Russ Feingold: “I wish to first note my concern about the procedure followed in the Judiciary Committee to report out this nomination…”

“I wish to first note my concern about the procedure followed in the Judiciary Committee to report out this nomination precipitously to the floor. Our practice on nominations in the committee has been first to hold a hearing. Next, Senators are given the opportunity to review the transcript of the hearing and submit written questions. Normally, we are given a week to do that, which is a reasonable length of time. Then, once a nominee answers any written questions, the nomination can be noticed, and we have the right to hold that nomination over for 1 week. That is not an extraordinary amount of time, but it is at least sufficient for the Senators on the committee to do their jobs and have confidence that the nomination has been considered with due diligence. There is no good reason that we couldn't follow that schedule in this case. Mr. Kavanaugh's situation is unusual because he was first nominated several years ago, but his first nomination was essentially abandoned when he decided not to respond to written questions for a full 7 months after his hearing in April 2004. Senators on the Democratic side requested a new hearing for him over a year ago, after he was renominated. His nomination lay dormant until just a few weeks ago. Then, all of a sudden, there was a full court press to get this nomination done. Why is that?…”