Eight progressive organizations submitted a detailed letter opposing Delaney, on the grounds that he “would be a gift to opponents of the so-called ‘administrative state’ and a boon to corporate power.” The letter cited numerous Supreme Court amicus briefs from NELF opposing regulations on polluters, employee rights to access the courts, and the authority of administrative agencies. Delaney’s position on corporate monopolies, which suggested he would set a very high bar for certain Sherman Act cases, was also cited.
Molly Coleman, executive director of the People’s Parity Project and a signatory to the letter, commented to the Prospect: “We’re opposed to Delaney’s confirmation on multiple grounds,” she said. “His troubling record on both sexual assault issues and matters related to corporate power make clear that he’s not somebody who should be elevated to the bench.”
This kind of cloud hanging over a nominee would in most cases lead to withdrawal from consideration. Yet while several Senate Democrats, including Feinstein, have expressed concerns, nobody has explicitly announced opposition to Delaney. Under President Biden, 128 nominees have been confirmed to the federal bench, and not one has been rejected by a Democrat, part of a kind of informal nonaggression pact when it comes to judges.
This conspiracy of silence extends to progressive organizations, inside and outside of New Hampshire. The lead group on the letter, the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), which announced its opposition in a similar missive last week, had trouble finding signatories, despite the litany of disconcerting elements in Delaney’s background. In the end, only one group that primarily focuses on judges and the courts, the People’s Parity Project, signed. The Prospect asked 15 organizations that do focus on judges and have signed letters about judicial actions in the past to comment about Delaney; nearly all of them declined.
Read more in the American Prospect.