How to do it. The center has voiced on what is best. In, you are rules. The time just a matter of before the Senate Becomes the house. Before senator durbin speak, let me ask all the members i said we probably ought to stop at 11 40 to vote. If there is a desire to do what is on the agenda, keep that in mind. Thank you very much, chairman. I have served on the committee for 18 years. I consider the Senate Judiciary committee to be one of the major committees of the senate, and it has played more continuously an Important Role in the history of our country. Pure now faced with historic decision, and i hope we get it right. I would say to my friend, and he is my friend, technology and the feinstein observation i would conclude that senator graham is one of my friends, and a person that respect on this, to say that if we make mistake today, we will make it again in the future does not give me any comfort at all. If theres one thing that we pay a lot of money for on both sides of the political o equation, it is thats the appointment and anger that people feel about us, about congress. Asbe we do two points better democrats than republicans, by dont take any comfort in that, no should we. The question is what we will do to either confirm those suspicions and hatreds, or change them. We have a chance right here and now. Let me say at the outset, senator grassley, my neighbor in iowa, has been in the sense myself traveler for over 30 years. We have spent more time together on airplanes and airports than most other members. We have come to know one another under those circumstances. We have come to Work Together on a lot of issues. The first time i came to this committee, we worked on bankruptcy reform for years. Again, we are working on important issues together. Im hopeful that we can produce something bipartisan again and cooperation. I also believe what brings us together, though our political philosophies are much different is this feeling that there is a midwestern attitude towards things. Even if we disagree, we can be respectful to one another and find common ground. Is one of the issues about the filling of the vacancy in the Supreme Court. I think there is a feeling of fairness where we live, flat and for til is one of the america, a fairness to your neighbors, even if they are not your friends. I do not question, at the end of the day, it is still going to be democratscans and 66 voting on any nominee sent by the president. If that is suspect or controversial, there may not be any votes for that nominee. What i dont understand is the notion that, for the first time in the history of our country, this Senate Judiciary committee will not offer a hearing on the nominee. They go so far as to say some members have said, i will not even meet with this nominee, whoever it may be. Then, the statement made by one of my friends on the committee warning people who are being asked to consider being a nominee, be prepared, you are going to be treated like a pinata. A pinata. What that is, at birthday parties, when young kids are blindfolded and told, beat this papiermache animal to the candyil all falls out. I hate to think that this process is being likened to a pinata contest, where we are finally finally swinging at whoever that pinata happens to be. I dont think we should write what nominee for fear of we will do. I heard that from the chairman. He is trying to protect the nominee from the hot cauldron of this committee. Who is turning up the heat . We have the responsibility to be fair. Yes, ask the important questions, go through the hearings. We have the responsibility to be fair. This will be the first time in the history of the United States, the first time, that this committee and the senate will deny a hearing a hearing to a nominee sent to us by a sident, and, deny vote. That is hard to explain. It is so hard to explain, the american have rejected it. We can argue about polls. I can tell you, the poll show, even a monk republicans, it is 46 in favor of a hearing, and 49 against uribe get the basic fairness of the question before us. Let me just say, there exists, for this committee, the creation staff, aairman and his website. This website has a page on the Supreme Court of the United States. I would like to read, from our website of our committee a website created by the chairman of this committee it reads, when a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the president of the night states is givinens authority to nominate a person to fill the vacancy, the nomination is referred to the United States senate where the Senate Judiciary committee holds a hearing, where the nominee provides testimony in response to questions from members of the panel. Traditionally, they were for the nominee to the full senate for consideration. This is our website. We have announced on the website that this is a practice of this committee. Yet, in the announcement made and the letter signed by the republican senators on the committee is in direct contradiction to what we have announced to be our policy. Is chairman, i know this unusual, by would like to make a ask unanimoust, consent to make a motion very directly to say, is the sense of that,diciary committee and read directly from our issite, the president given the authority to nominate a person to fill the vacancy and the Senate Judiciary committee holds a hearing traditionally, the Committee Refers the nomination to the full senate for nomination. I would ask unanimous consent that this is our standard policy. I would like, for the record, it noted which member objected. I will conclude very quickly. Mr. Chairman, it is time to change your website. Thank you. Think, while but listening to our colleagues across the aisle, if flipflops were in olympic sport, is some gold medals would be awarded. It is really breathtaking. I do believe that the debate we are having today is the important one an important one, and we should welcome it. It is important to have this debate in the public, and visible to the American People. The question is simple. Should the senate, the majority of whose members were elected,s a check on the president confirm a Supreme Court nominee of that president in the waning months of his office when that change theld likely ideological balance of the report for decades . Justice scalia served for 30 years. Clearly the stakes are high. That is why we decided the American People should have their voice heard in the selection of this time appointment. To senate has authority demand this, and my colleagues jobi intend to do the do on theected to peoples behalf. It is fair to say that people on the other side of the aisle dont like this idea. They are feigning a lot of outrage. We know they would do exactly the same if the shoe were on the other foot. We know that because they have told us. You, mr. Chairman, talked about what now Vice President biden said years ago. You dont have to go back that the comments from the senior side of new york, senator schumer, who said, 18 months before george bush took office, i will recommend to my colleagues that we will not recommend a Supreme Court extremeexcept for circumstances. Then, there is of course senator leaderhe former majority. He stated this. Do on the peoples behalf. Itthe duties of the senate are t constitution. Disagreeing myself often with the member, he is absolutely correct. There is no duty. Withholde can grant or to that nominee. The president himself, when he was United States senator filibustered just as a leader. To that nominee. The president simple justice reqt they abide. Claim people should choose. It is simply not the precedent. More to the point. It is rich criticism coming from our friends across the aisle. Where was the precedent for returning Supreme Court nominations in the scorchedearth political battle, as they did with qualified warnbortsuch as judge were now Justice Thomas . Where was the precedent . There was none. There was no precedent. Our democratic colleagues rewrote the rule book. Where was the precedent last congress when democrats change the rules, something we call the Nuclear Option around shorthand. In order to do what . To pack the district of Columbia Court of appeals. Something called the second most Important Court in the nation from which many Supreme Court nominations are nominated. There was no precedent when democrats rewrote the rulebook. Our friends on the democratic side of the aisle have new rules and have time again tobias time and again devised schemes. Every action has a reaction. That is physics. In this case it is simple justice. The outrage. E with the American People are wellinformed of the process of deciding who the next president will be. They can extend eight years of anemic Economic Growth or they can choose a different direction for the better. I hope they do. He choice is theirs the Supreme Court will have essential role in determining the path we take, and the people should have a voice in that decision too. Thank you, everyone. Im going to step back a little on this. I have thought many times about what i would do if we were in charge of the senate the democrats were in charge and we had a republican president as a lawyer, i have talked to my law professors from you receive chicago, and others. When you look at the playmate which of the constitution, it says, the President Shall nominate someone, the Senate Consent ind actually put together a formum of law professors a week ago, and one said, the framers did not contemplate the use of the consent advice and powers simply to run up the nominee appointment. I understand that people might not vote for whoever the president nominates. It has been my view that he has put a very qualified people. The constitution and its language did not anticipate we would just sit there and wait a year. In fact, if you look at the history, as we know, in the last 135 years, no president has refused a nominee for an open seat on the court. Approved over a dozen nominees in a present jewel election year, including five in the last 100. You have to go back to the civil war to find a time when the senate did not do its job and did not move on a nominee for over a year. That is through the depression, through world war i, world war ii, the vietnam war, times of great civil rights protests. You have to go back a long time. Concluded, after looking at this, if i were in your shoes, my friends on the other side of the aisle, i would have allowed this hearing to go through. Other piece of it that goes beyond the things that i would most. 2 which is the wording of the constitution, which is always very important. The fact that we have history as an argument here, which i think a strong in allowing a hearing to go forward. We also have how we function as the senate. Ourve been proud of the way Judiciary Committee has handled nominees. I think the nominees i have put forward have not had a fair hearing. I think back to the two nominations senator leahy was chairman we had republican senators that took part in that. Not many of them floated for them, by remember lindsey said, this washo not the nominee i would put up, by believe this person is qualified. What people have strong views on either side, the process worked. We had a process. The nominee went to the floor. Not at all with unanimous votes from our friends in the other side, but a process that we could be proud of, and i believed was fair, and moved along in a fair manner. You look at the 16 justices, the longest that any of them went from being nominated to the end of the confirmation, 99 days. Clarence thomas. You have a history of those who are on the court now, the history of our country, the fact that the senates role is to be funding the court, not dictating decisions, but advise and snsent on the president nominees. That is our job. We have to do our job. It was a shock when justice it was a shock to my colleagues the receive chicago. It happens. The question for the United States senate, democrats and republicans, how do we respond when that happened . Do the job, follow the law, follow the constitution, and the history that backs it up. Coming up, and i have a prior responsibility, i would like to have my remarks entered in the record. Thank you very much. Thank you for holding this important discussion. I think it is really instructive and somewhat ironic, given the Justice Scalia vacancy, to hear all of these arguments from the left that the cottage she constitutionhe requires a hearing and vote in a certain timeframe. Many of the centers on the left are clearly making that argument. I think it is ironic given that vacancy byting a Justice Scalias death. E taught us, read the words i think it is instructive wants a newleft Supreme Court justice who will not read the words, who will make it up as as they go along, and get to a preordained stopping point, however they can get there. Matter. Ords the constitution and the other relevant words, in this case, the senate rules, are clear. They do not require a hearing or action on any particular timeframe. As you know, the constitution simply, in article two, section two, clause two, the president will nominate and by thewith the consent of senate, ambassadors, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other states whothe united are not provided for. It does not talk about any action. E, any required which governs are the senate rules. The constitution makes it very clear that the senate cap establish rules to follow within the bounds of the constitution. The senate rules, the only thing they have to say about the timing of action is when a vote will not occur. It shall not be put on the same day which the nomination is received or the day which it may be reported by the committee. Then, there is 31. 6, which is very relevant and instructive. Nominations neither confirm nor session shalle not be acted upon at any seceding session without being m made to the president. That makes explicit that no hearing or action is required during that session. Everybody here has voted for those rules. I dont know why folks take a contrary view in the minority to notge that rule, or are proposing a change to the role now. Everybody here voted for that ule. Again, the argument that the constitution requires us to act in a certain way or timeframe just isnt true. Of Justice Scalia, i think we need to read the words first and foremost. It is instructive because that is what this debate is all about. Are we going to have a new justice who reads the words and apply some as written, or are we going to have a justice who helps make it up as he or she fromalong, who legislates the bench to get to a certain everoint, using what arguments are at his or her disposal. Been said as has clearly, so many members on the other side have confirmed this in the past, when they were in a different position. Schumer. Eid, senator senator schumer went a lot for the back than where we are now. He said 18 months before the end of the bush presidency, no Supreme Court justice should the confirmed except under extraordinary circumstances. Im happy to live by the schumer rule. This is not an extraordinary circumstance. I would defer to the people. The question is what is the right thing to do moving forward . Im very comfortable with deferring to the people, empowering citizens, putting them in charge. That is certainly what my constituents want in louisiana. They are crying out in frustration of their not being in charge of washington,egularly ignoring their wishes legislating from the bench, making it up as they go along. They want a voice in this. They want a voice to be able to stop that. Efer to the people. We have a unique opportunity to do that with this important president ial election before us. Everyn think in virtually president ial election that most important issues which gets little or no attention is Supreme Court appointment. That has impact for decades to come. We have an opportunity this year with that where that will not be the case. Hopefully it will be front and center. Anefully we will have opportunity to make decisions based on the law as written. Have a voice and be in charge. The great majority strongly of makingthe trend huge decisions for society that are not mandated by the constitution. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate your strongly support beenath way forward has adopted. I vote for putting the people and citizens in charge through the present election. I think it is an important and unique opportunity. Senator franken . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would ask senator vitter if he would stay so that i can speak. You can certainly speak. Do i have to stay for quorum . We will give you unanimous consent to speak. I do have to go. Of nine elected justices making laws on the bench, that is what we have seen. This is one of the most activist courts we have had. Senator vitter has not been on , but, myittee goodness, how may times have i spoken to this . Sotomayord the hearing, it was my fifth day in the senate. This is an activist court. Irony ofd about the Justice Scalia. We had 100 votes on the Voting Rights act. A he said that will come the senators voted because it was named the voters Voting Rights act. Remember that . He had a half hour of argument and he ignored hundreds of hours of debate that we had. Isator franken this insulting to hear that. It is just insulting. Now, let me say a couple of things about some of the death i have been hearing. Stuff i have been hearing. When chairman biden