{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-we-are-upholding-blue-slip-courtesy-vast-majority-judiciary-chairman", "Grassley: We are Upholding Blue Slip Courtesy of Vast Majority of Judiciary Chairman Over Past Century", "2017-11-29", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Nominations November 29, 2017 \u00a0 Good morning.\u00a0Congratulations to all the nominees and to your families and welcome to the Committee. \u00a0 Two weeks ago, I announced in a speech on the Senate floor that I\u2019d hold a hearing for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras and former Louisiana Solicitor General Kyle Duncan despite not receiving two positive blue slips from home-state senators. I explained that nearly all Judiciary Committee Chairmen over the last 100 years allowed for hearings in such circumstances. And I explained that I too wouldn\u2019t treat blue slips as single-senator vetoes. \u00a0 Some of my colleagues and liberal outside groups have accused me of abolishing the 100-year-old blue slip tradition. That\u2019s simply not true. I\u2019m choosing to apply the blue slip policy that most of my predecessors had for the vast majority of this 100-year history.\u00a0My critics seem to believe the blue slip\u2019s history started with Senator Leahy sixteen years ago. But, as I\u2019ve explained, history is longer than that. \u00a0 Critics also claim that I selectively applied Senator Leahy\u2019s strict blue slip policy in the last two years of the Obama Administration. They point to nine nominees who were supposedly denied hearings because of lack of two positive blue slips. \u00a0 This is also not true. First of all, five of these nominees were district court nominees. I\u2019ve already said that district court nominees typically require the return of two positive blue slips before a hearing. This applies equally to President Trump\u2019s district court nominees as it did to President Obama\u2019s. \u00a0 The four circuit court nominees\u2014on the other hand\u2014weren\u2019t nominated until a presidential election year. As you know, I gave members nearly seven months to return blue slips on Justice Stras. I hoped they\u2019d both be returned to avoid the situation we have today. I recognize that my policy differs somewhat from Senator Leahy\u2019s, so I gave my colleagues from Minnesota ample time before proceeding. \u00a0 And I would\u2019ve given my colleagues the same courtesy in 2016. But then we wouldn\u2019t have held a hearing until July at the earliest, when we were already into the political conventions. Under the Leahy-Thurmond Rule\u2014recognized by both sides\u2014the Senate typically doesn\u2019t confirm judges starting by the summer of a presidential election year. The nominations simply came too late to proceed without home-state senators\u2019 support. \u00a0 Moreover, it was very apparent that even nominees with support of home-state senators and who were processed through the Committee weren\u2019t getting votes on the floor. Senator Durbin on several occasions questioned the wisdom of processing any nominees in such circumstances. Despite this, I held hearings for nearly as many judicial nominees as Senator Leahy did in 2007-2008. \u00a0 All in all, it would\u2019ve been a waste of Committee resources to hold hearings on the four circuit court nominees nominated in 2016 without two blue slips. \u00a0 Senator Leahy knows as well as anyone that there are multiple reasons we don\u2019t hold hearings for some nominees. In fact, Senator Leahy declined to schedule hearings for six of President Bush\u2019s circuit court nominees for reasons besides lack of positive blue slips. He denied hearings to three nominees to the Fourth Circuit\u2014Steve Matthews, Robert Conrad, and Glen Conrad. \u00a0 These nominees had two positive blue slips from their home-state senators, and two were nominated more than a year before the 2008 presidential election. \u00a0 Senator Leahy also refused to act on the nomination of Peter Keisler, President Bush\u2019s nominee to the D.C. Circuit, who was nominated in 2006. Obviously, blue slips were not the reason for my predecessor\u2019s decision to stall Mr. Keisler\u2019s nomination for more than two years. \u00a0 Senator Leahy also declined to hold hearings for two Sixth Circuit nominees\u2014Jeff Sutton and Deborah Cook\u2014even though both Ohio senators returned positive blue slips. The two Democratic Senators from Michigan asked Senator Leahy to halt proceedings on all Sixth Circuit nominees. Senator Leahy honored this request and denied a hearing to the two nominees for the Ohio seats. This was the first time in history a chairman allowed out-of-state senators to halt Committee proceedings on nominees. \u00a0 What my predecessor\u2019s actions show is that there are numerous reasons for a Chairman not to hold a hearing on a nominee besides blue slip problems. I myself did not proceed on several district court nominees who had two positive blue slips because it would have been a waste of Committee resources to go forward because these nominees weren\u2019t going to get confirmed anyway. It\u2019s simply false to say that any decision I made not to hold a hearing for President Obama\u2019s judicial nominees was based solely on blue slips. \u00a0 Additionally, critics have argued that only three nominees in recent decades have been confirmed over blue slip objections. But the question is not whether the nominees before us today will be confirmed. The question is whether they should receive a hearing. Home-state senators are entitled to lobby against confirmation, but they can\u2019t deny a nominee a hearing for political or ideological reasons. \u00a0 But the Democrats abolished an important tool for blocking confirmation of judges who don\u2019t have support of their home-state senators. In 2013, the Democrats abolished the filibuster. The filibuster is what allowed senators to enforce the preferences of home-state senators on the Senate floor. For example, the Democrats filibustered Carolyn Kuhl, Henry Saad, and other nominees of President Bush\u2019s who didn\u2019t have two positive blue slips. But the blue slips did not prevent these nominees from having hearings. \u00a0 Critics have also pointed to a letter sent to President Obama by the Republican Senate conference in 2009 which said we expected to be consulted and approve of all home-state judicial nominees. That letter wasn\u2019t just about the blue slip.\u00a0It was meant to show President Obama that the Republican conference was united\u2014that we\u2019d collectively filibuster nominees for whom there was not a consensus. \u00a0 Of course, the Democrats relinquished the ability to filibuster nominees four years ago. We also believed the Democrats needed to hold Obama nominees to the same standard they forced on President Bush. \u00a0 It\u2019s also worth mentioning that my Democratic colleagues in recent years have a record of using the blue slip aggressively to block highly qualified nominees. Yet they accuse Republicans of blocking 18 of President Obama\u2019s nominees through the blue slip. Leaving aside that many of these nominees didn\u2019t receive hearings for reasons besides the blue slip, Democrats used the blue slip to try to block hearings for 27 of President Bush\u2019s nominees. \u00a0 Republicans blocked none of President Obama\u2019s nominees via the blue slip during the first two years of his presidency. We are less than a year into President Trump\u2019s first term, and already my Democratic colleagues have tried to block a number of his highly qualified nominees. \u00a0 This brings me to my final point.\u00a0Some of my colleagues and outside groups have criticized me for allegedly abolishing a Senate tradition. As I\u2019ve explained, that\u2019s not true.\u00a0I\u2019m restoring the traditional policy and practice of the vast majority of my predecessors over the past 100 years. \u00a0 But it\u2019s also revealing that these same colleagues and groups supported abolishing the filibuster for lower court nominees in 2013\u2014a Senate rule that was more longstanding and established than my immediate predecessor\u2019s strict blue-slip policy. \u00a0 After today\u2019s first panel, we\u2019ll hear from Mr. Rodriguez, nominated to the Southern District of Texas, who will be introduced by the Texas Senators. \u00a0 And in addition to the judicial nominees, we also have before us today Andrei Iancu, who has been nominated to be Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. \u00a0 Intellectual property is critical to our national economy because it encourages the innovation that improves lives and creates jobs. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) plays a crucial role in fostering innovation by protecting intellectual property rights, so it\u2019s important that the PTO have strong and accountable leadership. \u00a0 However, the PTO has been criticized for its implementation of the America Invents Act. Some in the intellectual property community are happy with the PTO\u2019s process for weeding out weak patents and the reforms made by the America Invents Act. \u00a0 Others believe the America Invents Act has undermined intellectual property rights and the PTO has gone too far in eroding patent protections for innovators. Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in\u00a0the Oil States case, which addresses whether the post-grant review process created by the America Invents Act is unconstitutional. \u00a0 It\u2019s clear that Mr. Iancu possesses strong legal qualifications. He has a proven record in the field of intellectual property law, and is well respected in the legal community. His intellectual property practice covers a wide array of subject areas, and he successfully has represented clients in cutting edge litigation like the TiVo and Ariosa cases. \u00a0 However, as a practitioner, Mr. Iancu hasn\u2019t expressed his personal opinions on many issues currently facing the PTO. I\u2019m interested in learning what the nominee believes are the biggest challenges for the U.S. intellectual property system and for U.S. innovators. \u00a0 I\u2019m looking forward to hearing Mr. Iancu\u2019s thoughts on these issues and how he intends to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. After the introductions, I\u2019ll allow Senators Franken and Kennedy to make short statements regarding their blue slips if they\u2019d like to. \u00a0 -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-we-are-upholding-blue-slip-courtesy-vast-majority-judiciary-chairman"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 3.928055986762047, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}