In Judiciary Meeting, Hatch Challenges “Absurd Claims”
Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, a senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisted today that the Senate should wait until after the presidential election to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement to the Supreme Court.
In a Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, Senator Hatch asserted that the decision to withhold Supreme Court confirmations in a presidential election year is in keeping with historical precedent. In support of this position, he cited speeches from Democrat and Republican Senators alike. Senator Hatch also dispelled factually inaccurate claims about judicial nominations and once again affirmed the Senate’s independent role in the confirmation process. According to Hatch, “The Constitution gives the nomination power to the President and the advice and consent power to the Senate. The Constitution does not tell either the President or the Senate how to exercise their power.”
Senator Hatch’s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
The question regarding the vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is when, not whether, the Senate should consider a nominee.
Democrats say that the Constitution answers this question for us, requiring a prompt hearing and floor vote whenever the President chooses a nominee.
Anything else, they say, would not be doing our job.
Mr. Chairman, rarely have so few words been so misleading for so many.
The Constitution gives the nomination power to the President and the advice and consent power to the Senate.
The Constitution does not tell either the President or the Senate how to exercise their power.
The Senate must decide how to exercise its power of advice and consent in each situation and has done so in different ways, at different times, under different circumstances.
Of course, the Democrats know this is true and their past positions and actions confirm it.
· During the 102nd Congress, then-Chairman Joe Biden denied a hearing to dozens of judicial nominees and recommended that, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, the entire appointment process should be deferred until after the election season was over.
· Between 2003 and 2007, Democrats on and off this committee voted dozens of times to deny any confirmation vote to Republican judicial nominees.
· In 2005, Minority Leader Harry Reid said that the Constitution does not require the Senate to vote on a President’s nominees.
· When he chaired this committee under a Republican president, Senator Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of judicial nominees who were never confirmed.
· In 2007, Senator Charles Schumer said that the Senate should not confirm Supreme Court nominees for the rest of President Bush’s second term except under what he called exceptional circumstances.
· Democrats opposed judicial filibusters under President Clinton, supported them under President Bush, and abolished them under President Obama.
Democrats had their reasons for these statements and actions, and I’m sure that each time they believed that their position was legitimate.
Those statements and actions, however, are incompatible with the newly-minted position that the Constitution requires prompt hearings and floor votes for all nominees.
If what Democrats say today is true, Vice President Biden in 1992 advocated violating the Constitution, many of my Democratic colleagues voted repeatedly to violate the Constitution, and the Minority Leader was flat wrong in 2005.
Democrats’ liberal allies are equally confused.
We received a letter signed by left-wing groups, for example, claiming that the Constitution requires “timely hearings and votes.”
Some of these same groups publicly and forcefully advocated denying floor votes to Republican judicial nominees.
We received a letter signed by law professors similarly claiming that it is the Senate’s “constitutional duty” to hold a prompt hearing and timely floor vote on a nominee for the Scalia vacancy.
I am not aware that any of these professors objected to the Minority Leader’s assertion that the Constitution does not require the Senate to vote on a President’s nominees.
Did any of these professors complain when Senators Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Reid, Clinton, Biden, and Obama voted over and over to prevent any confirmation votes, timely or otherwise, for Republican judicial nominees?
Of course they didn’t.
This is all a political stunt that is seriously misleading the public, and law students for that matter.
The Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Mr. Chairman, neither the Constitution nor the other party’s political priorities dictate how the President or the Senate exercise their respective powers in the judicial appointment process.
I believe there are compelling reasons for deferring the confirmation process regarding the Scalia vacancy until after the next President takes office.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind those who say that the Constitution requires a prompt hearing that this committee was not created until 29 years after the Constitution was drafted.
We have no more a constitutional obligation to conduct the confirmation process in a certain way than Democrats had when the partisan roles were reversed.
Enough of these absurd claims about what the Constitution plainly does not require.
If my Democratic colleagues really want to argue that Republicans today should not have the same ability to structure the confirmation process as Democrats did in the majority, then they should make that case.
They know that the American people would not accept such a disingenuous position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
