[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE INTRODUCTION OF A HOUSE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THAT THE SENATE 
     SHOULD PROVIDE FULL AND FAIR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
                  NOMINATION OF JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 23, 2016

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, together with my 
Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, a resolution calling 
on the Senate to observe regular order and to give President Barack 
Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court full 
and fair consideration and an up-or-down vote.
  Judge Garland is an eminently seasoned jurist who has the qualities 
to make him an upstanding nominee for the Supreme Court.
  His unquestioned intellect, long judicial experience, and even 
temperament are widely admired and respected, even by Republicans like 
Senator Orrin Hatch, who called him a ``consensus nominee'' for the 
Supreme Court who would be ``very well supported by all sides.''
  Moreover, his deep respect for and fidelity to the Constitution and 
the law and his sensitivity to the impact of the law on ordinary people 
make him a good choice to fill the vacancy.
  Unfortunately, with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, we have seen 
partisan politics regarding Supreme Court nominations reach a new low.
  For instance, within hours of Justice Scalia's passing, Senate 
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Senate would refuse to 
consider any nomination made by President Obama to fill the vacancy.
  In addition to being an astounding failure to carry out its 
constitutional duty, Senate Republicans' flat-out refusal to consider 
President Obama's nominee, regardless of the nominee's qualifications, 
is part of a longstanding pattern of disrespect shown to this President 
in particular.
  The Senate must provide the same consideration and respect for this 
President and his Supreme Court nominee that every other President has 
been given.
  The President, of course, has the Constitutional authority and 
obligation to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 
II, Section 2, and he has fulfilled his duty with his nomination of 
Judge Garland.
  And the Senate has both the authority and the obligation to provide 
advice and consent on the President's nominee pursuant to that same 
provision. Yet, the Senate has flatly refused to do its job, which is 
simply unacceptable.
  It is clear that the Constitution requires that both the President 
and the Senate fulfill their respective roles in the Supreme Court 
nomination process in order for the Supreme Court to be able to fully 
perform its constitutional role.
  Otherwise, what is to stop the Senate from simply grinding the 
Court--a co-equal branch of government--to a halt by simply refusing to 
consider any nominees to fill any vacancies on the Court.
  There is no merit to the argument that we have to wait until we elect 
a new President. After all, the American people twice elected President 
Obama to fulfill the duties of President, including the duty to appoint 
Supreme Court justices.
  And there is ample precedent for Presidents nominating, and the 
Senate confirming, Supreme Court nominees in the last year of a 
presidency.
  For example, in 1988, during the last full year of Republican Ronald 
Reagan's presidency, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed the 
nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy by President Reagan by a 97-0 
vote.
  Today, there are 10 months left in President Obama's term. This is 
more than sufficient time for the President to nominate, and for the 
Senate to consider and vote on his nominee.
  It is vital that the Supreme Court have a full complement of justices 
so that the critical constitutional and legal questions before the 
Court can be given the full attention that they need.
  While the House of Representatives does not have a formal say in the 
nomination process, it is important that its voice be heard on this 
important constitutional matter, and I urge the House to pass my 
resolution.
  The Senate should do its job, comply with regular order, hold fair 
hearings on Judge Garland's nomination, and then hold an up-or-down 
vote on the nomination.

                          ____________________