Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
On The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh
April 27, 2006

Listed on the Committee’s agenda today is the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a young Republican lawyer with a relatively short career, whose ABA rating over time has been downgraded.  I have many concerns about his nomination to the second most important court in the Country, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

Most immediately, I am concerned that this Committee has fallen short of the kind of careful scrutiny it should apply to such an important nomination, especially one whose career is dominated by partisan and political positions.  Not only did Mr. Kavanaugh fail to provide complete and forthright answers to the Committee, he delayed providing any answers at all to written questions for seven months. 

Since Mr. Kavanaugh’s renomination, new and significant questions have arisen that deserve answers relating to his knowledge and involvement in the President’s illegal domestic spying program, controversial detainee policies, and the recent scandals plaguing this White House.  All Democratic Members of this Committee have twice asked for another hearing in connection with this nomination.  That is hardly without precedent, and in this case, completely justified.

We initially made this request in a letter on May 11, 2005.  Since we sent that letter, Mr. Kavanugh’s nomination was returned by the Senate to the White House at the end of the first session of this Congress.  We were hopeful that the President would consult with Senators and local officials in the District of Columbia on a more appropriate nominee but, instead, he renominated Mr. Kavanaugh at the beginning of this session.  On March 3, 2006, we again sent a letter requesting a hearing on the Kavanaugh nomination.  I ask that copies of those letters be included in the record.  

These requests were made because Mr. Kavanaugh failed to provide meaningful and substantive responses to many of the questions posed to him previously.  His evasive and incomplete answers were even more troubling because of his seven-month delay in answering them. 

A new hearing is necessary also to explore new developments regarding this nomination. As Associate White House Counsel and staff secretary, Mr. Kavanaugh has served in the inner circle of the White House at a time when many controversial policies and decisions were being considered.  Senators have not had a chance to question him about his role in connection with those matters.  For example, what was Mr. Kavanaugh’s role in connection with the warrantless spying on Americans?  What was his involvement in the policies affecting detainee treatment and interrogation?  What was his involvement in connection with military tribunals, torture, and rendition of prisoners to other countries? 

Given the scandals now plaguing the White House, it is important to know whether Mr. Kavanaugh has had a role in connection with the actions of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, David Safavian, the matters being investigated in connection with the Plame matter, and many other matters.  The wall of secrecy that the Administration has maintained has proven a barrier for this Committee in being able to carefully consider this Administration insider for a lifetime appointment to an important federal judicial position. 

Committee consideration of this nomination is inappropriate at this time.  It comes in advance of a hearing and thorough understanding of the matters on which Mr. Kavanaugh has been involved.  The Administration knows why it is rewarding this person with this nomination. The Senate, and certainly the Democratic Senators on this Committee, do not.

# # # # #