ar2 report - justice denied: senate democrats’ record of hypocrisy on judicial nominations

JUSTICE DENIEDSenate Democrats’ Record Of HypocrisyOn Judicial Nominations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THIS REPORT HIGHLIGHTSthe quotes and votes of President Obama and Senate Democrats blocking, attacking,

and altogether denying Republican judicial nominees the consideration they demand

today for President Obama’s soon-to-be named Supreme Court nominee. From Vice

President Biden and Senator Schumer’s strong statements that the Senate should

not consider a Republican President’s Supreme Court nominee during an election

year to the votes by President Obama and others to filibuster Justice Alito, this report chronicles the Democrats’ long record of hypocrisy on judicial nominations.

America Rising Squared is committed to holding elected officials accountable for their records. In the coming weeks President Obama will nominate a man or woman

for Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. When he does, the president and Senate Democrats will want the American people to forget their long history of judicial obstructionism. “Justice Denied” was compiled for the express purpose of preventing that from happening.

—Brian Rogers, Executive Director, America Rising Squared

1

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA“President Obama has come to regret his decade-old filibuster ofJustice Samuel Alito” – USA Today

BARACK OBAMA TODAYPresident Obama Said He Expects The Senate To “Fulfill Its Responsibility” And His His Supreme Court Nominee A Vote. “‘I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in — due time,’ Obama said. ‘There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.’” (Domenico Montanaro, “Obama Remembers Scalia As ‘Consequential,’ Vows To Appoint Replacement, NPR, 2/14/16)

THE OBAMA RECORDAs Senator, Obama Voted Against John Roberts And Filibustered Samuel AlitoObama Voted Against Confirming Judge John G. Roberts As Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court. (Roberts Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Chicago Tribune: “Obama Joins Filibuster Bid Against Alito.” “Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court’s changing ideological face. . . . [O]bama announced his intention to support the maneuver designed to block--or delay--Alito’s confirmation this week. The movement, which was launched by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), appeared to lack the 41 senators needed to be successful.” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Joins Filibuster Bid Against Alito,” Chicago Tribune, 1/30/06)

• “‘I Will Be Supporting The Filibuster Because I Think Judge Alito, In Fact, Is Somebody Who Is Contrary To Core American Values, Not Just Liberal Values,’ Obama Said. ‘When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch.’” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Joins Filibuster Bid Against Alito,” Chicago Tribune, 1/30/06)

Obama Voted Against Confirming Judge Samuel A. Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Obama Voted Nay)

2

JOE BIDEN TODAYBiden Mocked Calls To Leave Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat Open For Over A Year. “‘To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,’ Biden said.” (Britta Green, “Biden: GOP calls to delay filling Scalia’s seat don’t make sense,” Minnesota Public Radio, 2/18/16)

THE BIDEN RECORD1992: Biden Opposed Supreme Court Nominations In A Presidential Election Year In 1992 Senate Floor Speech, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Then-Chairman Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Called For President Bush To Hold Off Nominating A Supreme Court Nominee If A Vacancy Opened. “It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)

SEE VIDEO

Biden Believed That The Senate Judiciary Committee Should “Seriously Consider” Not Holding Hearings For A President’s Nominee In A Presidential Election Year. “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• Biden: “Once The Political Season Is Under Way, And It Is, Action On A Supreme Court Nomination Must Be Put Off Until After The Election Campaign Is Over.” “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Biden’s Record Of Obstruction as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary CommitteeBiden Served On The Senate Judiciary Committee For 17 Years, Serving As Chairman Of The Committee From 1987 Through 1995. “As Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 17 years, then-Senator Biden was widely recognized for his work on criminal justice issues, including the landmark 1994 Crime Law and the Violence Against Women Act.” (“Vice President Joe Biden,” The White House, Accessed 2/23/16)

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN“A triple play of Democratic double standards on confirming SupremeCourt Justices in an election year.” – Wall Street Journal editorial

3

Biden’s Obstructionist Efforts Intensified During The 1992 Election In Order To “Preserve The Vacancies For Gov. Bill Clinton To Fill If He [Were] Elected President.” “In the latest battle in the war for ideological control of the Federal courts, the Democrats who control the Senate have begun to delay confirming some of President Bush’s nominees for major judgeships to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected President.” (Neil A. Lewis, “Waiting For Clinton, Democrats Hold Up Court Confirmations,” The New York Times, 9/1/92)

At The Time, Biden Acknowledged The Objection “That He Was Trying To Stall The Nomination In Case A Democrat Won The White House.” “At the time, Biden acknowledged the possible objection that he was just trying to stall the nomination in case a Democrat won the White House.” (Sarah Wheaton, “Biden In ‘92: No Election-Season Supreme Court Nominees,” Politico, 2/22/16)

With Biden Chairman of Judiciary In 1992, 50 Judicial Nominees Weren’t Confirmed In The Senate, Leading Republicans To “Charge Biden With Intentionally Delaying The Process.” “Men and women named by President Bush to 50 vacant judgeships will not be confirmed by the Senate this year, leaving Republicans and Democrats pointing fingers of blame at each other. … With Congress expected to adjourn for the year late next week and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Clinton ahead in the polls, many Republicans fear the nominees will never be approved and charge Biden with intentionally delaying the process.” (Holly Yeager, “Senate Will Not Act On 50 Bush Judicial Nominations,” States News Service, 9/25/92)

• 32 Of Those Bush Nominations Were Killed Without Biden Giving Them A Hearing. “Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing.” (Marc Thiessen, “How Biden killed John Roberts’s nomination in 1992,” Washington Post, 2/25/16)

As Chairman, Biden Killed The Nomination Of Future-Chief Justice John Roberts Because It Was During An Election Year. “In 1992, then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden launched a preemptive attack on any nominee President George H.W. Bush named to the Supreme Court, warning that if Bush tapped someone, Biden’s committee ‘should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination . . . until after the political campaign season is over.’ While Biden did not get the chance to kill a Supreme Court nomination that year, he did kill the nomination of a future chief justice of the Supreme Court — John G. Roberts Jr.” (Marc Thiessen, “How Biden killed John Roberts’s nomination in 1992,” Washington Post, 2/25/16)

Biden’s Long Record Of Voting Against & Filibustering Republican SCOTUS PicksBiden Voted Against Confirming William Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court. (Rehnquist Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #266: Confirmed 65-33: R 49-2; D 16-31; I 0-0, 9/17/86, Biden Voted Nay)

• Biden Voted To Filibuster The Nomination Of William Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice. (Rehnquist Nomination – Cloture, CQ Vote #265: Motion Passed 68-31: R 52-0; D 16-31; I 0-0, 9/17/86, Biden Voted Nay)


4

Biden Opposed Calls To Leave Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat Open For Over A Year. “‘To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice

Biden Voted Against Confirming Judge Robert Bork To The Supreme Court. (Bork Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #348: Rejected 42-58: R 40-6; D 2-52; I 0-0, 10/23/87, Biden Voted Nay)

Biden Voted Against Confirming Judge Clarence Thomas To The Supreme Court. (Thomas Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #220: Confirmed 52-48: R 41-2; D 11-46; I 0-0, 10/15/91, Biden Voted Nay)

Biden Voted Against Confirming Judge John Roberts To Be Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court. (Roberts Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Biden Voted Nay)

Biden Voted Against Confirming Judge Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Biden Voted Nay)

• Biden Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel Alito. (Alito Cloture Vote, CQ Vote #1: Motion Passed 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Biden Voted Nay)

Biden Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaBiden Voted Six Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Biden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Biden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Biden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Biden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Biden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Biden Voted Nay)

Biden On John RobertsBiden And Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Accused Roberts Of Being Misleading With His Testimony. “But Democrats suggested that Roberts might be a stealth nominee who would shift the court more sharply rightward than his careful testimony suggests. They repeatedly read to him his own words from government memos he had written in the 1980s -- excerpts from tens of thousands of documents released in recent weeks from his time as a federal lawyer -- and demanded to know whether they reflected his personal views, then and now.” (Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington, “Roberts Avoids Specifics On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 9/14/05)

Biden: “His Answers Are Misleading.” (Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington, “Roberts Avoids Specifics On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 9/14/05)

Biden To Chief Justice Roberts: “We Are Rolling The Dice With You, Judge.” (Charles Babington and Jo Becker, “Roberts Frustrates Committee Democrats,” The Washington Post, 9/15/05)

Biden Was Criticized As Having Been Unfair To Roberts At His Confirmation Hearings. CNN’S JACK CAFFERTY: “I watched Joe Biden’s soliloquy on Judge Roberts. If the idea of these hearings is to elicit information from the man they are considering voting on as a Supreme Court justice seems to me the way to do that is be quiet and let the man talk.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 9/13/05)


5

• Cafferty: “Well, it’s not your time, Senator. The time is for the public to listen to the views of a man who’s going to possibly be the next Supreme Court justice. Just a thought. … [The Senators] just become characterizations of themselves in these things.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 9/13/05)

Biden On Antonin ScaliaBiden Claimed Scalia’s Judicial Philosophy Was “Very Conservative” But Fell “Within The Legitimate Parameters Of Debate.” “Although I strongly disagree with Judge Scalia’s judicial philosophy [sic] in a number of areas, I find his views to be within the legitimate parameters of debate. Judge Scalia’s judicial philosophy strikes me as very conservative. I do not, however, find him significantly more conservative than Chief Justice Burger; therefore, I do not have undue concern about the impact of this appointment on the balance of the Court.” (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 9/17/86, p. S12832)

Biden: Scalia Has “Intellectual Flexibility.” “[Scalia] has demonstrated through his career that he has an intellectual flexibility. He is not a rigid man and he does engage in and is willing to engage in discussion of new ideas, different than those which are the ones that he had been predisposed at that point to hold. He is open, he is straightforward, he is candid.” (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 9/17/86, p. S12832)

Biden: “[I] Believe Justice Scalia Will Be, A Man With Conservative Views, Comes To The Law, Comes To The Case, Not Seeking To Impose His Views But To Adjudicate The Law With An Open Mind.” (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 9/17/86, p. S12801)

Biden On Robert BorkBiden, As Judiciary Committee Chairman, Was The Chief Architect Of Judge Robert Bork’s Defeat In The Senate Judiciary Committee. “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who is often accused of being more glittery smile and glib tongue than a politician of substance, was a chief architect of Bork’s defeat. Yet, while Biden was guiding the Bork hearings toward the committee’s 9 to 5 vote against confirmation, his campaign for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination collapsed under the weight of charges of plagiarism dating back to his days as a law student.” (Edward Walsh, “In the End, Bork Himself Was His Own Worst Enemy,” The Washington Post, 10/24/87)

As Chairman Of The Judiciary Committee, Biden Used His Power To Control The Hearings To Bork’s Disadvantage. “[Biden] was in the middle of conducting, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. … [H]e used his power to schedule and control the pace of the hearings shrewdly and to Bork’s disadvantage.” (Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics, 1990, p. 230)

During Bork Hearings, Biden Was A “Shrewd—Even Ruthless—Partisan.” “[H]e was also a shrewd—even ruthless—partisan, playing to win while being careful to sound fair.” (Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics, 1992, p. 235)

“The Bork Experience Meant That Subsequent Nominees, Of Both Parties And For At Least A Generation, Will Not Answer Substantive Questions Candidly Or Even At All.” “[M]any of Bork’s opponents used his candor to vote against him for disgracefully dishonest reasons, from which Biden’s attempts to construct an honestly based anti-Bork rationale proved politically indistinguishable. At the same time, Biden used the power of the chair to undermine Bork and helped move critical votes on the committee away from him. The Bork experience meant that subsequent nominees, of both parties and for at least a generation, will not answer substantive questions candidly or even at all.” (Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac Of American Politics, 1994, p. 260-1)


6

HARRY REID MINORITY LEADER

HARRY REID TODAYReid: The Senate “Has A Responsibility To Fill Vacancies As Soon As Possible.” “The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.” (Lauren Fox, “Harry Reid To Republicans: You Better Not Block Us From Replacing Scalia,” Talking Points Memo, 2/13/16)

THE REID RECORDReid: Judicial Nominations Don’t Require A Vote In 2005, Reid Stated On The Senate Floor: “Nowhere In [The Constitution] Does It Say The Senate Has A Duty To Give Presidential Nominees A Vote.” “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, 5/19/2005)

• Reid: “The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch.” (Sen. Reid,Congressional Record, 5/19/2005)

SEE VIDEO

Reid Voted Against John Roberts And Voted To Filibuster Samual AlitoReid Was One Of Only 22 Senators Who Voted Against Confirming Judge John Roberts To Be Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court. (Roberts Nomination - Confirmation, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Reid Voted Nay)

Reid Voted Against Confirming Judge Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination - Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Reid Voted Nay)

• Reid Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel Alito. (Alito Nomination - Cloture, CQ Vote #1: Motion Passed 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Reid Voted Nay)

Reid On Samuel Alito Reid: “The Most Important Reason I Will Oppose Judge Alito Is That I Have No Confidence He Will Serve As A Real Check On The Abuse Of Presidential Power We See So Prevalent Today.” (Tony Batt, “Nevada’s Reid, Ensign To Split Votes On Alito,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/25/06)

Reid Said President Bush Had “No Mandate” To Move The Court “In A Radical Rightward Direction,” And Criticized Replacing A Female Justice With A Male. “President Bush was not obligated to nominate a clone of Justice O’Connor. But this President has no mandate to move the Supreme Court and American law in a radical rightward direction. That is precisely what replacing Justice O’Connor with Judge Alito will accomplish. That Judge Alito has been nominated to replace Justice O’Connor is relevant in another sense. Justice O’Connor was the first of only two women ever to sit on the Supreme Court. It remains disturbing to me that she would be replaced by a man, leaving only one woman on the nine-member Court. Today, more than half of the nation’s law students are women. There are countless qualified women on the bench, in elective office, in law firms, and serving as law school deans. I can’t believe the President searched the country 7

and was unable to find a qualified female nominee. But maybe he was unable to find a qualified female nominee who satisfied the far right wing of the Republican Party.” (Senator Harry Reid, “Sen. Reid Issues Statement On Confirmation Of Samuel Alito,” Press Release, 1/31/06)

Reid Said Alito’s Nomination “Raises Profound Questions About Our System Of Checks And Balances,” And Questioned Whether Alito Would Be “An Effective Check On A Swaggering President And His Reckless Policies.” “[A] confirmation debate is not a popularity contest. The rights and liberties of the American people are at stake. This particular nomination raises profound questions about our system of checks and balances. We need to ask whether a Justice Alito will serve as an effective check on a swaggering President and his reckless policies. At this critical moment in our nation’s history, I cannot support the confirmation of this nominee to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.” (Senator Harry Reid, “Sen. Reid Issues Statement On Confirmation Of Samuel Alito,” Press Release, 1/31/06)

Reid Strongly Supported Filibustering Bush Judicial NomineesMinority Leader Reid (D-NV) Said Senate Democrats Would Continue To Filibuster President Bush’s Judicial Nominees. “Reid used some of his strongest rhetoric to date to challenge the White House on an issue that produced bitter divisions during Bush’s first term. ‘If they bring back the same judges, we’re going to do the same thing,’ Reid told reporters …” (“Washington In Brief,” The Washington Post, 2/2/05)

• Reid Said The Only Complaint He Heard Was That Democrats Had Not Held Up More Judicial Nominees. ‘‘They can threaten the nuclear option,’ [Reid] said. ‘If they feel that’s great for the institution and the country, let them do it.’ Noting that the only complaint he has heard from fellow Democrats is that not enough of Bush’s judicial nominees were blocked in the past four years, Reid said he is prepared ‘to go behind the pool hall and see who wins this one.’” (“Washington In Brief,” The Washington Post, 2/2/05)

Reid Promised To “Screw Things Up” For Senate Republicans. “If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this [change Senate rules on filibusters], it’s not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back … I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.” (Helen Dewar and Mike Allen, “GOP May Target Use Of Filibuster,” The Washington Post, 12/13/04)

“Indeed, As Daschle’s Whip, Reid Helped Orchestrate An Unprecedented Filibuster Of Some Of President Bush’s More Conservative Judicial Nominees.” (Allison Stevens, “Senate Democrats Set A Daschle-Like Tone For 2005,” Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/04)

• Reid “Also Joined Daschle In Using Procedural Tools To Prevent Conference Committees From Meeting, To Protest What Reid Called Mistreatment By The Majority.” (Allison Stevens, “Senate Democrats Set A Daschle-Like Tone For 2005,” Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/04)

In 2003, Reid Held Up Dozens Of President Bush’s Nominations Until Former Aide Was Appointed To NRC. “Sen. Harry Reid and the Bush administration have made a deal clearing the way for dozens of Bush nominees to take office in exchange for a Reid aide being nominated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission … Reid announced last month that he would hold up Bush executive branch nominees until Bush picked [Gregory] Jaczko, 32, for an NRC vacancy.” (“Reid Drops Hold On Leavitt Nomination In Deal Involving Aide,” The Associated Press, 10/8/03)

HARRY REID MINORITY LEADER

8

CHUCK SCHUMER TODAYSenator Schumer Said That The Senate Should Hold Hearings And Votes For Obama’s Eventual Nominee. “‘I don’t see it makes any sense to not have a hearing and not have a vote,’ he said. ‘It’s legitimate for folks to vote no if they think the candidate’s out of the mainstream.’” (Tom Brune, “Sen. Chuck Schumer in eye of storm over Scalia replacement,” Newsday, 2/22/16)

THE SCHUMER RECORD2007: Schumer Opposed Supreme Court Nominations In A Presidential Election Year 2007: Sen. Schumer Stated In Speech That President Bush Should Not Have Another SCOTUS Pick Confirmed During His Presidency. “[F]or the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.” (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SEE VIDEO

Schumer Voted Against John Roberts And Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoSchumer Voted Against Confirming John Roberts As Chief Justice. (CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Schumer Voted Nay)

Schumer Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito As A Supreme Court Justice. (CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Schumer Voted Nay)

• Schumer Voted To Filibuster Samuel Alito. (CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-1; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Schumer Voted Nay)

Schumer On John RobertsSchumer: “The Burden Is On Judge Roberts To Show That He Is Within The Mainstream Of America.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 9/12/05)

Schumer Said That He Would Not Allow The Nomination Of “Right-Wing After Right-Wing After Right-Wing Judges.” SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “I think what happened here is very simple. And that is the Bush administration drifted too far to the right, and now they are going to be checked. To have a Democratic Senate and a Republican president is just what the American people want because they don’t want either group to drift too far over. And our politics will now have to be moderate and bipartisan. On the issue that I was asked to talk about, judges, we will not have nominations of right-wing after right-wing after right-wing judges. Judges will have to be moderate.” (END VIDEO CLIP) (Fox News Channel’s “ The Edge With Paula Zahn,” 5/24/01)

9

CHUCK SCHUMER VICE CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE“So it is amusing to watch how thoroughly New York Senator ChuckSchumer has been reduced to self-parody as he tries to excuse his 2007 demand that Democrats reject, sight unseen, any of George W. Bush’s nominees.” – Wall Street Journal editorial

Schumer Supported Continuing The Questioning Of Roberts Instead Of An “Artificial, Unnecessary Deadline.” SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “Let’s not tempt fate and risk a strike three by creating an artificial, unnecessary deadline for concluding the hearing.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 7/27/05)

• Schumer Said The Nomination Process Should Not Be Rushed. SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the high court, the procedure should not be short circuited, short changed or rushed. We need to be careful here.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 10/31/05)

• Schumer Said Rushing The Nomination Process Would Do A “Disservice” To America. SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “Well, I think that’s true and, you know, that’s one thing that does worry me. Because of the importance of this nomination there shouldn’t be a rush through the procedure. Some were saying let’s get this done very quickly. That does a disservice.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 10/31/05)

Schumer On Samuel AlitoWhen Alito Was Nominated, Schumer Said A Filibuster Was An Option. FOX’s MAJOR GARRETT: “And the biggest question of all? Will Democrats stage a filibuster that would require Republicans to assemble 60 votes to guarantee Alito an up or down confirmation vote?” SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “Nothing is on the table and nothing is off the table.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” 10/31/05)

Schumer On FilibusteringSchumer: “‘I Am The Leader (Of The Filibuster Movement), And, You Know, I’m Proud Of It.” “Schumer began a campaign to reshape the way the Senate deals with judicial nominees -- including members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, Schumer decided, would put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process. Schumer’s deployment of the filibuster to smoke out the ideologies of Bush nominees is working, for now. ‘I am the leader (of the filibuster movement), and, you know, I’m proud of it,’ said the senator from Brooklyn.” (Douglas Turner, “Schumer V. Bush: Battle For The Courts,” The Buffalo News, 5/27/03)

Schumer Said The Filibuster Of Charles Pickering Was “In The Best Traditions Of America. “‘I think today’s vote is in the best traditions of America,’ said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.” (Charles Hurt, “Democrats Filibuster Pickering Nomination,” The Washington Times, 10/31/03)

Schumer On Obstruction – “We Will Keep Doing It.” ‘“We are not trying to be obstructionist. We are doing what we truly believe will affect Americans for generations,’ said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘We will keep doing it in cases where the nominee is as wildly out of the mainstream as Justice Brown is,’ he said.” (Jan Crawford, “Democrats Threaten Another Judicial Filibuster,” Chicago Tribune, 11/7,/03)

Schumer Believes The American People Think That Blocking Judges Is “Just Fine.” “‘When people realize we are blocking a small number of very ideological conservative judges, they say that’s just fine,’ Mr. Schumer said.” (Neil A. Lewis, “For The G.O.P., A Mixed Day On Nominees,” The New York Times, 11/7/03)

10


2006: Schumer Said If Any Questions Were Ducked, Then The Chances Of A Filibuster Would Increase. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “No, but on the question of abortion, if he, in your mind, ducks that question, is that enough to filibuster?” SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “You can’t judge on one specific question. If he continuously given his previous record refuses to answer questions and hid behind this shibboleth, I can’t answer this cause it might come before me, it would increase the chances of a filibuster, absolutely.” (NBC, “Meet The Press,” 1/8/06)

SEE VIDEO

Schumer On Ideologues On The CourtSchumer Said President Bush’s Nominees To The Supreme Court Should Not Be Confirmed Unless Their Actions Showed They Were Part Of The “Mainstream.” SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “That we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove, they must prove by actions and not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

Schumer Said The Nomination Process Should Not Be Rushed. SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the high court, the procedure should not be short circuited, short changed or rushed. We need to be careful here.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 10/31/05)

Schumer Said Rushing The Nomination Process Would Do A “Disservice” To America. SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: “Well, I think that’s true and, you know, that’s one thing that does worry me. Because of the importance of this nomination there shouldn’t be a rush through the procedure. Some were saying let’s get this done very quickly. That does a disservice.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 10/31/05)

Schumer Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaSchumer Voted Seven Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Schumer Voted Nay)

11


DICK DURBIN TODAYDurbin Disagreed With Republicans Position That The Next President Should Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy. “But he says he doesn’t understand why Republicans are already refusing to support anyone Obama nominates for the position. ‘This nation that they’re rejecting the idea that he would want to be president for the remaining 11 months of his term, in my mind, is an indication of just how bad things are in the Republican-controlled Congress,’ Durbin said.” (Brian Mackey, “Durbin Speaks Out On Scalia; Kirk Calls Debate ‘Unseemly’,” Illinois Public Radio, 2/15/16)

THE DURBIN RECORDOn Samuel AlitoSenator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Discusses His Decision To Filibuster Samuel Alito: FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S JOHN GIBSON: Joining us now to talk about the Democrats’ filibuster threat, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip in the United States Senate. So, Senator, you’re going to vote against Alito, right?” SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: “That’s right.” GIBSON: “And would you join in the filibuster effort?” DURBIN: “Yes, I will.” GIBSON: “OK, why? Because I think, counting noses, it’s not going to work.” DURBIN: “It’s highly unlikely that we’ll get the votes necessary to have a filibuster, a successful filibuster against Judge Alito. But I think it’s an important statement to be made by the Senate and a very historic vote. This is a man seeking a lifetime appointment. We have studied his record. We have listened carefully to what he said during the course of the hearings. For many of us, we believe this is going to mark an historic shift on the Supreme Court. And as a consequence, we want to speak out.” (Fox News Channel’s “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 1/27/06)

Durbin On Needing More TimeSenator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Said Senators Would Be Remiss In Their Responsibility If They Didn’t Stop And Ask Questions About What Judicial Nominees Believe. SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: “But if you don’t stop and ask a person seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land not only who they are but what they believe, you’re remiss in your responsibility in the Senate.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 1/31/06)

• Durbin Said “Taking An Additional Hour Or An Additional Day” Is Not “Unreasonable” When Determining Whether To Grant Someone A Lifetime Appointment. DURBIN: “More and more Americans are understanding how critically important this decision is. Think about this for a moment: If you would suggest we don’t have a day to waste on this and we have to move quickly, remember, this is a lifetime appointment. If Sam Alito ends up being the nominee to the Supreme Court, he will be there for a lifetime on the highest court in the land. Taking an additional hour or an additional day to go through the process is not unreasonable.” (Fox News Channel’s “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 1/27/06)

DICK DURBIN ASSISTANT DEMOCRATIC LEADER

12

PATRICK LEAHY TODAYPat Leahy Called For A Vote On President Obama’s Eventual Supreme Court Nominee. “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat on Sunday called for a vote on President Barack Obama’s eventual nomination to fill the vacant spot on the Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. ‘Let’s have a vote,’ Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ ‘Let’s have a debate on it.’” (Jon Prior, “Leahy: ‘Let’s have a vote’ on Scalia successor,” Politico, 2/14/16)

THE LEAHY RECORDLeahy Supported The “Thurmond Rule”, Halting Judicial Appointments In Election Years As Judiciary Chairman, Leahy Said He Would Institute The Thurmond Rule, Which Halts Judicial Appointments In A Presidential Election Year. “The Thurmond Rule, in memory of Strom Thurmond – he put this in when the Republicans were in the minority, which said that in a presidential election year, after spring, no judges would go through except by the consent of both the Republican and Democratic [leaders]. I want to be bipartisan. We will institute the Thurmond Rule, yes.” (Sen. Leahy, Georgetown University Law Center, 12/06)

SEE VIDEO

In 2004, Leahy Called The Thurmond Rule A “Well Established Practice.” “Whether [Republicans] acknowledge it as the Thurmond Rule or something else, it is a well-established practice that in presidential election years, there comes a point when judicial confirmation hearings are not continued without agreement.” (Sen. Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/20/04)

Leahy Claimed That During A Presidential Election Year The Thurmond Rule Mandated Only “Consensus Nominees” Would Be “Taken Up.” “At this point in a presidential election year, in accordance with the Thurmond Rule, only consensus nominees being taken up with the approval of the majority and minority leaders and the chairman and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee should be considered.” (Sen. Leahy, Floor Remarks, 7/20/04)

Leahy Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoLeahy Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Leahy Voted Nay)

• Leahy Voted To Filibuster Samuel Alito. (CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-1; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Leahy Voted Nay)

In 2006, Leahy Was Among The Democrats Who Attempted To Filibuster The Nomination Of Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. “The Senate on Monday voted 72-25 to limit debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., ending a Democratic filibuster and setting the stage for his confirmation Tuesday morning. . . . The last-ditch delaying effort by a group of liberal Senate Democrats was all but doomed from its inception. . . . Massachusetts Democrats John Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy tried in vain to block a final vote on Alito, arguing more debate was needed. . . . The Massachusetts Democrats drew support for their filibuster from another New Englander, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘At a time when this president is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court more than ever needs justices who will serve to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans from government intrusion,’ Leahy said. ‘I believe strongly that Judge Alito will not serve as that crucial check, and I will vote against limiting debate on his nomination, which carries significant

PATRICK LEAHY RANKING MEMBER, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

13

consequences for Americans today and for generations to come.’” (Keith Perine, “Senate Votes to Cut Off Alito Debate, Paving Way for Confirmation Tuesday,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 1/30/06)

Years Later, Leahy Denied That He Ever Filibustered Alito. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: “It takes 51 votes to confirm somebody, and I would assume that -- we never filibuster justices of the Supreme Court. We don’t do it for...” STEPHANOPOULOS: “You filibustered Justice Alito, didn’t you?: SEN. LEAHY: “No. We don’t filibuster for either side, and so we have -- there’s going to be a vote, up or down. I fully expect that. I think the last time there was a kind of a successful filibuster was Abe Fortas, and that was a Democratic...” (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: “Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.” (CROSSTALK) LEAHY: There was a cursory vote that everybody knew would not succeed on the motion to proceed.” (ABC’S “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” 5/3/09)

When Further Pressed On His Participation In The Filibuster, Leahy Called The Facts Of The Case “Getting Down Into The Weeds.” SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: “I mean, now we’re getting down into the weeds. The fact is, Justice Alito, I did not vote for him. Senator Hatch did. He got both Democratic and Republican votes, just as Chief Justice Roberts, whom I did vote for, got both Democratic and Republican votes. The fact of the matter is, we will have an up-or-down vote on whoever it’s going to be, and I would hope that the president would go with his instincts.” (ABC’S “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” 5/3/09)

SEE VIDEO

Leahy On Filibustering JudgesLeahy Defended His Filibustering Of Judicial Nominees. “For very good reasons, because of their ideology, their obvious intent to politicize the courts, we have stopped three.” (Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 8/1/03)

Leahy: “It’s Far More Important To Do It Right Than To Do It Fast.” WILSON: “Democrat Pat Leahy was absolutely unwilling to characterize, in anyway, his meeting with Judge Alito, though he continued to criticized the president from bowing to pressure from the right when he withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers. As the ranking democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy is engaged in negotiations on when the hearings might begin. He’s trying to slow the process down.” PATRICK LEAHY (D), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: “It’s far more important to do it right than to do it fast.” (Fox News Channel’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 11/2/05)

Leahy Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaLeahy Voted Seven Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Leahy Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Leahy Voted Nay)

PATRICK LEAHY RANKING MEMBER, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

14

PATTY MURRAY TODAYMurray Called On President Obama To Fill Scalia’s Vacancy. “With so many critical issues before the Supreme Court, I am hopeful that the President can move as quickly as possible to fill this vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate.” (Press Release, Office of Senator Patty Murray, 2/13/16)

THE MURRAY RECORDMurray Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoMurray Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Murray Voted Nay)

• Murray Voted To Filibuster The Nomination Of Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Cloture, CQ Vote #1: Motion agreed to 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Murray Voted Nay)

“Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Said Monday She Was Disappointed At President Bush’s Latest Nominee To The Supreme Court, Veteran Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito.” (Matthew Daly, “Murray Disappointed At Choice Of Alito For Supreme Court,” The Associated Press, 10/31/05)

“With The Selection Of The Conservative Alito To Replaced Retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Bush Did Not Even Maintain The Current Diversity On The High Court, Murray Said.” (Matthew Daly, “Murray Disappointed At Choice Of Alito For Supreme Court,” The Associated Press, 10/31/05)

‘“To Hastily Appoint A Nominee Without Consulting Senators From Both Parties Indicates This Action May Be More About Politics Than Respect For The Process,’ Murray Said, Charging That Miers’ Withdrawal Came After ‘Intense Right-Wing Political Pressure That Compromised The Nomination Process To Our Nation’s Highest Court.”‘ (Matthew Daly, “Murray Disappointed At Choice Of Alito For Supreme Court,” The Associated Press, 10/31/05)

“While The President’s Standards For A Supreme Court Nominee May Shift With The Political Winds, Mine Do Not,” She Said In A Statement. “I Examine Each Nominee’s Record, Experience And Testimony And See If They Meet My Long-Held Standards.” (Matthew Daly, “Murray Disappointed At Choice Of Alito For Supreme Court,” The Associated Press, 10/31/05)

Murray Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaMurray Voted Six Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Murray Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Murray Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Murray Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Murray Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Murray Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Murray Voted Nay)

PATTY MURRAY SECRETARY OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE

15

BARBARA BOXER TODAYBoxer Called On The Senate To Vote On An Obama Supreme Court Nomination. “Putting the country first means Obama nominating a Justice and the Senate doing its constitutional duty by voting on the nominee.” (@SenatorBoxer, Twitter Feed, 2/13/16)

THE BOXER RECORDBoxer Voted Against John Roberts And Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoBoxer Voted Against Confirming Judge John Roberts To Be Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court. (Roberts Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Boxer Voted Nay)

Boxer Voted Against Confirming Judge Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Boxer Voted Nay)

• Boxer Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel Alito. (Alito Cloture Vote, CQ Vote #1: Motion Passed 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Boxer Voted Nay)

Boxer On FilibusteringBoxer Opposed Removing The Filibuster Because It Would Weaken “The Senate’s Ability To Stop Radical Appointments.” “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said removing the filibuster would hurt the Senate’s ability to stop radical appointments. ‘The president should reread the Constitution and understand that the power to appoint judges is a shared power between the Senate and the president,’ Boxer said. Democrats say they are blocking the nomination because Estrada has not been forthcoming about his views.” (Jason Embry, “Bush Urges Ban On Judicial Filibusters,” The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, 3/12/03)

During The Alito Confirmation, Boxer Said A Filibuster Is “On The Table -- It Has To Be On The Table.” “Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said a filibuster is ‘on the table -- it has to be on the table,’ after describing the Alito choice as a capitulation to the right.” (Marc Sandalow, “Specter Of Filibuster Is Raised As GOP Right Prepares To Flex Its Power,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 11/1/05)

• Boxer: “Everything Is On The Table.” WALLACE: “We’ve got about 30 seconds left, Senator. If you don’t like the answers you hear from Judge Alito, are you prepared to filibuster?” BOXER: “Everything’s on the table, because the rights, freedoms and liberties of your viewers and my constituents are on the line.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/4/05)

• Boxer: “Its Too Soon To Take Anything Off The Table.” COLMES: “You’ve said the filibuster is on the table. What are the chances of that happening?” BOXER: “It all depends on what all these papers reveal. It is too soon to take anything off the table. That’s quite obvious. And I have a lot of concerns, but this is early in the process.” (Fox News; “Hannity & Colmes,” 11/23/05)

• Boxer: “And Anyone Who Says That The Filibuster Should Be Taken Off The Table, I Don’t Quite Understand It.” (Fox News; “Hannity & Colmes,” 11/23/05)

BARBARA BOXER DEMOCRAT – CALIFORNIA

16

Boxer On John Roberts Boxer On Roberts: “I Am Very Worried That, With Judge Roberts On The Bench, The Rights And Freedoms That Have Made America A Light To The Rest Of The World Could Be In Serious Jeopardy.” “Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday she will vote against confirming John Roberts as chief justice of the United States when his nomination comes to the Senate floor next week. The Marin County Democrat said Roberts failed during his three-day confirmation hearing last week to clearly articulate his views on a number of important issues, including abortion, gender discrimination and civil rights. ‘I am very worried that, with Judge Roberts on the bench, the rights and freedoms that have made America a light to the rest of the world could be in serious jeopardy,’ Boxer said.” (Michael Collins, “Boxer Says Roberts Could Put Rights In Serious Jeopardy,” Ventura County [California] Star, 9/22/05)

• “Boxer Said Memos Roberts Wrote When He Was A Young Attorney With The Reagan Administration Raise Serious Concerns About Whether He Understands ‘The Ugly History Of Discrimination And Injustice In Our Country, Or The Proper Role Of Government In Combating Them.’” (Michael Collins, “Boxer Says Roberts Could Put Rights In Serious Jeopardy,” Ventura County [California] Star, 9/22/05)

Boxer: ‘“I Said I Could Only Vote For A Nominee Who Would Protect The Rights And The Freedoms Of The People That I Represent. ... This Nominee Fails That Bar,’ Boxer Said On The Senate Floor.” (“Boxer Announces Opposition To Nominee For Chief Justice,” The Associated Press, 9/22/05)

• ‘“I Don’t Buy Into This Reasoning Either: Let’s Support This Nominee Because The Next One Might Be Worse,’ She Said.” (“Boxer Announces Opposition To Nominee For Chief Justice,” The Associated Press, 9/22/05)

Boxer On Samuel AlitoBoxer Described Alito’s Nomination As A “Detriment To This Country.” BOXER: “Hard to say right now. You know, we’re going through all of these opinions. There’s one that really jumps out at me where he felt that Congress did not have the right to, in any way, control the sale of fully automatic machine guns to private parties. That is very far out of the mainstream, to say that Congress couldn’t protect our families and our children in such a way. So we have to see where this all leads us. Clearly, the president had a choice. He could of chosen someone like Sandra Day O’Connor, who would unite this country. Didn’t do that. He went to the right, he turned right. He wanted to shore up his base, I think to the detriment of this country and to this president.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 11/2/05)

• “If [Alito] Declines, She Said, She Will ‘Use All The Parliamentary Tools I’ve Been Given As A U.S. Senator,’ Including Procedures That ‘Make It Difficult For Other Business To Get Done Until We Get The Information We Need.’” (Bob Egelko, “Boxer Threatens To Slow Senate Activity Over Court Pick,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 8/11/05)

Boxer: Alito Statements “Clearly Signal A Hostility To Women’s Rights.” “To my mind, Judge Alito’s ominous statements and narrow minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women’s rights. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle a woman’s right to choose - has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court justices, particularly at this crucial time in our nation’s history.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Press Release, “Democratic Women Senators United In Opposition To Nomination Of Judge Alito To U.S. Supreme Court,” 1/31/06)


17

Boxer Said She Was “Deeply Disturbed” Over Alito’s Nomination. “At the end of the Alito hearings, I am deeply disturbed about this nomination. It is not Judge Alito’s qualifications that concern me; clearly he is intelligent and capable. Rather, in three days of questioning, he refused to back away from some of his most controversial past statements and positions.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Press Release, “Statement Of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer On Nomination Of Judge Samuel Alito,” 1/13/06)

Boxer Said “The [Filibuster] Attempt Was Important.” “Both of California’s senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voted to support the filibuster. ‘Although we knew the votes weren’t there for the filibuster of Judge Alito,’ Boxer said, the attempt was important ‘so the American people would know that we were willing to pursue a losing effort because the stakes are so high.’” (Maura Reynolds, “Attempt To Filibuster Alito Goes Nowhere,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/06)

• ‘“There Is Only One Way To Send This Nomination Back To The President ... And That Is To Get 41 Votes For A Filibuster,’ Boxer Said. Although She Agreed With Kennedy That The Odds Were Against Sustaining A Filibuster, She Said That ‘If Colleagues On Both Sides Of The Aisle Realize That Liberty And Justice Are On The Line, We Have A Chance For A Nominee In The Mold Of Sandra Day O’Connor.’” (Maura Reynolds, “Attempt To Filibuster Alito Goes Nowhere,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/06)

• “But Boxer, One Of The Supporters Of The Filibuster Attempt, Said Afterward, ‘We Were Willing To Pursue Even A Losing Effort Because The Stakes Were So High.’” (Maura Reynolds, “Attempt To Filibuster Alito Goes Nowhere,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/06)

Boxer Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaBoxer Voted Seven Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Boxer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Boxer Voted Nay)


18

BARBARA MIKULSKI TODAYMikulski Called On Obama To Nominate A Scalia Replacement, And For The Senate To Hold Hearings And A Vote. “Barack Obama is our President until January 20, 2017. The American people elected him to a four year term. I’m shocked that Senate Republicans are only giving him a three year term. President Obama has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to submit a nomination to fill the vacancy left with Justice Scalia’s passing. He has a constitutional obligation to exercise that authority. We must look to the Constitution and live by the Constitution. The Senate should fulfill its Constitutional duty by holding a timely hearing on the President’s nominee and a vote on the Senate floor.” (Sonya Burke, “MIKULSKI CALLS ON SENATE AND PRESIDENT TO FILL VACANCY ON SUPREME COURT,” Montgomery Community Media, 2/23/16)

THE MIKULSKI RECORDMikulski Voted Against John Roberts And Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoMikulski Voted Against Confirming John Roberts To The Supreme Court. (CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Mikulski Voted Nay)

Mikulski Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Mikulski Voted Nay)

• Mikulski Voted To Filibuster Samuel Alito. (CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-1; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Mikulski Voted Nay)

Mikulski On John RobertsMikulski: The Senate Has The Responsibility Of Advice And Consent It Is Not A Rubber Stamp. “The President has the right to make nominations to the Supreme Court. The Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent it is not a rubber stamp. When I evaluate nominees, I base my consideration on three criteria: judicial competence, personal and professional integrity, and a commitment to core constitutional principles, the bill of rights and the implicit right to privacy. I look forward to thoroughly examining Judge Roberts’ qualifications and record by reviewing the background reports, the American Bar Association evaluation, his Judiciary Committee testimony, and his opinions and writings.” (Senator Barbara Mikulski, Press Release, “Mikulski Issues Statement On Judge John Roberts Jr. Nomination,” July 19, 2005)

Mikulski On Samuel AlitoMikulski: “Our Constitution Is Clear It Demands That The Senate Not Be A Rubber Stamp On Judicial Nominees.” “Today, the President has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The President has the right to make nominations to the Supreme Court. Our Constitution is clear it demands that the Senate not be a rubber stamp on judicial nominees. When I evaluate nominees, I base my consideration on three criteria: judicial competence, personal and professional integrity, and a commitment to core constitutional principles, the bill of rights and the implicit right to privacy.” (Senator Barbara Mikulski, Press Release, Mikulski Releases Statement On Alito Nomination,” 10/31/05)

Mikulski: “The Senate Should Be Allowed Due Time To Thoroughly Examine The Qualifications And Record Of Judge Alito For This Powerful Position On The Highest Court In Our Land. We owe it to the American people to take our time to be sure the nominee will uphold their most basic and fundamental rights. The public demands this from the process, and deserves no less. I look forward to thoroughly examining Judge Alito’s qualifications and record by reviewing the

BARBARA MIKULSKI DEMOCRAT – MARYLAND

19

background reports, the American Bar Association evaluation, his Judiciary Committee testimony, and his writings before I will make my determination.” (Senator Barbara Mikulski, Press Release, Mikulski Releases Statement On Alito Nomination,” 10/31/05)

Mikulski Said She Would Vote Against Alito Because She Had “A Lot Of Unanswered Questions.” “Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., . . . said she would vote against Alito. ‘I have a lot of unanswered questions,’ Mikulski said after attending the swearing-in of new Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.” (Jesse J. Holland, “Conservative Democrat Says He’ll Vote For Alito,” The Associated Press, 1/18/06)

Mikulski Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaMikulski Voted Six Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Mikulski Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Mikulski Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Mikulski Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Mikulski Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Mikulski Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Mikulski Voted Nay)

BARBARA MIKULSKI DEMOCRAT – MARYLAND

20

RON WYDEN TODAYWyden Said That Filling Scalia’s Vacancy Required “Urgency.” “‘I’m doing everything I can with respect to discussions that will be handled with the dignity that this position warrants and with the urgency demanded with the vacancy on the Supreme Court,’ Wyden said.” (Kimberly Freda, “Sen. Wyden: Naming Scalia’s Successor Requires Urgency,” OPB, 2/14/16)

THE WYDEN RECORDWyden Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoSenator Wyden Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Wyden Voted Nay)

1. Senator Wyden Voted To Filibuster The Nomination Of Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Cloture, CQ Vote #1: Motion agreed to 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Wyden Voted Nay)

‘“I Fear That Judge Alito’s Beliefs Will Color His Approach And Preordain His Outcomes On A Variety Of Critical Issues Certain To Come Before The Court In The Coming Years,’ Said Wyden, A Democrat.” (Toni Coleman, “Alito Won’t Get Wyden Vote,” Gannett News Service, 1/20/09)

‘“It Is My Conclusion That Judge Alito’s Record Portends A View On The Power Of The President That Would Undermine Our Proven And Constitutionally Mandated System Of Checks And Balances,’ Wyden Said.” (Toni Coleman, “Alito Won’t Get Wyden Vote,” Gannett News Service, 1/20/09)

Wyden Repeatedly Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaWyden Voted Seven Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Wyden Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Wyden Voted Nay)

RON WYDENDEMOCRAT – OREGON

21

RUSS FEINGOLD TODAYFeingold Believes The Constitution Mandates Obama Nominate A Supreme Court Nominee. “Feingold says Obama should nominate a replacement, as the Constitution requires. Feingold says the Senate must ‘do its job by working in a bipartisan way to vote on the nominee.’” (Katie DeLong, “Who should select SCOTUS replacement for Justice Scalia? Ron Johnson, Russ Feingold weigh in,” Fox 6, 2/15/16)

THE FEINGOLD RECORDFeingold Voted To Filibuster Samuel AlitoFeingold Voted Against Confirming Samuel Alito As A Supreme Court Justice. (CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Feingold Voted Nay)

• Feingold Voted To Filibuster The Confirmation Of Samuel Alito. (CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-1; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Feingold Voted Nay)

Feingold Defended The Role Of The Filibuster To Stop A Nomination If That Candidate Was “Unacceptable.” ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “And you could support a filibuster if he stands by it?” SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: “I think it’s perfectly fine to use a filibuster if somebody is clearly unacceptable. That is an option we have. It has almost never been used with regard to a Supreme Court justice so it would take an extreme case but I was the one Democrat who was unhappy publicly with the sort of deal that was made earlier in the year that kind of let certain judges go through who shouldn’t have gone through. The right to filibuster is part of our role on the Senate, and we should reserve the right but use it only very sparingly.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 11/27/05)

Feingold Said That Senators Should Not Give Up The Option To Filibuster Judges. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Finally, on Samuel Alito, are you still leaving open the option of a filibuster on his confirmation?” SENATOR FEINGOLD: “I leave that open on every nomination. I don’t believe that senators should give up their right. I have no plans at this point, nor does any other senator have a plan to filibuster somebody we haven’t even heard from. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. And all of that is for future consideration. I think one filibuster at a time is probably enough.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 12/14/05)

Feingold Repeated Voted To Block Consideration Of Miguel EstradaFeingold Said That He Did Not Want The Senate To Be A Rubber Stamp On Confirmations. “As did Kohl, Feingold cited what he said was Estrada’s failure to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about past Supreme Court rulings and about his judicial philosophy and opinions. ‘That’s not the way nominees have responded in the past. We don’t have anything to go on, whether or not this person is going to conduct himself as a judge or whether he is going to be an ideologue,’ Feingold said. ‘It destroys the process of advice and consent. There is a constitutional role the Senate is supposed to play,’ Feingold said. ‘If we’re not given basic information, we can’t get any sense of where they stand. They’ll just send up all kinds of people that have no record, and there won’t be any really meaningful review process. . . . They just want us to rubber-stamp everybody.’” (Craig Gilbert, “Kohl, Feingold Defend Filibuster Decision,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/12/03)

RUSS FEINGOLD FORMER SENATOR, NOW-CANDIDATE – WISCONSIN

23

“Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) Said That Not Filibustering Estrada Would Send Bush The Signal That Democrats Were Going To Lay Down Without A Fight. ‘It Sends The Signal That The Administration Can Get Away With Anything,’ He Said.” (Paul Kane, “Estrada Filibuster Threatens Recess,” Roll Call, 2/12/03)

Feingold Voted Seven Times Against Invoking Cloture On The Estrada Nomination. (CQ Vote #40: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Feingold Voted Nay)

Feingold Voted To Filibuster A Number Of Other Bush NomineesFeingold Voted Against Cloture On Charles Pickering, William Pryor, Carolyn Kuhl, And Janice Brown. (CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Feingold Voted Nay; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Feingold Voted Nay)

RUSS FEINGOLD FORMER SENATOR, NOW-CANDIDATE – WISCONSIN

24

ar2 report - justice denied: senate democrats’ record of hypocrisy on judicial nominations

Documents