Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Farce and Filibuster


Kathryn and Ed are right on the money. The idea that yet another Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Brett Kavanaugh is necessary, or even remotely appropriate, is a farce.  Chuck Schumer, when he was not busy parroting the PFAW “partisan warrior” talking point, said this morning that another hearing is “the least that can be done for the nominee to the second highest court in the land and a controversial nominee.”  Wrong. What needs to be done for any nominee who has already had hearings and has been pending for years, is to VOTE “aye” or “nay” on his nomination.  This is true in spades if the nominee is really a “controversial” one. Why? Because senators need to be on the record, doing their job, being accountable to their constitutents for how they represent them on “controversial” votes. (The only thing “controversial” about Kavanaugh is that he works for President Bush, whom the liberals despise, and previously worked as independent prosecutor investigating the misdeeds of the Clintons.)  There is ZERO chance that Chuck Schumer will be voting for Brett Kavanaugh, and there is no further testimony Brett can offer that would be edifying to any rational senator trying to decide how to vote on his nomination. So Schumer’s disingenous line that “a lot of things have happened since the last hearing, in the administration of which he is a part” is of ZERO relevance to anything concerning this nomination. It has nothing to do with his job as a member of the Committee or the Senate. It has to do with his desire to satisfy the liberal Left approaching the next election cycle.  If this is the behavior of Senate Democrats, we need more than ever to vote to clarify in Senate rules what the Constitution contemplates and two centuries of Senate practice have always upheld, until now: a President’s nominees to the federal courts shall not be filibustered.

Tags: Long


Subscribe to National Review