Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me also join my colleague in agreeing with the Senator from Illinois on his comments, and I, too, will join him on voting in favor of the Shaheen amendment. It is important we not only take on this question of opioid drug abuse but that we also make sure we fund the program. I thank him for his leadership. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of moments and join with many of my colleagues to talk about an issue of enormous importance on the constitutional obligation to fulfill our duty in terms of reviewing whomever the President of the United States nominates for the Supreme Court. I wish to start, though, by saying a few words about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and to offer my condolences to his family. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Judge Scalia's decisions--and mechanically I disagreed with many of them--he was a remarkable jurist and he was a remarkable individual. Over the last 10-plus years, I got to know him and his wife Maureen more in a social setting. He was warm, witty, charming, brilliant, and he will be missed by all who agreed or disagreed with him. My thoughts continue to be with Maureen and his family.

I rise, I think, almost in the mode of what I believe Justice Scalia would have said as someone who was a strict constructionist and someone who believed so firmly in the words of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are quite clear in article II, section 2, where it says the President shall nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent.

So my request to all colleagues in this body is simply let's do our job. It is not if the President will nominate, it is when the President will nominate--and I hope he nominates soon--we should give that nominee their due consideration, a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote. The President has repeatedly voiced his strong commitment to nominating an eminently qualified replacement. That is his duty, and we must do ours.

To those who suggest we should wait and let the American people decide, the truth is, they already did. In 2012, the American people voted to return President Obama to the White House for a second 4-year term. That 4-year term doesn't end until January 20, 2017. I believe there is ample time to vet a nominee and still wrap up this process this spring.

Are we going to allow politics to totally overtake the work of this body? Are we resigned to a complete and utter failure to govern until next January?

I know the Presiding Officer and I both share a common background; that is, a background in business. It is remarkable to me. No business in America--no business in the world--would operate under the presumption that because it is a Presidential year, that somehow we can default on all of our duties and simply kick over every issue until next year. If we operated a business that way, we would be out of business.

I believe it is absolutely essential that when the President--and I hope expeditiously--nominates an individual to the Supreme Court, that this body do its job constitutionally: review that applicant, meet with that applicant, hold hearings on that nominee, and then give that nominee the up-or-down vote the Constitution requires.

The remarkable thing is in a year where there is a lot of commentary about what the public wants, I can at least tell my colleagues what the public wants in Virginia. They want us to do our job.

I have received an overwhelming response from Virginians from one end of the Commonwealth to the other. They are expressing their opinion clearly about how the nomination process should move forward. A lot of Virginians are expressing their thoughts about what kind of nominee the Senate should confirm or not confirm, but what they are not saying is that the U.S. Senate should punt on this constitutional responsibility. They want us to do our job.

Over the past week, what I have found most striking is the awkward public position held by so many people who otherwise claim to be advocates of a strict reading of the words of the U.S. Constitution, who somehow are saying--imagining something that doesn't appear in the Constitution, that a President or at least this President in his last year--we are not going to follow the Constitution. We are going to kick it over until next year. I believe that is irresponsible. I believe it is inappropriate. I believe that does not follow the interpretation of the Constitution and quite honestly I don't believe it would follow what Justice Scalia, who was a strict constitutionalist, would want to see this body do.

Yet we saw some on the other side of the aisle, literally within hours of Justice Scalia's passing, saying: No vote. No proceeding. We are not going to do our job. We saw certain members of the leadership meet yesterday with the President, again reaffirming their unwillingness to do their job.

This failure to act, this failure to do our constitutional duty, could result--will result--in a vacancy on the Supreme Court stretching close to a year, across two distinct terms of our highest Court. Over that time, the Supreme Court could be deciding extremely important cases, and in many ways they are not going to function as the Constitution laid out.

Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle often quote President Reagan. President Reagan himself said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.''

As a matter of fact, if we don't do our job, in effect, what we will be doing is potentially shutting down another branch of government. Regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum, if there is one message we have heard loud and clear over the last couple of years, the American people do not abide shutting down various branches of government. The American people deserve better than this.

I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up and do their job. Let's give the President's Supreme Court nominee the appropriate respect, hear them out, have those hearings, and give the Senate a chance to exercise its will in a straight up-or-down vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source