In past years, Feinstein, Schumer said nominee’s judicial record most important. So why not now?

In past years, Feinstein, Schumer said nominee’s judicial record most important. So why not now?

[Ed. – Democrats’ ever-changing rule book]

When President Donald Trump last month announced his nomination of federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the “American people deserve to know what kind of a justice” Kavanaugh would be.

He’s right.

How do you measure something like the “kind of a justice” a nominee will be? Nominees, after all, do not take a Myers-Briggs test or come with a score or a grade. Fortunately, we have some guidance from none other than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Schumer, D-N.Y.

In 2006, Kavanaugh was serving as White House staff secretary when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its second hearing on his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Feinstein, who today is the top committee Democrat, said, “Without a record as a trial lawyer or as a judge, it’s very difficult for some of us to know what kind of judge you would be.”

[…]

Schumer, a committee member in 2006 as well, said, “It is the judicial record, more than speeches and statements, more than personal background, that most accurately measures how modest a judicial nominee will be.”

Continue reading →

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using either the Spot.IM commenting system or the Facebook commenting system. If Spot.IM is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.