[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2440-2441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republicans, in an effort to try to 
cloud the issue regarding selection of the Supreme Court replacement, 
usually don't provide a full quote. For example, they keep talking 
about Senator Biden, but they should give the whole statement of 
Senator Biden, where he ended it by saying that ``compromise is the 
responsible course, both for the White House and for the Senate. . . . 
[and] if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate . . . 
[on] his selections . . . then his nominees may enjoy my support, as 
did Justices Kennedy and Souter.''
  Yesterday the Washington Post published an editorial by Barbara 
Perry, a professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on the 
Supreme Court. It is among the finest law schools in all the world. 
That is the University of Virginia.
  In her opinion piece, Dr. Perry pushed back against Republican claims 
that Presidents have not historically nominated Supreme Court Justices 
during an election year. According to her, ``14 Presidents have 
appointed 21 justices during presidential election years.'' That is 14 
out of 44 Presidents have appointed Supreme Court Justices in 
Presidential election years. That is about one-third of all U.S. 
Presidents who have appointed nominees during an election year.
  Amy Howe, an expert on the Supreme Court and editor at SCOTUSblog--
Supreme Court of the United States blog--agrees that past Presidents 
and Senates have considered election-year nominees. She writes:

       The historical record does not reveal any instances since 
     at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the 
     Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential 
     election year because of the impending election.

  Republicans are using one inappropriate statement or excuse after 
another to explain why they shouldn't have to do their jobs the 
taxpayers sent them here to Washington to do. Instead of making 
excuses, wouldn't it be easier just to do the right thing? The right 
thing would be to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a 
hearing--a meeting before that--and a vote. We are simply saying: They 
should be doing their jobs.
  Some Republicans are already starting to see the light. Last week, 
the Republican Senator from Maine ripped the Republican leader for 
politicizing the current Supreme Court vacancy in the aftermath of 
Justice Scalia's death. Again, among other things, here is what the 
Republican Senator from Maine said:

       I thought it was a shame . . . that instead of honoring his 
     life and legacy and extending

[[Page 2441]]

     our condolences, already we are embroiled in a political 
     fight.

  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie went a step further, urging the 
Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. Governor Christie said:

       As I've always said, I believe that's absolutely the right 
     thing to do. People can vote up or down however they choose, 
     but hearings should be held. There is no reason for them to 
     not take on this nomination.

  Governor Christie is absolutely right. There is no reason for a 
Supreme Court nominee not to have a full hearing and a vote. There is 
no reason for Senate Republicans not to give a nominee to the Supreme 
Court a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. All we are saying is: Do your 
job.
  Montana Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke published an editorial in 
the Missoulian, one of the largest newspapers in the entire State, 
urging the Republican leader to give President Obama's nominee all due 
consideration. Here is what he said:

       It is unfortunate that partisanship took over the 
     conversation before the Justice even was laid to rest. The 
     partisan bickering and demands to ignore the Constitution 
     that unfolded after Scalia's death is an affront to his 
     legacy. Scalia dedicated his life to serving the 
     Constitution. It is time for the Senate to honor that service 
     and carry out their constitutionally mandated duty to advise.
       The Constitution reigns supreme. . . . My colleagues in the 
     Senate have an obligation to provide advice to the President 
     on nominees.

  So I urge others to look at what the Congressman from Montana said, 
what the senior Senator from Maine said, and what Governor Christie 
said. I agree with them that the Constitution reigns supreme. It simply 
is saying to do your job, among other things.
  In this situation there is no question what the Constitution mandates 
in times of Supreme Court vacancies. Article II, section 2 of our 
Constitution clearly outlines the President's legal authority to 
nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. It also defines the Senate's 
role in the nomination, which is to provide advice and consent. By 
denying their constitutional mandate, Republicans are refusing to do 
their job.
  Senate Republicans should give President Obama's Supreme Court 
nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote, because, as Governor Christie 
said, there is really no reason not to do so.

                          ____________________