[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3403-3405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF MERRICK GARLAND

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe is 
the urgency of the moment, really the test of the time. We have a 
Constitution that was designed for three coequal branches of 
government. We know the importance of each of those branches of 
government and the roles they have are spelled out in the Constitution.
  A fully functioning Supreme Court--one of the coequal branches--is of 
the utmost importance to the proper function of our democracy. Justices 
decide cases that shape the daily lives of all Americans. Even one 
Justice can deeply affect the rights and liberties of the American 
people for generations to come.
  Yesterday, the President nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  A clear and plain reading of the text of the Constitution says 
explicitly in article II, section 2, that it is the duty of the Senate 
to provide ``advice and consent'' to the President on key nominations, 
particularly Justices to the Supreme Court.
  I, along with my 99 colleagues, took an oath of office. We swore to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to 
faithfully discharge the duties of the offices we hold. There was no 
addendum to that oath that excused us from our responsibilities during 
a Presidential election year. The people of New Jersey elected me to 
serve a full 6-year term. That means my duties and obligations as a 
Senator--or the duties and obligations of each of the 100 Senators in 
this body--should not be interrupted by a Presidential year. That is 
especially true when those duties are explicitly laid out in the 
Constitution and when the duties impact a coequal branch of government, 
such as the Supreme Court.
  I have only served in the Senate since October of 2013. This is my 
first Supreme Court nominee to consider, and I look forward to 
thoroughly reviewing Chief Judge Garland's record, to meeting with him 
face to face, and hopefully, I believe rightfully, taking an up-or-down 
vote on his confirmation.
  That is what all of us swore an oath and signed up to do when a 
vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court. That is the duty the American 
people expect of us--to abide by the Constitution and provide our 
advice and consent regarding a Presidential nomination of this 
significance--a lifetime appointment--to the Supreme Court, a coequal 
branch of government.
  We may not ultimately agree on whether Chief Judge Garland should be 
confirmed. The Senate can vote no. Senators have that independent 
choice. It happens almost every day here where we disagree on issues. 
There is no guarantee in the Constitution that the President's nominee 
should get confirmed. But we should agree at least to do the job we 
were elected to do and to allow the confirmation process to move 
forward. That is bigger than any one party.
  Now, as I understand it, Chief Judge Garland is highly respected, 
experienced, and is considered by many to be a deliberate jurist whom 
the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed in 1997 to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is known as the second 
highest court in the land. His nomination to be an Associate Justice on 
the Supreme Court is certainly deserving of our consideration.
  Chief Judge Garland, in fact, has more Federal judiciary experience 
than any other Supreme Court nominee in history.
  He currently serves as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, a court 
where he has served for almost 19 years. Previously, he has served 
under both Democratic and Republican Presidents at the U.S. Department 
of Justice. He first worked as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 
the Criminal Division of DOJ and later served as the Principal 
Associate Deputy Attorney General. In those posts, he supervised high-
profile cases at the Department of Justice such as the prosecution of 
the Oklahoma City bomber, which ultimately brought Timothy McVeigh to 
justice.
  To call his qualifications impressive is an understatement. Chief 
Judge Garland has dedicated his life to public service, and his lengthy 
career reflects his commitment to the high ideals etched on the Supreme 
Courts itself, ``Equal justice under law.''
  He has said, ``The role of the court is to apply the law to the facts 
of the case before it--not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the 
executive power, not to hand down advisory opinions on the issues of 
the day.'' No wonder he is known in legal circles and around Capitol 
Hill for his careful opinions and lack of overt ideological bias.
  Chief Judge Garland is so well admired, so highly regarded, and so 
accomplished that his appeal transcends the typical partisan divisions 
that we too often see in Washington.
  There is no possible justification--based on this nominee's 
reputation, his experience, his dedication, his service, and his work--
to ignore, blockade, or stonewall Chief Judge Garland's nomination or 
to deny him a hearing and a vote. There is no reason for that.
  There is certainly no historical or constitutional precedent behind 
such a blockade. Since committee hearings began in 1916, every pending 
Supreme Court nominee has received a hearing, except for nine nominees 
who were confirmed within 11 days. So what is being suggested--to not 
even meet with this

[[Page 3404]]

nominee or to not even give this nominee a hearing in committee--is 
unprecedented in our Nation's history.
  The Senate has previously confirmed Supreme Court nominees during a 
Presidential election year. History shows us that the Senate has 
previously confirmed a Supreme Court nominee at least 17 separate times 
during the Presidencies of liberals and conservatives, Republicans and 
Democrats, alike. We have even held confirmation hearings of Supreme 
Court nominees at least five times in Presidential election years since 
the hearing process began in 1916.
  Thus, the excuse that we should not move forward with the 
confirmation process for Chief Judge Garland because this is a 
political election season simply falls flat in the face of our history. 
In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and, more recently, President 
Ronald Reagan saw their Supreme Court nominees confirmed in a 
Presidential election year. Since 1975, it has taken, on average, a 
little over 2 months for the full Senate to consider a nomination 
before voting.
  It is only March, so there is plenty of time to consider and confirm 
a nominee. There is no reason why Chief Judge Garland cannot be 
confirmed by even the end of May, given the average time of recent 
Supreme Court confirmations, which is more than ample time for the next 
Justice to be on the Court before the next Supreme Court term begins in 
October.
  When the Supreme Court, that coequal branch of government, has a body 
of work to do, for the Senate to deny this nominee a hearing and a vote 
we would also deny that coequal branch of government its full, 
functioning complement of members. This is a historic time and a 
critical test for this distinguished body. It is a time that will test 
how dignified our confirmation process will be for future Supreme Court 
nominees.
  It provides us an opportunity, amidst all of the partisanship, amidst 
all of the delays that are going on, amidst all of the partisan 
rhetoric, for this body to rise above the fray. We can show that the 
Senate, at its best, treats nominees to our highest court with a level 
of dignity, honor, and respect. Indeed, we can show a greater fidelity 
to the Constitution than to party, and show that we are not susceptible 
to the partisan winds of the time.
  I believe Chief Judge Merrick Garland deserves a dignified 
confirmation process. It is up to each and every Senator to decide 
whether he should be a Supreme Court Justice. For me, this moment in 
time is not just about the individual; it is also about how we as a 
body, the Senate, will do business and whether we will do our jobs even 
in Presidential election years.
  I have heard some of my colleagues say simply: Let the people decide.
  That sentiment appears to resonate at first, especially since a first 
principle of any democracy is to let the voters decide important 
issues. But in reality the people have already decided. They decided 
when they voted for each of the 100 Members of this distinguished body, 
which tells us that we should do our duty. The people decided when they 
voted for President Barack Obama for a second consecutive 4-year term. 
The people did not decide that the President should be a 1-year 
President or a 2-year President, but that he should serve a full 4-year 
term and conduct his duties--his sworn duties--accordingly.
  No Senator nor the President should shirk from fulfilling their 
Constitutional obligations. The people in this democracy decided when 
they elected us. We should do our job and give Chief Judge Garland a 
hearing and a vote.
  Our country has a deep history of fights, which have taken place not 
only in this body but in our larger democracy. There have been 
divisions and factions in this country. The Federalist Papers literally 
acknowledged that there would be divisions and fights, but the 
Constitution was designed to call us to a higher purpose, to overcome 
our petty divisions, and to unite us.
  Our Nation is mighty and strong, and I am so proud of that because, 
as much as our differences matter, we always seem to understand that 
our country matters more. The people who founded our Nation understood 
that we would have differences of opinion and ideology. They understood 
that our differences and diversity of thought would make our country 
great, but they also understood that, in order for our Nation to 
succeed and endure, we must be loyal to our ideals and principles. 
Those ideals and principles are enshrined in the Constitution itself 
and reflected in our democracy, and that is what brings us together. In 
fact, it harkens to the very hallmark ideal of our country: ``E 
Pluribus Unum,'' out of many, one. It is written into the culture of 
our country. There is an old African saying: If you want to go fast, go 
alone, but if you want to go far, go together.
  When our Founders drafted the Declaration of Independence, they 
enshrined for all time the ideal that we are individuals endowed by our 
creator with inalienable rights. The Founders ended that national 
charter by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor 
to each other.
  There has been no greater honor in my life than when I stood in this 
well before the Vice President and swore my oath to uphold the 
Constitution. In fact, if I ever have to, I will sacrifice myself for 
my country. These are the ideals and this is the honor that I believe 
has helped our great country persevere.
  Now we are faced with a test where two conflicting ideals have been 
put forth: whether a President and a Senate should fulfill their 
obligations all the way to the end of their sworn terms or whether we 
should begin to truncate the powers of a Presidency and the powers of 
individual Senators and suspend our constitutional obligations because 
it is an election year. To me, that undermines the purpose and the 
spirit of our constitutional institution.
  As I said, the nomination of Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court 
will be a greater test for the Senate and the constitutional values we 
hold dear. I worry we will fail this test and descend deeper into the 
kind of divisiveness that undermines our Constitution.
  I believe this is a time that calls for an honorable stance. We have 
an extremely competent Supreme Court Justice nominee before us. I am 
not going to blockade his nomination. I am not going to avoid meeting 
with this distinguished nominee. I hope we will hold hearings and a 
vote so that Senators may decide whether this nominee is worthy of 
sitting on the Nation's highest Court. I hope that each individual 
Senator will honor the precedent that has been continuous for years and 
years and years and then allow this nominee an up-or-down vote. The 
purpose of our sacred Constitution, as spelled out and written in 
article II, section 2, is to allow the President to put forward a 
nominee and the Senate to give its ``advice and consent,'' which I 
believe means an up-or-down vote on a nomination.
  Again, we are here because greater Americans made a pledge to each 
other. As different as they were, they came together and wrote a 
Constitution and a Declaration of Independence. We are here because 
people greater than we are pledged to each other their lives, their 
fortunes, and their sacred honor.
  Let us harken back to that honor. Let us put forth our sacred honor 
now and not allow this country to lurch even deeper into divisiveness. 
Let us unify and show that, yes, there are differences; yes, there are 
divisions; yes, there is partisanship, but in the end, we will unite 
around those bonds that hold this Nation together and ensure that our 
democracy functions for years, decades, and generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Hirono pertaining to the introduction of S. 2710 
are printed in today's Record under

[[Page 3405]]

``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________