Blumenthal to Walker: What is "Indefensible" is Considering the Nomination of Someone Who Would Dismantle a Healthcare System That is Saving Lives Right Now

[WASHINGTON, DC] – During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) pressed D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Justin Walker on his previously stated position that the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is “indefensible.”

Blumenthal shared the story of Conner, a nine-year-old resident of Ridgefield, Connecticut living with Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy – a fatal illness that requires tens of thousands of dollars in medical treatment every year. Conner’s disease is a pre-existing condition, and without the protections of the Affordable Care Act, he could lose access to life-saving care. With Conner’s photograph behind him, Blumenthal told Walker, “I want to introduce you to someone who would be directly impacted by the prevailing of your legal principles.”

“He is a beneficiary of the Affordable Care Act,” Blumenthal continued. “He is a warrior. He’s a fighter. That’s why he’s still alive – and he’s become a fighter for the Affordable Care Act. And he is one of 1.5 million people in Connecticut, including 182,000 children – these are real people with real faces and real voices like Conner – who would lose their health insurance because they suffer from pre-existing conditions.”

During Walker’s investiture ceremony as a District Court Judge – a position he was rated as “unqualified” to hold in the first place – he said, “Thank you for serving as an enduring reminder that although my legal principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed. That although we are winning, we have not won, and although we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and our country.” Walker had previously called the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act both “indefensible” and “catastrophic.”

“What I think is indefensible is we are here in the midst of a public health crisis considering the nomination of someone who would dismantle a health care system that is saving lives right now,” Blumenthal said to Walker.

“What I consider indefensible is that we are failing to strengthen that health care system and our economic remedies at a time when the nation desperately needs that action.”

“And instead we’re considering your nomination and what I consider indefensible is that you have taken a position passionately that would deprive many of those front line health care workers, the nursing home clinicians and others, of their health care.”

The full transcript of Blumenthal’s exchange with Walker is copied below.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I want to join in thanking you for your conducting this hearing so flexibly and fairly. Welcome to the Committee, Judge Walker.

You know, I want to join in thanking not only the first responders, our fire and police and health care workers around the country who are on the job today, but also our police, the Capitol Police, all of our staff who are making it possible for us to be conducting this hearing and votes during this week.

Judge Walker, I’ve been a law clerk as well. I know about defending mentors and former bosses. I clerked for a now-Circuit Court judge and a Supreme Court justice, but defending a judge doesn’t mean you have to speak derisively and disrespectfully about the Supreme Court Chief Justice, as you did in your investiture. And it doesn’t mean you have to refer to a Supreme Court opinion as “indefensible” or “catastrophic.” You can be critical without being disrespectful.

What I think is indefensible is we are here in the midst of a public health crisis considering the nomination of someone who would dismantle a health care system that is saving lives right now.

What I consider indefensible is that we are failing to strengthen that health care system and our economic remedies at a time when the nation desperately needs that action.

And instead we’re considering your nomination and what I consider indefensible is that you have taken a position passionately that would deprive many of those front line health care workers, the nursing home clinicians and others, of their health care.

And I know that you continue to believe that the Supreme Court decision preserving the Affordable Care Act is indefensible because in that same investiture speech, cited to you by Senator Coons, you also thank the folks who opposed your nomination, including the American Bar Association, by saying, “Thank you for serving as an enduring reminder that although my legal principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed. That although we are winning, we have not won, and although we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and our country.”

“My legal principles” are your continued believe that that Supreme Court decision was indefensible and that our health care system under the ACA should be dismantled.

So I want to introduce you to someone who would be directly impacted by the prevailing of your legal principles.

This is one of my constituents, Conner of Ridgefield, Connecticut. He is now nine years old. I met him when he was five. He suffers from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a condition that is fatal usually by the time people are 20 years old. It deprives them of their strength and their ability to move and it is treatable only with very expensive health care therapies that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

And he is a beneficiary of the Affordable Care Act. He is a warrior. He’s a fighter. That’s why he’s still alive – and he’s become a fighter for the Affordable Care Act. And he is one of 1.5 million people in Connecticut, including 182,000 children – these are real people with real faces and real voices like Conner – who would lose their health insurance because they suffer from pre-existing conditions.

Under your legal principles that you continue to passionately espouse, I recognize you’ve said that you would be bound by Supreme Court decisions, but that’s not what you said when you became a judge and when you referred to “my legal principles prevailing.”

So, my question to you is do you continue to believe in those legal principles, you personally, that the Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA was indefensible?

Judge Justin Walker: Senator, Conner is a hero. I can’t imagine the courage it takes to be a kid in his shoes and having to overcome the obstacles that he has already overcome at an age like that. I’ve never had to do that and I’m in awe of kids like that and people like that. When I was a little kid I do know my mom had a lot of sleepless nights as a single working mom often working two jobs trying to figure out how in the world her son who she loved was going to have things like health insurance. And I wish badly that she had never had to have those sleepless nights. I wish badly that Conner will always have all the medical care that he needs and it is for you and for the political branches of the governments to make policy consistent with our Constitution that it makes health care more affordable and more accessible and I’ve never…

Blumenthal: And we did that, Judge. We did that in the Affordable Care Act, which you would strike down if you had the chance.

Walker: If I can finish, Senator, I’ve never spoken against the Affordable Care Act as a matter of policy. I said in my answer a moment ago that Congress has a role to play in making…I think all members of Congress a role to play in making health care more affordable and accessible within the limits of the Constitution, and before I was a judge, before I was nominated to be a judge, I spoke not about the policy merits of any health care proposal or any health care statute, I talked about the legal analysis regarding the limits of Congress’ power under Article One and in relation to the kind of vertical separation of powers between the federal government and the states that lie at the heart of what keeps us free and at no point, at no point did I ever wish any ill will toward people like my mom when she was struggling financially or for heroes like Conner.

Blumenthal: My time is expired and I have other questions which I’ll pose in writing, but I don’t think Conner would be satisfied with that answer, and I don’t believe the majority of the American people would be either. Thank you.

-30-