tv U.S. Senate Senators Hatch Cardin on Kavanaugh Confirmation CSPAN October 5, 2018 8:12am-9:05am EDT
hearing the voice laughter that she will remember all these years later. i'm voting against brettug kavanaugh because i believe dr. christine blasey ford here because i believe deborah ramirez. because we need a a nominee who will not cover up a lot about torture butse also because i knw the american people deserve a fair-minded supreme court justice who actually cares about honesty and the t truth. that's the berman we should expect from, an homage to the supreme court, and brett kavanaugh can't even clear that low hurdle. and with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> nearly three months ago i came to the senate floor for the first time tof support presidet trump's nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. here's what i had to say at that time, quote, judge kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most influential judges -- in
the supreme court has -- excuse me come in the entire country. the supreme court has adopted the positions in his opinions no less than 11 times. he has authored multiple the sins that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court. he has taught courses at harvard law school, at yale law school, and georgetown's law school and it bears mention liberal and conservative justices alike have hired his former clerks which shows the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. surely, mr. president, there iss no one more qualified and more for purchaser under supreme court than brett kavanaugh, not even close. about us transpired in the last three months. we've received and reviewed more documents for judge kavanaugh than for any other supreme court
nominee in our nation's history. we've had five days of public hearings. judge kavanaugh has answered more than 1300 written questions, more questions than all previous supreme court nominees combined. we've had protesters in halls and hearing rooms and elevators. we've even seen the miraculous return ofou spartacus, and try o with the lowest most vile, most dishonest attempt and character assassination that i've ever seen in my whole 42 years serving and the united transce. we may never know who leaked reports of dr. ford's applications to the press. we do know that it was somewhat at the democratic orbit. this was followed by the most appalling smear campaign imaginable. no accusation was too heinous.
no claim to far-fetched. my democratic colleagues like to pretend that judge kavanaugh's understand indignation at last week hearing was a reaction only to dr. ford'sti allegations. but, of course, that's not the case. in the days immediately preceding that hearing, judge kavanaugh was accused of drugging women, of sexual assault, and even gang rape. judge kavanaugh told the committee, investigators, it was like the twilight zone. i sure wish my democratic colleagues would stop trying to rewrite history. and i hope that they will start talking to the prince on the outside, to start acting like americans again. and to quit this kind of
divisive activity. at like to say a word here about dr. ford. it's clear now that we will never know what happened 35 years, 36 years ago. dr. ford offered a a moving account of what she says happened between her and judge kavanaugh back when they were teenagers. judge kavanaugh intern offered a forceful and passion in bottle of her cleanse. some have criticized judge kavanaugh for being too forceful in his response. my gosh, if that was me i would be even more forceful than he was to a false accusations like that, especially at this particular time in this process. interestingly, almost without exception these critics that announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh even before dr. ford's allegations were leaked to the press. so let's not pretend these critics are neutral observers. and in any event, judge kavanaugh's indignation of what he clearly believes are false
and unjust accusations was both understandable, and in my view, entirely proper. dr. ford's allegations are serious. if true, they shouldif disqualiy judge kavanaugh from serving on the supreme court. neither dr. ford know her attorneys nor any member of the news media has been able to provide any corroboration for her claims. to the contrary, every alleged eyewitness or partygoer that she is nameds as either denied her allegations or fail to corroborate them. this includes her lifelong friend leland keyser home dr. ford's as was present at the party that night. ms. keyser says that not only does she not remember such a gathering of her taking place, but that she, does not even know judge kavanaugh. russians have been raised in
recent days about certain elements of dr. ford's testimony. she says she first told others that judge kavanaugh had attacked her around the time of the house remodel adding a second front door to her home. a door was added for years prior to her first alleged mention of judge kavanaugh. she testified she had never given advice on how to take a polygraph test. from boyfriend others, however, disputes that statement. dr. ford has also offered inconsistent accounts when the attack took place, and how many people were present at that party.f there are other aspects of her stories that are also confusing. she does not remember where or when the attack took place. but she remembers with crystal clarity how much alcohol she had
consumed. this appears to be the only fact unrelated to the alleged attack that she's able to recall with certainty. dr. ford also testified that after the attack she ran out of the party, allocation of the party with have to be some distance from her home. she was too young to drive, so would've had to gotten a ride home.had to gotten a but she does not recall who drove her home. and given that this was long before the era of cell phones, it's unclear how she would have contacted someone to come pick her up after she ran out of the party. even more puzzling, her good friend, ms. keyser, apparently never asked dr. ford why she disappeared from the party. given that there is no corroborating evidence for dr. ford's claims, all we have to go on is her story, although not dispositive, the questions
and inconsistencies and puzzling aspects that ial just outlined call into question the reliability of her account. this is simply not enough, mr. president, to conclude that judge kavanaugh is guilty of the heinous act dr. ford alleges. it flies in the face of the life he is lived and as a judge. how effective he is been as a judge. on the second highest court of the land. against the thinness of dr. ford'sns accusations, we hae an entire lifetime of good works and honorable public service by judge kavanaugh. we have received dozens of letters and hundreds of people attesting to judge kavanaugh's good character and unimpeachable credentials. his clerks, students and former colleagues have all praised him as a man of the highest integrity. he has made the promotion and
encouragement of women lawyers from his time on the bench. he volunteers inom his community and mentors young athletes. this is a good man. he's a very good man. he does not deserve this kind of treatment or behavior. what dr. ford alleges is entirely out of character with the entire course of judge kavanaugh's life. the recent sideshow stories about his drinking habits in high school, my gosh, in college, over 30 years ago from people who never liked him in the first place are just a distraction. if this i confirmation process s turned into feeding frenzy about
how nice justice kagan was to his freshman roommate is an embarrassment. that said, the senate has taken these allegations seriously, as we should. we invited dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to testify, and it did so. committee investigators spoke with numerous individuals who said they had relevant information to share. the committee also took statements under penalty of felony from the alleged witnesses dr. ford names. in addition, the fbi recently completed a supplement background check of judge kavanaugh, and thend fbi found o collaborating evidence for any of the recent allegations against judge ford. or judge kavanaugh, excuse me. let me repeat that. and the fbi found no corroborating evidence for any of the recent allegations against him. not a single piece of corroborating evidence.
now that the fbi has done no corroborating evidence, some of my democratic colleagues shamefully h have taken to callg into question the credibility of the fbi and its investigators. these attacks are responsible to say the least. indeed, contrary to what my democratic colleagues have said, the fbi contacted a thorough, professional and expeditious investigation. the fbi talk to the people is needed to talk to. what agents did not do is talk to someone who says he talked to someone more than 30 years ago, who now doesn't remember saying anything. they didn't invest it with a judge kavanaugh was, in fact, bodnar punch bowl at a high school party. and they were right not to do so. fbi investigation is not a wild
goose chase. some of my democratic colleagues also complained that the fbi did not interview dr. ford or judge kavanaugh during the supplemental investigation. well, dr. ford testified at a public hearing for nearly three hours. she told the committee that should given us all of the information she could remember. the fbi does not need to repeat question that have alreadyns ben asked and answered, taken when a person has already said she shared everything she can remember. there judge kavanaugh, likewise, testified publicly at the hearing. he also spent several hours answering questions from committeeto investigators under penalty of filming on several different occasions. he has been thoroughly interrogated under oath in public and in private. about these allegations.
some of my senate judiciary committee colleagues made the unfortunate choice last night to smear judge kavanaugh with yet another piece of innuendo. eight members of the committee sent a letter in which they incorrectly implied that the six previous background checks on judge kavanaugh contained information concerning sexual improprieties or alcohol abuse. and in so doing they took advantage of rules to protect the confidentiality says to score cheap political points. although we should all be disquieted on my colleagues, is, the american people can rest assured that no such information exists. if it did democrats would've raised it before now. that we can be certain. indeed, mr. president, after
weeks of nonstop mudslinging and attempted character assassination by senate democrats and their media allies, no one, no one has been able to find any charge against judge kavanaugh that sticks. and you can believe, they have tried. this has been the worst example of the washington smear machine that i've seen in all my 42 years of senate service. so we look back when we were before this whole s sordid saga began. judge kavanaugh is imminently qualified, unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. he is among the most distinguished influential judges in the entire country. his opinions have received widespread acclaim and have won
approval by the supreme court on multiple occasions, multiple occasions. the american bar association interviewed more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know judge kavanaugh, and two of the period before him, and they all spoke with a virtual unanimity in praising his integrity, his work product, and his judicial temperament. somebody who tried cases in federal court i would've been happy to i add judge kavanaugh o i know would give a fair shake to both sides. he's the kind of a judge i would have admired in every way, and i do. but i would have admired in every way as a practicing trial lawyer. who's had significant expense. i hold the highest rating, the
aba rating from martindale hubbell, which is the rating service that rates attorneys without their knowledge. by going two other top lawyers in the areas come and i've had that highest rating in two states, in pennsylvania and in utah. so i take these matters very seriously. i believe in the federal courts here i think they do a terrific job in this country. i have nothing but admiration for them. there are very few exceptions, and i think it's just a terrible, ridiculous problem that has arisen here because people are playing politics with this judge and this judgeship. i'm sorry that judge kavanaugh
has had to go through this ordeal. he did not deserve this. he is a good man. he spent decades building a reputation of decency andne fairness. his opponents have destroyed, have attempted to destroy it with three weeks of smut and unsubstantiated allegations. it makes me sick to see this type of stuff. it certainly does when someone -- some of my colleagues buy into it, which they shouldn't. they should not. but i know brett kavanaugh. i know him well. he's a man of great resilience and firm conviction. he is going to be a great justice. perhaps one of the greatest we've ever had. he will bring to the supreme court the integrity, honor and intellectual rigor he has demonstrated throughout his entire career. and soon enough he will have
built his reputation, he will learn the respect of his -- earn the respect of his college and that the american people through his writings and his decisions. of that i have no doubt. i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. he is unquestionably qualified. he has gone through the most thorough vetting process i've ever seen. and it's been a miserable, wretched process in some respects. but he's come through, and we would all give him credit for that. hundreds of thousands ofds documents produced, five days of hearings, seven fbi background checks. we know what we need to know. the american people know what they need to know. it's time to vote. it's time to confirm this good man to the united states supreme court, and i hope this body will
get to that decision-making process as soon as it can. it's time to end this charade. it's time to back this really good man. and i predict he will make one of the great justice on the united states supreme court. i'm grateful to my colleagues who have given him the benefit of the doubt, and you know him and know that these things are not true. and i'm grateful for serving in the united states senate. i wouldld sure hate to end my service with further smears to a good man like judge kavanaugh. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from maryland. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have read the fbi report. i've listened to the judiciary committee hearings including the
second hearing with dr. fordan d judge kavanaugh. i've reviewed judge kavanaugh's opinions as a judge and his public record during his tenure in the white house. based on his record i cannot support his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of thehe united states. i'd reached this conclusion before dr. ford's allegations were made, based on his court opinions and white house record. that conclusion was reinforced by judge kavanaugh's testimony and responsive dr. ford's powerful and compelling testimony raising very serious issues concerning judge kavanaugh's conduct. judge kavanaugh's response demonstrated his lack of impartiality and temperament, which is a critical qualification to serve as a judge. that view was reinforced by a letter written by over 1000 law professors and legal scholars reaching the same conclusion that i had drawn.
i was very disappointed by the process on judge kavanaugh's nomination that was dictated by the republican leadership. for senator mcconnell, ten months was in adequate time for the senate to consider president obama's choice of judge merrick garland to supreme h court of te united states. yet, senator mcconnell had no difficulty in rushing the consideration of judge kavanaugh to thehe senate and a fraction f that time. republican leadership refused to commit a complete discovery of relevant documents concerning judge kavanaugh. i served onhe the judiciary committee during the considerationn of justice sotomayor and taken when the republicans request for complete discovery was honored and welcomed by the democrats here such was not the case in regards to the republicans honoring reasonable request for informationju concerning judge kavanaugh. to make matters worse the chairman of theud judiciary committee inappropriately and unilaterally classified certain documents as confidential
company their public use during the confirmation process. after dr. ford's allegations became public the republicanus leadership refused to allow the fbi to conduct a proper investigation before scheduling a rushed, inadequate and in public hearing with any additional witnesses beyond dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. republican leadership refused to call before the committee eyewitnesses to the allegation. prior to the first hearing and before i reached the conclusion on the nomination, i requested an opportunity to meet one-on-one with the judge kavanaugh, which is the senate tradition on supreme court nominees. that request was denied by the white house. i cannot support judge kavanaugh because of his judicial record, his partisan leanings and his lack of impartiality and judicial temperament. i am concerned judge kavanaugh is inclined to turn back the clock on civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights,
reproductive choice, , equality, the affordable care act, workers' rights, clean air and clean water, the protection from abuse of corporate and political powerng including the presidentf the united states. our constitution created the supreme court as an independent check and balance against both the executive and legislative branches of government. it should not be a rubber stamp on presidential efforts to undermine the rule of law or independence of the judicial, specialtner derail counsel mueller's investigation into russia's interference between 16 election. the next justice of the supreme court should not be predisposed to which corporations expense of consumers or hollowell protections for americans against abuse of power to ask judge kavanaugh's record as an appellate judge reveals. judge kavanaugh has this leak of theirs as of an activist agenda to overturn long-standing precedent to diminish the power of federal agencies come to all people. and if demonstrated an expansive
view of h presidential power tht includes his belief that the president should not be subject to civil suits or criminal actions. so, mr. president, let me turn to some specific policy that judge kavanaugh's record that concerns me should he become just as governor. two-point what i just o said, i look at opinions and o writings that he t has done. their concern judge kavanaugh'su nomination could present a conflict of interest on the ongoing investigation of the russians interferes in 2016 presidential elections as the supreme court could be as to whether special counsel robert mueller has right to subpoena the president to testify. in his confirmation hearing judge kavanaugh refused to say whether he would recuse himself from this case should it reached the court. i would hope that the supreme court would indeed compel president trump to comply with any reasonable subpoena for the special counsel, citing the president for quite presidentic
richard nixon to surrender tapes and other evidence during the watergate investigation. the supreme court ultimately held at the president was not above the law. some comments of judge kavanaugh suggest that he believes the nixon case was wrongly decided. there's also concerned that it justice capital would defer criminal investigations and prosecutions of presidents misconduct and help after president trump leaves office. ironically, his is on has changed power thee he worked for independent counsel kenneth starr on the whitewater investigation of president bill clinton. indeed come judge kavanaugh wrote that a sitting president should have absolute discretion to determine whether or when two appoint or remove a special counsel. but it's clear judge kavanaugh holds a troubling record when it comes to presidential power. in the case of sky versus holder, to conjure countries system, judge
kavanaugh's opinion, that if he believes the president does not have to enforce laws, if the president deems the statute to be unconstitutional, regardless of whetherer or not the court hs already held it constitutional or not. judge kavanaugh was asked in 2016 if he could overturn a president in any one case and he said he would put the final nail in morrison v. olson which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute. it appeared judge kavanaugh believes the president is above the law and only remedy for presidential this conduct in office is impeachment by congress as suggested in some of his writings in 2009. in 2009. he wrote that we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions, a direct quote. and that the country loses when the president focus is distracted by burdens of civil litigation or criminal
investigation and possible prosecution. mr. president, no one is above the law including the president of united states. we know the president trump is deep disregard for the rule of law. he constantly criticizes his own justice department colluding urging the justice department to prosecute or not prosecute certain individuals. he has criticized the special counsel investigation into russia's interference in our election as a witch hunt, not within the growing number of convictions in guilty pleas obtained by mr. mueller. he has explored what he has the power to pardon himself, family members or associates. the future status of rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who supervises the congressional counsel investigation is in jeopardy as president trump has made it known he would like mr. rosenstein's to go. we need a supremep court justice that can stand up to the president, stand up for their role of law, stand up for the
independence of the judiciary based on his track record i'm not convinced thath it justice kavanagh would do that. while serving on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh considered the constitutionality of the affordable care act of 2011. the court upheld the constitution, constitutional of the affordable care act by a three to zero vote and judge kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. his concurring opinion haspi ben described as the roadmap challenging the constitutionality of the act. his opinion come judge kavanaugh argued it was premature to be the case before the individual mandate had taken effect. judge kavanaugh laid out the legal justification for president trump not enforcing the individual mandate and for a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the affordable care act. a justice kavanaugh would raise a significant concerns as how oe would rule on the protection in the affordable care act against
insurance companies discriminating on pre-existing conditions, which could affect millions of americans. in june of this year president trump's department of justice broke with long-standing department precedent and insidt would no longer defend the affordable care act. and a brief filed by the trump administration in texas versus the united states, the administration joined with 20 republican-led states to argue that the affordable care act pre-existing conditions should be invalidated, and they argued when republican textile limited the individual mandate, the tax -- became unconstitutional and, therefore, the law protection for those with pre-existing additions including guaranteed them into rating should be unenforceable. in 2017 health and human services released a report stating that as many as
133 million nonelderly americans have a pre-existing condition. anyone of them would be at risk if this protection is healthy invalid by the supreme court. the american health benefit exchange estimates that a link there approximately 2.5 million nonelderlyee nonelderly marylanders with precip conditions including 300 320,000 children, all at risk. in addition to texas versus u.s., there are dozens of healthcare cases pending in lower court which are likely to be appealed and the supreme court in the upcoming terms. the outcome of these cases of the supreme court will directly impact accessec to healthcare fr millions of american families including the most vulnerable ie our society. in each of these cases there's a question about whether the affordable care act creates that individuals can enforce in court.
these cases the with critical issues such as the scope of healthcare coverage for nursing mothers, false advertising my health insurance companies and what employers are required to provide health coverage to their employees. given judge kavanaugh's stated hostility to the affordable care act i fear that it justice kennedy, justice kavanaugh would further restrictan access to healthcare for many americans, particularly regards to women's healthcare, including birth control. in planned parenthood v. casey, the supreme court from established the constitutional right to privacy protects women from undue burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. this standard is known as the undue burden standard, prohibits backup and action that has a purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion on a nonviable fetus. judge kavanaugh wrote in the
distant of garza versus harkin in 2017 supporting the top administrations ongoing efforts to rivet a pregnant immigrant teenager in government custody from exercising her constitutional rights to make her own health care decision. judge kavanaugh pays lip service to the undue burden standard articulated in casey. he shuns long-standing president and chooses instead to impose his own moral standards on jane dell. in the heating dissent in priests for life versus hhs, judge kavanaugh argued that the affordable care act existing accommodations for religious employers who want an exception from the contraception coverage policy still place a substantial burden on the employers beliefs. mobile cases concerning women's access to birth control are working their way through the court. a justice kavanaugh could become a decisive vote on the supreme court in limiting access to
reproductive care. marylanders home to many rivers which are part of the vast chesapeake bay watershed. the land and waters ways that support our drinking water, support our native ecosystems and contribute to our tourism and local economies are all at stake. what a a loving more toxins in r air and more nuclear waste in our backyard, judge kavanaugh has prioritized for america over the health of american citizens and our environment. justice kennedy understood the values of americans when weighing the cost and benefit of environmental protections. judge kavanaugh has not shown such concern for balancing values and interests. the clean air act would dramatically reduce these toxins, passed in 1970, has prevented over 400,000 premature deaths, 1 million bronchitis cases, 2 million asthma attacks over 40 million children
respiratory illnesses. judge kavanaugh heard several major cases about the aba's authority under the clean air act, and in each of these cases he opposed the agencies position. these protections should be strengthened, not eroded. as a lifelong marylanders and as a senior member of the environment and public works committee, i have prioritized the protection ofn chesapeake bay. that's quite worked to defend aba's clean water will which is come under attack by republican legislators and opponents in this administration. 67% of marylanders get their drinking water from sources that rely on small streams that are protected under the clean water act.ts shortsighted threats put our public comic con and health in danger. if these attacks proved successful, protecting our citizens from danger of water pollution will become far more difficult. so we're left with even more uncertainty with judge kavanaugh's nomination. what he support the clean water will which would protect
drinking water sources of 100 million americans by making sure their regulated under the clean water act? we can all agree few responses of our government are more fundamental than clean, o safe water, but i'm not certain judge kavanaugh will defend this duty in the supreme court. as a member of the d.c. circuit court, judge kavanaugh ruled in a number of high-profile cases to limit epa's protection on issues like climate change and air pollution and against maryland's interest as a coastal downwind state. he has consistently voted against environmental regulations often in favor of corporate interest. judge kavanaugh's environmental jurisprudence is rife with double standards as he is frequently attempts to insert cost considerations into environmental regulations where none exist in statute. furthermore, he places a very low burden of proof on businesses claiming injury from regulations while at thegu same
time asserting a much higher standard of proof for citizens arguing that pollution is officially harmful to warrant regulation. following cases involving judge kavanaugh documentre in supportf the powerful interest over public interest in the area of public health and the environment. a homeless city generation for cpa judge kavanaugh wrote an overturning an epa rules designed to lower smog forming sulfur dioxide emissions by 73% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54%. they supreme court later ruled n favor of epa and overruled judge kavanaugh opinion. nitrogen oxide accounts for two-thirds of airborne nitrogen that insufficient chesapeake bay. in the case of the coalition for responsible regulations versus epa, judge kavanaugh's dissent from the decision not to rehear the case was found the epa had
the ability to regulate emissions in order to slow climate change. in the case of white stallion energy company versus epa, and a dissent judge kavanaugh insisted that the epa must take costs of this decoupling judging regulation, tending to argued that instead of determining what's in the best for public health, best interest of public health, epa should be determining what is the least costly to business. and in clean air council versus pruett, judge kavanaugh determination the epa was in recently delaying the upper mentation of the 2016 will the curb fossil fuel emissions of method things, smog forming volatile organic compound and toxic air pollutants. judge kavanaugh sided with producers of hydrochloric friends saying epa hado no authority to regulate that. in mingo call versus epa, judge kavanaugh dissented again
arguing that epa must weigh the cost of business and revoking a clean water air permit. in each of these cases judge kavanaugh sided withh corporate interests over the kelp. there's a clear record here. my concerns about judge kavanaugh also include his o lak of sensitivity to the protections of civil rights. in the case of south carolina v. holder judge kavanaugh wrote the south carolina voters id law was not discriminatory andio did not violate the voting rights act. south carolina residents are required to use drivers license, military id or voter registration cards to vote. judge kavanaugh disregarded section five of the voting rights act and impede on the voting rights of minorities that are impacted by the south carolina voting law. we all know how difficult it is in minority communities when you have these id laws. difficult it is for older people to get to places to get those types of identification.
this sends a danger signal about judge kavanaugh's view on voting rights and racial justice in america. judge kavanaugh's ideological bias can also be seen in his rulings in employment discrimination cases where he has dissented and voted to dismiss claims that a majority of his d.c. circuit colleagues found to be meritorious. in howard versus office of chief administrative officer of the united states house of representatives, judge kavanaugh dissented from a majority decision which held that the congressional accountability act, an african american woman fired from her position as a house of representatives deputy budget director could pursue hea claim of racial discrimination and retaliation in federal giving her a right of action. judge kavanaugh dissented from that pic he argued that the speech or debate clause of the constitution prohibits the employee from moving forward withwi her claim and what it dismissed the case. his interpretation of this constitutional provision would put more workers in
congressional offices throughout the legislative branch from pursuing most of their discrimination claims in federal court including many sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliatory claims meeting and enigmatic with an secret in remedy all available. in miller v.he clinton, the majority held that the state department violated age discrimination in employment act when it impose a mandatory retirement age and firedne and a point when he turned 65. the state department argued that it was exempt from the statute and light of the separate federal law that permits u.s. citizens abroad to the exempt from u.s. anti-discrimination laws. the majority disagreed and held that there was nothing in the basic authorities act that abrogates the broad prescription against personal actions that discriminate on the basis of age, and that the necessary consequences of the departments position is that it also is free from any statutory barti against
terminating employees like miller solely on account of his disability or race or religion or sex. judge kavanaugh dissented arguing that the basic authorities act overrule existing anti-discrimination laws. his willingness to embrace such a broad exemption for anti-discrimination laws is troubling. once again, mr. president, we see a pattern in judge kavanaugh's ruling, favoring the powerful over individual rights. in ratigan versus ona judge cabinet dissented from majority to see which ruled an african american fbi agent could pursue a case of improper -- this commission claim when agency started to get investigations against him as long as he did so without questioning unreadable decisions by the fbi security division. he stated that the entire claim mustss be dismissed despite the majorities warning that this was
not required by precedent and the court shouldse preserve the maximum extent possible title vii important protection against workplace discrimination and retaliation. judge kavanaugh was in the minority on thatdg opinion. judge kavanaugh's dissent in these cases embrace positions that carveout federal employees from protection of federal employment discrimination laws or limit their ability to enforce those rights. judge kavanaugh has a pattern of rulings against workers and employees and other types of workplace cases as well such as workplace safety, worker privacy, and union disputes. let me cite a few examples. in c world of florida versus perez judge kavanaugh once again dissented from the majorityn opinion upholding a safety citation against c world following the death of a trainer who was working with each of the world which it killed three trainers previously while the
majority deferred the occupational safety and health review commission finding that see what i can sufficiently limited the training physical contact with the whales. judge kavanaugh strongly disagreed and question the role of government in determining the appropriate level of risk for workers. in national laboror relations board first seen in judge kavanaugh once again dissented apart from chief judge garland's majority opinion upholding a national labor relations board order that scene is recognized and bargain with worker unions in funny that seeking in violated national labor relations act by discriminate against union workers in hiring. judge kavanaugh dissented from the finding that seeking in was a successor employer and his position would have completely absolved cnn of any liability for failing to abidede by it collective-bargaining agreement. in the national federation of federal workers versus no second
judge cabin once again to see it from the d.c. circuit majority rolling which invalidated a random drug testing program for the u.s. forest service employees. the majority which included another republican appointed judge observed that there was no evidence of any difficulty maintaining a zero a zero tolee drug policy duringg the 14 years before the random drug testing program was adopted and that the primary administrator of job corps, the department of labor, had no such policy. that didn't affect judge kavanaugh. he dissented and what of restricted employees privacy rights. in american federation of government employees versus gates, judge kavanaugh authored the majority opinion the reverse and lower courts partial blocking of the department of defense regulations which would've found that manyla pentagon regulations would it entirely this rate collective-bargaining. judge kavanaugh disagreed.
judge kavanaugh dissented in part of youou that judge kavanaugh's majority opinion what about the secretary of defense to abolish collective-bargaining altogether, a position which even the secretary disagrees. if the supreme court decision in heller, a fight for decision, in 2008, that the second amendment -- the right to bill arms -- bear arms, d.c. passed a law that prohibited assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that require certain firearms to be registered. this w is what we know the hellr decision, we know the importance of the heller decision extend individual rights under second amendment but afterte the distrt passed a law involving assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the same plaintiff richard heller argued that the new gun law violated the second amendment. in in the 2011 case of heller versus district of columbia, a panel of three republican
appointed judges ruled judah te that the d.c. ban on assault weapons andin high-capacity magazines are constitutional. it would have to be three republican appointed judges and the ruling was 21. you get that judge kavanaugh was the descendent would've held the ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. he wrote in o that opinion that there is no difference between handguns and assault weapons in that regard. well, mr. president, i find that very troubling if heif does not see a difference between handguns and an assault weapon. a justice kavanaugh would worsen the problem caused by the supreme court's decisionn in citizens united. citizens united which gave corporate speech first amendment protections, increasing the flow of moneyic into our elections. his record indicates he would continue opening the floodgates of dark and secret money and our political system. we have enough money already in the system. we don't need more. and that justice kavanaughav toe
would be open season on more special interest money getting into our election system. in the case of emily's list versusom the federal election commission judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion for conservative three-judge panel that struck down the fec rules help to address the influx of spending by outside groups and pave the way for the creation of super pacs. judge kavanaugh has beenic critical of the chevron deference. under chevronfo which is named r the 1984 supreme court opinion, courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations when congress has been ambiguous on an issue. and a 2017 speech at notre dame, honor justice scalia, judge kavanaugh said the chevron doctrine encourages agencies aggressiveness on a large scale. under the guise of ambiguity agencies can stretch the meaning of statutes enacted by congress to accommodate their preferred policy outcomes. i sawst this firsthand when i worked in the white house. i see it now as a judge.
judge kavanaugh proposed solutions in chevron is to simply determined the best reading at the statutes, courts would no longer deferred agencies and trepidation of statutes. such ann interpretation would pt environmental public health and consumer protection interests at great risk. judge kavanaugh would've struck down the consumer financial protection bureau as unconstitutional, when he wrote the majority opinions and a panel decision. .. upholding the constitutionality of the dodd-frank reforms, including the consumer financial protection bureau. but that's what's at risk with justice kavanaugh. those types of decision making, consumer protection, environmental health. the purpose of the chevron document is to allow government agencies to carry out
congressional intent at our agencies are carrying out and interpreting judicial review of such interpretations is governed by a two-step frame work that was included in the chevron case. the chevron frame work or review usually applies if congress is given an agency, general authority to make rules with the force of law. if chevron applies, a court step one, whether congress directly addresses the precise issue for the court. using traditional tools of statutory construction. it must effectuate congressional intent, but if the court is solemn with ambiguous with a specific issue the court proceeds to chevron step 2. refers to the agency reasonable interpretation of the statute. this is just common sense. even the late conservative justice anthony scalia defended the chevron doctrine as an
important role of principle. as the leadership conference on civil and human rights stated, regulations addressing a wide array of sifrl and human rights issues, including environmental protection, immigration policy, health care protection, education laws, and workplace safety, and consumer protection. a justice kavanaugh will put all of those protections at risk. judge kavanaugh's performance at his hearing and answers to the questions on the record did not provide me additional comfort on the nomination. indeed, justice kavanaugh's testimony and legal career has a disturbing pattern. i believe he would be a justice with active agenda to reach a desired outcome and justice kavanaugh rummer stamp is one of the worst to the trump administration. and stand up to the judiciary in the rule of law. he's refused to condemn
president trump's attack on justice ginsburg or the -- that he said whenever criticizes the justices i find it demoralizing because it's not the truth. and judge kavanaugh would not go that far. and refused to comment on trump's criminal intent and department of justice and his testimony following dr. ford's testimony is troubling. his tirade against the judiciary committee, his partisan attacks and conspiracy theories reveal concern to me about his impartiality and judicial temperament and whether he would be a partisan on the court and the american people wanted an independent
voice to protect their individual writes against those in power, be it the president or powerful corporate interests. under our constitution, the courts must act as an independent branch of government and to check a balance against the abuse of power. the supreme court is the guardian of american's constitutional rights against the powerful. after reviewing judge kavanaugh's record, i believe he's not the right choice to safeguard these fundamental principles and i will vote no on his confirmation to the supreme court. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. president, it's extraordinary where we find ourselves today con the verge of a cloture vote and for judge kavanaugh to be in the supreme court. at the same time we have credible allegations of claims of sexual assault against the