There is a new, troubling trend among 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates this cycle: advocating and promoting a “litmus test,” or judicial philosophy benchmark, for judicial and Supreme Court candidates if he or she happens to be elected President of the United States.

Such a trend goes against the history of judicial nominations and threatens the principle of judicial independence. Some even call the implementation of a judicial litmus test as breaking the “political taboo.”

This is another installment of an ongoing series of posts summarizing 2020 Democratic presidential candidates' views on judges and the courts.  All posts in this series can be viewed here.

On Brett Kavanaugh: On September 27^th, 2018, ahead of the impending Senate vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Mayor Buttigieg stated on his Twitter account, “Today is a grim and dramatic living enactment of the relationship between a Congressional GOP obsessed by tactics and power, and the anguished human beings they govern.” [1]

On September 28^th, 2018, following a statement by then-Senator Joe Donnelly that he would not be voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Mayor Buttigieg Tweeted in support of Donnelly’s decision, “Indiana’s @SenDonnelly has made a very politically difficult decision. He is on the ballot this year. Will he be rewarded, or punished, for his principled stand? The choice is yours. Vote.”[2]

On Neil Gorsuch: In a January 31^st, 2017 posting on Twitter, Mayor Buttigieg stated, “Let's be sure the nomination of Judge Gorsuch is handled with the same fairness that Senate Republicans showed Judge [Merrick] Garland.”[3]

His Opposition to Trump’s Nominees: In a July 9^th 2018 posting on Twitter following the announcement of Brett Kavanaugh as nominee to the Supreme Court, Mayor Buttigieg stated, “This is what we’ve come to: An unpopular president, under investigation, bids an even more unpopular GOP Senate to confirm to the highest court a judge who has argued that presidents should be immune to criminal investigation.”[4]

Recently, Congress has been focusing on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and election cybersecurity by holding hearings.  Lawyers Democracy Fund (LDF) has been covering these hearings on its blog and Twitter feed.

Yesterday, Congressman Doug Collins, Republican Leader and Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, entered into the Congressional Record nine more transcripts of closed-door interviews with senior officials from the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Obama-Biden Administration. They all relate to the Clinton investigation and origins of the Trump probe and so-called "campaign collusion" investigation.

This is the latest in Representative Collins's effort to offer clear and transparent information to the American public about possible bias against Mr. Trump. Previously, Representative Collins released scores of other transcripts, include the troubling testimony by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Last night, Representative Collins tweeted his House Floor speech where he entered this information to the record:

Today, the media was buzzing with stories focusing on the President’s power to nominate judges and how that is going to impact the 2020 election.  Democrat Presidential candidates have been talking about a wide variety of issues from Citizens United, Roe v. Wade litmus tests for nominees, to strategies aiming to fill the Supreme Court with liberal Justices.  Meanwhile, Senate Republicans keep confirming more judges and cementing President Trump’s legacy. 

Today, the RNLA's Judicial Affairs Committee released a second round of summaries on "2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates on Judges." The Judicial Affairs Committee has been reviewing and assessing top tier Democrat candidates and Democratic U.S. Senators contending to become the Democratic nominee for President and their positions on judges and the courts during the Trump Administration.

Last week, the committee released summaries on: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Cory Booker, Senator Kamala Harris, Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. 

Today, summaries were released on Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. A link to all the published summaries can be found on our home page here or via our blog article search here.

Below are a few of the extreme comments that Senators Klobuchar and Gillibrand have made regarding judges and the courts:

This is another installment of an ongoing series of posts summarizing 2020 Democratic presidential candidates' views on judges and the courts.  All posts in this series can be viewed here.

On Neil Gorsuch:                     Voted No. [i]

• In a fundraising email, she stated: “President Trump just announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court, and I’m ready to consider him on his merits,” the missive reads. “But President Trump has made it clear that he wants a justice who will carry on Scalia’s legacy of limiting Americans’ constitutional rights…If that is the case, let me make one thing very clear: You can count on me to fight back against ANY nomination that threatens the rights of Americans.”[ii]
• “Gillibrand said in an interview that she believes Justice Neil Gorsuch essentially possesses an illegitimate seat after Garland was denied even a committee hearing. The New York Democrat added that the Senate should move swiftly to impose strict ethics rules on the Supreme Court.”[iii]
• “Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch has proven to have a judicial philosophy outside of the mainstream and time and again has subjugated individual rights to those of corporations...I plan to stand up for individuals over corporations and oppose his nomination....”[iv]

On Brett Kavanaugh:              Voted No.[v]

•  “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, he would tip the balance of the Supreme Court even more against workers’ rights, civil rights, and women’s rights for decades to come. I do not think he is the right choice for our country, and I am going to vote against him and urge my colleagues to do the same….I strongly oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and I urge all New Yorkers to raise their voices and join me in opposing him. We need a justice who will protect the rights of all people in our state — not just some.”[vi]

Her Opposition to Trump’s Nominees:

Overall, Senator Gillibrand voted in favor of just 15 of President Trump’s judicial nominees during the last Congress, or just over 26% of 57 nominated.[vii]

Regarding President Trump’s judicial nominees, Senator Gillibrand is on the record stating:

• “President Trump and Senate Republicans are stacking the courts with extremist right-wing judges who are not independent or impartial. The decision to move forward with these nominees without the support of both home-state Senators is unacceptable. As long as Senate Republicans are going to preside over a broken process, I will oppose all Circuit Court nominations. The American people deserve a judiciary that is fair and unbiased.” [viii]
• “Demand Justice, a liberal group that works to galvanize Democratic engagement on the federal judiciary, said Gillibrand ‘has quickly emerged as one of the most consistent allies in the fight against Donald Trump's court-packing" and others "ought to immediately follow her lead.’” [ix]

Position on Expanding the Supreme Court:

• “Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.”[x]
• On March 19, 2019, The Hill reported:  “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told “Pod Save America” that the idea [of adding Supreme Courts justices and term limits to Supreme Court justices’ tenure]  was ‘interesting’ and she would ‘need to think more about it.’”[xi]

This is another installment of an ongoing series of posts summarizing 2020 Democratic presidential candidates' views on judges and the courts.  All posts in this series can be viewed here.

On Brett Kavanaugh:           Voted No. [i]

On the nomination of Judge Kavanagh to the Supreme Court, Senator Klobuchar said the following:

• “There were many highly credentialed nominees like yourself [Judge Kavanaugh] that could have been sitting before us today, but—to my colleagues—what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the President has hand-picked a nominee to the Court with the most expansive view of Presidential power possible… a nominee who has actually written that a President—on his own—can declare laws unconstitutional.” [ii]
• “I just think we could have had someone who was more independent.” [iii]
• In a television townhall, Senator Klobuchar: “[Judge Kavanaugh] was basically politicizing the whole judiciary with how he acted [during his confirmation hearings].” [iv]

On Neil Gorsuch:                  Voted No.[v] 

On the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Senator Klobuchar stated:

• “After thorough examination and consideration, I have decided that I will not vote in favor of Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. His judicial record on critical issues including the rights of children with disabilities, campaign finance, and preserving health and safety protections have led me to conclude that I cannot support his nomination.” [vi]
• “I felt that he [Judge Gorsuch] was out of the mainstream, not really in—how he interacted personally. I had a very good conversation with him…I’m not going to relitigate the whole thing today, but there were some real concerns about his philosophy.”[vii]

Her opposition to Trump’s judicial nominees: 

During the last Congress, Senator Klobuchar voted against Trump judicial nominations about half of the time, or 50.9% of the time. Of the 57 lower court judicial nominations, Senator Klobuchar voted to confirm 29 nominees. [viii]

• In September 2018, Senator Amy Klobuchar stated that she regrets Senate Democrats eliminating the filibuster for most judicial nominees in 2013. She went on to say: “I would prefer to bring it back…But we are where we are and now I don’t think anyone’s going to want to hamstring themselves.” [ix]
• Regarding the recent post-cloture time change in April to overcome Senate Democrat obstruction of Trump nominees, Senator Klobuchar stated: “I don’t know why they are continuing to pursue this [rule change] except that they want to ram through judges, they want to ram through Justice Department people.”[x]
• In apparent attempt to justify Senate Democrat obstruction on President Trump’s nominees, she made the follow remarks on the Senate Floor: “At a time of blistering rhetoric, anger and divisiveness, this is no time to cede this chamber’s ability to do its due diligence by removing the guardrails that help ensure judicial nominees have the qualifications for lifetime appointments to the federal bench.”[xi]

Yesterday, Democrat Presidential Candidate and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard called Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper a “blatant liar.”  Gabbard said:

"I think you had the director of the Department of National Intelligence at that time, James Clapper, who sat before the United States Senate and blatantly lied," Gabbard charged.

"He was asked very directly, 'Are you collecting this information,' and he said 'no.' 'Are you collecting this information on American citizens' and he said, 'no.' And yet, he is somebody you see on TV almost every day as an expert in this country without any consequence lying to the American people."

House Democrats and their most loyal liberal allies are attempting in multiple different ways to effectively repeal the First Amendment.  By taking away donor privacy and controlling how money is spent.  The effort was their top priority as shown by the very symbolically numbered HR 1.  As Real Clear Politics describes it: