Chuck Grassley

I expect Judge Kavanaugh--in fact, it is my advice to him to follow the example set by Justice Ginsburg.

It is unfair and unethical. Indeed, what litigant could expect a fair shake if the judge has already pre-judged the case?

Judges must leave the lawmaking to Congress, the elected representatives of the people.

A good judge never bases decisions on his preferred policy preferences.

But this is only possible when judges are committed to the rule of law.

Indeed, to protect individual liberty, the Framers designed a Government of three co-equal branches, strictly separating legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

One of the Senate's most solemn constitutional duties is to provide advice and consent to the President on the nomination of Supreme Court Justices.

We need some sunlight in this process.

The staff secretary's job is not to influence the President, but to ensure he gets a balanced diet of viewpoints from all relevant people on the staff.

We are not in executive session, and I think we ought to level with the American people.

The American people do not want their judges to pick sides before they hear a case.

The fact that we cannot take a few days or weeks to have a complete review of Judge Kavanaugh's record is unfair to the American people.

Senators have had more than enough time and materials to adequately assess Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications, and so, that is why I proceed.

It cannot be that the Senate and the ACLU are entitled to more protection than the President of the United States.

We in the Senate and everyone else in America expects exactly the same sort of confidentiality.

My colleagues on the other side are accusing the administration of using executive privilege to hide documents from the Committee. I want to say why they are wrong.

I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not.

You spoke about my decency and integrity, and I think you are taking advantage of my decency and integrity.

It is inappropriate for a nominee to answer those questions.

Over the years, I have had some concerns with the Chief Counsel's Office taking an overly narrow interpretation of the statute to the detriment of whistleblowers and the program generally.

President Trump has rightly made economic growth and job creation a focal point of domestic policy.

Is it also not true that requiring these organizations to provide the IRS with this information needlessly put private taxpayer information at risk?

Was this decision not based on the determination that this information was unnecessary for tax administration purposes and imposed unnecessary costs on both the IRS and the taxpayers?

I introduced with Senator Cardin the Protecting Taxpayers Act--bipartisan legislation to make the IRS more responsive and accountable to taxpayers.

I applaud the efforts of Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, as well as the House, for the solutions they've offered to advance IRS reform.