U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy October 17, 2018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-3642 October 17, 2018 Mr. Gabe Roth Fix the Court 1440 G Street NW, Suite 801 Re: DOJ-2018-007104 (OLP) Washington, DC 20005 18-cv-02091 (D.D.C.) [email protected] VRB:SJD Dear Mr. Roth: This is our second interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated and received in this Office on July 24, 2018, for correspondence between the Office of Legal Policy and Brett Kavanaugh from January 20, 2001 to May 30, 2006. This response is made on behalf of the Office of Legal Policy (OLP). In our letter dated October 5, 2018, we provided you with an interim release of seventy- four pages containing records responsive to your request. At this time, I have determined that an additional 619 pages are appropriate for release without excision, and copies are enclosed. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2012 & Supp. V 2017). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Laura Hunt of the Department’s Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch at (202) 616-8207. Sincerely, Vanessa R. Brinkmann Senior Counsel Enclosures Schauder, Andrew From: Schauder, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2001 11:28 AM To: Newstead, Jennifer; Ciongoli, Adam; '[email protected]%inetgw'; '[email protected]%inetgw'; Bryant, Dan; Ullman, Kristen A; Long, Linda E; Benedi, Lizette D; Rabjohns, Lori; Day, Lori Sharpe; '[email protected]%inetgw'; Tucker, Mindy; Suit, Neal; Coniglio, Peter J; Joy, Sheila; '[email protected]%inetgw'; '[email protected]%inetgw'; Dinh, Viet; Martinson, Wanda S; '[email protected]%inetgw' Subject: Judicial Media Review Attachments: Judicial Media Review 9-04-01.wpd Attached is the Judicial Media Review from yesterday (9/4) Document ID: 0.7.19343.5702 Media Review- Judicial Nominations Tuesday, September 4, 2001 General Judicial Articles "Schumer Says Bush’s Nominees Should Have To Persuade Senators To2 Give Them Judgeships," Jesse Holland, The Associated Press, September 4, 2001 "Bar Questions Bush Nominee About Ethics," 3 Courtney Kinney, The Kentucky Post, August 31, 2001 "Hispanic Leaders Rally In Support of Judicial Nominee," 5 The Associated Press , August 31, 2001 "Trial Lawyer Blasts Judge Nomination," 6 Maria Titze, The Deseret News , August 31, 2001 "Utah Defense Attorneys Oppose Nomination Of Cassell To Federal Court,"7 The Associated Press , August 31, 2001 "U. Prof's Bench Nomination Questioned; Cassell 's Road To Federal Bench8 Full Of Potholes," Greg Burton and Michael The Vigh, Salt Lake Tribune August 31, 2001 Op/Eds "AR Joins 'Shake The Nation' Campaign, Says It's Time To Restore Sense10 To Judiciary; 'The Era Of Judicial Activism And Social Engineering Under The Color Of Law Must End,' Says Richard Lessner, Executive Director," PR Newswire , September 4, 2001 "Yes, Litmus-Test For Judges," 11 Joseph Califano, Jr., The Washington Post, August 31, 2001 "Too Late For Arguello?" 13 Rocky Mountain News , September 1, 2001 "Judges And The Constitution; Everything Is Politics, Nothing Is Principle,"14 Roger Pilon, The National Review , September 4, 2001 Transcripts/Members of Congress 1 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5702-000001 *NONE* Interest Groups/Press Releases "Judging Terry" 16 Jake Tapper, Salon.com , September 1, 2001 www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/01/wooten/index.html General Judicial Articles Schumer Says Bush’s Nominees Should Have To Persuade Senators To Give Them Judgeships By Jesse Holland The Associated Press Tuesday, September 4, 2001 President Bush's judicial nominees should have to fight to get lifetime federal judgeships instead of senators having to find reasons to keep them off the federal bench once they're nominated, a top Judiciary Committee Democrat said Tuesday. "Given the stakes at hand, it makes sense that the burden should rest with the nominees," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., head of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on judges. "We require parties who appear before a court to prove their case. It is not unreasonable to ask those who come before the Senate seeking a lifetime appointment to the federal bench to do the same." Conservatives immediately accused Schumer of trying to find ways to keep Bush's nominees from being confirmed in the Democrat-controlled Senate by changing the traditional deference senators give most presidential nominees. "Democrats want an excuse to vote against a qualified nominee if he doesn't share their politics," said Thomas Jipping, director of the Free Congress Foundation's Judicial Selection Monitoring Project. "In advocating a shifting of the burden of proof, Democrats want an excuse to vote against a qualified nominee who doesn't answer their political questions." The GOP has been complaining about the pace of approval of judicial nominations under the Democrat-controlled Senate. There are at least 107 vacancies in the federal court system, and there are 44 judicial nominations pending. Only four judges have been confirmed by the Senate this year. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the subcommittee said he could see that very thing happening. "The Democrats could say that they would vote against a nominee if he answers a question in a 2 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5702-000001 manner that shows he is conservative," he said. "On the other hand, the Democrats could say they would vote against a nominee if he refuses to answer their questions because he hasn't borne his burden." Schumer, who held a hearing to explore whether nominees should have to prove they're worthy to get a lifetime judgeship, said forcing candidates to defend their nominations would net more qualified judges. "Imagine a job interview where you walk in and it's up to the interviewer to either automatically hire you or find something in your past that disqualifies you," Schumer said. "Provided you sit there with your mouth shut, or at the most, voice meaningless platitudes, and as long as there's no major skeleton in your closet, you're a shoo-in for the job. Is that the best way to find the best person for the job? Of course not." Republicans disagreed. "The most significant burden born by a candidate for a judgeship is to convince the president that he or she is the best person for the job," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Judiciary Committee's top Republican. Added Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ken.: If nominees "are men and women of integrity, are qualified, have a judicial temperament, and will follow the Constitution and statutes as they are written and intended, then we should confirm them." Bar Questions Bush Nominee About Ethics By Courtney Kinney The Kentucky Post Friday, August 31, 2001 The American Bar Association is asking questions about the ethics of a Lexington lawyer whose nomination for a federal judgeship by President Bush could station him in Covington. Prestonsburg lawyer Ned Pillersdorf said an attorney from the ABA called him earlier this week asking about Danny Reeves, 44, a judicial nominee who defended environmental lawsuits against Ashland Inc. in the 1990s. The ABA caller wanted more information about a letter Pillersdorf wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month saying Reeves negotiated a settlement in 1997 that required several plaintiffs' lawyers to agree not to sue Ashland Inc. in the future with new clients. The cases involved nearly 40 residents of Lawrence and Johnson counties who claimed Ashland harmed their health and property when it dredged up radioactive material in the Martha oil field. Shortly before the cases were to go to trial, a confidential settlement agreement giving residents an undisclosed amount of money was signed. 3 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5702-000001 A Kentucky Supreme Court rule says lawyers can't make part of a settlement any agreement that would keep another lawyer from practicing. ''I don't think this is a trivial ethical violation,'' said Pillersdorf, who is representing a second batch of residents suing Ashland, now based in Covington. ''There's a reason the Supreme Court has that rule.'' Because the settlement was confidential, it is not known whether such a provision was actually in the agreement. But Pillersdorf said the lawyers' deal not to sue again has been common knowledge. ''I'm kind of surprised to see Ashland disputing it. It's not been a secret,'' he said. Shortly after the March 1997 settlement, several dozen more residents of the Martha area filed their own suits against Ashland Inc. No lawyer from the first group of cases is handling cases for the second. ''It's quite odd,'' Pillersdorf said. The ABA will not say whether it is investigating Reeves, said Boston lawyer Roscoe Trimmier Jr., chairman of the ABA standing committee on the federal judiciary. The ABA has been asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which confirms appointments, to review all judicial nominations. Ashland spokesman Stan Lampe said Pillerdorf's allegation is bogus and no one at Ashland has been contacted by the ABA regarding Reeves. ''The charge is unwarranted and groundless,'' he said. Reeves did not return calls made to his Lexington office. He is one of three lawyers nominated by Bush to fill judicial vacancies in the Eastern District.