We can have voice votes on the executive nominees on the agenda
today. We’d like to hold the bill over since it is on the agenda for the first
time.
As for the judicial nominees, I’ll be supporting Judge Ballou and Judge
Lawless.
I want to briefly explain my decision to oppose Judge Benjamin’s
nomination. For circuit court nominees, I’ll support nominees if they’re
committed to following the Constitution and laws as written.
Unfortunately, Judge Benjamin doesn’t have many decisions
available that address constitutional law or other complex legal issues.
That makes it hard to judge her judicial philosophy.
The decisions she has made raise serious concerns. She had
decisions in which she granted bond that raised public safety concerns. In one,
she said it was because of the Speedy Trial Clause. But at her hearing, she
didn’t mention the most important factor in that analysis, whether the
defendant was prejudiced by delay.
Her decision to give a sentence below the mandatory minimum was
also concerning. The legislature went to great lengths to say a minimum
sentence was required and no credit could reduce a sentence below the minimum.
I understand that some people don’t think it’s relevant to talk
about judicial philosophy.
Almost everyone used to agree that it’s “fair to inquire into a
nominee’s judicial philosophy.” Some on the other side even acknowledged that
judicial philosophy plays a “central role” in nominations hearings.
Some tried to convince Americans that living constitutionalism
really wasn’t that bad. But Americans weren’t buying it.
It looks like this administration decided on a different plan. Most
nominees won’t explain their philosophies.
I understand some people disagree with originalism. But, as Justice Scalia used to say, it takes
a theory to beat a theory.
When he referred to a theory, I’m confident he didn’t mean the
conspiracy theories offered by dark money groups on the left that there’s a
shadowy conservative cabal telling conservative judges how to rule.
Because Judge Benjamin hasn’t convinced me that she’s committed to
enforcing the Constitution and laws as written, I’ll be voting no on her
nomination.
I also wanted to explain my opposition to Judge Joun, a nominee
for the district court in Massachusetts. He opposed the Department of Homeland
Security’s Secure Communities program, which checks fingerprints from people
arrested by state and local police with immigration records.
That’s a commonsense program, and his explanation for why he
opposed it wasn’t satisfactory.
I’d like to take this opportunity to mention some important
bipartisan work that I believe we can accomplish before this Congress ends. I
know many of my colleagues agree with me that one of the most significant
things we do in this committee is protecting the victims of terrible crimes.
Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, Klobuchar, and I are working to
reauthorize the Trafficking Victim Protection Act to provide services to
victims of human trafficking. Senator Ossoff and I are working to modernize
federal offenses that protect children from sex abuse.
Many members of this committee have given valuable feedback on
both, and I believe these bills can soon move to the floor. I thank my
colleagues for your partnership.
