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 S5724-S5725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on Friday evening, the Nation learned
the sad news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away.
From her time as one of the few women in the Ivy League, to being
only the second woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court of the United
States, Justice Ginsburg was and is an inspiration to generations of
Americans.
Throughout her remarkable life, Justice Ginsburg fought to secure
equal rights and opportunities for all. She was a champion of women's
rights in particular and broke down gender barriers throughout both her
personal life and professional career.
During this difficult and often divisive time, I think there is a lot
we can learn from the way Justice Ginsburg interacted with those with
whom she disagreed, especially her good friend the late Justice Scalia.
If you looked at a diagram outlining the ideologies of these two
Justices, these two would be at opposite poles. They shared very little
in common in terms of the way they approached the job of being a
Supreme Court Justice.
She was once asked about their close relationship, which stood in
contrast to their vastly different views, and she said: ``You can
disagree without being disagreeable.'' Well, we have all heard that
before, and it is absolutely true--unfortunately, not practiced enough.
But I think that sort of approach should be a reminder to all of us
about the importance of treating each other with civility and respect,
even when the person standing in front of you or on the opposite side
of a computer screen has a vastly different world view from our own.
Our Nation is grateful for Justice Ginsburg's 27 years on the High
Court and her incredible contributions to our history. Sandy and I send
our condolences to the entire Ginsburg family, as well as the countless
colleagues and friends she earned throughout her lifetime.
As Leader McConnell said this morning, the Senate is preparing to
fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent. Throughout
history, there has been a Supreme Court vacancy 29 times during a
Presidential election year, and each time, the President has fulfilled
his duty to put forth a nomination. Of those 29 election-year
instances, 19 occurred when the President and the Senate majority were
of the same political party. All but two of those nominees were
confirmed.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to compare this
to the vacancy in 2016, but the facts were different. At that point, we
had a President of one party in his final year in office and a Senate
majority of another party. You would literally have to go back to 1880
to find an example of the Senate confirming an opposite party
President's Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
The other difference is that President Obama was not on the ballot in
2016, so it made sense for the American people to weigh in. Do you
think we would still be hearing the same arguments from our friends
across the aisle if Hillary Clinton had become President and been able
to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia? I think not.
Voters cast their ballots and not only elected President Trump but
also a Senate Republican majority. In 2018, they expanded that majority
following the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. If the American people
had elected a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate majority, I
have no doubt that Senator Schumer would act on that nomination as
well.
Just as the Senate has always done, we will thoroughly review the
qualifications and experience of whomever the President nominates. We
should not rush that process. It should be conducted carefully and
consistently with how the Senate has previously handled Supreme Court
nominations. When that process is complete, the Senate will vote on
that nominee sometime this year.
In some cases, the confirmation process has moved quickly. In the
case of Justice Ginsburg, she was confirmed in only 42 days. In others,
the process has taken longer and been significantly more contentious.
I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to
restrain themselves from repeating the smear campaign that took place
during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, including the Judiciary
Committee hearing. I hope they will refrain from making threats, like
threats of packing the
[[Page S5725]]
Court in the future, which Justice Ginsburg herself opposed and warned
would make the Court partisan, because if Democrats decide to add
additional members to the U.S. Supreme Court when they are in power,
then the pressure will be irresistible for Republicans to add other
Justices to the Court, and it would look--and it would be clearly a
partisan institution rather than an impartial judge of the law and the
facts.
The President has every right to put forth a nomination, and we have
an obligation to give him or her due consideration under our advice and
consent responsibilities. As always, we will be thorough, and I hope,
unlike last time, we can be civil and treat all with respect.
I am prepared to fulfill my responsibilities as a Member of this body
and of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope our colleagues on both sides
are prepared to do the same thing.