On the recordMarch 1, 2016
As you know, it has been the custom of the last couple of Congresses to open the Congress with a reading of the entire United States Constitution. I have generally not participated in that because I am not all that comfortable with public displays of piety, and I am a big believer in the notion that what really matters is what you do, not what you say. Never has the spread between what we say and what we do been quite as wide as it is when we consider the approach that my friends on the Republican side have taken with respect to the absolutely essential constitutional duty of appointing a Supreme Court Justice. So I am going to break with my past pattern and read briefly from the Constitution, Article II, section 2, which reads: ``He shall have power''--that is referring to the President--``by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.'' And there it ends. He shall appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. There it ends. There is nothing there about he won't do that in an election year. There is nothing there saying that if there is not enough time, he won't exercise his constitutional authority. There is nothing there that, maybe because then-Senator Biden said something 25 years ago, he won't appoint a Supreme Court Justice.…
