[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 3803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, President Obama will fly to Chicago, 
where he will try to convince Americans that, despite his own actions 
while in the Senate to deny a Supreme Court nominee a vote, the 
Constitution somehow now requires the Senate to have a vote on his 
nominee no matter what, and thereby deny the American people a voice in 
the future of the Supreme Court. In the words of the Washington Post's 
Fact Checker, he will be ``telling supporters a politically convenient 
fairy tale.'' That is the Washington Post. I am sure he will gloss over 
the fact that the decision about filling this pivotal seat could impact 
our country for decades, that it could dramatically affect the most 
cherished constitutional rights, such as those contained in the First 
and Second Amendments. I am sure he will continue to demand that 
Washington spend its time fighting on one issue where we don't agree 
rather than working together on issues where we do. I am sure he will 
spend some time refuting the words of his own Vice President. I am sure 
he will repeatedly claim that his nominee is ``moderate''--not that he 
means it; it is just a useful piece of spin that has been dutifully 
echoed across the spans of the left and in the media for years.
  Consider the recent Democratic Supreme Court nominees. One Washington 
Post columnist hailed the ``moderate'' record of President Obama's 
first pick to the Supreme Court. One New York newspaper proclaimed his 
second nominee a ``pragmatic centrist.'' When President Clinton made 
his Supreme Court nominations, the Post declared one a--you guessed 
it--``moderate,'' and the New York Times practically fell all over 
itself exalting the ``resolutely centrist'' style of the other. That 
last nominee--who said it would be a good idea to abolish Mother's Day, 
by the way--was not just firmly centrist, not just decisively centrist, 
but resolutely centrist, in the Times' opinion. The records of every 
one of these Supreme Court Justices have been anything--anything--but 
moderate or centrist in the years since. They have been resolutely 
leftwing. But that is the point. ``Moderate'' isn't exactly a true 
descriptor for Democratic Supreme Court nominees; it is just burned 
into the printing presses of the editorial boards.
  Yet, even the New York Times has had to admit that President Obama's 
current nominee would give Americans the most leftwing Supreme Court in 
50 years--in 50 years. That is why the far left is squarely behind 
President Obama's campaign to deny the American people a say in this 
momentous decision.
  The American people understand what is at stake. The administration 
doesn't want the American people messing this up for them, and they 
will say what they always say to get what they want today: a far-left 
Supreme Court for decades to come. That is just one more reason why the 
American people are lucky to have a Judiciary chairman like Senator 
Grassley in their corner. Senator Grassley is passionate about giving 
the people of this country a voice in such a critical conversation. He 
has stood strong for the people throughout this debate, and he has 
proven himself a dedicated legislator throughout this new majority, 
with yet another Judiciary Committee-passed bill clearing the Senate on 
a bipartisan basis just this week. He understands that we don't need to 
get stuck fighting about one issue. He understands that we can let the 
American people have their voices heard on this matter while the Senate 
continues doing its work on important legislation.

                          ____________________