Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement on the Supreme Court vacancy, the Nuclear Option and the Bork/Kennedy episode in response to the Democrats’ attempt to hijack the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act with political maneuvering on the Supreme Court vacancy.
“We’ve had quite a discussion this morning on why the Judiciary Committee didn't meet. We were prepared to meet the same way we often do, when there's just maybe five minutes of business. We meet off the Senate floor here so that we can do both the work of the entire United States Senate and the work of the Judiciary Committee. That happens often.
“And that's the accommodation I asked for from the Minority. But they objected. Of course, they asked me to accommodate them on a hearing earlier this week on the EB 5 immigration issue. I postponed that hearing because the Minority members of the Judiciary committee didn’t want to have that hearing when this very important opioid addiction bill was on the floor. The heroin addiction bill is before the United States senate with 44,000 lives being lost in a year because of that addiction. And we’re considering important legislation to solve that problem. I didn’t get that accommodation so I postponed the meeting.
“And so what we heard on the floor here, while my colleagues were holding up the opioid bill, all this talk about having a debate about the next nominee to the Supreme Court, a nominee that hasn't even been made yet.
“So I came to the floor now to respond to just a couple ridiculous arguments that my friends made this morning.
“First of all, we are going to have a debate about the Supreme Court and the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice in our constitutional Republic. We're going to debate whether or not the American people want yet another justice who decides cases based on what's in his or her “heart” or whether they want a Justice who decides cases based on the Constitution.
“That’s not my estimation of the debate. That’s exactly what this President said regarding previous judges and Justices. He said he was looking for somebody who would have empathy for people who come before the court. Having empathy for people who come before the court means you’re supposed to do something different than what judges are supposed to do.
“Judges are supposed to look at the facts and the law, and base their decisions on the law. They aren’t supposed to base their decisions on personal feelings. We’re a nation based upon the Rule of Law. So, this is what the American people have to think about and debate. They need to have a voice in this process.
“And as Senator Biden said in 1992, or Senator Schumer said in 2007, we’re not going to consider a Supreme Court nominee during a heated presidential election.
“So, we have an opportunity to have a national debate. This whole debate is about whether we’re going to have Justices who decide cases based on “empathy” rather than the letter of the Constitution and the letter of the Statute.
“Then a second point. We’ve heard a lot of complaining around here -- and I suspect we’re going to hear a lot of it – because Senate Judiciary Republicans met and then made public our decision not to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination during a heated Presidential election year.
“Give me a break.
“We made a decision based on history, and our intention to protect the ability of the American people to make their voices heard. We didn’t play games. Just as Senator Biden wasn’t playing games when he gave that 20,000 word speech in 1992 where he said that we shouldn’t have a lame duck President make a nomination during a presidential election campaign.
“Just like Senator Schumer said in 2007 before the American Constitution Society, 18 months before George W. Bush was out of office.
“So that’s the historical approach. Very plain and open, both Democrats and Republicans taking the same tone so the People could make their voices heard. The American people should be heard not only on who’s going to be fill Justice Scalia’s seat, but also on the proper role of the Supreme Court, and whether or not the Court ought to be a legislative body.
“Like I said, we made that decision and immediately made it public.
“I don’t remember being invited to the secret meetings that the Democrats held before they walked on to the Senate floor of the United States Senate in November of 2013 and invoked the Nuclear Option so they could pack the D.C. Circuit. We wanted to save taxpayer money. The D.C. Circuit is the least worked circuit court in the country. Everyone knew you didn’t need three more judges.
“That court was fairly evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. But because that court reviews the President’s executive orders and regulations, this President wanted to make sure he had enough judges on that court, so that when the court reviews the actions he takes with his pen and phone, he would get favorable rulings. So they packed the D.C. Circuit.
“So, that’s why we had the Nuclear Option. Because the other side had to get around the 60 vote rule that we had here for the approval of judges.
“I also keep hearing this claim that Senator Biden, when he was Chairman of the Committee, should be praised for how he handled the Bork-Kennedy episode.
“Now, I happened to be here in 1987. I saw what happened to Judge Bork. I saw how he was smeared. And because he was smeared, that seat remained open and filled in early 1988. If that’s the other side’s argument, then I think we all know how weak their position is.
“Finally, let me say this.
“I said yesterday and I want to say it again, the other side knows that this nominee isn’t going to get confirmed. Everyone knows it. The only reason that they’re complaining about a hearing on the nominee is because they want to make the process as political as possible. And that goes to the heart of the matter.
“We’re not going to politicize this process in the middle of a Presidential election year.
“We’re going to let The People have a voice.”
-30-