[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8807-8808]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. REID. Madam President, a few days ago, the majority leader was 
reported to have declared to a conservative talk-radio show that under 
his leadership, the Republican Senate will shirk its constitutional 
duties by not continuing to confirm judges--period. He went on to say: 
We may confirm a few that come from States where only Republicans give 
the President the names, but other than that, we are going to do none.
  I assume this is accurate. I hope it is not, but I assume that it is. 
It would be a very stunning and disappointing declaration that the 
senior Senator from Kentucky, especially since he argued for the fair 
consideration of President Bush's court nominees, would now switch his 
position.
  In July of 2008, here is what he said: ``Even with lameduck 
Presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to confirming 
judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees.''
  That is a direct quote from the majority leader. These are his words. 
Not a single word has been made up. That is what he said: ``Even with 
lameduck presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to 
confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees.''
  And the record is spread with many quotes he has given just the same. 
He also said in that same year: ``No party is without blame in the 
confirmation process, but what is going on now--or, more accurately, 
what is not going on--is yet another step backward in politicizing the 
confirmation process--something we had all hoped that we would get 
beyond.''
  Earlier my friend from Kentucky said: ``Judicial nominations need to 
be treated fairly and commitments need to be kept.'' And even earlier 
than that, here is what he said: ``On the issue of judicial 
confirmations, the majority leader and I discussed this matter publicly 
at the beginning of the Congress''--he is saying that he and I are 
talking--``and we agreed that President Bush, in the last 2 years of 
his term, should be treated as well as President Reagan, Bush 41, and 
President Clinton were treated in the last 2 years of their tenures in 
office because there was one common thread, and that was that the 
Senate was controlled by the opposition party.''
  So what he is saying there is that what he wanted was for Bush to be 
treated the same way that Bush 1, President Reagan, and President 
Clinton had been treated. He got that with large numbers of judges 
being appointed.
  So we are here now with the statements ringing loudly that the 
majority leader is intent on writing off the Senate's constitutional 
duty of offering our advice and consent now that President Obama is 
nominating individuals to the Federal bench.
  The Republican leader is a student of the Senate. He says he is, and 
I believe that. I am confident that he understands that the Senate 
cannot and should not neglect the constitutional obligations we have. 
The Senate cannot simply ignore critical vacancies in the last 2 years 
of any President's term--what a bad standard to set, especially with 
the growth in certain communities. We have a number of judicial 
emergencies that have been determined.
  It is all the more troubling that the majority leader wants to pick 
an unnecessary fight over judges just as Republican Senators are 
working with the President to fill vacancies in their States. The 
majority leader is essentially telling other Senators that their 
judicial recommendations simply don't matter--Democrats, Independents, 
Republicans. The majority leader is telling the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee that regardless of the judicial nominations his 
committee continues to report out, they could be blocked on the Senate 
floor.
  But I do say this just as a caveat: The present Judiciary Committee 
is doing the same thing that was done by the present chairman of the 
Finance Committee when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee. He 
didn't have to worry about a lot of names on the calendar because he 
simply held no hearings in the Judiciary Committee. The same situation 
is prevailing now. So we don't have a lot of people on the calendar 
because they are not having any hearings to speak of in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  I have spoken here on the floor before about the nomination of Felipe 
Restrepo for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. After 
repeated, repeated, and repeated delays, the committee is finally 
considering his nomination on Wednesday. He has been waiting for 
months. This is an incredibly qualified nominee who enjoys vast 
bipartisan support, including both Pennsylvania Senators, one a 
Democrat and one a Republican. The Republican Senator from Pennsylvania 
has said that Judge Restrepo would be a ``superb addition to the Third 
Circuit.''
  In that case we have waited months to even have a hearing.
  So it must have been shocking for the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania to learn that his judicial pick would face another delay--
a delay indefinitely, perhaps. This is a blatant rejection of the 
Senate's constitutional duties.
  Just as Senator McConnell argued for fairness for President Bush's 
nominations, it is not unreasonable for Democrats to expect that same 
measure of fairness that President Bush got in the 110th Congress.
  Regardless of whether a State had two Democrats, two Republicans or a 
split delegation, Senate Democrats brought President Bush's nominees up 
for a vote. By this point in the seventh year of George W. Bush's 
Presidency, Senate Democrats confirmed 18 judges, including 3 circuit 
court judges.
  In almost 6 months, the Republican Senate has only confirmed four 
district

[[Page 8808]]

court judges. To put this in perspective, during the Presidency of 
Bush, we confirmed four in 1 month.
  So perhaps the majority leader's comments about a judicial slowdown 
were just confirming what he has already done to block the President's 
nominees. I repeat. The committee is being run the same way that the 
present chair of the Finance Committee did when he was chair of the 
Judiciary Committee--just holding no hearings. That way, there is 
nobody on the calendar--or very few.
  The Republican Senate hasn't confirmed even a single circuit court 
judge--not even a consensus nominee such as Kara Stoll to the Federal 
Circuit. She was reported out of committee by a voice vote in April. 
Nothing so far--they are not even having hearings, I repeat, on most 
nominees. Therefore, there is no one to report to the floor.
  Actions speak louder than words, and the majority leader can 
demonstrate that his remarks were misinterpreted--and I would certainly 
hope so--by scheduling a prompt vote on the Stoll nomination. We should 
schedule a vote on her nomination no later than this week. Kara Stoll 
is the only appeals court judge awaiting a vote before the Senate.
  For the reasons I have just said, people have been in the pipeline, 
but they won't hold hearings. Both of these nominations--Restrepo and 
Stoll--need a vote now. Let's hope the majority leader will reflect 
upon his past statements about fair consideration of judicial nominees, 
in comparison to what he said on a talk show--I guess appealing to the 
rightwing even more than what has happened recently, and that is quite 
a bit. Let's hope he does not treat judicial nominees as they have 
never been treated before. Let's hope that the Senate will quickly 
confirm at least these two qualified judges. We need a lot more, but 
these two would be a step in the right direction.
  I note there is no one on the floor, and I ask that the Chair 
announce the business of the day.

                          ____________________