Congress is back from its August recess, and Biden's judicial nominees up for confirmation by the Senate are as bad as ever. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to consider several nominees. Of particular concern to Committee Republicans were Richard Federico, nominated to the Tenth Circuit, and Eumi Lee, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley grilled Federico on a case where he advocated for a sentence as defense counsel well below the recommended guidlines for a case involving child sexual abuse material. The Daily Wire reported:

Hawley began by laying out the details of the case he was referring to, noting that the sentencing guidelines recommended up to 240 months — or 20 years — in prison. The recommended range, he said, was from 210 months to 240 — but Federico had asked for just 105 months. . .

On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Democrats passed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act out of Committee. This bill is a dangerous piece of legislation that is the Democrats' latest attempt to attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats led by conspiracy enthusiast Sheldon Whitehouse and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin will take the next step in its quest to reshape the judiciary by holding a Committee vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Because the radical Left doesn't like some of the decisions made since Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Court, they have manufactured a crisis to provide cover for their attacks on the legitimacy of the Court. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out in remarks on the Senate floor last week:

The Supreme Court is not in crisis when it refuses to reliably and predictably advance Democrats’ priorities. The Court is not in crisis when it puts the text of our laws above politics.

Yesterday’s Senate Judiciary “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” hearing had three Senators who took the spotlight, representing the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good

The good was Republican Senator John Kennedy who totally destroyed Democrat witness Kedric Payne of the Campaign Legal Center. 

Senator Kennedy slams the biased Twitter posts of a key witness, who called some justices "politicians in robes who thrive in a system where access and influence are for sale" and said Chief Justice John Roberts was "a disgrace." pic.twitter.com/6DLEXqf1oW

— The Article III Project (A3P) (@Article3Project) May 2, 2023

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, the Democrat Party, and their media sycophants have been trying to build a case against Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices leading up to Durbin’s "Supreme Court Ethics Reform" hearing on Tuesday. This is part of the Democrats' long term effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, but the reality is it may be undermining Durbin’s legitimacy. 

First off, it is worth noting that all nine Supreme Court Justices pushed back against the Durbin’s efforts:

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges. . . .

"If the full Court or any subset of the Court were to review the recusal decisions of individual justices," they wrote, "it would create an undesirable situation in which the Court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate."

Later, they added that public disclosure of the basis for recusal could "encourage strategic behavior by lawyers who may seek to prompt recusals in future cases" by framing them a certain way in an attempt to disqualify a particular member of the court.

Earlier this week, RNLA highlighted Senate Democrats' scheme to "temporarily" replace Senator Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans must come together and vote against the Democrats' scheme to "temporarily" replace Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. The future of the federal judiciary is at stake. https://t.co/nSv2nFmLqu

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) April 17, 2023

One of the practical consequences if this scheme succeeds is that Democrats will once again have the ability to ram radical and/or disqualified judicial nominees through the Committee. Below are some of the most radical and disqualified nominees currently pending before the Senate.

Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna made waves last week when he publicly said what most Democrats (and everyone else for that matter) have been thinking for a long time: Senator Dianne Feinstein is no longer fit to serve in the U.S. Senate.

It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) April 12, 2023

Senator Feinstein's failure to resign has consequences, deadlocking controversial judicial nominations in the Senate Judiciary Committee on which she serves. Without Feinstein's vote, nominees can only proceed with bipartisan support—effectively blocking the Biden Administration's most extreme and unqualified nominees.  

On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time this Congress. Like in past hearings, Attorney General Garland failed to own up to the obvious problems with the Department of Justice (DOJ) under his leadership. However, a major admission he made alluded to an undeniable failure of the Biden Administration as a whole—Biden's Border Crisis:

Attorney General Merrick Garland says Mexican drug cartels unleashed the fentanyl crisis on the U.S. "on purpose," and urged the Mexican government to "do more" to combat drug trafficking.

This morning, Senate Judiciary Democrats rubber stamped a number of President Joe Biden's judicial nominees, including Nancy Abudu, whose nomination to the Eleventh Circuit RNLA formally opposes. Of particular importance to RNLA, Abudu has a history of extremist views on election law issues:

Comparing the opposition to enfranchisement of convicted murders, rapists, and child molesters to supporting slavery is offensive to all but the most partisan activists. 

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered five of President Biden's judicial nominations. Most notable was the consideration of nominee Nancy Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit. RNLA is formally opposing the nomination of Ms. Abudu because:

[H]er views are extreme and fall outside of the mainstream. RNLA has only formally opposed one other judicial nominee made by the Biden Administration. We oppose Ms. Abudu because her views and rhetoric go beyond that of even progressive activists, and we see no reason to believe that she will be an impartial judge on the “hot button” issue of election law.