Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to thank my friend for his comments about addiction. I agree with the Senator from Ohio, talking about the victims from Ohio. I can assure him we have victims in Virginia and all across the country, and we need to get this legislation to the President's desk so people who are hurt by the scourge of drugs can get the treatment they need. Again, I thank him for his leadership. Nomination of Merrick Garland

Madam President, I rise to again express my disappointment that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continued to obstruct consideration of an eminently qualified candidate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

It has now been 36 days since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland; that is, 36 days that our highest Court has been relegated to falling short of its full constitutional obligations. Make no mistake. The Senate's inaction is already having a tangible impact on the Court's ability to function effectively. During the current session, we have seen our eight current Justices end up in a 4-to-4 deadlock in three separate cases since Justice Scalia's passing--effectively muting the Court's voice in consequential judicial proceedings.

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.''

More recently, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it quite simply, as she always does. She said: ``I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.''

Indeed, the Supreme Court has granted only three cases since Justice Scalia died--a number experts say is extraordinarily low and an indication that the eight sitting Justices are acutely aware of the precarious position the Court is in with a vacancy.

Many Senators apparently believe that President Obama shouldn't be able to make appointments under article II because he is in the last year of his term. The record shows there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President is only President for 3 of the 4 years of his or her term. I don't understand that reasoning. Under that reasoning, any of those same Senators who have made that argument shouldn't be voting on any bill that comes before this body in the last year of their Senate term. If we continue with that rationale, the President's office and the Senate would lead to further dysfunction. Quite honestly, that logic is beyond the pale.

It is clear as well that the American people expect us to do our job. Recent polls show that by a 2-to-1 margin Americans want the Senate to hold hearings and vote on Judge Garland's nomination. That is why I remain so perplexed by the logical contortions that many of my colleagues are undertaking to justify their obstruction and quite honestly their failure to do their job.

I had the chance to meet with Judge Garland last week. His qualifications and dedication to public service are beyond reproach. He has received strong bipartisan support in the past, but what also stood out to me are his measured view of the role of the judiciary, his strong record on national security, and commitment to keeping our country safe.

This past Tuesday marked the 21st anniversary of the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City. On that tragic day in 1995, 168 people, including 19 children, lost their lives. To this day, the Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our Nation's history.

Judge Garland at that time was Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. He was the guy who led the criminal investigation and supervised the prosecution of the bombers. Merrick Garland fought for justice for the victims and the families in Oklahoma City. Through his tireless efforts, deep understanding of the law, and attention to detail, he ensured that the prosecution had an airtight case. Ultimately, both bombers were successfully convicted.

This is the highest profile instance in which Judge Garland exhibited his commitment to making and keeping our country safe, but it is far from the only one. In my meeting with him, it was clear that the safety and security of our citizens is an issue that quite honestly keeps him up at night.

What also stands out about my conversation with Judge Garland is his sense of humility. Our conversation and his judicial record demonstrate to me that he is a moderate, thoughtful, consensus candidate. As Judge Garland said in the Rose Garden on the day he was nominated:

People must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the Constitution, and to the statutes passed by Congress.

He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law; not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life, and is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years.

These are not the words nor the track record of a judicial activist. In my opinion, this is the kind of judge that Merrick Garland has been: not a judicial activist but someone who recognizes the important role and the important balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

I am encouraged that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have at least begun to give Judge Garland the courtesy of a meeting, but meetings alone are not sufficient. The American people deserve the opportunity to hear Judge Garland's qualifications debated in a public hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and they deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. That is all we ask.

I again urge my colleagues to give Judge Garland the consideration other nominees have received. At the end of the day, if they choose to vote against him, that is their right, but the idea that somehow they are interpreting the Constitution to say that in the last year of a Presidency a qualified judge should not even receive consideration of a hearing and a vote is quite honestly beyond the pale.

Too often these debates end up going on and become extraordinarily complicated. In many ways, what I hear from Virginians--regardless of whether they want me to support Judge Garland--is a very simple message: Do your job. In the coming days and weeks, I hope the Senate will do its job and give Judge Garland the consideration of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee and then take up this eminently qualified jurist's nomination on the floor and give him the vote he deserves.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source