[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1275-1276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate will continue working to put 
into place President Trump's Cabinet, and tonight we will have a 
cloture vote on the nominee for Secretary of State. This nominee is 
well qualified. He has been a leader at one of America's largest 
employers, and he has the type of international work experience that 
will serve him well as our next Secretary of State. We are looking 
forward to advancing his nomination tonight.
  Remember, it is in everybody's best interest to confirm each of the 
President's well-qualified nominees in a timely manner so they can 
begin the very important work before them on matters of national 
security, the economy, health care, and so many others.
  It is also in our Nation's best interests to confirm the next Supreme 
Court nominee, which the President has said he intends to announce 
tomorrow. Justice Antonin Scalia was a towering figure on the Supreme 
Court. His unfortunate passing was not only a great loss to our 
country, but it came, as we all know, as our country was already in the 
midst of a contentious Presidential election process. So in keeping 
with the Biden rule, which states that action on a Supreme Court 
nomination must be put off until the election campaign is over, I have 
stood firm on the principle that the American people should have a 
voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. I 
consistently maintained that the next President would fill this 
vacancy. I held to that view even when nearly everyone thought the 
President would be Hillary Clinton. Our friends on the left may lack 
the same consistency on this topic. The principle we have followed, 
after all, is not only known as the Biden rule but also the Schumer 
standard.
  But there is one thing from which we can expect the left not to 
waiver: trying to paint whoever is actually nominated in apocalyptic 
terms. It does not matter whom this Republican President nominates. It 
does not matter whom any Republican President nominates really. The 
left has been rolling out the same tired playbook for decades.
  When the Republican President was George Herbert Walker Bush, groups 
on the left said the record of his first Supreme Court nominee was 
``disturbing'' and ``very troubling'' and that his opinions ``threaten 
to undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters and other 
disadvantaged groups.'' That is what the left said about President Bush 
41's first nominee. Who was it? David Souter.
  When the Republican President was Ronald Reagan, groups on the left 
also

[[Page 1276]]

said that the record of one of his nominees was ``troubling.'' They 
even called him a ``sexist'' and said he ``would be a disaster for 
women'' if confirmed. The nominee in question? Anthony Kennedy.
  When the Republican President was Gerald Ford, the left said that 
they had ``grave concern with his Supreme Court nominee'' and that the 
record of this nominee ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity 
to the problems women face.'' In fact, they said he was disqualified 
from being a member of the Supreme Court of the United States because 
of his consistent opposition to women's rights. Who was the nominee 
they were referring to? John Paul Stevens.
  I am serious. That is what they said about John Paul Stevens, David 
Souter, and Anthony Kennedy.
  So we can expect to hear a lot of end-times rhetoric from the left 
again today. In fact, we already have. The same groups on the left that 
always seem to say the sky is falling when a Republican President puts 
forward a Supreme Court nominee are saying it is falling again. Only 
this time, they are saying it before we even have a nominee. We don't 
even have a nominee yet.
  President Trump has a list of about 20 Americans he is considering 
nominating to the Supreme Court. These men and women have different 
professional backgrounds, different life experiences. Some have 
distinguished themselves in State courts; others have distinguished 
themselves in Federal Court. Some are appellate court judges; others 
are trial court judges. Some passed the Senate without a single 
negative vote against their nomination; others passed the Senate 
without requiring a rollcall vote at all on their nomination.
  The bipartisan support, the years of judicial experience, the 
impressive credentials--none of these appear to matter to some on the 
left. They say things like ``We are prepared to oppose every name on 
the list.'' That is right. Every single name on the list they have 
already announced opposition to. Even more troubling, some Senate 
Democrats are saying the same thing. My friend from New York said it 
was hard for him to imagine a nominee from President Trump whom Senate 
Democrats could support. We don't even have one yet.
  I hope we can all skip past that and get down to our serious work. 
The election is now behind us. The President has been working to make 
his decision on a nominee. We expect him to announce that decision 
tomorrow. The Senate should respect the results of the election and 
treat this newly elected President's nominee in the same way the 
nominees of other newly elected Presidents have been treated; that is, 
with careful consideration followed by an up-or-down vote.
  We had two nominations in the first term of President Clinton: 
Ginsburg and Breyer. Both got up-or-down votes. There was no 
filibuster. We had two nominations in the first term of President 
Obama: Sotomayor and Kagan. No filibuster. Up-or-down votes. First-term 
Presidents. We have every right to expect the same courtesy from 
today's minority when we receive this nomination tomorrow.

                          ____________________