The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a business hearing.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 >> We have several items on
00:07 today's agenda.
00:08 We'll vote on four judicial
00:09 nominees.
00:10 We'll also vote on S-1979
00:12 protecting older Americans act
00:14 sponsored by senators
00:16 Gillibrand, ranking member
00:17 Graham, 12 other senators from
00:19 the committee including
00:21 senators Grassley, Padilla,
00:23 Hawley, Blumenthal, Booker,
00:25 Ossoff, Coons, Butler, White
00:27 House, Perrono and myself.
00:29 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
00:31 and thank you for your courtesy.
00:33 I have to go to another
00:35 committee, and I wanted to just
00:37 make a quick comment about
00:39 senator Gillibrand and senator
00:41 Graham's protecting older
00:43 Americans act.
00:45 I've really struggled with this
00:47 bill.
00:49 I believe in access to our
00:51 courts.
00:52 I plan today to vote to get the
00:54 bill out of committee.
00:56 I believe in the ability to
00:58 get the bill out of committee
01:00 with two caveats.
01:02 Number one, that's assuming we
01:04 don't screw it up with some bad
01:06 amendments.
01:07 I understand that bad is
01:09 subjective, but the second, I
01:11 reserve the right to vote no
01:13 later on the floor.
01:15 I don't like contracts of
01:17 adhesion.
01:18 There's a reason that the common
01:20 law and many civil law
01:22 jurisdictions prohibit them.
01:23 On the other hand, I believe in
01:25 the freedom to contract.
01:27 And there's a delicate balance
01:29 here.
01:30 I think the senate is smart
01:32 enough to find that balance.
01:34 I'm not sure we have the balance
01:36 in this bill, but it's a start.
01:38 So I'm going to vote yes today
01:40 to get the bill out of committee
01:42 subject to the condition that if
01:44 we screw it up with amendments,
01:46 I'm going to be a no, and I may
01:48 be a no on the floor, and I
01:50 thank the chairman for his
01:52 consideration.
01:53 I'm going to vote yes.
01:55 And I thank the chairman for his
01:59 indulgence in letting me do
02:01 this, and I heard senator
02:03 Whitehouse's snide comment by
02:05 the way to you.
02:07 So I think I did it within the
02:09 two minutes.
02:11 >> It is a constant patter I
02:13 hear in my left ear.
02:15 With that, I'll turn to --
02:17 >> There's a place in heaven for
02:19 you, senator, automatically.
02:21 >> With that, I'll turn to
02:23 senator Whitehouse.
02:25 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:27 I have a couple of things to
02:29 say.
02:31 I'm going to start with a couple
02:33 of closing remarks.
02:35 >> Number one, senator Kennedy,
02:37 I understand exactly what you're
02:39 saying.
02:41 What are we trying to do here?
02:43 America is aging.
02:45 I would hate to be fired because
02:47 of my age or believe that I was
02:49 fired because I've just aged out
02:51 of the administration where the
02:53 playing field is not level.
02:55 If you believe you have a claim,
02:57 you've been denied your
02:59 employment or opportunities
03:01 because of your age, I want to
03:03 open up the courtroom to you.
03:05 You still have to prove your
03:07 case.
03:09 The burden is on you by the
03:11 preponderance of evidence in a
03:13 civil matter.
03:15 And the people in question will
03:17 have a robust defense.
03:19 I'll end where I began.
03:21 More and more Americans are
03:23 getting older.
03:25 Our population is aging.
03:27 We're going to need as many
03:29 people in the workforce as long
03:31 as reasonably possible to keep
03:33 our economy going.
03:35 That's why I'm for this bill.
03:37 >> After considering nominations,
03:39 we'll go to the bill and see if
03:41 there are any amendments.
03:43 We want to thank the ageless
03:45 Gretchen Carlson for being here
03:47 and the ageless -- I want to
03:49 thank Senator Grassley for
03:51 helping me get this thing moving.
03:53 And he's had a midlife crisis.
03:55 He's going to solve it right here
03:57 in front of us and we're going to
03:59 get this bill over the line.
04:01 >> That is regular order for
04:03 sure.
04:05 We turn to the votes on
04:07 nominations.
04:09 The first is Kevin Ritz nominated
04:11 to the 6th Circuit Court of
04:13 Appeals.
04:15 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
04:17 I would like to briefly comment
04:19 on his nomination.
04:21 During the hearing, members of
04:23 the committee questioned him
04:25 about a complaint submitted to
04:27 the Department of Justice Office
04:29 of Professional Responsibility
04:31 in connection with his
04:33 representation of a case.
04:35 Mr. Ritz stated he was not aware
04:37 of the complaint, a fact he
04:39 reiterated under repeated
04:41 questioning by members of the
04:43 committee.
04:45 He said the complaint was not
04:47 a crime when you're under oath.
04:49 No evidence was produced to
04:51 suggest he was lying.
04:53 In fact, this accusation was
04:55 untrue, unfounded and wholly
04:57 inappropriate.
04:59 Here are the facts.
05:01 As Mr. Ritz explained at the
05:03 hearing and as we followed up to
05:05 find out true, he did not
05:07 receive notice from the Office
05:09 of Professional Responsibility
05:11 as OPR itself says on its
05:13 website, and I quote, "Most
05:15 complaints received by OPR are
05:17 determined not to warrant further
05:19 review because, for example, the
05:21 complaint on its face appears to
05:23 be without merit or is unsupported
05:25 by any evidence." This is the
05:27 most important sentence.
05:29 In such cases, OPR will close a
05:31 matter without informing the
05:33 subject attorney of the complaint.
05:35 Notably, the defense attorney
05:37 represented to the court during
05:39 the hearing said in a statement
05:41 that she was not accusing Mr.
05:43 Ritz of any misconduct.
05:45 In fact, no allegations of
05:47 misconduct against Mr. Ritz were
05:49 ever substantiated.
05:51 The judge in this case stated,
05:53 and I quote, "The record does not
05:55 reflect the determination by the
05:57 court adverse in any way to Mr.
05:59 Ritz.
06:01 I need that to be absolutely
06:03 clear," the judge said.
06:05 Given these facts, the treatment
06:07 of the U.S. attorney was voice
06:09 voted out of this committee in
06:11 2022. Notably, he enjoyed the
06:13 strong support of his home state
06:15 senators at the time. Does anyone
06:17 seek recognition to speak on Mr.
06:19 Ritz's nomination? >> Mr. Chairman.
06:21 >> Senator Blackburn. >> Thank you,
06:23 and I'm not going to take up the
06:25 committee's time today to rehash
06:27 the White House's history of not
06:29 working with Senator Hagerty and
06:31 I on these judicial nominees, but
06:33 I do want to say this.
06:35 The White House rushed through
06:37 a backroom deal to put
06:39 Kevin Ritz in this seat,
06:41 and by so doing,
06:43 they have nominated a man whose
06:45 lack of professional ethics
06:47 unquestionably
06:49 disqualifies him
06:51 from federal judicial service.
06:53 And for all of my colleagues
06:55 on the other side of the aisle
06:57 who care about
06:59 indigent criminal defendants,
07:01 who care about preserving
07:03 criminal defendants'
07:05 constitutional rights, and who
07:07 care about supporting our
07:09 federal public defenders,
07:11 you should be very concerned by
07:13 the prospect of Mr. Ritz
07:15 serving as a federal judge.
07:17 I know that my
07:19 Democratic colleagues believe in
07:21 the American ideal that
07:23 every individual accused
07:25 of a crime is entitled
07:27 to due process of the law,
07:29 but that's not how
07:31 Kevin Ritz operates
07:33 as a prosecutor.
07:35 Mr. Ritz uses
07:37 bait-and-switch tactics to
07:39 trick indigent criminal
07:41 defendants into accepting
07:43 plea deals they didn't agree to.
07:45 He leaves his written plea
07:47 agreements intentionally
07:49 vague, lures indigent
07:51 criminal defendants and public
07:53 defenders into an oral agreement
07:55 and then pulls the rug out
07:57 from under them in court.
07:59 And when a female defense
08:01 attorney finally called Mr. Ritz
08:03 out on his
08:05 unethical conduct, he tried
08:07 to defame and discredit
08:09 her. In fact,
08:11 Mr. Ritz was removed
08:13 from that case because
08:15 of his unethical behavior.
08:17 The prosecutor who replaced
08:19 him went so far as
08:21 to say, "On the record
08:23 that the allegations of Mr.
08:25 Ritz's professional conduct,"
08:27 and I quote, "are serious
08:29 and are taken so seriously
08:31 by our office that
08:33 Mr. Ritz will be taken off
08:35 the case."
08:37 And this wasn't just
08:39 one case. Mr. Ritz's
08:41 reputation for unethical behavior
08:43 is well known
08:45 across the Tennessee bar.
08:47 Just ask Stephen
08:49 Shankman, the former
08:51 federal public defender for the
08:53 Western District of Tennessee.
08:55 Mr. Ritz's ethical misdeeds
08:57 are so well known
08:59 that when Mr. Shankman first
09:01 heard reports of a prosecutor
09:03 behaving unethically,
09:05 he knew it had
09:07 to be Kevin Ritz.
09:09 In an email warning other
09:11 defense attorneys about Mr. Ritz,
09:13 Mr. Shankman said,
09:15 and I quote, "This is not
09:17 the first, second, third, or whatever
09:19 occasion that this sort
09:21 of thing has occurred, but everyone
09:23 should be aware of this
09:25 unfortunate pattern of behavior.
09:27 You should be aware.
09:29 Your clients should be aware
09:31 and you should proceed
09:33 with extreme caution."
09:35 End quote.
09:37 You should proceed with extreme
09:39 caution.
09:41 I'd like my colleagues across
09:43 the aisle to think about that
09:45 one. Is that how you want
09:47 indigent criminal
09:49 defendants and public
09:51 defenders to feel
09:53 when they enter
09:55 an American courtroom and Mr.
09:57 Ritz is the presiding
09:59 judge?
10:01 I would hope you do
10:03 not want that.
10:05 Mr. Ritz
10:07 has a history, unfortunately,
10:09 of lying to the
10:11 federal courts, lying to federal
10:13 public defenders, and lying
10:15 to indigent criminal
10:17 defendants. And during his
10:19 confirmation hearing, Mr. Ritz
10:21 lied to the committee. Mr. Chairman,
10:23 I do not believe that Mr.
10:25 Ritz has the judgment
10:27 or professional ethics to be
10:29 a federal judge. It is
10:31 deeply, deeply
10:33 disappointing to me.
10:35 We had asked to work
10:37 with the White House. We know
10:39 what has transpired here, and
10:41 I hope my colleagues across the aisle
10:43 who are concerned
10:45 about unethical federal
10:47 prosecutors trampling
10:49 on defendants' constitutional
10:51 rights will join me
10:53 in opposing this nomination.
10:55 Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Before
10:59 recognizing Senator Tillis, I
11:01 would like to make this point.
11:03 The committee has received many letters of
11:05 support for Ritz's nomination,
11:07 including members of the Defense Bar
11:09 in Tennessee. I want
11:11 my colleagues to listen to this one
11:13 sentence. One letter
11:15 from the federal defender
11:17 of the Western
11:19 District of Tennessee said
11:21 of Mr. Ritz,
11:23 "A fair person
11:25 of integrity," and notice
11:27 his "perfect temperament"
11:29 to serve as a judicial officer.
11:31 That comes from the federal defender
11:33 in Western District
11:35 of Tennessee. Another letter from
11:37 a criminal defense attorney who served as opposing
11:39 counsel in cases with
11:41 Ritz described him as
11:43 "intelligent, honest, hardworking,
11:45 and fair." Before
11:47 we make allegations of any witness
11:49 before us lying to
11:51 this committee, recall that they are
11:53 under oath and that would involve
11:55 possible criminal action.
11:57 I would be very careful in using
11:59 that term myself. Senator
12:01 Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:03 I have a great affinity
12:05 for Tennessee because that's where a lot of my
12:07 family lives. I went to high school in North
12:09 Carolina, tried to get it admitted to
12:11 the union as North Carolina,
12:13 but we had to cede that territory. So I got a big
12:15 connection to Tennessee.
12:17 I just want
12:19 everybody to recognize why we're having
12:21 this discussion right now. Because we
12:23 nuked the blue slip on
12:25 circuit judges. And now we've
12:27 got two Republican
12:29 members who absolutely
12:31 do not like this
12:33 nominee. I'm not even going to
12:35 get into the argument. I'm sympathetic to a lot
12:37 of what Senator Blackburn said, but
12:39 we're here because we have
12:41 hyper -- we have politicized
12:43 circuit court nominations.
12:45 And I don't believe the White House has treated
12:47 Senator Blackburn and
12:49 Senator Hagerty with the respect
12:51 they deserve. Of course we have a Democrat
12:53 president. Of course we should assume it's
12:55 going to be a Democrat nominee.
12:57 But honestly, is this the
12:59 only one the White House can come up with?
13:01 And the reason why I'm a little bit sympathetic to
13:03 it is I had the White House try to tell me
13:05 they were going to jam me on a circuit court nominee
13:07 on a circuit. They made the
13:09 mistake of being definitive about how
13:11 they were going to dictate the
13:13 process until I told them. I walked across
13:15 the aisle and I got Democrats to commit to
13:17 me that they would not confirm their nominee, that
13:19 they were going to try to shove down my throat.
13:21 I've tried to keep that private.
13:23 But I'm trying to explain to
13:25 my colleagues, folks, if you want to work
13:27 on a bipartisan basis, do it when
13:29 it's hard.
13:31 Go back and tell -- if you want to be bipartisan,
13:33 do it when it's hard.
13:35 Go back to the White House and say, how on earth
13:37 can you have two members from Tennessee
13:39 objecting to this?
13:41 Now, this member is going to get out of
13:43 this committee. Next year
13:45 we may have a different president. And we
13:47 may have a president who's not currently
13:49 in office. And that president may choose to
13:51 shove down the throats, members
13:53 in your circuits later on.
13:55 Remember this moment.
13:57 You can still get angry, but remember at
13:59 this moment in time when you cast this vote,
14:01 you're guilty of the same behavior
14:03 that you're going to accuse some of these folks
14:05 being guilty of a year from now. Thank you,
14:07 Mr. Chair.
14:09 >> Mr. Chairman,
14:11 I yield to my more senior senator.
14:13 >> I was just going to
14:15 speak from
14:17 the seat on this committee
14:19 occupied by
14:21 Senator Feinstein.
14:23 Because as I sit
14:25 in this chair, I remember her
14:27 sitting here and describing
14:29 her fury
14:31 that not only was a circuit judge
14:33 being shoved down her throat
14:35 because of the lack of a blue slip
14:37 rule, but she didn't even believe
14:39 that the nominee was from
14:41 California. So
14:43 this problem goes
14:45 back to a
14:47 determination made
14:49 by Republicans that
14:51 blue slips would not be honored
14:53 for
14:55 circuit nominees.
14:57 I'm more than happy to consider
14:59 that a blue slip rule
15:01 would undo that and figure out a way to go
15:03 forward, but a lot
15:05 of us got
15:07 burned hard
15:09 by that rules change
15:11 and the disrespect to
15:13 us on this side as
15:15 senators that was shown in the
15:17 aftermath of that rules
15:19 change. >> Sir, White House, I agree, but
15:21 can we all agree that that fuse got
15:23 lit when Senator
15:25 Reid nuked the filibuster
15:27 and that's a different story?
15:29 >> I think the blue slip is a completely
15:31 different thing. >> Oh, okay.
15:33 >> Senator Booker? >> Thank you,
15:35 Mr. Chairman. I understand and
15:37 actually feel the anger and the fury
15:39 of Senator Tillis and I
15:41 think it's justified and I hear
15:43 Senator Blackburn and I don't need to
15:45 hearken to a member, God rest her soul,
15:47 this happened to me under the Trump
15:49 administration. A third circuit judge
15:51 was shoved down our throat
15:53 that we didn't even have a chance to
15:55 negotiate. We thought we were
15:57 negotiating in good faith for a large
15:59 picture that included district court judges,
16:01 but then we were told that our opinions
16:03 didn't matter. And so
16:05 I'm not looking at the providence of how
16:07 we got here. This is situations
16:09 where people feel justified
16:11 injuries on both sides.
16:13 I just suggest to members who feel
16:15 the same passion as I
16:17 do and as I think
16:19 Senator Tillis does, that
16:21 we could sit here and curse the darkness
16:23 that caused it, but I'm happy
16:25 to meet with anybody that wants to try
16:27 to figure out a way out of this mess because I
16:29 think what my colleagues are pointing out
16:31 on the other side of the dais is absolutely right.
16:33 This is wrong and
16:35 I believe we should get back to where we were
16:37 before.
16:39 >> Senator Lee.
16:43 >> Thank you,
16:45 Mr. Chairman.
16:47 I wanted to echo
16:51 my concerns to those who have spoken
16:53 already with regard to their
16:55 concerns with this judge.
16:57 I want to raise a related matter, a matter
16:59 that came up at his confirmation hearing that I
17:01 asked him about in the hearing
17:03 and
17:05 didn't really get satisfactory answers
17:07 so I asked him more specifically
17:09 and more clearly, I thought,
17:11 and the questions considered
17:13 for the record.
17:15 One of those questions,
17:17 question 37,
17:19 I asked him the following, knowing that
17:21 Ms. Taylor Fonfron had been accused of
17:23 intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence from
17:25 the defendant and
17:27 making false representations to the court,
17:29 did you have any conversation with her
17:31 about those allegations? Were there
17:33 two separate investigations into
17:35 her conduct? A factor in your
17:37 decision to elevate her to serve as
17:39 your first assistant. Remember,
17:41 when someone serves
17:43 as a U.S. attorney,
17:45 the single most
17:47 important and impactful hiring decision
17:49 that person must make
17:51 is to decide who's going to be the
17:53 first assistant. The first assistant steps in
17:55 in the absence of a U.S. attorney
17:57 and
17:59 really does a substantial
18:01 job in running the office.
18:03 So it would not be
18:05 an insignificant thing
18:07 to
18:09 appoint someone
18:11 who had multiple complaints
18:13 of
18:15 violating Brady,
18:17 withholding exculpatory evidence
18:19 from
18:21 counsel to the defense during
18:23 a criminal trial. It would be an
18:25 unusual thing to put in a first assistant who
18:27 would have multiple complaints unresolved over
18:29 that and not at least talk about it.
18:31 His response
18:33 was, as far as I can tell,
18:35 utterly information free.
18:37 It contained words, the words
18:39 referred sort of to the
18:41 subject matter at hand, but were in no
18:43 way, shape, or form responsive to my question.
18:45 Instead, he says, "Ms. Fondren
18:47 is a native of Memphis who
18:49 has worked in public service with
18:51 the U.S. Department of Justice for her entire career.
18:53 She began her career as Presidential
18:55 Management Fellow with the Drug
18:57 Enforcement Administration. It goes on
18:59 most of its travel log.
19:01 Fast forward toward the end,
19:03 the next paragraph. "At the time
19:05 I appointed Ms. Fondren to be
19:07 the first assistant U.S. attorney
19:09 in October 2022,
19:11 I understood that the matter
19:13 that ultimately led to the
19:15 2023 D.C. Court of Appeals decision
19:17 in her case was still being litigated."
19:19 It's
19:21 not responsive to the question either.
19:23 In response to questions
19:27 I asked, including
19:29 questions
19:31 similar to those that
19:33 Senator Blackburn discussed a moment
19:35 ago, and those that
19:39 those other questions that I asked related
19:41 to Q
19:43 for number 37 in my list
19:45 of questions submitted to him,
19:47 I found him to be
19:49 at best non-cooperative
19:51 as a witness.
19:53 I also
19:55 found some of his answers
19:57 to be not entirely forthcoming,
19:59 or at least responsive to what we were asking.
20:01 That is concerning to me, in addition
20:03 to all the other reasons that
20:05 have been stated. I intend to vote no.
20:07 Thank you, Senator Lee.
20:09 I just want the members to realize
20:11 one or two things.
20:13 One is, I have worked with
20:15 Senator Graham in a bipartisan way to
20:17 preserve the blue slip for district court judges.
20:19 There has been pressure on
20:21 me and others to change
20:23 that. Some from
20:25 friends and some from those who are not friends.
20:27 But I still believe it is a
20:29 valuable tool for
20:31 the appointment of district court judges.
20:33 And I thank the Republicans
20:35 on this side, particularly,
20:37 and others in the chamber
20:39 for working on a bipartisan
20:41 basis to make the blue slip work
20:43 under a president of a different
20:45 political party. If we are
20:47 going to do anything and blue slips on
20:49 circuit court judges, I think there is one premise.
20:51 We should do it prospectively,
20:53 not knowing the outcome of
20:55 an election that may change
20:57 the presidency and may not.
20:59 That is a fair way to approach it.
21:01 If there is any member of the committee
21:03 that wants to start an active conversation
21:05 along those lines, I would be glad to join it.
21:07 Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. I thank
21:09 you for that because I think you have been
21:11 good on that. The only point is
21:13 folks, this is an opportunity to say
21:15 the White House needs to
21:17 do its homework. You don't
21:19 have to have Senator Blackburn and
21:21 Senator Hagerty having rave
21:23 reviews over it, but you
21:25 could argue that the level of their
21:27 emotion right now justifies
21:29 another look at this
21:31 nominee. I just apologize
21:33 in advance, colleagues, next year,
21:35 if we are in the majority and
21:37 there is a Republican in the White House
21:39 after you are so frustrated
21:41 with the circuit nomination
21:43 that you are almost likely going to have
21:45 confirmed, remember this
21:47 moment. Being bipartisan
21:49 when it is hard
21:51 is what I am looking for.
21:53 Not judging this individual,
21:55 but missing this opportunity
21:57 right now. I want to be technically
21:59 correct that Senator
22:01 Reid started something that
22:03 Leader McConnell
22:05 finished on judicial
22:07 nominations. We all know that, but they are
22:09 intrinsically linked. This is
22:11 a moment for next year
22:13 if the tables are turned to remind
22:15 me, "Tom, you remember when I voted
22:17 against the nominee because this member
22:19 was not treated with respect on judiciary?"
22:21 Then you can count
22:23 me in to vote against the circuit nominee
22:25 if you are treated the same way.
22:27 If you go down this path
22:29 and you say, "Well, let's get together and
22:31 sort it out," no, it is not about that. It is about
22:33 a decision you are about to make.
22:35 If you make this decision,
22:37 somebody who has tried to develop a
22:39 reputation for working you all and voting
22:41 on about as many nominees out of here as
22:43 Lindsey Graham, maybe even more, including
22:45 a district judge last week
22:47 for the state of Illinois,
22:49 just remember this moment
22:51 because you will not be able to have the moral
22:53 high ground to stand on to say, "I should
22:55 support opposing that nominee."
22:57 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
22:59 Mr. Chairman.
23:01 Senator Blackburn.
23:03 To your point about working
23:05 in a bipartisan and constructive
23:07 manner, Senator Hagerty
23:09 and I have done that. We did it
23:11 on the first nominee that came up.
23:13 We did it on this
23:15 nominee. We gave the
23:17 White House a list
23:19 of names of Democrats
23:21 who were qualified,
23:23 who sought to serve.
23:25 We sent those
23:27 forward to them.
23:29 The White House did not
23:31 extend the courtesy
23:33 of working through
23:35 that list of nominees.
23:37 As I said,
23:39 from what we have heard
23:41 from many
23:43 different individuals,
23:45 there was a deal
23:47 that was cut that this
23:49 would be the nominee.
23:51 This is - and
23:53 Senator Hagerty and I gave him
23:55 the benefit of the doubt.
23:57 Senator, I recognize you
23:59 and was very flexible in
24:01 timing, but we should
24:03 bring this to a vote. We know how you feel.
24:05 I respect how you feel. I can't
24:07 change how you feel. Mr. Chairman, I think it speaks
24:09 to the way the committee moves
24:11 forward on these things and Senator
24:13 Tillis is correct.
24:15 Senator Lee is correct
24:17 in his questions and the vague
24:19 response on the
24:21 QFRs.
24:23 Unfavorably, reporting
24:25 the nomination of Kevin Gafford
24:27 Ritz to be U.S. Circuit
24:29 Judge for the 6th Circuit, the clerk will call the roll.
24:31 Mr. Whitehouse? Aye.
24:33 Ms. Klobuchar? Aye.
24:35 Mr. Coon? Mr. Chairman,
24:37 can I be heard on this after we conclude the vote?
24:39 Aye.
24:41 Mr. Blumenthal? Aye.
24:43 Ms. Hirono? Aye.
24:45 Mr. Booker? Aye.
24:47 Mr. Padilla? Aye.
24:49 Mr. Ossoff? Aye.
24:51 Mr. Welch? Aye.
24:53 Ms. Butler? Aye.
24:55 Mr. Graham? No.
24:57 Mr. Grassley? No.
24:59 Mr. Cornyn? No.
25:01 Mr. Lee? No.
25:03 Mr. Cruz? No by process.
25:05 Mr. Hawley? No.
25:07 Mr. Cotton? No by process.
25:09 Mr. Kennedy? No
25:11 by process. Mr. Tillis?
25:13 No.
25:15 Mr. Blackburn? Aye.
25:17 Mr. Durbin? Aye.
25:19 Mr. Durbin, on this vote, the ayes are 11, the nays are 10.
25:21 The nomination will be favorably
25:23 reported to the floor. Senator Coons?
25:25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25:27 My very capable counsel has been trying
25:29 to get me up to speed on the background
25:31 of all of this. I apologize
25:33 to you, Senator Blackburn, that I did not
25:35 dig into this and talk to you before this vote
25:37 today. I will not vote for this
25:39 nominee on the floor until I have a chance to meet
25:41 with you and to meet with Whitehouse
25:43 counsel and review what's actually
25:45 happened here and what's going on.
25:47 Senator Graham? I didn't
25:51 say anything because I couldn't say it better.
25:53 So,
25:55 I'm not going to make that a habit-o.
25:57 Bottom line is what
26:01 Marcia and Tom were saying is
26:03 you know, I vote
26:05 almost yes most of the time,
26:07 not, you know, like a lot.
26:09 This was an easy
26:11 no for me. Just remember
26:13 that.
26:15 I would say
26:17 I'm ready to open this conversation and
26:19 dialogue on a bipartisan basis
26:21 if we're talking about a prospective
26:23 change after the election. I think that
26:25 is the only fair way to approach it since we don't
26:27 know the outcome,
26:29 what the outcome will be.
26:31 We have preserved the blue slip for district
26:33 court judges and if we want to expand it to
26:35 circuit court judges, let's have that conversation.
26:37 But the feelings
26:39 that you have, Senator Tellis and Senator Blackburn
26:41 as well have been reflected
26:43 on our side by Senator
26:45 Whitehouse. I remember Senator Feinstein
26:47 beside herself
26:49 over a nominee for circuit judge
26:51 and the fact that
26:53 it affected the state of California.
26:55 So, if
26:57 anyone wants to initiate that conversation,
26:59 count me in
27:01 as someone would say.
27:03 Next is Brian Murphy, nominated
27:05 to U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
27:07 Does anyone wish to speak on his nomination?
27:09 On favorably
27:11 reporting the nomination of Brian Edward Murphy
27:13 to be U.S. District Judge for the
27:15 District of Massachusetts, the clerk
27:17 will call the roll.
27:19 >> Hi.
27:21 >> Hi.
27:23 >> Hi.
27:25 >> Hi.
27:27 >> Hi.
27:29 >> Hi.
27:31 [BLANK_AUDIO]
27:41 >> The nomination was favorably reported to the floor.
28:08 Next is Judge Rebecca Pinnell, nominated to the US District Court for the Eastern District
28:12 of Washington.
28:13 Does anyone seek recognition on this nomination?
28:16 If not, the clerk will call the roll.
28:27 >> Mr. Rono.
28:38 >> Aye.
28:43 >> Mr. Booker.
28:53 >> Aye.
28:58 >> Mr. Coons.
29:05 >> Aye.
29:09 >> Mr. Walsh.
29:15 >> Aye.
29:19 >> Mr. Cronkite.
29:29 >> Aye.
29:39 >> Mr. Gressley.
29:49 >> No.
29:59 >> Mr. Durbin.
30:09 >> Aye.
30:19 >> Mr. Goss.
30:29 >> Aye.
30:39 >> Mr. Goss.
30:49 >> Aye.
30:59 >> Mr. Goss.
31:09 >> Aye.
31:19 >> Mr. Goss.
31:29 >> Aye.
31:39 >> Mr. Goss.
31:49 >> Aye.
31:59 >> Mr. Goss.
32:09 >> Aye.
32:19 >> Mr. Goss.
32:29 >> Aye.
32:39 >> Mr. Goss.
32:49 >> Aye.
32:59 >> Mr. Goss.
33:09 >> Aye.
33:19 >> Thank you.
33:29 >> Thank you, Senator Graham.
33:37 I'm going to be brief.
33:47 I do believe there should not be anything that you might call forced arbitration.
33:57 I'm not going to be brief.
34:07 I'm not going to be brief.
34:17 I'm going to be brief.
34:27 I'm going to be brief.
34:37 I'm going to be brief.
34:47 I'm going to be brief.
34:57 I'm going to be brief.
35:07 I'm going to be brief.
35:17 I'm going to be brief.
35:27 I'm going to be brief.
35:37 I'm going to be brief.
35:47 I'm going to be brief.
35:57 I'm going to be brief.
36:07 I'm going to be brief.
36:17 I'm going to be brief.
36:27 I'm going to be brief.
36:37 I'm going to be brief.
36:47 I'm going to be brief.
36:57 I'm going to be brief.
37:07 I'm going to be brief.
37:17 I'm going to be brief.
37:27 I'm going to be brief.
37:47 I'm going to be brief.
37:57 I'm going to be brief.
38:07 I'm going to be brief.
38:17 I'm going to be brief.
38:27 I'm going to be brief.
38:37 I'm going to be brief.
38:57 I'm going to be brief.
39:07 I'm going to be brief.
39:17 I'm going to be brief.
39:27 I'm going to be brief.
39:37 I'm going to be brief.
39:47 I'm going to be brief.
39:57 I'm going to be brief.
40:07 I'm going to be brief.
40:27 I'm going to be brief.
40:37 I'm going to be brief.
40:47 I'm going to be brief.
40:57 I'm going to be brief.
41:17 I'm going to be brief.
41:27 I'm going to be brief.
41:47 I'm going to be brief.
41:57 I'm going to be brief.
42:07 I'm going to be brief.
42:17 I'm going to be brief.
42:37 I'm going to be brief.
42:47 I'm going to be brief.
42:57 I'm going to be brief.
43:07 I'm going to be brief.
43:17 I'm going to be brief.
43:27 I'm going to be brief.
43:37 I'm going to be brief.
43:47 I'm going to be brief.
43:57 I'm going to be brief.
44:07 I'm going to be brief.
44:17 I'm going to be brief.
44:27 I'm going to be brief.
44:37 I'm going to be brief.
44:47 I'm going to be brief.
44:57 I'm going to be brief.
45:07 I'm going to be brief.
45:27 I'm going to be brief.
45:37 I'm going to be brief.
45:47 I'm going to be brief.
45:57 >> Bill will be favorably reported to the floor.
46:07 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
46:17 I want to thank you and your leadership.
46:27 I want to thank you and your leadership.
46:37 I want to thank you and your leadership.
46:47 I want to thank you and your leadership.
46:57 I want to thank you and your leadership.
47:07 I want to thank you and your leadership.
47:17 I want to thank you and your leadership.