[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 163 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5721-S5722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, Justice Ginsburg's death leaves a 
vacancy on the Supreme Court with only 44 days left before a national 
election that could result in a different President--a vacancy that 
could determine the future of the Supreme Court for generations and 
make rulings that touch every aspect of American life.
  Reporters will no doubt cover the political machinations here in 
Washington, but for hundreds of millions of Americans, this vacancy on 
the Supreme Court puts everything--everything--on the line.
  Americans' right to healthcare hangs in the balance. President Trump 
is pursuing a lawsuit which would eliminate protections for more than 
130 million Americans with preexisting conditions, send drug prices 
soaring for seniors on Medicare, and take health insurance away from 
tens of millions of people. He will nominate a Justice that would 
ensure that result in a Supreme Court case that will be argued only a 
few weeks after election day
  A woman's fundamental, constitutional right to make her own medical 
decisions--to control her own body, her right to choose--hangs in the 
balance. The right of workers to organize and collectively bargain for 
fair wages at a time of growing income inequality hangs in the balance. 
The future of our planet, environmental protections, and the 
possibility of bold legislation to address climate change hang in the 
balance. Voting rights and the right of every American citizen to have 
a voice in our democracy hang in the balance. The stakes of this 
election, the stakes of this vacancy concern no less than the future of 
fundamental rights of the American people.
  I was with my daughter and her wife to celebrate the Jewish New Year, 
and they thought to themselves and mentioned at the table: Could their 
right to be married, could marriage equality, be undone?
  Those are questions hundreds of millions of Americans are asking 
about things near and dear to them as this nomination hangs in the 
balance. That is what it is all about--all the rights enshrined in our 
Constitution that are supposed to be protected by the Supreme Court of 
the United States; all the rights that could be undone or unwound by a 
conservative majority on the Court; the right to join a union, marry 
whom you love, freely exercise your right to vote; the right of a 
parent with a child who has cancer not to watch, helpless, as their son 
or daughter suffers without proper healthcare.
  If you care about these things and the kind of country we live in, 
this election and this vacancy mean everything. And by all rights, by 
every modicum of decency and honor, Leader McConnell and the Republican 
Senate majority have no right to fill it--no right.
  In the final few weeks, sensing her failing health, Justice Ginsburg 
told her family that it was her ``most fervent wish that [she] not be 
replaced until a new president is installed.''
  That was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish--her most fervent 
wish--that she should not be replaced until a new President is 
installed.
  The Senate Republican majority should have no problem adhering to 
Justice Ginsburg's dying wish. Leader McConnell held a Supreme Court 
vacancy open for nearly a year in order to ``give the people a voice'' 
in selecting a Supreme Court Justice.
  I just heard the remarks of the Republican leader, and it is obvious 
why he is so defensive.
  This is what Leader McConnell said in 2016, mere hours after the 
death of Justice Scalia. His words:

       The American people should have a voice in the selection of 
     their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy 
     should not be filled until we have a new president.

  No amount of sophistry can change what McConnell said then. And it 
applies even more so now--more so--so much closer we are to an 
election.
  In an op-ed on February 18, 2016, with Senator Grassley, Leader 
McConnell wrote: ``Given that we are in the midst of a presidential 
election process, we believe that the American people should seize the 
opportunity to weigh

[[Page S5722]]

in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime 
appointment to the Supreme Court.''
  In the midst of an election process, February before the election, 
but now we are not? Now these words don't apply? It doesn't pass the 
smell test in any way. No wonder Leader McConnell was so defensive in 
his comments.
  At a press conference on March 1, 2016, Leader McConnell said that 
``we will look forward to the American people deciding who they want to 
make this appointment through their own votes.''
  And on the floor, March 16, 2016, McConnell said that ``our view is 
this: give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.''
  That was 8 months--more than 8 months from a national election. This 
is 44 days. The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to the Supreme 
Court this close to a Presidential election.
  If that was how Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans justify their 
mindless obstruction of President Obama's nominee, surely they must 
abide by their own standard. What is fair is fair. What is fair is 
fair. A Senators' word must count for something.
  Senator McConnell has come to the floor numerous times to say that 
``your word is the currency of the realm in the Senate.'' That quote: 
``It is important for all Senators to keep their word, but it is 
particularly important for the majority leader.''
  Leader McConnell said those things.
  My friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
sensed that this situation might arise and made it crystal clear how he 
would behave if the shoe were on the other foot. He said:

       I want you to use my words against me.
       If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy 
     occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 
     Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it 
     might be, make that nomination.

  He reiterated that view less than 2 years ago and encouraged the 
audience to ``hold the tape'' for exactly this situation.
  No wonder Americans have so little faith in governing and in this 
Senate led by the Republican majority. We now know the entire thing was 
a farce, not a shred of credibility to those arguments. We have the 
exact scenario that Chairman Graham talked about--a Republican 
President and a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of the first 
term. Indeed, it is almost the last month of his first term.
  ``I want you to use those words against me,'' he said. ``You can say 
Lindsey Graham said the next president, whoever it might be, should 
make the nomination.''
  Well, here we are. And despite these words, despite their supposedly 
noble principle that the American people should have a voice in the 
decision of the next Supreme Court Justice, President Trump, Leader 
McConnell, and Chairman Graham have already announced they will ignore 
their own standard and will rush to confirm a new Justice before the 
next President is installed--a Justice that could tear down Justice 
Ginsburg's life's work and other critical laws, like the Affordable 
Care Act.
  The kind words and lamentations we just heard from the majority 
leader about Justice Ginsburg are totally empty, totally meaningless if 
he moves to appoint someone who will tear down everything Justice 
Ginsburg built.
  Leader McConnell put the Senate on ``pause'' for over 4 months while 
COVID-19 devastated our country, but now he will move Earth and Heaven, 
and ignore all principle and consistency, to install a new Supreme 
Court Justice who could rip away Americans' healthcare in the middle of 
a pandemic.
  Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham have made a mockery of their 
previous position. They seem ready to show the world their word is 
simply no good. It is enough to make your head explode. And then to 
hear Leader McConnell up on the floor trying to defend this--pathetic, 
pathetic.
  Why even bother instructing a pretense for your position? Why say it 
is this rule or that rule and then do the exact opposite when it suits 
your interests? Why not just come to the floor and say: I'm going to do 
whatever is best for my political party. Consistency be damned. Reason 
be damned. Democracy be damned.
  Just admit it. There is no shaping the cravenness of this position. 
But over the course of the debate, I know the Republican leadership is 
going to try. We are going to hear some crazy things from the other 
side to defend the indefensible and justify this unjustifiable power 
grab. We heard some of it already, a few minutes ago.
  We are going to hear a series of preposterous arguments; that it 
somehow has to do with the orientation of the Senate and Presidency, as 
if that constitutes some legitimate principle. We will hear that 
Republicans have to do it because Democrats will do far worse, unnamed 
things in the future.
  Some--some--few on that side will at least have the dignity of 
putting their head down and plowing through with it because they know 
there is no reason--no reason, no argument, no logic--to justify 
flipping your position 180 degrees and calling it some kind of 
principle. It is not. It is utterly craven, an exercise in raw 
political power and nothing more.
  I worry. I worry for the future of this Chamber if the Republican 
majority proceeds down this dangerous path.
  If a Senate majority over the course of 6 years steals two Supreme 
Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we 
expect to trust the other side again?
  How can we trust each other if, when push comes to shove and when the 
stakes are the highest, the other side will double-cross their own 
standards when it is politically advantageous? Tell me how. Tell me how 
this would not spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body 
because I don't see how.
  There is only one way for this Chamber to retain its dignity through 
this difficult chapter. There is only one way for us to have some hope 
of coming together again, trusting each other again, lowering the 
temperature moving forward, and that is for four brave Senate 
Republicans to commit to rejecting any nominee until the next President 
is installed. That was Justice Ginsburg's dying wish. It may be the 
Senate's only last hope.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________