Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to speak on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

When he was nominated to fill the vacancy occasioned by the retirement of Justice Kennedy, I immediately began to read all I could about his record. I reviewed his judicial opinions, law review articles, speeches, and I reviewed, such as they were made available, documents produced from his time working with the Bush administration and his work with the special prosecutor, Ken Starr.

Following the review, I met with him to ask him serious questions about his record. I then watched his Judiciary Committee hearing with interest. After that hearing, based on all I had seen and read, I announced my opposition to his nomination for two reasons.

First, the Nation needs a Justice with the backbone to stand up as an independent check against both the President and Congress. That is why our Nation gives judges life tenure, so they can render independent rulings without fear of losing their jobs.

In a whole series of writings, speeches, and rulings over the course of many years, both as a lawyer and as a judge, Judge Kavanaugh has embraced an unusual deference to Executive power. I think this is one of the reasons the President nominated him, and I don't have confidence that Judge Kavanaugh will hold the President accountable to the law.

Second, Judge Kavanaugh's writings as a Bush administration lawyer-- at least those that the majority has allowed us to see--demonstrate his personal view that settled law is settled only until five Justices decide to do something different.

This is true, as a matter of realpolitik, but I am left with serious questions about what other areas of settled law might be unsettled, should he ascend to the Court.

I can understand how my colleagues might reach different conclusions on the two issues that led me to oppose this nominee, but since I announced my position, two additional issues of great importance have arisen.

The first is how the Senate, as an institution charged with leadership, will respond to the real and pervasive problem of sexual assault. The second issue is how blatantly partisan we would want the Supreme Court to be.

Christine Blasey Ford has come forward alleging that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. Deborah Ramirez has come forward to allege that he sexually humiliated her during a party during his time at Yale.

The two allegations by two people who do not know each other, about instances that happened in different times at different places, have striking similarities. Both Ford and Ramirez allege that Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol and, in the presence of other people, assaulted or sexually humiliated them while others stood by laughing-- laughing. In both allegations, the sexual abuse of a woman was treated as some form of entertainment for other persons.

People who have suffered from sexual assault or harassment are watching to see how the Senate responds to these serious charges. And what do they see? A hearing where Dr. Ford described her experience calmly, credibly, and candidly, while Judge Kavanaugh attacked her claims, as well as those of Ms. Ramirez, as nothing more than a partisan political conspiracy; a narrowly limited, 5-day investigation by the FBI, which, under orders from the White House, contacted a handful of witnesses, while dozens of witnesses proffered by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez were ignored; and a single copy of the FBI investigation notes made available for Senators to read, provided that its meager contents not be shared with the press or public.

Even that minimal investigation raises serious concerns about these claims and Judge Kavanaugh's general truthfulness, but by moving forward to a vote anyway, the unmistakable message to survivors is that the Senate does not take allegations of sexual assault seriously.

More than 150 survivors of sexual abuse from Virginia have reached out to me to share their personal stories and ask that the Senate show we care about survivors. Some of these people are women I have known for decades who had never shared their stories with me.

A woman from Alexandria wrote:

As a citizen, veteran, assistant professor, mother, grandmother, wife and sexual assault victim at age 17 in 1968, I want to thank Dr. Blasey Ford for her testimony. I have never told anyone of the sexual attack, and I am 68 years old.

A woman from Sterling wrote:

I want my future daughters to grow up in a country where sexual assault and abuse is taken seriously by every official and legal professional in the United States.

A man from Chesapeake wrote:

As a male sexual assault victim, I understand how difficult it is to come forward. I strongly and respectfully urge you to attempt to empathize with those of us who have been abused.

A survivor from Radford wrote expressing dissatisfaction with the minimal investigation, saying, ``It makes me feel like if my attacker were nominated for the Supreme Court, that I wouldn't be taken seriously either.''

A woman from Williamsburg wrote:

Dr. Ford has agreed to full investigations into her experiences, but our leaders are failing her and every American citizen. I watch this unfold with anticipation, hoping that my representatives will listen to us.

An immigrant from Henrico:

When my family immigrated, an American couple who had helped sponsor our family became my temporary legal guardians. My sponsor mother was wonderful but did not know that her husband repeatedly molested and raped me. It started at age five until I returned to my family at age nine--my older daughter's current age.

What are these survivors asking? First, that a real investigation into the charges be conducted; that the dozens of witnesses proffered by Ms. Ramirez and Dr. Ford not be ignored; and finally, that the Senate not confirm to the Supreme Court a person with a question mark by his name.

To confirm Judge Kavanaugh under these circumstances would send a powerful message that the Senate--and now possibly the Supreme Court-- is a hostile environment for survivors of sexual assault.

The second issue raised by these allegations is how partisan we want the Court to be. A person accused of any offense--especially sexual assault--is entitled to defend themselves. It is natural to be emotional and even angry of such an offense if one felt falsely accused. But Judge Kavanaugh went far beyond that. He claimed that the allegations of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez were part of a political conspiracy connected to the Democratic Party, outside activists, and the Clintons.

The performance was insulting, and the conspiracy charge was a complete fabrication. There is no evidence to suggest that politics created Dr. Ford's account of being attacked at a party, her history of seeking counseling years before the nomination, the notes from her therapist, her willingness to take a polygraph, the results of that polygraph, the extensive corroboration of her story of alcohol-fueled house parties in the DC suburbs in 1982, or the admitted exploits of the alleged co-assailant, Mark Judge.

There is no evidence to suggest that politics created Ms. Ramirez's account of being sexually humiliated at Yale. Indeed, if the FBI were willing to interview witnesses who are now speaking publicly, there is ample evidence corroborating the account.

So when a nominee who in the past advocated slash-and-burn partisan tactics as part of the Starr investigation reveals that he still harbors partisan resentment and attempts to shrug off serious claims of sexual assault as a political conspiracy connected to ``outside leftwing . . . groups'' or the Clintons, he reveals a temperament that would be very dangerous if added to the Supreme Court. That is why retired Justice John Paul Stevens has come out urging a ``no'' vote on this nomination.

The good news is that there is a solution to this. There is a solution. We need not settle for a nominee burdened by questions regarding sexual assault allegations or excessive partisanship. There are numerous jurists who could meet the standards of a Republican President and a Republican Senate majority who do not have these issues. Why approve a nominee whose approval would send a hostile message to sexual assault survivors? Why approve a nominee whose nomination and approval would send a message of concern for those who don't share his political views? We can find a nominee who will not cause sexual assault survivors, litigants, or lawyers to fear how they will be treated by the Nation's highest Court.

For the good of the Senate and for the good of the Court, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kavanaugh nomination, and I ask the President to send up a nominee who will not hurt the reputation of either institution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source