I point out to the body and the American people that the President had made an excellent nomination in the name of Miguel Estrada. And for 28 months Mr. Estrada was held in limbo while we waited for the Constitution to be upheld in the other body. And that would be the advise and consent clause of the Constitution that establishes that the Senate shall confirm the President's nominees. Now that 28 months and 5 days have passed, Mr. Estrada determined he needed to move on with his life. But the rules in the other body that establish a 60 percent vote to end a filibuster, have effectively established that standard as a requirement for a confirmation of a justice. And now today, and as I read some of the publications that are out, I am heartened to learn that through the newspapers that the other body is planning to debate judicial nominations starting on Wednesday evening of this week. They pledge to debate the issue all night to get their message to the American people. I applaud them in their endeavor, and I will do all I can to support their efforts. The blockage of judicial nominations by a determined minority is one of the most important issues before our Nation. Nothing less than our Constitution is at stake. I believe the Constitution is clear: a minority cannot impose a supermajority requirement for confirmation of a judicial nominee. The President is entitled to confirmation of his nominees if they garner a simple majority.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the nomination of Miguel Estrada and the implications of filibuster rules on judicial confirmations.
Share
More from Steve King
I will conclude my remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________
I was unable to vote on December 3, and 4, 2020, due to not being in town. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 230; ``no'' on rollcall No. 231; ``no'' on rollcall No. 232; ``no'' on rollcall No. 233…
I was unable to vote on August 22, 2020 due to not being in DC. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 179; ``no'' on rollcall No. 180; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 181; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 182. MEMBERS…
I was unable to vote on December 2, 2020 and December 3, 2020 due to not being in town. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall no. 228; ``no'' on rollcall no. 229; ``no'' on rollcall no. 230; and ``no''; and…





