The Senate Judiciary Committee continues churning out President Trump’s judicial picks, with another three approved Thursday, over the vehement objections of liberal activists who said the nominees fail basic tests of constitutional fairness.
The groups complained that Andrew Oldham, nominated to an appeals court, and Wendy Vitter and Michael J. Truncale, for a district judgeships, refused to agree with the legal reasoning of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education anti-segregation decision.
Nonetheless, all three were approved in committee on party-line votes, paving the way for final confirmation, and adding to Mr. Trump’s early success in reshaping the federal bench.
“Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee has made clear that it’s more interested in acting as a rubber stamp for Donald Trump than in serving as a check on unqualified and unfit nominees,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way. “But even by that standard, today’s vote in support of three such extreme nominees is an appalling abdication of responsibility.”
Despite the loss in committee, Ms. Baker and other groups say they’re far from demoralized.
They say the battles they’ve mounted have gotten their message out about Mr. Trump’s picks’ records on everything from workers’ rights, to women’s rights, to environmental issues.
And despite the president having won confirmation of 39 judges so far — nearly double the rate of President Obama at this point — they say they have scored some victories by helping derail several picks.
“At least four individuals are not sitting hearing cases, deciding critical rights and legal protections because of the extensive publicity because of AFJ and countless other organizations, in bringing to light their horrific records and comments,” said Daniel L. Goldberg, the legal director for the Alliance for Justice.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the conservative Judiciary Crisis Network, dismissed the idea progressive advocacy groups sank any of Mr. Trump’s picks.
“These groups had nothing to do with the fate of those district court nominees. But if that’s what they want to focus on, I’m happy to let them. This is a non-story,” said Ms. Severino.
The groups, though, pointed to the nominations of Jeff Mateer for the Eastern District of Texas, Brett Talley for the Middle District of Alabama and Matthew Petersen for the District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as for Damien Schiff, who was nominated for an executive branch post on the Court of Federal Claims, as proof they are pushing back against the president.
Mr. Petersen withdrew his nomination last year after struggling to answer basic legal questions during his confirmation hearing, while Mr. Schiff and Mr. Mateer were accused of making anti-LGBT statements.
Mr. Talley also withdrew his nomination last year after it was revealed he made controversial blog posts about the Ku Klux Klan and didn’t disclose to the committee that his wife worked for White House counsel Don McGahn.
“The fact that some of the worst nominees were defeated last year is a testament to grass-roots energy that’s been unleashed — without pushback, at this point, Republicans would confirm a toaster if Don McGahn told them to,” said Ms. Baker, from People for the American Way.
There are plenty of targets still on the field. Mr. Trump has 40 judicial nominees pending, including six that cleared committee Thursday.
Alan D. Albright, Thomas S. Kleeh and Peter J. Phipps, all nominated to district courts, were given bipartisan recommendations by the panel — even though they were part of the same hearing as Mr. Truncale and, like him, declined to say whether they agreed with the legal reasoning behind the Brown ruling.
Republicans said not taking a position on the legal reasoning is not the same as supporting discrimination. Indeed, at the hearing with Mr. Truncale, Sen. John Kennedy specifically asked whether the nominees thought discrimination was legal. They said they did not.
“I have no doubt the judicial nominates before us share the belief that segregation is deeply wrong and contrary to our values as a nation,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said in defending the nominees. “It’s about whether it’s appropriate for nominees to opine on Supreme Court precedent.”
But the top ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said there’s no question Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided “then and now.”
She said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy were both asked about Brown during their confirmations, and answered that it was correctly decided.
Even with Mr. Trump’s record-setting pace of 39 confirmations, the pipeline is clogged with other nominees. The 40 nominees who have cleared committee are joined by more than 40 others who have been nominated and are awaiting committee action.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.