[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 164 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5733-S5734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I explained yesterday how moving 
ahead on a vote on the forthcoming Supreme Court nomination will be 
consistent with both history and precedent.
  When an election-year nomination to fill an election-year vacancy 
occurs in a divided government, with a Senate and a President of 
different parties, the historical norm is that such nominations are not 
confirmed. But the times this has happened after the American people 
have elected a Senate majority to work alongside the same-party 
President, every such nominee has been confirmed, save one bizarre 
exception of a nominee who had corrupt financial dealings. Let me say 
that again. Except for Justice Abe Fortas and his ethical scandals, 
every single nomination in American history made under our present 
circumstances has ended in a confirmation--seven out of eight.
  That is the thing about facts and history. Angry rhetoric does not 
change them. Partisan finger-pointing does not alter them. Facts simply 
exist. They are there for everyone to see. History and precedent were 
on this Senate majority's side in 2016, and they are overwhelmingly on 
our side now.
  If we go on to confirm this nomination after a careful process, then 
both in 2016 and in 2020, this Senate will simply have provided the 
typical, normal outcome in each scenario. Think about that fact and 
then weigh it against the outcry and hysteria that has already erupted 
on the far left.
  Yesterday, the Democratic leader announced on the floor that if the 
Senate holds a vote on the forthcoming nomination it would ``spell the 
end of this supposedly great deliberative body.'' Spell the end of this 
supposedly great deliberative body? That is what he said. It would be 
the death of the Senate if a duly elected majority of the U.S. Senate 
exercises its advice and consent power as it sees fit. That is what 
Senates do. It is our job description. Presidents makes nominations as 
they see fit, and Senate majorities either provide or withhold advice 
and consent as we see fit. But now our Democratic colleagues tell us 
that the Senate doing normal senatorial things would ``spell the end'' 
of this institution--whatever that may mean.
  The Democratic leader is not alone in these pronouncements. Chairman 
Jerry Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has already announced 
that if the Senate majority dares to act like

[[Page S5734]]

a Senate majority, future Democrats should ``immediately move to expand 
the Supreme Court.''
  From another colleague:

       If [they hold] a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. 
     It's that simple.

  Speaker Pelosi intimated on television last weekend that she may 
consider launching a new frivolous impeachment simply to tie up the 
Senate's time. She said: ``We have our options.''
  The junior Senator from Massachusetts said Democrats ``must abolish 
the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.''
  The junior Senator for Hawaii said: ``All of those matters will be on 
the agenda.''
  The senior Senator from Connecticut said: ``Nothing is off the 
table.''
  Just yesterday, former Vice President Biden himself refused to rule 
out that he might seek to pack the Supreme Court.
  Bear in mind, none of them assert this majority would be breaking any 
Senate rule by holding this vote; it is just that our Democratic 
friends worry they might not like the outcome.
  For some reason, they cannot bear to see Republicans governing within 
the rules as Republicans--doing exactly what Americans elected us to 
do. So they threaten to wreck the makeup of the Senate if they lose a 
vote and to wreck the structure of the Court if somebody is confirmed 
whom they oppose.
  It has been interesting to watch our colleagues try to recast their 
disturbing threats as somehow tied to this Supreme Court vacancy. No 
one should fall for this trick. Democrats have already been threatening 
these actions for months. This isn't anything new.
  Our colleagues now say that ``nothing'' would be ``off the table'' if 
a new Justice were to be confirmed. They want badly for people to 
believe these are new threats that Democrats would take off the table--
would take off the table--if Republicans would just help them sink 
President Trump's nominee. Let me say that again. They want badly for 
people to believe these are new threats that Democrats would take off 
the table if Republicans would just help them sink President Trump's 
nominee.
  Let me read another quotation. This is the junior Senator from 
California speaking, our distinguished colleague who is now running for 
Vice President:

       We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the 
     Supreme Court. We have to take this challenge head on, and 
     everything is on the table to do that.

  Sound familiar? Of course it does. Our colleague made that remark in 
March of 2019--in March of 2019.
  These threats are not new. They have nothing to do with this new 
vacancy. Democrats have already been playing this game for more than a 
year and a half.
  It was more than a year ago that several Senate Democrats threatened 
the Supreme Court in a written brief. They said: ``The Court is not 
well [and] perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands 
it be `restructured.' ''
  It was more than a year ago that Democrats, competing for their 
party's Presidential nomination, made court-packing a central element 
in their platforms.
  It was more than 6 months ago that the Democratic leader appeared 
across the street outside the Court and threatened specific Justices if 
they did not rule his way.
  For goodness' sake, the junior Senator from Maryland came right out 
and admitted this yesterday. Someone asked him whether he would support 
these acts of institutional vandalism if a nominee is confirmed this 
year, and he helpfully pointed out: ``I've always said I'm open, even 
before this seat opened . . . [those] possibilities were on the table 
before we got to this point,'' thereby proving my point.
  These threats are not new. They have nothing to do with this vacancy.
  Our friend the junior Senator from Delaware said on television this 
Sunday that he wants to persuade Republicans to forgo filling this 
vacancy, but all the way back in June--long before 5 days ago--he 
himself notably refused to rule out breaking the Senate's rules to kill 
the filibuster.
  There is no degree to which rewarding these threats would buy the 
Nation any relief from this. There is nothing you can give them to stop 
all the threats. There is no ``deal'' that would stop these dangerous 
tactics. Giving in to political blackmail would not do a thing to 
secure our institutions. You do not put a stop to irresponsible 
hostage-taking by making hostage-taking a winning strategy.
  I will tell you what really could threaten our system of government. 
It is not Senate Republicans doing legitimate things squarely within 
the Senate rules and within the Constitution that Democrats happen to 
dislike--no, no. What could really threaten our system is if one of our 
two major parties continues to pretend the whole system is 
automatically illegitimate whenever they lose; if they continue to act 
like, for their side of the aisle, a legitimate defeat is an oxymoron. 
That is the danger to our democracy.
  Every one of these attacks on our institutions only underscores how 
important they are. Every threat to turn our courts into a political 
tug-of-war only reinforces why the Senate is charged with protecting 
our independent judiciary and why this majority's work with President 
Trump on this task is so crucial.
  The President plans to use the power the voters gave him to make a 
nomination. Senators will use the power the voters gave us to either 
provide or withhold consent as we see fit. The only ones responsible 
for those threats will be the people making them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________