Since the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said on more than one occasion that this is not about payback--I think that is a direct quotation, on several occasions--I wonder why, if the withholding of confirmations on judicial nominations is not about payback, that most of the argument that the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Nevada keep making is how poorly they believe that President Clinton's nominees were treated by Republicans. What relevance would that have, if their action today isn't about payback?
On the recordOctober 23, 2001
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Questioning the motivations behind the withholding of judicial nominations during Senate debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Nov 14, 2023
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the whole point is if the adversary believes that our system no longer functions, then they don't need to try to wipe it out at the beginning of a conflict.
Nov 14, 2023
One of the things that we noticed in this endeavor is there is a great attitude among the military, among the Defense Department generally in being able to succeed at a mission.
Dec 18, 2018
I certainly appreciate this comment by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because the Secretaries of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have all said our strategic deterrent has to be our No. 1 priority. Why is…





