Showing posts with label Orrin Hatch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orrin Hatch. Show all posts

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Highlights and "Low" Lights from Day 3 of Kavanaugh Hearings

The morning of Day 3 of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings began with an hour of debate / grandstanding about the documents.
Sen. Booker stole the show (it was very clearly a "show") by saying he was going to release documents designated as "committee confidential," inviting the consequences for the release of the documents and calling himself "Spartacus":

The only problem is that the documents had already been approved for public release just before 4 AM, due to the hard work of the staff overnight. Not to be deterred from his moment of resistance in the limelight, Sen. Booker started releasing still-confidential documents.  
But Sen. Booker's original document release showed that Judge Kavanaugh was opposed to racial profiling:



Sen. Tillis warned of the consequences of making Senate Judiciary a untrustworthy body for receiving confidential documents:

The senators starting asking questions an hour into the hearing, with Democratic Senators largely trying to have Judge Kavanaugh commit to ruling in a certain way on future cases or share his personal views.  Judge Kavanaugh once again avoided all the Democrats' traps and shone with his vast and detailed understanding and knowledge of the law and legal theory:












The RNLA will continue live-tweeting the hearing tomorrow, when the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from invited witnesses on Judge Kavanaugh.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Senator Hatch: Unprecedented Judicial Vacancy Crisis

On March 20, Senator Orrin Hatch, the president pro tempore of the Senate, delivered an impassioned speech about the current state of federal judicial vacancies under President Trump.
Due to Senate Democrats' continued obstruction and efforts to "resist" President Trump and his agenda (as we have highlighted regularly), there are currently 138 federal district and appellate court vacancies. Senator Hatch clearly and concisely explains this crisis and how things compare today to days' past under other, recent Presidents.

First, Senator Hatch looked to recent, past "standards" exalted by Senate Democrats before President Trump took office, to point out the hypocrisy and outright obstructionism [1:20-minute mark]:

One standard is that the Democrats have specifically identified how many vacancies are unacceptable. In February 2000, with a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats said that 79 vacancies were ‘‘too high.’’ In September 2012, with the Democrats both in the White House and controlling the Senate, they declared a ‘‘judicial vacancy crisis’’ when there were 78 vacancies. If 78 vacancies is a crisis, what is the label for 138 vacancies? . . .
A second Democratic vacancy standard is that, as they did in April 2014, we can compare judicial vacancies today with vacancies at the same point under previous Presidents. If that Democratic standard is valid, vacancies today are 35 percent higher than at this point under President Obama and 46 percent higher than at this point under President George W. Bush.
There is a third Democratic vacancy standard. In June 2013 and at least as far back as April 1999, the Democrats have complained that the Senate was not confirming enough judicial nominees to keep up with normal attrition. Well, judicial vacancies today are 30 percent higher than when President Trump took office, and, as I said, at least 33 more have already been announced.
Finally, the Democrats have frequently said that the 107th Congress—the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration—should be our judicial confirmation benchmark. During that time, the Senate confirmed an average of just over 4 judicial nominees per month. The Senate has so far confirmed 28 of President Trump’s district and appeals court nominees or fewer than 2 per month.
Take your pick. By any or all of these Democratic standards, we face a much more serious judicial vacancy crisis than in years past. . . .
Next, Senator Hatch explained the reality of this situation and how Republicans have tried to get President Trump's judicial nominees to the Senate Floor for a vote and how Democrats have pulled all stops in an attempt to slow the process down to a crawl [5:34-minute mark]:
Under Chairman Chuck Grassley's leadership, the committee has held a hearing for 62 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—more than under any of the previous five Presidents at this point. So that is clearly not the problem. The first sign of Democratic obstruction is the unwarranted and partisan opposition to reporting judicial nominations from the Judiciary Committee.
In February 2012, 3 years into the Obama administration, the Democrats complained that five nominees to the U.S. district court had been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. This, they said, departed dramatically from Senate tradition. Today, just 14 months into the Trump administration, eight nominees to the U.S. district court have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The present rate of such party-line votes in the Judiciary Committee is more than four times what the Democrats criticized just a few years ago.
The below-the-radar obstruction tactics continue when the Judiciary Committee sends judicial nominees to the full Senate. The Democrats, for example, refuse to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes. They can’t prevent confirmation votes altogether because they abolished nomination filibusters in 2013, but if they can’t make judicial confirmations impossible, they are determined to make them very difficult. Here is how they do it.
Since President Trump took office, the Democrats have forced the Senate to take 28 cloture votes on judicial nominations, compared to just 2 cloture votes at this point under the previous five Presidents combined. Even when cloture is invoked, Senate rules provide for up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur. Nearly half the time under President Obama, a judicial nomination cloture vote was followed by a confirmation vote on the same day. Under President Trump, that has plummeted to 17 percent. The average time between cloture and confirmation votes for President Trump’s judicial nominations is more than 55 percent longer than it was under President Obama. . . .
Senator Hatch concludes [13:00-minute mark]:
We face an unprecedented judicial vacancy crisis. Since President Trump is making nominations and the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, is steadily processing them, there remains only one explanation for the vacancy crisis we face today—plain, old-fashioned, partisan obstruction. The Democrats are manipulating this process at every stage, using the very tactics that they have loudly condemned in the past to make confirmations as difficult and time-consuming as possible.
Even in politics, actions speak louder than words. In July 2012, when there were 76 judicial vacancies, Chairman Leahy said that ‘‘we should be doing better.’’ Today, with nearly twice as many vacancies, I challenge my Democratic colleagues to put actions to those words.
You can view Senator Hatch's entire Senate Floor speech on YouTube and a transcript of his remarks have been published in March 20's Congressional Record (on the first two pages).

The RNLA will continue to highlight this ongoing, unprecedented crisis faced by President Trump's judicial and political nominees.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

On President Reagan's Birthday - His Views on the Judiciary

Today would have been President Ronald Reagan's 107th birthday.  To honor his legacy and the immense impact he had on our nation's courts through his judicial nominees, here are some of his views on the judiciary, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

 President Reagan, Speech at the Investiture of Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, White House, September 26, 1986:
[The Founders] settled on a judiciary that would be independent and strong, but one whose power would also, they believed, be confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws. In the convention and during the debates on ratification, some said that there was a danger of the courts making laws rather than interpreting them. The framers of our Constitution believed, however, that the judiciary they envisioned would be "the least dangerous'' branch of the Government, because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, it had "neither force nor will, but merely judgment.'' The judicial branch interprets the laws, while the power to make and execute those laws is balanced in the two elected branches. And this was one thing that Americans of all persuasions supported. . . . 
Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the American people. They saw that no one in office could remain above it, if freedom were to survive through the ages. They understood that, in the words of James Madison, if "the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation is not the guide to expounding it, there can be no security for a faithful exercise of its powers.'' The Founding Fathers were clear on this issue. For them, the question involved in judicial restraint was not -- as it is not -- will we have liberal or conservative courts? They knew that the courts, like the Constitution itself, must not be liberal or conservative. The question was and is, will we have government by the people? And this is why the principle of judicial restraint has had an honored place in our tradition. Progressive, as well as conservative, judges have insisted on its importance -- Justice Holmes, for example, and Justice Felix Frankfurter, who once said, "The highest exercise of judicial dutyis to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law.'' 
Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia have demonstrated in their opinions that they stand with Holmes and Frankfurter on this question. I nominated them with this principle very much in mind. And Chief Justice Burger, in his opinions, was also a champion of restraint. All three men understand that the Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances, and of limited government, because they knew that the great preserver of our freedoms would never be the courts or either of the other branches alone. It would always be the totality of our constitutional system, with no one part getting the upper hand. And that's why the judiciary must be independent. And that is why it must exercise restraint.
President Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on the Supreme Court Nomination of Robert H. Bork, October 10, 1987 (the day after Judge Bork withdrew his nomination to the Supreme Court):
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, too, called the tactics used against Judge Bork disinformation but the real test is to the principles that were established by the Founding Fathers when they created the Constitution. The Washington Post columnist David Broder recently wrote: "To subject judges and judicial appointees to propaganda torture tests does terrible damage to the underlying values of this democracy and the safeguards of our freedoms." But despite these courageous words from a few individuals, many here in Washington closed their eyes to the wrong being done to the judicial process. . . . 
During his confirmation hearings, Judge Bork had given us all a national lesson in our legal tradition and the importance of judicial restraint-the belief of our Founding Fathers that it was the role of the judge to interpret the law, not to preempt the rights of the people and their legislatures by making the law. So, I could understand then why Judge Bork might choose to withdraw and simply return to the Court of Appeals. I wish you could have been there as Judge Bork explained his decision—as he looked me in the eye and said we must do not what was right or easy, for himself, but what was right for the country. . . . 
Judge Bork said a critical principle was at stake. He explained it this way, and again I quote: "Federal judges are not appointed to decide cases according to the latest opinion polls. They are appointed to decide cases impartially, according to law. But when judicial nominees are assessed and treated like political candidates the effect will be to chill the climate in which judicial deliberations take place, to erode public confidence in the impartiality of our judges, and to endanger the independence of the judiciary." . . . 
I agree with Judge Bork that there are no illusions. Our judges should be faithful to the written Constitution, the bedrock of our liberties. Those selected for the Supreme Court must be aware of all points of view and their decisions based on government by the people.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, "Reagan Upheld the Rule of Law," February 3, 2011:
As he was running for president, Ronald Reagan raised the issue of “judicial activism” among the federal courts. He noted that too many judges were substituting their own personal views, policy preferences and political ideas for what the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress actually provided. Many legal scholars and knowledgeable observers were concerned that we were no longer a government of laws, but a government where the result depended on who the judge might be. This was particularly true in such cases as religious liberty, freedom of speech, economic affairs and criminal justice. These were matters that most affected the personal lives of American citizens. 
Most important to the president was the fact that judicial activism violated the basic constitutional principles of limited government and of checks and balances. When the federal courts turned from interpreting the law to making the law or improperly interfered with the actions of the executive branch, they usurped the powers of the other two branches. 
Ronald Reagan was committed to restoring the concept of constitutional fidelity. Judges, he maintained, should base their decisions on the original meaning of the Constitution and of the federal statutes. He explained that the Founding Fathers had given careful thought to the role of the federal judiciary and thought that it should be independent and strong, but with its powers confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws. 
He considered this principle, known as judicial restraint, critical to the fair administration of justice. He said that the courts, like the Constitution itself, must not be liberal or conservative, but solely focused on following the law and preserving justice.
Senator Orrin Hatch, Speech to the RNLA, May 6, 2011:
Make no mistake, such things as moral reflections, personal impressions, or theoretical opinions are not enough to protect our liberty.  Judges who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but who believe that they determine its meaning, are really swearing to support and defend themselves.  Judges, and not the Constitution, become the supreme law of the land if they control what the Constitution really is. 
President Reagan sought to reassert that the Constitution embodies inescapable and enduring mandates established by the people, and to appoint judges who believed the same.   His predecessor, Jimmy Carter, is the only full-term President in American history not to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, which perhaps is proof that there is indeed a God who is looking out for us after all.  After spending four years on the Judiciary Committee examining President Carter’s lower court nominees, I spoke loudly in the 1980 campaign against what I called avant garde liberal activists who will legislate from the bench.  President Reagan was elected promising to appoint a very different kind of judge.
Happy birthday, President Reagan.  We are still reaping the legacy of your deep respect for the rule of law and the written Constitution as reflected in the judges you nominated to the federal bench.  And the principles you outlined are once again being honored and followed in the White House as President Trump seeks to nominate judges committed to the rule of law, not of unelected judges.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

RNLA Thanks Senator Orrin Hatch

Today, Senator Orrin Hatch announced his retirement at the end of this term. 

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen said: “Orrin Hatch has long has been a great friend of the RNLA since our founding in 1985.  It was Senator Hatch who first said: ‘If you are a lawyer and you are a Republican, you should be a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association.’  Thank you Senator Hatch.” 

RNLA President Elliot Berke stated: “We thank Senator Hatch for his tremendous service to our nation. He's a Senator's senator and a man of great character. We wish him all good wishes for the future.”  

 RNLA Board Member Frank Salinger said: "In his 41 years of Senate service, Orrin Hatch championed the rule of law and legal issues ranging from confirming conservative federal judges to intellectual property. He is the longtime friend of RNLA and always made himself available for our events and to meet our members. Having represented Utah companies for many years, I know first hand that—even when he worked on national issues— he never forgot his constituents throughout his home state’s 29 counties. Orrin went to Washington, DC but he never forgot Utah." 

At The Republican Lawyer blog, we frequently cited Senator Hatch. 
“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.”  12/4/2017: Senator Hatch on Religious Liberty
The majority should know the judicial filibuster facts because, after all, they pioneered the use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominees who would otherwise be confirmed. Why are they engaging in filibuster fraud? One possibility is that the majority wants to cover up the fact that President Obama has consistently lagged behind his predecessors in making judicial nominations.  The Senate, after all, cannot confirm nominations that do not exist.  6/19/2013: Hatch Calls Out Senate Democrats for Filibuster Fraud
[On the Scalia Supreme Court vacancy] Democrats have no credibility in lecturing Republicans on how to conduct the current confirmation process. Their recent actions only validate the rationale for waiting. From personal attacks on Republican committee chairmen to coordinated disruptions by professional activists, liberal pressure tactics belie any commitment to keeping politics out of the confirmation process.  Considering a nominee in the midst of a toxic presidential election would be irresponsible. Doing so would only further inject a circus atmosphere into an already politicized confirmation process. Conducting a thoughtful and substantive deliberation after the election is in the best interests of the Senate, the judiciary and the country.  3/28/2016: Sen. Hatch: Let Voter's Decide the Court's Future
Thank you, Senator Hatch.  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 4, 2017

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.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Senate Tradition Requires a Majority Vote for SCOTUS

In the face of a promised filibuster by the Democrats of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, Republican senators have spoken out strongly against the use of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees and have indicated their support if Leader McConnell is forced to exercise the constitutional option or "Reid Rule" on the Gorsuch nomination.

 Senator Lamar Alexander noted earlier today that he has consistently voted for cloture on presidential nominees even when he voted against confirming them:
[W]hat the Democrats are proposing to do next week, quite apart from the fact that Judge Gorsuch is one of the most eminently qualified people we have seen come around in a long time, they're flying in the face of 230 years of tradition in the Senate by insisting that a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court require more than 51 votes to be confirmed. Now, I look very quickly back at my own votes. None of us are perfect, and I'm not asking for any merit badges, but I wonder where the Democrats are who are trying to do at least what I was trying to do when President Obama was there. And I found at least ten times where I voted for cloture, voted to cut off debate for controversial nominees with whom I disagreed with, and then I voted against them when the vote was 51. . . . [W]here are the Democrats looking to vote like that, to preserve the Senate's 230-year tradition of approving presidential nominees by a majority vote? I think this is a terrible precedent, not justified, and I'm sorry to see things heading in this direction. 
Senator Alexander gave extended remarks on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate yesterday:
Throughout the Senate's history, approval of even the most controversial presidential nominations have required only a majority vote. . . . In fact, Senate rules have always allowed senators the option to filibuster to death a presidential nomination, yet it has almost never happened. . . . Filibustering a presidential nomination has always been treated differently than filibustering a legislative matter. . . . No one has ever disputed our right in the Senate, regardless of who was in charge, to use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to delay and examine, sometimes cause nominations to be withdrawn or even to defeat nominees by a majority vote. 
But as we approach a vote next week on Neil Gorsuch on the floor of the Senate, it is useful to remember that the tradition of the United States Senate has been to treat legislative matters one way and presidential nominations a different way. Filibustered to death legislation, yes. Filibustered to death presidential nominations, no. Should the Neil Gorsuch nomination come to the floor soon, as i believe it will, overwhelming Senate tradition requires that whether to approve it should be decided by a majority vote and there should be no attempt by the minority to filibuster the nomination, especially of such a qualified man, to death. 
Such long-serving, institutionalist senators as Senator Hatch, Senator Shelby, and Senator Graham have also supported confirming Judge Gorsuch even if faced with a Democrat filibuster, while they lament what the Democrats' forcing the Republicans to exercise the constitutional option means for the future of the Senate.

 RNLA thanks these senators and the other Republican senators willing to uphold 230 years of Senate tradition by supporting an up-or-down vote for Judge Gorsuch.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Sen. Hatch Strongly Supports Sen. Sessions for Attorney General

On Sunday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, president pro tempore of the Senate, praised President-elect Donald Trump's designee for Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions:
Americans spoke resoundingly last month that they want our country to chart a new course. A newly-elected president’s first decisions are typically his Cabinet choices, and President-elect Trump is already charting that new course. Nominees such as Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general show that Mr. Trump is serious about getting that job done. 
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that the country has been on the wrong track. That certainly describes the Department of Justice. Just last year, I spoke out about how the department had been politicized, compromised, weakened, and even corrupted. Jeff Sessions is the right person to put the Justice Department back on track. 
No attorney general in American history has had Mr. Sessions’ combination of hands-on experience in both criminal justice policy and its implementation. He was a front-line prosecutor for 18 years, 12 of them as United States Attorney. At his confirmation hearing in January, he will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which he has served for 20 years. . . . 
No one understands [the Department of Justice's] mission more thoroughly, or believes it more deeply, than Jeff Sessions. I am proud to support Sen. Jeff Sessions to be the next attorney general of the United States. His experience, principles, and common sense are just what the Justice Department needs to chart the right course.
Last Friday, Sen. Hatch also strongly endorsed Sen. Sessions for Attorney General on the floor of the Senate (beginning on page S6970):
In closing, I want to quote from that letter by bipartisan drug policy officials. They say this about Senator Sessions: 
His prudent and responsible approach is exactly what the Department of Justice needs to enforce the law, restore confidence in the United States’ justice system, and keep the American people safe. We support the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States, and we ask you to do the same. 
I could not have said it better. I have known Jeff for 20 years now, every year he served here, and I knew him before then. I remember the despicable way he was treated many years ago as a nominee. I don’t want to see that repeated, and I personally will hold accountable anybody who tries to repeat it.  
Jeff Sessions is a wonderful man. He is a good person. Even though any one of us here may have some disagreements from time to time with policy— we do with each other—that doesn’t denigrate and shouldn’t denigrate him as a decent, honorable man who deserves to be Attorney General of the United States. . . . 
I have a strong knowledge of his background. I have a strong feeling about Jeff as a person. I believe he will be a great Attorney General, and I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle treat him with respect as he goes through this nomination process. If we do, we will be able to walk out of here at least with some sense of pride that we did what was right.  
I think you will find, as Jeff serves— and he is going to serve—as he serves in the Justice Department, he will do a very good job, and it will be a job done for everybody in America and not just Republicans and not just for the new administration that is coming in, but for everybody. That is what I think you will find from Jeff Sessions. He is a tough guy. He has the ability to stand up. He has the ability do what is right, and he will do it. I have great confidence in Jeff. 
The entire floor statement by Sen. Hatch, someone who has known Sen. Sessions both personally and professionally for many years, is well worth reading.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 28, 2016

Sen. Hatch: Let Voter's Decide the Court's Future

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argues persuasively today in the New York Times that the Senate should wait until after the November 2016 election to allow the people to decide who fills the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the passing of Justice Scalia:
Given that the American people have elected a president and a Senate majority with drastically different views on the nature of legitimate constitutional government — a split decision of sorts — it seems appropriate to let 2016 voters decide which of two very different paths the Supreme Court should take. 
But the American people can influence that course only if the Senate holds confirmation proceedings after the election season has ended. This should not be a controversial position. 
After all, both Republican and Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., have argued in the past that the Senate should defer consideration of life-tenured judges until after presidential election cycles. 
Throughout its history, the Senate has never confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy that occurred this late in a term-limited president’s time in office. Considering a nominee now — in the middle of the nastiest election campaign in recent memory — could damage the judicial confirmation process beyond repair. 
. . . Democrats have no credibility in lecturing Republicans on how to conduct the current confirmation process. Their recent actions only validate the rationale for waiting. From personal attacks on Republican committee chairmen to coordinated disruptions by professional activists, liberal pressure tactics belie any commitment to keeping politics out of the confirmation process. 
Considering a nominee in the midst of a toxic presidential election would be irresponsible. Doing so would only further inject a circus atmosphere into an already politicized confirmation process. Conducting a thoughtful and substantive deliberation after the election is in the best interests of the Senate, the judiciary and the country.
The RNLA fully agrees with Sen. Hatch and stands with him and other Republican Senators as they refuse to hold hearings or vote on President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland to Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 21, 2016

Republican Senators Fulfill Duty to the People by Opposing Obama's Effort to Confirm Garland Before Election

We recently expressed our deep appreciation for our Republican Senators standing their ground as Obama attempts to force the court even further to the left in the waning days of his presidency. The Senators are united in the belief that this is about the principle, not the person. Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed his thoughts on the matter in greater detail over the weekend:
For three reasons, I believe the best way for the Senate to exercise its power of advice and consent regarding the Scalia vacancy is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic election season has passed. 
The first reason is precedent. This is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a presidential election, and in both the previous two instances — in 1956 and 1968 — the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year. The Tribune's ignorance of this longstanding history is no excuse for falsely accusing Republicans of making it up "out of whole cloth."  
The second reason for my conclusion is the consistent guidance from past Senate leaders of both parties. For example, in 1992, another presidential election year, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden recommended that the entire Supreme Court appointment process — including the president's nomination — be deferred until after the election. Many other Senate Democratic leaders, from Harry Reid to Chuck Schumer, have said the same thing, and their rationales apply just as well today as they did in the past.  
The third reason is that elections have consequences. The 2012 election was obviously meaningful for the president's power to nominate and President Obama has exercised that power by nominating Judge Garland. But the 2014 election was also meaningful for the Senate's power of advice and consent. In that election, the American people elected a Republican Senate majority in large part to check President Obama's executive overreach. Given how crucial the courts have proven in holding this administration accountable to the Constitution, the Senate has every reason to approach lifetime appointments cautiously and deliberately, especially appointments to the highest court in the land. 
Sen. Hatch articulated three distinct and exceptionally clear points that you are unlikely to find in any of the media articles about Judge Garland's nomination, which all claim he is a moderate candidate because Obama said he was a moderate. It is easy to attempt to slap a label on a candidate. However, in this case the facts simply cannot support the president’s assertion. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell discussed in an interview on Fox:
I can't imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association, the National Federation of Independent Business that represents small businesses—that have never taken a position on the Supreme Court appointment before—they're opposed to this guy. I can't imagine that a Republican majority Senate even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left. That's not going to happen. 
Look, Barack Obama calling judge -- this judge a moderate doesn't make him a moderate. This judge would move the court dramatically to the left. He's enthusiastically supported by MoveOn.org.

 The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. Not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president. Obama's interest in shifting the court left has been well documented. 
Even under fire from the current administration, McConnell continued reiterate similar and very valid points on other programs:
If you want to discuss the nominee just for a minute, even though Barack Obama calls him a moderate, he's opposed by the NRA. He's opposed by the National Federation of Independent Business which has never taken a position on a Supreme Court nominee before. The New York Times said it would move the court dramatically to the left. But this is not about this particular judge—this is about who should make the appointment. We're in the process of picking a president, and that new president ought to make this appointment which will affect the Supreme Court maybe for the next quarter of a century. 
Democrats claim that the “people spoke” when Obama was reelected. No one is arguing Obama has the right to nominate. However, “the people” also spoke when they voted a Republican Majority in the senate. Senators, you have our thanks for standing up to protect the balance of power between branches of the government and ensuring that a failed administration cannot continue to influence this county through the Supreme Court for the next quarter century.  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Investigation on the IRS Scandal is a “Wakeup Call”

The Senate Finance Committee released its report on the long-time investigation into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups. The report found that Lois Lerner, who oversaw the department that processes applications for tax-exempt status, waited almost two years before notifying her supervisors about delays in processing applications. Some groups waited five years to have their applications processed.


The Senate Finance Committee Report read:


Our investigation found that from 2010 to 2013, IRS management was delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations.


Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Finance Committee stated:

This bipartisan investigation shows gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the IRS and confirms an unacceptable truth: that the IRS is prone to abuse…The Committee found evidence that the (Obama) administration's political agenda guided the IRS's actions with respect to their treatment of conservative groups… Personal politics of IRS employees, such as Lois Lerner, also impacted how the IRS conducted its business.

Amid the investigation, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) together with Senator John Thune introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 to remedy the situation. Grassley, former Chairman of the Finance Committee responded to the report:

The findings are a wake-up call.” And he proposed  “extending a remedy to social welfare organizations to force answers in instances where the IRS fails to act on an application in a timely manner or makes a negative determination on their tax-exempt status."

Both sides agree that the IRS is unprepared to handle the request of non-profits seeking to raise funds for the 2016 election cycle.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 22, 2015

IRS Gives Away Review and Enforcement Power to Private Entities

On June 17, 2015, the Washington U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez granted Microsoft’s motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may hire private lawyers to advise the government on corporate tax audits that may result in litigation.



In May 2014, the IRS penned a $2.2. million contract (about $1,000 an hour) with law firm Quinn Emanuel for a corporate audit of the Microsoft Corporation. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote IRC Commissioner John Koskinen his concerns because the action:



1) appears to violate federal law and the express will of the Congress; 2) removes taxpayer protections by allowing the performance of inherently governmental functions by private contractors; and 3) calls into question the IRS’s use of its limited resources.

Microsoft points to language in the contract with Quinn Emanuel that would allow partners to step in as “special government employees” to litigate the tax case. Microsoft also claims the firm acted with autonomy in the audit as the IRS had no control over questioning witnesses, and the firm holds itself out as representing the IRS.

The IRS should be treading lightly when it comes to review and enforcement procedures given the recent scandals involving targeting Tea Party and conservative organizations as well as leaking legally-protected information. However, the IRS quietly promulgated a new temporary regulation allowing it to give parts of its review and enforcement powers to outside entities, such as law firms. This regulation is proposed as a formal rule and does not expire until 2017.

The IRS is getting away with this action because of its broad interpretation of regulatory exceptions that traditionally allow for contractors to work on things like a broken copier pursuant to IRC § 6101(n) or general activities involved in processing documents for handling, copying, and storing returns after they are filed pursuant to IRC § 7513. Thus, the catch-exception swallows the rule, if interpreted incorrectly the regulations read that any activities may be contracted out.

As Sen. Hatch hints, these regulations ironically occur at a time with the IRS claims it is underfunded, and other Congressmen agree that the IRS should be more cost effective with limited resources.  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)