Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Andrew Oldham to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Oldham is only 39 years old. He checks the Federalist Society box, having been a member since law school of that rightwing legal group that vets all of President Trump's nominees. Mr. Oldham has spent much of his career litigating on behalf of Republican elected officials in Texas State government, where he worked on challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the DACA and DAPA programs, the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act regulations, ``Ban the Box'' regulations on job applications, and Clean Air Act regulations, among many others.

Mr. Oldham's extreme ideology is apparent from statements he has made in his personal capacity. At his nomination hearing, he refused to say that the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided. That was an astonishing moment. Every Supreme Court nominee who has been asked this question has said he or she believed Brown v. Board was correctly decided. In recent hearings before the Judiciary Committee, nominees have answered yes to this question without hesitation; yet Mr. Oldham wouldn't answer.

If a nominee refuses to say that Brown v. Board was correctly decided, it certainly raises questions in my mind about the nominee's judgment, but that is not all Mr. Oldham has said.

At his hearing, he refused to say whether he agreed that voter discrimination still exists in the United States.

He gave an interview in 2016 where he described the Supreme Court as ``the most dangerous branch'' and said ``they often fail to enforce our sacred rights that are in the Constitution, while creating rights that are not.'' Keep in mind, this is a Supreme Court where the majority of justices were appointed by Republican Presidents.

He gave a speech to the Federalist Society in 2016 where he said, ``I have particular things that I think are illegitimate in the way that we conduct modern American law.'' He went on to say, ``It's not that I disagree with a particular Department of Labor regulation or a particular IRS regulation; it is the entire existence of this edifice of administrative law that is constitutionally suspect.''

He also wrote in a law review article that ``the Sherman Act, as it is currently understood, is unconstitutional.'' The Sherman Act is one of our foundational antitrust laws; it prohibits monopolies and restraints of trade.

Mr. Oldham's views are clearly outside the judicial mainstream. His own words and writings show an extreme ideological agenda.

Of course, like all of President Trump's nominees, he has promised he would cast all his views aside if confirmed and simply follow the law. But time after time, we have seen these nominees get confirmed to the bench and then start interpreting the law to produce outcomes that align with their preexisting, Federalist Society-approved views and side with corporations and wealthy elites over working Americans.

Mr. Oldham is ideologically extreme, he has shown instances of terrible judgment, and he has said things that would make litigants question whether he could be a fair and impartial judge. I oppose his nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source