Video Transcript:

(00:00) mr park would you lie to this committee to get confirmed no Senator you just did didn’t you uh I I don’t believe so yeah i’ve spent a lot of time studying your record um you’re a bright young man you’re an activist aren’t you Senator i don’t think that’s a fair description of my record okay um you have a history of substituting your judgment for your client’s interests um my impression of your record and I’ve studied it carefully is that when you think you’re smarter and more
(01:05) [Music] virtuous than your client or the law you substitute your own judgment and that’s a dangerous thing to do if you’re a federal judge it’s a dangerous thing that you have done as a solicitor general um Burger v north Carolina State Conference of the NAACP the North Carolina legislature elected by the people passed a voter ID law naacp as is its right file suit to challenge it you were supposed to represent the people of North Carolina in the legislature you dumped on the case didn’t you you purposely tried to lose
(02:04) didn’t you Senator not at all well you uh you you your opponents NAACP filed a multitude of affidavits and expert opinions you declined to to offer a single expert witness affidavit didn’t you well Senator let me clarify i had no role in the trial proceedings i’m an appellet lawyer did Did Did you in your office decline to file any affidavit whatsoever i don’t recall Senator i believe that that is accurate but again I was not involved in the case at the time i I I checked he didn’t um the district court ruled for the
(02:52) NAACP um you didn’t seek an injunction or a stay did you i believe that’s correct yeah I know it’s correct you dumped on the case Senator i I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what happened i do i do and I think the facts bear it out so then then you take it up on appeal in fact the the the leadership in the legislature because you dumped on the case they tried to intervene said our lawyer is not representing us for God’s sakes they tried to intervene the judge said no so the case goes up on appeal to the fourth circuit the fourth
(03:34) circuit reverses the district court even though you and your colleagues tried to lose the case and you and you did uh it goes up to the court of appeal um court of appeal and the fourth circuit rules again rules in favor of the state you’re representing the state you tried to appeal the decision that was in your client’s favor didn’t you you mean the intervention dispute Senator no you tried to to uh to reverse the Fourth Circuit that ruled in your client’s favor senator that is not accurate yes it is yes it is you You
(04:18) filed a petition for an inbank review to overrule the panel opinion uh Senator that’s actually inaccurate that That’s the uh intervention dispute uh when we my office uh there were two parallel appeals and on the merits of the appeal which we did appeal the the the the non-entry of a preliminary injunction and we prevailed on that appeal working with the legislative defendants in that case okay school funding case you you you were supposed to you and your colleagues supposed to represent the state in that case uh
(04:50) lowincome school districts as happens in most states sued the state to force the Republican legislature to increase their funding you’re supposed to represent the state you and your clients dumped on on your client you and your colleagues dumped on your client again didn’t you senator as solicitor general Brasher told this case told this committee a few years ago the solicitor general does not make those decisions right right this is what your you and your boss said and I I’ll it’s your boss’s words but I didn’t
(05:22) see you objecting he said today quote I’m going to quote today lawyers from my office are arguing that we must invest more money in our public schools so our students can get sound basic public education you dumped y’all dumped on your client you did the same thing you refused to represent the state the state of car of North Carolina in defending u the law with respect to to abortion too didn’t you Senator i had no role you knew nothing about it well I was I was aware of it happening but Right right okay senator the the attorney general you’re
(06:07) a smart young man i’m my my esteem chairman is going to cut me off but you can’t i know you’re smart and I know you think you’re more virtuous than than than other people but that’s a dangerous trait when you’re a federal judge i just don’t think you’re mature enough to be a federal judge i don’t think you’ll follow the law i think you’ll try to bend the law to what you think is right and that undermines our federal judiciary and I don’t think you’ve been candid with this committee you know that and I know that and your record knows
(06:45) that do you want to complete your answer to any of those questions thank you Chair Durban you know on the voter ID dispute I think that’s that’s a helpful illustration uh I had no role in the the trial court proceedings uh I don’t even believe I was updated as uh the litigation in the trial court uh was happening uh but when we had an adverse order uh my role was to play a part in authorizing the appeal I did authorize the appeal and uh lawyers in my office prevailed in vacating the injunction uh against the voter ID law that had been
(07:22) entered by the district court uh there was a side dispute on intervention as to whether the legislative leaders should have been allowed to intervene i think two points there uh we never opposed their uh right to intervene we I told the Supreme Court that in a brief that I signed that we do not oppose their right to intervene uh and we also said in in a brief that that I uh I worked on and authored large parts of i substantively defended the voter ID law uh I explained that uh the voter ID law was compliant
(07:54) with Supreme Court president and that we were prepared to defend it below and that uh we would do so and I had um I remember drafting this part of the brief extensive argumentation about why the voter ID law in North Carolina was constitutional m Mr chairman can I respond please sure go ahead take 30 seconds i will look counselor those are pretty words but I’m going to tell you something i’ve studied your record and if I hired you as a lawyer and you did to me what you did to your client the people of North Carolina
(08:32) I’d have brought you to the bar association I’d have filed a complaint against you for violations of the code of ethics senator Holy thank you Mr chairman mr park I’d like to just continue Senator Oaf’s line of questioning he was just asking about the First Amendment you said that you had a number of cases on the speech side of the First Amendment as solicitor general is that right that’s correct you also had some religion clause cases too though didn’t you i believe I’ve had one so let’s talk about when you were
(09:01) solicitor general defending the governor’s executive order that closed churches in the state do you remember that executive order uh yes senator so the executive order said that all indoor gatherings of 10 or more people were banned with some exceptions do you recall i believe it said that uh that there was no limits on outdoor gatherings and if it was not possible to have uh an outdoor gathering then uh you could have it inside with 10 people okay so if it’s if it’s 10 or more people you can’t have it indoors unless it is
(09:34) impossible here’s what you told the court here’s who you told the court would absolutely have to be able to meet indoors and function indoors regardless of the governor’s executive order airports buses train terminals medical facilities shopping mall shopping centers Walmart Lowe’s and other retail businesses of all kinds at the same time you told the courtes churches should have to meet outside or just not meet at all why is that why is it that Lowe’s and Walmart they absolutely have to be open they’re essential churches nah good luck to you
(10:11) well Senator of course I didn’t design that policy i was a lawyer defending a client these are But didn’t you I thought I thought that you were the solicitor general making these arguments senator I had a brief involvement in that case and I actually think my involvement Wait so you you didn’t you you weren’t these aren’t your arguments you didn’t say this to the court Senator i never filed a brief uh so what happened is uh the complaint was filed and before you weren’t solicitor general defending the executive order at the
(10:38) time oh yes Senator okay all right so let’s just skip all that and let’s just get to to the substance here let’s you were the solicitor general you defended it you made the argument so why is it that Walmart and Lowe’s can be open but churches had to be closed senator I think that if you study that case uh you I’ve read the case i have it right here the the procedural history you’ll see that it actually reflects my respect for religious liberty so at that time in May of 2020 uh the prevailing law was Chief Justice uh Why is it
(11:11) respectful to to close churches but not to close Walmart and Lowe’s listen I got nothing against Walmart and Lowe’s i like those stores fine i was at both of them last weekend but I was also in church last weekend and what the procedural history shows is in jurisdiction after jurisdiction during COVID governments discriminated and I use that word advisedly discriminated against people of faith particularly Christian churches Catholic churches Orthodox Jewish synagogues including your state including this executive
(11:43) order i want to know why do why was it that you argued that churches ought to be closed but Lowe’s could be open explain that to me Senator so what Chief Justice Roberts said in the South Bay decision uh was that those kind of retail establishments have short-lived durations and for uh the relevantly similar uh activity uh was short-lived duration i I don’t I don’t know what you’re talking about well Senator if I could if I was it a mistake to close churches while you allowed Lowe’s and Walmart to be open so that is what the
(12:15) Supreme Court held about a year later and and the point I’m trying to make I’m asking you was it a mistake for you to argue to this court that it was fine to close these churches but Lowe’s at Walmart could be open do you regret it Senator i I had a duty to represent my You don’t You don’t regret it i I You have the benefit of retrospect now do you regret it Senator i I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to criticize the policy decisions that I was asked to make you don’t You have no problem with it here’s what else you told the court
(12:43) he also told the court that if a church raised an objection to this if the church said “No no no we think we need to meet indoors.” Who did they have to answer to they had to explain themselves to the sheriff or local law enforcement the cops and the cops would then make a determination about the church’s theology do you remember that do you remember that yes yes sir yeah and so do you remember what the court said about that so the court uh enjoined uh the governor’s order in that respect court says this court has grave concerns
(13:13) about how that answer your answer comports with the free exercise clause then the court went on to say that yeah you couldn’t enforce the law why not the government cannot treat I’m quoting cannot treat religious worship as a world apart from non-religious activities with no good or more importantly no constitutional explanation what do you have to say about that senator uh after that TTRO enter order was entered uh in consultation with my client we chose not to appeal at a time when it was uh abundantly clear that we would have prevailed on
(13:49) appeal because the prevailing law at the time was Chief Justice Roberts’s concurrence in South Bay and so I actually think that that reflects Well so you were doing you you you’re saying that you really were doing churches a favor by making these arguments for him by shutting them down while Lowe’s at Walmart and bars and and who knows what else were were all open senator I didn’t design that policy you defended it and you just sat here and told me you don’t have any regrets about it let here here’s the deal i’ve seen a
(14:14) parade of people sit in your seat who did the same thing the same exact thing our respect for our rights our constitutional rights our civil liberties they’re not tested when it’s easy they’re tested when it’s hard after 9/11 we found out who really believed in civil liberties and who didn’t in the CO era we found out who believed in the right to free exercise and who didn’t and it looks like you didn’t and now you were in good company there were a lot of people just like you who did what you did who discriminated against churches
(14:40) who defended it and said “Well it’s just it’s a necessity it’s a necessity.” But what that tells me is when push comes to shove you think the First Amendment is optional it’s not optional and I’m I haven’t voted for a single person who shut down churches and I’m sure as heck not going to vote for you and I’ll just say to what remains of this administration if you keep sending people up here who voted to shut down churches and openly discriminated against people of faith you’re going to get this reaction every darn time you
(15:06) should be telling me you regret this it was an error it was unconstitutional you shouldn’t have made those arguments in retrospect you regret it that would be the answer you should have given you didn’t and you will not have my vote [Music]