Senate Judiciary: Hearings to examine the nominations of Daniel Lewis Ballou, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Richard Wesley Bennett, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Courtney Leigh Coker, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Trevor Scott Pemberton, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Kyle Frederick Reardon, to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, and Zachary Paul West, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Good morning, everybody. We welcome you to today's hearing. Our panel features 6 district court nominees: Daniel Belew, Eastern District Kentucky; Richard Bennett, Southern District Texas; Courtney Coker, Northern District Texas; Trevor Pemberton, Northern District Oklahoma; Kyle Reardon, District of Alaska; and Zachary West for the District— Eastern District, Oklahoma. I'll keep my remarks brief since we have a number of visitors who will introduce these nominees. All of today's nominees are highly qualified to serve on the federal bench.

What strikes me about today's nominees in particular is the diverse qualifications that they've gained throughout their career in public service. Of course, like many hearings, this panel features nominees who clerked at district, uh, federal district and circuit court levels. Beyond that, I'm proud that two nominees here today served in our military. Judge Blue served in both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as an intelligence officer, and Judge Reardon began his career as an Army JAG Corps. Moreover, all of today's nominees have served as attorneys, uh, in civilian public service as well.

Take for example Mr. Bennett, who served as a state and federal prosecutor, as well as legal advisor and assistant chief counsel with federal agencies. Mr. Coker and Judge Reardon also spent most of their careers as federal prosecutors protecting victims and the public at large. Mr. West worked for our colleague, uh, colleague Senator Cruz in support of this committee, and he spent the remainder of his career in the State Attorney General's Office, including service as Solicitor General of Oklahoma. Mr. Pemberton spent years as General Counsel in the Governor's Office, gaining critical insight into issues facing the people of the state. Notably, two-thirds of today's nominees already have judicial experience.

For example, Judge Below, he's been a state judge in Kentucky for nearly a quarter century, and I think it's fair to say he knows a thing or two about managing the courtroom. Mr. Premerton previously served as both trial and appellate judge in Oklahoma, and Judge Bennett and Judge Reardon are currently federal magistrate judges in Texas and Alaska. My point is this: Yes, today's nominees have had remarkable legal careers. They know the law. They've done the work.

But today's nominees are also no strangers to public service. They've all answered the call to serve our great country, and I'm confident that they'll continue doing so as federal judges. I look forward to listening to each of today's nominees. Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Chairman Grassley.

Congratulations to the nominees' families and friends. By Senate standards, I will try to be brief. Three of the nominees on today's panel have been longtime federal prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Attorneys, or AUSAs, are a critical part of the criminal justice system.

Hold a lot of power, including deciding who to charge and what charges to bring. Historically, the Justice Department has been afforded a presumption of regularity, meaning, as Senator Whitehouse has reminded us, that courts presume that an AUSA's representations can be trusted— deference not accorded to many private litigants. But the Justice Department under this president and attorney general has upended this presumption of regularity by weaponizing the Department of Justice to protect the president and his followers and to target anyone who dares to cross him. As a result, federal judges across the country, even those appointed by presidents of Republican Party, have found that the Justice Department has made misrepresentations to the court, an egregious act for any officer of the court let alone a federal prosecutor. From January 2025 to March 2026, judges in at least 90, 90 cases stated on the record that they did not trust the Justice Department's representations to the court.

90 Cases.

Unfortunately, what Judge Mary McElroy found, she reported publicly. Ms. McElroy, the judge, is a Trump appointee. A Trump appointee. She said about federal prosecutors withholding information and misrepresenting facts involving a subpoena as they sought to investigate, investigate a hospital's care of transgender children. She said, and I quote, as citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power, against the state, a company, certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary.

However, she continued, the discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and Department of Justice tactics in the case is unsettling, unquote. She concluded that the presumption of regularity normally extended to the Justice Department, quote, no longer holds a Trump appointee. Nowhere in this administration's weaponization of the Justice Department is that more apparent than in approach to the electoral process. With the midterms elections fast approaching, the Trump administration is using vast resources of the Justice Department to politicize that agency and interfere with the election. Look no further than Attorney General Blanche's speech last week at the Republican midterm convention in Texas, the first time a sitting attorney general has spoken at a party convention in decades.

Instead of avoiding partisan rallies or any actions that create the impression of interfering in the electoral process, the Attorney General did just the opposite. Meanwhile, the Justice Department sent threatening letters to at least 30 top election officials across the country. Demanding access to sensitive voter data and election records. The letters claim the chief election officials, quote, are currently under investigation and are subject to ongoing litigation. The Justice Department has sued 30 states seeking unredacted voter lists, including personal information on voters like driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

All in an attempt to prove there's a widespread voter fraud that has never been established. After not winning a single case and losing 23 of them, President Trump and Attorney General Blanche have turned their desperate, desperate tactics to intimidating state election officials and voters, even at polling places. Weeks ago, DOJ election monitors showed up unannounced at polling locations in Wyoming during primary elections, trying to interview voters and examine voting machines. As the governor of Wyoming, a conservative Republican, said, it was aggressive, unexpected, disruptive, and certainly didn't seem to show respect for our state. At a time when DOJ has upended norms and traditions so drastically that it has lost the presumption of regularity in many courtrooms, It is more important than ever that the federal judiciary hold this weaponized agency to account.

I hope the nominees before us today can demonstrate they'll do that by putting the rule of law above partisan politics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Durbin. We'll now turn to the introduction of nominees. Senator Cruz has a scheduling conflict with the Commerce Committee, so he asked me to enter into the record his introductory remarks in support of several nominees.

These include Mr. West, who worked for Senator Cruz in support of this committee, as well as Texas nominees Judge Bennett and Mr. Corker. Without objection, these will be entered in the record. Then we'll start with our visiting senators and then turn to Senator Cornyn. So I'm going to call in this order Senator Murkowski, Senator Paul, and Senator Lankford. Senator Murkowski, please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Durbin, members of the Judiciary Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to introduce Kyle Reardon to the committee today. You haven't seen me before the Judiciary Committee in some time. The District of Alaska has not been fully constituted as a court since 2022, so we are pleased to be able to fill this remaining vacancy. Before I speak to Mr. Reardon's qualifications for this position.

I briefly want to recognize some of his family members that are here in the audience to support him. They've come all the way from Alaska and other parts of the country as well. We know being in public service is really a family affair, and this family is certainly supportive of Kyle. Kyle's wife, Kristin, I've known through her good work for the Denali Commission in Alaska. They have two sons that are with them today, Luke and Owen, both at West High School.

We're all alums of Romeig Middle School, so we've got that in, in common. And I first met Owen when he and his mom were taking a walk through a shared neighborhood and they were picking up trash, so I thought that that was a pretty good indicator of, of community responsibility. Kyle's parents are also with us. Uh, Kyle is now the second Reardon to appear before a U.S. Senate committee. His dad was the Auditor General for the U.S. Army before becoming Principal Deputy Inspector General for the Department of Defense under, uh, former President George W. Bush.

Um, he's hoping that the questions Kyle gets today are going to be a little bit easier than the ones that Senator Stevens put before him, but we will see. Kyle's— Kyle describes his mom as the anchor of the family. She was the neighborhood greeter and cookie maker, but also a strong civil servant for over 25 years. Kyle is also joined by his brother and sister-in-law who came from Missouri to be with him today. And again, the support from family members really says it all.

Uh, Kyle brings the experience, the intellect, the integrity, and the judicial temperament that I believe is necessary to be an effective U.S. District Court judge. As has been noted by you, Mr. Chairman, he spent his entire legal career in public service, first as a judge advocate for the U.S. Army for 6 years, then he was a federal prosecutor for 15 years, including 7 as an assistant U.S. attorney in, in Alaska, and he is now serving as a U.S. magistrate judge for the district and has been in that position since 2021. In his current role, Mr. Reardon has handled more than 3,000 criminal and almost 500 civil matters. He's also been selected to serve on various Ninth Circuit committees. You know, this is, this is an individual that is not only qualified for this position.

He is ready to hit the ground running as a U.S. District Court judge. And again, we certainly need this given the extended vacancies that the court has experienced. I want to briefly highlight some of Mr. Reardon's work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney that coincides with some of the things that, that I've been working on as we work to improve public health and safety in Alaska, and I know are priorities of the committee as well. Mr. Reardon was the lead attorney on more than 120 cases, many of which were related to child sexual abuse material or sex trafficking. And this work included being the lead attorney in 10 trials and serving as Project Safe Childhood coordinator, senior trial counsel, and deputy criminal chief.

Mr. Reardon also brings an understanding of the issues that face rural Alaska to the bench. Uh, he has done outreach as part of the U.S. Attorney's Office Rural Alaska Anti-Violence Enforcement Initiative This was an initiative that was created after Attorney General Barr's visit to the state back in 2018. He has also been involved in the effort to address our drug issues in this state. He was involved with a multi-drug, multi-defendant drug case that Mr. Reardon prosecuted involving significant amounts of methamphetamine and heroin being brought into the Kenai Peninsula. And after this conspiracy was brought down, There was a local law enforcement officer that shared that not only did the drug trade dry up in this area for a period of time, but robberies and violence decreased.

It is— it's important to note in messaging that has been shared, he speaks not only to the impact that he has— the positive impact he has had as he helps those who have been victims, but what it means to ensure that others do not become victims, whether victims of child sexual abuse or victims of drug violence. So his generosity of spirit, I think, has shown through. To summarize, I want to thank Kyle Reardon, his family, for agreeing to serve as U.S. District Court judge. I appreciate the committee for scheduling his confirmation hearing so quickly. After President Trump nominated him.

And I appreciate the president and the White House Office Counsel for working with us to advance Mr. Reardon's nomination. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Now, Senator Paul.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Urban, for this opportunity. I'm proud to introduce my friend, Judge Dan Blue, who is now nominated to serve as U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Blue has demonstrated commitment to public service and a fair-minded approach to the law. He'll be a credit to the federal judiciary, and I urge his confirmation. Judge Blue first took the oath to protect and defend our country and our Constitution when he was 18 years old.

He joined the U.S. Marine Corps and left for Parris Island 3 days after graduating from high school in 1984. He served 7 years on active duty and was honorably discharged as a sergeant. During his enlisted time, he served on the East Coast, the West Coast, and deployed overseas 4 times. His last deployment was to Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Judge Velou left active service in 1991 to pursue an education.

He received an undergraduate degree from the University of Kentucky and a law degree from the University of Mississippi. He then clerked for another Williamsburg native, Judge Eugene Seiler, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He returned to uniform in 1999 as a reservist, where he served as an intelligence officer. He served with various reserve units and deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq before retiring from the Marine Corps as a major in 2015. Somewhere along the way, Judge Velu found time to work in private practice, start a family, and get elected to the bench.

Judge Velu has served a total of 24 years on the bench in Kentucky. He serves as a district— he served first as a district judge in Kentucky for 5 years from 2003 to 2007. Since then, he has served as a circuit court judge for the last 19 years and currently serves as the chief circuit court judge for Kentucky's 34th Judicial District. Whether on the battlefield or in the courtroom, Judge Blue has demonstrated a commitment to public service and our Constitution. He has built a reputation as a fair-minded judge who balances respect for the parties with fidelity to the law.

I look forward to his continued service to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and to the country. I'm happy to offer my strongest endorsement for Judge Valoo's confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Kentucky— Eastern District of Kentucky. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Paul. Now Senator Lankford.

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to be able to introduce two great Oklahoma candidates that we have nominated to serve on the federal bench in Oklahoma. It's my pleasure to be able to introduce Trevor Pemberton, who has been nominated to serve in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Zach West, who has been nominated to serve in the Eastern District. I also want to say my gratitude to the committee for the swift action to be able to work through this process.

We have a desperate need for additional district judges in Oklahoma based on the McGirt decision and the heavy caseload that's in those areas. And so I really appreciate the swift action to be able to work through and do the background here. Trevor Pemberton is currently in private practice. He has an impressive career under his belt. He served as general counsel to Governor Stitt.

He's a judge on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals and a district judge in Oklahoma County. He graduated from Oklahoma City University School of Law. He has a deep commitment to the Constitution and the people of Oklahoma, and I'm confident that he will serve the state, the country, and the Constitution well. Zach West currently serves in the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, has previously served as a Deputy Solicitor General for our state. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma College of Law.

West has a passion for the law and the Constitution. I believe he also will serve our state extremely well. I would ask this committee to also not hold it against him that he's a former staff member for Senator Cruz. So please don't hold that against him in the process. I look forward to the swift confirmation of both these nominees, and I do thank this committee for holding the hearing today.

Thank you, Senator Langford. Now, Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take just a moment before I introduce Richard Bennett and Courtney Coker to talk about the process that brings us here today. First of all, I would tell the nominees that the fact that not all of these seats are filled is a good thing.

I always tell people who appear before congressional committees, if every seat is filled by a senator, you are in deep trouble. But because these nominees are, generally speaking, not controversial, and because senators have multiple conflicts, typically 3 things scheduled at the same time, It's, uh, it's not easy to be everywhere you want to be when you want to be there. But in the case of the nominees coming from Texas, Senator Cruz and I have something that I'm very proud of. I know he is too, called the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee. We issue notices to people who want to serve that they can apply through this committee, and it is prized of, I can't remember what the exact number is now, 30 or more of the state's best lawyers.

And we certainly have some outstanding members of the Bar in Texas. And they are, I think, the best qualified to be able to assess the qualifications of the people who want to serve in these lifetime tenured jobs. So that's the first step. They have to pass muster with the committee, and then they are recommended to Senator Cruz and me, we of course get a chance to interview them and then recommend them to the White House. These nominations are the president's choice, not ours, but we do play a very important role in terms of the, of the confirmation process.

And I'd like to think that we assist the White House in terms of our due diligence that we do to make sure that only the best and the brightest people make it this far. And then, of course, there's the committee process that we're engaged in here today where the witnesses will answer some questions. Then in a short time, hopefully the chairman will schedule a markup. They will pass out of committee and then they'll be ready for action on, on the floor. But because these are very, very important positions and they are lifetime tenured, They can't be fired.

Judges can be impeached for extraordinary circumstances, but to me, this is one of the things that distinguishes our country from the rest of the world. Other countries who claim to be what Justice Scalia once called parchment democracies. He pointed out that even countries like the former Soviet Union had a pretty good-looking constitution, on paper, but what distinguished the United States from the rest of the world, and which I think still protects us today, is our independent judiciary. So with that, let me— Mr. Chairman, let me just mention that Richard Bennett and Courtney Coker are here today, recommended by the president, nominated for these important positions. In the case of Mr. Bennett, for Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

And while he has North Texas roots as a graduate of Texas Christian University and Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law, he spent the last two decades of his career in many parts of the Lone Star State. After cheering on the rare dual allegiance of the TCU Horned Frogs and SMU Mustangs, Mr. Bennett began his legal career as chief attorney in the Galveston County District Attorney's Office. He then headed further south to serve as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas Del Rio Division before becoming Assistant Chief Counsel on Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security. Most recently, he has made home in the Bayou City and served as the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Bennett has served with integrity and deep respect for the rule of law, and I look forward to him continuing to serve Texans in this new position once confirmed.

And I would encourage all my colleagues to support the nomination. Let me say a word about Courtney Coker, who's been nominated to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. That's the Dallas Division. From serving in Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi as the chief of the criminal division to working as a solo practitioner and adjunct professor, there's no question that Mr. Coker's experience qualifies him with the sort of experience and knowledge one needs to hold and perform well in these important positions. And while Mr. Coker may have taken the scenic route to the Lone Star State, We have a saying that, uh, you got here as fast as you could.

We're glad to have him as an adopted Texan. He served as the lead attorney in the North Texas Homeland Security Task Force since last year and joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas in 2020. I last— as I heard last Thursday while I was in Dallas for the investiture of Ryan Raybold is the new, uh, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Courtney Coker has been instrumental in helping recruit the talent that our new U.S. Attorney needs there and the Department of Justice needs there in order to deal with a growing population in Texas and growing challenges to our criminal justice system. In these roles, he's earned a reputation as a top-level prosecutor holding dangerous criminals accountable to keep the public safe.

We are privileged to live in a country with an independent judiciary, as I said, but that system will not succeed on its own. In order for it to work, we need judges who are dedicated to the rule of law, not the whims of popular opinion or politics, and who operate with that— with integrity and without fear or favor. Judge Bennett and Mr. Coker are exceptionally qualified, and I'm grateful for both of them for volunteering for this job along with their families. And as we know, and as I think Senator Murkowski noted, none of us get to do any of these kinds of jobs without the love and support of our families. So I urge my colleagues on the committee to favorably report these nominations.

And would ask the rest of my colleagues to support the president's nomination and confirm them as soon as possible. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Will the nominees get ready to come to the table? Just as soon as we get your nameplates up there, I'd ask you to stand and I'll swear you.

I think I gotta wait until we get one of these microphones fixed. That Please raise your hand.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I notice you all will affirm that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. And we will start with Mr. Belot and go down the table that way.

You can give your opening statements, introduce any supporters you want to do, or whatever you want to do for 5 minutes. Okay, thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and all the senators and your staff who I know work very hard from this committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It's truly a blessing. Um, it's actually an amazing experience.

Uh, I want to thank President Trump for nominating me, and I want to thank Senator McConnell and Senator Paul for recommending me to the White House. I have 3 people here with me today that have been through a whole lot with me during my life, and I'm going to start with introducing you all to 2 Marines. That I served with at various different times in my career. First, Colonel Doug Mason, who is a retired colonel of Marines, and Master Gunnery Sergeant Chris Lake, who is a retired senior NCO. These gentlemen are like family.

Family is may or may not involve DNA. In this case, it's a Marine Corps green DNA, but they are my family. So it is truly an honor for me to have them by my side. I went through some challenging times with these guys and, uh, some uncomfortable experiences. So not that I'm overly comfortable here, because frankly I'm not.

This is a little different experience, but having these two guys sit behind me puts everything in perspective. And I'm saving the best for the last, and that is my wife Angie. Now I can't, uh, if I elaborate on her too much, I'll start crying, and I cannot do that with these two Marines sitting behind me because I'll never hear the end of it. I will just say this: she is my best friend, my soulmate, and if the Lord said you got 5 minutes left on this planet, I'd want to spend them all 5 with her. And as much as I hope that every senator decides to hire me for this job, whether I get everybody's vote or nobody's vote, I get to go home with her, so I've already won.

And thank you all for allowing me to be here. Thank you, Senator— Judge Bulow. Now, Mr. Bennett, Judge Bennett. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin, for scheduling the hearing this morning and the committee members for considering my nomination. Of course, I would like to thank President Trump for the great honor of this nomination.

It is truly the honor of a lifetime. I would also like to thank both Senators Cornyn and Cruz for the recommendation of me to the White House. Thank you, Senator Cornyn, for that generous introduction, and I want to thank you for your support throughout this confirmation process. I have a number of family members here who I would like to recognize for their support today and throughout my career. First, I'd like to thank God for all the blessings he's bestowed upon me and my family.

Carolyn, my wife of 21 years, is here, and without her faith, love, and support, especially in raising our two boys and taking care of our younger son Thomas when he was sick, I would not be in this position today. My older son Jackson, a new Baylor University student, is taking time from class to be here today, and I could not be more proud of all his accomplishments. I believe our younger son Thomas is here in spirit as he passed on to be with our Lord in 2023, and we sure miss him. I'd also like to thank my parents James and Margarita for being here. My parents' love and support have instilled in me the values of family, sacrifice, perseverance, and hard work.

And I have several other family members here, including my wife's aunt and uncle Alan and Mary, my brother Jay, and my wife's cousin and sister Laura. Thank you all for being here. My in-laws Dale and Sally could not make it today, but I thank them for their support as well. I'd like to recognize my law clerks Matthew and Meredith, who are also here, and thank them for all their hard work. Having devoted most of my career to public service and the fair and impartial application of the law, I look forward to continuing that service if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as a United States District Judge.

With that, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the committee, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. You may now proceed, sir.

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and all the committee, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I want to first thank President Trump for this nomination. Only in America Can a farm kid from rural Kentucky get an opportunity to rise and experience such an amazing dream? I'm truly humbled. I also want to thank Senators Cornyn and Cruz for having the faith and confidence in me to fulfill such an important position.

And I also want to thank Senator Cornyn and Cruz for what you do for our nation and for the great state of Texas. And thank you, Senator Cornyn, for your nice introduction. I next want to thank my family. First and foremost, my wife Lorraine. From the first day we met when I started as a federal prosecutor in her native Puerto Rico, she's been my biggest supporter.

Her love, support, and sacrifice have allowed me to pursue a career in public service. I also want to thank my son Daniel, who served in the Air Force for 6 years, and my daughter Luna. Both have always inspired me. I want to thank my mother, who's no longer with us. She was the first person to put a book in my hand and inspired a lifetime of learning.

I want to thank my father, who got up every day of his life and worked hard to support our family. His example of hard work is an integral part of who I am today. I also want to thank my brother and his wife, who are here with me today. My two sisters and other family members watching from home. Professionally, I'd like to thank all the members of the Department of Justice who I've served with during the last 18 and a half years.

More specifically, I want to acknowledge the men and women of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas.

Their hard work and love of country is amazing, and I'm very proud to serve side by side with them as every day. Specifically, I want to single out my appreciation for former U.S. Attorney Mike Hurst of the Southern District of Mississippi for giving me my first chance in Department leadership, former U.S. Attorney Aaron Neely Cox for bringing me to the Northern District of Texas, and finally current U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybold for hiring me as his first Assistant U.S. Attorney. I also want to acknowledge three of my U.S. Attorney colleagues who are here today to support me. Jeremy Fugate, Fabio Leonardi, and Ted Cooperstein. Last but certainly not least, I want to thank all of my high school and football coaches and college football coaches, along with all the incredible teachers I had through the years.

Today is their success as well. I will end with this: from the moment I chose to pursue a legal career, My motivation has always been to serve and strengthen our great country, not for personal gain, but out of a deep commitment to accomplish what is best for America. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I commit to all of you that I will conduct myself with faithfulness and fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. Thank you. Thank you.

Now, Judge Pam Murdaugh.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of this committee. Committee for having me here today. I'll be brief and begin by giving glory to God. I'm immensely grateful to President Trump for this nomination and to my home state senators, James Lankford and Alan Armstrong, for their support. I'd like to also recognize my beautiful wife, Caitlin, my greatest advocate, who is here with my loving in-laws, Kevin and Donna Rother.

And thank you to my sister-in-law, Carly, the best elementary school teacher in the country. For joining us as well. My parents could not make the trip, but I especially want to thank them. The sacrifices they made to give my brother and me opportunities like this are too numerous to capture in a brief statement. My mom is now just weeks from retirement after working tirelessly for many years, at times 3 different jobs, to support my brother and me growing up.

Mom, I'm very proud of you. I'd also like to recognize my brother Derek, his wife Jamie, and my nephew and niece Leland and Elena, who aren't here but may be watching from home. Finally, I'm grateful for the many friends and mentors who have invested in me, including the late Mark Burgert, who exemplified humility and grace. I will strive to do the same while faithfully applying the law as written, without fear or favor. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Judge Pemberton. Now, Judge Reardon.

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing me and my fellow nominees to appear. I would like to thank President Trump for this nomination. It is the professional honor of a lifetime, and I am humbled by his confidence. In me. I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her introduction, and I want to thank her and Senator Sullivan and their staffs for the work that they have done on behalf of my nomination.

Before acknowledging the people who are here with me today, I want to recognize those who could not be here: my judicial assistant Erica, my law clerk Chloe, and my principal courtroom deputy Alexis, and everyone in the District Court for the District of Alaska for their support and encouragement throughout this process. I'm joined here today by family friend Ashley Conlon and by my longtime Army buddy Greg Weiss, and I want to thank Greg for his support throughout this confirmation process and nomination process. I'm also joined by my family, my brother Pat and his wife Leslie. My brother is everything an older brother should be, a role model, a protector, and someone who was and remains a hero to me.

I'm joined by my parents, Gene and Melody.

My parents gave so much to my brother and I to ensure that we had every opportunity to succeed. Words cannot express how grateful I am for all that they have done.

My kids are here today, and I'm thankful to their teachers for excusing them from their classes so that they can experience our Constitution in action. My kids are kind, talented, and smart, and I am proud of the fine young men that they are.

And finally, I want to acknowledge my wife. My wife is an incredible, beautiful woman, an accomplished engineer, a dedicated public servant committed to making Alaska a better and safer place, and a wonderful mother and partner. Sitting here today, I realize that I have far surpassed what I thought was possible from a legal career when I applied to law school. I'm thankful that my skills and good fortune have allowed me to serve the people of this country and of my state. I hope to continue that service as United States District Judge for the District of Alaska.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Judge Reardon. Now, Mr. West.

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, it is truly an honor to be back here today, a decade after I worked for this committee.

Thank you, President Trump, for your unwavering support and for nominating me to this position. And thank you, Senator Lankford and Senator Armstrong, for your support and for Senator Lankford's kind comments here. I also want to thank Senator Cruz for taking a chance all those years ago on an Okie like me. There are so many more people I could acknowledge, but first and foremost, I must offer my praise to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Next, I cannot say enough about my beautiful wife Alicia, who is here with me and has meant everything to me over the past 17 years.

We got married after my first year of law school at the University of Oklahoma, and it is no coincidence that my grades improved immediately. Raising 5 children with Alicia is the privilege of my life. Unfortunately, only one of those kiddos could be here today, the youngest, since the others had sports and music commitments back in Oklahoma. But that's okay. This may be the one instance where the youngest child gets to experience something that none of the older siblings ever did.

I also owe a mountain of gratitude to my parents, Laban and Susie West, for their unwavering support, prayers, and encouragement throughout the years. They could not be here today, but I wish they were, and I wish that there was a piano in this room so my dad could perform for you. Then you could listen to a truly talented West rather than just me. I would also like to recognize my brother-in-law Darren Hudson, his wife Mary, and their daughter who have joined us here today, as well as our friends Randy and Sarah Alice. Thank you for your support.

Finally, I'd like to express my appreciation to Judge Bobby Baldock and Judge J. Leon Holmes for hiring me as a law clerk all those years ago. I wouldn't be here without the foundational example that they set for me in chambers as humble men dedicated to the rule of law. I hope that I can follow their example. I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

We'll now go to questioning, and I'll start. We'll have 5-minute rounds. Judge Belloude, you've spent at least 25 years as a state judge. In that time, you've presided over thousands of cases, and I understand 120 jury trials. Please tell us what you learned as a state judge that will help you be a federal judge.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the years serving on the bench, I have Learned a lot, learn a lot every day. So next week I'll learn even more. And I think one of the most important things for a judge is to maintain an open mind, open ears, and be a good listener and a good learner. So obviously following the law is the most important thing, not making the law, but there are also other attributes that are very, very important.

Another attribute that's very important is don't ever forget when you come in the room and the bailiff says, "All rise," they're not getting up for Dan. They're getting up for the court of justice. They all rise in recognition and respect for our system, not any individual, especially not the referee, which is what the judge is. So that's one of the things I learned. Keeps you humble, and keeps you open-minded to maintain that perspective.

Judge Bennett, prior to becoming a magistrate judge, you spent more than a decade as a prosecutor in Texas. You've seen the inside of the district courthouse from both angles, as an advocate and as a judge. Please tell us how these roles shape your view on the administration of justice. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. As a prosecutor in Houston in the Southern District of Texas, my duty was to see that justice was done in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.

That meant that all the cases that I prosecuted were supported by probable cause and could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That also meant protecting the rights of, of victims, making sure that the victims were heard and that their rights were upheld. It also made— it also meant to, um, make sure that the defendant's rights under the Constitution, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, were followed. It also meant that appearing before those judges, that you needed to be prepared. You needed to know the law and the facts of your case and being able to argue those concisely and efficiently before a judge or a jury.

Similarly, as a magistrate judge, I strive to be a fair and impartial judge following the law and the Constitution. I make sure, I strive to make sure, that the litigants who appear before me, that their rights are upheld, that they're able to present their cases through motion practice, through hearings, or through trial if need be. That also means, again, being prepared before walking into my courtroom. I make sure to read the pleadings filed by the parties, make sure to research the law so that I walk in there knowing the issues that I need to rule on and recognize. Okay, Mr. Bottom line, Senator, is that in both of those positions, you must follow the law, follow the Constitution, be fair and impartial.

That's what's expected in the Southern District of Texas. That's what I try to strive to do as a magistrate judge. And if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, that's what I will continue to do as a United States District Judge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coker.

You've been in U.S. Attorney's Offices, at least 4 different locations. Uh, we don't have very many people that's traveled that route very often, if at all. Uh, currently you're First Assistant to Northern District Texas. What have you learned from handling cases in so many different parts of the country, and how that's prepared you to handle the diversity of matters that you'd see as a district judge? Yes, Senator.

For the last 18 and a half years, I've grown up in the district courtrooms in all of the 5 districts that I've served in. It's given me an opportunity to see a vast different kinds of crimes, interacted with different kinds of people, been able to put together different kinds of teams. I've also had a chance to You see the positives and the best practices of numerous federal judges throughout these 5 districts. But the one thing through all 5 districts that I've— has been a constant is when you go to different districts, the one thing that you can do that's constant is you bury yourself in the rules. So I've always gone back to the federal rules.

Developing that kind of habit, whether it be prosecuting the Colombian narco-traffickers in the Southern District of Florida and the District of Puerto Rico, or the Mexican cartels in the Northern District of Texas. The one north star that I've always come back to is fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. And I believe that those attributes will help me if I'm lucky enough to be confirmed. Thank you, Senator. My time's up, so I'm going to have to submit my questions for the rest of you in writing.

Unless we got time at the tail end. Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley, and thank you all for being here today. Excuse me. I welcome your family and friends for this important day in your life.

Judge Milieu first, thank you for serving our country and for reminding us that many people see public service beyond the courtroom, and you have in your life experience. So I'd like to ask you about something. Last week I was in Joliet, Illinois, not too far from Chicago. It was the annual observance of the specialty courts in that jurisdiction. These are courts that are specially designed for nonviolent defendants who are suffering from drug problems, for example, or previous veterans who come out of the service dealing with PTSD.

We found that the justice system, if it's flexible in dealing with them in that circumstance, can get much better results. Can try to finally shake any addiction to alcohol or drugs and set them on a path for a good life. This has been going on year after year after year. I'm a big supporter of drug courts, veterans courts, specialty courts like the one in Joliet. You call these courts social engineering and claim that they, quote, do great harm.

By validating and encouraging excuse-making and promoting a lack of accountability. Could you explain that? Yes, sir, Senator. Um, first I would say I acknowledge— and I used to do drug court, and we still have drug court in my circuit— I acknowledge there's a lot of benefits to drug court. Um, and I know other circuits in Kentucky have veterans courts and other courts.

Uh, my concern with these specialty courts is basically what I said. They become avenues for excuse-making. So, um, and I think most people that I know that are involved in specialty courts have the absolute best of intentions and they are trying to help. And I think specialty courts do help, but the only one that I've seen that really, really helps a lot is Juvenile Drug Court. It was a fantastic program.

And in Kentucky, due to budgetary concerns, they got rid of that and kept the other ones. But I don't think specialty courts are all bad. But I'll take me for an example. I'm a veteran, and I'm proud of the folks I served with. And I absolutely recognize that PTSD, for example, is a big problem for my people, my fellow veterans.

But it's also a big problem for adults who are the victims of child abuse. They have PTSD, and there's other circumstances where people can have PTSD that makes it hard for them the rest of their lives. So my concern is, why are we partitioning out one group of people with a significant problem, PTSD for example, and having a special court for them? But yes, yes, sir. Thank you.

I'd like to ask Judge West and Pemberton a question related to a controversy in Oklahoma which occurred, I believe, when Mr. West was the Oklahoma Attorney General involving abortion. I know that this is a very controversial issue. I can tell you, after a lifetime in Congress, I've heard most of the arguments, pro and con, from every angle. But in that case, it appeared that one of the major decisions, major elements in the decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether an exception should be made for abortions to save the life of a mother. I believe the argument Mr. West made before the court was for a position, a legislative position, which did not protect that.

And I believe that Mr. Pemberton, after the Supreme Court in Oklahoma struck down that statute, that you said that that it was a remarkably troubling decision. Could you explain today your thoughts on that issue as to whether there should be an exception to save the life of a pregnant mother?

Senator Durbin, I appreciate your question, and I would start by saying, you know, the question of what exceptions should exist in abortion law, especially in Oklahoma, is a topic of current and feisty political debate. And so as a judicial candidate, it would not be appropriate for me under the canons to interject myself into that debate as to which exception should exist. I would say, to clarify the litigation though, the arguments that I advanced on behalf of the state of Oklahoma was that the Constitution of Oklahoma simply did not speak to the topic of abortion, but at the same time, we were supporting the law that had existed for 100 years that had a life exception in it, an exception to save the life of a mother, or exception for, for the life of the mother. And the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that law, uh, with the life exception in it. So our arguments were never that there, there shouldn't be a life exception.

It was simply that the Oklahoma Constitution didn't speak to it, but that the longstanding Oklahoma abortion law had a life exception, and that that life exception was valid and legitimate. And the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that particular law that had been on the books for over 100 years in Oklahoma. Judge Pemberton, you said publicly that you found that decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court preserving that right to abortion in the life of a mother situation to be remarkably troubling. Is that your view today? First of all, like, uh, Mr. West indicated, don't believe it would be proper as a judicial nominee to address those policy issues one way or another.

I think the context of the comments— I was addressing the analysis and the reasoning included in the Supreme Court's opinion. And so there's more context, I think respectfully, than was offered. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question? Please. I'm going to ask you a question.

In several cases, you have advocated against tribal sovereignty. Would you please state your position, or at least whether you will follow precedent when it comes to tribal sovereignty? Well, first of all, I'm certainly always going to apply precedent in my courtroom. I would, I would take issue with the characterization. I don't think that I've taken issue with or been opposed to tribal sovereignty.

I respect tribes in Oklahoma and elsewhere, certainly respect their sovereignty. Sovereignty, which is why during my time in the governor's office, I made it a point to develop and build relationships and ultimately to get a number of compacts, historic compacts, across the finish line after having negotiated in good faith with those sovereigns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cornyn.

Mr. Chairman, as I've explained, I know Mr. Bennett, Mr. Coker well, so I certainly don't have any more questions for them. And I look forward to supporting all the nominees. But what I'd like to do is yield my time back, and because you will now be subject to the tender mercies of the senator from Louisiana and his rather infamous line of questioning. So I yield back. Do you—.

I'm supposed to go to— I think you're yielding for him.

You can go ahead and Senator, so I'm sorry, I'm confused. Yeah, Senator Hirono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to each of you. I ask the following two initial questions of all nominees before any of the committees on which I sit to ensure the fitness to serve. So I'll start with Judge Balu and go right down the list. My questions are: Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? No, Senator.

Down the line, please. No, Senator. No, Senator. No, Senator. No, Senator.

No, Senator. Second question: Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? No, Senator. No, Senator. No, Senator.

No, Senator. No, Senator. No, Senator. For Mr. Ballou, how does our country benefit from diversity of religion?

Uh, Senator, I think our country benefits from all kinds of diversity, not just religion. But I think what makes America beautiful and special and unique is its diversity. I think what makes America strong and courageous is the common commitment to our Constitution. So sure, Senator, I agree, religious diversity, racial diversity, all kind of political diversity makes us really unique.

Thank you. Mr. Bennett, if confirmed, do you intend to make an effort to hire law clerks from diverse backgrounds? Senator, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will hire law clerks based on what I've done before, is hire based on merit. I will hire the best qualified regardless of their background. So having a diverse group of clerks, for example, is not a priority for you?

Senator, again, regardless of their backgrounds, I hire the best qualified and the ones who can do the job, whatever their background is.

Mr. Coker. You've worked in the U.S. Attorney's offices in 4 different states plus Puerto Rico. Do you think the federal judiciary should reflect the communities it serves? Why or why not?

Uh, Senator, the judiciary should reflect, uh, the best and brightest of our nation, um, and I think that if a a fair and honest process plays out, we will have diversity in the judiciary. And I've been fortunate enough to practice in a very— with a group of very diverse judges and have benefited greatly from that. Thank you, Senator.

So, when you testify, the two of you at least who have testified, or maybe three of you, that you will pick the best and brightest, often there are such things as, do you acknowledge such such a thing as implicit bias?

Mr. Coker? Have you ever heard of the idea of implicit bias? Yes, Senator. I've, in my role in the Department of Justice, I've actually had implicit bias trainings. And that could result in not necessarily the best and the brightest, but certain kinds of people getting hired.

And I put that out to you all because I think we all We should all acknowledge that there is implicit bias, and implicit means that we really don't even acknowledge or think about it as with reference to ourselves, but it's there.

So going on to Mr. Pembleton, I believe that Oklahoma has over 35 federally recognized tribal nations, dozens. How do you think Oklahoma benefits from having that kind of diversity? In its population. Sure, and I think we actually have 38 federally recognized tribes, 39 tribes altogether. I think they've served a great role, continue to serve a great purpose in the state of Oklahoma.

So you sit here and say that the tribal rights should be upheld? I think that all laws on the books should be upheld.

Okay, well, tribal rights. Okay, so I'm just trying to get to making sure that, you know, it's good to know that all laws should be upheld. That's good. As judges, that's what you ought to do. But particularly, though, do you acknowledge that the kind of diverse population represented by these tribes is of benefit?

To your state? Yes, just going back to my original answer, certainly they serve a great benefit to the state, and Oklahoma is very proud to have them.

Okay, two more very quick questions for Judge Reardon. Why is it important to support diversity in the judiciary and in the legal profession?

Senator, I think the Judiciary should support, as my colleague said, hiring the, the best and the brightest. And if we do that, then the issue of having a diverse judiciary and a diverse legal field will take care of itself. Oh, that's nice, but I don't think that is necessarily reality. One more question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. West, how do you define diversity?

Thank you, Senator, for the question.

I would define diversity as differences. It can be differences of background, opinion, political persuasion, religion, race. It's just differences, differences between people. And do you think diversity is a positive thing? It certainly can be, yes.

Generally? I mean, anything can be, but generally would you say that diversity is a positive thing? Because we have a diverse country with diversity of race, religion, backgrounds, education. Yes, I would say generally it is a good thing. As to echo Mr. Pemberton, I think in Oklahoma it has been a— diversity has been a great thing.

I've enjoyed being raised in a state that has the tribal nations that I greatly respect. And it's— I think it's been very good for Oklahoma. And I can speak obviously for my state in that sense. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Kennedy. Kennedy. Mr. Coker, you took implicit bias training. Yes, Senator. It was required under the last administration.

Yes, sir. What is bias?

My understanding of bias is your worldview of something that may judge how you see a situation or a thing. It means I intend to disadvantage someone or something, doesn't it? Yes, Senator. So you done? I can be— I can have intent but not know I have intent.

I don't believe so, Your Honor. Uh, Senator. Well, then how can I have implicit bias? Does that mean I'm biased but I don't know I'm biased? I didn't agree with the implicit bias, but I agree with your assessment, Senator.

Okay. Mr. West, you talked about the Oklahoma Constitution, and it doesn't mention abortion. Is that what you said? Yes, I believe that's what I said. Does the US Supreme Court or US Constitution mention abortion?

It does not, Senator. So how could the Supreme Court hand down Roe v. Wade? Well, in the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court said that handing down Roe v. Wade was, was a mistake or was an incorrect decision. Yeah, but what was the, what was the basis for handing down Roe v. Wade? It was based on the right to privacy and also kind of tying in different threads of the Constitution, whether it be from equal protection or to the Ninth Amendment, but it was based, I think, on the right to privacy stretched from Griswold.

Right. When, when can the, when can the President of the United States use military force against a foreign country?

That is a question I have to be really careful about because of the fact that, uh, there's a current political controversy, but constitutionally, um, the president is the commander-in-chief, and I know there are Supreme Court cases and other—. Yeah, but give me the instances when the president of the United States, consistent with the Constitution, can use military force unilaterally against another country. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the end of the question. Uh, give me— tell me when the president of the United States can use military force as commander-in-chief of the armed services, unilaterally, without anybody's permission, against a foreign country? That's all I'm asking.

Well, I think the area in which that would be indisputable—. List them for me. What are the instances? Well, the first instance that comes to mind is defensively, that there's any kind of invasion or attack on the United States. Okay, that's one.

Yeah. When else?

I would hesitate to opine on, uh, especially—. I'm not asking you to opine. I'm just asking you what the Constitution says. Well, the Constitution simply says the president is the commander-in-chief and that Congress has the power to declare war. Okay, what if Congress doesn't declare war but the president says, I'm commander-in-chief and, uh, I'm going to slap this country into tomorrow?

I know that there have been numerous examples in the past where Congress has not declared war and the president has acted in a military capacity. Was he— what did he act legally or not? Again, I don't think I can opine as a judicial candidate on the—. The— you're sure you can? I'm not asking you how you're going to rule on a case.

I'm asking you, tell me the— what basis, the legal basis of a president acting. And so I'm asking, uh, my vague recollection of the president's actions in past administrations for—. Uh, just give me the legal basis for him acting without a declaration of war, permission of Congress. As the commander-in-chief, the reasoning I've always seen is that there's often preemptive action necessary to prevent an attack or to prevent hostile activities against the United States or responding to hostile activities overseas. But what's the case law say?

I am not all that familiar with the war powers, uh, case law, Senator. Okay.

Let me ask you one more. What's selective incorporation? Uh, selective incorporation is the, the doctrine, uh, by which the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states kind of one by one as as opposed to all at once. And so that has led to a situation where there are a few rights or, or provisions that have not actually been incorporated yet, such as the Third Amendment. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate all of you being here today and accepting the nominations and being willing to serve your country in judicial roles. I imagine you have family here today that is supporting you and has supported you for a really long time. So let me say thank you to them. I can tell you, uh, as someone with a family who has stood by me, I know that sometimes it's often harder on them when you have to go through these hearings and go through things in your career.

So thank you to all the families that are here for standing by our judges. Anybody here know what tomorrow is?

September the 17th.

Is it Constitution Day, Senator? It is. You get a gold star. It is one of my favorite days of the year. It is Constitution Day.

In fact, I actually have someone in my team that dresses up for it as one of our founding fathers. I'm sure you could have dressed up for today. It would have certainly singled you out. But certainly now you win. It is Constitution Day.

And I will, I will stay with you as a reward for answering that question. No good deed goes unpunished. I'm assuming that you are an expert of our Constitution as it lays out the separation of our branches, and how important do you believe that that is to the success of this country at 250 years? Senator, I think it has been critical to the country's success over the past 250 years. The Constitution articulates the role of each of the branches of government.

They are separate but equal branches of government, and each branch has a role in doing its job, staying within its lane, and performing the functions that are laid out within the Constitution. And you think it's important that the judicial branch in fact applies the people's laws through which Congress acts on their behalf and, and makes and makes on their behalf? Absolutely, Senator. As one of my colleagues said earlier, and as Chief Justice Roberts has said, judges are umpires. We call balls and strikes.

We don't make the law.

We don't rule in ways that we wish the law were or that we think it should be, but as the text is written. And that is our job. And Mr. Mr. Pemberton, I feel a little bit like I'm a law professor again, using the Socratic method, looking at the class roster. That's okay. You got it right.

How important do you think the judicial branch is to the stability and long-term success of our democracy in the United States? Well, it plays a unique and distinct role, and it's just as my friend shared, it's— it as well as the other two branches is critically important. And what do you—. How would you describe the importance of judicial review of the Supreme Court? Well, it's critically important that they interpret laws and that they don't go beyond that and begin engaging in the lawmaking process.

That's when the system begins to fall apart and when one veers into the other lane. And Mr. Riordan, if If there was a notion that we did away with the Supreme Court, what do you think that would do to the stability of this nation and our, and our, our democracy? Senator, the Supreme Court is obviously the highest court in the land. It is the case to which, um, cases and controversies from the district courts through the circuit courts are funneled. Um, without a Supreme Court, um, you have the practical issue of having potentially different interpretations of laws in multiple districts throughout the country, different application of those laws depending upon what circuit or district you might be in.

And so the, the role of Supreme Court is being the, the highest court in the land is to provide a unifying structure so that everyone knows what the rules are and can operate under the rule of law. So if there was a notion out there that we could just do away with judicial review by the Supreme Supreme Court in this country. Anybody want to comment on what that would do to this nation and the delicate balance of separation of powers? Anybody? Yes, Senator, I think it would weaken our Constitution and it would make us nothing more than what Russia or other dictatorial or communist nations would be.

See, it would seem to play right into the hands of our most adversarial foreign nations. Anybody else want to comment on what that would do? Senator, I think that would be devastating to our country, that the Constitution, given the Supreme Court under the Supremacy Clause, is the law of the land. I think it would be incredibly devastating to the country. Certainly would, would be subversive to what our founding fathers intended to protect, the freedom that has protected so many Americans for for 250 years.

Appreciate all of you being here today, knowing tomorrow is Constitution Day. I'm loving that this hearing is today, and I thank you for your answers. I agree, it would be insane to support doing away with judicial review of our— by our Supreme Court, uh, for this country's continued success, certainly as a country that values the freedom of its citizens. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Belew, in a questionnaire for the Kentucky Supreme Court, uh, you expressed a strong dislike of what you describe as judicial activism, referring to it as one big problem across America. So I want to ask you about that.

If, uh, a judge were to overturn decades of precedent because of a judge's personal views or cultural views or religious views, would you view that as judicial activism?

Senator, if the judge overturned precedent based on anything other than the law, then sure, yes, sir. And how about a judge that during their confirmation swore to uphold precedent, respect precedent, and then departed from decades of precedent. What would you think about that? Would you think that judge was exercising judicial activism as part of the big problem across America? Uh, yes, it sounds like it.

So when the Supreme Court in Dobbs overturned decades of precedent, uh, to reverse Roe v. Wade, that was an illustration of the kind of judicial activism that is one big problem across America? Well, Senator, as a state court judge and potentially a federal judge, I can't comment other than on, on cases that have been decided. So I think it would be inappropriate for me to get more specific, get more specific than what I've already answered you on those issues. I'm trying to get a sense of what you mean by judicial activism, because there, of course, the Supreme Court did overturn decades of precedent, right? Yeah, yes, sir.

I think what—. Let me ask you about another illustration. How about Citizens United? Court there also overturned decades of precedent, appeared to have an agenda to allow more unbridled spending by corporations, something that's good for corporations, I suppose. Is that judicial activism?

Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to speak to specific cases on what is or is not judicial activism. If you want to know what I think judicial activism is, I'd be glad to tell you. Well, I thought you just told me that it was overturning decades of precedent with some kind of personal, religious, cultural or other agenda, right? Well, if you gave me an example of someone coming in for a confirmation hearing and saying, I'll go by the law, and maybe then they didn't. But what I mean when I say judicial activism— and a lot of judges, and possibly most, I don't know, but a lot of judges have really good intentions, but they get sat— they get outside of their AOR, their area of responsibility.

And they try to fix things that the judiciary can't fix, shouldn't fix. It's outside of their lane. So, that's what I mean by judicial activism. So, so if, if justices took it upon themselves to make changes to campaign finance, um, in contradiction actually of what the Congress legislated, that would be kind of egregious form of judicial activism, wouldn't it? Senator, Senator, I'm not going to comment on what justices of the United States Supreme Court or Kentucky Supreme Court do.

Well, the reason I'm asking you is if you sit on the bench at any level and you only view judicial activism when it's contrary to your own personal religious cultural beliefs, that's a very convenient definition of judicial activism. Would you feel comfortable departing from precedent because it was in conflict with your personal religious views?

I wouldn't depart from precedent anyway. I'm not allowed to do that. It would be inappropriate for me to do that. It would be inappropriate. Would you uphold, if the law required it, would you uphold a state law that provides access to abortion for women?

Uh, Senator, I would uphold any state law that is constitutional. I've been going by the rules that I may or may not agree with for 24 years. Is your answer yes, you would uphold a state's right to provide a free— not a free, but a legal abortion for women? Senator, I don't think it's appropriate for me to get specific other than to say that I will go by the law whether I like it or Or not. And if I could ask the same question very briefly to Mr. Pemberton as well.

Would you uphold a state law that provides a right of access to abortion for women if it was consistent with state law? You're asking me to opine on a potential case or controversy that could come before me. What I'm really asking you, because you're clearly not willing to answer, what I'm really asking you is Are you going to put your own religious or ideological views ahead of following the law? And do so to the detriment of the citizens of this country? I apologize for the interruption.

Listen, that's a different question as I understood the first question, but absolutely I set aside my religious beliefs and ultimately uphold the law as it is, and I don't impose my beliefs in a courtroom. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to all of you on your nomination.

Mr. West, you're the special— let me see— Director of Special Litigation. Previously, you were Solicitor General. Tell me what prompted the transition. Yes, the transition was prompted largely from a change in the Attorney General position. We— I served as Solicitor General under the previous as Attorney General, and then when the new Attorney General came in, my current boss or employer, he asked me if I would consider shifting to a different position as Director of Special Litigation, and I agreed, and have worked there now for the last 3 and a half, almost 4 years.

Okay. The Eastern District of Oklahoma gets a lot of trials a year. How many civil trials have you litigated? Uh, one civil trial as a litigator, Senator. Um, how many were jury trials?

Uh, the one trial I did was a bench trial, so no jury trials, although I did spend 4 years clerking, uh, and 2 of those years were in district court where we had a number of civil and jury— or civil, criminal, jury, and non-jury trials that I was involved with. How many trials were, uh, were you lead counsel? Uh, none. The one counsel— the one trial I did, I was an associate counsel. How many criminal trials have you litigated?

I have not litigated any criminal trials, but again, I did assist with a number of criminal trials in the 2 years that I clerked on the district court. And I also was involved in a number of sentencings, both for the district court and the 10th Circuit judge who I clerked for, who took a lot of cases. Any of those were you a lead prosecutor? No, Senator. How many hours in the course of your career do you estimate you've spent reviewing, responding to, and disputing discovery requests in trials?

A lot. We have had— Give me more. I'm sorry? Give me details. Details, yes.

I've had several cases where we've been deep into discovery. There was a pharmacy benefit manager case involving PCMA where we did discovery for a lengthy period of time with both experts and document review and discovery. In our death penalty litigation leading up to the trial that I was in, we had both motions in limine and a significant amount of discovery.

I have taken around 10 depositions, most of those expert. I've defended another 5 or 6 depositions, also most of those expert, as the lead attorney in those depositions. So I've had pretty extensive experience in discovery, but the nature of my practice is most of it is motions practice, and so it usually gets resolved at summary judgment or motion to dismiss. I don't know the— I'm not an attorney, so I don't typically know the answers to a lot of these questions. They tell me a little bit about your experience with Indian Country.

You're gonna get a lot of Indian. What sort of work have you done in the past that relates to anything that would be unique to Indian? Yes, I've litigated several cases or been part of several cases involving Indian Country, both in favor of the tribes and against the tribes. The most recent one that at least comes to my mind is I was the counsel of record at the U.S. Supreme Court for an amicus brief in support of the Apache Tribe in the Apache Stronghold case where they were bringing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, and as representing the state of Oklahoma, we argued that that claim had been given short shrift by the Ninth Circuit and that the Supreme Court should intervene and because RIFRA is such an important law that it should be given a more robust reading in the context of the Apache Tribe in that case. Okay.

The remaining time— I want to be sensitive to time and not go over— give me a little bit of background on your experience with federal sentencing guidelines and talk a little bit about how you would use the guidelines and when you would depart from them. Yes. So again, I clerked for 2 years at the federal district court where I was working with the judge as he applied the sentencing guidelines. And then at the 10th Circuit, again, my judge set by designation at the district court to alleviate the sentencing caseload in the District of New Mexico. And I had the chance to work with him at times on like 40— it was one week we did about 45 straight sentencings.

And so I was deep into the sentencing guidelines. When would you depart from them? I'm sorry? I said, when would you depart from them? Potential departures.

A number of reasons given for departures. Factors that you can potentially use for departures. The one that's coming to my mind is substantial assistance to the government. You can depart downward, and I think that matters. I like it when, you know, when defendants are assisting with the process and not opposing it.

So I can't promise that I would depart in that instance, but that is one of the factors, I believe. And then one of the factors I think to go up is extreme physical harm or something like that, I think, is another— is a factor that can play in where you look at the extremity of the offense and say this Seems like it's too low of a sentence. Maybe I should go higher. Again, I can't promise any particular case what I would do, but there are a number of reasons why you can depart up or down. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Before I call on Senator Whitehouse, I'd like to enter into the record supporting Mr. West's nomination from three former Oklahoma Attorney Generals: John O'Connor, Don Cash, Mike Hunter.

They endorsed Mr. West and praised his work in the Attorney General's office. Their letter stated, quote, Zach represented the state in complex and consequential litigation and consistently demonstrated exceptional legal ability, integrity, sound judgment, and devotion to rule of law. Without objection, I'll enter that in the record. And I've got to step out for 5 minutes, so will one of the Republicans, if I'm not back in 5 minutes, take over?

Uh, Senator Whitehouse.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, let me just first of all welcome Magistrate Reardon. I'm a former U.S. Attorney and Senior Litigation Counsel. Pretty cool designation, so congratulations on that. Um, to the rest of you, I apologize. I'm going to take my time this morning to talk about this committee because we had what I consider to be a very disturbing hearing with the FBI director, and I think it's important to mark, um, what I consider to be the continued degradation of this committee.

Um, we first of all confirmed this Kash Patel character back when we did, even though he had asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and demanded immunity from criminal prosecution before he would testify honestly before a grand jury. And this committee never even tried to get to the bottom of that. To this day, we still don't know what his grand jury testimony was.

And he has dodged and ducked and evaded and lied to this committee about that grand jury episode. And apparently we're fine with that. He's not the only case. We put Emil Bovee onto the Third Circuit Court of Appeals while a contempt proceeding was pending in court against him and staged the timing of his confirmation so we could get him through during a stay in the pending contempt proceeding.

We just confirmed Todd Blanch for Attorney General with a federal fraud upon the court investigation pending related to his misconduct.

Most people don't know what fraud on the court is because it's such a rare and evil form of legal misbehavior that it almost never comes up. Never in the history of the Department of Justice has any senior official even been accused of fraud upon the court, and we cleared him without clearing up the question of whether or not there was in fact fraud upon the court. These are all never-before occasions. An FBI director who pled criminal Fifth Amendment immunity, and we don't get to the bottom of it. A pending contempt proceeding, and we slip the guy through before there's an answer to what took place.

Ditto the fraud upon the court, an unprecedented situation for a nominee.

And then you look at the conduct of the way we allow witnesses to testify. We let witnesses assert false privileges that they have no right to claim and haven't done the work to claim. And the committee doesn't seem to care. We let witnesses lie and dodge. And the committee doesn't seem to care.

We let witnesses refuse to answer a single question for the record after a hearing for a year, and the committee doesn't seem to care. Substantively, we gave away our circuit court blue slips to the executive branch of government.

And then complained about having lost the blue slip. We let the executive branch put U.S. attorneys in without confirmation by this committee, and we don't seem to care. And we see witnesses come in with their scripted insult lists, as if that is appropriate behavior for congressional oversight. And this committee does not seem to care. Well, I care about this committee, and I think that it is making a mockery of itself, and we're going to need to have a very significant reboot to put this committee back to right.

And I hope that comes sooner rather than later. Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About the way the committee's being run. I, I appreciate each of you for being here and for giving us your time today, and congratulations to each of you on your nomination.

As you all could tell, my colleague across the dais is not happy, and I guess, uh, not interested in what we're going to do with making certain we have constitutionalists on the court. So we thank you for your time. Mr. Baloo, let me come to you for a, for a moment. You, as I've looked at your background and your resume, it looks like you have a background that is really given to public service. So you were in the Navy.

In the Marines, and then, um, your legal career, which has primarily been centered not in private practice but also in public service. Is that accurate? Yes, Senator. And talk with me a little bit about how your experience in the military and then the various roles that you have had on the bench, how that is going to inform your work as, as a district judge. Well, Senator, the United States Marine Corps has affected everything in my life.

I joined when I was 18 and spent 7 years there, later commissioned in the Naval Reserve as an intelligence officer, switched back to the Marine Corps as an intelligence officer and retired from the Marine Corps Reserve. So the Marine Corps has impacted everything I've done, and I always give glory to God, but the Marine Corps was the instrument of the good Lord to get me focused. So it turned me into a mission-oriented individual, and Um, uh, you have to make hard decisions in the, in the military, particularly in the Marine Corps, as it was my experience. So I was accustomed to making hard decisions. So when, uh, later in life, uh, found myself as an attorney, clerked for Judge Souter on the Sixth Circuit, and only had a private practice for a couple years.

I ran for misdemeanor court judge in Kentucky, which is District Court, and I won. I found out judges have to make hard decisions too. It's just in a different lane, in a different avenue. So type of decision. Yes, indeed.

All right, Mr. Coker, I want to come to you. I see that you worked briefly in Tennessee. Looks like you bounced around a little bit before you kind of found a happy home in Texas, right? That's correct, Senator. But I really enjoyed my time in Nashville.

Well, everybody enjoys their time in Nashville. That's why everybody wants to move there. Uh, you, um, led an investigation into the first fentanyl overdose death case in Tennessee. Is that accurate? Uh, yes, Senator, one of the first.

It occurred in Murfreesboro. And there were 7 defendants that were ultimately charged in federal court, correct? That is correct, Senator. Okay. And we thank you for your work on that.

Of course, we are hearing and we continue to see the deadly nature of fentanyl, of tranq, what it's doing to our kids, the devastating consequences that are there on families and on communities. And I—. We talk a lot about trafficking in these substances. And yesterday we had Kash Patel before us, which obviously my colleague wasn't impressed. I thought it was great.

He talked about how what he's done in Memphis and they've cut the, the crime rate in half in a year. But none of my colleagues wanted to talk about crime being at lower levels. But we keep trying to get after all of these traffickers. So I want you to touch on what you believe is an appropriate punishment and sentencing for people that are trafficking these deadly compounds.

Yes, Senator. Well, as a judicial nominee, I would approach the federal sentencing guidelines, um, and look at all of the different enhancements that occur, especially in narcotics cases. I know them well. I've done this for 18 and a half years. There's, you know, you, you get certain points for, uh, being a leader organizer.

You get certain points for having a firearm that makes the situation danger— more dangerous. You get certain points if you bring those narcotics across the border. You get certain levels if you— if, if someone dies as a result. So I would look at all of the guidelines first, and then I would take the third, uh, the 13, uh, the 18 U.S.C. 3553 Factors, which allow me to look at the nature and circumstances of the offense, uh, you know, what they did, how dangerous it was.

I would also look at the parts of, of the 3553 factors that looked at the characteristics of the defendant themselves. Who have they worked for? Are they higher levels within the cartel, etc. And so forth? And then you would combine that together and determine, is a sentence greater than the guidelines appropriate or not?

And that's, and that's how I would approach that as a judicial nominee, Senator. Senator, thank you. My time's expired. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Chairman. Judge Valloue, thank you for your service in the United States Marine Corps and your description of it here. I have a few factual questions for members of the panel. Judge Valloue, who won the 2020 election?

Senator, via the 12th Amendment— did you say 2020? 2020. Joe Biden was certified as the winner.

I'll go down the line. If you're going to answer the same way, you can say same answer. Same answer, Senator. Same answer, Senator. Same answer, Senator.

I have the same answer, Senator. Same for me, Senator. Who won the popular vote in the 2020 election? Sir, in the 2020 election, President Biden was declared the winner via the Electoral College. As far as the popular vote, I can only speak to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Whitley and McCurry County, where I actually have a legal role as a judge there.

You have the same answer, Mr. Bennett. Senator, as a sitting federal magistrate judge echoing Justice Jackson when she was asked about this, I believe that commenting on that is a matter of political controversy, and I'm— it would be inappropriate. It's a factual question. Who won the popular vote? Again, Senator, I believe it's inappropriate under the canons of judicial ethics to weigh in on matters of political—.

I think you well know, and the people of America should know, that the judicial ethics canon cover political activity, engaging in political activity like holding an office in a political organization or endorsing a candidate, not answering—. God bless you—. Simple factual questions. Mr. Coker.

Same answer. The same answer as Judge Bennett. Senator, I have the same answer.

I would echo Judge Bennett. Let me ask you. Judge Blue, was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6th, 2021? Uh, Senator, um, what, uh, all I know is what I saw on television, and I didn't watch a whole lot of it. I spent the morning at the Bass Pro Shop in Sevierville, Tennessee, got to my dad's house in Williamsburg, Kentucky, and he had the TV on.

And we watched very few minutes and cut it off. But let me ask you the question. Yes, sir. Was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6th, 2021? And I, I hope you are not saying that all you know was that snippet of TV video.

Well, that would defy belief. Well, sir, my point about that is, uh, I did not watch a lot of the coverage, but I did watch enough to see, it certainly appeared like there were people attacking the Capitol. When you're slinging around barriers, breaking glass, and punching cops, uh, I consider that—. But that was an attack on the Capitol. It appeared like some people were attacking the Capitol.

Mr. Bennett.

Senator, I saw some of the coverage and the violence, the vandalism, and the trespass, and I condemn those. So you would agree the Capitol was attacked? But characterizing it as attack, I believe, weighs into a matter of political controversy, and it's inappropriate for me to comment on that under the canons. You know, judges on the courts like Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said, quote, the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021 was a perilous event, Justice Barrett said, quote, a mob of rioters breached the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Do you agree with them?

Senator, given the Supreme Court— what Justice Barrett stated, that there was a breach, I would follow the Supreme Court characterization. Do the rest of you agree with Judge Baloo?

I agree with Judge Bennett, Senator. Not Judge Baloo. Judge Pemberton. I agree with Judge Bennett. Senator, I concur with Judge Bennett's characterization.

I also agree with Judge Bennett's characterization, and I agree with you that, um, that the Supreme Court, uh, the language is important for judges to follow, and the language is important because the language is a sign of your independence and your willingness to be independent, which is what the distinguishing factor is for a judge of the United States District Court in the United States of America. Now, Judge Baloo has strayed a little bit from the recitation that normally we find articulated by Mr. Bennett, avoiding the word attack. But you can see that other judges have had the courage to step forward and say that the Capitol was attacked. Following this rote, apparently dictated description hardly indicates the independence that 5 of you will take. And the failure to answer the question of who won the 2020 election, again, I think indicates that you would be unwilling to stand strong against political influence, particularly from the White House, which has asserted that it wants to dominate the Department of Justice and our entire justice system.

Right now, we're in a very perilous time, and I would have expected more from nominees of the United States District Court. I will oppose your nominations for that reason. Thank you, Chair. Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congratulations to each of the nominees. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be here at the beginning of this hearing because I was simultaneously chairing a markup of the Senate Commerce Committee, so I did not get the opportunity to introduce 3 of the nominees, but I appreciate Chairman Grassley entering my introductions into the record. I didn't want the hearing to conclude without saying a few words about the nominees before us, particularly an old friend and former member of my staff. Zach, it is great to see you back before the committee. When Zach West worked for me here in the Senate, I got to know him firsthand as an enormously talented lawyer, a principled public servant, and a man of deep faith and integrity.

Uh, we tried our very best to make him a permanent Texan, and it turns out I was singularly unpersuasive in that regard. Uh, and Oklahoma won and gained an incredible public service— servant and Solicitor General. I will also tell you Zach has a really nasty baseline jump shot, uh, and, and our game got significantly worse when he returned to Oklahoma. Welcome back. I wish you had been able to hoop with us yesterday.

As you know, we ended up on the floor instead of playing yesterday, so I was thoroughly grumpy at missing that. Mr. Corker, Judge Bennett, both of you, congratulations as well. Texas is fortunate to have two lawyers of your experience and character willing to step forward and serve on the federal bench. Between the two of you, you have spent decades in courtrooms. You have represented both the government and individual litigants and devoted much of your career to public service.

Both of you did a very impressive job when you met with our Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, a bipartisan committee that Senator Cornyn and I have maintained for decades, and you both did a, a very fine job when, when you interviewed with me and subsequently with Senator Cornyn. I appreciate your fidelity to law, your commitment to follow the law and follow the Constitution no matter what, and your commitment not to impose any policy preferences you may or may not have on any given case, but rather to be faithful and follow the law. Mr. Blue, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Reardon, thank you for your willingness to serve. The country, take on tremendous responsibilities that come with, with public service.

Mr. West, let me begin some questions with you. You spent years representing Oklahoma in some extraordinarily consequential cases as Solicitor General. As you know, I am particularly partial to state Solicitors General, having spent 5.5 years as Texas's SG. It is one of the greatest jobs in the entire legal universe. Um, how has serving as the SG of Oklahoma shaped your view of the role of a judge, uh, where your obligation is no longer to advance a client's permit, uh, position, but rather to impartially determine what the law requires?

Yes, uh, as Solicitor General and in my current role as Director of Special Litigation, you're constantly in court, uh, before judges, and, um, it really impresses upon you, uh, as a litigant I think a number of things, both of, you know, as a litigant, wanting the judges to follow the rule of law, and thinking, well, okay, if I'm a judge, I need to be a judge that litigants can trust to follow the rule of law. And then I think the other is probably the speed in which justice is issued, which is, I know, from litigants' perspective, it seems like it can at times take too long. And I know that was impressed upon me by the 10th Circuit judge I clerked for, Bobby Baldock, His driving passion was, go, we need to act quickly. Like, we need to, we don't sit on decisions, we issue them quickly. For the litigants' sake, for the parties' sake, for the sake of the justice system, there needs to be a rapid moving of cases through chambers.

And so, I think the rule of law, and then making sure that parties are respected because of the speed at which things are done. Were just things that I learned as Solicitor General, as a law clerk, and like I said, now as the Director of Special Litigation. Uh, Mr. Coker, uh, Judge Bennett, uh, both of you have stood on both sides of the courtroom. Uh, what has your experience, uh, taught you about what makes a good judge? And Mr. Coker, we'll start with you.

Yes, Senator. Uh, first and foremost, I think the best judges are judges that are prepared. That read the pleadings, they take the bench timely, they understand that the government's attorney, they have work to do, so back at their offices, or your litigant and private attorneys, they've got an office to run. So being cordial to their time I think's important. I think also being patient.

Listening and following the rule of law with fidelity to the Constitution. Those to me are the most important things I look for in judges. And if I'm lucky enough to get confirmed, I would try to emulate Judge Bennett. Senator, I agree with many of the things Mr. Coker said. I believe a good judge is fair, firm, and patient, that they're prepared, that they come into that courtroom knowing the law and the facts of the case and listening to the parties' argument so they can render a fair and impartial decision.

I believe a good judge allows younger attorneys to argue cases in front of them so that those attorneys get some experience arguing in court, since many, at least many of the civil cases I see, do not go to trial. I do think that's an— that's important. And as Mr. Coker said, a judge that upholds the law and upholds the Constitution. Thank you. Okay.

There aren't any more questions, so I want to thank all the nominees for your testimony today. You're obviously going to get a lot of written questions, not only from the members that aren't here, but from those of us who are here. And for the benefit of all members of this committee, questions for the record may be submitted until September 23rd. 5:00 PM, and it's very important that you try to get those answers back as fast as you can. You don't want somebody against your nomination just because you didn't answer all the questions and answer them fully.

Thank you. Meeting adjourned.