WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to approve subpoenas for conservative activist Leonard Leo and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow in its Supreme Court ethics probe.
The subpoenas were approved by 11 Democratic senators, while no Republican senators voted. GOP members walked out of the committee room during the vote once it was clear that Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wouldn't allow votes on any GOP amendments.
Afterward, Republicans argued that the subpoenas are invalid because of a procedural matter that meant the meeting should have ended at noon, but it ended two minutes after. GOP senators also said that because they walked out of the vote, no quorum was present for the committee to conduct business.
The subpoenas may not ultimately help Democrats obtain the information they're seeking, because they're unenforceable without 60 votes on the Senate floor — a threshold they're unlikely to reach given the 49 seats held by Republicans.
In a statement, Crow's office echoed the GOP's argument that the subpoenas are invalid. "Despite the unenforceability of the subpoena, Mr. Crow remains willing to engage with the Committee in good faith, just as he has consistently done throughout this process,” it said in a statement.
"Committee Democrats have made intrusive demands of a private citizen that far exceed any reasonable standard and to this date have not explained why this request is necessary to craft legislation, particularly now that the Committee has completed its work on ethics legislation," the statement said.
Leo said in a statement: "Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have been destroying the Supreme Court; now they are destroying the Senate. I will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution.”
Later Thursday, Republicans on the committee publicly encouraged Crow and Leo to ignore the subpoenas.
"If I were Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, I’d tell you to pound sand. They can’t be executed unless you get 60 votes," Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the panel's top Republican, told reporters.
GOP senators also warned that the move to issue the subpoenas will cause a lasting fissure between the parties, hampering any bipartisan legislation in the next year.
"Every Democrat I talked to, I said, ‘Look, this will imperil every legislative priority you have for the rest of this Congress,'" Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said.
The committee meeting Thursday had been expected to take much longer than it did, as Durbin told reporters beforehand that Republicans had filed 177 amendments, which would have taken hours to go through.
Graham told NBC News on Wednesday: “It will be a s---show. If they bring it up, we got tons of amendments.”
Durbin said the GOP’s effort was intended to elongate the meeting and put Democrats in a tough spot on controversial votes.
Before the vote on the subpoenas, the meeting devolved into partisan bickering after Democrats tried to block Republicans from debating a nominee the panel was considering.
The meeting became tense after Durbin refused to let Republicans speak about a judicial nominee, saying GOP members had already had two opportunities to speak about the nominee.
“Congratulations on destroying the United States Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said to Durbin after Republicans then refused to vote on the subpoenas.
Cotton warned that Durbin’s refusal to let senators speak about nominees would have consequences.
Meanwhile, Durbin defended the proposed subpoenas as part of the panel’s probe into Supreme Court ethics.
“I’m only seeking subpoenas for two people who have refused to comply with this committee’s oversight request for months,” he said at the meeting.
ProPublica reported in April that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted trips funded by Crow, a billionaire donor. In June, it reported that Justice Samuel Alito took an undisclosed fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 with GOP donor Robin Arkley II that was coordinated by Leo.
The Supreme Court this month adopted what it described as a new code of conduct following allegations of ethical lapses. Its effect is likely to be limited because the justices would enforce it themselves.
