New battle lines in war over Trump’s judicial picks

The Senate is adding new fuel to the fire in its long-running feud over President TrumpDonald John TrumpCNN's Anderson Cooper: Trump's Bubba Wallace tweet was 'racist, just plain and simple' Beats by Dre announces deal with Bubba Wallace, defends him after Trump remarks Overnight Defense: DOD reportedly eyeing Confederate flag ban | House military spending bill blocks wall funding MORE’s judicial nominations.

The battle intensified this past week, with multiple fault lines. Republicans moved forward with more than 40 picks, including several circuit nominees who were not supported by home-state senators.

ADVERTISEMENT

GOP senators are also expected to advance a rules change Wednesday that would cut down on the amount of time it takes to confirm many of Trump’s nominees, including district judges.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOn The Money: Trump administration releases PPP loan data | Congress gears up for battle over expiring unemployment benefits | McConnell opens door to direct payments in next coronavirus bill Trump renews culture war, putting GOP on edge The Hill's Coronavirus Report: The Hill's Reid Wilson says political winners are governors who listened to scientists and public health experts; 12 states record new highs for seven-day case averages MORE (R-Ky.) and other Republicans view judicial nominations as a top priority and their best shot at leaving a long-term impact on the direction of the country. The GOP-controlled Senate confirmed a record number of circuit court picks during Trump’s first two years in office.

Democrats, meanwhile, are fuming over the GOP maneuvers, arguing Republicans are ignoring the “blue slip" tradition and souring relationships on the Judiciary Committee, where tensions are still palpable following the brutal, months-long fight over Supreme Court Justice Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughHillicon Valley: QAnon scores wins, creating GOP problem | Supreme Court upholds regulation banning robocalls to cellphones | Foreign hackers take aim at homebound Americans | Uber acquires Postmates Supreme Court upholds regulation banning robocalls to cellphones Collins trails Democrat Sara Gideon by 4 in Maine Senate race: poll MORE.

“We are unilaterally disarming the Senate Judiciary Committee in a way that will have collateral damage well beyond the immediate goal of packing the courts with these nominees in a great rush,” said Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseDemocrat asks Barr to preserve any records tied to environmental hacking probe Democrats warn Biden against releasing SCOTUS list Key Democrat accuses Labor head of 'misleading' testimony on jobless benefits MORE (D-R.I.), a member of the committee.

The acrimony spilled into onto the Senate floor recently when Sens. John CornynJohn CornynSenators push foreign media to disclose if they are registered as foreign agents GOP senators debate replacing Columbus Day with Juneteenth as a federal holiday New legislation required to secure US semiconductor leadership MORE (R-Texas) and Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoIf only woke protesters knew how close they were to meaningful police reform Hillicon Valley: Facebook takes down 'boogaloo' network after pressure | Election security measure pulled from Senate bill | FCC officially designating Huawei, ZTE as threats Senate Democrats call on Facebook to crack down on white supremacists MORE (D-Hawaii), who are both members of the panel, traded barbs over Neomi Rao’s nomination to fill the vacancy on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals created by Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cornyn said Rao faced “unconvincing attacks” during her Judiciary Committee hearing and that Democrats were targeting her because she was viewed as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

“I guess, when you consider what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, at least we moved on from high school yearbooks now to things that somebody has written in college. I don't know whether that represents progress or not,” he said.

Hirono fired back, saying members of the Judiciary Committee shouldn’t “cast aspersions on the motives of those of us who ask probing questions of judicial nominees for lifetime positions.”

The battle lines on judicial nominations stretch back years. Republicans blame Democrats for nixing the 60-vote filibuster in 2013 for most nominations, labeling that as the spark that started the fire. Democrats are still bitter over the decision to block Judge Merrick GarlandMerrick Brian GarlandMcConnell easily wins Kentucky Senate primary Don't mess with the Supreme Court Graham on potential Supreme Court vacancy: 'This would be a different circumstance' than Merrick Garland MORE, former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, from getting a hearing or a vote in 2016.

Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinBottom line Filibuster reform gains steam with Democrats Senate panel votes 21-1 to back Justice IG measure over Graham objections MORE (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN that feelings on the Democratic side of the aisle are still “a little raw” in the wake of the Garland fight.

The renewed tensions come as Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamTrump renews culture war, putting GOP on edge Bubba Wallace responds to Trump: 'Even when it's HATE from the POTUS.. Love wins' Lindsey Graham defends NASCAR, Bubba Wallace amid Trump criticism MORE (R-S.C.), who is up for reelection in 2020, has taken over as chairman of the high-profile Judiciary Committee. He won over conservatives last year when he exploded at Democrats during the hearing for sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, who has consistently denied the accusations against him.

Graham appeared to extend an olive branch during a committee meeting Thursday, telling Democrats he wants the panel to be as “bipartisan as possible” and floated that he was mulling a resolution to go back to 60 votes on judicial nominations after 2020.

He also pledged that he will work with Democrats to make sure they don’t “throw up” over the Trump administration’s picks for circuit court nominees for their home states, telling White House hopeful Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerSenators push foreign media to disclose if they are registered as foreign agents Joe Biden must release the results of his cognitive tests — voters need to know GOP senators debate replacing Columbus Day with Juneteenth as a federal holiday MORE (D-N.J.) that he would get a meeting with Paul Matey, nominated for the 3rd Circuit, before his nomination receives a floor vote.

“I will get in a room with you when it comes time for circuit court nominations and see if we can find a compromise with the White House,” Graham said. “I’m going to do this by the golden rule.”

He added during a Federalist Society event this past week that he worries “a lot about what’s coming.”

“If you don’t have to reach across the aisle to get any votes, judges are going to be just more ideological than they would be otherwise,” Graham said.

At the heart of the fight over Trump’s judicial picks is the decision by Graham and Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyGrassley won't attend GOP convention amid coronavirus uptick Meadows teases Trump action on immigration, China, prescription drugs Trump second-term plans remain a mystery to GOP MORE (R-Iowa), the previous committee chairman, to move forward with circuit court picks even when home state senators don’t return their “blue slip.”

The blue-slip rule — a precedent upheld by Senate tradition — has historically allowed a home-state senator to stop a lower-court nominee by refusing to return a sheet of paper, known as a blue slip, to the Judiciary Committee.

But how strictly the precedent is upheld is decided by the committee chairman, and enforcement has fluctuated depending on who wields the gavel.

Feinstein tried, unsuccessfully, to delay the four circuit court nominees who didn’t have blue slips, arguing Republicans were breaking with tradition and that it would further fracture the committee. But Republicans, who hold a 12-10 majority on the panel, advanced the nominees to the full Senate.

“If what happens is what I think is going to happen, you’re going to get four circuit court judges and the divide is going to increase on this committee,” she said. “You know what comes up, comes down.”

Whitehouse warned that Republicans moving away from the blue slip protocol for circuit court picks could further escalate the fight the over the appeals courts. He also asked why Democrats should recognize seats as belonging to specific states when they take back power in the Senate.

“I’m going to be really hard pressed to say when there’s a South Carolina seat that comes up on your circuit … and there’s a Democratic president and we have the majority that we should consider anybody from South Carolina for that seat,” Whitehouse said to Graham. “Why should we? You’ve got nothing to say because you’ve got no blue slip left.”

There are other fights looming that will test their ability to work together, including Trump’s three nominations for California-based seats on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Feinstein and Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Trump wants schools to reopen, challenged on 'harmless' COVID-19 remark Judd Gregg: The coming Biden coup Susan Rice sees stock rise in Biden VP race MORE (D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee member who is running for president, are opposing the picks.

Harris even went a step further by pledging to oppose any of Trump’s circuit court picks until they work out a better system for nominating judges, a move that earned her praise from progressive groups.

The Senate Rules Committee is also scheduled to vote on a resolution Wednesday that would dramatically cut down the amount of time it takes to confirm hundreds of Trump’s nominees. Currently, a nominee faces 30 hours of debate after they’ve overcome an initial hurdle and showed they have the simple majority they need to be confirmed.

But a proposal from GOP Sens. James LankfordJames Paul LankfordTulsa to resume search for race massacre mass graves next week GOP senators debate replacing Columbus Day with Juneteenth as a federal holiday Trump calls for Congress to take action against 'lowlifes' who burn American flag MORE (Okla.) and Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntSenate Democrats urge Pompeo to ensure Americans living overseas can vote in November Russian bounties revive Trump-GOP foreign policy divide The Hill's Morning Report - Republicans shift, urge people to wear masks MORE (Mo.) would cut debate time from 30 hours to as little as two hours for district judges and most executive nominees. Supreme Court nominees, circuit court picks and nominees for roughly a dozen boards and commissions would still be subject to the full 30 hours.

Republicans have fumed for years about the slow pace of confirmation for Trump’s nominees. Their narrow 51-49 majority during the previous Congress left them unable to use the “nuclear option” to force through the rules change with only a simple majority.

Now, with a 53-47 majority, GOP senators say going “nuclear” is back on the table. McConnell didn’t tip his hand after a recent closed-door caucus lunch but vented about Democrats treatment of Trump’s court picks.

“As I've said before, there is time for obstruction; I've engaged in it myself. It depends on what you're obstructing,” he told reporters. “If it's something big and important, understandable. If you're just trying to throw sand in the gear so the administration can't function, unacceptable."