Supreme Court Confirmation Debates

SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION DEBATES

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, somewhere out there in our country today walks the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Very soon, this Senate will begin to debate that person's confirmation. We don't know yet the nominee's professional background or experience, but sadly, if the past is any guide, we do know what kind of reception that nominee is likely--likely to receive. That is why I rise to speak today.

No one would argue that some recent Supreme Court confirmation debates have been less than ennobling. But it doesn't have to be that way. The experiences of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer by any standard, two very liberal nominees--when my party was in the minority, prove that we can make Senate confirmation to the High Court a rational and orderly process. Sadly, whenever the nominees are named by Republican Presidents, that doesn't seem to be the case.

After recent media reports, I am concerned we may have a circus rather than a dignified confirmation process. Specifically, the Washington Post reported last week that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have a three-part strategy to defeat the next Supreme Court nominee.

First, according to the Post, they plan to complain that consultation by the President, no matter what the amount, is not sufficient. Second, they plan to paint the nominee as ``extreme.'' Finally, when all else fails, they will object that documents produced in relation to the nominee are somehow inadequate.

I am troubled because we are already beginning to see the first salvos in this three-pronged plan of attack. A week before there was even a vacancy, our Democratic colleagues sent a letter to President Bush demanding that he consult with them. Senator Schumer then predicted a ``battle royal'' unless the degree of consultation satisfied him.

My good friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, expressed the frustration of many of us on this side of the aisle when he went to the floor to appeal for civility. As he said so well, ``It is hardly the time to be looking to pick a fight.''

The fact is, the scope of consultation that President Bush has engaged in is unprecedented. Let me repeat: The scope of consultation that President Bush has engaged in is without precedent. He and his staff have reached out to over 60 Senators from both parties individually to solicit their opinions. The President has had meetings with the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He has laid his door open to any and all suggestions our friends on the other side of the aisle would care to give. Yet some of our Democratic friends now complain that his extensive outreach is not enough. They demand that the President give them the names of the people he is thinking about nominating. They want, in effect, to serve as co-Presidents by co-nominating a replacement to the Supreme Court.

Despite what some on the far left may say, no fair-minded person can conclude that President Bush has not adequately consulted with the Democrats. He has done more than the Constitution requires by far, and more than his predecessors did. He has consulted with the Senate. Case closed.

Let us now turn to chapter two of the playbook to defeat the nominee: Distort and destroy the nominee's record and character. I have been in the Senate for the last seven Supreme Court nominations. Sadly, there is a historical pattern of devastating, defamatory attacks on honest men and women who just happen to be nominated to the High Court by Republican Presidents. Take what was said about one current member of the Court. During his nomination hearing, he was denounced for his ``consistent opposition to women's rights.'' We were told this nominee's actions ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face in the marketplace, as well as an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.'' This was what was said about this current member of the Supreme Court. We were told this nominee had a ``propensity to find against a female plaintiff,'' that his judicial decisions ``have flown in the face of the applicable law as duly passed by Congress,'' and his record ``raises the question of whether he can fairly, judiciously, and impartially review those cases which will reach him as a Justice on the Supreme Court.''

These incredibly harsh criticisms were made by the National Organization of Women. The nominee? Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed to the Court by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Many of Justice Stevens' opinions have brought no small measure of joy to the very same liberal activists who denounced his nomination in such extreme terms. Unfortunately, such hyperbolic attacks have been an almost inevitable fate of Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents. I repeat: that has been the fate of Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents.

Let me give a more recent example regarding another current Justice. Before this person's confirmation hearing, one liberal activist group concluded the nominee's ``opinions and legal briefs threaten to undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups.'' And during his hearing, this group said it was ``convinced that [this nominee] will not protect the rights of those suffering discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or literacy.''

Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice made these accusations. I notice Ms. Aron's group and more like it are just as ready to pounce on the new nominee today.

Who was she talking about? Justice David Souter, appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990. It is hard to believe, but true. Such personal invective and histrionics bore no rational relationship to Justice Souter's record and, once again, I doubt these same groups would have a problem with Justice Souter today.

It wasn't just liberal interest groups who made such sharp criticisms of Justice Souter, however. Our colleagues on the other side also questioned Justice Souter's fitness for the Court. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, said,

If Judge Souter joins the current closely divided Supreme Court, he will solidify a five-to-four anti-civil rights, anti-privacy majority inclined to turn back the clock on the historic progress of recent decades. If so, literally millions of our fellow citizens will be denied their rights as Americans to equal opportunity and equal justice under law.

That was Senator Kennedy in 1990, asserting that the Senate's confirmation of Justice Souter actually risked turning back the clock and jeopardizing the rights of millions of Americans.

We all know that didn't happen. I can only hope that, realizing that, my friends on the other side of the aisle will stop and take a deep breath before attacking the nominee this time around. However, it appears these same old groups are singing the same old song. The ink was not even dry on Justice O'Connor's resignation letter when the far left again began ratcheting up the same tired rhetoric, complaining that the ``sky was falling'' courtesy of a Supreme Court appointment by a Republican President.

For example, People for the American Way complained, in its usual fashion, that ``our very national identity hangs in the balance.'' And MoveOn.org, a group so far out of the mainstream that it promoted a pacifist response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and yet is a major funding source for Democratic candidates, predicted that the nominee would be an ``extremist who will undermine the rights of individuals and families.''

These left-wing attack groups are loaded for bear and have one thing in common when it comes to a Republican President's nominee for the Supreme Court: Their favorite letters in the word ``nomination'' are N-O.

So that is why I am a bit apprehensive of the impending Supreme Court confirmation. I think this Senate can have a fair, dignified debate that the country will be proud to see. There is no reason we should not. I believe Senators should be passionate in their beliefs and stand up for what is right. I am not asking anyone to be muzzled. All I am asking for is a little bit of civility, civility and compassion for the man or woman who will soon be named to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Why don't we try looking at the nominee's record? Let's argue the facts. But I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, don't prejudge. Don't start up the attack machine, don't declare war and begin the reflexive demagoging of qualified Republican nominees, regardless of who they are.

According to a USA Today article, a recent Gallup Poll found that 86 percent--no small majority--86 percent of Americans believe that our Democratic friends will try to block President Bush's Supreme Court nominee for ``inappropriate political reasons.'' The public is beginning to see this knee-jerk opposition for what it truly is: confrontation for confrontation's sake.

I hope this is not the path we take. According to history, according to media reports, according to the overheated rhetoric of the left-wing fringe groups that have already began gnashing their teeth, it looks that way. But it doesn't have to be that way. Here is what we should do. We should have a fair process. We should treat the nominees with dignity and with respect. And we should have the Court at full strength when it starts its new term on the first Monday in October, October 3.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov/