Water Resources Development Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise because of three numbers--three simple but important numbers--100, 176, and 9. What do all of those have to do with the matter that I think should be before us today? Well, it has been 176 days since President Obama did his job under the Constitution and nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court, a consensus candidate, to our Nation's highest Court following the untimely passing of Justice Scalia. We have, of course, 100 Senators whose challenge it is to find ways to work together across the aisle and do our job and make progress for our country. It has also been 100 years that the U.S. Senate has had a Judiciary Committee--a committee on which I have the honor of serving. In the 100 years we have had a Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate, we have never had this situation, where the President does his job under the Constitution and nominates an eminently qualified jurist and the Senate Judiciary Committee refuses--just refuses--to conduct a hearing, to give a vote, to bring it to the floor, and to offer a final vote.
Obviously, we have disagreements. We have disagreements in this body over principles and ideology. That is part of our job to come here representing our States and their different priorities and values. But to steadfastly refuse for 176 days to even convene a hearing, to even begin the process to allow the American people to have some insight into the quality and caliber of the man nominated by our President strikes me as an unprecedented refusal. It is the first time in a century that we have so blatantly had one group in this body refusing to proceed.
Our window for acting is closing because in just a few weeks, on October 3, the Supreme Court's new term begins. So the refusal to act and to fill the ninth vacant seat has now had a serious ongoing impact on one term of the Supreme Court and now soon on a second term of the Supreme Court. We have never had a Supreme Court vacancy go this long in modern history.
In terms of the qualifications of the candidate, let's just take a quick look at the public record so far.
A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General--the lawyers of the United States, the persons who represent the United States in court and often before the Supreme Court--including Paul Clement, Ted Olson, and Ken Starr, have endorsed Judge Garland as ``superbly qualified,'' having ``demonstrated the temperament, intellect, and experience to serve'' on the Supreme Court. This is not a sharply divisive nominee who is pursuing a particular ideological agenda. This is a well- regarded, well-respected, seasoned senior member of the Federal judiciary.
Top lawyers at 44 U.S. companies have written to the Senate calling Judge Garland ``exceptionally well-qualified'' and noting that a prolonged vacancy continues to leave important, even vital, business issues unresolved before the Court, giving them a lack of predictability and leading them to have to make decisions in the absence of clear guidance from the Court.
Just yesterday my colleagues and I joined some of Judge Garland's former law clerks in front of the Supreme Court. Sometimes when I have had the opportunity to review nominees for Federal judgeships, I like to hear from those who previously worked for them. In a letter to the Senate, a group of Judge Garland's former clerks noted that ``Chief Judge Garland deeply believes that our system of justice works best when those who see things differently are able to work together, in a collegial manner, to arrive at a just result.''
Yesterday we heard again firsthand accounts from Judge Garland's clerks of his wisdom, mentorship, decency, and commitment to justice. I wish we could follow the same approach in the Senate that Judge Garland's clerks and other former coworkers said he followed in the Department of Justice, as a career prosecutor, and as a judge on the DC Circuit--an approach that focuses on collegiality and success.
I had the honor of meeting with Judge Garland on April 7. In addition to his truly impressive intellect and compelling and long judicial experience, our conversation revealed to me a person of real character, good judgment, deep sensitivity, and thoughtfulness. I wish I had the opportunity in front of a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee to ask him similar questions that would allow my constituents, the President's constituents, and other Members of this body to ask and answer important questions before the American people, before a committee of this body, and before our colleagues so that we could do our job and move forward. Yet we haven't had this hearing--the hearing that the American people so need and deserve.
In May, my Democratic colleagues held a public meeting to try to further explore and air Judge Garland's background, where we heard from four esteemed, significant, and experienced individuals deeply familiar with Judge Garland's experience and character--a former court of appeals judge, a former U.S. attorney, a former Cabinet Secretary, and a U.S. law professor who clerked for Judge Garland. All four of them urged us to move forward and consider his nomination.
Of those four, Judge Lewis' testimony has particularly stuck with me. He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in September of 1992, which, to the best of my recollection, was an election year. He was then confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate in October of 1992, less than a month before a hotly contested Presidential election. Judge Lewis previously came to testify in support of then-Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit before his elevation to the Supreme Court. Judge Lewis warned us earlier this year in this meeting that what we are doing is not only deadlocking the Supreme Court, but it is diminishing it.
Our system of justice, our Federal courts, and our constitutional order are one of America's most precious assets. As a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have the honor of traveling to other countries to represent our country, most often on bipartisan delegations, where we urge them to follow our model. Sadly, in too many countries I have visited, they cannot depend upon their judiciary to be truly independent, to enforce the rule of law, to issue judgments that are in keeping with their laws, traditions, or, most importantly, their constitution. That is why I am disappointed that we are engaging in this unprecedented refusal to follow the rules, to follow the process of the Constitution and the Senate and to give this important nominee a hearing. That is why I am disappointed by Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley in their refusal to consider Judge Garland's qualifications. It is my hope they will reconsider.
In Chief Judge Garland's nomination, President Obama fulfilled one of his most important constitutional responsibilities. Now all 100 Senators, on this 176th day that we are waiting to fill this 9th vacancy on the Supreme Court, must do our job and provide appropriate advice and possibly consent to the President's nominee. The Senate has a valuable opportunity to show our constituents, the American people, and the world that even in the midst of a divisive Presidential campaign, our democratic and constitutional system still works. We cannot allow yearlong Supreme Court vacancies to become routine, and I am deeply concerned about the manner in which the Senate is conducting itself and the possibility that this unprecedented inaction will set a precedent for future vacancies and send a signal to the world that our constitutional order cannot still function.
I remain hopeful that my colleagues will give serious thought to the systemic consequences of what we are doing through our refusal to even hold a hearing on Judge Garland. It is long past time to put the good of our Nation and the Constitution above the politics of the day and to get to work on this confirmation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source