WASHINGTON - Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall delivered a speech on the Senate floor urging Republicans to quit playing political games, agree to hold hearings and vote on the president's nominee to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Udall cited the Senate's constitutional duty as described in Article II, Section 2, to advise and consent on the president's nominees to the Court. The Senate Majority Leader has said that the Senate will not consider any nominee by President Obama, and Udall highlighted how the Republicans' obstruction is unprecedented throughout the country's history.
"The current Senate majority is refusing its constitutional mandate - that it "shall" advise and consent - refusing to do its job for blatantly partisan and political purposes. This is misguided. It is also without precedent," Udall said in his speech. "The full Senate has always voted on every pending Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy - in election years, in non-election years, every single one for the last hundred years.... This is a bipartisan tradition - one that makes sense, one that we should follow."
He continued: "The Majority Leader said that the voters should have a say in who the next Supreme Court justice is. They had their say - they overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to a four-year term, not a three-year term. There is no logical end-point to the Majority's new position. They say no president's Supreme Court nominee should be considered in his last year. What if this were two months ago? Would their views be different if it was December 2015? October? And I might add, presidents are not the only ones with limited terms in office. A number of sitting senators are retiring. Do their constitutional duties and rights as senators expire now as well? Of course not, and neither should a president's. Nominees should be judged on their merits. They are public servants in the executive branch, on our courts. They serve the people of this country. They should not be judged on your feelings about a president you may not like. That's not governing - it's a temper tantrum."
Udall, who continues to lead the call to end gridlock in the Senate, added that Republicans' obstruction is contributing to the frustration Americans feel about dysfunction in Washington.
"I'm not arguing that either side is 100 percent pure. But we know one thing - a fully functioning Supreme Court is vital to ensure justice in our system of government and it depends on a fully functioning Senate," Udall continued. "We have seen before, and we are seeing now that the Senate is broken. The American people are frustrated - fed up with political games, obstruction in the Senate, special deals for insiders, campaigns that are being sold to the highest bidder. They see this obstruction as just another example of how our democracy is being taken away."
Below are Udall's remarks as prepared for delivery:
Mr. President, ten years ago, the Senate faced a critical task to consider the nomination by President Bush of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It was a fierce debate. Many opposed him - some passionately so. I won't argue that it was an easy road, but it was a road that was traveled because that is our job - because that is one of our most important duties.
At the time, the current Majority Leader was very clear on that duty. He said, "We stand today on the brink of a new and reckless effort by a few to deny the rights of many to exercise our constitutional duty to advise and consent, to give this man the simple up-or-down vote he deserves. The Senate should repudiate this tactic..." Justice Alito did get an up or down vote and was confirmed - 58 to 42, including four Democrats who voted in favor.
Mr. President, the Majority Leader was right. We do have a duty to advise and consent. A president's nominee does deserve an up or down vote. That was true then. It is true now. I do not agree with many of Justice Alito's views, but I do believe that it was critical for the Senate to do its job.
Now, here we are. A new nomination to the Supreme Court by a different president, but the Majority Leader seems to have changed his mind. We are told that no nomination of anyone by this president will be considered. The current Senate majority is refusing its constitutional mandate - that it "shall" advise and consent - refusing to do its job for blatantly partisan and political purposes. This is misguided. It is also without precedent.
The full Senate has always voted on every pending Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy - in election years, in non-election years, every single one for the last hundred years. But we can go back even further than that. The Senate Judiciary Committee was created 200 years ago. According to the Congressional Research Service, the committee's usual practice has been to report every nominee to the full Senate - even those nominees opposed by a majority of the committee.
This is a bipartisan tradition - one that makes sense, one that we should follow. When Senator Leahy was Judiciary Chairman, he and ranking member Hatch did just that. Nominations - even those opposed by a majority of the committee - went to the full Senate.
In 2001, the Republican leader, Senator Lott, said, "no matter what the vote in committee on a Supreme Court nominee, it is the precedent of the Senate that the individual nominated is given a vote by the whole Senate." Were those senators any less principled? No. Were those senators any less passionate in their views? No. But they did their job. They knew how important this was to the country. They honored Senate tradition, and they made sure that the highest court in the land was not running on empty. How did we get from there to here? If the Majority Leader has his way, there will be no hearing. There will be no debate. There will be no vote.
The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is critical to a functioning democracy, and it has become contentious only in recent years. It wasn't always so polarizing. Justice Scalia was confirmed 98-0. I'm not arguing that either side is 100 percent pure. But we know one thing - a fully functioning Supreme Court is vital to ensure justice in our system of government and it depends on a fully functioning Senate.
Mr. President, this obstruction is part of a bigger problem. We have seen before and we are seeing now that the Senate is broken. The American people are frustrated - fed up with political games, obstruction in the Senate, special deals for insiders, campaigns that are being sold to the highest bidder. They see this obstruction as just another example of how our democracy is being taken away.
In this case, the hammer doing the damage is the filibuster. Instead of debate, we have gridlock. Instead of working together, we have obstruction.
That is why I pushed for rules reform in the 112th Congress and in the 113th Congress. That is why I continue to push, no matter which party is in the majority. We changed the Senate rules to allow majority votes for executive and judicial nominees to lower courts, but that does no good if they remain blocked, and that is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets longer and longer - of perfectly qualified nominees denied a vote, denied even to be heard.
Meanwhile, the backlog grows - 17 judges and three ambassadors, even the top official at the Treasury Department, whose job is to go after the finances of terrorists. We are on track for the lowest number of confirmations in three decades. We now have 31 judicial districts with emergency levels of backlogs. A year ago, we had 12. Thousands of people wait for their day in court because there is no judge to hear the case. That is justice delayed and justice denied.
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they do. A seat on the Supreme Court is empty and the Majority Leader is actually arguing that it should stay empty for over a year. Mr. President, I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee, no matter who is in the White House. I say that today. I have said it many times before. Now, amazingly that obstruction may reach all the way to the Supreme Court, and not just for a specific nominee, but for any nominee.
Mr. President, what we are seeing is bad going to worse and election year politics. The Majority Leader said that the voters should have a say in who the next Supreme Court justice is. They had their say - they overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to a four-year term, not a three-year term.
There is no logical end-point to the Majority's new position. They say no president's Supreme Court nominee should be considered in his last year. What if this were two months ago? Would their views be different if it was December 2015? October? And I might add, presidents are not the only ones with limited terms in office. A number of sitting senators are retiring. Do their constitutional duties and rights as senators expire now as well? Of course not, and neither should a president's.
Nominees should be judged on their merits. They are public servants in the executive branch, on our courts. They serve the people of this country. They should not be judged on your feelings about a president you may not like.
That's not governing - it's a temper tantrum, and let's be very clear: a presidential election year is no excuse. For example, Justice Kennedy was confirmed unanimously in the last year of President Reagan's administration by a Democratic controlled Senate.
Mr. President, our democracy works with three branches of government, not just two. This assault on the Supreme Court is without precedent. It is without cause, and it should be without support. The president will do his duty and will nominate a Supreme Court justice. Any senator has the right to say no, but the American people have the right to hear why.
I began my speech with comments by the Majority Leader, but this really isn't about what the Majority Leader said 10 years ago - it is about what the American people are saying now, and what the Constitution has always said. Do your job. Uphold your oath. Move our country forward.
So, I say to my colleagues: Let's get serious. Let's stop these dangerous games. The president's nominee - whomever that is - deserves consideration, and the American people deserve a government that works.
