Statement on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Dates

News Type

Primary Content

(PRESS RELEASE) Said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“Members of the United States Senate have a responsibility to understand the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court nominees in order to fulfil their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. By moving to schedule a hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh before senators have even received, much less reviewed, critical information about Kavanaugh’s record, Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has not fulfilled the Senate’s “advice and consent” duties and deprived senators of their authority to perform a critical check on both judiciary and executive branches.”

“There is nothing driving this aggressive timeline, and no requirement that this hearing take place by a certain deadline.  Chairman Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are simply trying to push the President’s nominee through as quickly as possible – and without following Senate procedure. More than one million pages from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as White House staff secretary have been excluded from the records request, including material from a time when President Bush signed a federal abortion ban. These pages represent an important part of Kavanaugh’s perspective on a woman’s constitutionally protected right to abortion and should be made available.”

“There are few processes more essential to our democracy than the careful consideration of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Not one senator, regardless of political party, can fulfill their responsibilities under these circumstances. Even if all of Judge Kavanaugh’s writings were made available, the full Senate would need adequate time to fully understand his thinking.”

“Supreme Court justices serve for life. With so much at stake, it is imperative that senators meet their obligation to the American people to review and question a nominee in an unhurried and careful manner. Anything less sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the Supreme Court and the spirit of open inquiry that sustains it.”