John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are, of course, two issues before the Senate with respect to Judge Neil Gorsuch. The first issue is simply, should or should not Neil Gorsuch be confirmed as an Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court? There is also a second issue, and the second issue is, Should the Senate even be allowed to vote? Those two questions are both important and interrelated. I want to talk about the first one first. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. We heard last week--2 weeks ago-- about 20 hours of testimony from Judge Gorsuch. I think he answered about 200 questions in writing. One of the objections offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic Party, was that Judge Gorsuch refused to answer some of the questions. Now that is just not accurate. Many of the questions that were asked of the judge by both Republicans and Democrats were fair questions--some of them, not so much. Judge Gorsuch was asked, in effect: What is your position on abortion? How will you vote? He was asked: How will you vote on gun control? He was asked: How would you vote on cruel and unusual punishment, the Eighth Amendment? He was asked how he would vote on questions dealing with the Tenth Amendment. He didn't answer those questions, and then he was criticized for not answering those questions. He didn't answer those questions because he couldn't. He is a sitting judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Let me read to you canon 3(a)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. It states: ``A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.'' Let me read you rule 2.10(B) of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct. It provides, and I quote: ``A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the judicial office.'' Now, say what you want about Mr. Gorsuch, but don't criticize him for not violating the oath of his office and not making promises, pledges, or commitments, like a politician, on how he would vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, because Justices are supposed to decide the case on the merits. As I mentioned, I watched Judge Gorsuch answer questions personally for over 20 hours. He was asked some other questions other than the ones I have referenced, and I was intrigued by some of the questions that Judge Gorsuch was asked. My friends in the Democratic Party kept trying to draw distinctions with Judge Gorsuch between the parties in cases that he had decided. My friends kept talking about the ``big guy,'' the ``little guy,'' the corporation, the consumer, the employer, the employee. The suggestion was made that Judge Gorsuch didn't vote enough for the little guy or little gal, for whatever that means. What struck me when he answered those questions was that we were supposed to be talking about the faithful application of justice. Now, I was taught in law school that Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, that neither the wealth nor the power nor the status of the parties should matter. That is why, in the picture that we see so often of Lady Justice, she is blindfolded. She isn't looking at the parties at all to see whether they are wealthy or not so wealthy. She isn't looking at the parties to see whether they are a corporation or a consumer or what race they are or what gender they are or what part of the country they are from. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind because we are a nation of laws, not men. Of all the places in our country, an American court of law--and I am very proud of this--is supposed to be the place of last resort, where you can come and get a fair shake. That is how good judges operate. They give everybody a fair shake. A good judge is supposed to make his or her decisions based on the law, not the parties. Good judges are supposed to be impartial--to call it like they see it, to call the balls and strikes--and that is exactly what Neil Gorsuch has done throughout his entire career. I can promise that, as I sit on the Judiciary Committee, if any President, whether he is a Republican or Democrat, ever brings a nomination before the Judiciary Committee when I am on that committee and that nominee starts talking about the wealth or the status or the power of the parties and how it will influence or not influence his decision, suggesting that will make a difference, I will vote against that nominee--I don't care who nominates him--every single time, because that is not American justice. We talked about two cases in particular, and the Presiding Officer has probably heard them talked about here on the floor. On the surface they don't seem to be related. Judge Gorsuch ruled in both of these cases, but I think they interact in a very important way. They tell us that he doesn't play politics and he doesn't rule for the big guy just because he is a big guy or the little guy just because he is a little guy. The first case we heard a lot about was a decision by Judge Gorsuch called TransAm Trucking. You are going to hear a lot about that case. In that case, Judge Gorsuch made a decision that was unfavorable to a trucker, and he ruled in favor of the trucking company--little guy versus big guy. Judge Gorsuch ruled for the big guy, and it is important to know why and to look at the reasoning in that case and not just the result. During the discussion on the case, Judge Gorsuch made it very clear that he only made that decision because he believed that was what the statute controlling the facts of the case required--a statute that was passed by a legislative body duly authorized by the people that make the law. Unlike our courts, which are supposed to interpret the law, Judge Gorsuch did not decide the case the way he did because he didn't sympathize with the trucker. He decided that case the way he did because he was doing his best to accurately apply the law, as best he understood it, to the facts before him. Once again, that is what is called justice--blind to the parties. Actually, Judge Gorsuch has explained himself and what he thinks about decisions such as this. He did it in another case that I will talk about in a moment. Judge Gorsuch said: Often enough the law can be ``a[n] ass--a[n] idiot''-- Quoting, of course, Charles Dickens-- and there is little we judges can do about it, for it is (or should be) emphatically our job to apply, not rewrite, the law enacted by the people's representatives. Indeed, every judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels. Now, that statement came from the second case I referenced. It was a case called A.M. Holmes. In A.M. Holmes, a 13-year-old seventh grader was arrested for fake burping repeatedly in class. The majority said it was OK for him to be arrested and that, when his family sued the police officer, the police officer enjoyed qualified immunity. Judge Gorsuch dissented. This time he ruled for the little guy, literally and figuratively. Judge Gorsuch said: ``In my opinion, reading the statute passed by the legislature, this young man's family can file this lawsuit because disciplining a 13-year-old 7th grader for fake burping in class by arresting him instead of disciplining him is a bridge too far.'' Now, once again, we had a little guy versus the big guy. This time Judge Gorsuch ruled for the little guy. But again, we have to look beyond the result. Even though he ruled for someone we can all sympathize with, Judge Gorsuch didn't base his decision on that. He based his decision on a good-faith application of the statutes of the facts controlling the case. He applied the law as written by the legislature. That is what legislatures do, and that is what Congresses do. They make the law and judges interpret the law. To be blunt, that is what we want in a judge. I want a judge. I don't want an ideologue. I am not interested in a judge who will use the judiciary to advance his own personal policy goals. I want a judge who will apply the law as written by the legislature or, in the case of the Constitution, as written by the Framers of the Constitution, as best that judge understands the law, not to try to reshape the law as he wishes it to be. To just comment about the last question that I raised earlier, again, one issue is whether or not we should confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but the second issue is whether the Senate should even be allowed to vote at all. That is what this is all about when you distill it down to its basic essence. We are going to hear a lot about cloture, and we are going to hear a lot about the nuclear option. But this is what it boils down to: Should we or should we not even be able to be allowed to vote? Now I understand that reasonable people can disagree. I also understand that unreasonable people can disagree, and everybody in this body has a vote, and we all represent States. There are two Senators from every State--big States and little States--and everybody is entitled to be able to vote his or her conscience. But it is very, very important not only for the American judicial system but for American democracy that the Senate be allowed to vote on Judge Gorsuch. So to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would say: Please allow us to vote. You can vote for or against Judge Gorsuch. I will not second-guess your judgment if you act sincerely, and I believe many of my colleagues are sincere. They are wrong, but they are sincere. But please allow the Senate to vote on this nomination. That is why I was sent to Washington. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Graham, my fellow Senators, our constituents in the Gallery, a lot of what has gone on today may seem very complicated. We have heard a lot of terms being thrown around: cloture, the nuclear option. Yet, really, the question that we were faced with today in the Senate was very simple, and it continues to be pretty simple and straightforward, in my judgment: Should we have an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Earlier today, the Senate voted to do that. I think it is very important for the American judicial system and for the American system of democracy that the U.S. Senate be allowed to vote on Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not enough to only vote on a motion to end debate; we also needed to be allowed to vote on the actual nomination with ``yes'' or ``no.'' Unfortunately, our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle decided to filibuster in order to make it impossible for us to vote on this crucial nominee without modifying the rules of the U.S. Senate. That is what we did earlier today. I do not know that anybody did it happily, but certainly a majority of the Senate believed that the American people deserved an up-or-down vote, yea or nay. Stand up and be counted in front of God and country. Do you want Judge Neil Gorsuch to be on the Supreme Court, or do you not? That vote is going to take place tomorrow afternoon. The Constitution reads that the President of the United States of America ``shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' I do not need to tell you that this is an extremely important part of our separation of powers. It is vital to our protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court, the work that all of us do--not just members of the Judiciary Committee but every Member of the Senate--in vetting our nominees and making sure they are qualified and independent, as is Neil Gorsuch. He is enormously important for the protection of liberty itself. Let's not ever forget what we are protecting. We are protecting justice, and we are protecting liberty. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain point of view. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain policy preference. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain political party. I hope tomorrow, when we finally get the opportunity to vote up or down on Neil Gorsuch for his membership on the greatest tribunal in the history of civilization, in my judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court, that we will consider his nomination in light of how it will affect our country, not our party. When we look at his nomination from that perspective and leave the politics of the last few years in the rearview mirror, I think we can analyze his nomination with a lot more clarity. Alexander Hamilton, whom I think most Americans admire, said in Federalist No. 78 that the Court has ``neither force nor will but merely judgment.'' I think that is what we are all looking for--or should be--in a nominee to any court but especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. We are not looking for somebody with a certain policy preference. We are not looking for people with ideas of how the law can be improved because the role of a judge is not to make law, it is to interpret the law as made by the legislative body as best that judge can understand it. That is why we need someone like Neil Gorsuch, in my estimation, who has good judgment. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have spent 20 to 40 hours with Neil Gorsuch or with people who know him well, in hearing their testimony. I have read his opinions. As far as I am concerned, he is as good as it gets. I cannot imagine that President Trump could have picked better. He is a thoroughbred. He is a legal rock star. If you read his opinions, you will see that he is painstaking in his application of the law to the facts before him. He writes beautifully. His communication skills are absolutely amazing. His analysis and analytical rigor are clear and concise. His decisions are wise and disciplined, and he is faithful to the law. He is an intellectual, not an ideologue. He is a judge, not a politician. He is whip-smart, has clear writing, is a strict constitutionalist, likes snow skiing, fly fishing, and is a fourth-generation Coloradan. I think he will serve every person in our country well as a member of the Supreme Court. That is why I am supporting him. Let me say one final thing. I do not think there is any vote that will be more important than the vote we will take tomorrow on a President's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, so I want to choose my words carefully. Not a single, solitary vote is more important than that vote we will take tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not other important issues before this body. That is why I think it was so important today that we decided to vote up or down on Judge Gorsuch so that we can move on to those other important issues--jobs, jobs, jobs; designing a healthcare delivery system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, which our Acting President has worked so hard on; infrastructure; elementary and secondary education; a skilled workforce. I could go on. There is an enormous amount of pain in America today. There are too many Americans who are not participating in the great wealth of America--not economically, not socially, not culturally, and not spiritually. We have been elected in the Congress to do something about that. I talk to people in my State every day, and I know the Presiding Officer does too. The people of Louisiana are fun-loving, God-fearing, and plain-talking, and this is what they tell me: Kennedy, this country was founded by geniuses, but sometimes I think it is being run by idiots. They say: Kennedy, we look around our country today, and here is what we see. We see too many undeserving people at the top--I want to emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint with too broad a brush--who are getting bailouts, and we see too many undeserving people at the bottom who are getting handouts. We are in the middle, and we get stuck with the bill. We cannot pay it anymore, Kennedy, because our health insurance has gone up, our kids' tuitions have gone up, and our taxes have gone up. I will tell you what has not gone up-- our income. These are real people with real problems, and they sent all of us here because they are real mad and they expect us to do something about it. The sad truth is that our children's generation is at risk of becoming the first in America, unless this body does something, to be worse off than their parents' generation because in our country today, for too many Americans, it is harder than ever to get ahead. That is why so many Americans feel stuck. They feel like the hope and change they were promised has become decline and uncertainty, and they are looking to us to do something about it. So let's vote. Let's vote tomorrow. I understand reasonable people disagree. I understand unreasonable people can disagree too. But I am going to vote for Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Then I am going to ask this body to move on to other important issues that are keeping moms and dads awake at night when they lie down and try to go to sleep. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I make it to Heaven--and I hope I do-- the first question I am going to ask God is why bad things happen to good people. We have had some bad things happen in Louisiana to some really good people, as my colleague from Louisiana just referred to. This past weekend, while most of us slept, Louisiana lost yet another officer in the line of duty. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office Sergeant Shawn Anderson--as shown in this photograph here--was a law enforcement veteran. He was a military veteran, and he was a father. He served high-risk warrants. He had been recognized for doing his job without having resorted to firing his weapon. In short, he was an American hero, and he was a Louisiana hero. On Saturday night, Sergeant Anderson was just doing his job. He went into a barbershop in search of a suspected rapist. Sergeant Anderson lost his life. A line of law enforcement vehicles escorted his body from the scene, and their flashing blue lights lit up the dark night. It has been a tough few months for our law enforcement families in Louisiana. We have buried six officers who were shot and killed simply because they were wearing a badge. In January, Westwego Police Officer Michael Louviere stopped to help at a traffic accident, and he was shot in the back of the head. Michael was not even on duty. He was driving home and saw an accident and immediately stopped his car to help. That is the kind of person he was. The Presiding Officer and all of those listening to me today, no doubt, saw the news footage as to what unfolded along a busy Baton Rouge highway last summer. July will no longer be just about hot dogs and fireworks for us in Louisiana. The shootings that took the lives of three law enforcement officers shattered our summer and broke our hearts. Just a month earlier, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Deputy David Michel was shot three times in the back--not once, not twice, but three times--and he died in Harvey. His killer, apparently, shot him because the killer did not want to return to jail. I would ask all of those who wish to, to join me in saying a prayer for these law enforcement officers and their families. They were sons and they were fathers and they are going to miss out on holidays and birthdays and graduations. They were men who sacrificed their lives so we could sleep a little bit better at night. Let us also, while we are praying for these brave men--and, yes, women too--pray for an end to the violence. We have had enough flashing blue lights light up the dark nights in Louisiana. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America, and I would like to explain why. It seems to me that most Americans don't care about the politics on Capitol Hill. They don't particularly care about the politics in the Senate, and they don't especially care about the politics in Washington, DC. Most Americans are too busy earning a living. These are the Americans who get up every day, they go to work, they work hard, they obey the law, they try to do the right thing by their kids, and they try to save a little money for retirement. Most Americans I think are fairminded, and most Americans are commonsensical. They understand that when they elect a President, the President can't do the job alone. He gets help, and he starts with appointing members of his Cabinet. Of course, the Senate has to provide advice and consent and confirm those appointees. Most Americans understand that a President--whoever the President--is not going to pick his enemies to do that. He is not going to pick somebody he doesn't trust. He is not going to pick someone to advise him if he is not qualified. He is going to pick someone he is on friendly terms with. He is going to pick somebody who is competent. He is going to pick somebody who is experienced. That is what President Trump has done. That is what President Obama did. That is what Secretary Hillary Clinton would have done, had she been elected President. Now, President Trump has nominated Senator Jeff Sessions. I recognize that not all Americans and not all Members of the Senate agree with his political positions. Some folks don't agree with his political party. Some folks don't like him because they don't like the person who appointed him. I get that. Some folks may not even like the part of the country he is from. That is OK. This is America. In America, you can believe anything you want to believe, and as long as you don't hurt anybody, you can say it. But it seems to me that no reasonable person, if they look at Senator Jeff Sessions' record, can argue that he is not qualified, if by qualified you mean that he has any potential to be a great Attorney General. This is a man who has served as a State attorney general. This is a man who was a U.S. attorney not for 1 year or 5 years or 6 years. For 12 years he served as a U.S. attorney. This is a gentleman who has been a U.S. Senator for 20 years, three terms, and three times the good people of Alabama have sent Jeff Sessions to this body. Most people here know him. They have had lunch with him. They have met his family. They have worked with him on bills. They have worked against him on bills. They know him, and they know he is qualified. There has been a lot of discussion about whether Senator Sessions will respect the rule of law. He will. He understands the difference between making policy, as Congress does, and executing policy. I have no doubt whatsoever that Senator Sessions, as the next Attorney General, will be more than willing to enforce laws that he might not necessarily agree with. There has been some discussion about Senator Sessions and the Bill of Rights. Senator Sessions understands the importance of personal liberty. I listened very attentively in the Judiciary Committee. He was asked a lot of questions about our Constitution. It is clear to me that Senator Sessions understands that the Bill of Rights is not for the high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is not for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the unprotected, the man or woman in America who might want to do things a little differently. He understands that very, very clearly. At some point, we all have to stop regretting yesterday, and we have to start creating tomorrow, and that is the point we are at. I unconditionally support Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America. I yield the floor.