Israel’s democratically elected legislature, the Knesset, is in the midst of voting on a series of laws that would scale back the power of the unelected judiciary and place more power in the elected body. Tens of thousands of Israelis along with Israel’s usual detractors are up in arms, calling this &#8220;tyranny&#8221; and the “end of democracy.”
To start, those who continue to push the “end of democracy” narrative are objectively counterfactual, counterproductive, and over-reactionary. When a democratically elected body makes efforts to wrangle back power from those appointed by a committee controlled by the Bar Association and the judiciary itself, it is, in fact, putting more “power” into the hands of the “people.” In simple terms, making the political system more “democratic.”
Democratic governments around the world take many different forms, from constitutional republics, like the United States, to parliamentary systems, like the United Kingdom, and many variations there between. Israel is just shy of 75 years young, and is still in the nascent stages of forming what its democracy will look like. For instance, while its founders set out to form a constitution, none has yet been put in place. The entire process the democratically-elected government is going through is at the very core of democracy.
While it’s hard to see it through the hysterics, Israel’s proposed judicial reforms are, in fact, imperfect in their current state. However, this is the case when most laws are initially proposed. This is why there is a process, in most (or all) democracies in the world, Israel included, that allows for debate, input, discussion, and ultimately amendments. Those opposing the judicial reforms would be better served by pushing for constructive dialogue rather than destructive protests. Calls for the Knesset to change direction simply because of the nightly protests should fall on deaf ears, as a well-functioning government should never cave to what would essentially be mob rule.
Taking a quick step back, the proposed judicial reforms aim to accomplish five things: (1) Changing the process of selecting judges, so as to give the governing coalition of the Knesset a majority in the judicial selection committee; (2) Prohibiting the Supreme Court from making decisions based “on reasonability” rather than on laws passed by the Knesset; (3) Changing legal opinions of general counsels of government departments, appointed by the attorney general, from binding to advisory; (4) Raising the standard for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed by the Knesset to 11 out of the 15 judges; and (5) Providing the Knesset the capacity to override a decision by the Supreme Court that strikes down a law passed by the Knesset with a majority of the Knesset members. Of course, the proposals are more nuanced than the above-outlined, but these are the general strokes of the proposals.
That judicial reforms are needed is the broad consensus view. The self-elected judiciary has become hyper-political, if not hostile, to the government, to the ultra-Orthodox, and to the conservative majority. The Supreme Court has also unilaterally expanded its own power by granting itself powers of judicial review and making key decisions based on its subjective interpretation of “reasonability,” and general, undefined concepts of dignity and liberty. The impact of the Supreme Court’s rulings is even more far reaching, given that the Israeli Supreme Court is a Court of first instance, in that almost anyone can file claims directly with the Court on a host of issues. At bottom, an unelected branch of government has run amok and the Knesset is looking to rein it in through these reforms.
The only truly controversial or delicate provision in the proposed reforms, in my opinion, is the “override clause.” The fact that the Knesset is seeking to include an override clause is not a problem per se. Given the past relationship between the branches, and the importance given by the elected body to ensuring that those elected by the people have final say on critical issues, the ability to override the Court’s decision makes sense. Israel would not be alone in implementing an express “override clause.” Canada, a country which no one would seriously charge as “non-democratic,” has a similar law, which permits the Parliament to pass a law “notwithstanding” their Court’s having found that law to be unconstitutional.
Still, for purposes of political stability, which is critical for the social and economic well-being of any nation, the issues which should qualify for override should be very limited and an override should only pass with a supermajority of the Knesset. These limitations would all but guarantee that the override would only be used sparingly and could not be abused by any party to satisfy the political whims of the day.
Finally, the governing coalition should learn from the mistakes of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2013, when they removed the 60-vote filibuster for the president&#8217;s nominees, requiring only a simple majority instead. This was a shrewd move in the short term to get President Obama’s nominees seated, but when control of the Senate shifted back to the Republicans, Democrats quickly regretted that the Republicans could pass through the president&#8217;s nominees without the support of a single Democrat.
In Israel today, it is hard to see when and how the political Left could return to power. But, politics lives on a pendulum, and when (not if) political control inevitably shifts in Israel, those in control of the Knesset today will regret having a law in place which requires only a simple majority to override the Supreme Court.
At the end, the Likud party and its coalition partners should not make any decisions based on the hysterical protests and threats of its detractors. Still, the government shouldn’t rush through the reforms without robust and honest debate about its impact. Particular care should be taken to limit the override clause so as to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court while providing the supermajority of the Knesset the ability to have final say on critical issues that go to the heart of the Jewish and Democratic State of Israel.
Gabriel Groisman is a partner at LSN Partners in Miami, Florida, a Jewish rights leader and the former mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Protests Continue Over Proposed Judicial Overhaul In Israel

Israel Is Reforming Its Judiciary. It’s Not Perfect, It’s Democracy. 

Democracy

Israel

Judiciary

Middle East

World

President <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> claimed on Wednesday that he was going to &#8220;debunk&#8221; some of the myths he&#8217;d heard circulating about domestic oil production in the United States — but the Republicans of the House Judiciary Committee thought otherwise.
Biden addressed his administration&#8217;s continuing struggle to keep gas prices under control — especially as the midterm elections loomed ever closer — and as he outlined the White House&#8217;s strategy, he also claimed that his administration had not taken any action to stop or slow domestic production.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Biden: &quot;Let&#39;s debunk some myths: My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/jSMdBi64Gl">pic.twitter.com/jSMdBi64Gl</a>
&mdash; Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1582787867654295552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We&#8217;re calling it a &#8216;Ready and Release&#8217; plan,&#8221; Biden said of the administration&#8217;s idea to release more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. &#8220;This allows us to move quickly to prevent oil price spikes and respond to international events.&#8221;
&#8220;Secondly, we need to responsibly increase American oil production without delaying or deferring our transition to clean energy,&#8221; the president continued.
Biden then pivoted to address what he said were &#8220;myths&#8221; about American oil production, saying, &#8220;Let&#8217;s debunk some myths here. My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production. Quite the opposite. We&#8217;re producing 12 million barrels of oil per day by the end of this year we will be producing one million barrels a day more than the day which I took office.&#8221;
The Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee minced no words in their reply to Biden&#8217;s claims: &#8220;Liar.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Liar. <a href="https://t.co/XSTIj8jnjq">https://t.co/XSTIj8jnjq</a>
&mdash; House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) <a href="https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1582792404234432512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A tweet from @Rasmussen_poll gave a little more context, sharing a headline showing exactly what the Biden administration had done to stop or slow U.S. oil production. &#8220;Yes, let&#8217;s debunk some myths about your administration,&#8221; the caption read.
Dated just a week after Biden was sworn in as president, the CNBC headline read, &#8220;Biden suspense oil and gas leasing in slew of executive actions on climate change.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Yes, let&#39;s debunk some myths about your administration &#8211; <a href="https://t.co/Rm972jDEbV">https://t.co/Rm972jDEbV</a> <a href="https://t.co/HTuFW7GfTM">pic.twitter.com/HTuFW7GfTM</a>
&mdash; Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1582816942804520961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Someone tell the DOJ so that they stop litigating Louisiana v. Biden seeking to stop and slow U.S. oil production,&#8221; Ted Frank added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Someone tell the DOJ so that they stop litigating Louisiana v. Biden seeking to stop and slow US oil production. <a href="https://t.co/PeVugACGYX">https://t.co/PeVugACGYX</a>
&mdash; (((tedfrank))) (@tedfrank) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedfrank/status/1582809123523289090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;If gaslighting were an actual hydrocarbon Biden would be able to supply the whole world,&#8221; Nan Hayworth <a href="https://twitter.com/NanHayworth/status/1582804767478534144" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>.
Indiana Congressional candidate <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/indiana-republican-claims-opponent-illegally-obtained-her-military-records-and-politico-published-them/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jennifer-Ruth Green</a> added, &#8220;Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline and halted all oil and gas leases on federal lands in just his first week in office. He reversed our energy independence and all he can do now is lie.&#8221;

President Biden Makes Announcement On Energy Policy

Biden Claims To ‘Debunk’ Myths About Oil Production — House Judiciary GOP Offers One Word Response

Biden Claims To 'Debunk' Myths About Oil Production — House Judiciary GOP Offers One Word Response

House Republicans

Joe Biden

Oil and Gas

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/judiciary">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia</a> has <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/524B3B5CED10789D8525889900538BAB/$file/21-5289-1958452.pdf">ruled</a> that Congress has the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/constitution">constitutional</a> authority to request the tax returns of former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump">President Donald J. Trump</a>.
Since 2019, the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee has <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/524B3B5CED10789D8525889900538BAB/$file/21-5289-1958452.pdf">attempted</a> to gain access to Trump&#8217;s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), along with the returns from several of his businesses. While Trump was president, the Department of Treasury stated that it would not comply with the request on several legal grounds. Congress sued, and as the lawsuit made its way through court, Trump lost re-election to then-candidate Joe Biden. After Biden&#8217;s inauguration, Congress again requested Trump&#8217;s tax returns in June 2021. This time, Biden&#8217;s Treasury Department stated it would comply.
Trump&#8217;s legal team intervened to block the committee from obtaining his records. However, the U.S. District Court of D.C. dismissed Trump&#8217;s assertions, and in turn, his team appealed the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court&#8217;s ruling on Tuesday.
In reaction to the decision, the Ways and Means Committee&#8217;s official account tweeted, &#8220;We expect to receive the requested tax returns and audit files immediately.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 🚨 🚨 BREAKING: The DC Court of Appeals has just ruled that the law is on our side in seeking Trump&#39;s tax returns. We expect to receive the requested tax returns and audit files immediately.<a href="https://t.co/FYzFzYrxF8">https://t.co/FYzFzYrxF8</a>
&mdash; Ways &amp; Means Committee (@WaysMeansCmte) <a href="https://twitter.com/WaysMeansCmte/status/1557029202158915585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As part of Trump&#8217;s opposition to Congress, his legal team argued that the request for his tax returns was &#8220;politically motivated.&#8221;
However, the court <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/524B3B5CED10789D8525889900538BAB/$file/21-5289-1958452.pdf">found</a> that the committee &#8220;has identified a legitimate legislative purpose that it requires information to accomplish. At this stage, it is not our place to delve deeper than this. The mere fact that individual members of Congress may have political motivations as well as legislative ones is of no moment.&#8221;
&#8220;Indeed, it is likely rare that an individual member of Congress would work for a legislative purpose without considering the political implications,&#8221; the court added. &#8220;The statements of individual Committee members and members who are not part of the Committee provided by the Trump Parties do not change this. The courts do not probe the motives of individual legislators. These motives are explicitly protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s team also argued that the request violated &#8220;the separation of powers principle,&#8221; but the court did not agree with that objection either.
&#8220;The 2021 Request seeks information that may inform the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means as to the efficacy of the Presidential Audit Program,&#8221; the court <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/524B3B5CED10789D8525889900538BAB/$file/21-5289-1958452.pdf">said</a>. &#8220;Further, the Request did not violate separation of powers principles under any of the potentially applicable tests primarily because the burden on the Executive Branch and the Trump Parties is relatively minor.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s legal team can appeal the decision.
This is a developing story; Please check back for updates.
&nbsp;

LIV Golf Invitational – Bedminster – Day One

Federal Appeals Court Rules Congress Can Go After Trump’s Tax Returns

Federal Appeals Court Rules Congress Can Go After Trump's Tax Returns

Congress

Court

Donald Trump

Judicial Branch

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/florida">Florida’s</a> new ban on on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion">abortion</a> after 15 weeks will remain in force while ongoing litigation over its constitutionality plays out in the courts.
Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper issued a temporary injunction on the law last week, finding that it violated Florida’s constitution. The state appealed, which, under Florida’s court rules, triggered a stay of the injunction and allowed the law to stay in effect. Judge Cooper denied a request by abortion clinics and a physician to vacate the stay.
In their emergency motion, the plaintiffs were adamant that the injunction needed to continue.
&#8220;Every day that HB 5 (the law) remains in effect, Florida patients in desperate need of post-15-week abortion services are being turned away and forced to attempt to seek abortions out of state, if they are able to do so; to attempt abortions outside the medical system; or to continue pregnancies against their will,&#8221; the motion said.
Judge Cooper declined to do so. Pointing out the “very high burden” set by the 1st District Court of Appeals for vacating stays during the appeals process, Cooper <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-abortion-law-remain-effect-court-battle/">wrote</a> that &#8220;courts are obliged to follow binding precedent even if they might wish to decide the case differently&#8221; and noted that direction from the appeals court meant that automatic stays may only be vacated &#8220;under the most compelling circumstances.&#8221;
The law in question, HB 5, was passed in early March and drew ire of the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/04/statement-by-vice-president-kamala-harris-on-florida-house-bill-5/">White House</a> and pro-abortion forces across the country — Florida’s Governor, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ron-desantis">Ron DeSantis</a>, has regularly clashed with the Biden Administration on policy, especially on hot button issues such as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/24/politics/biden-desantis-coronavirus/index.html">COVID restrictions</a> and <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/biden-takes-aim-desantis-transgender-executive-order-1716293">gender ideology</a>.
The law was challenged on the grounds that it violated a privacy provision in the Florida Constitution. Without the new restrictions, abortion in Florida would remain legal up through the first 24 weeks in pregnancy, and its <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/florida-abortion-law/index.html">55 abortion clinics</a> could remain in operation and offer their services to women from neighboring states, many of which have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-multiple-states-ban-abortion-after-scotus-ruling">trigger laws</a> that have or will ban abortion outright following the recent overturning of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/search/news?query=trigger%20laws&amp;page=1&amp;refinementList%5Btaxonomies.post_tag%5D%5B0%5D=Roe%20v.%20Wade%27s%20Long%20And%20Brutal%20Legacy">Roe v. Wade</a>, or else have even more stringent restrictions on abortion than the proposed Florida law.
Florida has a very high rate of abortions per capita, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the overwhelming majority take place during the first trimester, and would remain legal even under the new restrictions. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade Governor DeSantis has <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/gov-ron-desantis-calls-to-expand-pro-life-protection-after-historic-abortion-ruling-00042333">voiced</a> his desire to “expand pro-life protections” in the state, although the governor’s office has <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/why-ron-desantis-avoiding-talking-about-abortion-n1296843">declined</a> to outline specifics beyond the current 15 week ban.

70FE7BF6-7229-47DA-A97A-2B0A0884DF48_1_201_a

Florida Abortion Restrictions To Remain In Effect During Legal Battle

Abortion

Florida

Judge

Ron DeSantis

A prominent gun control measure proposed by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, considering recent precedent.
Many of the perpetrators of recent mass shootings were below the age of 21, including the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-shooting-at-texas-elementary-school-leaves-at-least-15-dead">Uvalde</a>  and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/buffalo-mass-shooting-suspect-had-been-flagged-as-troubled-a-year-ago-report">Buffalo</a> shooters, aged 18, and the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101">Parkland</a> shooter, aged 19.
<a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee">Federal law</a> already prohibits the sale of pistols to citizens under 21, but young adults can purchase rifles in <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/2022/05/uvalde-mass-shooting-ar15-age-restriction/">44 states</a> — and some are <a href="https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/5/25/23142050/hochul-raise-age-ar15-rifles-gun-control">calling for new legislation</a> that would change that.
Representative Adam Kinzinger <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-congressman-claims-raising-age-to-purchase-guns-to-21-is-a-no-brainer">called the proposed measure</a> a “no-brainer”, stating that. “We know that the human brain develops and matures a lot between the ages of 18 and 21. We just raised, without really so much as a blink, the age of purchasing cigarettes federally to 21.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger tells <a href="https://twitter.com/jonkarl?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jonkarl</a> that raising minimum age for gun purchases to 21 “is a no brainer&quot; to him.
“If you look at the Parkland shooting, you look at Buffalo, you look at this shooting, these are people under the age of 21.” <a href="https://t.co/Ndo3NsrFp7">https://t.co/Ndo3NsrFp7</a> <a href="https://t.co/mBpxDBiyJF">pic.twitter.com/mBpxDBiyJF</a>
&mdash; This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1530916688153169920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
However, earlier this month the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional">struck down</a> a very similar restriction in California, which banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles to young adults, with the 2-1 majority <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/11/20-56174.pdf">arguing</a> that the policy constituted an arbitrary violation of the 2nd amendment rights of adult citizens.
“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote for the majority. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”
With <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/05/27/supreme-court-gun-control-massachusetts-impacts">consensus</a> on the bench shifting towards a broader defense of gun rights, age based restrictions on the right to purchase long guns seem unlikely to stand.
Adam Winkler, a law professor  commenting on the California case for the Los Angeles Times, called the 9th circuit’s ruling “ a harbinger of things to come,” stating that “In the coming years, the courts seem certain to strike down numerous gun safety measures in the name of the 2nd Amendment.”

Guns

Proposed Gun Sale Ban For Citizens Under 21 Unlikely To Withstand Judicial Review

California

Gun Control

Gun Rights

Gun Sales

Supreme Court

Progressive political groups are celebrating President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>’s nomination of a former Biden-Harris campaign state counsel to a conservative-leaning federal court.
Biden earned praise from pro-abortion and environmentalist groups for his release on Wednesday of his 18th slate of judicial nominees, which included a nomination for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“These choices also continue to fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that the nation’s courts reflect the diversity that is one of our greatest assets as a country — both in terms of personal and professional backgrounds,” the White House said in a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/25/president-biden-names-eighteenth-round-of-judicial-nominees/">statement</a> on Wednesday. 
Biden&#8217;s choice for the Sixth Circuit was Rachel Bloomekatz, a state <a href="https://www.bloomekatzlaw.com/about">counsel</a> for the Biden-Harris campaign in Ohio in 2020. Her bio also says that she has “represented progressive candidates in Ohio, including serving as Senator Sherrod Brown’s legal director for his 2012 reelection campaign.”
Bloomekatz is a practitioner at Bloomekatz Law in Columbus, Ohio, and has clerked for outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, as well as being an assistant attorney general in Boston, Massachusetts.
In her own practice, Bloomekatz has <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6001928b1a7b04326b7e7812/t/61b810fb5dc25a103c2a6661/1639452924221/Bloomekatz+Resume+December+2021+%281%29.pdf">worked</a> with a group challenging the &#8220;stand your ground&#8221; law in Ohio, including the Ohio NAACP. She also received the Progressive Young Leadership Award from the Columbus chapter of the American Constitution Society.
After news of her nomination broke, progressive groups like Demand Justice, Earthjustice, and the Alliance for Justice all praised Biden for his judicial picks.
Earthjustice, an environmentalist <a href="https://earthjustice.org/about">organization</a>, celebrated Bloomekatz’s nomination, saying she would be “the first public interest environmental lawyer nominated to the federal bench.”
“At this critical moment where so many of our fundamental rights are at stake, we need judges in her mold who understand the difference between science and politics and will make decisions based on the law and settled precedent,” Earthjustice Legislative Director of the Access to Justice Program Coby Dolan <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/earthjustice-celebrates-nomination-of-rachel-bloomekatz-to-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-6th-circuit">said</a>.
Demand Justice, an organization that wants to expand the Supreme Court, <a href="https://twitter.com/WeDemandJustice/status/1529487646954774536">tweeted</a> that Bloomekatz “would bring much-needed experience representing consumers and workers to a judiciary dominated by corporate lawyers.”
The progressive group Alliance for Justice, which urges people to “act now to save abortion rights,” applauded Biden’s judicial nominations, including that of Bloomekatz.
“Once again, the White House has identified three highly-qualified women to serve on our courts of appeal,” AFJ President Rakim H.D. Brooks said in a <a href="https://www.afj.org/article/afj-applauds-eighteenth-slate-of-judicial-nominees/">statement</a>. “Ms. Bloomekatz’s experience fighting for economic justice, in particular, will be invaluable to the Sixth Circuit as it considers cases impacting consumers and workers.”
Bloomekatz appears to have made several political donations to Democratic candidates over the years. A Rachel Bloomekatz in Columbus, Ohio, working at Gupta Wessler (where Bloomekatz worked from 2016-2019) donated to Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in 2017 and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2020, according to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Rachel+Bloomekatz">data</a> from Open Secrets. 
Furthermore, a lawyer named Rachel Bloomekatz with the same Columbus-area Ohio zip code (43201) as Bloomekatz Law gave $750 to then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 and a total of $1,750 to Joe Biden during the 2020 election.
The Daily Wire has reached out to Bloomekatz to confirm whether the donations were from her or not.
According to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/16/1056121842/biden-lawsuit-osha-vaccine-mandate-court-lottery">NPR</a>, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where Bloomekatz was nominated “is known to lean conservative.” Former President Donald Trump appointed six justices to the Cincinnati-based court while George W. Bush put on five.
Biden has now <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rachel-bloomekatz-nominated-to-sixth-circuit">nominated</a> three justices to the Sixth Circuit, with two pending nominations and one, Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, being confirmed earlier this week.

Joe Biden and Running Mate Kamala Harris Deliver Remarks In Delaware

Progressive Groups Celebrate Nomination of Former Biden-Harris Campaign Counsel To Conservative Leaning Court

Biden Administration

Sherrod Brown

On Wednesday, at the confirmation hearings for Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, President Biden’s judicial nominee for the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) laced into her for her prior statement that police kill unarmed black men every day in America. When Choudhury tried to excuse her statement by claiming she made it as an advocate, Kennedy retorted, “So when you say something that’s incorrect it’s okay to excuse it by saying, ‘Oh, I was being an advocate?’”
Kennedy started cornering Choudhury by asking, “This is a really simple question, Counselor. Do you believe that cops kill unarmed black men in America every day? You said it at Princeton.”
“Senator, I said it in my role as an advocate,” Choudhury answered, sitting back smugly.
“Oh, okay, you didn’t mean it?” Kennedy asked.
“Senator, I said it in my role as an advocate to make a rhetorical point,” Choudhury patronized.
“So when you say something that’s incorrect it’s okay to excuse it by saying, ‘Oh, I was being an advocate?’”Kennedy snapped.  “What do you believe? Do you personally believe that cops kill unarmed black men every single day in America?”
“Senator, I believe law enforcement have an important and challenging job in this country,” Choudhury dodged.
“That’s not what you said though, Counselor,” Kennedy pointed out.
Choudhury postured, “Senator, I say before you here today that I do believe law enforcement have a difficult and challenging job, and I also understand the difference between —&#8221;
“I just think that’s an extraordinary statement to make with no data to back it up.” Kennedy interjected. ”None whatsoever. There’s no basis for you saying that, and you knew it then and you know it now.  How could one possibly believe that you’re going to be unbiased on the federal bench?”
“Senator, I believe my record shows that I have worked collaboratively with law enforcement in Boston, Chicago, Mississippi, and Milwaukee to solve complex problems to promote constitutional, effective, and safe policing,” Choudhury answered.
“Your record shows that you believe cops are guilty until proven innocent,” Kennedy charged. “Your record shows that if a cop — if a cop shoots a criminal it’s the cop’s fault, and if a criminal shoots a cop it’s the gun’s fault. I’ve read your record. I’ve read your record &#8230; and I don’t appreciate you not answering the question straight up. I would respect you a lot more if you’d just tell us what you believe and not try to hide it.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pres. Biden’s judicial nominee claimed that police kill unarmed Black men in America every single day. I asked if she really believes that?
“I said it in my role as an advocate.”
“Oh, ok, you didn’t mean it?”
“I said it in my role as an advocate to make a rhetorical point.” <a href="https://t.co/AgVp5j38Zy">pic.twitter.com/AgVp5j38Zy</a>
&mdash; John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1519376248262336513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Choudhury attended Columbia University, where she received her bachelor&#8217;s degree in 1998, then attended the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs before receiving her juris doctor from Yale Law School in 2006.

pjimage

WATCH: Kennedy Confronts Biden Judicial Nominee Who Claimed Cops Kill Unarmed Black Men Every Day

Blacks

John Kennedy

New York

Police

President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-biden-to-nominate-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-supreme-court-report">selected</a> Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Progressive legal groups hailed the nomination as a groundbreaking historical first, while conservatives say Jackson is a judicial activist who will substitute her own views for those of the Founding Fathers. Ketanji Brown Jackson has worked as a lawyer in private practice supporting the abortion lobby, served as a public defender, and helped lead a federal board that reduced sentences for criminals.
Who is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, how has she ruled, and what does she believe? Here are the facts you need to know.
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s views on controversial issues
Abortion: Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/profile-of-a-potential-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/">represented</a> NARAL Pro-Choice America, the League of Women Voters, and the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts during her time in Boston’s Goodwin Procter law firm. In 2001, she helped <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mcguire-v-reilly-7">write</a> an amicus brief supporting a Massachusetts law that barred pro-life advocates from setting foot within six feet of any individual or vehicle that is within 18 feet of an abortion facility. Jackson’s record has earned her the fierce opposition of female leaders in the pro-life movement.
“We expect her to be a reliable vote for the far left and the Biden administration’s radical abortion agenda,” said <a href="https://marchforlife.org/">March for Life</a> president Jeanne Mancini.
“We have no doubt she will work with the most pro-abortion administration in history to enshrine abortion on demand nationwide in the law,” said <a href="https://sba-list.org/">Susan B. Anthony List</a> president Marjorie Dannenfelser. “With the Court’s decision in Dobbs expected this summer, the stakes have never been higher in the fight to protect unborn children and their mothers and let the people decide this issue through their elected representatives, not unelected judges.”
Crime: Ketanji Brown Jackson served as vice chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission during the Obama administration. In April 2014, the commission propounded the “Drugs Minus Two” rule, which lowered the punishment for all drug-related crimes by two offense levels. The rule, which applied to an estimated <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/23/federal-prisons-could-release-1-000-times-more-drug-offenders-than-obama-did">46,000</a> convicts, allowed judges to reduce convicts’ drug sentences <a href="https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/materials-on-2014-drug-guidelines-amendment/20140724_FAQ.pdf">by an average of two years and one month</a>. “The result of the Sentencing Commission’s proposal will be to reward drug traffickers and distributors who possessed a firearm, committed a crime of violence, or had prior convictions,” <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/thousands-of-violent-felons-to-be-released-in-november-under-new-sentencing-guidelines/">wrote</a> Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and then-Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) at the time.
Immigration: In September 2019, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2369-40">120-page ruling</a> (Make the Road New York v. McAleenan) that the Trump administration could not expand its use of “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717">expedited removal</a>”: that it could not fast-track the deportation of illegal aliens who had been in the country less than two years. Jackson ruled that the Trump administration should have considered the “potentially serious implications” its order would have on illegal aliens and not merely focus on “the perceived shiny bright spots” of the policy.
She also said the administration did not hold a public comment period on the policy, it had <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717">effectively</a> engaged in “decision making by Ouija board or dart board, rock/paper/scissors, or even the Magic 8 Ball.” The D.C. Circuit <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F398C868A41E007D85258590004E10B3/$file/19-5298-1848499.pdf">overturned</a> her decision. Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) explicitly <a href="https://www.fairus.org/issue/border-security/illegal-immigration-crime">states</a>, “Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable.”
Funding teen sex programs: When the Trump administration cut off $200 million in federal funding to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which teaches <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-cuts-funding-teen-pregnancy-programs-left-paul-bois">children as young as 10 to use condoms</a> and other contraceptives without emphasizing abstinence, Judge Jackson <a href="https://casetext.com/case/healthy-futures-texas-v-dept-of-health-human-servs">ruled</a> that the funding must continue. In April 2018, Judge Jackson questioned the right of the elected leaders to deny grant recipients and “suddenly say ‘<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html">too bad, so sad</a>.’” She called the Trump administration’s argument that the government should be able to determine who receives government grants “weird” before ordering the funding be restored.
Government bureaucracy and labor unions: In 2018, President Donald Trump <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/hiring-retention/2018/05/what-changes-and-doesnt-under-trumps-new-employee-removal-executive-order/">issued</a> three executive orders that would reduce the power of public sector unions and make it easier to fire employees for poor performance. They also ordered employees to spend at least 75% of their time on “agency business.” Trump limited the use of “<a href="https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/trump-cracking-down-wasted-time-and-money-the-va">official time</a>,” which allows government bureaucrats to use government resources to conduct union business during working hours, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/trump-executive-orders-are-surprisingly-popular-federal-employees">at taxpayers’ expense</a>.
He also said the government would not negotiate with labor unions on issues where it was not legally required to do so. In August 2018, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1261-58">119-page decision</a> eviscerating those orders, denying most of Trump’s actions (American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump). She admitted that, while Trump’s action did not “specifically and directly conflict with individual statutory prescriptions” (i.e., he did not violate the law), it so “diminishes the scope of bargaining” that, it seemed to Jackson, Trump’s orders are no longer “a good-faith effort.” The D.C. Court of Appeals once again <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/81BFA36379FFE7A185258439004F8C8A/$file/18-5289-1797318.pdf">overturned</a> Jackson’s decision, ruling that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.
Jackson’s <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7B60B8352A5EE0A9852587DC00533AA7/$file/20-1396-1933161.pdf">first appellate opinion</a>, issued in February on behalf of a three-judge panel, compelled government agencies to negotiate working conditions with labor unions.
Biography
Judge Ketanji <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-taps-ketanji-brown-jackson-for-supreme-court-11645797644">Onyika</a> Brown Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 1970, and raised in Miami. The 51-year-old is related by marriage to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), who introduced her during her 2012 confirmation hearings to the federal bench. She earned a bachelor’s degree in government and her law degree from Harvard. From 1999 to 2000, she clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, whom she would replace if she is confirmed. She is married to Georgetown surgeon Patrick Jackson and has two daughters, Talia and Leila.
President Barack Obama named Jackson to the federal bench in 2012, and the Senate approved her nomination by a voice vote in March 2013. She authored <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-taps-ketanji-brown-jackson-for-supreme-court-11645797644">more than 550 opinions</a>, which were <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/circuit-pick-jacksons-reversals-a-likely-target-for-senate-gop">frequently overturned</a> on appeal. President Obama interviewed her for the 2016 Supreme Court vacancy but settled on Merrick Garland.
President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to take Garland’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March 2021. The nomination marked her as a likely Supreme Court nominee, as Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, former justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, had all served on the D.C. circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson to the appeals court last June 14 by a <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00231.htm#position">53-44 vote</a>. Three Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted to confirm Jackson. Jackson wrote her <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-ketanji-brown-jacksons-first-appellate-opinion/">first appeals court decision</a> last month.
On Friday, Biden kept his campaign promise to name the first black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, a pledge that proved pivotal to winning the support of Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) during the South Carolina primary. Although Clyburn <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-clyburn-floating-south-carolina-judge-for-future-scotus-vacancy">preferred</a> the more moderate J. Michelle Childs, a South Carolina native, Jackson has other “fans within the Congressional Black Caucus, the influential group of lawmakers who also has the president’s ear,” <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-bio-facts-background-political-views-00010970">according</a> to Politico. Jackson was also on the <a href="https://demandjustice.org/supreme-court-shortlist/">short list</a> of <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/demand-justice/">Demand Justice</a>, which has been called a “liberal dark money” group and is focused on packing the nation’s courts with judicial activists.
&#8220;With the intended nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden has made it clear that his top priority is paying back the left-wing dark money network that spent over one billion dollars to help elect him and Senate Democrats,&#8221; said Carrie Severino, the president of the <a href="https://judicialnetwork.com/">Judicial Crisis Network</a>.
Competence
Judge Jackson’s supporters point to her Ivy League education, recent bipartisan confirmation, and experience on the bench as proof she is “<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/webratingchart-117.pdf">well qualified</a>.” But many others question Jackson’s abilities.
“People on the right don’t think Brown Jackson is stellar intellectually,” <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/11/conservatives-target-judge-brown-jackson-worst-cho/">said</a> Curt Levey, president of the <a href="https://committeeforjustice.org/">Committee for Justice</a>. Ed Whelan, who holds the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the <a href="https://eppc.org/">Ethics and Public Policy Center</a>, said that “Jackson is not highly regarded as a judge” and has “a middling reputation. This criticism, I’ll emphasize, is on grounds of quality, not ideology.”
Republicans will have to contend with remarks from then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html">called</a> Jackson (whose husband is the twin brother of Ryan’s brother-in-law) “clearly qualified” and “an amazing person.”
Prospects of confirmation
Jackson appears to face little or no Democratic opposition inside the evenly divided Senate, even from its more centrist members. Before Jackson’s nomination, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who calls himself “pro-life,” has <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/everything-joe-manchin-has-said-about-bidens-supreme-court-nomination-1674984">said</a> he is “anxious” to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, even with someone “more liberal than me,” provided the nominee has “a sound thought process.” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) has also <a href="https://kyma.com/news/2022/02/25/politicians-comment-on-judge-ketanji-brown-jacksons-nomination-for-supreme-court/">signaled</a> her openness to voting for Jackson.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has said he plans to confirm Jackson before the Senate’s Easter break in April.
Conservatives continue to warn against the dangers of confirming Judge Jackson to the Supreme Court. “She is by all accounts a liberal judge. I think she’s the choice of the radical Left,” said former Vice President Mike Pence on Friday.
“President Biden is selecting a judicial activist for the Supreme Court,” said Kelly Shackelford of the <a href="https://firstliberty.org/">First Liberty Institute</a>. “Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s judicial activism will place the constitutional rights of all Americans in jeopardy.”

Jackson

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson? Everything You Need To Know About Biden’s SCOTUS Pick

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Readers Pass

Grilling Anne Rachel Traum, President Biden’s nominee to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) repeatedly asked her if she thought judges should forgive criminal misbehavior in the name of social justice.
When Traum refused nine times to give a direct yes or no answer, Kennedy finally asked her what her favorite color was. After she answered, “Blue,” Kennedy responded, “Thank you. I got one. I’m one for about twenty. I can’t vote for you. Not if you’re not going to answer questions. I mean, that was embarrassing.”
The exchange went like this:
<blockquote>Kennedy: Professor Traum, do you think we should forgive criminal misbehavior in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, thank you for that question. I recognize that all issues of crime and all responses to crime are fundamentally policy issues. So those are important issues, they’re important for our community and our nation, but I leave those policy issues to policy makers. If confirmed as a judge, I would not be a policy maker. I would be —
Kennedy: I’m not asking your opinion as a judge. I’m asking your opinion as a person, as a law professor. I’ll stipulate with all of you that you’re all going to be fair and unbiased, okay? Now, do you think that criminal misbehavior and illegal acts should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, I do believe that all criminal policy is fundamentally a policy issue.
Kennedy: Yes ma’am but do you think as a person, as a professor, that an illegal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, that is not a view that I have taken in my work and —
Kennedy: That’s no? Is your answer no?
Traum: Senator, in my work I have not taken that view and —
Kennedy: I’m asking, Professor, what you believe. I think this is really straightforward; you’re a professor. Do you believe that an illegal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice? It’s pretty simple.
Traum: Senator, I believe that we have criminal laws, criminal laws that are created by policy-making bodies like this one —
Kennedy: I got all that. Do you believe that a criminal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: So, Senator, we have not only criminal laws but we have a criminal process by which people come before the court to be held accountable if they are charged with a crime. And I have enormous respect for that process.
Kennedy: I do, too. Do you believe that a criminal action should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, when people come before the court, if they are charged with the crime, that is a highly individualized and fact-specific process with all who are involved. And I respect that process.
Kennedy: I respect the heck out of it.  Do you believe that a criminal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, I don’t think that I could say with respect to any particular case, or as a generality with respect to any category of cases —
Kennedy: Do you not have an opinion?
Traum: I don’t have a view to share on how any particular kind of case should be handled.
Kennedy: Do you have a view on my question?
Traum: I do not have a viewpoint to share on how any particular case —
Kennedy: I didn’t ask that; I can tell you don’t want to share it; I got that part. Do you have a view? I don’t understand why you won’t answer my question. If you’re confirmed you’re going to be a federal judge. I join my good friend Senator Durbin in saying the judicial temperament is important, but I think being unbiased is even more important, and I find it incredible that you won’t answer my question. So I’m going to ask it again; maybe it’s me. Do you believe that we should forgive a criminal act in the name of social justice?
Traum: Senator, I share the view that we should be unbiased but I also share the view that our criminal justice system and our process is very individualized, so what should happen in any particular case is a matter of the process and the very specific facts in that case.
Kennedy: Do you believe that a criminal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?
Traum: Any case is always highly individualized, based on the process and the fact —
Kennedy: What’s your favorite color?
Traum: Blue.
Kennedy: Thank you. I got one. I’m one for about twenty. I can’t vote for you. Not if you’re not going to answer questions. I mean, that was embarrassing.</blockquote>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PvXwskecGCs" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

pjimage-2

WATCH: ‘What’s Your Favorite Color?’ Kennedy Grills Biden Judicial Nominee, Finally Gets A Direct Answer

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Monday that the Biden administration must &#8220;restore the balance to the bench&#8221; after the Trump administration&#8217;s many &#8220;horrible&#8221; judicial appointments to federal courts.
MSNBC&#8217;s Rachel Maddow asked Schumer on her show Monday evening when he thinks the Biden administration&#8217;s first judicial nominations will move forward.
&#8220;Obviously the Trump administration did that in a machine-like way,&#8221; Maddow said. &#8220;They put hundreds of judges with lifetime tenure on the courts. We haven&#8217;t seen any judicial nominations from this president yet. Should we expect those soon?&#8221;
&#8220;Yes,&#8221; Schumer responded, adding that he has been working with the White House to start the process.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;We have to restore the balance.&quot; &#8211; Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tells Rachel Maddow that judicial appointments will come as soon as President Biden&#39;s Cabinet is filled. <a href="https://t.co/kYWbqZLLrF">pic.twitter.com/kYWbqZLLrF</a>
&mdash; Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1371638504900472832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They put so many right-wing, really, some of the people who they put on the bench were people, I hate to use all these bad words, but they&#8217;re just horrible,&#8221; the New York Democrat continued. &#8220;They had no understanding of walking in the other person&#8217;s shoes. They were narrow, right-wing, often young people.&#8221;
&#8220;So we have to restore the balance to the bench, and that&#8217;s of great urgency. And we will,&#8221; the Senate&#8217;s top Democrat said.
Working with Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former President Donald Trump appointed more than 230 judges to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court judges that tipped the balance towards the court&#8217;s more conservative judges.
Even before Trump took office, McConnell had left many federal circuit and district court seats open, as well as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia&#8217;s seat, refusing to consider former President Barack Obama&#8217;s nominee Merrick Garland.
The Senate continued to confirm judicial nominees even after Trump lost the election to President Joe Biden in November and as control of the Senate hung in the balance. Some of Trump&#8217;s lifetime appointees are still in their 30s, and 30% of the judges on the country&#8217;s court of appeals were appointed by the last administration.
McConnell acknowledged the staying power of the major reshaping of the federal judiciary as the Trump presidency approached its end last year and expressed the pride he takes in having been a key figure in the effort.
“I think it’s far and away the most consequential thing I’ve ever been involved in,” McConnell <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-elections-judiciary-d5807340e86d05fbc78ed50fb43c1c46">said</a> last year. “And it’s the most long-lasting accomplishment of the current administration, by far.’’
During his 2016 campaign, Trump ran heavily on appointing conservative judges, releasing a list of potential Supreme Court nominees as part of an effort to allay concerns that the formerly pro-abortion New York businessman would not appoint conservatives.
Schumer said Monday that once the Senate confirms Biden&#8217;s Cabinet members and the other major appointments, a process that is almost done, they will move on and begin appointing judges and &#8220;redressing the imbalance that Trump put on the bench.&#8221;
&#8220;We have a big, bold agenda, but we&#8217;re getting it done,&#8221; Schumer said. &#8220;We&#8217;re going to have to get it done. Failure is not an option, and we are just getting started.&#8221;

Schumer

Schumer Says Biden Admin Must ‘Restore The Balance To The Bench’ After ‘Horrible’ Trump Judicial Appointments

Charles Schumer

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced Monday evening that she will be stepping down from her role as leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
&#8220;After serving as the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for four years, I will not seek the chairmanship or ranking member position in the next Congress,&#8221; Feinstein announced.
The announcement comes on the heels of leftist calls for Feinstein to step aside over apparently being <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-asked-about-judiciary-committee-says-hes-had-long-and-serious-talk-with-feinstein">insufficiently progressive</a> and daring to thank Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) on how he ran the Supreme Court nomination hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In October, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-abortion group that has given Feinstein a 100% congressional scorecard rating, slammed the Democrat and called for &#8220;new leadership,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-asked-about-judiciary-committee-says-hes-had-long-and-serious-talk-with-feinstein">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>“Americans—whose lives hang in the balance—deserve leadership that underscores how unprecedented, shameful, and wrong this process is. The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, failed to make this clear and in fact offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership.”</blockquote>
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), too, revealed that he had a &#8220;serious&#8221; conversation with Feinstein.
“I’ve had a long and serious talk with Senator Feinstein, and that’s all I’m going to say about it right now,” said Schumer, when asked about potential plans to make changes to the judiciary committee.
Feinstein has served as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee since 2017 and previously served as chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.
“California is a huge state confronting two existential threats – wildfire and drought – that are only getting worse with climate change. In the next Congress, I plan to increase my attention on those two crucial issues,&#8221; the Democrat said in a statement released Monday. &#8220;I also believe that defeating COVID-19, combating climate change and protecting access to health care are critical national priorities that require even more concentration.&#8221;
“I look forward to continuing to serve as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary, Intelligence, Appropriations and Rules committees as we work with the Biden administration on priorities like gun safety, immigration reform and addressing inequities in criminal justice,&#8221; Feinstein added. &#8220;I will continue to do my utmost to bring about positive change in the coming years.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Feinstein&#39;s full statement: <a href="https://t.co/yqh7w7gvHe">pic.twitter.com/yqh7w7gvHe</a>
&mdash; Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1331007522052984832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced Monday that he intends to &#8220;seek the top Democratic position on the Judiciary Committee in the 117th Congress.&#8221;
“I intend to seek the top Democratic position on the Judiciary Committee in the 117th Congress,&#8221; he said in a <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/11/23/21612144/illinois-sen-dick-durbin-seeking-top-democratic-spot-on-senate-judiciary-committee">statement</a>. “I have served on the Committee for 22 years, and I am its most senior member who does not currently serve atop another Senate Committee. We have to roll up our sleeves and get to work on undoing the damage of the last four years and protecting fundamental civil and human rights.&#8221;
“For the last four years, Republicans leading the Senate Judiciary Committee have turned a blind eye to the worst abuses of the Trump era,&#8221; Durbin claimed. &#8220;While President Trump assaulted the Constitution, the Judiciary Committee abdicated its oversight responsibilities and became little more than a conveyor belt to rubberstamp ideological and largely underqualified judicial nominees. The to-do list for the Senate Judiciary Committee is long, and of critical importance to the future progress of our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dick Durbin: “I intend to seek the top Democratic position on the Judiciary Committee in the 117th Congress.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/g6NDGqqVZs">pic.twitter.com/g6NDGqqVZs</a>
&mdash; Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1331034315355009025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Pushed Out? Feinstein Stepping Down As Lead Democrat On Judiciary Committee Following Left-Wing Criticism

Dianne Feinstein

U.S. Senate

None of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee showed up Thursday for the planned committee vote on whether to send Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett&#8217;s nomination to the full Senate.
The rules say in order to have a quorum, at least two members of the minority party must be present.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Thursday said &#8220;to my Democratic colleagues, you had four days of hearings, two days to question the judge. She deserves an up-or-down vote. She did an outstanding job representing herself&#8230; She deserves better than this but she will get out of the committee today. I have the votes to get her out of committee.&#8221;
Instead of showing up, Democrats on the panel put pictures of people who rely upon the Affordable Care Act in their chairs.
Graham waived the rule requiring minority participation and the committee voted unanimously 12-0 to move ACB&#8217;s nomination forward.
On Wednesday, Graham said that Barrett would receive a vote on Thursday, despite the boycott from Democrats.
&#8220;Under the committee rules you need two members of the minority to conduct business,&#8221; Graham said on &#8220;Fox and Friends.&#8221; &#8220;But they&#8217;re intentionally denying us that participation. They&#8217;re boycotting the committee. So what I will do as chairman there will be a majority of the committee present. We will waive that rule. We will report Judge Barrett out. She will go to the floor. And hopefully by Monday or Tuesday she will be on the court.&#8221;
In a later statement, Graham said: &#8220;Judge Barrett deserves a vote and she will receive a vote. Judge Barrett deserves to be reported out of committee and she will be reported out of committee. Judge Barrett deserves to be on the Supreme Court and she will be confirmed.&#8221;
Graham added: &#8220;As to my Democratic colleagues’ refusal to attend the markup, that is a choice they are making. I believe it does a disservice to Judge Barrett who deserves a vote, up or down.&#8221;
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained his party&#8217;s stance on Wednesday. &#8220;We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway,&#8221; Schumer and the Judiciary Committee Democrats said in a statement announcing the boycott.
&#8220;Republicans broke the promises they made and rules they created when they blocked Merrick Garland&#8217;s nomination for eight months under President Obama. Then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that &#8216;the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,'&#8221; the statement also said. &#8220;Now, Republicans have moved at breakneck speed to jam through this nominee, ignoring her troubling record and unprecedented evasions, and breaking longstanding committee rules to set tomorrow&#8217;s vote.&#8221;
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) also said: &#8220;Last week, Judiciary Committee Republicans broke the Committee’s rules, over my objection, in their power-hungry effort to advance this nomination before the hearing had even ended. Their haste is a disgrace. I refuse to legitimize tomorrow’s vote, which violates the Judiciary Committee’s longstanding rules. That is why I will not participate in tomorrow’s markup.&#8221;

President Trump Announces His Supreme Court Nominee To Replace Justice Ginsburg

Republicans Advance ACB Supreme Court Nomination Despite Democrats’ Boycott Of Committee Vote

Amy Coney Barrett

Lindsey Graham

Menu