out of the paris climate agreement. he is pulling back the clean power plan. he is looking for ways to force utilities to cheat expensive coal plants on line, a move that would cost americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills. and all of these moves would hurt the environment and harm the health of the american people. and in each case, judge kavanaugh's record shows he is likely to act as an enabler. the third area where judge kavanaugh has demonstrated that he is like lie to serve the interests of a far-right partisan agenda rather than the interests of our democracy is voting rights. a judge who upholds a state law that makes it harder for minorities and low-income people to vote is not someone who is going to be dedicated to protecting our most fundamental democratic right. -- the right to vote. if judge kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court, there is no doubt that he would help his

friends and far-right special interest groups, the same groups that recommended his nomination in the first place, continue their coordinated campaign to make it harder for millions of americans to vote. and these groups know that they can count on judge kavanaugh to uphold laws that make it harder rather than easier for people to vote. these groups have helped republican-controlled state legislatures pass laws designed to create obstacles at every step of the voting process, making it more difficult to register to vote, to cast your ballot, and to have your vote counted equally. and as judge kavanaugh on the d.c. circuit court of appeals -- and as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, judge kavanaugh has a record of supporting these laws, including laws that perpetuate voting discrimination, particularly against communities of color. in 2012, he wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel upholding

south carolina's stringent voter i.d. law, even though the department of justice had determined that the law would violate the voting rights act of 1965. now, i am proud to represent the state with the highest voter turnout in the nation. minnesotans understand that when the right to vote is restricted, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy. our voting laws reflect our beliefs about who should have a voice in this country, and i am profoundly concerned that his record shows that judge kavanaugh will allow states to pass laws that make it harder for communities of color and low-income people to make their voices heard. minnesotans and all americans deserve a supreme court justice committed to making our democracy more representative so that we remain a government for the people and not just some of the people, and it is clear that judge kavanaugh would not be

that justice. so judge kavanaugh's record as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals and the process that led to its nomination were enough to convince me that he should not be elevated to the supreme court. his decisions and opinions demonstrate that he should not be entrusted with protecting the hard-won rights and freedoms of all americans. it is troubling enough that judge kavanaugh could be the deciding vote on cases that affect every aspect of life in america, cases that determine who you can marry, whether you can access health care, or your rights in the workplace. but it is also extremely concerning to me about judge kavanaugh's commitment to fulfill the other sacred responsibility of our supreme court to be a check against legislative and executive overreach as a co-equal branch of our government. the very design of our system of constitutional checks and

balances demonstrates that no one, not even our elected leaders, is above the law. this is a fundamental american principle. judge kavanaugh has a dangerously expansive view of executive power that is well outside the mainstream of current legal thought. he has repeatedly argued that presidents, effectively, are above the law. his writings and speeches suggest that he believes that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. he has argued that presidents can only be investigated by congress, raising questions about his views about the constitutionality of the ongoing mueller investigation, and perhaps most troubling, he has claimed that presidents don't have to enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional. kavanaugh's expansive use of the limits of executive power suggest that he would abdicate the solemn responsibility of the court to both hold the executive branch accountable to its

constitutional duties and to prevent it from engaging in constitutional excesses. and the need for the other branches of government to be a strong check against an errant executive has arguably never been greater, yet during his confirmation process, judge kavanaugh refused to answer even the most basic questions about his views on executive power and accountability. he also refused to answer senators' questions about topics like whether or not he believes that a president can be required to respond to a subpoena or whether a president can pardon himself or pardon others in exchange for their silence. it is easy to see why trump would want a supreme court nominee who believes that a president is above the law. it is not easy to see how this body could consider confirming him without learning more about whether he is prepared to help the court fulfill its duty as an

independent co-equal branch of government. for all these reasons, mr. president, i believe judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence and scholarship provide a more than sufficient basis for opposing his nomination. now i will turn to the supreme court's judiciary committee -- excuse me. now i will turn to the senate judiciary committee hearings last thursday. i was grateful to dr. blasey ford's powerful testimony before the senate judiciary committee and to the american public. since her testimony, my office has received dozens of letters from survivors of sexual assault, some of whom are telling their stories for the first time. in reading these letters, i have been heartbroken by their trauma and the pain which they show there which we know is suffered by too many in this country. many of these survivors are victimized by people they knew and trusted. some were too young to have words to even describe their

assaults. some tried to come forward and report their views but gave up when they faced doubt and shame and suspicion from those who should have helped and didn't. all of them deserve to have their stories taken seriously and fully investigated. and so i want to acknowledge that this is an important historic moment, one that shows us that the cultural forces that seek to shame and silence survivors of sexual violence, they are shifting, and that survivors and those who love them and those who stand with them are watching this process very carefully. in stark contrast to the clarity and conviction of dr. blasey ford's testimony, judge kavanaugh's performance raised deep questions to me about his temperament and credibility. judge kavanaugh showed us that he has an injudicious temperament, a powerful sense of entitlement, and a partisan perspective that was right out there for everyone to see. he showed us who he is, and i

believe him, and i firmly believe these characteristics disqualify him from elevation to the supreme court. judge kavanaugh showed us that he thinks his professional qualifications exempt him from personal scrutiny, and by an -- but an appointment to the supreme court requires more than a pristine legal resume. it requires a strength of character which we now know from his own testimony that judge kavanaugh does not possess. the impulse when challenged is to lash out with conspiratorial partisan invective, unbecoming of any nominee to the federal bench. his behavior, which incidentally he would never allow from a litigant in his own courtroom, was angry, disrespectful, even ranting. i was particularly struck by the disrespect he showed to my good colleague and friend, senator amy klobuchar, my senior senator

from minnesota. when she asked judge kavanaugh about his history with alcohol, he became defensive, refused to answer her question, and actually turned the question back at her. to my mind, this showed a lack of respect, not just for senator klobuchar but for the whole senate and our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to the president's nominees. i think all of my colleagues should be deeply disturbed by the nominee's angry and disrespectful behavior. i urge all of my colleagues to ask themselves whether they believe judge kavanaugh possesses the steady, sensible temperament we should expect from all of our federal judges, but most especially from those on the highest court in the land. i believe that judge kavanaugh showed us that he is incapable of being an impartial and nonpartisan judge when he said that he holds democrats responsible for, i quote,

orchestrated political hit. the framers designed the supreme court to be above the partisan fray, and his testimony on thursday, judge kavanaugh abandoned any pretense that he could live up to his own description of a good judge, one that is, as i quote, an umpire, a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy. in his initial testimony before the judiciary committee, kavanaugh warned that, quote, the supreme court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. the judges on the supreme court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. if this body elevates judge kavanaugh to the supreme court after his nakedly partisan diatribe on thursday, how can the american people believe that the court's decisions are anything other than arbitrary and partisan work with ideologues? so judge kavanaugh's shocking behavior last thursday bears directly on the legitimacy of the supreme court, our third

co-equal branch of government. over the next few years, the supreme court will be called upon to decide important real questions that will affect the lives of all americans. given judge kavanaugh's performance last thursday, the american people will have to wonder -- does justice kavanaugh see the supreme court as the ultimate venue for providing justice, or is there a tool to advance and secure a partisan agenda? but not only did judge kavanaugh's performance last thursday give us reason to doubt whether he had the necessary judicial temperament to serve on the supreme court, his sworn testimony also raised deep questions about his credibility. judge kavanaugh showed us that he is willing to be misleading and evasive when it serves his interests and when he thistle be protected from the consequences of those lies. when questioned by my colleague

senator klobuchar and senator whitehouse, judge kavanaugh provided answers that were obviously disingenuous, if he answered at all. i'm concerned at the way he characterized his behavior during his high school years was less than fully truthful. his apparent lack of candor with the senate judiciary committee should be deeply concerning to all of us in the senate and to the american public. now, unfortunately, i am not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the f.b.i.'s supplemental background investigation of judge kavanaugh, but after reviewing these materials, i have even deeper concerns about judge kavanaugh's lack of candor. frankly, the materials raise more questions than they answer. that's part of why i believe that the supplemental investigation was woefully inadequate. some of my colleagues have been saying that this is not a criminal trial but a job interview, and i agree that judge kavanaugh is not on trial here, but this isn't any regular

job interview either. the confirmation process allows for the senate to determine whether judge kavanaugh deserves the public faith as he asks to be entrusted with safeguarding our constitutional and human rights. he is asking for a lifetime appointment that will allow him to affect the lives and freedom of a whole generation of americans, and i believe that judge kavanaugh's record and his rack preclude him from being worthy of that public faith. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president in. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would ask that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to express my strong opposition to the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to replace justice anthony kennedy as an associate justice on the united states supreme court. i opposed judge kavanaugh's nomination to his current seat on the d.c. circuit court because i had serious concerns about his partisan history, spans simplify view of

presidential -- partisan view of presidential power. judge kavanaugh's work on the d.c. circuit demonstrated, as i believe, i was right to be concerned about his view that the president is above the law. i intend to discuss his jurisprudence in a moment but first it is necessary to list just how many ways in which this process is real that judge kavanaugh lacks the temperament to serve as augusts of the supreme court. it began this process by continuing to stonewall and perhaps even mislead senators about his career as a political operative and partisan lawyer in the bush administration. he dissembled when asked basic questions about his apretty much to the law, a tactic we've come to expect from nominees lost a. been selected and vetted by far-right interest groups. but when dr. christine blasey ford came forward with credible allegations of sexual assault against him, this body saw the

real judge kavanaugh. he emerged at his second hearing, combative, evasive and in no way reassuring that he has told the truth to this body and the american people. i will discuss this in turn, but the bottom line is this -- judge kavanaugh is unqualified for a seat on the supreme court because he lacks the basic qualities and judgment for a position that could affect americans' everyday lives for generations to come. the american people are watching this debate with serious, real-world concerns about what a justice kavanaugh would mean for them. they're worried they could wake up to news that a conservative 5-4 majority on the court has stripped them of their health insurance, abolished their right to privacy and control over their reproductive health or revoked their right to marry

whomever they choose. a supreme court that continues to overturn laws that were inequitied to prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using their money to rig the political system. it is abundantly clear given judge kavanaugh's selection by special interest groups and the mad rush to confirm him at all costs that powerful interests are counting on him to further these trends, which point a future where political power is directly tied to wealth and status. worse yet, give than we still don't know the whole truth about the alleges against just kavanaugh, continuing this rush to place him on the court sends a terrible message to survivors of sexual assault that accountability for these depends on the account to which the accused person serves the interests of the powerful. the american people deserve

better. when this comes to this body's obligation to advise and consent on the next supreme court justice, the majority has failed in that obligation time and again in the course of this confirmation process. when my democratic colleagues and i express concern about whether a president under such serious criminal investigation should prior to seeing the investigative process thorough and complete to the end, appoint a justice who could be ruled on critical matters in the president's campaign, the majority ignores. when we demand that it follow the standard practice for supreme court nominees providing access to the full record of public service through appropriate document disclosures of the national archives, the majority fast-tracked the process and in place of the appropriate process, the

majority listed a private republican lawyer to curate a small subset of records for reviewing and even that was subject to committee confidentiality, meaning senators were barred from sharing anything they may have learned about the judge with the public. thousands more records were withheld under a dubious assertion of executive privilege. even given the small number of republican-selected records made available to this body, my democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee uncovered troubling inconsistences that called into question whether the judge has been truthful in his testimony. no other nominee for the supreme court would get away with this. why is the majority giving this free pass to judge kavanaugh in why does he deserve to shield his record when no other member of the supreme court received such treatment? why must his documents, records of taxpayer-funded public service be controlled by a private republican attorney

instead of the national archives like every other man and woman who currently sits on the supreme court? just what is it about judge kavanaugh that has rendered stalwart defenders of the senate's power to review nominees including those on the judiciary committee to have such a profound about-face? no one is entitled to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. yet the majority has treated this job like the personal property of judge kavanaugh ever since the president announced his nomination. our republican colleagues have said a great day about the importance of preserving a fair process for the consideration of supreme court nominees. madam president, some of these arguments are simply outrageous. in the recent past, democrats in the majority work on a bipartisan basis to obtain all relevant documents from then solicitor general kagan's work in the white house before holding a vote on her nomination to the supreme court. today we are set to vote on judge kavanaugh with roughly 90%

of his record still kept secret. yes, in the recent past, democrats made a difficult choice to end republicans' historically unprecedented obstruction of hundreds of president obama's nominees by eliminating the 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees except to the supreme court of the united states recognizing that the supreme court is one of the most important institutions in this country that it operates as the effective check on both the legislature and the executive, that it is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution of the united states, and that in order to have members on that court who are consistent with the constitution and thoroughly accountable to the american people, not special interests, a simple majority to get to the court is inadequate.

this process demonstrates that. last year after breaking historical precedent and basic decency by denying chief justice merrick garland a hearing, again for over a year the republican majority refused to consider a nomination of judge garland to the supreme court. and now they insist we have to move expeditiously to fill this gap. it's so critical. we can't wait two weeks, three weeks, four weeks for a thiewr thorough -- for a thorough f.b.i. investigation. we have to do it now. but we didn't do it when president obama submitted the nomination of judge garland. once judge core such was presented to us -- gorsuch was presented to us, the republicans abandoned the 60-vote threshold and at every turn republicans have in my view es came lated --

owe escalated the judicial wars. in this judge to confirm judge kavanaugh despite the allegations against him brings us closer than ever to a crisis of confidence in the court. we need more -- overwhelming since dr. ford, debbie ramirez and others came forward. these women put aside their privacy, professional lives, and the safety and security of their families in order to bring to light their allegations against judge kavanaugh. regardless of how one feels about the truth they claim, they have been met with treatment beneath us as a nation. they've been mocked, attacked in disgraceful and sexist terms by public officials who should know better, including the president himself. they have been called liars, had their motives questioned and their private lives picked apart on the national stage. the judiciary committee has now had the opportunity to hear from dr. ford and the f.b.i.'s conducted a limited background check on some of the allegations

against judge kavanaugh. but this process still doesn't pass the simple commonsense test. if there is no truth to these allegations as a nominee and our republican colleagues claim, why was it so difficult to agree to an f.b.i. investigation in the first place? for that matter, what serious investigation is forced to finish in less than a week with limits on which leads it can follow? what person upon hearing that a child or relative of his or her own had been harmed would be satisfied with such a short and apparently outcome-driven process? what is the majority hiding? i'm not parse to details against judge kavanaugh heard today but i will say this to my republican colleagues. look around you. our nation is undergoing a historic and long overdue reckoning with abuse of power, sexual hai. and sexual assault -- har rationment and sexual assault. it's regrettable the

confirmation process has become a forum for the larger debate about these matters but there's no convenient way to reckon with long-standing and painful injustice. this is the issue before us and we must face it. history will not look kindly if it looks at all on those who take the easy way out using distraction, false equivalence, and personal attacks to preserve a partisan win at all cost. giving the growing number of doubts that this process raised about judge kavanaugh's trustworthiness, he could not begin the test i apply to every nominee regardless of party during my service in the senate. i voted against nominees in the past because i did not believe that their records demonstrated that they would use their discretion to give meaning to the constitution. never before very had to stand here and oppose a nominee to the supreme court for those same reasons and because i do not believe that he's trustworthy.

i regret i must do so now. when it comes to the supreme court justice, charter is a nongoacialable requirement. supreme court justices are expected to have a record of professional achievement. they're not supposed to be partisans or politicians. they are given an awesome power for life. they can certainly have flaws but their relationship to the truth and their willingness to avoid the appearance are not up for debate. to serve in judgment of 325 million of their fellow citizens, they must be above the fray, particularly in these difficult and divided times. the supreme court decision was simply a mechanical application of foregone legal conclusions, then it wouldn't matter who sat on the court. rather, justice power rests in the discretion to choose between competing and well reasoned to argument to decide how the promise of the constitution will apply for generations to come. in order to support a supreme court nominee, i must believe she or he will use that

discretion to give meaning to the american tradition of equal justice under law. this means strictly scrutinizing laws that obstruct and distort the effective operation of government and channels of political participation. it means rejecting arbitrary abuse of power and demanding the most compelling justification for laws that single out the powerless and discrete and minority groups from disfavored treatment under the law. when the court has acted in accordance with these principles it has resolved issues of national concern that threaten to tear the fabric of our nation apart and done so in a manner that preserve the perception of impartiality that is vital to our judicial institutions. the courts struck the final blow against legal segregation. it safeguarded constitutional voting rights, guaranteed americans the power to choose how to start their families, separated church and state for the mutual benefit of both institutions and even ordered sitting presidents to comply

with the law. the snarling partisan that judge kavanaugh displayed at his second hearing was a far cry from the historical principles that preserve the court as a institution. without evidence he blamed the left and the left-wing opposition groups for revelations about his past behavior calling it a calculated, orchestrated political hit. he characterized dr. ford and others as liars, and claimed they came forward simply because of pentup anger against president trump in the 2016 election. how many organizations that regular try cases before the court fit his definition of left-wing opposition groups? how is anyone supposed to believe that justice kavanaugh would approach a politically charged case with an open mind after this display? i fear that some are willing to overlook the clear defects in this nominee and this confirmation process because they want a justice kavanaugh to deliver long-desired legal

victories for partisan causes. president trump has clearly expressed his expectation for the nominees to the court and outsourced the vetting process to far-right special interest groups. the goal of this process is no mystery. a decisive majority of the supreme court that will advice rate roe v. wade as well as expand the second amendment to block even commonsense gun safety laws. critically the president also wants to bring even more functions of government solely under the control of the white house so that he can quickly and easily dismantle protections for workers, the vulnerable, and the environment. this wish list is nothing new. it's long been the gender groups like the n.r.a. and federalist society to take control of the supreme court and accomplish from the bench what they cannot win from the ballot box. and president trump and this majority, however, they have found their opportunity to

radically change american law for the few and the powerful. i have no illusion about judge kavanaugh's familiarity and enthusiasm for the partisan victories he's expected to deliver for president trump and special interest groups as a justice. it is also difficult for me to imagine that there would be such a rush to put judge kavanaugh on the court if it were not a lifelong d.c. political operative and reliable partisan, an architect of the conservative legal movement which is designed to pack the federal judiciary with outcome-driven ideologues. he's already amassed a body of work that shows how he can and will deliver for the movement that has groomed him for this movement. judge kavanaugh has demonstrated in a dangerously expansive view of presidential power. the president is not a king and this is because the constitution establishes separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to ensure that no arm of government can overpower the others. the framers recognized that

particular danger of a supreme court without judicial independence. in federalist 78, alexander hamilton quoted, there is no liberty if the power of judgment be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. he added, liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. based on his writings, i fear that a justice kavanaugh is predisposed to provide the deciding vote on the present agenda before cases -- on cases before him before they reach the supreme court. for example, the supreme court has never had to decide whether a sitting president can be prosecuted for federal crimes. it's perhaps more important than now in our history to ensure a nominee to the court can approach questions of presidential accountability with independence and an open mind. judge kavanaugh cannot seriously

claim to have either on this issue. as a veteran of the star investigation and the clinton white house, judge kavanaugh understandably has strong feelings on civil prosecutions of sitting presidents. in 1998 kavanaugh authored a law review article discussing the now defunct independent counsel statute in detail and recommended changes. he argued there that congress should pass a low prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president until after the president's term in office. he made it clear at several points that he believes that such a law would codify what to him is already plain in the constitution, that a president is above our criminal law while he holds office. his views about presidential accountability did not evolve over time as seen in the various ways he continued to share his views over the years. in 1999 he told a reporter that he doubted whether the supreme court got it right in the united

states v. nixon, the landmark case that helped -- that presidents could not always use executive precedent to escape a subpoena to turn over records in a case. for those who lived through watergate, it was the supreme court's decision in that decision that more than anything else, preserve, i think, the stability of the union and the -- the constitution over partisan politics. it led to president nixon's resignation. it also showed convincingly that the court could take a decision seriously with respect to the constitution without considering the political effects. and justice kavanaugh believes they were wrong, that president nixon should have been allowed to defy the court, defy the country, and maintain secret the

tapes of his discussions in the white house take ultimately led to his -- that ultimately led to his resignation. in 2008 as a judge on the d.c. circuit he published another article presenting policies which reiterated his support for all civil and criminal cases against the president while the president holds office. to be clear, lawyers and legal academics have debated these issues of presidential power and accountability from the founding of the republic. this debate is particularly relevant in light of how easily a governing majority of the president's party can crush congressional efforts to investigate wrongdoing by the president and his administration. judge kavanaugh has every right to publish his thoughts for legal academia but he cannot have it both ways. he cannot spend 20 years arguing as the constitution forecloses criminal investigations of a sitting president and claim now

that he approaches the issue with an open mind. we may soon need clear answers from the court about whether a president can pardon himself and whether he can be subpoenaed, indicted, or otherwise held to account for wrongdoing. such a case -- if such a case would rise to the supreme court, at that would be damaging to the supreme court as an institution if the american people were to believe that the president had already secured the votes he needed to win because of his judicial appointments. it's also clear that judge kavanaugh comes to this nomination with his mind made up to deliver other important victories to the president and powerful corporate interests at the expense of federal agency autonomy and independence. two years ago, judge kavanaugh spoke on a panel before a conservative special interest group where he was asked if he could think of a case that deserves to be overturned. after some hesitation he answered that he would put the

final nail in the coffin of morrison v.olson which upheld the constitutionality of an vice president counsel who could only be fired for cause by the president. this deserves consideration. when given the chance to name any case he would overturn, judge kavanaugh did not think to name any of the most egregious cases from other early history as a nation such as the now overturned korematsu decision or "buck". instead he canadian clear that he would -- he made it clear that he would strip the power to strip power from special counsels. just this year judge kavanaugh showed that he was serious. in p.h.h. corporation v. corpor.

consumer financial protection bureau, the d.c. circuit upheld the constitutionality of the statute grading the cfpb in providing that its independent director could only be removed by the president for cause. judge kavanaugh quoted from justice scalia's dissent in morrison. i believe it is safe to assume that he would have gone even further in undermining the consumer agency's independence if he had the further overturn morrison altogether. this is not the only area where judge kavanaugh would deliver a long sought after victory for conservative operatives. he has also made it clear that he would undercut or even overturn the law of chevron deference, as this body discussed at length in debate over justice gorsuch's nomination, the case stands for the proposition is that when someone uses -- when someone

sues a federal agency and a reasonable person could read the statute at issue in more than one way, the court should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the law that the agency is charged with enforcing. put simply, chevron prevents big businesses that are trying to escape regulation from pouring millions into lawsuits to second-guess and slow down every piece of the rule-making process that they don't like. even justice scalia defended chevron as a reasonable check on judicial activism. but like judge gorsuch, judge kavanaugh has made it clear in his academic writing that he would overturn chevron as we know it and systematically tip the scales in favor of well-funded challenges of regulation. in my view, such a major change in law will put our nation on a path back to the bad old day when companies could pollute the environment, scam their customers and discriminate against their employees as long

as they could pay enough lawyers and get the right judge a federal agency sues. this would bring us one step closer to the deconstruction of the administrative state that the trump administration envisions and could severely obstruct future administrations in their efforts to protect consumers, the environment, and those who need a helping hand against the very powerful. i would like to take a minute to return back to the conflict of judicial discretion. as i discussed, i have evaluated every nominee for the supreme court during my time in this body based on whether i believe the nominee would have an open mind to be able to use his or her discretion to promote equal justice under the law and to safeguard the powerless against the powerful. upon review of justice kavanaugh's opinions, i do not believe that he would. he has routinely sided with employers and big business against workers, consumers, and those seeking to hold powerful

interests to account. two of his notable opinions illustrate the contrast between his treatment of interests he favors and those he does not. in the case of sea world of florida v. perez, it concerned a tragic incident at the theme park in which a killer whale grabbed its trainer and pulled her into the water killing her. this was not the first trainer whom this whale had killed this way. the department of labor sanctioned sea world upon concluding that the company knew about the danger this whale posed to trainers and failed to take reasonable steps to lessen the risk. a federal district court affirmed this conclusion, as well as the district of columbia circuit court. judge kavanaugh dissented. he argued that it was inappropriately paternalistic for the federal government to regulate matters of workplace safety for entertaining displays

such as killer whale exhibitions. to him, the free market rather than potentially lifesaving workplace safety standards should decide how dangerous is too dangerous for workers. compare this narrow view of a worker's right to a safe workplace, which judge kavanaugh's broad view of employers' religious right to opt out of regulations. the case of priests for life v. h.h.s. concerned an attempt to broadening the supreme court's holding in the hobby lobby case. in hobby lobby, a 5-4 majority supreme court held that a closely held for-profit corporation could refuse to comply with the affordable care actth mandate that employers provide health coverage, including contraceptives, on grounds that doing so would conflict with the corporation's purported religion rights under the religious free restoration act. in priests for life, a religious nonprofit corporation similarly

objected to providing contraceptives to employees on religious grounds. but also objected to an accommodation provided under the affordable care act regulations specifically for religious nonprofits. under the accommodation, the organization could file a form that lodged a faith-based objection to contraceptive coverage, thereby permitting its employees to access coverage through alternative means, not through the company directly. priests for life sued to invalidate even this alternative, claiming that filing a faith-based objective was a religious burden. the d.c. circuit decided against the organization because the organization was wrong, strictly as a matter of law that the filing of the form caused a change in the employee's access to coverage. judge kavanaugh dissented arguing that it should not matter whether nonprofit

provisions were strictly correct in order for the objection to refuse it from complying with the law. if the supreme court were to adopt this view, it would open the door to dangerous possibilities. in addition to nonprofits, for-profit corporations like hobby lobby and others could use religious objections to excuse themselves from an untold number of federal laws, ignoring in the process the religious and practical needs of the employees, the men and women of conscience who work for them. and the consumers who would suffer the consequences. contrasting these two cases, one showing kavanaugh's narrow view of an employee's right to a safe workplace, and the other demonstrating its troubling broad view of an employer's right to opt out, it becomes clear to me that judge kavanaugh would use his discretion to expand rights of the powerful at the expense ofen else.

madam president, supreme court justices hold extraordinary positions of authority under the constitutional system because they are the only ones with the power to decide that the governing majority as well as prior justices on the court got it wrong. the constitution guarantees every american certain rights that are beyond the reach of the president or a simple majority of congress to change because the popular majority cannot always be trusted to protect the interests of the minority. particularly when that minority includes the most powerless alienated and derided among us. the supreme court's work is not automatic. it is not an assembly line. the men and women who sit on the court must use their values and experience in order to reach the conclusions to determine how the constitution applies to our daily lives. i read judge kavanaugh's legal record to show that he would advance a dangerous, partisan agenda from the bench. some may disagree with that conclusion. but the fact of the matter is

that the majority is advancing judge kavanaugh's nomination in the absence of critical facts that go directly to his character and value. a full and fair investigation, one without predetermined limits, could clear justice kavanaugh's name or could cause him further trouble. but if the majority proceeds now and he is confirmed, the shadow of doubt will the always linger over his position, over court, and over the united states senate. americans will wonder why this nomination was rushed. the obvious conclusion would be that it served the interests of partisan politics. rightly or wrongly, that impression will further around the cynicism -- further harden the cynicism. that doubt in the fundamental fairness and integrity of the our government is contagious and our whole nation suffers as it spreads. madam president, i believe that we should stop this and show the american people that facts

matter and character matters. before i yield the floor, i'd like to say one more thing to my colleagues. this process of the majorityst elimination of the 60-vote threshold for the supreme court to confirm justice gorsuch last year is now the precedent for future supreme court nominations. democratic members should ex-expect nothing more. every senator should think long and hard about whether they are prepared for what could come next as a result of this dissolution of the senate rules that historically preserved the institution of the senate as well as the court. the supermajority required for confirmation of a majority justice was a vital backstop against the kind of display we have witnessed here in the past few weeks. that's why democrats kept the 90-vote requirement in place when they were forced by a lean blockade of lower-court judges, to fill a host of judicial vacancies with nominees who had cleared.

now any party in power can pack the supreme court on party-line votes with nominees like judge kavanaugh who otherwise could never rise to the highest court of the land. i would also note there is no longer any obstacles for a nominee to -- obligation for a nominee to disclose his or her records of public service. nor is there a requirement for fair hearings. a f.b.i. background check need be nothing more than a mere formality. candidates can disrespect the senate so long as they put upon a show that plays well with the president and majority. after all, there is no longer any need for a bipartisan consensus on a justice of the supreme court. i've served in this body in order over 20 years. i have not been here for all of the so-called judicial wars, supposedly is beginning with the nomination of justice bork -- or

judge bork, rather, who i will remind everyone was defeated 0en a strong bipartisan -- on a strong bipartisan vote. but i have been here long enough to know there is blame on both sides. democrats in the body have been aggressive when they were in power. but i would also add that scholarly research of many has documented the republicans have always found yet another way to escalate things even more. resulting in the position in which we now find ourselves. without some major change in the power of the majority, i hope there is no illusion among my colleagues that we have endured over the last few weeks, if anything, but the beginning of what is to come. i stand ready and i think many of my colleagues on the other side stand ready to search for a bipartisan solution and return to a path in which all of us -- at least the vast majority of the senate -- have

over-wellcomeing confidence in the -- overwhelming confidence in the ability and the dedication of a nominee to the supreme court for the constitution of the united states. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i come to the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. and i want to make a few quick points as we conclude this debate today. and then i want to speak to the people watching who may not believe what the senate could be headed towards today, who are shocked and angry, frustrated, and hurt. madam president, first and foremost, i believe dr. ford. i believe her when she shared her experience being