In a July 11 article on House Judiciary Committee chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), New York Times staff writer Mark Leibovich reported that "[t]o a surprising degree, Democrats on the committee praise Mr. Sensenbrenner for his fairness, efficiency and willingness to heed the concerns of the minority party." But not only did Leibovich fail to quote a single Democrat offering such compliments, he ignored entirely the criticism leveled at Sensenbrenner by numerous Democratic committee members, who have accused him of “squelching the minority” as chairman and assailed him for “hostile acts steeped in partisan politics.”

While the Times' front-page profile of Sensenbrenner largely focused on his prominent role in the ongoing debate over immigration reform, it also delved into his personal demeanor and reputation in Congress. Leibovich noted his “characteristic stubbornness” and quoted various Republican members of Congress describing him as “idiosyncratic” and a “pit bull.” The article reported that he “has been a feared and vital character in some defining political dramas, like ... the passage of the USA Patriot Act.” Further, Leibovich depicted the view of Sensenbrenner from across the aisle as mostly favorable: “To a surprising degree, Democrats on the committee praise Mr. Sensenbrenner for his fairness, efficiency and willingness to heed the concerns of the minority party.”

But in simply citing this anonymous “praise,” Leibovich ignored entirely the strong criticism that Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have had for Sensenbrenner. One notorious incident came during a June 10, 2005, committee hearing on the USA Patriot Act -- one of the issues highlighted by Leibovich. While the committee held numerous hearings on the topic that year, this session was the only one to feature witnesses invited by the minority party. But faced with "repeated criticism of the Bush administration," Sensenbrenner prematurely ended the hearing over the objections of his Democratic colleagues, as The Hill reported on June 15, 2005:

Sensenbrenner abruptly gaveled the hearing to a close Friday over cries of protest from [Rep. Jerrold] Nadler [D-NY] and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Parliamentary practice in the House generally requires that the committee chairman adjourn on motion or without objection, neither of which was the case Friday.

Democrats continued to make statements and witnesses continued to offer testimony after Sensenbrenner had left the room. C-SPAN cameras were still rolling as the committee's majority staff rushed to turn off microphones and lights on the Democrats, prompting the television crews to break out boom mikes.

Numerous Democratic committee members took to the House floor on June 16, 2005, to criticize Sensenbrenner's behavior. Jackson Lee described the incident as “an attempt to silence ... democracy in America” and complained that "[l]egislation that touches upon fundamental civil rights and civil liberties should not be commingled with ... hostile acts steeped in partisan politics." Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) referred to Sensenbrenner's antics as an “abuse of power and trampling of democracy.” The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), said he was “stunned” by Sensenbrenner's “continued hostility, not just toward the members of the Democratic side, but the witnesses themselves.” And Nadler asserted that the incident “was unforgivable, it was undemocratic, it was tyrannical. It was demeaning to the House and it should not occur again.” Nadler even introduced a resolution condemning Sensenbrenner's conduct at the hearing, which House Republicans subsequently defeated.

The Democratic leadership also joined the committee members in criticizing Sensenbrenner. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called his actions a “quintessential example of shutting up, shutting out, shutting down opposition, dissenting views, democracy.” In a June 10, 2005, statement, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decried Sensebrenner's “attempt[] to suppress free speech.” Pelosi further noted that "[t]his incident is the latest in a series of disgraceful conduct by Mr. Sensenbrenner," noting that a month earlier he had “misused an official committee report to mischaracterize in a derogatory manner amendments offered by three Democratic Members.”

The April 2005 incident to which Pelosi referred related to the GOP-sponsored Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, a bill making it a federal crime to assist minors who cross state borders to receive an abortion. During the committee markup of the bill, three Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee -- Reps. Nadler, Jackson Lee, and Robert C. Scott (VA) -- had offered amendments exempting certain parties from criminal penalties under the measure. But in a House report describing the amendments, the committee staff -- with Sensebrenner's approval -- rewrote the measures to leave the impression that the Democratic sponsors sought to shelter sexual predators. For instance, Scott offered an amendment to exempt “cab drivers, bus drivers” and others that could be hired to transport a minor across state lines. But the report described Scott as having proposed an amendment that would have “exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.”

Committee Democrats immediately lambasted Sensenbrenner over the revisions. Nadler called his actions “truly outrageous, and a gross abuse of power.” And in his resolution requiring Sensenbrenner to correct the report, Conyers noted that “although it is the long and established practice in House reports to describe recorded votes with objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary majority departed from this practice in House Report 109-51 by captioning these five amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate captions implying that these three Members of Congress condoned the criminal behavior of 'sexual predators.' ” Sensenbrenner initially defended the revisions, calling them "accurate." On May 5, 2005, however, he approved an amended report that retracted the altered language.