[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[House]
[Page H1108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
         SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NOMINATION PROCESS

  (Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, when our Founders wrote the Constitution, 
they had the wisdom to create a system of checks and balances among the 
three branches of government. They knew this would limit power, protect 
against abuses, and promote liberty.
  Under our Constitution, the President has the right to nominate 
Justices to the Supreme Court, but one House of the Congress, the 
Senate, has the coequal right to consent to such an appointment. One 
branch has a power, another has a check.
  Today, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we have a chance to see 
this system of checks and balances in action. In deciding whether to 
consent to an appointment to the Supreme Court, the Senate should 
assess whether the President has been acting consistent with the 
Constitution.
  The chart to my left highlights just a few of President Obama's 
unconstitutional actions since he was reelected in 2012. These actions 
have been frequent, repeated, and grave. These actions have poisoned 
the well of deliberation for any appointment by this President.
  In that light, why wouldn't the Senate withhold consent? It is a game 
the President chose to play, and withholding consent to his appointment 
is an appropriate consequence.

                          ____________________