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 LAWRENCE VANDYKE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S6350-S6352 on Oct. 31, 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 LAWRENCE VANDYKE
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mr. VanDyke fits neatly into this administration's pattern of picking Federal judges for our circuit courts of appeal without meaningful input from home State Senators. The President continues to select ideologically extreme nominees like Mr. VanDyke, and the White House is putting forward people without enough experience for the momentous roles they have been chosen to serve.
Mr. VanDyke has been nominated to fill a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit even though he is not a Nevadan. He didn't grow up in my State. He doesn't appear to own property there. He doesn't seem to have family ties. And he was an active member of the Nevada State bar for only 2 years.
Senator Rosen and I engaged with the White House to put forward highly respected Nevadans with bipartisan support, but our suggestions were summarily ignored because the White House was laser-focused on Mr. VanDyke.
I want to be clear. The administration did not meaningfully consult about this nomination with Nevada Senators, and the result is a poor nominee.
First and foremost, I am extremely concerned about the effect that Lawrence VanDyke's lifetime appointment would have on women's reproductive rights in America. As Montana's solicitor general, Mr. VanDyke supported an Arizona abortion ban. In an amicus brief in Horne v. Isaacson, he contended that the constitutional right to choose should be revisited. He also defended a Montana law that made it harder for young women in that State to seek an abortion, and he advocated for letting corporations sidestep their obligations to provide insurance coverage for contraception.
Based on this record, I fear that, as a Federal judge, Mr. VanDyke would limit women's health choices in Nevada and throughout the country, including their access to birth control.
His record on LGBTQ rights is also dismal. Mr. VanDyke has ties to two ideologically extreme, anti-LGBTQ groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as hate groups. Those are the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council. These ties are hardly surprising given that Mr. VanDyke has opposed gay rights since law school, when he wrote an article for the Harvard Law Record. This is that article: ``One student's response to `A Response to Glendon.'
'' It is dated March 11, 2004, by Lawrence VanDyke. In this article, he promotes the truth that same-sex marriage would hurt families, children, and society. This is that article, and this is his quote--
clearly not only his writing but his intent and thoughts behind what we have fought for in this country for LGBTQ rights in America for the last 10 years. What he says is,
``What is quite settled, however, is that children on average fare best in stable, two parent families. This, combined with the correlative evidence of the decline in the family unit in Scandinavia, where de facto same-sex marriage has been around for about a decade, does provide ample reason for concern that same-sex marriage will hurt families and consequentially children and society.'' Those are his own words.
As solicitor general of Montana, he also strongly criticized LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws and worked to carve out religious exemptions to them. When signing Montana on to an amicus brief arguing that a photography company could refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding, Mr. VanDyke described the case, which is Elaine Photography v. Willock, as important because it would establish that ``gay rights cannot always trump religious liberty.''
What you have here is an email, while he was a solicitor general in Montana, talking about why this case was important and why it was important that they sign on to the amicus brief. These are his arguments, his statements in an email. He said: ``This is an important case because there is a fairly obvious collision course between religious freedom and gay rights, and this case (because it is an extreme case) could be very important in establishing that gay rights cannot always trump religious liberty.'' These are his own words in an email from Montana when he was solicitor general.
Throughout his career, he has weakened environmental protections and standards, as well. Mr. VanDyke has argued in favor of fossil fuel drilling and supported reviving the Keystone Pipeline, ignoring the voices of conservationists and Native communities.
His actions do not protect our air and water, nor do they recognize the impacts of climate change or safeguard endangered species, including the iconic sage-grouse. In fact, as solicitor general of Nevada, Mr. VanDyke challenged the Republican Governor he served. He actively worked against Governor Brian Sandoval's bipartisan agreement to protect my State's native species. Mr. VanDyke's opposition to land use restrictions to protect sage-grouse was so extreme that Governor Sandoval said publicly that Mr. VanDyke's position ``did not represent the State of Nevada, the governor, or any state agencies.''
With that background, clearly he should not sit on a court with jurisdiction over the West--home to nearly 75 percent of public lands in the Nation.
In the areas of reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, and the environment, Mr. VanDyke's nomination is so troubling because it is clear that he puts his ideology above the law. This vacancy should be filled with a judge who will apply the law to the facts in an unbiased way--something Mr. VanDyke has proved unwilling to do.
Finally, Mr. VanDyke's professional qualifications are simply insufficient. He has very little trial and litigation experience. When he served as Montana solicitor general, his colleagues raised serious concerns about his work ethic and legal skills. When he ran for the Montana Supreme Court, six retired judges of that court described him as ``unqualified.''
As you heard at the confirmation hearings yesterday, the American Bar Association, which provides ratings for judicial nominees, gave him a rating of ``not qualified.'' That is worth repeating. The ABA--the American Bar Association--spoke with 60 lawyers and judges across 4 States and concluded that he wasn't suitable for a position as a judge on the court of appeals. The people with the objections are his former colleagues.
As far as records show, not a single Federal judicial nominee has been appointed to the Federal bench who was lacking both a
``qualified'' or ``well qualified'' ABA rating and the approval of the nominee's home state Senators. If confirmed, Mr. VanDyke would be the very first Federal judge who was judged not qualified and whose blue slips were not returned by their home State Senators. I don't think that is a precedent this Chamber should be proud of.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the last stop for cases that affect Nevada before they reach the Supreme Court. It is vital that Ninth Circuit nominees know the State of Nevada and its issues.
This nominee lived in the Silver State for a total of 4 years before moving to Washington to work at the Department of Justice, where he is currently. In Nevada, we welcome newcomers, but usually they stay in our communities. Mr. VanDyke didn't. Rather than continue to serve Nevadans, he left for a plum job in Washington and is now lobbying for a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. This isn't someone who serves the needs of Nevadans. This isn't someone who knows Nevada or its issues. This is a career political operative who is looking for a guaranteed paycheck.
For all of these reasons, I do not believe Lawrence VanDyke deserves a lifetime appointment to one of the highest courts in the land, which handles 70,000 critical cases each year. He is not the right person in whose hands to leave Americans' reproductive freedom, their fundamental civil rights, and their claim to a free and healthy environment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague Senator Cortez Masto in opposing the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nevada.
Our Federal courts make decisions every day that affect consumers, immigrants, small businesses, not to mention our right to equal treatment, education, and healthcare. As such, our Federal judges must be serious, fairminded, and nonpartisan. We want women and men on the Federal bench who will look at the facts of a case, apply the law, and work hard to reach a just result regardless of who the parties are in front of them. The Federal bench must reflect our country in all its diversity of experience and background.
Even though the Constitution gives the President the power to nominate Federal judges, it also requires the advice and consent of the Senate, and historically the President consults with home state Senators when there is a vacancy. As the representatives to our States, we are better equipped to identify qualified lawyers and judges to serve on the Federal bench who have done good work and who have good reputations in our home communities.
We have numerous qualified, nonpartisan individuals working in the Nevada legal community who would make excellent additions to the Ninth Circuit. There are a number of amazing Nevada lawyers whom Senator Cortez Masto and I would have gladly considered supporting for a seat on this prestigious court. We have litigators, magistrate judges, law professors, prosecutors, public defenders, and existing district court judges with stellar reputations from the State, lawyers and judges from Nevada. They know our State, and they have respected nonpartisan records. But the White House didn't nominate any of these individuals for the Ninth Circuit. Instead, the President nominated Lawrence VanDyke, a Washington, DC, lawyer. He wasn't born in Nevada. He didn't grow up in Nevada. He didn't go to school in Nevada. He doesn't live in Nevada now.
Mr. VanDyke, a Montana native who ran for office there and also worked in Texas, came to Nevada for a job a few years ago, in 2015. When the person he worked for lost a political race in 2018, Mr. VanDyke quickly sold the house he briefly owned in Nevada and moved to Virginia to work in Washington, DC, and as of last week, by his own admission, he hasn't even been back to Nevada since then.
He is a DC lawyer and a failed political candidate from Montana who shares this White House's extreme political views. They are imposing him on Nevada despite the fact that we have so many qualified people in our own State who enjoy broad support across the political spectrum.
Nevada has a vibrant community, and we take pride in knowing each other, respecting each other, and most importantly, putting partisan politics aside when it comes to working together for the betterment of our State. So if someone is a good judge or lawyer, if they are honest and they have a good reputation professionally, if they are civil in court and have a respectful demeanor, you will usually hear the same things about that person from everyone.
These are the types of people who should be Federal judges: people who treat everyone fairly and with respect, who are smart, who are fair, and who follow the facts to get a just result.
After reviewing Mr. VanDyke's record and meeting with him privately and watching his testimony before the Judiciary Committee yesterday, I have arrived at the determination that Mr. VanDyke does not fit that mold.
Mr. VanDyke spent a lot of time in our meeting talking about how the role of a Federal judge is simply to apply the law and not to try to change it. His record clearly shows otherwise.
How do we know this? Because before coming to Nevada, Mr. VanDyke worked for the Montana attorney general. Many of his emails from that time are public. They show he used that government office, where his job was to defend the laws of Montana--instead, what he chose to do is advance his own personal ideological agenda, even when it was against his State's interests. At least in one instance, he signed the State of Montana onto a brief without even bothering to read it.
Among the briefs Mr. VanDyke signed in his home State of Montana during his tenure as solicitor general was one asking the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v. Wade and all of the reproductive cases that followed Roe. When it comes to a woman's right to make her decisions about her own body, Mr. VanDyke's views and actions are far outside the mainstream, and they are far out of step with the views of the people of Nevada.
I am also concerned about the comments Mr. VanDyke has made about LGBTQ Americans. In 2004, Mr. VanDyke wrote that there is ``ample reason for concern that same-sex marriage will hurt families, and consequentially children and society.''
The LGBTQ community is at a critical point in its fight for equality. This term, the Supreme Court is considering whether employers in the United States can fire an individual merely for being gay or transgender. When the next case on LGBTQ rights comes up for judicial consideration, it could come before Lawrence VanDyke.
If that isn't enough, here is one more thing to consider. The American Bar Association has, by a substantial majority, rated Mr. VanDyke as unqualified. For a lifetime appointment, we should always strive for a candidate who is very qualified. No, they gave us Lawrence VanDyke, who was rated ``not qualified.''
Why did the ABA make this determination? Well, I will let the ABA's words speak for themselves. Based on interviews with 60 individuals who have worked with Mr. VanDyke over the years, including more than 40 lawyers and over a dozen judges, this is what the ABA said.
Mr. VanDyke's past work is offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is . . . lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules. There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ``entitlement'' temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
Surely you agree, no matter who is in the White House or who controls the Senate, you would want the Federal judges in your States to come from and reflect your communities. You would want to trust these judges to be fair to your constituents and not use cases to advance their own ideological agenda, and you would want your judges to be, at a minimum, qualified to serve on the bench.
I oppose the nomination of Mr. VanDyke, and if it is withdrawn or voted down, I will be ready that day to work with this White House on finding nominees from Nevada who are qualified and fair and nonpartisan. The people of my home State of Nevada, particularly today, on Nevada Day, deserve nothing less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
____________________
