Thread by @Headsnipe011

Grassley to Judiciary Committee Minority Members - September 17, 24 Nominations Hearings

@drawandstrike @HNIJohnMiller @catesduane @rising_serpent @Debradelai @GodlessNZ @almostjingo @tracybeanz @TheChiIIum @hfinch63

judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-…

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
The Honorable Christopher Coons
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono

The Honorable Cory A. Booker
The Honorable Kamala Harris Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Colleagues:
I write in response to your letter dated November 13, 2018, requesting second hearings for nominees who appeared before the Committee on October 17 and 24. I am unable to accommodate this request.

The Ranking Member specifically agreed to these hearing dates as part of an accommodation that I made to the Minority to reschedule previously planned hearings and alleviate the workload during Justice Kavanaugh’s reopened confirmation hearing.

If you remember, we had to reopen the hearing because Dr. Ford’s letter was held in secret for nearly seven weeks.

And then the letter was leaked after we held the original confirmation hearing, and after Justice Kavanaugh responded to more written questions than all prior Supreme Court nominees combined, and on the eve of his confirmation.

But, as usual in Washington, no good deed goes unpunished.

Your new complaint is that these rescheduled hearing dates fell during a three-week recess period before the midterm elections when American taxpayers continued to pay our salaries.

But, as we saw with the results of the midterm elections, the confirmation of judges is an important priority for the American people. I was not—and am not—willing to get off-track on this critical constitutional duty we have as senators.

As background, I informed the Ranking Member in August of my intent to hold hearings on September 26, October 10, and October 24.

As a courtesy and accommodation to the Ranking Member, I twice postponed the hearing originally scheduled for September 26 and also postponed the hearing originally scheduled for October 10. On October 1, the Ranking Member agreed to hold hearings on October 10, 17, and 24.

Because I was cognizant of the fact that there might be an objection to holding hearings three weeks in a row and potentially during a pre-election recess, I sought an agreement from the Ranking Member that the Minority would not object to the timing of these hearings.

The Ranking Member agreed to these terms, fully aware of the possibility the Senate could go into recess in October.1

I was disheartened to learn that, in the days leading up to the October 17 and 24 hearings, the Minority attempted to renege on this agreement.

The Committee relies on trust and comity in order to accomplish its important work. Respecting agreements about scheduling is essential to the functioning of this Committee.

And it’s important that nominees and their families know in advance when we will hold their hearings so that they can make the necessary travel arrangements. Indeed, it is a tremendous financial burden for nominees and their extended families to take time off work,

buy airline tickets, book hotels, and make other travel arrangements for the hearings. It is very unfair to these good Americans, who are oftentimes already making a sacrifice to step forward to serve, to have their plans wrecked at the last minute.

These hearings were scheduled well in advance of Senate leadership’s decision to go into recess. All members who had planned on attending the hearings could still have attended.

If a member who originally planned to attend the October 17 and 24 hearings decided to change their plans upon the Senate leadership’s decision to go into recess, that was that member’s prerogative.

But, as your letter points out, Republican members attended the hearings and asked questions of the nominees. Additionally, the October 17 and 24 hearing records remained open for an additional week, and Democratic members sent numerous written questions to the nominees.

I’m confident that each member of this Committee had ample opportunity to question the nominees.

I’ll add that this Committee has held hearings where only a single senator questioned a nominee.

For example, only one senator attended now-Justice Neil Gorsuch’s hearing when he was nominated to the Tenth Circuit. And it’s not out of the ordinary to hold hearings during recess, particularly when the Ranking Member has consented to the hearing dates, as was the case here.

The Committee has held at least eight nominations hearings since 2001, under chairmen of both parties, while the Senate was not in session.

Finally, you ask that I accommodate your request to hold another set of hearings for ten nominees based on the fact that Chairman Leahy once held a second hearing for a single nominee in 2009.

Respectfully, I believe I already made substantial accommodations to the Minority by postponing nominations hearings three times.

I will not further delay the confirmation process for these eminently qualified nominees for whom each member already had the opportunity to question under oath.

And I am not going to make these nominees and their families make another tremendous financial sacrifice to come to another hearing because you decided not to attend previously scheduled hearings to which the Ranking Member agreed.