Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, our Nation is in the midst of a Presidential election in which the American people are currently deciding who will be our next Commander in Chief. In my home State of North Carolina, many voters have already submitted their absentee ballots and early voting will begin soon.

This election year is especially important. In addition to electing our next President, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in who should be our next Supreme Court Justice. This is a rare opportunity to let people determine the composition of the highest Court in the land, an institution that dramatically affects the lives of all of us.

While the stakes weren't as high in 2014 as they are today, the voice of the American people was still heard loud and clear nonetheless. In 2014, the American people sent a message about their displeasure for the President's disregard for our Nation's system of checks and balances. The American people sent a message about their opposition to the President's misuse of Executive orders to bypass the will of the Congress, and the American people sent a message by electing a new Senate majority.

Perhaps the memo the Nation sent to the President in 2014 is the reason the minority leadership is now attempting to deny the American people's full voice from being heard in this election. The minority doesn't want the people to decide the composition of the Supreme Court, so they have claimed there is a constitutional requirement for the Senate to give the President's Supreme Court nominee a vote.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution makes this clear. While the President may nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, the Senate holds the power to grant or withhold consent for those nominees. This is not difficult or unique in a constitutional sense. In fact, in 2005, the senior Senator from Nevada took to this very Senate floor and this is what he declared:

The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.

The Senate is doing its job by withholding consent, and that is exactly why the rules of the Senate provide further guidance on what happens when the Senate exercises its authority not to advance a judicial nominee.

Senate rule XXXI states: ``Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President.''

The Constitution states and the Senate rules anticipate that the Senate can exercise its clear authority to withhold consent on any nominee offered by the President. It is not a novel concept that the Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled during an election year.

We can look back to 1992, probably before these pages were even born, when Senate Judiciary Committee then-Chairman Joe Biden eloquently explained the need for the Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election cycle and that it should be addressed after the American people had their say in the election.

Chairman Biden, now Vice President Biden, said:

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination--until after the political campaign season is over.

He went on to say:

And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

The Vice President concludes by saying:

I'm sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it.

But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Vice President Biden's remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable in 2016. The campaign is already underway.

It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our Republic not to launch our Nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next President.

Vice President Biden--and this is not something I have said very often--was absolutely right. There should be no hearings. There should be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw in 2016 is to hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people's voices have been heard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source