Last week the Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yielded back all remaining time on the judicial nominee Hurwitz post-cloture debate, and then confirmed the nomination by voice vote, without notifying the Minority Leader. The Ranking Member also was not aware the Majority Leader intended to move the nomination by voice vote. Had he known, he would have objected.
The Hill explains how the Democrat’s maneuvering is highly irregular
Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) late Tuesday demanded that the Senate vote again on the confirmation of Andrew Hurwitz to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the 9th Circuit, and said he was not aware that Senate Democrats were planning to ask for a speedy voice vote on the nomination.
"How many times have I been right? This many"
Grassley spoke a few hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked that all debate time be yielded back, and that Hurwitz be approved by unanimous consent. No objection was raised, and Hurwitz was quickly approved by voice vote.
A furious Grassley spoke just before 6 p.m., and said he was not told that this might occur, that he had intended to speak more on the nomination, and that he wanted a roll call vote.
“All the business of the Senate is based upon trust between one senator and another,” Grassley said on the Senate floor. “When the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee isn’t notified of this action or any other senator notified of this action, it seems to me that that trust has been violated.
“And I won’t be satisfied that that trust has been restored unless there’s some action taken to have a roll call vote on this nomination.”
Grassley said he was “shocked and disappointed” to learn that Hurwitz was voice-voted, and said it is “quite irregular,” given that nearly all circuit court judges have been approved by a roll-call vote.
There is also video and transcript can be found here
Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, made the comment below about invoking the Thurmond-Leahy rule on circuit court judicial nominees. Previously, Chairman Patrick Leahy expressed respect for the informal rule. During an executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2008, Chairman Leahy said, “… I want to say, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Delaware. He knows that we are now way past the time of the Thurmond Rule, named after Senator Thurmond when he was in the minority, and I’m trying to respect that. …”
Senator Grassley’s comment:
“There’s no need to make an exception to the Thurmond-Leahy rule based on the number of circuit court judges confirmed during this presidential election year, especially compared to the last couple of presidential election years.
“The Senate considered district court nominees into the fall during the last two presidential election years but not circuit court nominees, as was said today. In fact, during both 2004 and 2008, the last circuit court nomination considered was in June. No one has suggested that no more district court nominations will be considered this year this year.
“Since 2008, the Senate has confirmed 149 circuit and district court judges and two Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Obama, and his term is not over. During President Bush’s entire second term, which was the last time two Supreme Court Justices were confirmed, the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 circuit and district court judges.
“This year, the Senate has confirmed five circuit court nominees. Likewise, in 2004, the Senate confirmed five circuit court nominees. Yet, in 2008, the Senate confirmed only four circuit court nominees. The Senate did not confirm additional circuit nominees in 2008 even though, for example, the Fourth Circuit had a vacancy rate that was more than 25 percent, and four qualified nominees were pending in the Senate for that circuit alone.
“In addition, so far this year, the Senate has confirmed 22 district court nominees. That’s three times as many nominees as the Senate had confirmed by this date in 2008, when it had confirmed only seven district court nominees. Similarly, by this date in 2004, the Senate had confirmed only nine district court nominees.
“Based on this record, it’s disingenuous to suggest that Senate Republicans have not been fair in the consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees. And, it is entirely appropriate and consistent with past practice to invoke the Thurmond-Leahy rule at this point.”
More here and The “Leahy Rule” on Judges