Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KING. Madam President, I listened with great attentiveness to the very distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, whom I have the utmost respect for, but I feel that I must respond, given this important question that is not before this body but should be.

The first point this Senator would make is that the term ``lameduck'' is being used rather loosely. Lameduck, as I have always understood it, is the period between the election and a swearing-in of a successor. A lameduck Congress is the Congress before November and January. A lameduck President is the President's term between November and January. I think, as I have always understood the use of that term, to apply it to a President who is in the middle part or early part of the fourth year of his or her term is not an accurate characterization or usage of the term ``lameduck.''

The distinguished chairman said we are going to have a debate. I am delighted to hear that. The question is, When? I wasn't here in 1992. I wasn't here in 1987. I wasn't here in 2007. So I am trying to figure out how to respond to this situation, how to understand this situation, with reference to the Constitution.

There are lots of provisions in the Constitution that are subject to windy law review articles, to lengthy court decisions, to interpretation, to characterization of what they actually mean, what was the original intent of the Framers, and all of those complicated issues of discussion, dissection, and explication. But the word ``four,'' as in one, two, three, four, and the word ``shall,'' as in ``shall do something,'' are not among those confusing terms.

I would submit that the President has a constitutional obligation to submit a nominee to this body and this body has a constitutional obligation to consider that nomination--not an obligation to confirm, not an obligation to say yes, but an obligation to consider it.

The Presidential term is 4 years; it is not 3 years and 1 month. That is in the Constitution. Article II, section 2, says the President ``shall nominate . . . Ministers . . . Judges of the supreme Court . . . with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.''

I would not for a minute presuppose what the decision of the Senate should be, but to argue that the Senate will not even hear the nomination, will not discuss it, will not debate it--in fact, some of the Members have said they will not even meet the person, with no knowledge whatsoever of who this person is. The President may nominate a person who is a combination of Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, and St. Thomas of Aquinas, but he or she is not even going to be met with. I don't understand that as a matter of interpretation of the Constitution.

There is a lot of discussion about the people ``should have a role'' in this decision. The Constitution makes that clear. They do have that role when they elect the President of the United States for a 4-year term, not for a 3-year, 1-month term.

I can see no wiggle room on the President's obligation to submit a nominee to this body. This decision to stall this nomination, to not meet with a nominee, to not hold hearings, to not hold a debate, to not hold a discussion, has profound implications for the Court because the reality is this means the Court will be without a Justice for essentially two terms.

We lost Justice Scalia in February. The term of the Court doesn't end until later this spring. He will not be present for the final decisionmaking on the matters that have been before the Court this term. Then, if we wait until a new President is elected, the new President comes into office on January 20, 2017, and submits a new nomination almost immediately. Let's say it is within the first 2 weeks of his or her taking office. The average time for consideration of a Justice is between 60 and 90 days. We are into February, March, April, and that is into the next term of the U.S. Supreme Court. By delaying this decision, we are basically going to leave the Court without a Justice, in contravention to the explicit provision of the Constitution, for what amounts to two terms.

This Senator wants to be very clear: I am not saying that there is any constitutional obligation on this body to approve the President's nominee, but I believe there is a constitutional obligation to consider that nominee. That is really what we are debating.

I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman say we are going to have this debate, but we ought to have it now, under the Constitution, which requires the President to submit a nominee and, I would argue, requires this body to at least consider that nominee, to hold hearings, to let the people hear who the nominee is, to hear what their views are, and to make the decision within this body whether this nominee should be approved for this incredibly important, august, and solemn obligation to undertake as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Again, ``four'' and ``shall'' are not debatable propositions. Whether or not the Senate should confirm is clearly within the discretion of every Senator in this body, but to say that we will not have the opportunity to make that decision I think is contrary to the Constitution. It is contrary to the best interests of the American people, and I am surprised, frankly, that my colleagues are taking this position. Nobody is saying how they have to vote. If they don't like the nominee, they can vote them down, but why not have a hearing, why not have a debate, why not have a discussion, why not find out who this person is? The President may nominate someone who is of great appeal to both sides of this body.

I would hope that the distinguished chair of the committee would reconsider his decision--the committee's decision--to not even hold a hearing and to carry out what I believe is the obligation to at least hear the nomination--not approve it, but to at least hear it--and therefore let the American people participate in this discussion. Therefore, let the American people participate in this discussion. But let's also follow the explicit provisions of the Constitution that require the President to submit a nominee and, I believe, require us to at least consider it, if not approve.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source