SPONSORED:

Judiciary advances 17 judicial nominees

Judiciary advances 17 judicial nominees
© Greg Nash

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced 17 judicial nominees, several of which were vehemently opposed by Democrats, to the floor for a vote Thursday, along with three nominees for top posts in the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The committee hearing largely focused on Thomas Farr, who Trump tapped for a lifetime seat on the federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Sen. Cory BookerCory BookerPolice reform talks hit familiar stumbling block Almost 20 advocacy groups team up to pressure Congress to pass health care bill for immigrants Biden adds pressure to congressional talks with self-imposed deadlines MORE (D-N.J.), one of the committee’s newest members, pushed Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck GrassleyChuck GrassleyOn The Money: Biden says workers can't turn down job and get benefits | Treasury launches state and local aid | Businesses jump into vax push Grassley criticizes Biden's proposal to provide IRS with B The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Infrastructure, Cheney ouster on deck as Congress returns MORE (R-Iowa) to hold over Farr’s nomination and schedule a second hearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Farr has faced accusations of lying to the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing in September about his involvement in a scheme to intimidate black voters during Jesse Helms’s campaign for a North Carolina Senate seat in 1992.

“Mr. Farr’s hearing before this committee occurred before Sen. [Kamala] Harris and I joined and we have not had the opportunity to ask Mr. Farr in person and to go through this testimony on these very troubling questions,” Booker said.

“We have factual implications that cast a shadow over the truthfulness of a person for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench,” he said.

In response to written questions following his hearing, Farr denied he had any involvement in the campaign’s mailing of more than 100,000 postcards to mostly African-American voters suggesting they were ineligible to vote or that voting could lead to criminal prosecution.

Sen. Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisSenate hears from Biden's high-profile judicial nominees for first time Senate Democrats take aim at 'true lender' interest rate rule Former North Carolina chief justice launches Senate campaign MORE (R-N.C.), who has long supported Farr, shot back, calling the accusations that Farr had anything to do with the mailings false.

"Destroying a good man’s reputation is inappropriate,” he said.

Grassley said he disagreed with the need for another hearing and carried on with a vote. Farr was voted out of committee along party lines, 1-10.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Reps. Sheila Jackson LeeSheila Jackson LeeVictims' relatives hold Capitol Hill meetings to push police reform Democrats debate timing and wisdom of reparations vote House panel approves bill to set up commission on reparations MORE (D-Texas), G.K. ButterfieldGeorge (G.K.) Kenneth ButterfieldThe Memo: How liberal will the Biden presidency be? Democrats vow to go 'bold' — with or without GOP CBC 'unequivocally' endorses Shalanda Young for White House budget chief MORE (D-N.C.) and Eleanor Holmes NortonEleanor Holmes NortonIs the Constitution in the way of DC statehood? Bowser on Manchin's DC statehood stance: He's 'not right' Heated argument erupts after Rep. Mondaire Jones calls GOP objections to DC statehood 'racist trash' MORE (D-D.C.), were also in attendance to protest Farr’s nomination in addition to the nomination of Eric Dreiband to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Dreiband was also opposed by committee Democrats, who cited his 2008 testimony against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and his work as a private attorney that Democrats said fought against LGBT rights.

Dreiband represented the University of North Carolina when it was sued for alleged discrimination against transgender people.

Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyBiden officials testify that white supremacists are greatest domestic security threat Senate Democrats push Biden over raising refugee cap On The Money: Democratic scramble complicates Biden's human infrastructure plan | Progressives push on student debt relief MORE (D-Vt.) slammed Dreiband, calling him “uniquely unqualified” to defend and enforce the core civil rights laws.

“He testified it’s not in the best interest of the American people for women to be paid the same as men,” he shouted during an impassioned speech. “Now, the word Neanderthal comes to mind, but I will not use it. I will only think it.”

The agenda, which was stacked with nominees who were renominated by the White House at the beginning of the year, included three circuit court nominees — Elizabeth Branch for the 11th Circuit, Stuart Kyle Duncan for the 5th Circuit and David Stras for the 8th Circuit.

Members of progressive groups like Alliance for Justice, donned blue T-shirts that read #MonsterMarkup across the chest to protest the shear number of nominees voted on Thursday.

Advocates have accused Grassley of slipping controversial nominees into a packed agenda to avoid public scrutiny.

The committee went forward with Stras’s confirmation hearing despite having never received a blue slip from former Sen. Al FrankenAlan (Al) Stuart FrankenMaher chides Democrats: We 'suck the fun out of everything' Why Caitlyn Jenner should not be dismissed #MeWho? The hypocritical silence of Kamala Harris MORE (D-Minn.) supporting his nomination.

The “blue slip” process has traditionally been a way for the home-state senators of a judicial nominee to block a nomination.

Stras, however, did gain the support of his other home-state Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Klobuchar Klobuchar offers tribute to her father, who died Wednesday The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Cheney poised to be ousted; Biden to host big meeting Senate panel deadlocks in vote on sweeping elections bill MORE (D-Minn.)

"He would not be my first choice for this job ... but morally when I look at this and have to answer the question is he qualified, I have to say yes,” she said.

Duncan and Brian Benczkowski, nominated to be an Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Criminal Division, were also widely opposed by Democrats on the committee.

Duncan served as the appellate counsel for North Carolina officials in their fight for a state law banning transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice and Benczkowski was the attorney for Alfa Bank, a Russian bank scrutinized by the FBI last year after computer specialists detected an odd stream of data between a server linked to the Trump Organization and a bank server, The New York Times reported.

Sen. John CornynJohn CornynGOP split on counteroffer to Biden's spending Police reform talks hit familiar stumbling block CNN asks Carol Baskin to comment on loose Texas tiger MORE (R-Texas) asked what the standard is when weighing a nominee’s qualifications.

“Are nominees disqualified by virtue of the clients and the causes that he or she has represented as a lawyer?” he asked.

Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseJudge's decision on Barr memo puts spotlight on secretive DOJ office On The Money: Incomes, consumer spending soared in March | Harris, senators work behind scenes on jobs package | Biden cancels some border wall construction Harris, senators work behind scenes on jobs package MORE (D-R.I.) said the test should be whether their conduct as private citizens has been so extreme on questions they will face as federal judges that it makes future litigants apprehensive to come before them.

“It’s hard to sort out who will leave their advocacy and politics in the robing room and who will let it leak onto the bench with them,” he said.

Two nominees — Charles Goodwin for a federal judgeship on the district court for the Western District of Oklahoma and Holly Lou Teeter for a federal judgeship on the district court in Kansas— also advanced after having received a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.