WASHINGTON (CN) — Although a contentious meeting in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week culminated in a Republican vow against bipartisanship, the panel’s GOP lawmakers largely voted with their Democratic colleagues Thursday to advance a slate of White House judicial nominees.
The upper chamber met to consider three federal district court appointments just days after Republicans stormed out of a meeting during which Democrats voted to authorize a pair of subpoenas for influential conservative figures Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo — part of lawmakers’ ongoing inquiry into ethically questionable conduct at the Supreme Court.
That debacle, however, went mostly unmentioned at Thursday’s business meeting.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the Judiciary Committee’s Republican ranking member, said that he would “have some talks later on” about last week’s subpoena vote, but quickly moved on to other matters.
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley opted to submit his own thoughts on the incident into the committee record. The senior committee member and former panel chair took issue with Democrats' invocation of actions taken under his leadership to justify ramming through last week's subpoenas.
"I followed the rules," Grassley wrote in the statement, made public Thursday afternoon. "I never asked to suspend the rules. I let everyone speak who wanted to."
The Iowa senator also criticized Democrats for ignoring attempts by Republicans, using a procedural mechanism, to limit debate to two hours and delay the subpoena vote, arguing that he had "always respected and abided by the two-hour rule."
"I adjourned in a timely manner and didn’t attempt to ram through additional business," Grassley wrote.
Even with Grassley's recorded statements, the lack of active discussion about last week's debacle was “the elephant in the room,” said Carl Tobias, chair of the University of Richmond School of Law.
“For now, both parties seem to be agreeing to disagree,” he observed, “which allows the [Judiciary Committee] to complete other important business, especially advancing Biden judicial nominees as it did today.”
Indeed, the committee voted Thursday to advance two nominees for vacancies in the Northern District of Oklahoma: Sara Hill and John Russell. Both appointees had received the backing of Oklahoma’s Republican Senate delegation.
Some Republicans have expressed reservations about Hill, who previously served as attorney general for the Cherokee Nation.
Texas Senator John Cornyn raised concerns Thursday about some of the nominee’s previous statements about U.S. treatment of Indigenous tribes, but said that he would defer to “the judgment of our colleagues from Oklahoma.” Cornyn ultimately voted in favor of both Hill and Russell’s appointments.
Both nominees cleared the Judiciary Committee on a widely bipartisan basis — Hill by a margin of 14-7, and Russell by a vote of 18-3.
The panel also advanced the nomination of Ramona Manglona, renominated by the Biden administration to serve on the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. Only one Republican lawmaker, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, voted against sending Manglona’s appointment to the full chamber.
Bipartisan consensus on the Oklahoma nominees shows that “vacancies in red states can be filled when the White House and home state senators cooperate to nominate well qualified, mainstream nominees,” Tobias said.
It’s also significant that both nominees maintained the backing of Oklahoma’s senators, he added, because the lawmakers faced pressure from state Governor Kevin Stitt to pull their support.
But that cross-aisle cooperation contrasts sharply with rhetoric from committee Republicans after last week’s subpoena vote.
Raging against his Democratic colleagues during the Nov. 30 business meeting, Graham said that his colleagues’ effort would “fundamentally change the way the committee operates.” The South Carolina Republican later suggested to reporters that the GOP would consider backing away from bipartisan cooperation on judicial nominees.
Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who voted for two of three nominees Thursday, told Courthouse News last week that Democrats “won't be able to get a resolution praising mom, apple pie and baseball across the Senate floor” thanks to their subpoena vote.
Although the committee voted 11-0, absent any Republican votes, to approve subpoenas for Crow and Leo last week, lawmakers disagree whether the legal summonses are enforceable.
The panel’s GOP members contend that Democrats violated committee rules by holding a vote in the absence of a quorum — Republicans walked out during the roll call. Committee chair Dick Durbin has declared the subpoenas authorized, and other Democrats have said that the vote is valid despite the GOP’s protest.
Graham signaled to reporters Nov. 30 that committee Republicans would not formally challenge the subpoena, but contended that Crow and Leo could ignore the summons amid questions about their validity.
A spokesperson for Crow, a billionaire real estate mogul who reportedly lavished Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with luxury vacations and other gifts, told Courthouse News that Democrats’ probe was “unlawful and partisan.”
Follow @BenjaminSWeiss
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Guns in the courthouse April 18, 2024
-
Denmark’s defense falls flat for NATO standards April 18, 2024 -
