Not having sat in the hearing, I don't know how much it would trouble me. I can't tell you if a witness would not answer my questions I wouldn't be troubled by it. I don't think that would cause me to try to filibuster the nomination, which is really one of the core issues we are dealing with here. I might vote no because of it. And you are perfectly entitled to vote no if you don't like the answers to your questions. But we are way beyond not liking the answers to questions here. We are seeing a filibuster of a nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is based, as I understand it, in large part on the fact that confidential documents are not disclosed. What I am trying to get at is: What else? What I have heard at this point is the nominee did not identify which was his favorite and least favorite Supreme Court case, and that he would not say how he would have judged a particular case until he had read the briefs and studied the matter more carefully. Frankly, I think that makes him a better candidate.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the filibuster of a Circuit Court nominee and the implications of unanswered questions during hearings.
Share
More from Mike Crapo
this week, we are going to spend a lot of time discussing problems with our healthcare system. To do that, we need to understand just how we got here. Concerns about the rising healthcare costs are not new. In 2009, Democrats highlighted…
The federal government has a responsibility to counties home to federal lands in Idaho and across the country to help support essential public services like roads, emergency response and schools given these communities’ inability to…
The input we received from Idahoans shapes ongoing solutions to address housing challenges facing the state and country.
We have a moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us.





