Democrats know they don’t have the votes to oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, so they’re throwing whatever they can at the him, hoping something sticks.
The latest “Hail Mary” from the opposition party comes in the form of follow-up questions submitted by lawmakers after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate.
It’s normal for lawmakers to present Supreme Court nominees with written requests for clarification following the candidate’s spoken testimony. It’s also normal for the nominee to be given a week to submit written responses.
What’s not normal is for the nominee to be asked 1,278 follow-up questions.
The number of post-hearing inquiries submitted to Kavanaugh is greater than the combined total for every Supreme Court justice in U.S. history, according to Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
Of the 1,278 questions asked of Kavanaugh, only nine came from members of the Republican Party. Grassley asked eight questions. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., asked one.
In contrast, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked 241 follow-up questions. That’s more than the Senate asked of either Justice Elena Kagan or Justice Sonia Sotomayor during their respective confirmations.
The number of follow-ups asked of Kavanaugh is four times greater than the number asked of Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Heck, even the late Robert Bork, whose confirmation was torpedoed ruthlessly by Democrats, was asked only 15 follow-up questions.
Regarding Kavanaugh’s situation, some of the submitted questions are interesting. The great majority of them are not.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for example, tried his best to get Kavanaugh to admit to having a gambling addiction. The following is an actual excerpt from the 263-paged document released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee:
RESPONSE [Kavanaugh]: No. Please see my response to Question 11.
22. Have you ever reported a gambling loss to the IRS? If so, please list the dates and amounts.
RESPONSE: No. Please see my response to Question 11
[…]
a. Since 2000, have you participated in any form of gambling or game of chance or skill with monetary stakes, including but not limited to poker, dice, golf, sports betting, blackjack, and craps? If yes, please list the dates, participants, location/venue, and amounts won/lost.
RESPONSE: No. Please see my response to Question 11. The game of dice referred to in that email was not a game with monetary stakes.
b. Do you play in a regular or periodic poker game? If yes, please list the dates, participants, location/venue, and amounts won/lost.
RESPONSE: Like many Americans, I have occasionally played poker or other games with friends and colleagues. I do not document the details of those casual games.
c. Have you ever gambled or accrued gambling debt in the State of New Jersey?
RESPONSE: I recall occasionally visiting casinos in New Jersey when I was in school or in my 20s. I recall I played low-stakes blackjack. I have not accrued gambling debt.
d. Have you ever had debt discharged by a creditor for losses incurred in the State of New Jersey?
RESPONSE: No.
e. Have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction?
RESPONSE: No.
Grassley is right about the “gum up the process” part.
These questions obviously are not part of a good-faith effort to clarify Kavanaugh’s beliefs or jurisprudential opinions. The questions are obvious meant to slow his confirmation hearing. These follow-ups are part of a larger scheme from a party that knows it doesn’t have the political clout to do anything about the judge’s nomination and is searching desperately for a lucky break.
It’s a fun exercise in political hackery, but it does nothing to change the fact that there will a confirmation vote soon, and the GOP has the votes.
You can read all 1,278 questions here.
