On the recordDecember 1, 2016
I rise to discuss the vacancy of the U.S. Supreme Court. We have been on this issue and what needs to happen next year when our next President is sworn in. For months this year, I and other Members of this body held our ground in saying that the American people deserve a voice in this process. We talked about how the integrity of the advice and consent process, clearly outlined in article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, was at stake. We outlined years of precedent against nominating and confirming a Supreme Court Justice during a Presidential election cycle. The last time a vacancy arose and a nominee was confirmed in a Presidential election year was 1932, and 1888 was the last Presidential election year in which a Justice was nominated and confirmed by a divided government. Confirming a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should never be distorted by political theater of a Presidential election cycle. This is a bipartisan position. Both parties have said at different times in the past decade or so what I and many colleagues on this floor have said just this year. Since day one, I have consistently said that no Supreme Court nominee should be considered for the Supreme Court or considered by the Senate before the next President is sworn in. That also meant no consideration during the lameduck, either, no matter the outcome of the election. You can't have it both ways. This was my position before the election. This is still my position today.…
