tv Senators Menendez Grassley and Leahy on Supreme Court Nominations CSPAN March 2, 2016 7:29pm-8:06pm EST
republicans with the darkest horse of the we are cover girl and her then to do what they have done. trove is the g.o.p. frankenstein. >> i appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee. i piggery with the issue of the legislation before us but i felt compelled to come to the floor to speak of the vacancy of the united states of the supreme court and i rise to support this
president's obligation for any president's obligation to leave the us supreme court nominee to fill a vacancy no matter when that vacancy occurs electioneering or not. we should rightfully expect any president to fulfill his or her constitutional duty to send the eminently qualified nominee to the senate. all logic and reason in the constitution itself dictates that every president has the duty to do so under any interpretation of constitutional law. and we should rightfully expect the senate to do its job to hold the hearings or debate the nomination on the floor. we are not talking about flaws to invite interpretation but a very
clear and concise flock article to section to clause two that says the president shall, i shall nominate and shall appoint judges to the supreme court it does not say except in to be made in the final year of the president's term it does not say but to preempt the responsibility to make a point the point is the constitution was clear in the in fact, in the last 100 years the senate has taken action on every supreme court nominee regardless if it was made in the presidential election year. it goes far beyond filling a
supreme court vacancy but the crux of the constant and continuous attacks. for more than seven years of republicans have time and again questioned the legitimacy of this president from his election from his birth certificate to lawlessness or republican number shalt wire during misstated the union question his authority in the final year in office to fill the vacancy left by justice scalia. to beg the question why this president is denied the opportunity to fulfill his obligation. why our standards are being questioned for this nominee? if we were to rely on
inconsistencies would our friends:the other side give their own party that right? the only conclusion we can draw is this is another validation of a strategic decision seven years ago it republican retreat to make barack obama a one-term president and then claim political victory with a refusal to govern in what is most astonishing is they claim like justice scalia the constitution is carved in stone and undeniable and impervious to interpretation by yet somehow they completely ignore an effort to obstruct the president's ability to govern.
this president was elected twice to serve two full terms it is only been seven years and the time to move away from extra push - - instruction. we may have differences on policies we are in complete agreement he should not be denied the ability that democrats have to not denied president reagan to a firm justice kennedy in the election year in asia not defied the president under the same circumstances. we should have the decency and respect to with the unambiguous wisdom of article to section to clause two determine our actions today. let's start with the political posturing to fill the political responsibility
lettuce to fill one of those basic and solemn duties the american people deserve a fully functioning supreme court with the bipartisan tradition to get full and fair consideration to the nominees. even with the majority of the senate has not supported the nominee the committee has sent them to the full senate for a floor vote and it should be noted that no time since world war ii has the court operate with fewer than nine justices because the senate simply refuses to consider a nominee. every dave and i come to work it says the words equal justice under law. that is the judicial branch
to be fully functioning if they are deadlocked with the highest court in the land let's be clear if there is a difference between different federal courts in jurisdictions it is the supreme court that determines the law of the land but is different in new jersey than in texas but into a similar cases as reverts to the finding of the lower court how person is treated under the same federal statute it is not equal justice under the law. to have equal justice the nation in the supreme court to be fully functional but in 2004 explaining why he would not recuse himself in
the case with former vice president dick cheney, '' with eight justices raises the possibility of the tie vote the court will find itself unable to resolve a significant legal position of the case even one unnecessary recusal compromises the court. and to say he has an obligation to nominate a supreme court justice. and before the democratic senate confirmed it was president reagan who said every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business without body. how long we willing to impair the people's business or stick to a strategy?
how long the willing to deny this president his constitutional authority to satisfy a? and how long we willing to deny equal justice under the law? john adams reminded us we are a government of laws and if 1 million can determine what is what every man can a legal process is the essential part of the democratic process. mr. president lettuce respect the constitution. in this case to a misguided determinations with that
process is to revise and consent cannot neglect a and obstruct. to do the harm to our country is the majority of these tactics. in respect this institution by holding hearings does provide for equal justice under the law. i yield the floor. >> the clerk will call the roll out. >> the senator from iowa. >> will the senator from new jersey withhold his request?
>> i think we have heard some very the legitimate questions in to go back to the familiar to answer that with the biden rules and by now everybody is familiar so i will not take time to go over them again. first of president should exercise restraint and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed gore stated differently, if the president chooses not to follow this model but as it goes away then the senate
shouldn't consider the nomination and hold hearings it doesn't matter how he is nominated by the president said the historical record is pretty clear but we haven't talked as much of one of the main reasons chairman biden was so adamant the senate should consider a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential election. because of the tremendous damage of the hyper political environment to support the nominee in the nation if the senate considered the supreme court nominee during a heated campaign the court would be
even more political than it already is. that is a big part of what was driving chairman biden when he spoke the strong words. in an interview about one week before his famous speech of 1992 can you imagine dropping a nominee into that fight in the middle of the presidential year. and i believed there would be no bounds of propriety to be earned by either side the environment to be
supercharging be prone to be distorted. and as a result chairman biden concluded could batter in different to become a victim. my friend, the vice president from the senate then considered tremendous damage of trusting a supreme court nominee into a frenzy political environment against the potential impact of the eight member court for a short time. that the minor cost the
mitre cost of the three year for cases that are read argued are nothing compared to the damage a hyper politicized fight what havilland the nominee, the president, the senate in the nation a matter how good a person is nominated. the former chairman concluded because of how badly a situation would politicize the process and based on the historical record, the only reasonable and fair approach, a pragmatic approach is not considered a nominee during
a presidential election. once the political season is underway action must be plucked off until after the election campaign is over. and that is central to the process that is why it seems we would be in deep trouble as an institution it is concluded this way. the senate nomination is not fair for the president to the nominee or the senate itself. this is why chairman biden went to such lengths to explain the history that
some of the nation's most debtors -- bitter and fights have come with presidential election years. then the discussion rehabing today over the next several months. everybody knows is nominee will like it confirmed republicans know that the democrats know that. the president knows it. even the press knows that cable leavitt? for instance "the washington post" called the president future nominee '' a judicial kamikaze pilot. '' "the new york times" noted the nominee would need almost suicidal willingness to become a central player
in a political fight that seems likely to end in failure. so the only question is why with the other side come to the floor to express outrage ? because they want to make this as political as possible. they have already picked up on it. for instance cnn reported yet aside hopes he is a fight with the supreme court nominee -- nominee to energize the democratic base their already using the eventual nominee as a political weapon. this is why the president wants to finish forward with the nominee maliki confirmed
the idea their side once the hearing on a nominee they know will get confirmed. this is lasting the supreme court needs it has been politicized and then with that frustration that i expressed at the grassroots in my state of iowa and the six years since the bombing has appointed two justices because of that disapproval jumped 20 percent disapproval to the 50 percent disapproval in 2015. this is injustices legislate from the bench maybe even a republican nominee sitting
on the bench that has legislated from the bench as well. this is when they make decisions based on their personal political preferences or what is in their heart rather than the constitution the last thing we need is to further politicize the process. i want to make sure everyone understands with the outrage is about to make this process says political as possible. to follow that suggestion of then senator biden. we will have a debate, a national debate between the democrat nominee in the republican nominee. about what kind of justice
the american people want on the supreme court. that is what they deserved in my view that the people decide. there was a more basic debate because of my town meetings somebody will come in very outraged by the senator with juries of impeachment's so instead of interpreting the law why you put up with that? so we can have the debate on what is the constitutional role of the court?
with those justices to feel their feelings should put into the decision that he wants somebody that expresses sympathy and understanding of people's problems. to the branch of government to let their personal feelings involved whatsoever. their job is to look at the losses in to make the impartial judgment. and even to the republican appointed to the supreme court when issuing a decision with the affordable care act did not fit into
what congress could do. to regulating interstate commerce. but we could go over here to the federal government to find a way that this president can have his legacy approved. find all kinds of ways to do what you want to do as opposed to what the constitution requires. it would be nice to have that debate with the nominee whether we have national debates or hundreds of appearances around the country, with the basic
constitutional issues and then let the people decide. and what is the role of the supreme court generally of the constitutional system? i yield the floor. >> i found this interesting in my chamber especially through the looking glass with "alice in wonderland". listening to this speech i thought of balance. president obama is blamed for everything with the approval rating of the supreme court has gone down. they have been appointed or nominated by republicans and
we will blame president obama because dominated with presidents to bring down the approval of the u.s. supreme court? according from my friend from iowa he said this is "alice in wonderland". i don't care what happens. president obama has to be blamed them must be his fault but this is a stretch that i have never heard with the supreme court goes down with the approval rating
because of the five members members, i apologize. because of the five members of the supreme court i'm sure obama will be blamed for that. is the approval rating of the court because that constitute the majority is as far-fetched as "alice in wonderland" so the way the democrats and republican nominees and as they point out and buy the president
personally and with that action is to put through in in the election-year as a republican to the supreme court got a unanimous vote in those are the facts in the fact we use a different standard with the final two years democrats control the senate. we confirmed 68 nominees and obama only allowed 16. these are facts allowing for
the republican president with the judiciary with president obama and then talk about of what he might said during the last year in office. trying to imply that he would put through gmos republican nominees for the court, the 53 republican nominees so if you say we would to follow the blighted rule -- biden rule i wish we
would. with the republican presidents last year in office. come on. be fair. the fact is we have never blocked a supreme court nominee because of a presidential election year. . . 1816. always allowed presidential nominees to go forward. i tell you this because the constitution requires the president to make a nomination. it's very clear. and we shall advice and
consepbltsz. we say oh, no, we don't need advice. we don't need consent. we won't even have a hearing. mr. president, i've taken the oath of office here seven times. it is a moving, thrilling moment. i'm sure the distinguished presiding officer knows it is a solemn moment. solemn moment. >> you promise to uphold the constitution so help me god? the constitution says the president shall nominate, simply shall advise and consent. i took my oh very, very seriously. that is why justice biden that when he was chairman i moved a significant number of republicans even in the last year as they were in office and
that is so different than what we see now. you criticize house president biden the last year the president, george hw bush was in office, vice president biden was chairman of the judiciary committee, they put through 11th circuit court judges, 53 district court judges, and five district court judges. come on, let's get this out of partisanship. by any standard whatsoever there has been a republican president and democratic controlled senate we have treated that republican president far better then you
treat democratic presidents. i would think because the supreme court with five a republican appointed jury members on the supreme court are bringing down the approval rating of the supreme court of the american people it must be president obama's fault even though five members were nominated and approved before obama was in presidency. that goes too far. that is alice in wonderland. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news of policy issues that impact you. on tomorrow morning new york republican congressman in minnesota democratic congressman
say their opposition to the obama administration drawdown to the land forces to its lowest level since world war ii. the chair of the election commission talks about voting. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. join the discussion. >> you're watching c-span2. next, all five fcc commissioners testified before senate commerce committee hearing. then in a joint economic hearing , later the house natural resources committee looks at the department of interior's 2017 budget request. >> this weekend the c-span cities to are hosted by our time warner partners on book tv. >> the idea of afro mexican came
for my editor, i was not offended by the idea of afro mexicans come i didn't want to do it at first because i do think anyone would care. in journalism you want to do stories that people will care about, you don't care people like you or hate you are hate u.s. lanes their reading you. i thought nobody wanted to read an advice column about mexicans. but we needed to fill in a space in the paper that week so i said fine, i'll go back. and he said it's only going to be one time, a satirical column, jokey. people went absolutely nuts work. some people loved it, some hated some people loved it, some hated it. but more partly people were caring and even crazier at the bottom was was be a joke column and if you have a spicy question i mexicans asked asked me i'm the mexican. so people started sending it questions immediately. >> on american history tv,. >> john and his partner go up to san francisco which is where a lot of german immigrants are
located, they're actually able -- i find it shocking but there able to convince 50 people of whom nobody was a farmer and only one person had any background in winemaking to give up their businesses and come to anaheim. their first action after they formed it was known as the -- his job was to bring the irrigation here, lay out the sites and plants hundreds of thousands of grapevines before families would even come down here. >> watch c-span cities tour saturday at noon eastern on c-span to book tv. sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span three. the c-span cities tours working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country.
>> the annual conservative political action conference kicked off today in national harbor, maryland. tomorrow we will take you there live as the national rifle association ceo will address the group. that is live, 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three and c-span.org. >> federal communication commissions tom wheeler and all of the commissioners were on capitol hill today for senate commerce committee hearing. they answer questions on the spectrum auction and broadband access to rural areas. this is this is two hours and 40 minutes. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we come to order. welcome to to today's hearing on oversight of the federal communications