John Ensign: “I would like to think that if some of the finest and most respected jurists in our country's history were nominated…”

“I would like to think that if some of the finest and most respected jurists in our country's history were nominated today to sit on the Federal bench, their successful confirmation by the Senate would be guaranteed. I am talking about jurists such as Chief Justice John Marshall, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Imagine where we would be today without their bright, insightful legal minds. Unfortunately, in today's bitter and partisan atmosphere, I don't see how any of them would make it through this grueling, humiliating, and endless judicial nomination process. That is a disturbing thought. We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate. In our history, many nominees have come before us who have generated strenuous debate. Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas are two of what the other side would consider more controversial figures to be considered for a position on the Federal bench.…”