Deborah Ross: The People of North Carolina Deserve Better than Burr's Partisan Obstruction

Press Release

Deborah Ross, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, released the following statement calling on Richard Burr to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities and consider President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court.

"President Obama has named his nominee to the Supreme Court, and now Senator Richard Burr and his Republican colleagues need to do their job," said Deborah. "Richard Burr swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and North Carolinians expect him to keep his word. The people of North Carolina deserve better than this partisan obstruction. This is politics at its worst, and Richard Burr is once again showing why he's part of the problem with Washington."

Last week, Senator Burr told Time Warner Cable News that "there will be no hearing for a nominee, and there will be no vote for a nominee," claiming that "the Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until there is a new president."

While Senator Burr is now obstructing a Supreme Court nominee, he has previously supported the Senate voting on judicial nominees under a Republican president.

In 2005 during a Republican administration, Burr was a strong proponent of the Senate voting on judicial nominations, saying that "denying judicial nominees of both parties, who seek to serve their country, an up-or-down vote, simply is not fair." He even went so far as to call this kind of obstruction "an injustice to the American people."

Senator Burr is now picking politics over fulfilling his constitutional duties.

Senator Burr's record political hypocrisy:

Burr: "If one of my colleagues objects to a particular nominee, it is certainly appropriate and fair for my colleague to vote against that nominee on the floor of the Senate. But denying judicial nominees of both parties, who seek to serve their country, an up-or-down vote, simply is not fair." BURR: "Many of us have worked toward a fair process where all judicial nominees with majority support, regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote. Let me say that again: regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote. What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness. Let me be perfectly clear, though. I believe if one of my colleagues objects to a particular nominee, it is certainly appropriate and fair for my colleague to vote against that nominee on the floor of the Senate. But denying judicial nominees of both parties, who seek to serve their country, an up-or-down vote, simply is not fair. It was certainly not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." [Congressional Record, 5/19/05]

Burr: "I was sent here to do what the people of North Carolina heard me say that I would do, and that was to work hard and to accomplish solutions to real problems" which "includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees an up-or-down vote." Senator Burr issued the following press release: "Sen. Richard Burr today took to the floor of the United States Senate to urge his colleagues to allow all federal judicial nominations supported by a majority of Senators an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. "There is no doubt in my mind that I was sent here to do what the people of North Carolina heard me say that I would do, and that was to work hard and to accomplish solutions to real problems,' Burr told his colleagues. "There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.' In calling for a resolution on the continued obstruction of judicial nominations, Burr added, "I remain hopeful still today that a resolution can be reached. Many of us have worked toward a fair process where all judicial nominees with majority support, regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote.'" [Office of Sen. Burr, Press Release, 5/19/05]

Burr: "It's an injustice to the American people that the threat of a filibuster would be applied" to judicial nominations. "The Senate continued its heated debate on the status of President Bush's judicial nominations and the Senate's filibuster rules, as both Republicans and Democrats injected racial politics into the discussion yesterday. "It's an injustice to the American people that the threat of a filibuster would be applied,' Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. said during an impassioned 15-minute floor speech yesterday. […] Burr, who spearheaded a press conference yesterday with the six other freshman Republican senators demanding an up-or-down vote, said that this was simply a matter of fulfilling their constitutional obligation -- something all senators have been allowed to do in the past. "All judicial nominations in the past received an up-or-down vote when they had the support of the majority,' Burr said. "There was always a gentleman's agreement (that there would be a vote up or down). That agreement was broken in the last Congress.'" [Winston-Salem Journal, 5/20/05]

According to Public Policy Polling, 66% of North Carolinians believe there should be a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee before the next president takes the oath 310 days from now.

Senator Burr's rational for partisan obstruction is wrong:

For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president's Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. Six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900 and three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy -- appointed by President Reagan -- who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February of 1988.

Since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation has been 67 days. And since 1875, every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas. The last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.

Deborah Ross represented Wake County in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 2003-2013 where she chaired both the Judiciary and Elections Committees and for more than two decades has been a practicing attorney in North Carolina.

Source