaryk has strong personal beliefs and is opposed to defending civil rights of gay and lesbian individuals.
Further, when asked during his hearing whether he would recuse himself from cases involving LGBT individuals, Mr. Kacsmaryk refused. When asked in written questions how his record did not create an appearance of impropriety when it comes to deciding cases on gay rights, Mr. Kacsmaryk simply cited the Federal recusal statute, refusing to answer the question directly.
In addition, Mr. Kacsmaryk has also worked to undermine women's access to reproductive healthcare.
For example, he argued that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement was unconstitutional, and then later claimed that the Obama administration's religious accommodation to that requirement was likewise unconstitutional.
Without any evidence, Mr. Kacsmaryk accused the Obama administration of treating religious protections ``as a secondary consideration.'' With respect to the accommodation, which required nonprofit organizations to submit a one-page form to their insurer noting their objections, Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed the government was ``forc[ing] religious objectors to provide material aid to those who would commit the ultimately wrongful act'' of providing contraceptives.
He also argued that a Washington State statute requiring all pharmacies to stock emergency contraceptives violated the rights of religious pharmacists. The statute permitted individual pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions that ran contrary to their religious beliefs.
But this was not enough for Mr. Kacsmaryk, who argued that the pharmacies themselves should be exempt from the statute. He also claimed that in seeking to provide contraception to women, Washington had ``radically depart[ed] from the nationwide consensus protecting conscience rights'' for health care professionals.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Given the positions he has taken in litigation and the inflammatory comments he has made in his personal capacity, I am concerned Mr. Kacsmaryk will not bring the temperament needed to demonstrate respect for all litigants that we expect from all Federal judges.
I am voting against Mr. Kacsmaryk because I believe his record shows he is far outside the legal mainstream, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, this month, many of us are celebrating Pride Month and reaffirming the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQ community. We also celebrated the fight for equal rights for women with the 100th anniversary of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
But instead of celebrating these rights and freedoms, here is what Senate Republicans have in store for us. This week, they will confirm a Federal judge to a lifetime appointment who has devoted his career to advocating against the rights of LGBTQ people and women under the guise of religious liberty.
Through his actions as a lawyer and private citizen, Matthew Kacsmaryk, the nominee for the Northern District of Texas, has made his hostility towards LGBTQ individuals, marriage equality, and reproductive rights clear.
As deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, Kacsmaryk urged the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges to rule that there is no nationwide right to same-sex marriage. After the Supreme Court disagreed with him, Kacsmaryk wrote an article criticizing not only Obergefell, but also the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. He argued that the fight for marriage equality and reproductive rights were ``
`radical' . . . demands'' of the ``Sexual Revolution.'' In his view, this Sexual Revolution ``sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.''
As a lawyer, Kacsmaryk advocated for employers who objected to providing contraceptive coverage as part of the healthcare required under the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. Outside of the courtroom, he continued his advocacy against reproductive rights. In a 2016 interview, he complained about ``imposition of a secular judgment on an essentially sacred question'' in the contraceptive mandate cases. He pointed to the First Amendment concerns of religious actors while failing to mention that the use of contraception is constitutionally protected.
Kacsmaryk also urged the Supreme Court to allow a Virginia school board to require students to use the restroom corresponding to their
``biological gender'' and a State labor and industry board in Oregon to let a bakery refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes. It is no wonder that more than 200 groups oppose his nomination, including Lambda Legal and 74 other LGBT and allied groups, the National Women's Law Center, and AFL-CIO.
Earlier this year, I entered a letter into the record from about 300 parents of transgender children who opposed Kacsmaryk's nomination
``because of his demeaning attacks on transgender children and adults.'' In their letter, these parents pointed to Mr. Kacsmaryk's efforts to ``repeatedly promote [ ] fringe, junk science about transgender people, claiming that gender identity doesn't exist and that being transgender is a `delusion.' '' They explain why his actions are so concerning and why his nomination makes them fear for their children. They wrote: ``Kacsmaryk's words are deeply offensive and harmful. . . . Our children are not a delusion, and neither is our love and support for them. We believe our children are miracles, like every child.''
Despite Kacsmaryk's offensive statements and extensive record against the LGBT community, he is being rushed to confirmation during Pride Month because Majority Leader McConnell and Donald Trump are intent on packing the courts with deeply partisan judges with extreme ideological agendas.
While our friends in the House have been busy passing bill after bill to protect women from violence, reduce senseless gun violence, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, Senate Republicans have ignored these bipartisan bills and maintained their single-minded focus on confirming extreme judges. That is because Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish extreme, conservative outcomes through the courts that they been unable to achieve through legislation. As Majority Leader McConnell previously explained, legislation can be repealed, but
``[w]hat can't be undone is a lifetime appointment.''
In the past, this lifetime appointment was viewed as an important protection to ensure courts remained independent and fair minded. Now, it is being weaponized as a tool to enforce extreme, conservative policies through the confirmation of deeply partisan and ideologically driven judicial nominees.
In the past 2-and-a-half years, we have seen why it is so critical to have fair and independent courts. As Senate Republicans race to pack the courts with more and more partisan judges with extreme ideologies, the integrity and independence of the Federal judiciary is at stake.
Americans must be able to trust that courts act fairly and impartially to protect the rights of all Americans. That is why I will vote against Matthew Kacsmaryk's nomination today.
____________________
