Senate votes to consider former Trump lawyer for lifetime as appeals court judge
The 50-48 vote saw one Republican break ranks and vote against his nomination, while Democrats have done everything in their power to slow down the nomination. Bove, who currently works at the Justice Department, is nominated to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats have argued that Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations that he proposed behind closed doors that the Trump administration could simply ignore judicial orders. Bove denies those allegations.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted with Republicans to move forward but said in a statement that she will oppose Bove's confirmation on a final vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the lone Republican to vote against moving forward with Bove's nomination.
TRUMP CONSIDERS FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY EMIL BOVE FOR FEDERAL APPEALS COURT VACANCY
"We have to have judges who will adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution and do so regardless of what their personal views may be," Collins said in a statement. "Mr. Bove's political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as an impartial jurist."
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee stormed out of the meeting where the committee approved Bove last week.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., attempted to push for more debate time, but Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pushed forward with the vote.
"What are you afraid of?" Booker erupted, after Grassley tried to speak over him and hold the vote. "Debating this [nomination], putting things on the record — Dear God," he said, "that's what we are here for."
"What are they saying to you," he said, referring to the Trump administration, "that is making you do something to violate the decorum, the decency and the respect of this committee to at least hear each other out?"
TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE
Booker ended the sharp exchange with Grassley by saying simply, "This is wrong, sir, and I join with my colleagues in leaving," before streaming out of the committee room.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
It comes as Trump administration officials have taken aim at "activist" judges they argue are blocking the president's agenda and preventing him from enacting his sweeping policy goals, including the administration's crackdown on border security and immigration.
Fox News' Breanne Deppisch and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. MORE: How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." MORE: Abbott threatens to oust Democrats who fled Texas over redistricting Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June. "I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Dem senator defends working with Trump after Cory Booker's ‘complicity' accusation
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., responded to Sen. Corey Booker's, D-N.J., outburst on the Senate floor last week in an interview with The New York Times. Cortez Masto was asked by the New York Times to respond to Booker's accusations against Democrats that they were 'complicit' with President Donald Trump's agenda. 'I don't need lectures from anyone on how to push back and fight this administration. I've been doing it since I got to the Senate, because I won my Senate race in 2016 and Donald Trump won at the same time. I'm also from a swing state; I've still got to get stuff done on behalf of my state,' Masto told The New York Times. Booker accused his fellow Democratic senators last week of aligning themselves with Trump because they are in favor of passing new police legislation. He claimed that without amendments, the legislation would allow the president to pick winners and losers in terms of who receives the benefits. 5 Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks with reporters at the Capitol subway on July 31. AP 5 President Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Air Force One at Lehigh Valley International Airport. AP 5 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto speaking at a podium. Fox News 'That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our country,' Booker said. 'It is time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw a line, and when it comes to the safety of my state being denied these grants, that's why I'm standing here.' Booker's objection stemmed from a call from Democrats to pass a package of law enforcement-related bills aimed at boosting resources for police, including shoring up death benefits for officers lost in the line of duty, providing greater mental health support for officers, and addressing child exploitation. 5 Booker accused his fellow Democratic senators last week of aligning themselves with Trump because they are in favor of passing new police legislation. Fox News 5 Sen. Cortez Masto makes her way to a Senate Democratic luncheon on Sept. 28, 2022. Getty Images The bills, which eventually passed, were discussed and approved in committee before reaching the Senate floor. Masto thought the legislation would benefit everyone across the country. 'Why would you throw out good legislation that's going to benefit everyone across the country? That doesn't make sense. We still have to have a functioning government. That's part of gaining the trust of Americans again, so they understand there are people that are working on their behalf,' Masto said. 'But most importantly, we have to win. Winning means we've got to win these swing states, and focus on those swing voters and what matters to them and talk to them and that we're addressing the issues they care about.'
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
August recess can't hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers have left Washington for the annual August recess, but a few weeks of relative quiet on the U.S. Capitol grounds can't mask the partisan tensions that are brewing on government funding and President Donald Trump's nominees. It could make for a momentous September. Here's a look at what's ahead when lawmakers return following the Labor Day holiday. A bitter spending battle ahead Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year. It's not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual. On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss 'the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.' They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a 'painful, unnecessary shutdown.' 'Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,' said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP. 'It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,' Thune said on Saturday. '... I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.' Different approaches from the House and Senate So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line. Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won't be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress. 'If Republicans want to make a deal, then let's make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won't take back that deal a few weeks later,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, 'that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.' Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned. 'The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,' Fleischmann said. 'Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)' Republican angry about pace of nominations Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden's presidency, 49 of his 121 civilians nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days. 'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' Schumer said a rules change would be a 'huge mistake,' especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward. The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending. At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. __ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
