Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on Friday evening, the Nation learned the sad news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away.
From her time as one of the few women in the Ivy League, to being only the second woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Ginsburg was and is an inspiration to generations of Americans.
Throughout her remarkable life, Justice Ginsburg fought to secure equal rights and opportunities for all. She was a champion of women's rights in particular and broke down gender barriers throughout both her personal life and professional career.
During this difficult and often divisive time, I think there is a lot we can learn from the way Justice Ginsburg interacted with those with whom she disagreed, especially her good friend the late Justice Scalia. If you looked at a diagram outlining the ideologies of these two Justices, these two would be at opposite poles. They shared very little in common in terms of the way they approached the job of being a Supreme Court Justice.
She was once asked about their close relationship, which stood in contrast to their vastly different views, and she said: ``You can disagree without being disagreeable.'' Well, we have all heard that before, and it is absolutely true--unfortunately, not practiced enough. But I think that sort of approach should be a reminder to all of us about the importance of treating each other with civility and respect, even when the person standing in front of you or on the opposite side of a computer screen has a vastly different world view from our own.
Our Nation is grateful for Justice Ginsburg's 27 years on the High Court and her incredible contributions to our history. Sandy and I send our condolences to the entire Ginsburg family, as well as the countless colleagues and friends she earned throughout her lifetime.
As Leader McConnell said this morning, the Senate is preparing to fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent. Throughout history, there has been a Supreme Court vacancy 29 times during a Presidential election year, and each time, the President has fulfilled his duty to put forth a nomination. Of those 29 election-year instances, 19 occurred when the President and the Senate majority were of the same political party. All but two of those nominees were confirmed.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to compare this to the vacancy in 2016, but the facts were different. At that point, we had a President of one party in his final year in office and a Senate majority of another party. You would literally have to go back to 1880 to find an example of the Senate confirming an opposite party President's Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
The other difference is that President Obama was not on the ballot in 2016, so it made sense for the American people to weigh in. Do you think we would still be hearing the same arguments from our friends across the aisle if Hillary Clinton had become President and been able to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia? I think not.
Voters cast their ballots and not only elected President Trump but also a Senate Republican majority. In 2018, they expanded that majority following the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. If the American people had elected a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate majority, I have no doubt that Senator Schumer would act on that nomination as well.
Just as the Senate has always done, we will thoroughly review the qualifications and experience of whomever the President nominates. We should not rush that process. It should be conducted carefully and consistently with how the Senate has previously handled Supreme Court nominations. When that process is complete, the Senate will vote on that nominee sometime this year.
In some cases, the confirmation process has moved quickly. In the case of Justice Ginsburg, she was confirmed in only 42 days. In others, the process has taken longer and been significantly more contentious.
I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to restrain themselves from repeating the smear campaign that took place during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, including the Judiciary Committee hearing. I hope they will refrain from making threats, like threats of packing the Court in the future, which Justice Ginsburg herself opposed and warned would make the Court partisan, because if Democrats decide to add additional members to the U.S. Supreme Court when they are in power, then the pressure will be irresistible for Republicans to add other Justices to the Court, and it would look--and it would be clearly a partisan institution rather than an impartial judge of the law and the facts.
The President has every right to put forth a nomination, and we have an obligation to give him or her due consideration under our advice and consent responsibilities. As always, we will be thorough, and I hope, unlike last time, we can be civil and treat all with respect.
I am prepared to fulfill my responsibilities as a Member of this body and of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope our colleagues on both sides are prepared to do the same thing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source