Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, President Obama will fly to Chicago, where he will try to convince Americans that, despite his own actions while in the Senate to deny a Supreme Court nominee a vote, the Constitution somehow now requires the Senate to have a vote on his nominee no matter what, and thereby deny the American people a voice in the future of the Supreme Court. In the words of the Washington Post's Fact Checker, he will be ``telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.'' That is the Washington Post. I am sure he will gloss over the fact that the decision about filling this pivotal seat could impact our country for decades, that it could dramatically affect the most cherished constitutional rights, such as those contained in the First and Second Amendments. I am sure he will continue to demand that Washington spend its time fighting on one issue where we don't agree rather than working together on issues where we do. I am sure he will spend some time refuting the words of his own Vice President. I am sure he will repeatedly claim that his nominee is ``moderate''--not that he means it; it is just a useful piece of spin that has been dutifully echoed across the spans of the left and in the media for years.

Consider the recent Democratic Supreme Court nominees. One Washington Post columnist hailed the ``moderate'' record of President Obama's first pick to the Supreme Court. One New York newspaper proclaimed his second nominee a ``pragmatic centrist.'' When President Clinton made his Supreme Court nominations, the Post declared one a--you guessed it--``moderate,'' and the New York Times practically fell all over itself exalting the ``resolutely centrist'' style of the other. That last nominee--who said it would be a good idea to abolish Mother's Day, by the way--was not just firmly centrist, not just decisively centrist, but resolutely centrist, in the Times' opinion. The records of every one of these Supreme Court Justices have been anything--anything--but moderate or centrist in the years since. They have been resolutely leftwing. But that is the point. ``Moderate'' isn't exactly a true descriptor for Democratic Supreme Court nominees; it is just burned into the printing presses of the editorial boards.

Yet, even the New York Times has had to admit that President Obama's current nominee would give Americans the most leftwing Supreme Court in 50 years--in 50 years. That is why the far left is squarely behind President Obama's campaign to deny the American people a say in this momentous decision.

The American people understand what is at stake. The administration doesn't want the American people messing this up for them, and they will say what they always say to get what they want today: a far-left Supreme Court for decades to come. That is just one more reason why the American people are lucky to have a Judiciary chairman like Senator Grassley in their corner. Senator Grassley is passionate about giving the people of this country a voice in such a critical conversation. He has stood strong for the people throughout this debate, and he has proven himself a dedicated legislator throughout this new majority, with yet another Judiciary Committee-passed bill clearing the Senate on a bipartisan basis just this week. He understands that we don't need to get stuck fighting about one issue. He understands that we can let the American people have their voices heard on this matter while the Senate continues doing its work on important legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source