June 4, 2018 the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell the Honorable Charles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

June 4, 2018 The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Charles Schumer United States Senate United States Senate S230 US Capitol S221 US Capitol Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Charles Grassley The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Feinstein: The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) writes to express its strong opposition to the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Bounds lacks the necessary judgement to be a fair and effective judge. He failed to disclose his controversial writings to the Oregon bipartisan judicial selection committee authored during his time at Stanford University, which express hostility toward multiculturalism and diversity. Bounds’s articles often used derogatory language, advocated against academic sanctions for sexual assault perpetrators, and compared student protests against unfair business practices to an assault on the business. When asked by Senator Durbin during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing if he thought his writings from Stanford “express insensitive, intolerant, and disdaining views toward racial and ethnic minorities, campus sexual assault victims, and the LGBTQ community,” Bounds replied, ‘I do not believe so.” These writings and Bounds’s ideological views reveal strong biases that call into question his ability to judge issues and fairly apply the law. In addition to Bounds’s troubling omissions and hostile ideologies, moving forward with this nomination demonstrates a continued disregard for Senate traditions that exist to safeguard an independent judiciary. Neither Senator Wyden nor Senator Merkley have consented to this nomination by returning their blue slip. Holding a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a nominee without both blue slips returned is unprecedented. Further, Oregon’s bipartisan judicial selection committee was blatantly disregarded throughout the nomination process. Oregon’s senators noted, “it is now apparent that you never intended to allow our longstanding process to play out. Instead, you have demonstrated that you were only interested in our input if we were willing to preapprove your preferred nominee.” The hypocrisy of this partisan-driven reversal of Senate tradition demonstrates a shameful lack of respect for the process and the judiciary. The substantial omissions and lack of procedure are deeply troubling, and NCJW believes that moving forward with Bounds’s Senate floor vote would set a dangerous precedent for this country and our court system. Accordingly, we strongly urge the Senate to oppose this nominee. Sincerely, Nancy K. Kaufman CEO National Council of Jewish Women .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year by Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018
13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year By Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018 The bitter nomination process involving now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which culminated in a contested confirmation vote on October 6, brought the importance of the federal judiciary to the forefront of American politi- cal consciousness. Around the country, tens of thousands of people rallied to protest the influence and effects of the judicial system on issues affecting everyone: health care reproductive rights, civil rights, disability justice, gun violence prevention, and more.1 Although Senate Republican leaders worked hard to shield Kavanaugh’s record from public oversight, hundreds of brave people risked arrest to protest both outside and inside Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and, later, at the sham hear- ing2 to investigate the legitimate claim of sexual assault made against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford. Yet, while concerned citizens were rightfully paying attention to the important debate taking place over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate were also busy reshaping the lower federal courts. This year, the Senate confirmed a record 65 lower court judges3 to lifetime seats on the federal judiciary. An additional 67 judicial nominees are currently pending Senate action;4 the Senate could still vote on these nominations before the end of the year. In short, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate are working at a breakneck pace to turn the federal courts into a hyper-conservative body that will implement a partisan political agenda from the bench.
[Show full text]
ISSUE BRIEF No
ISSUE BRIEF No. 4858 | MAY 24, 2018 Blue Slips for Judicial Nominations: Veto vs. Input Thomas Jipping our nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals have then-Senator Joseph Biden (D–DE; 1987–1994). He Fbecome controversial because of an important, will hold a hearing for nominees if the White House but often misunderstood, feature of the judicial con- has adequately consulted with home-state Senators. firmation process. That feature, called the “blue-slip” courtesy, highlights the views of Senators from a state The Nominees in which a judicial nominee would serve. A dispute has Four of President Donald Trump’s nominees to arisen regarding whether the views of those home-state the U.S. Court of Appeals have become controversial Senators should dictate, or merely influence, whether because one or both of their home-state Senators have the Senate considers these nominees. More specifi- declined to return a blue slip.2 Chairman Grassley cally, the question is whether a negative or withheld decided to hold a hearing for each of them after being blue slip should be treated as a veto or as input. Any satisfied that those Senators had been adequately means of highlighting the views of home-state Senators consulted, and three have so far been confirmed. about judicial nominees is a courtesy and not required David Stras (Eighth Circuit). President Trump by any Senate rule. Each Judiciary Committee chair- first nominated Stras to the Eighth Circuit on May man, therefore, is free to decide whether, and how, to 8, 2017. Stras had served on the Minnesota Supreme incorporate those views into the confirmation process.
[Show full text]
Yale Law & Policy Review Inter Alia
YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW INTER ALIA Senate Blue Slips and Senate Regular Order Carl Tobias* Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court confirmation process exacerbated the striking divisiveness, rampant partisanship, and stunning paybacks that have systematically plagued the federal judicial selection process. The Senate basically ended any true debate when the Republican majority peremptorily detonated the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees. This measure, which the Senate implemented by a majority vote, limited filibusters regarding all judicial nominees, allowing a simple majority ballot to confirm a nominee. The requirement of sixty votes for cloture to end debate had supplied critical protection for the Senate minority, particular senators from states that experienced vacancies, and the constituents whom they represent. One century-long practice that does remain is the “blue slip.” Now that the Senate minority has very few protections, the blue slip acts as a crucial safeguard. Under Senate tradition, whenever the President submits a federal district or appeals court nominee, the Judiciary Committee Chair sends a blue slip of paper to each senator who represents the state in which the nominee will sit, and those senators can delay the nomination by refusing to return the slip. Blue slip retention comprises the major protection in the selection process for senators, especially those who are not in the chief executive’s party. However, confusion attends the construct’s application. Therefore, recent changes in the blue slip practice by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), powerful support for Grassley’s perspectives regarding slips from many Republican senators, and new threats by other Grand Old Party (GOP) * Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law.
[Show full text]
Full Article
THE HYDRAULIC THEORY OF OPPOSITION Ian M. Swenson * For many years scholars and the public have assumed that Circuit Court confirmation hearings, like Supreme Court confirmation hearings, are con- tentious and focused on hot button issues such as abortion. In fact, this article will show that prior to the Trump administration Circuit Court nom- inees were rarely questioned about abortion and hearings were rarely con- tentious. But in the 115th Congress (the first two years of the Trump ad- ministration) the majority of nominees were questioned about abortion— some of them at great length. This article seeks to explain this change in senatorial behavior and suggests that it is the result of legal and political pressures on the senators as well as changes to Senate procedures. This is the Hydraulic Theory of Opposition. The legal and political pressures on * JD, New York University School of Law, 2019. My thanks to Dean Trevor Morrison for his supervision. My thanks also to Luke Goveas, Cameron Sinsheimer, and Nicholas Gallagher, for their smart and helpful edits. Thanks finally to the editors of the Journal of Law & Liberty for their terrific work preparing this article for publication. 205 206 New York University Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 14:205 the Democratic senators drive them to oppose these nominees based on the nominees’ presumed position vis-à-vis abortion; and the way the Senate structures its procedures determines how this opposition manifests. Because the Senate has eliminated sub rosa forms of opposition—such as the filibus- ter and Blue Slips—contentious confirmation hearings are now how that opposition manifests.
[Show full text]
May 8, 2018 United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224
May 8, 2018 United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Committee Members: On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members of People For the American Way throughout the nation, we write in strong opposition to holding a committee hearing for Ninth Circuit nominee Ryan Bounds over the objections of both of his home state senators. Rather than advancing this nomination, Chairman Chuck Grassley should be urging the president to withdraw it. Under the chairman’s policy for President Obama’s nominees, the opposition of even one home state senator was sufficient to prevent a hearing. But when Donald Trump became president, the chairman adopted a new policy, holding hearings for two circuit court nominees who had the support of only one home state senator. Now, with the Bounds hearing, Chairman Grassley is destroying the blue slip policy altogether. Unilaterally changing the rules based solely on who it benefits is the antithesis of the rule of law, and it is toxic to a democracy. How ironic it is that this is happening in the Judiciary Committee, which is tasked to make sure our future judges will protect the rule of law. The blue slip policy is not simply a courtesy; it is also a check on untrammeled power. The Constitution divides responsibility for staffing our courts between the president and the Senate. This bifurcation is intended to limit the president’s ability to put dangerously unqualified people on the bench. The blue slip policy—no hearings without the consent of both home state senators—has been a vital safety measure protecting the federal judiciary.
[Show full text]
Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 4 Article 6 May 2019 Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies Carl Tobias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Repository Citation Carl Tobias, Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1113 (2019), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss4/6 Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj FILLING THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACANCIES Carl Tobias* ABSTRACT Upon Republican President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit experienced some pressing appellate vacancies, which the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) carefully identified as “judicial emergencies” because the tribunal resolves a massive docket. Last year’s death of the iconic liberal champion Stephen Reinhardt and the late 2017 departure of libertarian former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski—who both assumed pivotal circuit leadership roles over numerous years—and a few of their colleagues’ decision to leave active court service thereafter, mean the tribunal presently confronts four judicial emergencies and resolves most slowly the largest number of appeals. The 2016 and 2018 federal election cycles—which render uncertain the party that will capture the presidency and the Senate at the polls in 2020—show that more posts could open when additional jurists determine that they will change status across the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, striking partisanship will frustrate the effort to appoint Ninth Circuit judges.
[Show full text]
Trump's Takeover of the Courts
University of St. Thomas Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Who Decides? Picking Judges in the Article 3 21st Century April 2020 Trump's Takeover of the Courts Lena Zwarensteyn Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Lena Zwarensteyn, Trump's Takeover of the Courts, 16 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 146 (2020). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol16/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST203.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-APR-20 15:37 ARTICLE TRUMP’S TAKEOVER OF THE COURTS LENA ZWARENSTEYN* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 146 R II. TRUMP’S FIXATION ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ............ 147 R III. RIGGING THE JUDICIAL SELECTION AND NOMINATION PROCESS ................................................. 151 R A. The Judicial Selection and Nominations Process ....... 151 R B. Breaking Norms ..................................... 153 R C. Discarding Consultation and Blue Slips ............... 155 R D. Limiting Inquiry: Stacked and Sham Hearings ......... 158 R E. Speedy Confirmations ................................ 159 R IV. TAKING OVER THE COURTS ............................... 161 R A. Extreme Conservative Ideology ....................... 162 R B. Astonishing Lack of Representation and Diversity ..... 168 R C. Incompetence ........................................ 170 R 1. Lack of Experience ............................... 170 R 2. Judicial Temperament and Bias ................... 173 R 3. Hidden Records and Omissions ................... 175 R V.
[Show full text]
Graffiti in the Time of Protests by Julie Engbloom, USDCHS President “The Boisterous Sea of Liberty Is Never Without a Wave.”
THE U.S. DIstRICT COURT OF OREGON HIstORICAL SOCIETY NEWSLEttER President’s Message Graffiti in the Time of Protests By Julie Engbloom, USDCHS President The quote, etched in granite on the front of Continue on page 7 www.usdchs.org Spring/Summer 2020 1 The Investiture of U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut By U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman O 2 U.S. District Court of Oregon Historical Society By U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman enter the courtroom and sit behind The hardest part of my job dur- On Liberty, During a Pandemic the bench in silence, without the ing this pandemic has been telling I ceremonial “all rise.” Instead of an individual, as we sit face-to-face, greeting the defendant, defense law- that I cannot sign his release order. yer, prosecutor, and a small crowd of No one could have predicted that a onlookers in the gallery, I sit alone video hearing could create a more inti- and turn on my computer. On the mate connection between judge and monitor, the split-screen captures defendant, compared to the antiseptic video feeds from all over the state: courtroom where the defendant usu- an individual in custody in federal ally sits far from the judge. In our new prison, a defense lawyer sitting at his virtual courtroom, I cannot escape kitchen table, the prosecutor sitting in what I see in the eyes in front of me. her home office, a court reporter, an But still I must tell many of them no. interpreter, and me, seated and robed I also see the eyes of those to whom at my courtroom bench, positioned in I am able to give liberty.
[Show full text]
7 Policy Links Among the Citizenry, the President, and the Federal
CHAPTER Policy Links Among the Citizenry, the 7 President, and the Federal Judiciary Chapter Goals and Objectives In this chapter, readers will learn that . • The ability of a president to make an impact upon the decision-making output of the federal courts rests upon four key factors. distribute • The President’s values and policy references are often manifested via their judicial appointees’ decisions. or • Presidents Trump and Obama are, in differing ways, positioned to have significant influences upon the federal judiciary. ecause this book is about judicial policymaking,post, it is appropriate to examine B the links between the policy values of the elected chief executive and the decisional propensities of federal judges. If in electing one presidential can- didate rather than another, the citizenry expresses its policy choices, do such choices spill over into the kinds of judges presidents appoint and the way those judges decide policy-relevant cases? For instance, if the people decide in an elec- tion that they want a president who will reduce the size and powers of the federal bureaucracy, does copy,that president subsequently appoint judges who share that philosophy? And equally important, when those judges hear cases that give them the opportunity either to expand or to reduce the extent of a bureaucrat’s power, do they opt for the reduction of authority? Recent evidence, while incomplete, suggestsnot the existence of some policy links. This phenomenon will be examined by means of two questions. First, what critical factors must exist to enable presidents to obtain a judiciary that reflects their own political philosophy? Second, what empirical evidence is there to sug- Dogest that judges’ decisions to some degree carry the imprint of the presidents who selected them? 192 Copyright ©2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
[Show full text]
Trump's Judicial Assault on Lgbt Protections
SPECIAL REPORT 2019 TRUMP’S JUDICIAL ASSAULT ON LGBT PROTECTIONS AFTER THREE YEARS OF TRUMP NOMINEES, BIAS AND BIGOTRY REMAIN THE NORM INTRODUCTION AS WE NEAR THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE TRUMP-PENCE ADMINISTRATION, THE PROMISE OF A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY HAS COME UNDER INCREASING THREAT. The Trump Administration, enabled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, and advised by a powerful but shrouded network of right wing organizations, has worked tirelessly to confirm ideologically driven judges to lifetime appointments in order to further their ultra- conservative policy objectives through the Federal courts. As an organization that has defended the rights of LGBT people in the courts for over 40 years, Lambda Legal believes that it has an obligation to the communities that we serve to sound the alarm about the impact that these nominees will have on the ability of LGBT people to receive fair and impartial justice. THREE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM OUR ANALYSIS 1 After three years, the overall story remains the same; over 1 in 3 of Trump’s circuit court nominees (36%) have a demonstrated history of anti-LGBT bias. This year they included: Steven Menashi, who supported banning LGB people from the military and denigrated the marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawrence Van Dyke who claimed that marriage equality harms children and society. Eric Murphy, who argued the opposing side in Obergefell v. Hodges. Chad Readler, who had his fingerprints on almost every Trump-Pence initiative seeking to undermine LGBT protections while serving in the U.S.
[Show full text]
Les États-Unis Divisés. La Démocrafi
Septembre 2019 LES ÉTATS-UNIS DIVISÉS LA DÉMOCRATIE AMÉRICAINE À L’ÉPREUVE DE LA PRÉSIDENCE TRUMP Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.) ÉTUDE – n o 68 LES ÉTATS-UNIS DIVISÉS LA DÉMOCRATIE AMÉRICAINE À L’ÉPREUVE DE LA PRÉSIDENCE TRUMP Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.) Pour citer cette étude Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.), Les États- Unis divisés : la démocratie américaine à l’épreuve de la présidence Trump, Étude n° 68, IRSEM, septembre 2019. Dépôt légal ISSN : 2268-3194 ISBN : 978-2-11-152698-3 DERNIÈRES ÉTUDES DE L’IRSEM 67. Le Financement chinois dans le secteur des transports en Afrique : un risque maîtrisé Juliette GENEVAZ et Denis TULL 66. L’Expérience militaire dans les médias (2008-2018). Une diversification des formes de récits Bénédicte CHÉRON 65. MCO 4.0. Le potentiel des technologies de l’industrie 4.0 appliquées au maintien en condition opérationnelle (MCO) des équipements de défense Josselin DROFF, ICA Benoît RADEMACHER 64. Impact des nouveaux modèles économiques industriels sur les équipements des armées Dr Antoine PIETRI, ICA Benoît RADEMACHER 63. Le Rôle des armées dans la fonction « intégration » de l’État Barbara JANKOWSKI 62. Le Gazoduc Nord Stream 2. Enjeux politiques et stratégiques Céline MARANGÉ, Angélique PALLE et Sami RAMDANI 61. Améliorer la résilience psychologique des combattants et de leurs familles. Pour une prévention permettant de limiter l’impact psychologique d’un traumatisme et/ou de faciliter le rétablissement LCL Arnaud PLANIOL 60. L’Activité de renseignement des groupes jihadistes COL Olivier PASSOT 59. France and Poland Facing the Evolution of the Security Environment Barbara JANKOWSKI and Amélie ZIMA (eds.) ÉQUIPE PRÉSENTATION DE L’IRSEM Directeur Créé en 2009, l’Institut de recherche stratégique de l’École militaire Jean-Baptiste JEANGÈNE VILMER (IRSEM) est un organisme extérieur de la Direction générale des relations internationales et de la stratégie (DGRIS) du ministère des Directeur scientifique Armées.
[Show full text]
Courts, Confirmations, & Consequences
Courts, Conﬁrmations, & Consequences: How Trump Restructured the Federal Judiciary and Ushered in a Climate of Unprecedented Hostility toward LGBTQ+ People and Civil Rights An Analysis by Lambda Legal January 2021 OVERVIEW The Trump-Pence Administration has caused for more than 40 years, Lambda Legal has fought this unprecedented harm to the promise of a fair and harm at every turn. We have repeatedly sounded the alarm independent federal judiciary. Enabled and abetted by about these dangerous nominees and have continually Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate warned about the impact that they will have on the ability Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, and of LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV to receive advised by a powerful but shrouded network of far-right fair and impartial justice. The Trump-Pence wing organizations, the Trump-Pence Administration has Administration will soon no longer be in the White been laser-focused on confirming ideologically-driven House, but the lifetime tenure of the over two hundred judges to lifetime appointments in order to further their Trump-appointed judges will have only just begun. ultra-conservative policy objectives through the federal Since Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, Lambda courts. After nearly four years of pushing through a Legal’s team of legal experts mounted an aggressive and judicial nominations at breakneck speed, the actions of painstaking four-year effort to meticulously monitor, Senate Republicans during the waning hours of this track, document, and analyze the extent to which Trump’s administration – from a rushed confirmation of a Supreme influence over the federal judiciary would impact the lives Court justice while a national election was already of LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV.
[Show full text]