Now Is Not The Time For Senate Republicans To Play Nice On Biden’s Judicial Nominees

In the months before Trump assumes office, Democrats control the Senate, and President Biden has sent up a slew of hardcore leftist nominees.

Ron Johnson gives hilarious response to Matt Gaetz's nomination



When asked about Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida's nomination for attorney general, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin responded by holding up a photo of two transgender appointees from President Joe Biden's administration.

Johnson's printed-out pictures included a photo of Rachel Levine, who serves as the assistant secretary of health for the Department of Health and Human Services, and a photo of Sam Brinton, who was nominated as deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy.

When pressed about Gaetz' nomination, Johnson held up the photos and asked reporters whether they ever "harassed" Democratic lawmakers about those nominees.

Although Gaetz has sparked controversy online and hesitation from certain members of Congress, Johnson pointed out past nominees who have been just as controversial as, if not more than, the Florida firebrand.

Both nominees have scandal-ridden histories. In Levine's case, he pressured Biden administration officials to remove age requirements for transgender surgeries and puberty blockers for minors. Levine has also made claims that "climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of Black communities."

On the other hand, Brinton, who identifies as "nonbinary," has faced federal charges for allegedly stealing Tanzanian designer Asya Khamsin's suitcase at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. Brinton was caught when he was photographed wearing one of Khamsin's designs, making this the third alleged incident of luggage theft Brinton had been involved with.

Brinton pled guilty in a sweetheart deal, receiving no jail time. Brinton is no longer serving in the Biden administration.

Although Gaetz has sparked controversy online and hesitation from certain members of Congress, Johnson pointed out past nominees who have been just as controversial as, if not more than, the Florida firebrand.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson writes, 'I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights'



Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will almost certainly be confirmed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, said that she does not have a position on whether people have natural rights.

"I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights," the jurist wrote in response to a written question from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Jackson pointed to the Declaration of Independence when she was asked to, "explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable."

Jackson wrote that, "The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'"

Regarding Jackson's lack of a position about the issue of whether individuals have natural rights, GOP Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana tweeted, "Ketanji Brown Jackson denies the first, self-evident truth of America!"

Ketanji Brown Jackson denies the first, self-evident truth of America!https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1509946533302747139\u00a0\u2026
— Rep. Mike Johnson (@Rep. Mike Johnson) 1649018790

"No big deal, that’s only the fundamental creed of the republic," tweeted BlazeTV host Steve Deace of "The Steve Deace Show."

"There is no Constitution without natural rights. If you can't even say they exist you have no business interpreting it," Nate Madden, who serves as GOP Rep. Chip Roy's communications director, tweeted on his personal Twitter account.

Roy called out Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who plans to vote in favor of confirming Jackson: "Hey @SenSusanCollins - do you believe this? Assuming not - justify your vote for her? CC: @LeaderMcConnell."

In June 2021, GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the only Republicans who voted in favor of confirming Jackson to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Graham announced last week that he will not vote to elevate Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court, but Collins announced that she will support confirming Jackson to the nation's high court. Murkowski announced on Monday that she will support confirming Jackson.

President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to fill the vacancy that will arise when Justice Stephen Breyer retires.

Biden judicial nominee Dale Ho said Senate, Electoral College are 'anti-democratic' institutions: 2018 video



A Biden judicial nominee is making headlines after a video from 2018 surfaced in which he makes the claim that the United States Senate and Electoral College are "anti-democratic."

Dale Ho, President Joe Biden's nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has previously been accused by GOP senators of showing "open contempt for the Constitution." Video of a speech he gave at the 2018 National Civic Leadership Training Summit is likely to affirm that charge in the minds of Senate Republicans.

"We had obviously lots of practices that are anti-democratic, that entrench in some ways minority rule in this country, and I'm talking about things like, you know, the Senate, the Electoral College, and the maldistribution of political power that results from those institutions," said Ho, who is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights project.

WATCH: Biden federal district judge nominee Dale Ho calls the Senate and the Electoral College "anti-democratic"pic.twitter.com/vfOi3N6Et9
— Townhall.com (@Townhall.com) 1639591693

He also said that the United States should change its laws to make "voting easier" and that "long-standing barriers" such as "felon disenfranchisement" strip "the right to vote from people because of a criminal conviction."

Ho, who was nominated for a lifetime appointment to an unelected office, came under fire from Republicans during his confirmation hearing earlier this month for a series of controversial statements he made on social media during the Trump administration.

Republicans brought up several tweets he posted criticizing GOP lawmakers including Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), each of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee and are overseeing his nomination.

“I very much regret the tone that I’ve taken on social media from time to time, particularly if it’s given anyone the impression that I wouldn’t be impartial,” Ho told lawmakers at the hearing.

Lee made a point of bringing up a tweet in which Ho suggested Republicans would use a Supreme Court majority to stay in power if the "Electoral College, Senate malapportionment and extreme gerrymandering" were not enough.

Ho said he was referring to news reports in 2020 of states potentially appointing their own presidential electors to overturn the election, but Lee said his tweet showed "open contempt for the Constitution" and was disqualifying for a potential federal judge.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also grilled Ho about writings in which Ho said a colleague once asked him if he works as a voting rights lawyer because he wants to help people or because "you hate conservatives." Ho said the point of that question was to highlight how "anger" can be a "tremendous source of power."

Dale Ho\u2014Biden\u2019s nominee for the Southern District of New York\u2014has written about his hatred of conservatives.\n \nIf a conservative were to appear before his courtroom, why would they be confident he would be fair and impartial?pic.twitter.com/p36VFYPePo
— Senator Ted Cruz (@Senator Ted Cruz) 1638391832

"I was relaying a joke that someone else had told, the point of which was that that kind of temporary sugar rush from being angry at someone — while it can feel powerful in a moment — it’s not the kind of thing that is sustaining for a human being, in the long run, that at the end of the day, if you want to do good work in the world, it has to come from a different place, a place of love for your fellow person," Ho said.

Ho has made other controversial statements. Earlier this week, Fox News reported comments Ho made in 2015 while speaking about voter identification requirements at an event in Wisconsin. Ho compared voter ID to "chemotherapy."

"We always have to weigh the costs against the methods, so let me talk about for a second about what you asked — that question about does this enhance the integrity of our elections, right? Obviously, we all believe that election integrity is important, right?" Ho said at the event.

"Obviously, all of us are against voter fraud, right?" he continued. "The question that I think we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the mechanism that we’re using to try to prevent this problem is appropriate to the task. I’m against cancer, but I don’t think everyone in this room should get chemotherapy."

Ho is supported for confirmation to the federal bench by progressive groups and has a glowing endorsement from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Ho was also strongly supported by Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) commenting that Ho's passion should not be mistaken for anger.

Senate Confirms First Female Army Secretary

'This looks more like a procedural hiccup than a threat to her historic confirmation'

Amy Coney Barrett invokes Ginsburg rule, refuses to answer questions on specific court cases



Judge Amy Coney Barrett followed in the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's footsteps Tuesday during the second round of her confirmation hearings, refusing to answer questions from senators about how she would rule on particular cases that may come before the Supreme Court.

Barrett faced questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats on abortion and Roe v. Wade, pending court cases on the Affordable Care Act, and hypothetical scenarios about the election being resolved by the Supreme Court. In each answer, Barrett reiterated her position that it would be inappropriate to give her opinion about a specific case, citing Justices Ginsburg and Elena Kagan who gave similar answers during their confirmation hearings.

In one exchange with committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Roe v. Wade, Barrett said that expressing her personal opinion on that landmark abortion rights case would tell potential litigants "that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case."

"Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?" Feinstein asked.

"Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can," Barrett answered. "I think on that question, you know, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent, or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. And I think that in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated … it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge."

"If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case," Barrett explained.

Barrett's answer is modeled after the so-called "Ginsburg rule," which was a standard established in the 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ginsburg by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). Biden asked that senators refrain from asking questions about "how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her." His rule established that Ginsburg had no obligation to answer questions about cases that might come before the Supreme Court or her personal views on court precedent.

As Ginsburg herself explained during her hearing, "a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process."

The Ginsburg Rule: "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not o… https://t.co/McIwDE0mE9
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@Abigail Marone 🇺🇸)1602599951.0

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Barrett if she agreed with Ginsburg's standard.

"Yes, I agree the Ginsburg rule reinforces judicial independence," Barrett replied.

Judge Barrett: “Yes, I agree the Ginsburg rule reinforces judicial independence”https://t.co/oArvVLgRyz https://t.co/3O6NZItsJY
— RNC Research (@RNC Research)1602600024.0

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also cited the Ginsburg rule during his time to speak, responding to one of his Democratic colleagues who accused Barrett of using a "political talking point" by invoking Ginsburg and Kagan's precedential refusal to answer questions on specific cases.

"To the extent that that's what any colleague has suggested, I'd remind that colleague that's just wildly incorrect," Lee said.

Sen. Lee: " Justice Ginsburg did say it well.... A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hint… https://t.co/oEe9ltdaKr
— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica)1602603646.0

Barrett also repeatedly made clear that she has not made any promises or commitments to either the executive branch or the legislative branch about how she would rule on specific cases as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Judge Barrett: “I want to be very, very clear…I didn’t make any precommitments and was not asked to make any commit… https://t.co/i7ncyqQns9
— RNC Research (@RNC Research)1602600220.0

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Barrett on the Affordable Care Act and a hypothetical election dispute, inquiring as to whether Barrett would recuse herself if the election did come before the court.

WATCH: Sen. Patrick Leahy questions Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett youtu.be

"Sen. Leahy, I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA and with any election dispute that may or may not arise," Barrett said. "I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule."

"I also think it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result," she added.

GOP senators vow COVID won't stop them from confirming Amy Coney Barrett: 'I'll go in a moon suit'



Amid speculation that positive coronavirus tests will interrupt Republican efforts to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, GOP senators are signaling they will do whatever it takes to ensure that President Donald Trump's nominee receives a floor vote.

One senator who tested positive for COVID-19 even vowed to show up in "a moon suit" to vote if need be.

It was Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who made the astronomic promise in a radio interview Monday, the Daily Caller reported. Johnson tested positive for coronavirus Friday, but has so far not presented any symptoms. Speaking to KHOW-AM, Johnson said he feels "perfectly fine" and vowed to be present for a confirmation vote on Barrett's nomination.

"If we have to go in and vote, I've already told leadership I'll go in a moon suit," Johnson said.

Johnson is one of three Republican senators who announced positive coronavirus tests in a 24-hour-span over the weekend. The first was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who attended the White House ceremony announcing Judge Barrett as Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader GInsburg. Lee sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct confirmation hearings for Barrett. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, was the third Republican to test positive for the virus over the weekend. He and Lee have each reported mild symptoms.

In response to the positive tests, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called for the immediate postponement of Barrett's confirmation hearings.

"We now have two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who have tested positive for COVID, and there may be more," Schumer tweeted. "I wish my colleagues well. It is irresponsible and dangerous to move forward with a hearing, and there is absolutely no good reason to do so."

GOP Leader McConnell over the weekend announced a temporary halt to Senate activity, but said Barret's confirmation hearing will move forward on Oct. 12.

Some have speculated that positive coronavirus tests may prevent Republicans from confirming Barrett to the court before Election Day.

"McConnell can only afford to lose three Republican senators' votes and still push through a Supreme Court nominee, and he can't risk exposing his members over the next several weeks to an unpredictable and relentless virus," Lauren Fox wrote for CNN.

Fox pointed out that "both Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have already said they won't back any GOP nominee ahead of Election Day. We are still weeks away from a floor vote, but that leaves little room for McConnell to find the votes if members of his conference contract or remain sick with Covid-19."

She also noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee, composed of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats, needs a quorum to begin confirmation hearing proceedings. "In order to have a quorum, Graham needs at least one of the two — Lee or Tillis — to be back. The fear is that if both were out, Democrats could boycott and keep Graham from having a quorum," Fox said.

Republican senators say they are intent on being present for votes.

In a statement, Sen. Lee announced he would self-isolate for 10 days and said he has assured GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that he "will be back to work in time to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate."

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also spoke to this issue over the weekend. Cotton does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, but he did express confidence every senator who needs to be present will vote, going as far to say in an interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo they will be "wheeled in" to the floor.

"Several of the senators who are in isolation right now would come out of isolation before those hearings begin. But the Senate Judiciary Committee has also conducted 20 hearings this year, that have either been in part or in whole virtual," Cotton said. "Many Senate Democrats are now saying we couldn't possibly do a virtual hearing or demanding throughout this year, going back to March, that all committees be conducted over Zoom or Webex or some other virtual hearing."

"So the hearing is going to go forward, no doubt in my mind starting a week from tomorrow, Maria, and then on the Senate floor later this month," Cotton continued. "First off, I think every senator who currently tested positive or is in isolation will be back to work under normal conditions, as other senators have been as well, like Rand Paul or Tim Kane. But if that's not the case, Maria, there is a long and venerable tradition of ill or medically infirmed senators being wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor."

Cotton cited the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) famously voting from a wheel chair in 2009, using hand signals to indicate "aye" or "nay." Other United States senators in history have appeared to vote in the Senate despite medical conditions, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who each appeared for votes after undergoing surgery for brain cancer. In 1964, Democratic Sen. Clair Engle broke a filibuster in the Senate and voted for the Civil Rights Act while suffering from a brain tumor and unable to speak. He pointed to his eye to signal his "aye" vote.

"I'm confident that every senator will be in attendance when his or her vote is needed," Cotton said.