Judiciary Dems Force Through Crow, Leo Subpoenas by Breaking Senate Rules, Refusing to Allow Republicans to Speak

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing devolved into chaos on Thursday after Chairman Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) violated longstanding Senate protocol by refusing to allow committee Republicans to speak on a pair of judicial nominations, sidelining the minority in an effort to fast track a vote to subpoena GOP donor Harlan Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo in connection with their ties to Supreme Court justices.

All Republican members of the committee stormed out moments before the panel’s eleven Democrats voted to subpoena Crow and Leo, who have cropped up in a series of recent ProPublica reports which Democrats have cited in arguing that the pair have improperly influenced Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by paying for lavish vacations and providing them with other gifts.

The vote occurred just minutes shy of the committee’s two-hour hearing deadline. Aware the deadline was approaching, Durbin refused to allow Republicans to weigh in on two judicial nominations, arguing that they had had a chance to debate the nominations in previous sessions, a claim which Republicans pointed out was faulty given that not all members were present for those earlier debates.

“Are we going to have any opportunity to speak on the nominees?” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) asked. Durbin responded, “We’ve already done that at great length.” Several other Republicans jumped in to oppose the roll-call vote as Durbin proceeded, while Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) shouted, “Come on, man!”

“You’re going to have a lot of consequences coming if you go down this road,” Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said during the vote. “Listen to me, I’ve cautioned a lot of you.”

“So you’re telling us to shut up? You want us to shut up?” Senator Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) asked. “That’s what you’re saying.” After Blackburn’s comments were ignored, Cotton retorted, “I guess Senator Durbin is not going to let women speak either. I thought that was sacrosanct in your party.”

Committee Republicans accused Durbin of violating committee rule IV, which requires the committee to hold a roll-call vote to end debate on a topic before bringing it to a vote.

As Durbin announced the result of the first vote, Cornyn interjected, “Mr. Chairman you just destroyed one of the most important committees in the United States Senate. And you’ve set a precedent which will be repeated.”

“I don’t know who you’re trying to please. I don’t know what group is going to feel better because we’re doing this on your side but you’re pleasing like none of us,” Graham added. “This is about an ongoing effort to destroy this court, to destroy [conservative Justice] Clarence Thomas’s reputation.”

Leo and Crow, both of whom maintain that their relationships with the justices have been entirely above board, are unlikely to comply with the subpoenas, given that 60 Senate votes would be required to enforce them.

In a statement issued after the vote, Leo, who serves as co-chairman of the Federalist Society, agreed with Cornyn’s assessment that Durbin had badly damaged the Judiciary Committee by disregarding longstanding procedure.

“Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have been destroying the Supreme Court; now they are destroying the Senate. I will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution,” Leo said in a statement.

In comments to reporters after the hearing, Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) argued that the subpoenas are “invalid” because Durbin took the vote without Republican members present.

“Under the rules, the subpoena is not valid,” Cruz said. “The two-hour rule says you have to be concluded with your business, that nothing that happens after two hours is valid. And when they actually issued the subpoena, it was 12:02.”

Crow’s office also issued a statement in response to the vote, stating the “invalid subpoena further demonstrates the unlawful and partisan nature of the investigation.”

“Despite the unenforceability of the subpoena, Mr. Crow remains willing to engage with the Committee in good faith, just as he has consistently done throughout this process,” the statement read. “Mr. Crow offered extensive information responsive to the Committee’s requests despite his strong objections to its necessity and legality. So far, Committee Democrats have been dismissive of Mr. Crow’s good faith offer and unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue.”

“Committee Democrats have made intrusive demands of a private citizen that far exceed any reasonable standard and to this date have not explained why this request is necessary to craft legislation, particularly now that the Committee has completed its work on ethics legislation,” the statement continued. “Still, Mr. Crow maintains his readiness to discuss the matter further with the Committee.”