Using 'Religious Liberty' to Attack Obama, Women's Health

Attacking President Obama for his supposed “hostility” to religious liberty is the tactic du jour for congressional Republicans, according to a new piece in the Huffington Post by PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery.

After a widely-mocked hearing before the House Oversight Committee on contraceptive coverage, conservatives testifying before the Judiciary Committee continued to claim that the Obama Administration’s compromise on contraceptive coverage is not sufficient – and even if were, the Administration couldn’t be trusted to actually carry it out.

But many of their arguments relied on narrow definitions of the beginning of life that are at odds with medical standards and even with the rest of the religious community:

The arguments from Republican members and their witnesses boiled down to three main claims: the regulations requiring contraception coverage are unconstitutional burdens on religious organizations; the compromise to prevent religious organizations from having to pay for contraceptive coverage is only "an accounting gimmick" that does not resolve any of the moral or religious liberty issues; and the Obama administration has proven itself hostile to religious liberty and cannot be trusted to follow through on its promised accommodation.


Several Democratic members pointedly noted that Lori was not speaking for all Catholic leaders, placing into the record positive statements about the proposed compromise from the Catholic Health Association, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, and other Catholic groups. Meanwhile, outside the hearing, other Catholic voices challenged the credibility of the bishops' religious liberty alarmism.

Others cited fallacious examples to attempt to bolster their claim of lacking religious accomodation.

Also on hand: more nonsensical analogies to join Bishop Lori's previous testimony that the regulations were akin to forcing a Jewish deli to serve pork. Committee Chair Lamar Smith asked whether the government could force people to drink red wine for its health benefits. (As Rep. Zoe Lofgren noted, no one is being forced to use birth control.) Religious Right favorite Rep. Steve King lamented that in the past Christians had "submitted" to Supreme Court decision on prayer in schools and the Griswold decision and the right to privacy "manufactured" by the Supreme Court.

The piece goes on to discuss how religious liberty does require some accommodation of religious beliefs, and striking an appropriate balance is a delicate task. But whatever the outcome, Montgomery notes, the courts will evaluate the regulation of competing interests, and “religious liberty in America will survive.” You can read the entire article here.


Fighting For Fair and Just Courts

Americans look to our courts as a place where they can protect their rights, where giant corporate interests won't be favored as they so often are in other parts of society. Courts make sure that we are protected from businesses that market dangerously defective products, from unprincipled companies that cheat their customers, from predatory lenders that add to the misery of the already vulnerable, and from lawless employers who increase their profits by illegally paying women less.

In cases like these and so many more, individuals are often facing far more powerful individuals and companies, and they rely on a functioning court system to make sure they have justice.

That system is what is at risk when Senate Republicans routinely obstruct the judicial confirmation process. With our nation facing the worst sustained courtroom vacancy crisis in over thirty years, Americans are finding it harder and harder to have their day in court.

Politico reports that Senate Democrats are planning on ramping up the pressure on the GOP later this month.

Once the Senate tries to pass the transportation bill next week, Reid will determine his next steps on judicial nominations. If a deal can be reached quickly, it's possible that a judicial fight could be averted.

Otherwise, Reid told McConnell, he would file a procedural motion to end debate on 14 judicial nominees who have been approved by wide margins by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As of earlier this week, McConnell had offered to give consent on only three of the judges, sources say.

The Senate Judiciary Committee easily approved 14 nominations last year that are still outstanding. They include nominees for federal courts in California, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Washington state and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Thirteen of the 14 were approved unanimously. ...

Democrats say Obama's nominees have been forced to wait five times longer than Bush's judicial nominees were after receiving Judiciary Committee approval. Of the 20 nominees awaiting Senate action, 11 would fill vacancies considered "emergencies" by the judiciary.

While Politico elsewhere in the article frames this as part of what it dismissively calls "the culture war," what's at stake is the fundamental idea that we can all get a fair hearing in a court of law. All the rights in the world mean little if we don't have an effectively functioning judicial branch to enforce them.


Senate Rejects Blunt Amendment, Romney Disappointed?

In a 51-48 vote today, the Senate rejected an amendment to the transportation bill by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt that would have allowed employers to deny their employees health insurance coverage for any treatment for any reason.

“The Blunt amendment was not only astoundingly bad public policy, it represented a fundamental misreading of the First Amendment. If it became law, it would have put working Americans – regardless of their religious beliefs – at the mercy of the religious beliefs of their employers. That’s not religious liberty – in fact, it’s exactly the opposite,” said PFAW president Michael Keegan in a statement released earlier today.

The extremity of this amendment wasn’t lost on every member of the GOP. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted against the amendment, and even major presidential contender Mitt Romney opposed the bill:

“I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

But of course, after remembering that perpetuating the War on Women is one of the GOP’s primary tactics this year, he reversed course in record time:

“Of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply — misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment.”

The American people, and in particular the 20 million American Women whose reproductive health coverage would have been jeopardized by the Blunt Amendment, are quickly losing patience for the type of brazen politicking that puts pandering to the extreme right-wing over the legitimate needs of the country.


YEO Network Member Tells His Story on Rock Center

People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network supports the work of over 600 young, progressive elected officials around the country. One of them, 24-year-old Ithaca, New York mayor Svante Myrick told his story on NBC’s Rock Center last night:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Featured along with Mayor Myrick are two of his fellow YEO Network members – who are also his roommates: City Councilmember Eddie Rooker and County Legislator Nate Shinagawa.


PFAW Foundation

Senate GOP - "Ignore What We Said Before"

A number of U.S. senators have been expressing their deep concern about the damage being done to our nation by GOP partisan obstruction of judicial nominees. Yesterday, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico pointed out that when Republicans controlled the White House and Senate, they were demanding floor votes for any nominee clearing the Judiciary Committee:

The arguments my colleagues and I make today—that judicial nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee deserve a vote by the full Senate—are the same arguments my Republican colleagues made when President Bush's nominees were held up by a Democratic minority.

Of course, when Bush was president, Democrats blocked only the most extreme circuit court nominees, a handful of nominees whose elevation to the nation's federal appellate courts could do grave damage to our country. In contrast, Republicans are obstructing every single one of President Obama's nominees – even district court nominees with unanimous committee support.

What we are seeing from Senate Republicans is not a policy based on principle, but one based solely on partisan interests. Unfortunately, it is putting our nation's courts at risk and denying justice to millions of Americans.


Senate Examines NDAA

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled, “The Due Process Guarantee Act: Banning Indefinite Detention of Americans,” which shed light on controversial provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

That act, signed into law on December 31, 2011, codified some of the most extreme abuses of civil liberties that have been pursued following the initiation of the ‘War on Terror,’ the actions of which, under the current administration, are now engaged under the title, ‘Overseas Contingency Operations.’ The most striking provision of the NDAA affirmed a broad interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (2001) and stated that the executive has the power to detain anyone “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities … without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF 2001],” which many interpret would permit even the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Although the current executive branch has pledged to not act upon these powers with respect to American citizens – President Obama signed the law with an adjoining statement, declaring, “my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens” – the potential for future administrations to engage in such clearly unconstitutional behavior, or for the Obama Administration to simply change its mind, is a danger that all Americans should be wary of.

Troubled by these possibilities, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the ‘Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011’ just hours after the final version of the NDAA was approved by the Senate. The bill seeks to amend the United States Code affected by the NDAA, effectively barring the executive from utilizing indefinite detention on American citizens without express approval from Congress to do so.

The hearing today regarded this remedial act; and there were fireworks to say the least.

Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee and is the author of the bill, repeatedly called into question the effectiveness of the provisions in question. Alluding to her past experiences on the Intelligence Committee, Feinstein echoed the concerns of leaders of intelligence and domestic crime fighting agencies who have expressed their disagreement with the infringement of the Armed Forces into domestic security concerns.

Senator Patrick Leahy, before passing the gavel to Senator Feinstein to chair the session, spoke more broadly about the practice of indefinite detention in his opening statement, stating, “A regime of indefinite detention degrades the credibility of this great Nation around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for engaging in such conduct.”

The most heated portion of the hearing arose when Senator Al Franken objected to the testimony of Steven G. Bradbury, a former Bush Administration appointee invited by Senate Republicans to testify in favor of the indefinite detention provisions. Franken alluded to the ‘enhanced interrogation’ memos (more accurately called torture memos) that Bradbury authored – which were the subject of a Justice Department probe that concluded by seriously questioning the legal work of Bradbury and others - and stated, “it’s very difficult for me, frankly, to rely on your legal opinion today.”

To ensure that future generations of Americans are not subject to indefinite detention without charge or trial, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Hamdi Supreme Court decision in 2004, please contact your local Representative and Senators to express your opposition to the NDAA, and encourage them to co-sponsor legislation to make sure the law reflects our Constitution’s most essential values. ( H.R. 36702 in the House; S. 2003 in the Senate).


Michigan Primary raises citizenship question

“Are you a citizen?” was the question posed by the Michigan Primary even before voters were asked to decide between President Obama or Santorum and Romney.

The question of citizenship is not new:

Under the Michigan Election Law, voters have to swear under oath they are an eligible voter — which includes U.S. citizenship — when they apply to vote and it is verified by the Secretary of State's or local clerks' offices when the application is processed.

What is new is the added step of asking it at the polls.

The Michigan Legislature is considering a bill, sponsored by Sen. Darwin Booher, R-Evart, which requires voters to affirmatively state their citizenship before receiving a ballot at the polls. The bill passed the Senate and was referred to the House Elections and Redistricting Committee. Critics say Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson appears to be implementing an election bill prior to it being signed into law.

[Side note: According to ALEC Exposed, Senator Booher paid ALEC membership dues with taxpayer funds in 2005, 2007 and 2009 while a state representative.]

Katy Flanagan, Project Vote’s Director of Election Administration:

Secretary Johnson appears to be implementing an election bill that hasn’t even passed the House--much less been signed into law. The legislative process would be meaningless if politicians could just enforce the bills they like. Our goal is to ensure no eligible voter is turned away from the polls. To protect everyone’s right to vote, our election officials should be enforcing existing laws, not proposed legislation.

Melanie McElroy, Executive Director of Common Cause Michigan, continues:

Requiring voters to affirm their citizenship, again, at the polls on Election Day and on absentee voter ballot applications is a solution in search of a problem. This new requirement will only confuse long-time voters who affirmed their citizenship when they registered to vote for the first time.

Simply put by Kyle Caldwell, CEO and President of the Michigan Nonprofit Association:

Our elections must be free from fraud and we can do it without creating redundant steps.

Serious concerns have been expressed over Secretary Johnson’s claim that existing authority authorizes this change. And over her claims of its benign application that appeared yesterday to be anything but benign.

Groups have received reports from voters in various precincts around the state who are surprised and angry about this unnecessary and burdensome requirement. Additionally, there are also reports of inconsistent application of this new requirement by election officials.

We’re left with the suspicion that this is yet another tactic that falls right in line with The Right to Vote under Attack: The Campaign to Keep Millions of Americans from the Ballot Box, a Right Wing Watch: In Focus report by PFAW Foundation.

PFAW Foundation

A United Front Against Partisan Obstruction of Judicial Nominations

This morning, a number of Senators gave impassioned floor speeches condemning the unprecedented Republican obstruction of judicial nominees. They talked about the vacancy crisis that is keeping Americans from having their day in court. They spoke of qualified nominees with wide bipartisan support who were nonetheless blocked by Republicans. They talked about a time when qualified consensus nominees could be confirmed easily by a united Senate that put the interests of the American people over partisan warfare.

Some of the highlights are now on video, featuring (in order) Sens. Dick Durbin (Illinois), Chuck Schumer (New York), Pat Leahy (Vermont – and also the chairman of the Judiciary Committee), Chris Coons (Delaware), Dianne Feinstein (California). It is well worth viewing.


Senate to Vote This Week on Extremist Health Care Amendment

The Senate will reportedly vote this week on the Blunt amendment, an addition to the transportation bill from Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt that would, if it became law, throw the American health care system into chaos.

Blunt’s amendment, part of the right-wing overreaction to President Obama’s mandate that health insurance policies cover contraception, would allow any employer to refuse any employee insurance for any treatment on religious grounds. So not only could any boss refuse his female employees access to birth control, but any employer could refuse coverage for any procedure or medication he or she found morally offensive – including things like blood transfusions, vaccinations, or even treatment from a doctor of the opposite sex.

Not only would the Blunt amendment mean that comprehensive health insurance wouldn’t necessarily provide comprehensive health insurance – it would throw the country’s health care system into chaos, as each employer and each insurer carved out their own sets of rules.

The plan is bad public policy and antithetical to religious freedom, but it will probably get the votes of most Republican senators. In fact, the basic idea behind the plan is something that’s already been embraced by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

A large majority of Americans think that insurance policies should be required to cover basic reproductive care – including contraception – for women. The Blunt amendment would not only deny that care to women, it would go even further in denying health care to all American workers for any number of reasons totally beyond their control.

This is straight-up extremism: and American voters know that.

UPDATE: The Democratic Policy and Communications Center estimates that the Blunt amendment could put preventative care for 20 million women at risk.


Sen. Coons to GOP: End the Obstruction

Sen. Chris Coons was among those who went to the Senate floor earlier today to urge an end to Republican obstruction of judicial nominees. He spoke of his experience as a Delaware attorney, and of Delaware's long struggle to achieve a full complement of federal judges.

I rise today as ... the junior senator from Delaware, but also as a member of the Delaware Bar and a former federal court clerk and someone who has, I think, a personal sense from that experience and my service on the Judiciary Committee, of the consequences of these delays, the consequences of steadily climbing caseloads, significant judicial vacancies, judicial emergencies in districts across our great country, ... and what that means for people, for companies, for communities for whom justice is being delayed and thus denied.

Earlier this month, I attended the investiture ceremony of Judge Richard Andrews, who was sworn in to the U.S. District Court for Delaware. This is the first time in six years that the very busy District Court of Delaware has had a full complement of all of its district court judges. And although I am relieved and the people of Delaware are grateful to have a full bench, and although Judge Andrews is an extremely talented lawyer and a devoted public servant and utterly nonpartisan — just the sort of district court nominee of whom the presiding officer just spoke — his nomination took nearly six months to be confirmed by the Senate.

Judge Andrews was confirmed without opposition, yet it took 176 days to confirm this consensus district court nominee. In fact, that's actually well below the average in this era of GOP obstruction. On average, President Obama's confirmed district court nominees have taken 207 days to be confirmed (as opposed to only 132 days for Bush's district court nominees at this point in his administration).

Sen. Coons made a simple request of the authors of this unprecedented obstruction:

I call upon my colleagues on the other side to rethink this strategy of obstruction at all costs, because it is in the end the American people who pay the price.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to many Senate Republicans.


Virginia Senate passes less terrible, but still terrible, mandatory ultrasound bill

Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell buckled under nationwide pressure and forced his allies in the state’s legislature to revise a bill they had passed mandating forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. That the bill was tweaked to no longer require women to be vaginally penetrated without their consent – a requirement that McDonnell, until he was met with a national outcry, was all set to sign into law -- was an important victory for pro-choice and common-decency activists.

But we need to remember just how far anti-choice politicians are willing to go. Just a few years ago, before the War on Women kicked into full swing, we wouldn’t have known that we’d have to be fighting state-mandated vaginal probes. In fact, just a few years ago, the amended bill passed by the Virginia Senate today would have been seen as extreme in itself.

The bill that the Virginia Senate passed in a 21-19 vote today requires all women seeking an abortion to first undergo a medically unnecessary external ultrasound – unless they can prove they are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

It’s important to remember just how extreme the bill still is. Virginia Republicans are mandating that doctors perform a medically unnecessary procedure whether or not their patient requests it, unless that patient can produce a police report to prevent it. It creates a situation that’s ethically difficult for doctors and absolutely demeaning for women.

If Gov. McDonnell signs the bill, which he is expected to do, Virginia will join seven other states that currently require pre-abortion ultrasounds.


Virginia poised to tighten voter ID requirements

Yesterday the Virginia Senate took up SB 1, a bill that would tighten voter ID requirements in the state by, among other provisions, removing the option for voters without ID to swear to their identity and replacing it with a provisional ballot that then forces voters to leave and prove their identity later but before their vote is counted. SB 1 came down to a tie that had to be broken by the Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. It now heads to the Virginia House for concurrence, and thereafter to the desk of Governor Bob McDonnell.

There is no question that we have a lot of work to do to ensure that eligible Americans can exercise their right to vote. But the goal should be fair and honest enfranchisement, not the politics of distraction. Just as SB 1 did with its tie vote, voter ID has proven to be a political distraction.

Last fall’s The Right to Vote under Attack: The Campaign to Keep Millions of Americans from the Ballot Box, a Right Wing Watch: In Focus report by PFAW Foundation, details just how harmful the politics can be.

“This report reveals just how the far the Right Wing is willing to go to win elections,” continued Keegan. “Eroding the achievements of the Civil Rights movement by disenfranchising voters is abhorrent. All Americans have a fundamental right to vote, and we need to be vigilant to make sure that ever eligible voter is ready and able to vote on Election Day."

It certainly appears that the Right Wing is behind SB 1. ALEC Exposed reports that its lead sponsor, Stephen Martin (R-11), is ALEC’s Virginia Chair, and the lead sponsor of its House companion (HB 9), Mark Cole (R-88), is also affiliated with ALEC. ALEC itself is a voter ID proponent.

ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council, was the subject of its own Right Wing Watch: In Focus report. PFAW Foundation describes the organization as:

A one-stop shop for corporations looking to identify friendly state legislators and work with them to get special-interest legislation introduced. It’s win-win for corporations, their lobbyists, and right-wing legislators. But the big losers are citizens whose rights and interests are sold off to the highest bidder.

Regarding voter ID and election laws:

ALEC is directly tied to the emerging trend among state legislatures to consider voter ID laws. Using false allegations of “voter fraud,” right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters,--including the elderly and the poor--who are unlikely to have drivers’ licenses or other forms of photo ID. By suppressing the vote of such groups, ALEC’s model “Voter ID Act” grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the right to vote. In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to participate in the political process. Their Public Safety and Elections taskforce is co-chaired by Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous pro-corporate election groups, and promotes model legislation that would devastate campaign finance reform and allow for greater corporate influence in elections.
PFAW Foundation

Ben Cardin Urges Vote on MD Judicial Nominee

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland went to the Senate floor today to urge his Republican colleagues to end their partisan efforts to keep our nation's courts from functioning at full effectiveness. He discussed a district court vacancy in his state that could be filled today, if the GOP would allow a vote on nominee George Levi Russell III.

In Maryland, Mr. President, we are trying to fill a vacancy that was created during the end of President Bush's term of office, when Judge Peter Messitte took senior status in 2008. Judge Russell is an excellent candidate, received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, and is ready to take office upon being confirmed by the Senate. The time for action is now.

Judge Russell brings a wealth of experience to this position in both state and federal courts. Earlier in his career he served as a federal prosecutor and as an attorney in a private law firm. He now sits as a state court trial judge in Maryland.

After discussing his experience as an attorney both in private practice and for the Department of Justice, Sen. Cardin turned to the bipartisan confidence that Russell has inspired among the people of Maryland.

In January 2007, Governor Ehrlich, a Republican, appointed him to serve as an Associate Judge of the Baltimore City Circuit Court for a term of 15 years. As a trial judge, Judge Russell has presided over hundreds of trials that have gone to verdict or judgment, and has experience in handling jury trials, bench trails, civil cases, and criminal cases. He has the professional experience which has been recognized by a Republican Governor and a Democratic President.

Judge Russell is a highly qualified African American who would fill a seat that has been declared a judicial emergency. His nomination garnered bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee, where only Utah's Mike Lee voted against him (presumably to continue protesting President Obama's recent recess appointments).

Sen. Cardin explained who Senate Republicans are hurting the most with their obstructionism:

The real victim here is not only the nominee and their family that are awaiting final Senate action. The real victim is the American people, who face increasing delays in courts that are overburdened and understaffed. A higher vacancy rate means lack of timely hearings and decisions by our federal courts, affecting our citizens' ability to have access to justice and a fair and impartial resolution of their complaints.


The Judicial Vacancy Crisis in Illinois

Among the senators taking to the floor earlier today to condemn the GOP obstructionism harming the our nation's judicial system was Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. Sen. Durbin discussed the crisis facing Americans in the Northern District of Illinois, a crisis exacerbated by unprincipled Republican partisanship.

Last week, I received a letter from the chief judge of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Jim Holderman. His district is one that has been declared a judicial emergency, meaning the backlog of cases is stacking up and the vacancies need to be filled. He was writing me and Senator Kirk asking that we do everything in our power to move two noncontroversial, strongly supported nominees through the Judiciary Committee.

When the district's chief judge is writing to beg you to do everything in your power to advance two utterly noncontroversial nominees, you know the situation must be dire. But as Sen. Durbin noted:

Well, they're moved through. These two who came through a bipartisan process are now sitting on the Senate calendar. They are John Lee and John Tharp. John Lee, my nominee; John Tharp, Senator Kirk's nominee. A bipartisan agreement, a bipartisan committee has led to their selection. No one has questioned their ability to serve well on the federal court.

Indeed, neither nominee is controversial. Each cleared the Judiciary Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, with only Utah's Sen. Mike Lee voting no (presumably to continue protesting President Obama's recent recess appointments). Each would fill a judicial emergency. Each has the support of both Democratic Sen. Durbin and Republican Sen. Kirk.

The only reason to oppose them is that they were nominated by President Obama, and that is a shameful reason.


Senate Democrats Condemn GOP Obstruction of Judges

This morning, a number of Senate Democrats took to the floor to condemn the unprecedented obstruction of qualified, consensus judicial nominees that Senate Republicans have been engaged in since the start of the Obama Administration. Here are just a few of the many highlights:

Sen. Klobuchar:

Today I'm here to discuss along with my colleagues another dynamic of Capitol Hill that is making people lose faith in Washington, the apparent inability of Congress to get routine business done, specifically, the failure of the Senate to fill the dozens of judicial vacancies that exist around the country.

Sen. Durbin:

The bottom line -- judicial nominees with no controversy, widespread bipartisan approval are being held up on the Senate calendar and not approved. Why? Well, I can tell you why. It's fairly clear. ...

What we are seeing now is an effort by the Republicans to hold up our stop judicial nominees in the hopes that they'll be left vacant through the entire calendar year and then if they have their way at the polls a Republican president will fill the vacancies a year from now with new nominees. That is crass, it is unfair. ...

Sen. Coons:

President Obama's nominees have waited four times longer after committee approval than did President Bush's nominees at this point in his first term.

Sen. Cardin:

I am concerned, Mr. President, that our judicial confirmation process here in the Senate has broken down due to partisanship, particularly for noncontroversial judges.

Sen. Schumer:

We have confirmed only three judicial nominees this session, only five in the past two months, and only 11 in the last 90 days. And of the three judges whom we've confirmed this session, we've had to file cloture on two of them. This isn't a responsible use of the Senate's advise and consent powers.

Sen. Feinstein:

Today, partisanship has stalled even the most uncontroversial judicial appointments. Senate Republicans allowed no nominees to be confirmed at the end of the last session, and have allowed but five so far this year. In this environment, even those reported out of committee by voice vote, without any controversy, are unable to receive a floor vote for many months, if they ever receive one at all.

Sen. Leahy, who as chairman of the Judiciary Committee has spoken out many times on the issue, today said:

These highly qualified – consensus – nominees should be confirmed without further delay.  They should have been confirmed last year.  One hundred and thirty million Americans live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could be filled if Senate Republicans would consent to votes on these nominees.  The delays are as damaging as they are inexplicable.  Ultimately, it is the American people who pay the price for this unnecessary and harmful delay in confirming judges.

There are now 19 pending nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee who are waiting for a simple up-or-down vote from the Senate. Seventeen were approved by the Judiciary Committee with very strong bipartisan support: 12 without any opposition at all, and 5 with only one no vote. Ten have been waiting for three months or more for a vote from the full Senate. Ten have been nominated to fill vacancies classified as judicial emergencies. Fourteen of the 19 are women or people of color, and one is an openly gay man.

It is long past time to allow the Senate to vote on their confirmations.