Hearings to examine the nominations of Jennifer Lee Mascott, of Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Robert P. Chamberlin, and James D. Maxwell II, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., and Harold D. Mooty III, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, and Bill Lewis, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama.
2025-09-03
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
No summary available.
Participants
Transcript
being held up on the Senate floor. The Senate's duty is to provide advice and consent, not manufacture gridlock. When nominees clear this committee, they deserve a timely vote. Instead, we've seen well-qualified men and women who put their lives on hold and answered the call of public service They're left twisting in the wind for months. That weakens our justice system at every level. Vacant judgeships mean heavy caseload and long delays. Vacant U.S. attorney offices leave communities without Senate-confirmed law enforcement leadership. That should concern everybody in this country, and particularly in the Senate. There was a time when nominees who cleared this committee were confirmed routinely, often as simply as by voice vote. Now we see a pattern of delay and obstruct. The losers aren't Republicans or Democrats. They're the American people waiting for justice. It's time for the Senate to act. Second, we've heard time and again from my Democratic colleagues that our nominees lack independence from the president. Well, that's a turn of events because at the Democrats' own partisan spotlight hearing, the Senate minority leader bragged that Democrats had stacked the bench with quote-unquote progressive judges. He didn't stop there.
He celebrated their rulings against President Trump and declared, our people are the first line of defense, unquote. Now think about those words, our people. That's not the language of an independent judiciary. It's the language of political ownership. And yet, these are the same Democrats who cry foul and actually accuse Republican nominees of being Trump judges. The double standard is breathtaking. And we're repeatedly hearing from Democrats that nominees must follow all court orders. Let me be clear, following the rule of law means obeying lawful court orders. But we now have lower court judges who aren't following court orders. As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it just a few days ago, quote, lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court's decision, but they're never free to defy them, end of quote. He warned that, quote, this is now the third time in a matter of weeks this court has had to intercede in a case squarely controlled by one of our precedents, end of quote. He reminded those on the federal bench that, quote, when this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in the lower courts, end of quote. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made the same point, quote, Members of the judiciary have an important responsibility to get it right, to do our hard work, to understand our role in the constitutional democracy.
We're not policymakers, end of quote. In March, Justice Alito condemned a federal court for an act, quote, judicial hubris and self-aggrandizement, end of quote. When the highest court in the land uses phrases like defy, hubris, and self-aggrandizement to describe what is happening in our judiciary, it tells you something has gone terribly wrong. All of us should agree lawful federal court orders must be respected. That's not a Republican point or a Democrat point. That's the bedrock of the rule of law. It's stunning to hear Democrats accuse Republican nominees of being Trump judges when their own leaders boast that their nominees are his people. Judges aren't supposed to be anybody's people. They belong to a separate branch of government, insulated from partisanship, with only one duty, to follow the law whether they like the outcome or not. So that brings us to today's nominees, highly qualified men and women who understand the importance of judicial independence in our constitutional design. We'll hear more about Professor Mascot's tremendous resume in just a moment, but let me start by acknowledging that she's well known and well respected by this committee. This committee has called on Professor Mascot repeatedly to testify about some of the toughest constitutional and statutory questions.
She also filed amicus briefs on behalf of members of this committee in very important cases. We trusted her judgment then, and we can trust it now.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.