Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the bipartisan resolution--54--that is before us today. The strong, bipartisan support we are seeing on the floor--most recently from my colleague Senator Lee of Utah--shows how necessary and important this resolution is to end the complicity of the United States in the murderous war waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

The United States is complicit because we are providing fuel, intelligence, and other support that is only increasing the barbaric power of the Saudis in that civil war--murderous activities that are taking a toll on civilians. The blood will be on our hands if we continue to support the Saudis in this brutal effort.

The resolution before us is carefully crafted to preserve our national security and our national interests while at the same time removing our involvement from the Saudi war crimes. There seems to be no other word for what we are seeing the Saudis do. The arguments made by the administration for our support and participation carry no weight. We should never compromise our national value for the sake of arms sales. In fact, the arms contracts are a pittance or a fraction of what the administration claims. So I am proud to support this measure. It will do too little and too late what should have been done long ago: Renounce our moral and legal responsibility, as well as our practical involvement for the murderous and brutal Saudi attacks on civilians and others in Yemen.

Nomination of Thomas Farr

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out on a less bipartisan issue against the concerted campaign by the administration and its allies to dramatically reshape our judiciary--to fill the courts with partisans and ideologues.

President Trump has made no secret of his frustration at judges nominated by both Republicans and Democrats who choose to uphold the rule of law and, as Chief Justice Roberts has said, ``do equal right to those appearing before them.'' He is wrong to talk about Obama judges or Bush judges. In fact, the Chief Justice is absolutely right that when a person puts on the robe, they are no longer a judge nominated by any President; they are a judge doing the right thing, hopefully, from the bench in a completely bipartisan, nonpartisan way.

Yet this administration has repeatedly put forward extreme nominees who will seek to undo decades of critically important progress in recognizing and protecting reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, and more.

In fact, we are scheduled to vote on a nominee for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Thomas Farr, who exemplifies this administration's efforts to remake the judiciary. He has been nominated for a judgeship that has been open for years. In fact, it is the longest open judicial vacancy in the country.

In 2013, President Obama nominated Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer May-Parker to fill the seat. Senator Hagan returned a blue slip, but Senator Burr--despite formally recommending May-Parker to the White House for the position--declined to return his blue slip. At that time, the Senate still adhered to its longstanding practice of respecting blue slips and referring to home State Senators, so the nomination was never considered. To accommodate Senator Burr's obstruction, Senator Obama nominated North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Patricia Timmons- Goodson to fill the vacancy on the district court in 2016. Neither Senators Burr nor Tillis returned blue slips on her nomination.

Senator Burr had the right--and I may have misspoken when I referred to obstruction--when he declined to return that blue slip. Would that that right were still observed in this body. He had that right. He exercised it. But now President Trump has nominated Thomas Farr, an attorney whose career is defined by efforts to dilute African-American votes and suppress them through redistricting and to make it more difficult for African Americans to vote in the first place.

Mr. Farr has worked to suppress minority votes since at least the early 1990s. The Department of Justice under George H.W. Bush alleged that Farr engaged in acts of voter intimidation during the 1990 election. In fact, during that election, Farr served as legal counsel to Senator Jesse Helms. The Department of Justice alleged that Senator Helms' campaign sent out to Black communities tens of thousands of postcards that falsely told voters they could be found ineligible to vote based on various conditions. President Bush's Justice Department described this mail campaign as ``intended to intimidate thousands of African-American residents and discourage them from voting in a 1990 Senate election.''

Since then, Farr has become an attorney of choice for North Carolina's Republican politicians when they have sought to gerrymander and suppress voter efforts. Notably and most recently, he successfully represented the North Carolina legislature in Cooper v. Harris. That case involved two districts that were redrawn after the 2010 census as majority Black districts by removing African-American voters from other predominantly White districts. The redrawn districts effectively diluted the voting power of African Americans by concentrating the Black population in a smaller number of districts that already elected candidates who received strong support from African-American voters.

The Supreme Court rejected Farr's defense of the redrawn districts and found that the legislature had engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. That ruling was remarkable--absolutely exceptional in Supreme Court jurisdiction--indicating the blatant and flagrant disregard for constitutional law in that gerrymandering.

Farr also defended the North Carolina legislature in a challenge to its restrictive voter ID law. The day after the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down the preclearance requirements of section 5 in the Voting Rights Act, the Republicans in the North Carolina legislature requested data regarding the racial breakdown of the usage of various voting access tools.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law discriminated against African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision.''

The court said: ``This sequence of events--the General Assembly's eagerness to, at the historic moment of Shelby County's issuance, rush through the legislative process the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow--bespeaks a certain purpose.''

Thomas Farr argued in favor of those legislative districts that restricted representation of African-American voters in their State and Federal Government.

President Trump has chosen this man to serve as a judge. I cannot vote for him. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this nominee. His nomination alone speaks volumes about the intentions and predilections of this administration. This nominee is not suited to the vital task that judges--particularly Federal district court judges--are empowered to carry out.

This nominee is not fit for this job. I will vote no. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source