Transcript: Senator McConnell Holds A Media Availability On Judicial Nominations

Transcript: Senator McConnell Holds A Media Availability On Judicial Nominations

from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL: Good afternoon, everyone. As you know, I sent a letter to Senator Reid yesterday, which he's just responded to, on the whole issue of the Democratic threat to shut down the Senate, and, therefore, the government.

That is a threat that really should not be carried out. We have important business to do here, and we are anxious to move forward with it. And I think any such reprisals would not be in the best interest certainly of the Senate or of the people of this country.

With regard to the agenda, the majority leader's indicated what we'll be going to in the near future. We would hope that any threats to stop any of these important pieces of legislation for the country would not be carried out in some fit of pique because the majority was simply trying to return to the tradition that prevailed around here for 214 years, which is that the president's nominees to the judiciary are entitled to an up-or-down vote. And that tradition was altered in the last Congress.

And as you know, we're under serious discussions about getting back to the way that business has been done here in the Senate for the first couple of hundred years, which seemed to have served us quite well.

I want to make one other observation. It's been suggested by the other side that somehow this is a slippery slope that leads to the elimination of the legislative filibuster.

This whole discussion I find somewhat amusing because when I was a young man the filibuster was a pejorative term, it was thought of as something that was used to do bad things, like stop civil rights legislation.

Now you would think, listening to the other side, the filibuster is in the Constitution, which of course it is not. I have read the Constitution carefully and there's nothing in here about the filibuster.

But to the extent that anybody has in recent years talked about getting rid of the legislative filibuster, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans.

In fact, in 1995, the first year after the new Republican majority came in, there was a vote in the Senate, in fact I believe it was the first vote Senator Frist cast when he got here, every single Republican voted against getting rid of the legislative filibuster, and there were 19 Democrats who voted in favor of getting rid of the legislative filibuster, nine of whom are still here.

McCONNELL: So there is no one that I know of in the current Senate, on our side of the aisle, certainly, who is in favor of getting rid of the legislative filibuster.

And you might want to ask the nine Democrats who are still here in the Senate, who voted to get rid of the legislative filibuster in 1995, if they still fill that way.

With that, let me open it up for questions:

QUESTION: Do you see any room for compromise on (inaudible)

McCONNELL: Well, Senator Frist has had numerous discussions with Senator Reid. And I have as well, separately, over the last few months, since he assumed his new position, in the hope that we could somehow get back to the way the Senate operated, everybody feels quite nicely, for 200 years.

At the risk of being redundant, you all have heard this a lot of times, but Bork didn't even have a majority in the Judiciary Committee. And yet it never occurred to anybody that he was not entitled to get out of the Judiciary Committee, even though he didn't have a majority, and to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate which he got.

I think the Clarence Thomas vote in committee was dead even. So he could have been killed in committee. It never occurred to anybody that Justice Thomas was not entitled to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. He only got 52 votes.

Clearly, if a single Senator had wanted to filibuster the Thomas nomination, he would not be on the Supreme Court now, because we would probably not had 60 votes to invoke cloture.

So it is not in dispute that this has never been done before for the purpose of killing a nomination. There have been occasional cloture votes, always for the purpose of advancing a nomination to conclusion. This innovation is what's new. And this innovation is what needs to be stopped.

Finally, let me say, I think this is incredibly short-sighted. Against the best efforts of people like me, the Democrats may have a president, three years from now. And where this leads ultimately is to establishing the principle that 41 members of the Senate can dictate to the president who ought to be on the circuit courts and who ought to be on the Supreme Court. I don't think that's where they want to end up, but that's where this is headed if their position were to prevail.

QUESTION: Senator, some people have suggested that you (inaudible) that there's anything even close to a meeting of the minds between the two parties. Is that fair to say?

McCONNELL: I don't think we are close to a meeting of the minds, no. I think the other side has dug in. The leader's made it very clear, publicly. And since he said it publicly, I wouldn't be in violation of any confidence to say he said same thing privately, that there's no deal, at least any that we've heard so far.

QUESTION: Senator, the Democrats are now -- the Democratic leader was just out here (inaudible) the possibility that his party might filibuster John Bolton, another area for filibusters. What's your response to that?

McCONNELL: Certainly they would have that opportunity. Apparently, the way we're operating these days, that would certainly be an opportunity.

I would hope they wouldn't do that, as the president and the secretary of state both feel that Mr. Bolton is the appropriate choice for that particular job. If they don't like him, they can vote against him. But I think filibustering him is not a good idea.

QUESTION: Do you see any attempt to change the rules on filibustering of nonjudicial nominees?

McCONNELL: No, I've not heard any discussion of that at all. As a matter of fact let me reiterate that this is a narrow discussion about filibustering judicial nominations for the purpose of defeating them, not delaying them for a period of time, but defeating them. That is all this is about. It is not about the legislative filibuster. It is not about executive branch filibusters. This is about judicial filibusters.

QUESTION: Senator Biden has made a comment that in the past that there was some consultation about the judicial nominees, but there is no consultation with the minority party when they submit the nominees.

Is it possible that that consultation could resume and then maybe some of the heat of this argument would dissipate?

McCONNELL: Well, you know, consultation is in the eye of the beholder.

It's pretty clear under the Constitution that the president of the United States has the right to nominate people to the courts and to the executive branch. And consultation is a murky term. I don't know how much consultation would be required.

Let me tell you what they really want to do. It's perfectly clear. They want 41 senators to be able to dictate to the president of the United States, whoever that may be, who will be chosen for the courts. Let me repeat: That is very shortsighted. They may have a president themselves a few years from now.

There's no chance that this kind of precedent, once established, would be forgotten. So we need to undo this unfortunate new trend that developed in the last Congress and get back to the way we've operated for the first couple of hundred years.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236590&start=1