September 23, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 165 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5798-S5799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Supreme Court Nominations

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I don't think anyone is surprised that 
Democrats have not reacted well to the idea that President Trump will 
nominate a third Supreme Court Justice. After all, overreacting to 
Republican nominees is pretty much the Democrats' stock-in-trade. It 
doesn't matter who the nominee is. To hear the Democrats tell it, any 
Republican nominee is likely to bring about Armageddon.
  The fact that some Republican nominees in past years, and as recently 
as this past June, have sided with the liberal wing of the Court more 
often than I would like has not in any way restrained Democrats' 
hysteria each time a new Republican nominee is introduced.
  I thought we had reached a low point 2 years ago with the nomination 
of Justice Kavanaugh, who suffered months of character assassination at 
the hands of Democrats, but it turns out that was not the low point 
because we have reached a new low.
  As I said, it is no surprise the Democrats have reacted with hysteria 
at the prospect of President Trump nominating another Supreme Court 
Justice. It was disappointing--but hardly surprising--that yesterday 
the Democratic leader blocked a key Intelligence Committee hearing on 
election security, a topic he has repeatedly insisted is of 
overwhelming importance, to protest the thought of the Senate 
fulfilling its advice and consent role and confirming a principled, 
conservative woman. Even Speaker Pelosi's overwrought statement that 
Republicans are ``coming after your children,'' seemed pretty much par 
for the course.
  Democrats have not limited themselves to temper tantrums. No, 
Democrats have moved on to threats. Dare to confirm the President's 
duly nominated nominee, Democrats are now saying, and if we win back 
the majority in November, we will eliminate the legislative filibuster 
and pack the Supreme Court.
  In other words, if Republicans dare to fulfill the Senate's role of 
advising and consenting to the President's nominee, Democrats will 
upend our democratic institutions. They will eliminate the legislative 
filibuster, which is the Senate rule that helps ensure legislation that 
passes the Senate has to be at least somewhat bipartisan.
  And they will pack the Supreme Court. For those who need a brief 
refresher on the concept of court packing, which had been largely 
consigned to the dustbin of history nearly a century ago, the theory is 
as follows: If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases to your liking, 
add more Justices to the Court until you start getting the decisions 
that you want. In other words, let Republicans dare to fill the vacant 
slot on the Supreme Court, and Democrats will keep adding Justices to 
the Court until they can be assured they will get the outcome they want 
in every case.
  Yesterday, I referred to those Democrats as undemocratic. Why did I 
say that? They are inconsistent with democratic government. In our 
system of

[[Page S5799]]

government, you win some and you lose some. While it is no fun when you 
lose, that is how things sometimes go in a democracy. Have Republicans 
been enthusiastic when Democrat Presidents have had nominees confirmed 
to the Supreme Court? No, but have Republicans suggested that Democrat 
Supreme Court Justices are illegitimate? Have we suggested that the 
proper response to a Democrat Supreme Court nominee is to pack the 
Supreme Court with additional Republican Justices to get a rubberstamp 
for Republican priorities? No, of course not.
  While we may not like it when Democrats are in charge, we know that 
Democrat-run government is legitimate, just as Republican-run 
government is legitimate. It has become clear over the past few years--
especially over the past few days--that Democrats think government is 
legitimate only when they are in charge. So Democrats are accusing 
Republicans of undermining our institutions by fulfilling our 
constitutional role because that is exactly what we are doing: 
fulfilling our constitutional role.
  Let's be very clear about that. Republicans are suggesting that we 
take up a Supreme Court nominee duly nominated by a duly elected 
President and confirm that nominee in accord with our constitutional 
advice and consent role.
  Democrats are free to think that Republicans should not consider this 
nominee, but it is absolutely indisputable that Republicans and the 
President are doing nothing more than carrying out a legitimate 
constitutional prerogative.
  What Democrats are doing, on the other hand, is trying to ensure that 
only one party has a say in our government--what some might call 
tyranny--and threatening retribution for the exercise of legitimate 
constitutional prerogatives. That does pose a danger to our 
institutions.
  Take the Supreme Court. A year ago, several Democrats warned that the 
Court's nonpartisan reputation was in jeopardy. Their argument was that 
the Court would look partisan if it did continue with a case the 
Democrats didn't like. What on Earth do Democrats think will happen to 
the Court's reputation if they pack the Court with additional Democrats 
to rubberstamp their policies? Do they really think Americans are going 
to see the Supreme Court as legitimate once it has been hijacked for 
partisan Democratic purposes?
  If you believe in our system of government, you have to believe that 
all Americans--not just those who agree with you--have a right to have 
a voice in the government. You are free to vehemently disagree with 50 
percent of your fellow Americans. You are free to dislike it when your 
party is not in charge. You are free to fight fiercely for the policies 
and candidates you believe in. But what you cannot do without 
undermining our entire system is suggest that government is legitimate 
only when your party is in charge.
  If Democrats continue along this dangerous trajectory, if they 
continue to try to delegitimize the actions of a duly elected Senate 
majority and a duly elected President, they are the ones who will put 
our entire system at risk.
  If anyone wonders for a moment whether Democrats are advocating a 
principled position--if perhaps Democrats really think it would be best 
for our country to eliminate the legislative filibuster Democrats have 
used so often or to expand the Supreme Court--one can simply ask 
whether Democrats will continue to advocate for these positions if 
President Trump is reelected and Republicans retain control of the 
Senate. Think about that one. I think everyone here knows what the 
answer to that question is, and the answer is no.
  As I suggested, Democrats' threats are not going to stop Republicans 
from carrying out our constitutional role in considering the 
President's nominee. One of the principle reasons that many GOP 
Senators, myself included, ran for office in the first place was to 
confirm principled judges to our courts--judges who understand that 
their role is to interpret the law, not make the law.
  While many of my Democrat colleagues would like the courts to impose 
their policies when they can't push them through Congress, Republicans 
know that legislation should come from Congress and not from the 
courts. The job of judges is to interpret the law as it is written, not 
to oppose Democrat or Republican policies from the bench.
  My colleagues and I were elected and reelected, in part, because of 
our commitment to confirming judges who would uphold the Constitution 
and the rule of law. We have followed through on that commitment over 
the past 4 years, and we are going to keep following through by voting 
on the President's nominee.
  Democrats can bluster. They can threaten. They can throw temper 
tantrums. But we will keep doing what we were sent here to do
  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.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.