Executive Calendar
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the U.S. Supreme Court and our country. This body is often called upon to consider court nominations for the district courts and the courts of appeals, but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest Court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come.
When we are called upon to consider a Supreme Court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. Ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the Court. Ordinarily Presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. So ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values, since they are unknown when we first hear their names.
We live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. These are not ordinary times. We live at a time when there is, right before our eyes, an ongoing assault on the rule of law in this country, coming from the President of the United States on down. We live at a time when the courts are critically important to our democracy because they are a bulwark for fundamental rights and liberty, and when the history of this era is written, I believe that our judiciary and our free press will be the heroes because they stood between the President defying the law and preserving those key freedoms and rights that are foundational to our democracy.
What we know about the President's nominee for the highest Court in the land--the most important to that effort against this assault on the rule of law--is that he will ``automatically'' vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We know that he will vote effectively to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and to undermine protections for millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes, obesity, alcohol abuse, addiction to opioids, stroke, Parkinson's, and many other preexisting conditions. Millions of Americans suffer from those kinds of sicknesses, including more than 500,000 Connecticut residents. We are a State of about 3.5 million people, so you can do the math. There are a lot of Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions.
We know these facts because we have heard them from none other than the President of the United States, who said that his nominee would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and who berated Chief Justice Roberts for upholding the Affordable Care Act in his decisive swing vote. When a President tells you he is trying to eliminate basic legal rights and liberties for the people of the United States, you better take him at his word, and I do. But in this case, actually we need not take the President at his word because we can review the facts--in fact, the circumstantial evidence surrounding this nomination.
The President has allowed himself to become a puppet of rightwing fringe groups--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which have been trying to strike down Roe v. Wade and overturn it for decades. As one recent news story put it, if you want a seat on the Supreme Court, the man to see is not Donald Trump; it is Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society have made clear their desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for years, and Mr. Leo's friend, Ed Whelan, brags about Leo's efforts, stating: ``No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo.''
The President of the United States outsourced this decision to the Federalist Society and other groups long intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. They produced for him a list. He selected from that list, and the rest is an unfortunate, deeply tragic chapter in American history.
The Heritage Foundation has been vehement in its desire to overturn and strike down the Affordable Care Act and deny many Americans access to health insurance. It has fought to end protections for people who suffer from these conditions, and they are not only the ones I have mentioned but also many others that are common throughout our society. Its efforts to shape the Supreme Court are a part of a conscious, concerted strategy in a war on the ACA.
Perhaps as troubling as any other fact about this nominee, to many of us who have seen the horrific, unspeakable effects of gun violence, Judge Kavanaugh is the dream candidate of the NRA. He has taken the view that almost all commonsense, sensible measures to stop gun violence violate the Constitution.
He is the dream pick of the NRA. He is a nightmare for the students of Parkland, the survivors of Orlando, Columbine, San Bernardino, and all of the mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, and all of the victims and survivors, their loved ones, families, and friends, who know the tragic effects of those 90 people gunned down every day in America. Those 90 victims every day in this country who die as a result of gun violence bear witness to why we should reject this nominee.
Just minutes after Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, the NRA endorsed him, showering praise on his extreme record against gun safety. As an appellate judge, Judge Kavanaugh heard the sequel to Heller, a case regarding the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's gun registration requirement and semiautomatic assault rifle ban. On a panel of all Republican appointees, Judge Kavanaugh was the only judge to vote to strike down both gun safety measures as unconstitutional.
His basic premise is that gun laws have to be similar or identical to laws that he considers ``traditional'' or ``longstanding.'' He rejects bans on assault weapons and gun registration requirements. He has no clear definition of what is ``longstanding'' and enables a statute to be upheld. But consider his logic. He has, in effect, ruled out any statute that bears no resemblance or connection to laws on gun violence on the books in 1789. That is a breathtaking concept of the constitutional test that should be applied to measures against gun violence.
The Founders almost certainly never considered the possibility of universal background checks at a time when it might have been impossible to do it anyway and when the kinds of firearms available were very different than they are now. By Judge Kavanaugh's logic, Congress would seemingly be prohibited from requiring universal background checks, even though more than 90 percent of all Americans want them on the books.
That is a radical view, even for the far right. Should Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can say good-bye to a slew of gun safety measures around the country in States like Connecticut, California, New York, or, now, Florida. Many other States are realizing that they should be on the right side of history and the right side of the American people and adopt commonsense, sensible measures. They would be struck down by the logic that Judge Kavanaugh would bring to the Supreme Court. We would have fewer safeguards against the scourge of gun violence.
There is now one mass shooting every day and 90 deaths every day in America. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gun violence--a public health emergency. With Judge Kavanaugh as a member of the Nation's highest Court, this epidemic would continue unabated.
This nominee is part of a concerted, coordinated effort to roll back the clock, to take the Nation back to a time--one of our darkest eras-- when abortion was criminalized, when women died and they were denied access to contraception and the morning-after pill, when Americans were denied healthcare because of those preexisting conditions, and when civil rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, and workers' rights were largely ignored.
That prospect is frightening. For President Trump, the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is about more than just undermining or eviscerating these fundamental rights. It is about undermining and eviscerating the rule of law.
Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President can refuse to enforce a law if he believes that it is unconstitutional--if he alone believes it is unconstitutional--even if that law was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. He has written that special counsels--like Robert Mueller, who is investigating the President--should be appointed only by the President and should be removable by the President. Under that rule, Robert Mueller never would have been appointed as special counsel, and the President would be able to fire him for no reason at all--except that he is investigating the President.
Finally, Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President should not have to deal with those responsibilities or burdens that the rest of us, ordinary Americans, fulfill. A President under Judge Kavanaugh's rule could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, and would not have to respond to a civil suit, a subpoena, or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. He need not be interviewed by the FBI or cooperate with law enforcement because under Judge Kavanaugh's concept the President is above the law. Nothing is more fundamental, no principle more sacrosanct in this country--no one is above the law. No President. No one is above the law.
A President who has demonstrated unprecedented disdain for the rule of law has nominated a Justice who will tell him he can ignore the law. A President who has fought tooth and nail against the special counsel's investigating some of the most serious crimes has nominated a Justice who would allow him to fire the special counsel at will for no reason. A President who faces not only the prospect of indictment but an ongoing civil suit brought by nearly 200 Members of Congress--I am proud to be leading them--for his violation of the chief anti- corruption provision in the Constitution would be declared above the law, immune from lawsuit and accountability.
We are going to continue with that lawsuit to make sure that the President obeys the Constitution and comes to Congress for consent before he accepts the payments and benefits in the hundreds of millions of dollars that he is doing every day. Judge Kavanaugh would absolve him of accountability.
These are no ordinary times. In the coming days, I will be speaking out on other areas where Judge Kavanaugh would undermine the rights of everyday Americans and put the rights of corporations and special interests above them.
Judge Kavanaugh would prevent Congress and the States from passing commonsense gun violence laws that will save lives. He would invalidate a slew of existing laws in States across the country, and he would leave powerful corporations to prey on consumers, workers, and anybody who wants to breathe clean air or drink clean water.
These prospects are not imaginary or abstract. Read his opinions and his writings. In one area of law after another, Judge Kavanaugh poses a clear and present danger to our fundamental liberties, to effective government, and to the rule of law. To the people who say to me ``What can we do?'' our challenge is a call to action. It is to mobilize and galvanize America, just as we did during the healthcare debate, when they said the Affordable Care Act would be repealed, and we mustered Americans' sense of outrage and alarm.
I say to the students of Parkland who spoke so eloquently and movingly, your time has come; to the patients who came to my townhalls in Connecticut and spoke so powerfully about their fear of what would happen to them and their insurance coverage if preexisting conditions were declared in violation of those insurance policies, your time has come; to all who care about civil rights and civil liberties, workers' rights, and gay rights, your time has come. We need to hear your voice here, just as we did during the healthcare debate, as powerfully and eloquently. The challenge is yours in stopping this nomination, as it is our responsibility to demand specific answers that this nominee recuse himself from any consideration of the President's financial dealings or the special counsel and to reject the phony platitudes and the evasive and vague answers that have been accepted before, because we know that the old platitudes adhering to settled precedent is meaningless. We do not live in ordinary times. We need extraordinary efforts to make sure that the U.S. Supreme Court remains faithful to the rule of law.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source