Nomination of Mike Pompeo

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose Kyle Duncan's nomination to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A review of Mr. Duncan's record--his cases and chosen causes--shows he is a dangerous, ideological nominee who has consistently been on the wrong side of women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights. Let's start with Mr. Duncan's record that argues against women's rights and reproductive freedom.

When he served as the lead counsel in the infamous Hobby Lobby case, he argued that an employer can interfere with a woman's personal healthcare choices.

In Texas, he filed a brief that was in favor of abortion restrictions that would have shut down the vast majority of clinics in that State-- restrictions the Supreme Court, ultimately, ruled an ``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion.

In my home State of Washington, he filed a brief that argued pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for ideological reasons. Fortunately, his views did not prevail.

Then there is Mr. Duncan's long record of opposing LGBTQ rights.

When it comes to the rights of same-sex couples, he argued against two loving parents who wanted to change their baby's birth certificate so they could add him to their insurance plan. He argued for denying a same-sex spouse her parental visiting rights to the children she had raised for 8 years. He also defended bans on same-sex marriages in Louisiana and Virginia.

When the Supreme Court was considering whether to strike down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide, he said the harm of doing this would be ``severe, unavoidable, and irreversible,'' and he filed an amicus brief against it. When the Court then made its historic decision to recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, Mr. Duncan said it ``raises questions about the legitimacy of the Court.'' He said it might ``imperil civic peace.''

When it comes to the rights of transgender people, he fought for the intolerant, harmful bathroom ban in North Carolina and against Gavin, a young boy in Virginia who simply wanted his school to allow him to use the men's restroom. He did it by using bigoted remarks that were nothing short of appalling.

In defending the outrageous ban in North Carolina, he relied on bogus testimony from a self-proclaimed expert who suggested that transgender people are delusional. In his opposing Gavin in Virginia, Mr. Duncan advanced the offensive and discredited conspiracy theory that schools need to fear athletes who pretend to be transgender in order to gain a competitive advantage.

Outside of the court, outside of his client work, he has repeatedly addressed an organization that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center--an organization that calls marriage equality an ``oxymoronic institution if ever there was one.''

There are other red flags about his commitment to defending civil rights.

For example, when the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors were unconstitutional, he argued the ruling shouldn't apply retroactively.

He argued that prisons that are packed to double their capacity were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting the problem caused ``needless suffering and death.''

In a case involving an innocent man who had spent 14 years on death row--an innocent man--Mr. Duncan argued that the district attorney's office was not at fault for failing to train a staff member who had withheld evidence.

When it comes to one of the fundamental rights in a democracy--the right to vote, the right of the people to choose their government officials--Mr. Duncan defended a racially tailored voter ID law in North Carolina, which the courts ultimately struck down for targeting African Americans with ``almost surgical precision.''

Any one of these cases Mr. Duncan has chosen to take should raise alarm, and any one of the ideological arguments he has made should cause concern. Yet all of them together paint an unmistakable picture of a nominee who would not uphold women's rights, LGBTQ rights, or civil rights.

To paraphrase one of his own statements, if confirmed, I believe the damage Mr. Duncan will do to people by putting his ideology over their rights will be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible. I oppose his nomination. I urge all of my colleagues to join me.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source