or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Executive Session

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. VITTER. Mr. President. I oppose the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because I have serious concerns with his capability to serve in the role of a life-tenured Federal appellate judge. His public statements regarding, and past contributions to, previous Supreme Court decisions give serious pause as to whether we should confirm him to serve on a Federal appellate court.

Mr. Hurwitz has effectively taken credit for helping develop the legal architecture for Roe v. Wade while serving as a law clerk to then-Judge Jon Newman. Judge Newman, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, issued two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Hurwitz played a key role in authoring these decisions and he has publicly expressed great pride in this fact. He wrote a 2002 law review article praising Roe and bragged that he helped craft Newman's opinion that was reflected in ``almost perfect lockstep'' in the Supreme Court's decision. This concerns me because not only is Roe a constitutional abomination, but a moral abomination that has resulted in the killing of tens of millions of unborn children.

Mr. Hurwitz has claimed credit for shaping a judicial decision that fundamentally disrespected human life and is completely unfounded in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade forever changed the debate about abortion in this country by creating a nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through one of the worst cases of judicial activism in history. It is so poorly reasoned that both conservative and liberal legal experts and scholars acknowledge that Roe was a deficient opinion that lacks any legitimate legal reasoning in support of its holding.

His willful failure to recognize the legal deficiencies of the Roe opinion and his self-promotion for playing a part in such an unfortunate event in this country's judicial history makes clear that he is not qualified to serve in the role of a Federal appellate judge.

I believe we must support the dignity and sanctity of all human life and defend those who cannot defend themselves. This judicial nominee would do the opposite, which is why I must oppose Andrew Hurwitz's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Back to top