Highlights and ("Low" Lights) from Day 1 of Kavanaugh Hearing

Today was the first day of the confirmation hearings for the nomination to the Supreme Court of current D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  The hearing started inauspiciously, as both Democratic senators and protesters in the room interrupted Chairman Chuck Grassley as he convened the hearing. To their credit, Senators Leahy and Feinstein did not join in the breach of order but rather looked uncomfortable at their colleagues' indecorous behavior.

Democrats' objections over Kavanaugh documents ring hollow when over 12-years of circuit court decisions are publicly available and rest of documents are largely irrelevant: https://t.co/bg3tDMNtWV

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Chairman Grassley: We have received and read every page of Judge Kavanaugh's extensive judicial record, amounting to more than 10,000 pages of judicial writing. Also 17,000 of articles, speeches, and teaching materials. 483,000 pages of documents from executive branch service.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Chairman Grassley was very patient with the repeated interruptions and responded to them, before finally beginning his actual opening statement over an hour after the hearing started:

Chairman Grassley: Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified, if not most qualified, nominee I have ever seen. Deep commitment to rule of law. Written eloquently that both judges and executive agencies bound by law Congress enacts. Committed to what law says, not what should say.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

After the Chairman and Ranking Member finally gave their opening statements, the other committee members gave their "10-minute" statements.  Chairman Grassley graciously allowed senators to go significantly over their allotted time, and the Democratic members of the committee greatly abused this courtesy with lengthy speeches.

.@senorrinhatch makes point that this is most thorough SCOTUS hearing ever. More documents than any other nominee. Democrats obstruction exposed. #ConfirmKavanaugh

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

While Senator Leahy goes down the rabbit hole with his "Alice in Wonderland" analogies, keep in mind that he once said the ABA rating of a judge was the the "gold standard." Kavanaugh received an "unanimous well-qualified" (highest rating) rating from ABA. #confrimKavanuagh

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

This tweet destroys Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whole argument and ridiculous Roberts five fairy tale. https://t.co/8iEi6mSie7

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

.@SenTedCruz nails it. This hearing is not about Judge Brett Kavanaugh but about "re-litigating the 2016 election" for Senate Democrats. Note to Democrats: you lost. #ConfirmKavanaugh

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Sen. Sasse gave an excellent civics and history lesson about how the distortion of the separation of powers under the Constitution has led us to the point where Supreme Court nominations are so contentious:

Sen. Sasse: Solution to problems with current confirmation process is to restore separation of powers that Founders created. Judges are insulated from politics, not super-legislators.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

After joking that he had a 12-minute preamble followed by an 18-minute opening statement (as Sen. Booker did immediately preceding him), Sen. Tillis pointed out that the Democratic senators could use the hearing as a valuable opportunity to engage in a legitimate debate:

Sen. Tillis challenges Dems to engage in debate over legal theory with Kavanaugh, try to convince him why his opinion in a case was wrong. But notes - of course, that's not what this hearing is about for Dems.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Both Senators Booker and Harris were clearly on the presidential campaign trail, giving stump speeches meant to appeal to the liberal Democratic base, with Sen. Harris going so far as to claim that Judge Kavanaugh's entire career has been driven by partisanship:

Also claiming that Judge Kavanaugh pursued a "partisan agenda" on the D.C. Circuit. https://t.co/aWwbQpN75l

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Sen. Graham concluded with a strong statement calling out the Democrats for their hypocrisy:

Sen. Graham calls out Dems' hypocrisy: Dems arguing that you can be a conservative, Republican president but have to nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court to be fair. Justice Breyer was Dem Judiciary Counsel. Justice Ginsburg was counsel to ACLU.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Then the hearing moved to introducing Judge Kavanaugh and his opening statement:

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: Brett Kavanaugh I know is hard working, has sense of humor, seeks truth in facts, makes those around him better, listens (especially to those with whom he disagrees), has wisdom. Indispensable qualities for responsibilities of SCOTUS.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Sen. Portman: In my view, there is not a more qualified person to serve on SCOTUS. Been praised as fair, smart, and independent on DC Circuit. Authored 307 opinions; Supreme Court endorsed his opinion 13 times. Well-respected judge & professor, thought leader among his peers.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Lawyer Lisa Blatt has argued 35 cases before Supreme Court, more than any other woman. Liberal, Democrat, pro-abortion. But urges Senate to confirm Kavanaugh - "By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

Judge Kavanaugh: Judge must interpret statutes as written, must interpret Constitution as written, informed by history and precedent. Good judge must be neutral arbiter who favors no litigant or policy. Judges make decisions because law and Constitution compel the result.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018

The hearing will resume tomorrow at 9:30 and can be watched live here.  It is scheduled to last through Friday.  The RNLA will live tweet the hearing each day.  

Election Administration Issues for Key 2018 Primary Elections

Eight states voted on Tuesday in their primary elections, and at least two of them had significant problems in voting. In the South Dakota primaries, a Republican voter was told by an election supervisor to use an incorrect ballot.

Wrong place, wrong ballot. Voters contacted KELOLAND News about receiving the wrong ballots on election day. That includes Mark Millage, who lives in Sioux Falls. 

On their ballot, Republican voters in district nine got to choose between state senate candidates Lora Hubbel and Wayne H. Steinhauer. When Millage went to vote, polling place workers gave him a District 9 ballot. The problem is he is a District 11 voter. 

He says he told the polling place supervisor, who called county auditor Bob Litz's office. Millage, the former news director for KELOLAND News, says they told him to use the wrong ballot anyway.

Incorrect ballots were not the only problem for South Dakota’s Tuesday Primaries as a computer glitch in Sioux Falls led to chaos at a number of polling locations.

More than half the voting sites, 16 in all, extended the closing time on Tuesday’s election day to accommodate a late start to ballot-casting thanks to a computer problem: The county-issued Dell Computers that navigated the new e-poll book service were not connecting to the secure hot spots provided by a separate router for each device. 

Julie Pearson, Pennington County auditor, said she had no idea of how many voters were turned away at polling places, but the clunky equipment failure dogged many precincts. The laptops started up, but the election software connecting officials to the Secretary of State's voter registration. 

There was no paper back-up on hand, and without voter registration lists, poll workers couldn’t verify a voter’s identification and protect the integrity of the election process.

In California, voting issues were also rampant Tuesday as over 100,000 voters were left off voting rosters in Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan told CBS Los Angeles voters whose names did not appear on the roster at their polling place would be given provisional ballots, after a printing issue affected the voter rolls of more than one in four precincts. A total of 118,522 names were omitted.

Another controversy in California dealt with questions of impropriety as the Dianne Feinstein Elementary School in San Francisco was used as a polling location for the California Senate Primary which featured Senator Dianne Feinstein.

These problems show the importance of poll watchers and lawyer observers to ensure open, fair and honest elections. Not just to stop vote fraud.

The Present-Day Red Scare Continues; At Risk, Our 1st Amendment

David Harsanyi of the National Review posted a story noting all the hysteria by the left regarding the latest phase of the "Russia Probe" into the 2016 Election. His story, "The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All about Chilling Speech," highlights the troubling implications made by the left, if followed through to fruition. 

This story surrounds the debate to release a controversial, confidential memo by Rep. Devin Nunes regarding alleged FBI surveillance of the Trump Campaign in 2016. In turn, many in the public have called for the release of this memo, which has caused hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo to trend across social media. Mr. Harsanyi noted:

It didn’t take long for a report to emerge that claimed Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump...The report also prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an “in-depth forensic examination” on the “ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process.”. . .

As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter’s internal analysis found it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtag. Not that it really matters, anyway. If a group of Americans have a legitimate issue to rally around, how is it supposed to control what outsiders do? It’s not as if #ReleaseTheMemo were secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it. . . .

Yet if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what apparently turned out to be solely partisan reasons. . . . Not long before she demanded forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding that Twitter, Facebook, and Google restrict their content more tightly, threatening, “Do something about it — or we will.” Democrats have attempted to control interactions through the Fairness Doctrine or the IRS, and now through the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.

Mr. Harsanyi also makes a comparison the how speech is treated in Europe today:

Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching a “rapid response unit” run by the state to “battle the proliferation of ‘fake news’ online.” The “national security communications unit” will be tasked with combating misinformation — as if it had either the power or ability to do so. In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat “fake news,” which includes the power to institute an emergency block on websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong?

He finishes by making a very good, salient point:

I’d rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than with authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news... If your argument is that Americans are uninformed and easily misled, I’m with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy. But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.

Just as a refresher, according to CBS News, the total costs of the 2016 Election were estimated to be some $6.8 Billion. Americans should not allow the Democrats to use scare-mongering over alleged Russian interference in our public discourse as an excuse to limit Americans' important right of free speech.  

Senator Hatch on Religious Liberty

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah recently published a post on the Harvard Law Review Blog on the status of religious liberty in America. Senator Hatch writes about how the concept of religious liberty used to be a noncontroversial issue that garnered bipartisan support. However, those days are gone and the result is raising issues that go against the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers:

Religious liberty was, in several critical ways, the first freedom of our system. Its explicit protection is the first injunction commanded by the First Amendment. Ingrained deeply in our culture and in our institutions, its expression has proven central to the national character. Our Constitution allows no establishment of religion, and permits no undue restraint upon its exercise, such that our citizens may make their own determinations on matters of conscience.

This basic principle used to be widely shared. It used to be one of the few matters that spanned the divide . . . And yet today, where do we find ourselves? In a recent judicial confirmation hearing, a nominee was asked, explicitly, “do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” That same nominee was told that, upon review of her record, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” Statements like that can be taken only as the imposition of some kind of religious test for holding office. Nothing could be more repugnant to our values of religious freedom and liberty.

Senator Hatch noted this shift is a fairly recent one, noting that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) garnered near-unanimous support in both chambers of Congress.  He continued by referencing recent major court decisions and growing pressures being added to stresses put upon our right to religious liberty:

In cases like Trinity Lutheran and controversies from Hobby Lobby to the Zubik v. Burwell [case], there is a new pressure on those living and espousing their faith. And yet, unlike in the past, there is no longer a chorus of voices — from both sides of the aisle — standing up for religious liberty. There is no longer a broad, bipartisan agreement that religious rights are not to be tampered with, demeaned, overlooked, or casually brushed aside. More and more, religious liberty is treated as an afterthought to those making policy and as an inconvenience to those carrying it out. More and more, it proves a quick rhetorical box to check before moving on to matters deemed more important.

Senator Hatch cautions if religious liberty is not protected, it could be lost and its impact widely felt. In its wake, a new standard would be imposed on all Americans that would curtail their First Amendment rights.

This country’s protection of religious liberty — unique in the world and through most of history — is too rare, and was won upon the sacrifice of too many, to be quietly disregarded for falling out of the popularity of the times. I, for one, plan to keep speaking to this issue . . . Religious liberty is a bedrock principle of the American political order. Its protection is of the highest order and the greatest priority. It is not merely one of many values, to be weighed against other competing social and political goals, and discarded when inconvenient.

Senator Orrin Hatch has been a staunch advocate of religious liberty during his long Senate career. Even today, President Trump while in Utah was encouraging Senator Hatch to run for reelection. The RNLA thanks Senator Hatch for his outspoken efforts to defend and preserve our religious liberty and his leadership in the Senate.

Democrats Obstruct and Delay Trump's Nominees

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about how Senate Democrats are obstructing and delaying President Trump's nominees on an unprecedented scale:

Last month, President Trump claimed that the confirmation process for his cabinet had been “record-setting long — and I mean record-setting long — with some of the finest people in our country being delayed and delayed and delayed.”  Trump’s cabinet nominees were pending with the Senate for 25 days, on average, compared to zero to two days, on average, for the last three presidents.  Fourteen of them went through the cloture process, compared to just seven of President Obama’s cabinet nominees during his entire tenure.  Even the Washington Post recognized that Trump has “faced unusually sustained opposition for a new president” and gave his claim a rare Geppetto Checkmark, reserved for claims that are “surprisingly correct.” . . .  

No Democratic senator has returned a blue slip, a Senate tradition allowing senators to give approval for a judicial nominee from their state to move forward, for any of President Trump’s judicial nominees.  Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen was nominated to the Sixth Circuit back on May 8.  Michigan voters re-elected Justice Larsen with 57 percent of the vote in 2016, and she is widely respected.  Yet Michigan has two Democrat senators, and her nomination may be delayed so that they can toe the party line laid down by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

Only three of Trump’s nominee’s to the U.S. Department of Justice have been confirmed. . . . Noel Francisco’s nomination to be solicitor general, the number three position in the Justice Department, has been pending since April 24. . . . Most recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has signaled that Democrats intend to engage in wholesale obstruction of all U.S. Attorney nominees. . . .  

Democrats are traditionally the party of big government, looking to government for solutions to all of life’s problems, big and small.  But what we have learned since President Trump took office is that Democrats only look to the government when they are in control of it.  They are perfectly happy to obstruct government’s operation—and ignore the will of the people as expressed through our system of representative government—when they do not control the levers of power.

Mr. Thielen calls for an end to the delay and attacks tactics and for the American people to tell Democratic senators that they oppose "obstruction of qualified nominees in the Senate."

Feinstein Admitted That Democrats Aren't Considering Gorsuch's Record

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder highlighted a "remarkable exchange" between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Judge Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday:

In conformity with the ethical requirements for judges, he refused to bind himself to how he would rule on future cases, prompting Mrs. Feinstein to lament: “How do we have confidence in you that you won’t be just for the big corporations? That you will be for the little men? … I’m just looking for something that would indicate that you would give a worker a fair shot, maybe it is in your background somewhere that I don’t know about, but I’d like to have you respond to it any way you can.” . . .  

Judge Gorsuch thanked Mrs. Feinstein for the opportunity to correct the presentation of his judicial record, noting that he had participated in more than 2,700 opinions in over 10 years on the federal bench and Democratic senators had selected just a few to focus on that do “not represent the body of my work.” He has, as he pointed out, ruled for both big corporate and “little guy” parties, depending on the law applicable in that case. . . . Then he listed 13 cases in which he ruled for . . . “little guys.” 

Mrs. Feinstein’s response was astounding: “That’s helpful. We’ll find them and read them.” Think about what that means. 

In the seven weeks since President Trump announced Judge Gorsuch as his nominee to Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, Mrs. Feinstein and her staff have not bothered to thoroughly research or review the judge’s extensive record. . . . Instead of engaging in a meaningful review of the nominee and his qualifications, the senator and her staff have been content to rely on the talking points given to them by radically progressive groups whose only goal is to oppose Mr. Trump, Republicans and conservative principles in any and every way possible.

This was typical of the Democrats' approach throughout the hearing, in which they either focused on the outcomes (and rarely the legal reasoning) of a small handful of cases cherrypicked from his extensive judicial record or attempted to have him unethically bind himself on future cases or express political views.  Instead of engaging in a genuine inquiry into Judge Gorsuch's legal philosophy and interpretative methods, they chose (with a handful of notable exceptions) to simply repeat progressive talking points that voters showed they were tired of last fall.

Click here to follow RNLA's commentary and highlights on Twitter. Please consider signing the RNLA's letter to the Senate in support of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation here.

Highlights of Twitter Today on Gorsuch Hearing

Here are some highlights from Twitter coverage (aside from the RNLA's coverage) of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, which began today:

The first test of SupCt nominees is to sit still and simulate interest in senators as though they were speaking intelligently.

— Matt Franck (@MatthewJFranck) March 20, 2017

Grassley's opening statement focuses on importance of judicial independence, separation of powers. Gorsuch's record shows that in spades.

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) March 20, 2017

If Feinstein's statement is indicative of Democrats' strategy, they are poised to blow this. Unfocused, unfair, and weirdly amateurish.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 20, 2017

Sen. Whitehouse--contra Feinstein--says "originalism" favors liberal outcomes and conservative justices were being activist. So which is it?

— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) March 20, 2017

Dem senator Bennet praises Gorsuch's "outstanding INTEGRITY and intellect." Undercuts Left's baseless claim that Gorsuch is biased jurist.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 20, 2017

"In the West, we listen to each other." - Gorsuch in 97% unanimous rulings, 99% in majority. Legit wow. #GorsuchHearing

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) March 20, 2017

The hearing will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 AM Eastern and is expected to go through Thursday.   For great coverage of the hearing on Twitter, follow:

• RNLA
• Ed Whelan
• Carrie Severino
• Ilya Shapiro
• Randy Barnett
• Tiffany Bates
• Elizabeth Slattery
• Senate Judiciary

RNLA will be live-tweeting and retweeting great commentary throughout the hearing.  Follow us on Twitter here.

RNLA Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee in Support of Judge Gorsuch

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

On behalf of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA), we urge you to promptly confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. 

Judge Gorsuch’s legal and judicial experience has prepared him well to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.  In private practice, he represented his clients with skill and zeal, understanding their concerns and how the law impacted them individually and advocating for their interests, and he was well-respected by colleagues and opposing counsel alike.

As a federal appellate judge for the past ten years, he has demonstrated a deep understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional system.  Judge Gorsuch has proven that he is committed to the rule of law by carefully considering the text, history, and structure of laws and applying them to the facts of each case before him.  He has sought to interpret the Constitution and the law impartially and communicate his interpretation through clear, concise language that makes his judicial decisions understandable by both lawyers and non-lawyers.  Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudential methodology protects the rights of individual citizens, respects the separation of powers, and provides citizens notice of what laws mean and how they will be applied.

The RNLA is the home of Republican lawyers in the Republican Party.  Before his nomination to the federal bench, Mr. Gorsuch was a leader in the RNLA.  We were privileged to work with such a competent, intelligent attorney then and are equally honored to support his nomination to the Supreme Court now.  

Thank you for your careful consideration of Judge Gorsuch and his excellent qualifications to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  We encourage the Judiciary Committee, and the whole Senate, to promptly confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Sincerely,

RNLA Leadership 

A copy of the letter is here.  

Deep Bench: Judge Gorsuch's Support Grows Ahead of Senate Hearing

There is a growing and resounding base of support for Judge Neil Gorsuch's swift and prompt confirmation ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next week. Yesterday, The Washington Post published an opinion article by Jonathan H. Adler entitled "Judge Gorsuch attracts broad bipartisan support among legal elites." Adler presents a list of many legal heavy-hitters supporting Gorsuch and his confirmation. Below are some of the more notable examples and excerpts from Adler's piece demonstrating the breadth of Gorsuch's support.  

From liberal lawyer David C. Frederick:

Gorsuch — my former law partner and longtime friend — is brilliant, diligent, open-minded and thoughtful. . . . Gorsuch’s approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer and a judge embodies a reverence for our country’s values and legal system. The facts developed in a case matter to him; the legal rules established by legislatures and through precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is deeply ingrained in him.

In an open, nonpartisan letter, entitled "Why We Support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court," some 50-plus of Judge Gorsuch's Harvard Law classmates penned a letter in support: 

We are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and independents; progressives, conservatives and moderates; religious and non-observant; married, single and divorced; men and women; straight and gay. Our group includes citizens residing abroad and a U.S. resident holding a green card. We live in big cities, rural America and places in between. Some of us supported Hillary Clinton, others voted for Donald Trump, while some of us supported third-party or write-in candidates. Some signatories believe in a more active judiciary, while others believe in judicial restraint. What unites us is that we attended law school with Judge Neil Gorsuch—a man we’ve known for more than a quarter century—and we unanimously believe Neil possesses the exemplary character, outstanding intellect, steady temperament, humility and open-mindedness to be an excellent addition to the United States Supreme Court.

About two weeks ago, nearly three dozen leading appellate litigators voiced their support of Judge Gorsuch via a letter submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

We write to express our strong support for Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The undersigned are members of the Supreme Court bar with substantial experience before the Court. Collectively, we have argued more than 500 cases before the Court. Many of us, moreover, worked with Judge Gorsuch (or litigated against him) when he was in private practice; served alongside him in the Justice Department; or have appeared before him in the Court of Appeals. We hold a broad range of political, policy, and jurisprudential views. But we are unified in offering our support of Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. 

Fairminded, dedicated, smart, and unfailingly polite, Judge Gorsuch is someone all of us would be pleased to appear before. He is principled in his approach to the law, but also keenly aware of practical consequences. He is a thoroughly kind and decent person. Respectful of colleagues and counsel alike, Judge Gorsuch has the unusual combination of character, dedication, and intellect that would make him an asset to our Nation’s highest court.  

With such a deep bench of support from across the legal spectrum, Judge Gorsuch deserves a swift "up or down vote." Judge Gorsuch's Senate hearing is scheduled to begin next week on Monday, March 20th.

Democrats Plan to Delay Trump's Nominees; Demanded Speedy Confirmations for Obama's

Newly anointed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insists that the rules of the confirmation process are different for President-elect Trump's nominees than they were for President Obama's nominees:

According to reports, Schumer is demanding that hearings for multiple nominees not be held on the same day, severely limiting the ability of committees to have nominees confirmed by inauguration on January 20. 

Schumer is also demanding “reams of personal financial data” from Trump’s nominees. It’s quite a change in approach and tone for Schumer, who in 2009 insisted that then-Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner be confirmed “as quickly as possible,” despite Geithner openly admitting to not paying his full taxes while working at the International Monetary Fund from 2001-2004. 

Apparently unconcerned by the appearance of partisan politics, Schumer’s disinterest in scrutinizing Democratic nominees in 2009 matches closely with his insistence on dragging out the nomination process, potentially into March 2017, for Republicans this time around.

Here are three reasons Democrats gave for needing speedy confirmation of President Obama's nominees:

1. “As Quickly as We Possibly Could” During previous confirmation processes under President Obama, Democrats were eager to point out that “we have always had the tradition of moving these nominees as quickly as we possibly could,” as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in 2015 about Loretta Lynch. 

2. “For the Good of the American People” Democrats in 2008 couched their insistence on a swift confirmation process as something “for the good of the American people,” as Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) did regarding Department of Justice nominees. Leahy insisted on getting nominees in place “before the inauguration.” 

3. “Prior to the President Actually Taking Office” Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) praised the idea of holding hearings “prior to the president actually taking office,” which he argued was important in allowing an administration “to get up and moving as quickly as possible.”

All of those reasons could apply to 2017 and President Trump's new administration as well, but Democrats have experienced a change of heart with the new administration and will drag out the process as long as possible.  They have once again failed to learn one of the lessons of 2016: the American people are tired of obstructionism in Washington and have demanded new leadership.