“It’s not lost on me that nominees of color have been treated differently in our hearings,” Padilla told Republicans in a Judiciary Committee hearing today.
“Whether it’s insinuations of a ‘rap sheet’ or hostility about their qualifications or views."
It got a bit tense in this hearing.
It started with Padilla taking issue with the way Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) treated a Black judicial nominee, Andre Mathis.
She recently said she had concerns with him and referenced his “rap sheet" with "a laundry list of citations."
In fact, that "rap sheet" was related to three speeding tickets that Mathis didn't pay, from 10+ years ago.
Padilla: “Let’s be clear: Mr. Mathis is not a career criminal or a violent felon, as the question implied. He has never been arrested or convicted of a crime.... Tones like what I heard during his hearing are demeaning, offensive & just plain wrong."
Padilla said Mathis "unfortunately isn’t the only nominee to receive this kind of treatment” and said his GOP colleagues -- who were sitting right there -- need to be “cognizant of this disparity” in the way they treat nominees of color.
Some Republicans got very mad.
Mike Lee said Padilla's claims were "grossly inaccurate, extraordinarily unfair + also of the very sort of comment that would incite people to anger, acts of retaliation and violence."
Josh Hawley said he was "deeply disappointed" by Padilla's claims of racism.
Yeah, this Josh Hawley.
Patrick Leahy -- longest serving senator + former Judiciary chairman -- echoed Padilla, but was more diplomatic sounding.
“I worry about the charges made against some nominees, which seem to be, in some cases, thinly veiled charges because they are a woman or a person of color."
He was more blunt about GOPers treating women + people of color differently last fall.
“I’ve seen, in my years here, which is longer than anybody else’s...a disproportionate number of votes against women and people of color, especially women of color."
ICYMI last night: After years of ugly partisan fights and failures, the Senate introduced a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that could actually pass and become law.
It’s been an embarrassingly bumpy road for VAWA reauthorization in Congress.
Once upon a time, this was legislation that passed unanimously in both chambers. How can you not support $ and updates to programs credited with stopping violence against women + saving people’s lives?
But it's been 3 years since Congress let VAWA's authorization expire.
That doesn’t mean the 1994 law expired. It means there’s been uncertainty for its grant programs + no ability to update the law with new protections that domestic violence advocates say are badly needed.
NEW: Today, after years of ugly partisan fights and failures, the Senate introduced a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that could actually pass and become law.
The biggest reason the Senate hasn't been able to pass a VAWA reauth bill in years because Republicans wouldn't support anything -- even their own bill.
What finally got GOP senators on board with this one?
The bill sponsors took out a gun safety provision opposed by the NRA.
That provision would have prohibited people who have been convicted of abusing their dating partners from owning firearms, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”
Major concession here. Even the bill's 2 GOP sponsors, Murkowski and Ernst, fought to keep it in. No deal.
"The Senate is finally responding," Sen. Durbin says of today's introduction of a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. "We are confident the deal we reached ... has a path to being signed by President Biden."
"So folks," Sen. Ernst says of sponsoring the new VAWA bill. "I'm a survivor."
The biggest problem for passing a VAWA reauth bill out of the Senate, for years, has been that Rs won't support the bills that pass the House, that Senate Ds introduce or the bills they introduce themselves.
Today, there are 4 R senators here. And I'm told they have 10 on board.
Because remember how well that went for Obama when he picked Merrick Garland?
Also, a reminder that in the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson, 3 Republicans joined Dems last year in voting to confirm her to her current U.S. appeals court seat.
Every Republican voted to confirm her to her previous U.S. district court seat.
What possible benefit is there to Biden intentionally picking a "centrist/moderate" Supreme Court nominee to appease the GOP?
Today, a Republican congressman went on the House floor and tried to downplay the deaths of children from COVID-19. huffpost.com/entry/republic…
"Many of these children had ... underlying medical conditions, making them more vulnerable to severe COVID-19 than the average child," said Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.).
"Meaning that many of these children died with COVID, not of COVID."
"That’s real science, not political science."
Except... had these children not become infected with COVID, they would not have died from it.