Transcripts For CSPAN2 Senate Confirmation Hearing For U.S. Circuit Judge 20240713

Order. Order. This is a meeting room set up differently to deal with the reality we all face as a nation trying to practice social distancing and good hygiene. Thank you for coming everybody has disinfected they can use. We have spaced out the room to be as safe as possible for my staff and minority staff , thank you for working together to set up the room. It has been 40 something days since the senate has been able to meet the committee has a lot to do related to the coronavirus but we also have things that are necessary like filling judicial vacancies we are getting comments throughout the country about the vacancies and how they are impacting the ability to deliver justice in various states that we will be as part to that as we can. My democratic colleagues are requesting hearings state and federal and Detention Centers and for immigration purposes we will try to Work Together to have those hearings i am curious myself about our nations prisons and immigration Detention Centers so we are working as quickly as we can hopefully we will have a hearing about liability issues related to the virus and what we can do as the congress to safely open the country to minimize legal exposure for those who are trying to reopen the american economy. Thats an important topic for me and many others here. Today we will deal with a vacancy at the Dc Circuit Court. Judge walker from kentucky has been nominated by the president to fill this vacancy he is a highly qualified individual and senator mcconnell would be submitting a written statement my colleagues if its okay we will hear from senator paul and then make statements. Is that okay . The floor is your. Thank you mr. Chairman for allowing me to introduce judge walker. I am pleased President Trump reached outside the beltway to elevate judges committed to our constitution and be elevated now to the second most Important Court. Judge walker is the first confirmed from outside the bubble since Thomas Griffith the judge he is replacing was confirmed 15 years ago i was honored to recommend judge walker for the District Court and honored to recommend judge walker now to the elevation of the Dc Circuit Court. I was unable to be here for judge walkers hearing last year because i had urgent lung surgery if i had been here i wouldve told you how high met him through my friend and i was immediately impressed by his knowledge of Critical Thinking of the law. As a district judge showing an unwavering fidelity to the constitution in early april the nation was in the middle of a Health Crisis politicians around the country began to clamor and claim tremendous power over our everyday life while many cheer them on governors and mayors were in a race to see who could restrict the citizens movements the most eventually governments began to enact restrictions even with the free exercise of religion the governor ordered the state police to record the license plates of churchgoers on easter to be forcibly quarantined the mayor of the largest city band Easter Services including a drivethrough services where they would stay in their car with the weekend looming one went to court when judge walker was assigned a case the easy thing to do would be wait until the following week with easter having already passed instead judge walker saw such a clear violation of the First Amendment the issued a rare saturday order blocking the city from criminalizing easter. I commend it to you as a demonstration the depth of his knowledge of the law in history. Also his fidelity to our constitution even in times of crisis. Judge walker is the person we need on the bench i probably support him and urge you to swiftly sent his nomination to the floor. Thank you senator paul. I would like to begin by thanking all of the frontline workers who spent untold workers responding to the covid19 pandemic First Responders and Grocery Store workers farmworkers these men and women have helped to keep us safe and well. I speak for all of us when i simply say thank you. Today the committee is moving forward with a hearing to consider the nomination of Justin Walker to the dc circuit the Senate Confirmed judge walker to the District Court to the lesser district of kentucky october 2019 with no democratic votes after serving just six months as the District Court judge he has now been nominated to the dc circuit. After the Supreme Court this is the most Important Court in the country the rulings have National Implications including healthcare, the powers of the executive branch workplace and environmental safeguards. In his short time on the bench judge walker, just 37 years old has virtually none of the experience one would experience of a District Court judge before elevation to the circuit. He has not presided over any bench or jury trial he has written opinions and only 12 total cases. Its not surprising groups like the Leadership Conference on civil and human rights have opposed judge walkers nomination partly because of his lack of experience which paints a vivid picture of an individual who is unworthy of a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. More than 200 groups including the Leadership Conference in naacp and National Council of jewish women also opposed judge walker because of the record against expanding access to health care and safeguards for the environment, consumers and workplace in its letter protect our care noted judge walker statement that the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the Affordable Care act was indefensible that letter signed by 53 groups expressed concern that judge walkers confirmation wouldexacerbate the healthcare crisis in this country. I will ask judge walker today about his record and if he can fulfill the judicial standard of fairness and objectivity we should expect from the federal bench. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you very much mr. Chairman to give me the opportunity for an Opening Statement when we heard senator mcconnell was summoning us back to washington dc after five or six weeks where we had sheltered in place at home, i was waiting to hear the agenda i knew what america was focused on a National Emergency in the words of President Trump a Public Health care crisis we hear about of every minute of every day literally changing the lives of so many people across america and as of this moment claimed at least 70000 american lives. One. 2 Million People infected at least based on testing so far. The greatest challenge in crisis we have faced in her lifetime so the Senate Judiciary coming back for business theres a lot of things we can bring up related to this covid19 crisis. We could certainly be asking the subcommittee on Border Security and immigration to address the issue of over 50000 daca and tps classified Critical Health workers in america who status under the immigration laws are at the least uncertain we can bring that up to discuss if we could afford to lose 50000 Healthcare Professionals at this moment in history the subcommittee on the constitution could ask us how the election will be held in november if americans will have an opportunity to vote even if they are fearful of leaving their homes to go to a polling place. Crime and terrorism couldve asked us for sufficient protective equipment for police and responders and if we are protecting federal prison guards. Look at the numbers not just of the incarcerated but also the guards who are infected as well. We couldve asked the subcommittee on oversight to look at senator mcconnells own suggestion that we address the issues of liability across the board in terms of covid19 a worthy topic that we may bring out next week. Aarp tells us seniors across america are facing healthcare scams that a Record Number because of the covid19 crisis this is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary committee the list is lengthy unfortunately it is the reason we are returning this week instead we are considering the nomination of a 37 yearold family friend of senator mcconnells to the Second Highest Court in the land the nominee who has our record ironically of stridently opposing the Affordable Care act which seeks to extend Health Insurance coverage to more americans and last year was found unqualified to serve as a District Court judge in the commonwealth of kentucky. But now after his sixmonth career on the kentucky District Court obviously in the eyes of senator mcconnell this is the second time senator mcconnell has prioritize this judge over the coronavirus and then to so when it comes to covid19 pandemic, we cannot get distracted by preexisting partisan wish list that exactly what is happening in the steering the greatest public Health Crisis in the nation and with so many critical areas and senator mcconnell is not willing to set aside his wish list and the American People deserve better. Please rise raise your right hand. Do you swear the following testimony is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god . Please the pull the microphone close the floor is yours. Good morning i would like to thank senator mcconnell senator paul for all of the support they have always shown me and thank you to senator paul for the statement that he made today. Thank you to chairman graham and Ranking Member feinstein for holding this hearing and to chairman graham for chairing it. Thank you to the president for nominating me. To my wonderful wife and my precious daughter isabella, thank you for all of your love. To my mom, debbie walker, thank you for being a great role model of my life. Thank you to all the family and friends and supporters who have been there for me before and during this process and thank you to my clerks and colleagues on the Western District of kentucky for your wisdom and advice. Thank you chairman graham. We will go by seniority thats the easiest way to do it if anyone wants to go by videoconference questions we have that capability. And with this rating regarding judge walker i will do that now determined to be wellqualified and that the minority is determined is not qualified. I would like to introduce that into the record. Tell us about the case involving in kentucky the church that senator paul mentioned can you walk us through that quickly and give us your reason . The week before easter announced five different statements that it was not allowed for members of a church to worship at a drivein Church Service on easter. The plaintiffs in that case reached out to the mayor on thursday and asked if they could nevertheless have their Service Inspired of what they announced on friday i had a temporary restraining order that arrived in my desk at 6 00 oclock p. M. On friday i had to make a decision to make one quickly so that people could know on saturday if they could go to church on easter sunday. And looking at the law that the free exercise clause prohibited the action the mayor was taking it was a long opinion because i believed it was a momentous and severe for a thing to a court to enjoin mayor in the midst of a terrible pandemic when the mayor is asserting his actions could save lives. Because that is what the law required. And i explained in depth because i do not believe it would be possible to explain the meaning of the free exercise clause without xers one explaining the history of the free exercise clause. With the holding and the obama care Justice Roberts decision to determine that congress had broad authority. Can you tell us what you are talking about and what you did and take this out for comment. The case that i was referring to is binding on all Lower Court Judges as a sitting district judge i would follow nfib fully and faithfully. Worked clerking for Justice Kennedy that was the most public high profile case of the year and as you can imagine chairman graham no Supreme Court justice likes to be in the dissent Justice Kennedys circumstances is not a position to find himself and often. And to pay tribute to Justice Kennedy that he changed my life by hiring me and not the end of the paragraph paying tribute to Justice Kennedy i made a lighthearted illusion to his dissent in nfib versus sibelius. It was nothing more than a tongueincheek way of recognizing what certainly in the Public Record already of the United States reports that the chief justice wrote a majority Opinion Holding the individual mandate was taxed in Justice Kennedy dissented. And in 2018 to call the Supreme Court opinion unfolding the aca you likewise praised judge kavanaugh for providing what you call a roadmap for the Supreme Court to strike down the aca. And then to hold them indefensible. First that as i said to senator graham the courts opinion is binding on me and i would follow it fully and faithfully. And i was an academic and a citizen engage of matters of public concern as many judges were before they became judges regard to what i specifically wrote i did as an academic in the majority opinion but that was not a commentary on the merits of the particular healthcare policy if it was a legal analysis about constitutionality. That isnt the only time in march of 2024 the ceremony for the Western District you publicly discuss the opinion and their you say while clerking for Justice Kennedy that the chief justice may be the attack that was an apparent reference to chief justice opinion upholding the aca as a function of the congresses taxation power if you are willing to discuss the courts opinion what you are sitting is a lower court judge then why not now . That lighthearted illusion to what kennedy wrote when i was a clerk is part of a paragraph talking about the important relationship i have with Justice Kennedy and how he has been and invaluable mentor and friend to me since i clerk from him in 2011 and 2012 it was not meant as anything more than a reference it is a tongueincheek allusion that nobody likes being in the dissent. For those that have access to health care as the aca is to be struck down even more americans would face Devastating Health and consequences so why should we support the nominee to take away healthcare for millions of americans including those with preexisting conditions . Senator the covid19 pandemic to put the country in unimaginable crisis i doubt theres anyone in this room who either hasnt been affected or doesnt know someone who has been affected in terms of the Economic Impact and that category. That your answer . No. I was going to add that it is not the role of the judge to opine on healthcare policy. A district judge as i have been the past six months and the dc circuit judge if im lucky enough to be confirmed has a responsibility and duty to go where the constitution leads and where the law leads that i have done as a District Court judge and i have done it without any policy preferences or any consideration or of whether or not i like the policy outcomes you are not a good judge if you always like the policy outcomes that result when you go where the law leads and go casebycase with an open mind. That your investiture speech Brett Kavanaugh in attendance said in Brett Kavanaughs america we will not surrender while you wage war on the hope or dream. What do you mean by Brett Kavanaughs america . Justice kavanaugh and Justice Kennedy are mentors of mine and i will defend both of them. I am not attacking them im just asking you what you meant. And what i meant is that Justice Kavanaugh as well as Justice Kennedy are outstanding judges for that and with that part of construction so in my speech i was saying was unabashedly the rule of law and the approach to judging that considers text rather than inserting a judges political opinion into what the law is. As i read it, you referred to our work and our cars and our hope and our dream as being different from what is taken but identified with Justice Kavanaughs views and im just interested in knowing what that meant. I think Justice Kavanaughs approach to the law ask respects the judges limited role in the constitution structure and demonstrates fidelity and that is the legal principle i was praising when i was praising Justice Kavanaugh. I appreciate that. Judge walker i will ask you about chevron because most other circuit judges dont do as much with administrative ruling with the court that you are appointed to. So with the Supreme Court holding of chevron when is that appropriate for the Judicial Branch to do for the interpretation of law . It is the opinion from the us Supreme Court that has two steps the first step of chevron, once that is triggered by a Agency Rulemaking the judge considers whether or not the statute of the agencys regulation is clear or ambiguous then the judge looks at the text, considers construction and precedents to decide if the statute is clear or ambiguous. If it is clear and it clearly does not authorize regulation than it is invalid. However if it is ambiguous then it moves to chevron step to the judge considers with the interpretation and that a reasonable interpretation. And with those administrative agencies. Its not for me as a sitting judge to critique binding precedents of the Supreme Court like chevron it still good law and im bound by it. Before he became a judge i wrote about chevron deference where the Supreme Court might go in the future. Like burwell the Supreme Court held it does not apply to Certain Agency regulations when they involve a very major question. My article discuss that. The next question i ask almost every nominee from the judiciary branch, how do you consider foreign law in your deliberation of a case . Is it ever appropriate to rely on law or views of the World Community to determine the meaning of the United States constitution or statute . As a district judge ive never relied on foreign law as a general rule it is very rare a judge should rely on foreign law or consider foreign law. There are exceptions to that if a contract between the plaintiff and the dependent have a choice that refers than that could be part of the contract the judge might also consider ancient english law when determining the common law that form so certain constitutional provisions ratified. This is something that has come up very recently too often in decisions in the three and a half years that is it ever appropriate for a federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction blocking federal laws, Agency Decisions or executive orders and if you think it is, when and why . The question of nationwide injunctions is a question that is currently being litigated in courts across the country and could certainly come to me in the future case in my role on the dc circuit if im lucky enough to be confirmed there. What i can say is if you look at the injunctions that i have issued as a district judge in the opinion that senator paul referred to in that i was asked about earlier by senator graha graham, it is a narrow injunction and notes specifically i was issuing the injunction that bound the defendant with a particular plaintiff in the case. Senator leahy will join us by videoconference. Thank you mr. Chairman. This is taken 70000 american lives so we are holding the first hearing on the judicial nominee i will submit my questions but with the Supreme Courts decision of the Affordable Care act would you call that catastrophic . And once you are sitting judge you referred to chief Justice Roberts regarding the aca does the worst words you could hear what the Supreme Court chief justice but after the white house for this position in the nomination and looking at the aca, i will ask you this question do you know how many millions of americans have become unemployed because of the pandemic . Senator there are millions of unemployment claims being filed than those that are hurting right now. My heart goes out to all of them. The 30 million americans lost their job. Now over 50 million have preexisting conditions they will be without insurance i thought it was remarkable for a number of reasons going through various historical examples every one of us are opposed the one that said slaveowners for the prayer meeting. You suggested the mayor wanted to keep the infection rates low to protect citizens. Not in any way senator. What my opinion attempted to do was to say that free exercise clause and relate to religious worship is the rights of Constitutional Order because the framing generation through the First Amendment and that you cannot explain the meaning free exercise without the history of free exercise clause and unfortunately there has been some terrible intolerance toward people of faith and that is with the ratification of the First Amendment and some of that is instructed later as Justice Holmes said sometimes history can be worth the volume of logi logic. I grew up in a time of religious intolerance i believe in the First Amendment. You have spoke about that and said we are at risk of losing the courts but generally is a judge in the position to wage a war . Who was that against in this country . That message was twofold. The first message was that good judging means taking the person all policy preference out of the equation following president. The second point is that the politicalization of the judiciary is harmful to the independent judiciary. I wasnt trying to inject politics into my speech i was trying to push back against the politicalization of the judiciary. I also note the statements that you make on the republican agenda and you can understand why in my time is up i will submit further questions for the record. Without objection. Thank you mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your nomination. I have been amazed there are members of the senate and congress generally who dont think its okay for us to be here to do our job. They think its okay for grocery clerks to show up to make sure we have food on our tables its okay for doctors and nurses to show up to attend the sick and Healthcare Facilities and Police Officers to show up, but heaven forbid the United States Congress Show up to do our job. I thought our friend senator durbin did a good job of a list of things we can do and we may end up doing, but you have to start somewhere and we know that responsibility for advice to the courts and nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the senate. You stand accused of knowing a senator or two. I dont know how you become a federal judge without knowing a senator since its the senates responsibility. But we can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time. I am glad to be back, for one. Someone said you dont have the requisite experience to be on the Dc Circuit Court. It is true you dont have the extensive trial practice before you became a district judge any went into academia. Yes. Are there justices currently on the United States Supreme Court who never had an active trial or appellate practice serving primarily in academia . It is my understanding there is a long and rich tradition of academics being nominated to federal Appellate Court positions. They are on the dc circuit and former academics on the us Supreme Court. I am not trying to put myself in their league but yes, certainly there is a long history of academics being nominated to the federal courts. You have been criticized for your relationship with judge kavanaugh. You clerked for him on the dc circuit . That is correct. The way cap it always treated during the nomination process is us staying stain on the Senate Judiciary committee in the senate and was absolutely disgraceful and completely unjustified. You made statements in defense of judge kavanaugh as a law professor giving tv interviews. Is that unusual for law professors to opine on legal matters being considered . Not at all. I think i could go so far from any law professors its an important part of the job. The news media is always eager to have some professor who claims expertise on a topic render their opinion. Do you feel that you are defending judge kavanaugh what you see as unjustified attacks on character . In the summer of 2018 i did it because as an academic and former clerk, i thought i knew about Justice Kavanaugh and his jurisprudence to share the knowledge with people who didn didnt. There were times i defended Justice Kavanaugh as a friend and mentor as is my former boss Justice Kennedy i will defend them until the cows come home. You have an active as a law professor writing various articles. Thats what you do . Thats correct. One of the focuses of my scholarship was Administrative Law which is the day in and day out bread and butter of the dc circuit. Thank you for being here to accept this responsibility. Thank you mr. Chairman for scheduling a hearing. Its very important to function as much as many people in the economy in daily life are functioning to observe social distancing in the right guidance from the cdc and other experts. Thank you mr. Chairman i am here doing my job. I came here because we are in the midst this nominee has characterized as an unimaginable crisis i cant go to the state of texas or illinois and ask americans who are concerne concerned, worried, frightened by the Current Situation of coronavirus, with the highest priority should be. We know what it is with senator mcconnell. This nominee. Of all the things we could be debating, things that are relevant to this crisis, we have been brought back here to debate this nominee. Thats the point i wanted to make in my Opening Statement. I am here at risk i assume and danger and many of us are as well. Thats the point i wanted to make. Senator walker, you have been very careful he refer to your responsibility when it comes to the Supreme Court decision upholding the aca only once or twice have you deviated from saying it is binding on me as a District Court judge. How is it binding on you if if you are a Dc Circuit Court judg judge . It is binding on me in a absolute sense a decisive side follow all president s of the Supreme Court fully and faithfully. You said i will go with a constitution leads. Can you square that statement with what you just said . Certainly. The constitution requires absolute fidelity to Supreme Court precedents the constitution outlines one Supreme Court with the possibility of lower courts so in that hierarchy whatever the Supreme Court says, that is the law for a lower court judge whether on the Western District of kentucky or if im lucky enough to be confirmed to the dc circuit. The problem is we expect honesty, humility and impartiality. You have not been the least bit impartial with the Affordable Care act. Your legal or constitutional contempt is obvious. You call it the indefensible decision to uphold the Affordable Care act at your own ceremonial investiture is the Supreme Court standing by you you mocked it when Justice Kennedy was told the rationale for the Affordable Care act , now we are in the midst of a pandemic the question is asked can i protect myself, my family if i have to face this virus . Thats a question people face many times each day. Here you come before us asking for a lifetime appointment mocking the law that provides the attempt to extend Health Insurance to more americans do you understand the angst and concerned that we have to put you in that position at this moment in history . Speaking personally for a moment, when i was two years old my mom had Breast Cancer. She is a Breast Cancer survivor. She survived heart surgery, neurosurgery, i thank god every day she was able to get the medical care that she needed i hope every american can get the medical care that they needed. As a judge its not my job to define policy. I have to go where the law leads and what you said with integrity and independence and temperament, that goes to why the American Bar Association gave me the highest rating yesterday. I have an idea. Might of your Public Comments would you commit to recuse yourself from any case involving constitutional challenges . Section 455 outlines when a judge should or should not recuse i pledge to follow that statute to the letter. I would consult with my colleagues on the dc circuit. There is a long tradition of judicial nominees not to recuse because a judge has to take each case by case and that is a decision about the case. Judge walker after 162 Television Appearances and all you have written and said its painful to hear you say you have an open mind. I gave you an opportunity to clear the issue you have chosen not to. I yield. Thank you judge walker. At the outset it is not only acceptable but appropriate and entirely necessary for us to be here. First responders, doctor responders, doctors, nurses, phs , Grocery Stores, working seven days a week while managing the task of homeschooling children for the first time and lawmakers who have been absent in recess for about six weeks. Not that we didnt have reasons but if youre going to legislate then legislate you cant pretend when congress is out of session. Congress may not should never attempt to be doing its duty when members are not here we cant have hearings or process president ial nominees or enact legislation if we are not here. We have mechanisms in place to socially distance. Not foolproof but nothing is we have undertaken every reasonable effort that senators can convene in a safe manner. I somewhat resent the suggestion because judge walker has voiced some disagreement of the analysis undertaken by chief Justice Roberts and nfib versus sibelius that that is a policy argument that he is apathetic to individual americans are the poorest among us. And in life to serve those who need to be served. But for whatever it is worth, i strongly echo to say the court may not be penalized for making a decision. It is nonetheless operated by fallible human beings and nfib made a mistake. One can say that, and you have without commenting on the underlying policy merits or who should have healthcare. Its a fact that chief Justice Roberts rewrote the Affordable Care act not once but twice when it was enacted by the senate to be rendered constitution defects. Judge walker you issued a temporary restraining order with religious liberty you been why the criticized for that but that is entirely consistent with the law is that not the activity of religious expression to target activity and expression for adverse treatment by government as it was done in louisville. Thats correct. It is black letter law under Supreme Court precedent and under kentuckys registration act absolutely the command of the constitution and religious institutions be treated equally by the state. That would have been a dereliction of your duty. I believe that is correct and if i had waited longer there would be irreparable injury to the plaintiffs for a factor of a temporary restraining order requiring the judge to consider specializing in Administrative Law it has a history in this country and focuses on the principle that congress may not simply enact the law the president or any executive Branch Officer to simply promulgate or enforce as be deemed appropriate within the executive branch. How do you think that might play into the Dc Circuit Court of appeals . Congress cannot delegate the legislative authority to the Administrative Agency that goes back to the first sentence of the first article of the constitution all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress. I hope we get a second round thank you. Senator white house by videoconference. We see you. Thank you chairman you look great. Judge walker you signed the letter for the code of conduct committee along with many other judges you did not provide that letter to the senate why did you not . That was a letter from judges to judges. There were approximately 200 current federal judges nominated by every president going back to gerald ford who signed the letter in response to a request for a response from the code of conduct committee it was not a public letter but of the same nature of any correspondence from one judge to another one group to another. Not an official statement relating to Public Policy or legal interpretation . As i said judges frequently right to other judges i do that. Are there other things you were not disclose like this letter . There are not. This is the one. The senator i have disclosed everything the Senate Committee has asked that i disclose. You have any role to prepare this letter . Senator i saw a draft the short answer is no. Who prepare the draft of the letter . Its my understanding there was a handful of judges that prepared the letter im not sure who they are its not my place but i suspect they would be quite proud to be listed but if you would like in the followup questions. Is there a privilege of some kind . Why are you not answering my question . In your advocacy on behalf of Brett Kavanagh who coordinated your tv and radio appearances of a yes, senator and the majority of those appearances i received a direct email from the tv producer and they asked if i would be willing to share my experience and i was willing to do it. It was quite informal. I was new to the world of cable news and i was asked to make statements about the justice that i greatly admired and i consider a mentor and friend. You know, senator my old friend is a good person and has more knowledge about the world of cable news than i do and he did it without pay and i did it because i admire him. And he was the only person who coordinated . That is correct certainly to my knowledge. What war is he waging that you referred to in your remarks when he came to your investiture . The remarks were my description of the kind of justice that i believe he is and the kind of good at judging that is required of the judging. That is fidelity to the separation of powers protect us and understanding that the judges role in the constitution is a limited role as for the political branches to make policy and for the judges to decide cases without passion or prejudice for any particular policy outcome. And you described that as waging the war, correct . In my speech i was admittedly unabashed in my sense of the judicial philosophy and an approach to judging in the rule of law that considers the original meaning of text and keeps judges politics of decisionmaking. Youve let me go over my time. I wish we had more time and clearly we will have a lot of questions for the record that i hope we will get complete and candid answers to. Thank you very much. Senator cruz. Thank you for convening this hearing and i suppose i should congratulate him on having what i think is the largest judicial confirmation hearing weve ever had. I will be sparsely attended but congratulations on your service on the district bench and congratulations on the nomination to the dc circuit you happy fohave before you a case concerning religious liberty. Can you share for the committee your view of what the constitution is protecting with the religious liberty clause of the First Amendment and what is the importance of those protections . Certainly, senator cruz. The freedom to worship was one of the audacious ideas of the constitution. The history has religious persecution and the framers made the decision that no matter where you worship you should be equal in the eyes of the law. And i said it was an audacious decision. They put it in the constitution both because they knew the. Thereve been unfortunate chapters in history where that happened, but the Supreme Court said over and over again it requires secular institutions and religious institutions to be treated equally and that was the fundamental principle at the heart of my temporary restraining order. Our country is in a time of crisis right now and times of crisis bring out peoples character. We have seen some extraordinary Government Policies implemented. In the crisis there are legal authorities for the government to act. But what is your view of the extent to which the bill of rights continues to operate and protect the liberties even in the time of crisis. It suggests the Constitutional Rights dont stop being Constitutional Rights even in a time of emergency. You have written at some length about separation of powers. The dc circuit has a unique docket with the heavy assortment of challenges to the decisions from federal agencies, dependent agencies and questions of separation of power get raised with regularity at the dc circuit. Can you share with the committee your views on why separation of powers matter, and what it does for the average american citizen . Separation of powers protect liberty. Of course there are provisions in the bill of rights including the free exercise clause as we were discussing that are important protections of liberty. There is probably no more important protection than separation of powers because there were tierney is all across the world and all throughout history that had beautiful bills of rights. But they dont have the separation of powers. They concentrate in one branch of the government and it is worse than just one person. When that happens, there is no check on that person so whatever nice liberties are listed in the bill of rights, the person with the concentrated power is free to ignore them. Theres probably no more dangerous threat to the liberties and the concentration of the executive power, the legislative power and the judicial power all in one place. Separation of powers protect against bad as you have written before and as the federalist papers have said and other senators on the committee have written about. So let me ask not just on the horizontal axis but the vertical axis as well describes your views on federalism and why it matters. It is essential. As Justice Kennedy once wrote they split the atom of sovereignty and created a sovereign federal government that the states maintained certain sovereignty themselves and the fact byrd goes separation of powers protect us against the concentration of power in any one place and there is our nation probably greatest protection of liberty and against tierney. Senator klobuchar i think is by videoconference. Thank you mr. Chairman and also for being willing to do a hybrid hearing like we are seeing today. Weve worked hard to get this done and im glad we are seeing senators there as well as remotely. To be devoting one of the first hearings to Something Else and that is the pandemic with the jurisdiction of the committee thats been pointed out by some of my colleagues. We could be talking about things and focusing on things like the over 2,000 people in the prison that have the virus. Over 40 of them have died. Our jurisdiction over immigration and over the issues of Domestic Violence. We had a case in minnesota in the suburbs where a man killed his wife, strangled her and hit her in the crawl space of the house. Theres a lot going on in the country and we will have future hearings focused on things like this. We cannot divorce this nomination from the pandemic and i guess that is my first question a few. In july 2018, you wrote an oped in which you were critical of the majority of the Supreme Court including chief Justice Roberts that in your words accepted that the Affordable Care act was constitutional under the power. Do you still hold this view . The send delete the statement i made was academic and as a private citizen engaging in matters of public concern. My role now as a judge is not to give a thumbsup or thumbs down to a particular president. President. Its a binding Supreme Court precedent and if im lucky enough to be confirmed to the dc circuit, it will be binding on me and in my current role as a district judge. Its binding on me absolutely. You do understand right now there are americans that are depending on the Affordable Care act and the way that i look at this is if none of this is relevant that you did as a private citizen, youve only been a judge for six months and in your adult life since you are 37, that is two to 3 of your work life. So, in other words, 97 to 98 are offlimits. That is the only way we are going to figure out the views as we evaluate what kind of judge he would be and i think another example is provided the committee with a working draft that you wrote earlier this year where you said the Supreme Court would be headed to the doctrine that shows they should be for two interpretations of the agencies and things about protecting drinking water. Do you think that a single judge is better positioned than an Agency Experts to interpret the role on things like water safety or workers protection . The article that you are referring to describes and predicts what the Supreme Court has done in the past and it describes where it might go. And in fact as i was writing that article, one of the predictions i made with regards to deference to agency is involved a case when i started drafting the article, i predicted that the Supreme Court would address difference to agencies and perhaps do it in a slightly different way. By the time i finished, kaiser had been decided and the decision didnt overturn any precedent but it did refine and in some ways limit the precedent at issue with regards to deference to agencies. So to the first part of your question, i am not in any way running away from the scholarship i erode or asking you to ignore it. I hope that you will i dont think its been read very much on till now but if you do read it i hope that you will see the analysis and research and writing that reflects how i would approach every case of an open mind to try to look at things from all sides and try to do but good judges do which is tied into an area and learn as much as i can about it. About a third of the cases are about agency appealed so its an important part of the work. My concern your views are not consistent including where Justice Scalia was and that will impact you as a judge. One last point i want to make about this. The Brookings Institution report back in october of 2018 found that the Trump Administration has between 85 to 10 rate when defending the actions in court. Previous administrations had averages of 69 and that includes republican and democratic administrations, so for me it suggests that even under this deference, the court can prevent these actions that are unreasonable. This may be an academic argument but for me it is a real thing. Grandpa worked in the mines. I think a lot of people during this pandemic that are working in the plants right now and people working in the front lines of the hospital get the rules and regulations in place that will be the difference between life and death for them. I want you to consider this as you answer the question and think about how you will rule on fees if you are confirmed in the future. Thank you, senator. The role that the agencies play in the country is important in terms of the kind of protections you are talking about. Its not for me as a district judge to say what the policies can be but i will say that our country is stronger when we have a Healthy Workforce and when people are safe. In terms of judges reviewing agency action, it is never the role of the judge to second guess the political policy decision of any agency particularly when it comes from the expertise however it is always the role of the judge to remember the courts responsibility which is to say what the law is and when an Agency Issues a regulation that hasnt been authorized by statute, the judge has the responsibility to say that Agency Regulation is invalid. It may be great policy, but the judge has to sometimes wish you decisions that result in a policy outcome that the judge doesnt like and if the judge never issues a decision that results in a policy outcome or the judge doesnt like, it is probably not a very good judge. Other things youve said that could drop the Consumer Financial protection bureau, the ftc critical of the decision about the results into positions that are not good but i will followup with that in writing or go to the second round. Thank you. Senator hawley. Thank you for being back before us. On the religious liberty if we could for a second, let me ask about one of the cases of the last several decades. I wonder if i could ask you to start by telling us what you understand to be the controlling hold and lets assume you are confirmed with what you understand to be the direction that you are bound to apply plex plex . It proceeded Trinity Lutheran and the scope of smith in light of the majority opinion, what to do with the concurrence and of course they are not binding precedence it is an issue you that is being litigated. I am hesitant to say smith is still good law that Trinity Lutheran is a decision that every judge in the country must follow fully and safely. Lets me ask you about that. Let me first start with hosanna. It was the majority opinion, the unanimous opinion was written by the chief justice and have something to say. The bear he said, and im quoting from the courts opinion, it involved government regulation outward physical acts. The present case concerns government interference with an internal church decision. What do you take that to mean . I take the decision to mean that it is not the place of the government to tell the church who the churchs minister should be. It was a unanimous decision. If the smith rule is a generally applicable law but the church decisions are carved out, what would remain in your estimation . Does this mean it doesnt apply, is that your understanding of the doctrine . Im trying to search for what you think you are bound to apply right now. Of their cases throughout the country involved a lot of questions you are getting at. So i want to not cross the line of saying something the code of judicial ethics prohibits me from saying that i do want to answer your question that there is nothing about smith that allows the government to dive into the inner workings of a church or synagogue or mosque in the towel people who their leader has to be. You said a moment ago smith is binding precedent and the court hasnt overruled i it in y way shape or form but you also said Trinity Lutheran must be applied to tell us what you mean by and the case that would be blinded what do you feel the instruction is that you would feel bound to apply that you could be certain that the Circuit Court judge confirmed . It is equally and what was going on in Trinity Lutheran. You clerked for Justice Kennedy do you have a favorite opinion for the justices . I am the father of an only daughter so i never have to worry about being asked to my favorite child is. But along those lines, im not going to pick a favorite opinion. I certainly admire him and im grateful for the role he played in my life. Mr. Chairman, we are here in the middle of both a healthcare and economic crisis. [inaudible] it is not responding. Mr. Chairman, if i could, we are in the middle of an economic and Health Care Crisis we shouldnt be having a hearing on a partisan judicial nominee for a vacancy that wont even be available for 119 days. The last 119 is acquitted of a million have died around the world and america now has more deaths than any country in the world. 1. 272000 million deaths. As some of my colleagues compared the Service Today with the surface of the First Responders responding to an emergency, this is not an emergency but it is the top priority of the majority leader to have this entire Judiciary Committee. The. As we sit here today the Drum Administration continues to argue the court should strike down. Senator, as i said earlier, the decision at issue is 100 of binding law in the district judge will you stand by your advocacy that the decision is in defense . I made a statement as an academic and private citizen, i dont think that its appropriate for me now to go beyond what i said in my role at the time. They must approach every case with an open mind and in the exchange with senator durbin, i am left questioning why any litigant to trust you to be openminded and fair in deciding the case about them giving the previous advocacy. In the 2018 article, you wrote the fbi as an agency shouldnt be independent command of the director must thindirector must, and i think im quoting, and agent of the present. In my view, that is in over a sweeping view of over executive authority. Good a president appropriately directed the fbi to investigate the political opponents . The article in question is a historical exploration of the fbi infringement on Civil Liberties. And to the extent your question goes to the role of the relationship between the president and fbi with the liberties of the political minorities, i argue in the article that i was the lack of supervision during the tenure af the fbi that allowed some of the worst civil liberty abuses. I may agree with your characterization of the oversight that tolerated or permitted to be overreach. I will just remind you that contemporaneously september 2018 after he testified, then asked judge kavanaughs hearing, you called him a disgraced lawyer and this is on fox news i quote about john dean. This is the man who betrayed his country and then his friends. He isnt fit to touch his shoes. Given the context, i consider him a hero for telling the truth about watergate and exposing the ways in which the Nixon Administration inappropriately used his power as president in ways that were historic and overreach. Please help me understand why you made that comment and what that should tell me about your view of independence of the fbi and inappropriate actions by the president. Senator, i absolutely love American History and i mean this sincerely there isnt a senator here that will say that they hate america. What i was about to say, i would relish the opportunity to watch and talk about American History with you and share your opinion and my opinion. Part of it that makes it so much fun awhen his people can have different opinions and perspectives sitting here as a District Court judge, i dont think its appropriate for me to comment on john dean. Whether im lucky to be confirmed or not i i would lovo talk watergate history with you and im quite sure that i would learn a lot. I will move to the last question if i can. They found that they were not qualified for the judgeship due to the lack of trial experience. When i asked the written questions about the arguments in the federal court, you were clear that you have never performed these tasks. So im left wondering why you are getting a promotion to one of the most Important Courts in the entire federal system and that your investiture is that although we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and country to critics the cost of fighting it described as deplorable. Who is the in the state and . In that part of the speech and in others, i was talking about those who approach judging with respect for the role of law and separation of powers and the belief that a judge to say witht the law is and not what he or she thinks that it should be with regards to the first part of the question about the rating i do think there is a reason that yesterday. Ive exceeded my time and i will think the chairman for his patients. On the National Health pandemic i dont see the urgency of his confirmation hearing. Perhaps we will have the chance to debate American History. But i feel the sense of urgency about the application of the principle to the future and respect for precedent and i am concerned about where you are headed on those trajectories and i will have more questions for the record. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i want to thank you for holding this hearing and i also want to thank you for all the staff that made this possible. I will be on the hill in a few minutes booting. I disagree with my colleagues that think that we should be having this hearing. We need to have this and hearing that others mentioned. And i would add a data hearing more focus on the Liability Protections because we are going to see a wave of lawsuits of people taking advantage that was nobodys fault. I for one think we need to get a regular order. We are encouraging states to try to get back in business and its to demonstrate that we need to as well and i respect everything to try to make this happen. Judge walker, on the fisher case, i was kind of curious you tailor your opinion to that specific case. Why not do what a lot of other court arguing. The debates going on across the country, why did you decide not to do that . Senator, i did issue a narrow injunction in that case. I cited a Supreme Court precedent that at least strongly suggests when a judge issues an injunction it should be no broader than necessary in order to provide the relief that the plaintiffs in this particular case were seeking. Even though i would have been sympathetic to the arguments from a number of others, i think you did it exactly right and i appreciate you doing that. I also think that there is a battle that we all have to recognize and a threat to the independent institutions and that is when we have people come to you as has been done in the hearing and also encourage you to legislate from them. I recognize we have a healthcare problem anhealthcare problem ane followed the bill on protecting the preexisting conditions for the life of me i cannot get democratic support so we can put that to bed. Youve got a certain empathy towards people. Do you think that that empathy should in any way influence your decision which i believe should be based on the plain letter of the law . Thanks, senator. As i said earlier and as you were referring to, for anyone who was in the medical condition that my mother found herself in the same time, a judge has to go where the law leads with the statutes and precedents say and the judge has to make those decisions even if the judge would prefer that there were a different policy outcome as a result. Youre young, extraordinarily talented, you have options. Why do you want to be the Circuit Court judge . The opportunity to serve the country from the dc circuit is an opportunity of a lifetime. Growing up in louisville kentucky if you told me i would be nominated to the dc circuit one day, i think i certainly wouldnt have believed you as a little kid. As a clerk on the dc circuit, what kind of judge then judge kavanaugh was and i saw what kind of judge judge griffith w was. These were people i really admire and i feel overwhelmed with gratitude to be nominated to sit on the same court. I appreciate everything you are doing supporting the nomination. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you senator blumenthal. Am going to join in conducting so flexibly. Welcome to the hearing, judge walker. I want to join in thanking not only the First Responders and Health Care Workers around the country who are on the job but also the capitol police, all of the staff who are making it possible for us to be conducting this hearing during the week. I have been able clerk as well. I know about defending mentors and former bosses. It doesnt mean that you have to speak disrespectfully about the Supreme Court, chief justice come as you did in your investiture. And it doesnt mean that you have to refer to a Supreme Court opinion as indefensible or catastrophic. You can be critical without being disrespectful. What i think as indefensible as we are here in the midst of a public Health Crisis considering the nomination of someone who would dismantle a Healthcare System that is saving lives right now, what i consider indefensible as we are failing to strengthen that Healthcare System and our economic remedies at the time when the nation desperately needs and instead we are considering your nomination. Youve taken the position passionately that would deprive many of those frontline healthcare workers and nursing home clinicians and others of their healthcare. I know that you continue to believe preserving it as indefensible because in the same investiture speech cited to you, you also think the folks that opposed the nomination including the Bar Association by saying, quote, thank you for serving as a reminder that although i principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed. But although we are winning, we have not won and although we celebrate today we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose the chords and our country. My principles continue to believe that Supreme Court decision was indefensible and at that hour of care system under the aca should be dismantled. I want to introduce you to somebody that would be directly impacted by your legal principles. This is one of my constituents of connecticut he is now 9yearsold when i met him when he was five. She suffers from distended muscular dystrophy. A condition that is fatal by the time people are 20yearsold and it deprives them of their strength and ability to move. It is treatable of money with very expensive healthcare therapies that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year and he is a beneficiary of the Affordable Care act. He is a warrior, he is a fighter and that is why he is still alive and hes become a fighter for the Affordable Care act. Hes one of 25 Million People in connecticut including 182,000 children. Real people with real faces and voices who would lose their Health Insurance because they suffer from preexisting conditions under the principles that you continue to passionately expound. I recognize that you said you would be bound by Supreme Court decisions, but that isnt what you said when you became a judge and referred to by legal principles prevailing. Do you continue to believe in those legal principles . That the Supreme Court decision was indefensible . Senator, connor is a hero and i cannot imagine the courage that it takes to be a kid in his shoes and having to overcome the obstacles he has already overcome at an age like that. I never have to do that. And i am in all of people and kids like that. When i was a little kid, i do know my mom had a lot of sleepless nights often working two jobs trying to figure out how in the world her son whom she loved was going to have things like Health Insurance and i wish she never had to have those sleepless nights and i wish connor will always have all the medical care that he. It is for you and the political branches of the government to make policy consistent with the constitution that nicks healthcare more affordable and accessible. And we did that in the Affordable Care act which you would strike down if you had the chance. If i could finish, ive never spoken against the Affordable Care act in congress has a role to play i think all members of congress would say they have a role to play in making healthcare affordable and accessible in the limits of the constitution. Before i was nominated to be a judge, i spoke not about the policy merits of any healthcare proposal or statute. I talked about the legal analysis regarding the limits of the power under article one and in relation to the vertical separation of powers between the states that lie at the heart of what keeps us free. And at no point did i ever wish any ill will toward people like my mom when she was struggling financially or for heroes like connor. Thank you. My time is expired and i have other questions i will put in writing. But i dont think that he would be satisfied with that answer and i dont believe the majority of the American People would either. Thank you mr. Chair. I appreciate having the hearing today. I am glad we are able to gather in whatever means necessary to keep the peoples work moving forward. I want to than to thank the ther raping us back into session. We required them to be on the front lines every day keeping america moving. I believe we have an obligation to the people we represent to be here to do the peoples work. I believe that leadership is the key here and we are not asking our constituents to do something that we ourselves are not willing to do so thank you very much for being here today as well. I appreciate being able to see you face to face so thank you for taking the time to come here and meet with us in person. You mentioned something about your mother as well, single working mother and a number of years ago you would never have imagined that you would be in this position today. And i think that speaks volumes to the kind of country that we live in that we can overcome certain obstacles in our lives and come from Humble Beginnings to serve in the greatest of positions. Youve been nominated to serve on the court of appeals from the district of columbia, and i am not going to ask about particular cases. I think a number of my colleagues have done that. But what i do hear from people in iowa, they want to know the basics about their judges, what the judges were present and what values they will bring into their position. Although the dc circuit typically takes up cases of administrative wall, i do believe the churches that serve on the court need to share the same values as any other judge serving in any other position. So, what matters to me and to the people isnt necessarily the political leanings that so many will focus on both your judicial philosophy. What is your judicial philosop philosophy, thats what i want to talk about today. So, bottom line this is what they ask me. Our view and originalist and can you explain that to me and why that would be important to the people of iowa. I do not in any way run away from the label of being an originalist. I do think sometimes labels can confuse more than they clarify. However im absolutely unabashed in my belief that a judge must look at the original meaning of the text and go where the text is as well as structure, relevant precedent because it isnt the job of the judge to say what he thinks it should be. Its their job to say here is the law Congress Passed and to apply it as it was written. So youre not just going to take something that happens in the media or the news and say i think that it should be this way. I think it should evolve so im going to assist it along its way. As i have said a couple of times and i would welcome the chance to reiterate, a judge is not a good judge if he or she only likes the policy results that come from the decisions. I appreciate that, and i think its important to note that you are an originalist. Folks in iowa will appreciate that and that you will follow the tech is of the law as it is written and i do wish you well moving forward and i would give you any opportunity to make any remark that you may not have had the opportunity to earlier. I appreciate it, senator. I know the committees time is valuable. And i will stand by what i said. Congratulations. Thank you very much. I believe senator here in a is with us by conference. They are taking appropriate precautions in having the hearing but nobody is talking about not wanting to do our jobs. We do object to the subject of the hearing because rather than dealing with issues that have to do with the pandemic into the healthcare crisis, we are having the hearing for a nominee who does bt wants t ct wants toy isnt even available until september. So they are pushing through as many far right nominees as possible for the lifetime appointment to the court and it continues with this hearing. I have a few questions for the nominee and i will start with the questions i always ask for the record. Have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal assaults . Know no, senator. Have you ever faced discipline as to this kind of conduct . No, senator. In 2018 the baltimore post examiner reported that you allocated for judge kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice arguing that he would, quote, shift the Court Dramatically to the right and you said, and again i quote, this is a conservative revolution as because the reagan revolution. Issues like affirmative action, gun rights and abortion will see drastic changes. I predicted the end to the litigation and to semi automatic rifles and judicial decisions allowing abortion. Moving on, change against donald trump, the most conservative judicial legacy of any republican in history by far, enddoublequote. Do you consider your self part of this conservative revolution . Senator, the remarks i made before i became a judge were meant to be descriptive of the jurisprudence and predictive of what kind of Supreme Court justice and i think my descriptions you are not answering my question. He framed it as the most conservative legacy of any in history by far and my question is do you consider yourself part of the conservative revolution, yes or no. You dont need to give a big explanation. As a sitting judge and a judicial nominee, it is not appropriate. In fact im prohibited from the judicial ethics from commenting on politics or matters of public concern. The predictions i made about Justice Kavanagh while i think consistent with similar predictions that people you are reiterating. I think we can draw our own conclusions by the statement that you made and the many tv appearances that youve made in support of the kind of conservative judge Justice Kavanagh is. As a judge would you agree it is important to give the facts before making a decision . Senator, its certainly important for a judge to consider all facts that are in the record before making a decision. Sometimes the judge doesnt allow the record to be complete. So your answer must be yes the judge would consider that. Would you agree that its important to hear from all of the parties in the case. Certainly it is my preference when the time allows to consider all briefings. There are occasions where there is injury. Im going to get to this matter because its important to hear from all parties in the case and it sounds like you did. You deliberately excluded one side without providing notice of the case. According to the local and news reports, the city tried but were unsuccessful. But you had the time to write a 20 page opinion was 84 footnotes. It isnt credible to me that they didnt have time to present the facts and they tried. That shows me how important facts or to you as a judge. My time is up. May i quickly answered. Senator, the mayors lawyers confirmed that the hearing a couple of days after that the mayor was mistaken when he said he tried to contact the court. At no point did the mayor or his attorneys or any representatives from his office make any effort to contact the court. Reclaiming my time, for the record it is very clear you made a decision based on a onesided argument that the mayor prohibited in person attendance and of the mayor did not and does it matter to me that obviously you didnt let them know what you are about to decide on this case. Thats how important effects ofs of the case or to view. Thank you. Senator kennedy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, judge you have become quite the grounding wire. Politics is unforgiving. I suspect that you have figured that out by now. Youve been called a revolutionary in the pejorative sense to. Youve been called mcconnells boy. Youve been called mcconnells intern. I think youve been accused of everything except hating golden retrievers. And the subtext of all of this is that you are not qualified. So thats what i want to talk about. What was your gpa in high school . 4. 0. Old all as. I made the goal going into high school of never getting anything less than an a and thats what i did. You didnt even get a b phys ed . If i did it probably would have been that. Is it hard to get into Duke University . It is. Is Harvard Law School hard to get into . You are on the harvard law review . Does everybody join the harvard law review . They dont. What percentage . I believe there were about 500 people in the class and log review had about 10 percent please dont quote me. Did you graduate with honors from Harvard Law School quick. I graduated magna complot a. What does that mean quick. Not as well at harvard as duke but the second highest honors. The new clerked for judge kavanaugh. Thats correct. Are clerkships for the federal court of appeals competitive . Very competitive. I have read that judge kavanaugh and now Justice Kavanaugh is a highly sought clerkship. That is correct. After that what did you do . I clerked for Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Is a hard to get a Supreme Court clerkship quick. Its very hard senator kennedy. How hard . H justice gets for clerks there were three retire justices that made 4391 for each retired justice. There are only 39 clerkships available in the country. After that you practice law . I did. I was an attorney add the global firm that a sole practitioner that a partner at a regional firm. Why do you think in light of all of those credentials the American Bar Association recently found you unqualified . At the time they reported they that the temperament and integrity but they preferred judges that have had more years of experience after law school than i had. How many people from the committee . One or two from each federal circuit. How many went to federal loss one harvard law . I dont know. Graduate with honors . I dont know. Harvard law review . I dont know. Clerked for United States Supreme Court justice . I. The aba has had an epiphany and now you are wellqualified. Thats correct. I said you are wellqualified. It is the highest rating. If you are asked to rule on the Affordable Care act will you follow the law . Absolutely senator kennedy to define president i would absolutely follow it fully and faithfully. Do you have an open mind about it quick. For every argument and every litigant that comes before me. Thank you judge. Thank you chairman i want to echo the comments from both sides of the aisle to thank you for the willing to have a hearing to accommodate the Different Levels of engagement thank you very much its good to see a lot of my colleagues facetoface. This is been a long and difficult stretch for america and in particular the state of new jersey. If you will indulge me to make a statement and i appreciate the nominee coming before us , but mr. Chairman i have listened to comments on both sides of the aisle it is frustrating to me then having folks think that they have been criticizing coming back to work. First of all that senators on both sides of the aisle i have talked to senators on both sides and they have all the network in our states working on the crisis around the clock doing everything they can to save lives and help us to get through this crisis. This has nothing to do with not wanting to come back here to do urgent and important legislating. In fact ive been working with colleagues on both sides just doing that. Senator grassley and i introduce yesterday to help First Responders who tragically died in the line of duty. He and i went to work we have had 271st responders die do we want to Work Together to make sure they get the benefits they deserve. This isnt an issue of coming to work. We are all doing it its an issue in the midst of a Global Pandemic were tens of thousands of americans are dying my state more have died in the last month than world war i in korea and more in vietnam combined. This is a leadership that calls this country to common cause in common purpose not partisanship. I watched in my area 9 11 Hurricane Sandy a republican mayor i did not like rose to the occasion i watched a governor Chris Christie during Hurricane Sandy not play partisanship but call my state together in common cause this is about leadership not partisanship. And at a time there is real fear in the country with health concern. Real fear in this country for our loved ones and spouses real fear about the economy and economic recovery as people who have not see them lose their lives but the entire livelihood and life dreams we have the first hearing not about the fivepart record or even debating things that there is some disagreement on, but a hearing for a judge for a vacancy thats not even up until september. This is the moment we together in a bipartisan fashion could be calling this country talking to them about what our work really is. I cannot communicate how deeply disappointed we are sitting here with the judge that we know will Strike Division and divisiveness at a time we need unity in common cause this is a moment to rally to leave the planet out of the darkness so we have a role to do just that. It goes deeper than that because im coming from the innercity. I got in the car and drove down here on this Judiciary Committee we worked in a bipartisan fashion to address the Racial Disparities that have been devastating lives the chairman and i have stood together to work on things and the last bill and so proud of doing that is revealing in so sobering to the fragility of our society and Domestic Violence and americans living with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes. The navajo nation, right now after new york and new jersey has the third biggest impact. 118 days. And thousands of americans will die. So are we talking about that or are we summoned back here to come together the first thing as the nomination here in this committee to talk about a judge that is divisive . You know this is partisans and divisiveness. We see data that should give us pause. The way covid19 has disproportionately harmed communities of color, preliminary data indicating this infection is killing black americans at staggeringly higher rates 13 percent is black but according to the data they are one third of the infection infections, more infected in the aftermath than any nation on the planet. What does it say we are here to discuss judge walker . There are so many issues we could be discussing. The health and safety of people working in correctional facilities, Correctional Officers that cant get the ppe that they need, prisons with hotbeds is our jurisdiction. Not talking about hate crimes but at these astonishing rates. And talking about immigration policies. Talking to i. C. E. Officials i could go through chapter and verse the crisis we should be addressing literally to determine lives lost or saved. I am frustrated maybe a little emotional coming from new jersey i look forward to the chance to submit those for the record. I have a lot of concerns seem like yesterday when you are up for this District Court position. I know of your background i did not graduate magnetic a lot i said im out of here. [laughter] he got into duke because of his grades but i got in because of my football carry. I appeal to you i want to get to work. This is not it. We have urgent causes to bond us together as a committee to deal with a crisis of death and injustice and fragility and pain going on in our country this makes a mockery of that there is so much bipartisan work here we can show the country no left or right. And bonding together to do the things the American People look up to because i had a difficult time explaining to people in new jersey why was leaving my state in crisis to do what . Have a judiciary hearing for someone thats not up for four months. The people of new jersey have been hard hit. You are very eloquent spokesperson. Thoughts and prayers in the coming days im coming on video. We are having a hard time hearing you. It is good on my end. Thats better. And just to say that of the jobs we are holding this committee today and we are all deeply concerned with this pandemic for every life that has been lost an individual singing there one see their livelihood lost. Those that lost their jobs but just as my home state going back to work and regular order and where they are returning to normal its important to do the same thing. That we encourage those that we celebrate in a free nation to solve this problem. And that we protect the u. S. Constitution with our constitutional duty. With these nominees. With the entire portfolio that the judiciary will be functioning to be an important part of what we are seeking to do. And holding the hearing today i encourage colleagues to have more than one responsibility. I found it interesting from judge walker that you were asked if you are a part of the revolution. Being a conservative so what i would say and to turn around and asked the question and socialism is acceptable is it only a liberal viewpoint is it acceptable or is it appropriate to be a constitutional conservative to uphold the constitution. I do want to ask you a couple of things. But what we will take up very soon and 2018 for the George Washington law review giving the fbi too much power. And with that constitutional right so take this last minute and then to protect the American Public to safeguard those Civil Liberties as a judge. And as i rode as an academic before i became a judge i described the unfortunate chapters of the history where the fbi in the 19 forties and fifties and sixties was not adequately supervised by the attorney general or president. And during that era particularly the Civil Liberties of racial minorities and local minorities were violated because the fbi was not accountable enough to the attorney general and the president who is accountable to the public and political accountability with that structure to find a revolution declaring independence and then to make that accountable to the people. I believe that is all we have for you. And the committee will keep a record open until 5 00 p. M. For senators to submit questions for the record thank you for participating into the staff who set up the room, well don done, those trying to keep a safe, we appreciate it. Without you the country could not operate we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] i think my mother did a job that by the time i came along there wasnt a lot of homeschool going on. And theres nothing like a lecture. And then scrolling through email or social media and the question that came up and then just fall into it with that quality of the conversation. What we do when we are multitasking so this is why i think to ask the question. Due to coronavirus pandemic the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Via Teleconference challenging the Trump Administration new rules expanding the number of organizations that can file for religious or moral exemption for him the Health Care Law Birth Control mandate. One hour 40 minutes. The honorable chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the united s states. All having visits before the honorable Supreme Court of suUnited States are admonished to give their attention god save the United States and this honor