[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S5043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Blue-Slip Tradition

  Madam President, I believe I have colleagues on the floor who are 
going to make a unanimous consent request, but before they do, I feel 
obliged to speak up about the steady erosion of the norms and 
traditions that protect the Senate's unique constitutional role with 
respect to lifetime appointments to our Federal courts.
  We should all be alarmed by the Judiciary Committee's abrupt change 
in course when it comes to respect for blue slips, which allow home-
State Senators to have a word in what happens. This should concern us 
all. For much of this body's history, blue slips have given meaning to 
the constitutional requirement of ``advice and consent.'' They have 
protected the prerogatives of home-State Senators, and they have 
ensured fairness and comity in the Senate.
  When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, under both the Bush 
and Obama administrations, not a single judicial nominee received a 
hearing without first receiving both home-State Senators' positive blue 
slips. Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, I steadfastly defended 
blue slips because I firmly believed in both their constitutional and 
institutional importance. I also firmly believed in the prerogatives of 
home-State Senators and the need to ensure that the White House works 
in good faith with those Senators.
  My decision to defend blue slips was not without some controversy. I 
faced significant pressure from my own party's leadership to hold 
hearings for President Obama's nominees who had not received positive 
blue slips from Republican Senators. I was criticized by liberal 
advocacy groups and major news outlets like the New York Times, but I 
resisted such pressure because I believed then--and I still believe 
now--that certain principles matter more than party.
  All of us, whether Democrat or Republican, should care about good-
faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our own States. The 
reasons for this are both principled and pragmatic. We know our States. 
We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats that will have 
a tremendous impact on our neighbors and communities.
  This week, the Senate will vote whether to confirm a nominee to the 
Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, opposed by not one but both of his home-
State Senators. Senators Wyden and Merkley were cut out of the 
nomination process entirely. The White House interviewed Bounds and 
fast-tracked his nomination without consulting either senator. If Mr. 
Bounds is confirmed, it will mark the first time in the history of the 
Senate that a judicial nominee is confirmed despite opposition from 
both home-State Senators.
  My concern is not about a mere piece of paper. My concern is that we 
are failing to protect the fundamental rights of home-State Senators, 
and we are failing in our constitutional duty to provide our advice and 
consent on a President's nominees. That should concern all of us. The 
Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for nominees seeking 
lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary.
  Without blue slips, nothing prevents a California nominee from being 
appointed to a Texas court. Nothing prevents our State selection 
committees from being completely ignored by the White House. That is 
what we are seeing today. The Oregon bipartisan judicial selection 
commission overwhelmingly voted that Mr. Bounds--who misled the 
commission about his controversial writings--did not deserve its 
recommendation.
  Some may dismiss these warnings, but I have served in the Senate long 
enough to know that winds tend to change direction. Inevitably, the 
majority becomes the minority. The White House changes hands. I suspect 
Republicans will rekindle their love of blue slips if they find 
themselves in the minority under a Democratic President, as they did 
under President Obama and during my chairmanship. That is precisely why 
maintaining a single, consistent policy with respect to blue slips is 
so critical.
  That is why I will vote against Mr. Bounds. If we abandon our 
longstanding traditions to change partisan expediency, that provides 
only fleeting advantage and inflicts lasting harm in this body. We are 
better off when we follow the tradition we always have. We foolishly 
hurt ourselves and our individual States when we allow ourselves to 
step away from it. I would urge all Senators to ensure that home-State 
Senators are provided the same courtesies during the Trump 
administration that they received from both Republican and Democratic 
Judiciary chairmen during the Obama administration. I ask my fellow 
Senators to oppose Mr. Bound's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am about to engage in a brief colloquy 
about a unanimous consent request with my colleague, the Senator from 
California.
  I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, I 
be able to have 5 minutes to do that prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.