On the recordFebruary 23, 2016
I rise today first to praise and echo the words of the senior Senator from Vermont, our ranking member on Judiciary, in urging our Republican colleagues to give a fair and full consideration of a Supreme Court nominee. I particularly wish to praise my friend, the ranking member, for his eloquent remarks and for his leadership of the committee when he was chair and as ranking member. My friend from Vermont is absolutely right. Just as the President has a constitutional responsibility to name a nominee to the Court, the Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on that nominee. Frankly, it is the Senate's job to consider Supreme Court nominees, and the American people expect the Senate to do its job. We are telling Senate Republicans, America is telling Senate Republicans: Do your job. Plain and simple. My friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, should commit to holding hearings. The distinguished majority leader should commit to holding a vote. It has been a longstanding precedent of the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, even in election years: Justice Pitney in 1912; Brandeis and Clarke in 1916; Cardozo at a time when America was even more divided than now, 1932. In the middle of the Depression, the great election between Roosevelt and Hoover, they put in Cardozo in that last year. Murphy in 1940 and Kennedy in 1988 were confirmed.…
