[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 1642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I spoke at length about the Supreme Court 
nomination yesterday, but I just want to underscore a few points. We in 
the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine the record of Judge 
Gorsuch robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise 
and consent, as we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do 
not.
  We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. Part of that 
process entails 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Democrat can require 
it. Many already have. It was a bar met by each of Obama's nominations; 
each received 60 votes. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do. 
And I would note that a 60-vote threshold was reached by each of them 
either in cloture or in the actual vote.
  On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan 
support is essential and should be a prerequisite. That is what a 60-
vote threshold does; 60 votes produces a mainstream candidate. And the 
need for a mainstream consensus candidate is greater now than ever 
before because we are in major new territory in two ways.
  First, because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, has 
shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business Court--
siding more and more with corporations, employers, and special 
interests over working and average Americans--we need a mainstream 
nominee to help reverse that trend, not accelerate it. I will remind my 
colleagues, that is how President Trump campaigned, but his nominee 
seems not to be in that direction at all--not for the average working 
person but, rather, for special business interests.
  Second, given that this administration--at least at its outset--seems 
to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory and 
is testing the very fabric of our Constitution within the first 20 
days, there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent 
jurist, someone who approaches the Court without ideological blinders, 
who has a history of operating outside and above politics, and who has 
the strength of will to stand up to a President who has already shown a 
willingness to bend the Constitution.
  Requiring 60 votes has always been the right thing to do on Supreme 
Court nominations, especially in these polarized times. But now in this 
new era of the Court, in this new administration, there is an even 
heavier weight on this tradition. And if the nominee cannot gain the 60 
votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, then the 
answer is not to change the rules; the answer is to change the nominee 
and find someone who can gain those 60 votes.
  Changing the rules for something as important as the Supreme Court 
gets rid of the tradition, eliminates the tradition of mainstream 
nominees who have bipartisan support. It would be so, so wrong to do. I 
know many of my colleagues on the other side are hesitant to do it, and 
I hope they will remain strong in that regard.

                          ____________________