Markup Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Regarding the Nominations of:
Carolyn B. McHugh, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
Pamela L. Reeves, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Vince Girdhari Chhabria, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California
James Maxwell Moody, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Peter Joseph Kadzik, to be an Assistant Attorney General
Peter C. Tobin, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio
Amos Rojas, Jr., to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Florida
and Legislation:
S.619, Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013
S.1410, Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013
S.1675, Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013
S.975, Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act
Mr. Chairman,
Today on the agenda we have the nominations of four judicial nominees, as well as two United States Marshals, and the nominee for Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Peter Kadzik. We request that his nomination be held over. I will be sending him some follow-up questions based on the answers he provided to my original questions.
The two nominees for U.S. Marshal, Mr. Tobin and Mr. Rojas are on the agenda for the first time, but we are ready to report them out today. We can do that by voice vote.
The four judicial nominees are ready to be voted on today. We can voice vote Ms. Reeves and Mr. Moody, but request a roll call vote for Mr. Chhabria and Judge McHugh.
Before we vote on Mr. Chhabria, I would like to discuss his nomination briefly. I won’t be supporting this nomination and I wanted to take just a minute to explain why.
First, I’d like to note that I try to give a great deal of deference to the home state Senators, particularly on district court nominees. I have voted for over 90 percent of the President’s nominees. These include a number of nominees who have advocated for legal standards and policy preferences that I disagree with profoundly.
But I also take my role of “advise and consent” seriously. Unfortunately, in this case, I have concluded that this nominee’s views are so firmly and deeply held that he won’t be able to set them aside in a judicial setting.
He has worked on several religious liberty cases where he has tried to stifle religious expression. For example, he has publicly criticized the Catholic Church’s views on what they deem to be appropriate placement of children in adoption. He represented plaintiffs who sued the city to remove a wooden cross that had been on city property for over 90 years, arguing even if the cross were on private property, it “perpetuates the perception that the city endorses religion”.
I am concerned that Mr. Chhabria would be unable to protect religious liberty interests should that kind of case come before him.
He has a very limited view of Second Amendment rights, defending a San Francisco gun law that banned the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits and that required residents to turn in their handguns.
I have some other concerns about this nominee that I won’t elaborate on here, but I am unconvinced that he will be able to set aside his policy preferences and long record of liberal advocacy to be a fair and impartial jurist.
So, we request a roll call vote on Mr. Chhabria, and with regret, I will vote No.
Finally, we will also request a roll call on Judge McHugh, the nominee for the Tenth Circuit. She will be one of over 80 of President Obama’s female nominees our side has supported.
I emphasize this number because the allegations we’ve heard over the last few days of gender bias are offensive and patently absurd.
Our opposition to the President’s scheme to stack the deck on the D.C. Circuit has nothing to do with gender, and the other side knows it.
These allegations are so absurd, in fact, that even the L.A. Times called the Democrats’ attempt to play the “gender card” a “pretty bogus argument,” noting that in the past Republicans “have happily confirmed female nominees.”