[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16179-16180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION DEBATES

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, somewhere out there in our country 
today walks the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Very soon, this Senate will begin to debate that person's confirmation. 
We don't know yet the nominee's professional background or experience, 
but sadly, if the past is any guide, we do know what kind of reception 
that nominee is likely--likely to receive. That is why I rise to speak 
today.
  No one would argue that some recent Supreme Court confirmation 
debates have been less than ennobling. But it doesn't have to be that 
way. The experiences of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer by any standard, 
two very liberal nominees--when my party was in the minority, prove 
that we can make Senate confirmation to the High Court a rational and 
orderly process. Sadly, whenever the nominees are named by Republican 
Presidents, that doesn't seem to be the case.
  After recent media reports, I am concerned we may have a circus 
rather than a dignified confirmation process. Specifically, the 
Washington Post reported last week that some of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle have a three-part strategy to defeat the next 
Supreme Court nominee.
  First, according to the Post, they plan to complain that consultation 
by the President, no matter what the amount, is not sufficient. Second, 
they plan to paint the nominee as ``extreme.'' Finally, when all else 
fails, they will object that documents produced in relation to the 
nominee are somehow inadequate.
  I am troubled because we are already beginning to see the first 
salvos in this three-pronged plan of attack. A week before there was 
even a vacancy, our Democratic colleagues sent a letter to President 
Bush demanding that he consult with them. Senator Schumer then 
predicted a ``battle royal'' unless the degree of consultation 
satisfied him.
  My good friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Specter, expressed the frustration of many of us on 
this side of the aisle when he went to the floor to appeal for 
civility. As he said so well, ``It is hardly the time to be looking to 
pick a fight.''
  The fact is, the scope of consultation that President Bush has 
engaged in is unprecedented. Let me repeat: The scope of consultation 
that President Bush has engaged in is without precedent. He and his 
staff have reached out to over 60 Senators from both parties 
individually to solicit their opinions. The President has had meetings 
with the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. He has laid his door open to any and all suggestions our 
friends on the other side of the aisle would care to give. Yet some of 
our Democratic friends now complain that his extensive outreach is not 
enough. They demand that the President give them the names of the 
people he is thinking about nominating. They want, in effect, to serve 
as co-Presidents by co-nominating a replacement to the Supreme Court.
  Despite what some on the far left may say, no fair-minded person can 
conclude that President Bush has not adequately consulted with the 
Democrats. He has done more than the Constitution requires by far, and 
more than his predecessors did. He has consulted with the Senate. Case 
closed.
  Let us now turn to chapter two of the playbook to defeat the nominee: 
Distort and destroy the nominee's record and character. I have been in 
the Senate for the last seven Supreme Court nominations. Sadly, there 
is a historical pattern of devastating, defamatory attacks on honest 
men and women who just happen to be nominated to the High Court by 
Republican Presidents. Take what was said about one current member of 
the Court. During his nomination hearing, he was denounced for his 
``consistent opposition to women's rights.'' We were told this 
nominee's actions ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to 
the problems women face in the marketplace, as well as an extraordinary 
lack of sensitivity to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.'' This was 
what was said about this current member of the Supreme Court. We were 
told this nominee had a ``propensity to find against a female 
plaintiff,'' that his judicial decisions ``have flown in the face of 
the applicable law as duly passed by Congress,'' and his record 
``raises the question of whether he can fairly, judiciously, and 
impartially review those cases which will reach him as a Justice on the 
Supreme Court.''
  These incredibly harsh criticisms were made by the National 
Organization of Women. The nominee? Associate Justice John Paul 
Stevens, appointed to the Court by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Many 
of Justice Stevens' opinions have brought no small measure of joy to 
the very same liberal activists who denounced his nomination in such 
extreme terms. Unfortunately, such hyperbolic attacks have been an 
almost inevitable fate of Supreme Court nominees of Republican 
Presidents. I repeat: that has been the fate of Supreme Court nominees 
of Republican Presidents.
  Let me give a more recent example regarding another current Justice. 
Before this person's confirmation hearing, one liberal activist group 
concluded the nominee's ``opinions and legal briefs threaten to undo 
the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters, and other 
disadvantaged groups.'' And during his hearing, this group said it was 
``convinced that [this nominee] will not protect the rights of those 
suffering discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, 
religion, sexual orientation, or literacy.''
  Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice made these accusations. I notice 
Ms. Aron's group and more like it are just as ready to pounce on the 
new nominee today.
  Who was she talking about? Justice David Souter, appointed to the 
Supreme Court by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990. It is 
hard to

[[Page 16180]]

believe, but true. Such personal invective and histrionics bore no 
rational relationship to Justice Souter's record and, once again, I 
doubt these same groups would have a problem with Justice Souter today.
  It wasn't just liberal interest groups who made such sharp criticisms 
of Justice Souter, however. Our colleagues on the other side also 
questioned Justice Souter's fitness for the Court. For example, the 
distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, said,

       If Judge Souter joins the current closely divided Supreme 
     Court, he will solidify a five-to-four anti-civil rights, 
     anti-privacy majority inclined to turn back the clock on the 
     historic progress of recent decades. If so, literally 
     millions of our fellow citizens will be denied their rights 
     as Americans to equal opportunity and equal justice under 
     law.

  That was Senator Kennedy in 1990, asserting that the Senate's 
confirmation of Justice Souter actually risked turning back the clock 
and jeopardizing the rights of millions of Americans.
  We all know that didn't happen. I can only hope that, realizing that, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle will stop and take a deep 
breath before attacking the nominee this time around. However, it 
appears these same old groups are singing the same old song. The ink 
was not even dry on Justice O'Connor's resignation letter when the far 
left again began ratcheting up the same tired rhetoric, complaining 
that the ``sky was falling'' courtesy of a Supreme Court appointment by 
a Republican President.
  For example, People for the American Way complained, in its usual 
fashion, that ``our very national identity hangs in the balance.'' And 
MoveOn.org, a group so far out of the mainstream that it promoted a 
pacifist response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and yet is a major 
funding source for Democratic candidates, predicted that the nominee 
would be an ``extremist who will undermine the rights of individuals 
and families.''
  These left-wing attack groups are loaded for bear and have one thing 
in common when it comes to a Republican President's nominee for the 
Supreme Court: Their favorite letters in the word ``nomination'' are N-
O.
  So that is why I am a bit apprehensive of the impending Supreme Court 
confirmation. I think this Senate can have a fair, dignified debate 
that the country will be proud to see. There is no reason we should 
not. I believe Senators should be passionate in their beliefs and stand 
up for what is right. I am not asking anyone to be muzzled. All I am 
asking for is a little bit of civility, civility and compassion for the 
man or woman who will soon be named to be the next Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Why don't we try looking at the 
nominee's record? Let's argue the facts. But I urge my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, don't prejudge. Don't start up the attack 
machine, don't declare war and begin the reflexive demagoging of 
qualified Republican nominees, regardless of who they are.
  According to a USA Today article, a recent Gallup Poll found that 86 
percent--no small majority--86 percent of Americans believe that our 
Democratic friends will try to block President Bush's Supreme Court 
nominee for ``inappropriate political reasons.'' The public is 
beginning to see this knee-jerk opposition for what it truly is: 
confrontation for confrontation's sake.
  I hope this is not the path we take. According to history, according 
to media reports, according to the overheated rhetoric of the left-wing 
fringe groups that have already began gnashing their teeth, it looks 
that way. But it doesn't have to be that way. Here is what we should 
do. We should have a fair process. We should treat the nominees with 
dignity and with respect. And we should have the Court at full strength 
when it starts its new term on the first Monday in October, October 3.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________