tv Senate Debate on Supreme Court Nominee Senators Blumenthal Through Inhofe CSPAN April 7, 2017 1:04am-2:03am EDT
to appoint judges that recogniza the judiciary as a bulwark against any attempt to infringet on our inalienable rights. so, the bottom line for me, colleagues, is whether judge gorsuch recognizes that rights are reserved to the people. there is no respect for individual rights are liberty to be found in the viewpoint that powerful torture that favors the powerful over the powerless or that tramples on the rights of own americans to determine the courses of their own lives. unfortunately, we have learned over the last few weeks this is
judge gorsuch record. i oppose his nomination and i urge my colleagues to do the same and i won't yield the floor >> as we finish the boat just hours ago, i couldn't help butlh notice a member of my colleagueh high-fiving each other. that image stayed with me as i stand here now. it saddens me. there is no cause for celebration in what happened in the senate just hours ago. no one should sleep well tonight or underestimate the magnitude of what happened here.
damage was done to our democracy, in fact to the two institutions that are the pillars of our democracy. the united states supreme court and the senate itself. today is indeed, one of my saddest days in the senate. more than anything is the damage that has been caused to thero supreme court by eroding and undermining trust and respect for an institution that has power only because of its credibility with the amount of people i that has no army or police force. all it has is the confidence and respect of the american people. and today, raw political power
has been exercised to break the rules and the norms of this boda so that a nominee could be confirmed. and the only way that he could be confirmed was in fact to direct the rules. a nuclear option that will have fallout and perhaps in years to come for myself i would state unequivocally that i hope we will work together on issues where we have common ground where we can reach common solutions. our infrastructure on tax reform and immigration issues. but no one should make fight of
the potential fallout as there is in any nuclear explosion frm this action today. the senate has broken with decades of bipartisan practice when it comes to the united states supreme court. the practice and tradition was the president o president of eie would consult with members of both parties in this body you for making a nomination so as to assure a mainstream nominee. and that nominee would be in the some her selection so that there was some respect for this body as well as the courts would be preserved.
my fear is the contagion of the partisanship will affect theec court system as a whole. all of the nominations to lower court as well as the appellate court will be affected. my hope is that we can avoid that truly cataclysmic outcome. a nuclear explosion in some ways even more deafening and damaging than what we the ones used today because the courts are the bulwark of democracy and it is an attack on the only check we have against tyranny and autocratic erosion of those rights and that is why the nonpartisanship of the chords are so important.
the supreme court of all of our chords should be above politics. and in fact, that is why the 60 vote rule for the supreme courtr was so important. the supreme court is different. nine justices appointed to the highest court in the land in a some ways unaccountable, on elected, sitting for life with the power to strike down actions of elected representatives andy an elected executive by issuing words on paper without a direct means to enforce them depending only on respect of credibility from the american people. to approve nominees by a razor thin majority is a disservice to the court and to our democracy.
supreme court justices do more than just follow the law. they have to resolve conflicts in the law and differences among the lower courts where they disagree and in fact ambiguity in the statute where there is a lack of clarity where this body is not able to reach consensus and in effect decides to agree to the extent it can and leave some questions to administrative agencies which are entitled to respect as they implement the law. confidence and trust are essential and we have undermined it today. our republican colleagues have gravely damaged it by the actions taken today. i have urged my colleagues to reject neil gorsuch because i believe that he is out of the
mainstream and because he failed to answer questions about whether he agreed with established precedent essential to equality under the law because he has a judicial philosophy that would involve substituting the justice of chords for administrative agencies and because he favored in many of his actions opinionsi in the interest of corporations over individual rights. we have debated the merits of his nominee and i believe that i the debate and the questions i've put to him repeatedly and others as well leave us with the
conclusion that he passed the test but he is not a natural color of balls and strikes that he is in fac fact an alkali doen right-wing group that screamed and suggested his name and that he would carry out not only the litmus test to overrule and strike down by gun violence prevention but also other unknown decisions that would implement a far right can conservative agenda. we can debate whether that view is right or wrong but today it is sadness for myself and it is one of my saddest in the senate that goes more to the bee institution that has been demeaned and degraded the united states senate and the supreme
court. my hope is that maybe it will be a turning point. maybe we can reconstruct the sense of bipartisanship and comedy that existed for so many years. many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed what was done today, but the obstruction of garland's nomination as one of my colleagues put it the filibuster of all filibusters was another step in a continuing progressi progression: aiding in today's actions that very much betrays the spirit and values of bipartisan selection of supreme court nominees because the highest court in the land is different. i had the extraordinary honor to
clerk for the justice of the c supreme court who was appointed by the republican president richard nixon. he grew as the justice and surprised a lot of people and nd appointed him and that has c happened to extraordinary men and women that serve on the courts as welchords as well as d states senate. they grow in their job and choosing a united states supreme court justice is one of the most solemsolemn import duties the ie president has been confirmingnts her or him is one of the most ts important tasks we have in this body. even at the most difficult and contentious times as i serve as a law clerk and litigated since
in my view in the history of of china's return there will be twe heroes. the free press who have uncovered despite opposition from many powerful forces and our independent judiciary thatat has upheld and the rights ofan countless americans in many areas of the law. today's action threatens those two forces for good to the institutions in our society. it will not happen with a choice made by the republican leadership that they were willing to break the rules to achieve this result.
i am determined to try to move forward in a positive way in legislation as well as an protecting and enhancing thecemt chords and law enforcement resources it needs to uphold the rule of law. we cannot hold o the supreme cot hostage to any ideology. that is a lesson for today and the past year. i will continue to talk about this topic because it is so important to the nation
>> when we write the history of these times when it comes to the senate history, it is going to t be a chapter of monumental history in the senate not for the better but for the worse. and after a while long dead and gone, somebody may be looking back and trying to figure out what happened and what motivatee people. presi it's not replace my judgment for that of a president ought to call if vilified the election but to be the check and balance to make sure that the president of either party nominates someone who is qualified for the job and is capable from the has character point of view for being a judge of us all and has a background of judge and experience to carry out the duties of the supreme court.
they chose people that were noti chosen but for qualified. i used a standar the standard ti thought was constitutionallyhoud sound. i'm not telling any of the senators what they should do. i'm just trying to explain what i do. the federalist papers number 26 return april 11788 by mr. hamilton said what purpose does it require the cooperation of the senate it would be an excellent chec check upon the st of favoritism in the president
and would tend to avoid the enslavemenappointment from famit connections and from the db2 popularity, so from hamilton's point of view as a check andr balance against an unqualified person someone i was qualifieded but not for the job and someone supporting close to the president is not qualified for the job and somebody that was poignant because the favored side of the particular state wouldn't be fair to everybody else. when you look at the history of the advice and consent clause i don't think the founding fathers had in their mind one party would nullify one of another party that was chosen by the people when it came to the supreme court confirmation because they chose somebody they didn't agree with philosophically, so i voted for
them knowing that they come from the progressive judicial pool, and neil gorsuch is one of the finest any republican president could have chosen and he is as qualified as they were. his record is incredible. ten and a half years on the bench, 2700 cases and one reversal. he received the highest rating of the american bar associatione the committee as well qualified a supreme court nominee must be in the legal profession, havepe outstanding legal ability and exceptional experience, meet high standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. well qualified reserve of those found in the strongest endorsement. c
by unanimous vote on march 9 the standing committee awarded judge gorsuch the highest rating of well qualified. just like they did.ise 27 court -- 2700 court appraisals from all areas of the law, left, right and middle., reported 900 pages as a thoughtful man and incredible judge, a good person. so i don't think anybody can come to the floor and essay although you masayalthough you h anfi outcome that judge gorsuch isn't qualified in any reasonable standard to be chosen by president trump. he's every bit as qualified. so, clearly qualifications no longer matter like they used to. antonin scalia, who justice
judge gorsuch, hopefully soon justice gorsuch was confirmed by the senate 98-0. ginsburg, ruth baker ginsberg, d 96-3. i would argue that you could noy find more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy and a justice ginsburg and justice friends. but nobody in their right mind would say there's not a difference in their judicial philosophy. strom thurmond, my predecessor, very conservative man from south carolina wrote i and for ms. ginsburg. clearly a conservative wouldn't have chosen her because she was the general counsel of the aclu and i can tell you ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for antonin sylvia based on philosophy.pe some things happened in america.
from 1986 to 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed. and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding d fathers concept, turned it upside down data from the time o scully a was put on the court, ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. i was here when the first efforts to filibuster for judicial nominations with the 4. first term bush 43 there was a wholesale filibustering of the nominees of president bush as part of the gang of 14 that broke the filibuster and we lost a couple of nominees but we did move forward and said there would be no further filibuster of the judges unless it was under an extraordinary that allowed them to go forward
and both of them got a good vo vote. alito we had to get a cloture. c clarence thomas was probably the most controversial pick in my lifetime. if you can remember that hearing it was just front-page newsne every day and on tv every night. not one democratic senator chose to filibuster him. he got an up or down vote and he passed i think 52-48. they could have chosen to require cloture, but they didn't so this is the first time in the history of the senate that you doubt the supreme court nominee. it was filibustered to be the chief justice of the supreme dem court by almost an equal number of democrats and republicans because of ethical problems and eventually re-signed. so we are making history today.e
the first successful for buster in the history of the united states senate to deny an up or down vote on a nominee to the supreme court. and it breaks my heart that we are here. i don't know what to do other than change the rules.ny i can't believe judge gorsuch ad isn't qualified by any standard. i voted and nobody even asked for a cloture vote they went straight to the floor one got 62 votes, 63, the other got 68 votes and i don't know why we can't do for judge gorsuch what was done for them. we keep hearing about judge garland. he is a fine man and would have been a very good supreme court f justice.
justice scalia died in february 2016 after the primaries were already held and the nominating process was well on its way for picking the next president so this was an election year and i remember what joe biden said in 92, the last year of bush 41 when there was a suggestion that somebody might retire and he said basically if someone steps down i would highly recommend the president not send a name up.d if he did send someone up i would have to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee. it would be a pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is an action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the campaigs is over. that's what vice president biden said when he was the chairman of the committee and 92.
it made sense. president trump put a list of names out he would choose from if he became president which was historic. part of the contest was about the supreme court. i have no problem at all saying once the campaign season is y afoot they won the debate, the next president pick and that is no slam on judge garland. i have no doubt that it would have been another outcome. i can't imagine here he read being in charge of the senate in 2008 and would allow president bush in his last year to nominate somebody to court they would approve that decision onc2 the campaign season started. i say that knowing that it was part. rules which broke again f-14s agreement in part. here's what he said in 2005.
the united states senate is set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in the document doesn't say that they have a duty to give a presidential nominee." all i can say is that in a 100 year history of the senate going backwards there's been one person put on the court when the president was one part of one pd the senate was held by the other party and it occurred last year for the presidential terms. we've done nothing that would justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way that he's been treated which is pretty badly. here's what nancy pelosi said.ot if you drink water can eat food, take medicine or are any other way interacting with court, this is a very bad decision. all i can say is that he doesn't deserve that. that is a political statement
out of sync with the reality of this man is intwho this man is ' that he lives and it's that kind of attitude that's gotten usmy here today. i can also say there is blame on my side also. nobody has clean hands on this. i can't remember when justice was nominated she made a speechv to the effect that a white man would have a hard time understanding what life is liker for minorities and that was taken to believe that she somehow wouldn't be fair to white men. that was a speech she gav gave e most provocative but i never believed that it was an preju indication that she somehow was prejudice against white men and the reason i concluded that it'a everybody that haiseverybody thr including white men said she was a wonderful lady. and then the attack on our side is she joined with the administration of partners to take the rotc unit off-campus.
somehow that made her unpatriotic. my view was that was the position of a very liberal school and no one could ever convince me that she wasn'tua patriotic. she seemed to be a very nice highly qualified leedy and that decision couldn't be taken to the extreme of saying that she's not fit to serve on the court so and wh charges to understand who they really were and when you look at people that know these judges the best they can tell you the most accurate information. in this case there were a lot of people left that said they were well-qualified and when you look at what was said in the report, just an incredible life well lived. so here we are about to change d the rules. it was a simple majority requirement for the supremesu
court. as a matter of fact most nominations in the history of the country are a large percentage done based on a voice vote. it's in the modern times we've got in this political context over the course that started say with the judge with some blame to go around on both sides but i can say this but while i've been here, i've tried to be fair the best i know how to be. i voted for everybody that i thought was qualified.ecide. i said what the next president decide and this time i said that in march of 2016 i had no doubt in my mind donald trump would lose and hillary clinton pick somebody more liberal but it l made sense to me in that stage in the process to let the next president pick, so the fact that we are filibustering this man says a lot about the political w moment.
if this were a controversial character i might understand it better. when you look back and try to figure out what we did and how we got here i can say we took one of the best people president trump could have nominated, somebody i would have chosen if i got to be president. i think paul ryan, mike pence, or anany of us would have chosee old gorsuch, and he was denied an up or down vote. and that says all we need to know about the political moment. what has changed the rules is that we'll have an effect on the judiciary and it will be a good one. because in the future, judges will be selected by single a parties if you have a majority. no requirement to reach across the aisle which means the judges will be more ideological. when you have to get a few vote, in or come up here and get a few good foods you have to water down a little bit some of your choices in the most extreme ideological fix available to tho
party they probably won't be able to make it through withoutr a well so i think what you will see over time is the most ideological people in the senate are going to have a lot of say about this chosen by the president so it will change the nature of the judiciary and the three senate seats now becomes a referendum on the supreme court. so, when we have a contest for the senate seat, it isn't just about the senate, it's about the seat of affecting the outcome o. the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not it means changing the legislative filibuster which would be the end of the senate, i don't know. but i don't think it helps. there will be a majority around here one day be president of the same party, control of the house and they will get frustrated because the other side won't let them do everything they want to do and they will be tempted to go down this road of getting
away witgiving awaywith a 60 voo pass a bill and not appoint a of the senate. we made that more likely by doing this. it was more likely in 2013. i hope i'm wrong but i think that we set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. the only thing i can't say optimistically aoptimistically o change the rules for the judicial nomination i will never vote to change the rules for a legislation and the reason i'meo voting to change the rules is i don't know what i would go home and tell people why they got on the court and gorsuch couldn't and why president obama was able to pick two people that were highly bona fide. it just can't have it. one side gets their judges and the other side doesn't. i guess we will have to change the rules.
not a good day. hoping it would never come, but it has and to the extent i'veol been part of the problem, i apologize. but i think at least in my own mind i've tried to do the right thing as i saw it. i took a lot of heat for their judges at the love of hate on our side i'm glad i did. not that i'm not partisan i cant be but i think that history is going down a dark path and there will never be another 98 votes th or 96 boats and that's a shame because even though they may be different, they have one thing in common. they are good people that were highly qualified to sit on the court and i can understand why a liberal president would choose
another. what we are doing today is basically saying we don't care about the results anymore in the senate and with that i will yield. the senator from louisiana. thank you mr. acting president. senator graham, my fellow senators, constituents in the gallery, from a lot of what's going on today, mr. president, it may seem very complicated. we have heard a lot of terms being thrown around, cloture, the nuclear option. but the question we were faced with today in the senate was very simple and it continues to be pretty simple and straightforward in my judgment.
should we have an up or down vote on the nomination of judge gorsuch to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. earlier today the senate voted to do that and i think it's very important for the american judicial system and the american system of democracy that the united states senate to be allowed to vote on the nomination to the united states supreme court. it wasn't enough to only vote on the motion to end the debate. we also needed to be allowed to vote on the actual nomination, yes or no. unfortunately, our friends on the democratic side of the aisle decided to filibuster in order to make it impossible for us to vote on this crucial nominee
without modifying the rules of the united states senate, and that's what we did earlier today. i don't know that anybody did it happily, but certainly the majority of the united states senate believed that the american people deserved an up or down vote to stand up and bee counted. do you want him to be on the supreme court or do you not, and that vote is going to take place tomorrow afternoon. i'm now the constitution says the president of the united states shall nominate with the advice and consent of the senate and shall appoint judges of the supreme court. i don't need to tell you this is an extremely important part of our separation of powers. it's vital to protecting the
integrity of the supreme court, the work that all of us do not just members of the judiciary committee that every member ofuh the senate in getting the nominees and making sure they are qualified as is the old gorsuch is enormously important for the protection of liberty itself. let's not ever forget what we are protecting. we are protecting justice and we are protecting liberty. we are not statistically protecting a certain point of pl view or policy preference. we are not supposed to be protecting a certain political party. and i hope that tomorrow when we get the opportunity to vote up or down on neil gorsuch for the ci
greatest tribunal on judgment and my opinion of the supreme court, that we will consider his nomination and how it will affect our country, not our party. when we look at the nomination from that perspective and leave the politics of the last few years in the rearview mirror i think we can analyze the nomination with a lot more clarity. alexander hamilton who i think most americans would admire said in federalist number 98 the court has neither force nor will it judgment. and i think that is what we are all looking for her o what shoue in a nominee for the court especially the united states s supreme court.
we are not looking for somebody with a certain policy preference or ideas of how the law can be improved because the role of the judges and to make the law commits to interpret the law as made by the legislative body as best that church can understand it and that's why we need someone like neil gorsuch in my estimation with good judgment. i sit on the judiciary and i've spent 20 to 40 hours wit withinr people who know him well. i know his opinions and as far as i'm concerned, he is as good as it gets. i can't imagine president trump could have picked better.oc he is a rockstar and i rock stau read his opinions you will see you as painstaking and his application of the law and the
facts before it, he writes beautifully. his communication skills are amazing. here's an analysis and analytical is clear and concise. his decisions are wise with f discipline and peace be to the wall. he's an intellectual, not an a ideologue. he is a judge, not a politician. he is smart, strict constitutional test, snow skiing, flyfishing and i think that he will serve every person in the country well as a member of the supreme court and that's why i'm supporting him. what we say one final thing t mr. president.
i don't think that there is any good that will be more important than the vote vote we have tomow on the present nomination to the united states supreme court so i want to choose my words carefully. not a single solitary vote is more important than the vote tomorrow but that is not to say that there are not other important issues before this body and that is why it is so important today that if we decide to vote up or down on judge gorsuch so we can moveer onto those other important i issues.t, the fact of the matter is jobs, jobs, designing a health care delivery system that hooks that somebody designed on purpose, which the acting president has worked hard on, infrastructure,
elementary and secondary education, a skilled workforce, and i could go on because there's an enormous amount ofay pain in america today. there's too many americans who are not participating in the great falls of america is not nt economically, not socially, not culturally and spiritually. we have been elected in the congress to do something about that. i talked to people in my state every day and i know you do, t too. people in louisiana are fun loving, god-fearing and plain talking and this is what they tell me. kennedy, the country was founded by geniuses but sometimes i think it's being run by idiots.
they tell me we look around the beca see, too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. they say we are in the middle and we get stuck with the bill and we can't take it anymore because our whole veterans is going up an and/or kids tuitiong gone up and taxes have gone up but what hasn't gone up is our income. these are real people with reala problems and they sent all of us here because they are mad and m.
expect this to do something about it is the sad truth is our children's generation is at risk of becoming the first in america unless we do something to be worse off than their parents because in our country today, for too many americans it is harder than ever to get ahead. that's why so many americans feel stuck. they feel like the hope and change that they would promise to become uncertain and if you're looking to us to do something about it. so let's vote. i understand people disagree, but i'm going to vote for neil gorsuch to be a justice on the united states supreme court and then i'm going to ask that we
move onto other important issues that are keeping moms and dads awake at night when they led hie down to trick her to sleep. thank you mr. president and with that i will yield when we lost the honorable justice, we were all saddened. he was such a legend of the court and and the imprint of it president trump nominated a successor. people he garnered respect and approval from people across the legal
community and has unrivaled bipartisan support and it is unfortunate that the democrats have tried to block his nomination. i had the honor of meeting himvn because i wasn't on his list to visit i said don't even waste your time with me i'm going to support you anyway. have but he did call and we met and you have to meet and talk to him in person to know what kind of individual he is. of course being from oklahoma i am sensitive to the fact that none of our judges up thereti except for california are what we would call the western united states in the area people need to be properly represented.
as the judge of the tenth circuit court o court of appeals heard from utah, wyoming, colorado, kansas, new mexico and my state of oklahoma. he knows the issues you're facing an it has expertise to d- with it.- tha he's handled the issues with a lot of care and fairness. we know this of course because oklahoma is in the tenth circuit.s his reputation is such that regardless the party o affiliationsof the individuals have come out in support of judge gorsuch. neil was the acting solicitor general and president of thomas covenant said he is a cabinet member of president obama and testified before the senate judiciary committee and wrote an op-ed piece in "the new york times." when you listen to this quote
from the times that says one of the individuals from thehi administration of president a obama said his years on the bench revealed a commitment to judicial independence, a record that should give american people confidence that he will not give favors to the president that an appointed him. not only is he a well-liked but he has an impressive resume serving supreme court justices, columbia, harvard, oxford. he has the qualifications as administration and that is all you need to be confirmed as the united states supreme court. but the democrats have done to block the nomination has never been done before and it may be e
some of the procedures taking place. there's never been in the history a successful part of the filibuster on the supreme court nomination. never been. this would be the first time this has happened and i support the majority leader in changing the rules and faces by the majority party, the minority party. there is really no reason for the filibuster other thanr partisanship and catering to their liberal base and changings done, nomination had to be done and if the situation had been reversed, democrats would have done the same thing in a heartbeat as we saw when they did the same not thing. he deserves to be on the supreme court. he doesn't deserve to be blocked because people are upset that we
observe the rule that is not providing for any action on a vn nominee for a supreme court vacancy once the election season is underway and they lost. now that is joe biden. in addition to this impeccable job and experience and educational background, he's perhaps best known for his religious liberty defensest including the role and dispute during the obama administration that required employers tot of provide abortion inducing drugs to their employees as part of their health insurance. one of these employers was hobby lobby. everyone knows who hobby lobby is. i knew them back in the 70s when the family that started hobby lobby were actually operating out of their garage making picture frames and look at them today. i've known them for a long time. they started out their whole
business with a 600-dollar loan. they have over 700 stores across the united states, the largest arts and crafts store in the world. neal gore -- neil gorsuch agreeu on their liberty rights and i'm going to read to you in a conquering opinion that is very profound, he wrote and this is after they made the determination that they didn't have to give these drugs to the employees he wrote, quote, it it not for the secular courts to rewrite thredirect the religiout of a faithful were to decide whether a religious teaching about simplicity and poses too much moral disapproval on those only indirectly whether an act of complicity is or isn't is
sometimes a matter of faith and we must respect the faith. that's what he wrote around the same time frame in the case that is now known to be he joined in an opinion defending the rights of nuns not to be forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs in their health care plan. he said, and this is another profound statement he made. when the law demands that a person do something, the person considers to be sinful and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on the person's exercise of religion. it is not just parishioners of m faith that he's sided with. he upheld the religious beliefs
of a native american prisoner, of a muslim prisoner who founded the ability to practice the faith restricted in one matter or another. he comes to the decision not because he's seeking a premature doubt that he comes to those decisions because that's where the facts of the law put in thee constitution leave him. for example, in the case in oklahoma, gorsuch referred to the chevron deference as a judge made doctrine for the education of the judicial duty. it's a judicial rule that requires judges to defer to agencies and bureaucracies if it is considered ambiguous or not clear if it is reasonable. this deference in the agency gives them a lot of power and
moreover it can provide a lot of uncertainty to the community. community. judge gorsuch wrote in the chevron deference it allowed agencies to reverse the current view 180 degrees any time based on the shift of the political i wind and still prevail in court. i know a little bit about this. i spent years beating the chairman of the committee called cr committee and during the obama years, we had a bureaucracy that was trying to change the law instead of following the law and it's what hthat's what he was tt in w this case when he talkeden about this deference to theng i bureaucracy. imagine being in business especially heavily regulated that has to worry about the
rules and how would you make a plan to participate i think the opinion on the deference is brah important doing it as a coequal branch of government for the administrative state or do we take our power back and biteed? them all as they should be implemented and furthermore does the judicial branch as a coequal branch of government continue to give up their power of interpretation to the be administrative state? these are important questions- that should be addressed and i'm glad that his nomination has brought these cases to light. although he was nominated by a republican president, my colleagues on the other side of the i/o shouldn' aisle shouldn'y concern about the decision ekinj ability. you know it's important to point out because being a judge isn't about making decisions in the
best interest of any political party or decisions based on facts in the wal and the law ane constitution without guidance. . i listen to the arguments made. i read the briefs that are put to me. i listen to my colleagues carefully. and i listen to the lawyers in the well. keeping an open mind through the entire process as best i humanly can, and i leave all the other stuff at home. and i make the decision based on the facts in the law. who can argue with that? and he's proven over a period of time that he would do that. and through the whole debate, it's become evident that the democrats are asking him to rule in favor of causes, not to follow the law. and this is what a judge does and should be. regarding the roles of balance of our government, gorsuch is what a judge should be. he believes congress should write the lay.
the executive branch is to carry them out. the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. and the confirmation of judge gorsuch will shape our nation for generations to come and all of us will be able to benefit if his wise decisions. i'm looking forward to confirming judge neil gorsuch. it's going to happen tomorrow. all this will be over. and i'm proud to give him my vote. and justice will be floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, the senate has decided on a purely partisan basis by invoke be the so-called nuclear option. for the first time in our history, nominees to the supreme court of the united states may advance from nomination to confirmation with a simple majority vote in this body. and i've heard many of my colleagues ascribe blame equally to both sides,
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on