Senator Todd Young's Response Regarding Kavanaugh Nomination
Oct 19, 2018 13:25:18 GMT -5
Woody Williams, schall53, and 2 more like this
Post by jimstc on Oct 19, 2018 13:25:18 GMT -5
Dear Mr. St. Charles,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
It is my solemn duty to uphold my constitutional responsibility to carefully review all Supreme Court nominees and their qualifications. Below, please find the abbreviated facts of the comprehensive nomination process:
- On November 17, 2017, President Trump included Judge Kavanaugh on a short-list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees.
- On July 10, 2018, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary received the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
- Once nominated, the FBI conducted a background check of Judge Kavanaugh. This was the sixth background check of Judge Kavanaugh since 1993, which uncovered no outstanding issues.
- Judge Kavanaugh met with 65 senators, and offered to meet with all 100 senators. Notably, 35 senators chose not to meet with him.
- The Senate had access to Judge Kavanaugh’s more than 300 opinions issued over his 12 years as a D.C. Circuit Court Judge.
- The Judiciary Committee reviewed nearly 500,000 pages of documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as an executive branch lawyer – more than the number of public documents released from the last five Supreme Court nominees combined.
- Judge Kavanaugh answered nearly 1,300 written questions for the record from Judiciary Committee members – more than the total number of questions submitted to all prior Supreme Court nominees combined.
- Judge Kavanaugh submitted to three separate Judiciary Committee interviews under penalty of felony.
- From September 4 – 7, Judge Kavanaugh publicly testified under oath for more than 32 hours. In addition, he testified under oath during a closed hearing session.
As you may know, on September 12, following the Committee’s four-day hearing process, a confidential letter was leaked to the media. The letter had been in the possession of Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) since July 30. The confidential letter described alleged sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh more than 36 years ago as a high school student. Process would suggest that any such submissions be surrendered to the FBI and the Judiciary Committee for prompt and confidential investigation. Unfortunately, this step was ignored. Instead, sometime between July 30 and August 7, Senator Feinstein’s staff directed the author of the letter, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to Debra Katz of the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, for counsel.
At no point during the normal confirmation process did Ranking Member Feinstein raise the issue of these allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, she chose to not attend a September 6 closed hearing session where she had ample opportunity to question Judge Kavanaugh on sensitive issues. Further, she never raised this issue in a private meeting with Judge Kavanaugh. It was not until September 13 that Ranking Member Feinstein referred Dr. Blasey Ford’s letter to the FBI – 45 days after she received the letter and just days before the Committee vote. On September 16, Dr. Blasey Ford, against her original wishes to keep the process confidential, went public with her accusation after it leaked to the press. In response, the Judiciary Committee held an additional hearing on September 27.
The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh were serious and necessitated investigation. Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford were each afforded the opportunity to testify under oath. After the hearing, Rachel Mitchell, Deputy County Attorney and chief of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona, who served as a Nomination Investigative Counsel to question Dr. Blasey Ford, wrote in a memo:
A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them [emphasis added]. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Subsequent to the Committee hearing, the FBI launched an additional background investigation (Judge Kavanaugh’s seventh background investigation) into the claims as recommended by the Senate and requested by President Trump. The Judiciary Committee released a Supplemental FBI Investigation Executive Summary stating:
In the course of its investigation, the FBI decided to reach out to eleven people, ten of whom agreed to be interviewed. The FBI reached out to all witnesses with potential firsthand knowledge of the allegations [emphasis added]. The FBI provided to the Senate 12 detailed FD-302 reports summarizing their interviews with the witnesses as well as supporting materials cited by the witnesses during their interviews… The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez [emphasis added].
I have no reason to doubt that there was some trauma in Dr. Blasey Ford’s past. However, there was no substantiated or corroborative evidence with respect to Judge Kavanaugh from any of the individuals named as witnesses by Dr. Blasey Ford, or in any of Judge Kavanaugh’s seven FBI background investigations. Furthermore, while some argue that Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament was discreditable for a Supreme Court nominee, it is highly appropriate for someone wrongly accused of sexual misconduct to demonstrate more than a measure of conviction in their defense.
On October 6, 2018, the Senate confirmed Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, with my support, by a vote of 50 to 48. As I said initially, Hoosiers care deeply about the Constitution and want justices who apply the law as written, not impose their own policy preferences. Judge Kavanaugh’s theory of statutory interpretation is based on his broader views about the separation of powers, arguing that the Constitution requires jurists to serve as “neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be.”
Prior to his appointment to the D.C. Circuit in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh graduated cum laude from Yale College and from Yale Law School in 1990. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as senior associate counsel before becoming assistant and staff secretary to the President. At the start of his judicial career, Judge Kavanaugh clerked twice for judges on the federal court of appeals and once for his predecessor, Justice Kennedy. Moreover, starting in 2007, Judge Kavanaugh taught at Yale Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and Harvard Law School (where he was hired by Associate Justice Elena Kagan).
As a D.C. Circuit Judge for the last 12 years, he has carried out his constitutional duties faithfully and consistently. Through his hundreds of opinions, days of intense testimony, and thousands of pages of documents, he has proven his commitment and dedication to preserving liberty and its governing principles.
I understand the importance of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and will ensure that the individuals chosen to serve understand their role in our unique and unparalleled democracy. I am hopeful we can now move beyond the heightened rhetoric and political gamesmanship we have seen throughout this confirmation process and resume working together in a bipartisan way to deliver results for the American people.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator
Feinstein is a criminal: My comment
Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
It is my solemn duty to uphold my constitutional responsibility to carefully review all Supreme Court nominees and their qualifications. Below, please find the abbreviated facts of the comprehensive nomination process:
- On November 17, 2017, President Trump included Judge Kavanaugh on a short-list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees.
- On July 10, 2018, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary received the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
- Once nominated, the FBI conducted a background check of Judge Kavanaugh. This was the sixth background check of Judge Kavanaugh since 1993, which uncovered no outstanding issues.
- Judge Kavanaugh met with 65 senators, and offered to meet with all 100 senators. Notably, 35 senators chose not to meet with him.
- The Senate had access to Judge Kavanaugh’s more than 300 opinions issued over his 12 years as a D.C. Circuit Court Judge.
- The Judiciary Committee reviewed nearly 500,000 pages of documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as an executive branch lawyer – more than the number of public documents released from the last five Supreme Court nominees combined.
- Judge Kavanaugh answered nearly 1,300 written questions for the record from Judiciary Committee members – more than the total number of questions submitted to all prior Supreme Court nominees combined.
- Judge Kavanaugh submitted to three separate Judiciary Committee interviews under penalty of felony.
- From September 4 – 7, Judge Kavanaugh publicly testified under oath for more than 32 hours. In addition, he testified under oath during a closed hearing session.
As you may know, on September 12, following the Committee’s four-day hearing process, a confidential letter was leaked to the media. The letter had been in the possession of Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) since July 30. The confidential letter described alleged sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh more than 36 years ago as a high school student. Process would suggest that any such submissions be surrendered to the FBI and the Judiciary Committee for prompt and confidential investigation. Unfortunately, this step was ignored. Instead, sometime between July 30 and August 7, Senator Feinstein’s staff directed the author of the letter, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to Debra Katz of the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, for counsel.
At no point during the normal confirmation process did Ranking Member Feinstein raise the issue of these allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, she chose to not attend a September 6 closed hearing session where she had ample opportunity to question Judge Kavanaugh on sensitive issues. Further, she never raised this issue in a private meeting with Judge Kavanaugh. It was not until September 13 that Ranking Member Feinstein referred Dr. Blasey Ford’s letter to the FBI – 45 days after she received the letter and just days before the Committee vote. On September 16, Dr. Blasey Ford, against her original wishes to keep the process confidential, went public with her accusation after it leaked to the press. In response, the Judiciary Committee held an additional hearing on September 27.
The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh were serious and necessitated investigation. Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford were each afforded the opportunity to testify under oath. After the hearing, Rachel Mitchell, Deputy County Attorney and chief of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona, who served as a Nomination Investigative Counsel to question Dr. Blasey Ford, wrote in a memo:
A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them [emphasis added]. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Subsequent to the Committee hearing, the FBI launched an additional background investigation (Judge Kavanaugh’s seventh background investigation) into the claims as recommended by the Senate and requested by President Trump. The Judiciary Committee released a Supplemental FBI Investigation Executive Summary stating:
In the course of its investigation, the FBI decided to reach out to eleven people, ten of whom agreed to be interviewed. The FBI reached out to all witnesses with potential firsthand knowledge of the allegations [emphasis added]. The FBI provided to the Senate 12 detailed FD-302 reports summarizing their interviews with the witnesses as well as supporting materials cited by the witnesses during their interviews… The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez [emphasis added].
I have no reason to doubt that there was some trauma in Dr. Blasey Ford’s past. However, there was no substantiated or corroborative evidence with respect to Judge Kavanaugh from any of the individuals named as witnesses by Dr. Blasey Ford, or in any of Judge Kavanaugh’s seven FBI background investigations. Furthermore, while some argue that Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament was discreditable for a Supreme Court nominee, it is highly appropriate for someone wrongly accused of sexual misconduct to demonstrate more than a measure of conviction in their defense.
On October 6, 2018, the Senate confirmed Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, with my support, by a vote of 50 to 48. As I said initially, Hoosiers care deeply about the Constitution and want justices who apply the law as written, not impose their own policy preferences. Judge Kavanaugh’s theory of statutory interpretation is based on his broader views about the separation of powers, arguing that the Constitution requires jurists to serve as “neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be.”
Prior to his appointment to the D.C. Circuit in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh graduated cum laude from Yale College and from Yale Law School in 1990. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as senior associate counsel before becoming assistant and staff secretary to the President. At the start of his judicial career, Judge Kavanaugh clerked twice for judges on the federal court of appeals and once for his predecessor, Justice Kennedy. Moreover, starting in 2007, Judge Kavanaugh taught at Yale Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and Harvard Law School (where he was hired by Associate Justice Elena Kagan).
As a D.C. Circuit Judge for the last 12 years, he has carried out his constitutional duties faithfully and consistently. Through his hundreds of opinions, days of intense testimony, and thousands of pages of documents, he has proven his commitment and dedication to preserving liberty and its governing principles.
I understand the importance of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and will ensure that the individuals chosen to serve understand their role in our unique and unparalleled democracy. I am hopeful we can now move beyond the heightened rhetoric and political gamesmanship we have seen throughout this confirmation process and resume working together in a bipartisan way to deliver results for the American people.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator
Feinstein is a criminal: My comment
