Senate panel advances judicial nominee Steven Menashi on party-line vote |
Politics Election

Senate panel advances judicial nominee Steven Menashi on party-line vote

Associated Press
White House lawyer Steven Menashi, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, appears for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed him for a federal appeals court post despite complaints about his refusal to answer questions about his record at the Education Department and the White House.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is followed by reporters as they walk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2019.

WASHINGTON — A divided Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed a top aide to President Donald Trump for a federal appeals court post Thursday, despite complaints from lawmakers about his refusal to answer questions about his record at the Education Department and the White House.

Steven Menashi, an associate White House counsel, was recommended, 12-10, for a seat on the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. All 12 votes in favor of Menashi were by Republicans, while all 10 Democrats voted no.

Senators from both parties complained that Menashi failed to answer questions at his nomination hearing, and Democrats said he has a troubling record on immigration, race, women’s equality and LGBTQ rights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the panel’s top Democrat, said Menashi “has a long history of attacking those with whom he disagrees” and said his refusal to answer questions “makes it difficult for us to fulfill our constitutional role to advise and consent” on presidential nominees.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., called Menashi “a calamity” and a “wacko” and said his past writings and record as a Trump administration lawyer make him dangerously unqualified.

Democrats said they were especially unhappy about a report Wednesday night in The New York Times that Menashi played key role in a plan by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to deny debt relief to thousands of students swindled by for-profit colleges.

“I think it’s really appalling that this committee only learned about this memo (by Menashi) through a leak in The New York Times,” Feinstein said, noting that Menashi had refused to answer senators’ questions about the student debt program during his hearing or in writing afterward.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Menashi “could have been more forthcoming, quite frankly,” but that Menashi believed he owed the White House and Education Department confidentiality.

“He’s a lawyer that buys into what they are trying to do,” Graham said, referring to the Trump administration.

Graham, who expressed frustration with Menashi during his September hearing, said the nominee “has written some really weird stuff” and is “different than I would have chosen.” But he said Menashi is qualified for the federal bench.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., also expressed frustration at Menashi’s failure to answer his questions, but blamed White House lawyers who “over-coached” Menashi and urged him not to cooperate with the committee.

“Some of his views are eclectic, and some of them I don’t agree with,” Kennedy said of Menashi, “but his views are very, very carefully reasoned.”

Addressing senators from both parties — and himself, Kennedy urged lawmakers not to decide on nominees based on ideology.

“I don’t think we ought to consider honest disagreements to be character flaws,” Kennedy said. “I’ve contributed to that. We all have, but it’s gotten worse every day I’ve been here.”

The panel’s vote sends Menashi’s nomination to the Senate floor.

Menashi has come under fire for his past writings, including some in which he assailed “leftist multiculturism” and accused gay rights groups of exploiting the 1998 murder of gay student Matthew Shepard.

Menashi also has been criticized for his work on immigration with White House adviser Stephen Miller and at the Education Department, including on a policy that offered new guidance on investigating campus sexual assaults. Critics say the change allows schools to apply a tougher standard of evidence for sexual violence than other civil rights cases and violates Title IX, a federal law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education.

Protesters disrupted his nomination hearing, shouting “Title IX is on the line.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called Menashi’s nomination “an embarrassment to this country” and “an insult to millions of hardworking young Americans saddled by student debt, an insult to women, the LGBTQ community and everybody who believes in the rule of law.”

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.