Learn from his understanding of the constitution and will senators learn from this testimony that there are proper and improper inquiries of judicial nominees . We are about to find out quite quickly. Toeady, the senate is ready take up the Harriet Miers nomination in just a few weeks. Already, some senators on both sides of the oil are ill are eager to determine her personal views. I would be satisfied to learn a wise approach to our democracy. I want to thank you for having me be with you today. Let the judges i have spoken sure ii have i am will be followed by many scholars more distinguished than somef and while i am sure of you have disagreed with what i have to say and im sure i will hear these in a few minutes, i do know to my many years of service as a senator. Thank you so much. Great to be with you. [applause] the next two speeches in our Supreme Court special include minority leader harry reid defending the use of the filibuster and saying the senator the senate has no obligationnal o to vote on the nominee. And by Mitch Mcconnell, saying democrats should confirm her more bush nominees before the president leaves office. Here we have two speeches that seems somewhat at odds with what those leaders are saying today. What was different back then and what does this tell us about the process . What was different is quite simple was that each of these minority and majority in front of their title. Dramatic ist so what it shows is in the last 30 , which was where these clips began, ideology has become important and divided government each judicial confirmation war will be fought to the death. When senatorpeech reid is speaking, this is at a time when the republican from tennessee, the majority leader, was threatening the Nuclear Option, which was a parliamentary maneuver to take away the right of the minority to filibuster judges. Senator reid was opposed to that. Several years later, it was senator reid who engineered the exact same Nuclear Option he fought so hard against. In the 2005 case, the Nuclear Option was diffused at the last fromt when seven senators each party can together and said we will refuse to join filibusters of judges from so long as they are perceived as in the mainstream. That held together from the a few years and by the time president obama came to power and harry reid had the chance was frustrated by obamas inability to get judges on the secondary court, the court of appeals lets take a look at those two speeches. I want to remind you that all of the video we are showing you on the Supreme Court special is available on cspan. Org. Here are the speeches from harry reid and Mitch Mcconnell. I have addressed the senate on several occasions, setting the record straight on Senate History and the rules. Frankly, i would much rather address wage to cut health care costs, bring down gas prices, talk about education, the spiraling deficit we have, but the majority leaders decided we will spend this week and next week or at least part of next week talking about judges in the mainstream. Jurisprudence. I am happy to engage in this debate that i would rather not. I do want to debate to be accurate. For example, my good friend, the distinguished republican leader issued a Statement Last friday which he called the phyllis buster filibuster procedural gimmick. Record what the word gimmick means. The dictionary defines it as a new scheme. I indicated it filibuster was everything but that. It is not a gimmick, it is part of our nations history for two centuries. Vital of the file checks and balances established by our visionary founding fathers. It is not a gimmick. Also, some republicans have improperlye stated the use of the filibuster. They have said time and time defeat of ahe handful of president bushs nominees is on president. There have been hundreds of judicial nominees in American History that have been rejected by the senate, any by filibuster. Been most notable, denomination of eight fortis filibuster in 1968. Post ishe washington the same byline from many, many years ago. The first sentence, a full led republican. Filibuster broke out for the chief justice of United States. We have had filibusters. That is what has been disappointing to me with some of my colleagues saying there have not been filibusters. There has been. During the Clinton Administration more than 60 judicial nominees were bottled up and never received votes. Of course, as indicated by my distinguished friend, the republican leader, during that time democrats are complaining about what was going on, saying there should have been hearings in the senate, and even came to the floor and the majority leader said, lets have some votes. Lets have some votes on these people. Mr. President , we never said we would break the rules to change rules. To change the rules in the senate cannot be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate or 67 votes. Say that thell statements made by Republican Leaders are wrong about the votes, and we were disturbed that they were not votes. We never ever suggested that rules should be broken. In addition to the socalled pocket filibusters called them when everyone, the 69 nominations, never made it out of the russell building, the judiciary committee. In addition to those engageances, republicans in explicit filibusters on the floor against a number of clinton judges when they did get out and they defeated a number of the executive branch nominees by filibuster. It is the same advice and consent. That is why a republican filibuster, henry foster said it was unconstitutional. Filibuster for the fifth circuit, unconstitutional. Why would the same not apply . The republican argument does not add up. I would say this to my friend, the per citing officer presiding officer. I have said, lets not dwell on what went on in the Clinton Administration, the four years that president bush has been president , i am sure there is plenty of blame to go around as we look back, i am not sure and it is difficult to say this, but i say it, im not sure either was handled properly. I know it was not the right thing to simply bury 69 nominations and in hindsight may be we could have done these differently. Tired ofcan people are what were doing. They are tired of the constant fighting going on. Ift is going to take place this continues . We will have a vote sometime next week. It will be a close vote of course as we only need six republicans. Ispresiding officer that it former chairman of the appropriations committee, it is very difficult to get bills passed. Things will not work as well as they could have. We need to avoid this. We are all legislators. Now, the president of United States has become the latest to rewrite the constitution and reinvent reality. Republicans on tuesday night, two days ago, he said the senate has a duty to consider each nominee on the senate floor, discuss and debate their qualifications and get them a upper down vote. Everyone of the 10 he has spoken of has had a vote. Every one of them. Right here in the senate floor, between these tables, their name was called and they voted. Right who see within the reach the destruction of american mainstream values, duty through the american constitution and for the American People that are waiting for progress, progress not partisanship and heady debates. Petty debates. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the senate needs to give nominees a vote. It says appointments should be made with the advice and appointment of the senate. All of these about which we are vote rightas had a here. The fact was even acknowledged that a vote is not required by the majority leader. Hereajority leader was last week. He asked the majority leader if the constitution required each nominee an upanddown vote in the answer is no. He was candid. The language is not there, that is what the jenin said. He is correct. The present that is what the gentleman said. He is correct. It is clear that the president misunderstands the meaning of the advice of the consent clause. The word advice means consulting. As a result of this consulting, bill clinton brought with better ginsburg. Ginsburg. Der the senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch. We are the one institution where the minority has a voice in the minority can check the power of the majority. In the face of president bushs power grab, it is more important than ever. Republicans want oneparty rule and this is the last place where they cannot have it all. Now president bush wants to destroy the check and balances to make sure he does get it all. Every senator can stand on behalf of the people who have sent them there and say their piece. In the senates 200 plus year of history this has been done hundreds and hundreds of times, standing up to popular president s, unpopular president s, president s arrogant with power, blocked legislation. In the eyes of the senator and yes, even to reject president ial nominations, even judicial nominations. Mcconnell this is the one Year Anniversary for the circuit judge. Processnee and judicial is unhealthy and we said this congress would be different. The Los Angeles Times in the Washington Post acknowledged the president did his part to get the process off to a good start back at the beginning of this. They and many others complemented his good faith at not resubmitting Circuit Court nominees though some of our democratic colleagues did not like. The majority leader himself said how much he appreciated the president s good faith. He said, i personally want the record to reflect that i appreciate the president not send it back for names that were really controversial. The majority leader said he and his colleagues have an obligation to reciprocate and treat Circuit Court nominees fairly. He said, i think we need to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate and we are going to try to do that by looking at the nominees as quickly as we can. Is, have the democrats treated these nominees fairly . Have they, in fact, reciprocated . Lets look at the facts. This president , in his final two years of office and the Senate Democrats hope to recapture the white house. Obviously, there is a partisan incentive not to confirm his judicial nominees. President s t this has been a president s human nature. The situation is not it. Firstecon ush is not or the last. Historical fairness confirming nominees. We agree that the senate should meet this standard. The average number of Circuit Court nominations is 17 in this situation. President clinton had 15. The senate has confirmed only 10 Circuit Court nominees. What happened . Unfortunately, old habits are opinionbreak, and in my democrats on the Judiciary Academy this Committee Found it hard not to play politics. The judge was a distinguished state court judge and a iraq war veteran. He was someone whom Committee Democrats had already approved unanimously for the district ofrt, so at the beginning this congress when the president tried it yet again to fill a fth circuit,he fi he did not resubmitting nominee that the democrats oppose, and submitted someone they already approved. How did the democrats respond . Did ane exception, they total aboutface and try to filibuster the judges nomination. Unfortunately, the consensus nominee who became controversial. The senate has already approved the judge in North Carolina not once but twice. First is the chief federal Law Enforcement officer in North Carolina and then to a lifetime position. On the Federal District court. In addition, the aviator gave judge conran a high rating and janet reno called him an excellent prosecutor and said she was impressed with his judgment and his knowledge of the law. Again, to resolve a dispute over a Fourth Circuit see, president bush did not reissue a nominee Senate Democrats oppose. He nominated someone who they already approved, judge robert conrad. Guess what has happened . Nothing has happened. As of today, judge conrad has been sitting in the committee for 365 days, one full year without a hearing even though he meets all of the chairmans criteria, has the highest possible aba rating, strong home state support and was still a judicial emergency. What is the result of all of that . While judge conrad waits in the committee, the Circuit Court is over 25 vacant. Over one fourth of its seats are empty. Its chief judge states that to keep up with its work, court must rely heavily on District Court judges, and it is robbing peter to pay paul. Sayses without saying she that having to use visiting judges puts a strain on our circuit and in particular, it forces the circuits district judges to perform double duty. The situation on the Fourth Circuit is so bad that the aba has made the crisis in its lead story. Its most recent addition of its professional turmoil on the cover page. The majority leader comes to the floor this morning and says judges are not important. No one cares about them. Given the crisis of the fourth is highlighting it and i cannot imagine he would suggest such a thing. I am sure did millions of citizens think that having their court over 25 vacant does not matter. I am sure they care very much about that but evidently that is what the majority leader of believes and apparently he is not the only one in his congress who feels that way. The committee refuses to move judge conrads nomination or any other pending Fourth Circuit nomination. The democrats do not approve rosensteins nomination because he is doing too good of a job as u. S. Attorney. Rationale interesting for not moving someone. We have another Fourth Circuit nominee, judge glen conrad from virginia. He is a Federal District court judge whom the Senate Confirmed to the trial bench without any controversy. He has the support of both of his home state senators, one democrat and one republican. After he was nominated, the chairman said he would move them as long as it was time to do so. Havefically he stated, i already said that once the paperwork on president bushs nomination on a judge glen conrad, if there is sufficient time i hope to move his termination. Well, the chairmans conditions are met with respect to judge glen conrads nomination. His paperwork has been ready for one month. 17th. Only july the last time i looked, there were 12 months in a year. 17, clearly we have time to confirm him. Yet, we have no access on this nomination. Democraticnt, our colleagues talk about the for eral confirm it rule confirment rule. I do not think this exist. It has been research thoroughly and there is no such role. This is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill needed vacancies. Party is without blame in the confirmation process, but what is going on now or accurately, what is not going on is yet another step backwards in politicizing the process we had all hoped we would get beyond. The American People, especially those in the five states that make up the Fourth Circuit who are suffering the consequences, and i am sorry the majority leader does not think that matters. I yield the floor. We have seen over the last couple of hours, the whole confirmation process, Supreme Court confirmation process, very partisan backandforth on the issue. What is your thought, your predictions for the Merrick Garland nomination and the process Going Forward . How do you see the next administration faring in the senate as well . I think the guy has been cast pretty solidly on judge garland. Said, noonnell has way, no how will the Republican Senate so long as he is in charge have a hearing on Merrick Garland or vote on Merrick Garland. At one point, there seemed briefly to be the sense that not had talked about doing it before the president ial election and then there was a brief rhetorical window where he said, maybe after the election if we lose the election, we would be happy to see Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court and out Mitch Mcconnell says no way on that. He is a practical man. More practical than ideological, and yet for whatever reason he concludes that going back on his very predictions is in his partys s political interest and things maybe change. I do not think that is likely. In the next administration will all depend on whether we have at present of one party in the senate of the other or if they are aligned. One thing you are reminded of, cannot help be reminded of when , it isch this footage always the senators and president s on the political losing end of debate that say lets reform ourselves, lets behave better in the future and it is always the folks on the winning side that use the power levers that has been developed over the last 30 years. David hawkins, we appreciate you speaking with us and we enjoy reading your book and her blog. I do so much. We will wrap up your with a couple comments by then senator barack obama on Supreme Court nominations in 20