Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S2711-S2712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nominations
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we reached a milestone last week with the
confirmation of President Trump's 100th Federal judge, and, frankly, it
is a milestone that should have come earlier. Had this been another
President, it almost undoubtedly would have come earlier. But,
unfortunately, the response to this President has been characterized by
what the leader aptly referred to yesterday as ``unhinged
partisanship.''
Now, 2\1/2\ years on from President Trump's election, Democrats still
can't get over the fact that they lost. Somehow, my colleagues missed
the section in government class where you learn that is what happens
sometimes in democracies. Sometimes you win. Sometimes--and I hate to
break it to my colleagues--sometimes you lose. It is not fun. No one
likes having their candidate lose, but that is what happens sometimes
when you have free elections.
No one expects Democrats to just sign on to everything President
Trump says or does. No one expects them to sign on to most of what
President Trump says or does. I certainly understand that they have
philosophical disagreements with many of his policies. I have been in
their position. During my time in public office, there have certainly
been Presidents with whom I disagreed a substantial part of the time. I
like to think that I didn't reflexively oppose everything they said or
did simply because they weren't my preferred candidate for the office.
I am fairly certain President Trump couldn't eat a cheese sandwich
without some Democrat crying treason.
Well, let's step back a minute. Maybe it is not that my Democratic
colleagues are reflexively opposing everything this President does.
Maybe it is not unhinged partisanship. Maybe it is just that they
disagree with every single word he says, every single thing he does,
and every single individual he nominates--except in the case of
nominees, at least, we know that isn't true.
Let's go back to those judicial nominations. Democrats have engaged
in a
[[Page S2712]]
truly unprecedented amount of obstruction on President Trump's judicial
nominees. As of May 2, Democrats have forced cloture votes on almost 65
percent of President Trump's judicial nominees--65 percent. At the same
point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had required cloture
votes on just 2\1/2\ percent of his judicial nominees--65 percent to
2\1/2\ percent. But, again, maybe that is because Democrats have
serious philosophical objections to these nominees--except they don't,
because again and again, Democrats have turned around and voted for the
Trump judicial nominees they obstructed.
One egregious example occurred in January of 2018 when Democrats
forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four district
court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their
confirmation. That is right. Democrats forced the Senate to spend more
than a week considering the nomination of four judges even though not
one single Democrat opposed their confirmation. These judges could have
been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats
forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration--
time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or
on some of the many important issues facing our country.
As of April 2 of this year, Democrats have forced cloture votes on 20
of the district court judges the Senate has confirmed. Ultimately,
however, 19 of those 20 judges were confirmed by more than 68 votes.
Now, 17 of those 20 were confirmed by more than 80 votes, and 12 of
those 20 were confirmed without a single vote in opposition. Yet
Democrats obstructed all of them.
One hundred judicial nominees confirmed is a solid milestone, but, as
I said before, it is a milestone that should have come earlier and
would have come earlier if Democrats hadn't chosen to engage in a
massive campaign of partisan obstruction. Despite a lot of hard work by
the Judiciary Committee and a robust pace of nominations from the
President, the number of judicial vacancies is actually 25 percent
higher today than it was when the President took office, and a near
record number of those vacancies are designated as judicial
emergencies. That shouldn't be the case, but thanks to Democrats' knee-
jerk obstruction, that is where we are.
Regardless of how much the Democrats obstruct, though, Republicans
will keep moving forward. Despite Democrats' best efforts, we confirmed
a record number of circuit court judges during the President's first 2
years, and we are going to keep working our way through the President's
nominees, judicial and otherwise. We are committed to filling vacancies
in both the executive branch and the judiciary so that the American
people have the fully functioning government they deserve.
Perhaps someday Democrats will decide to drop the obstruction and to
join us in the business of actually getting things done for the
American people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.