Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, last month we all learned with great sadness of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing after nearly 30 years on the Court. He would have turned 80 years old on Friday, March 11.

In recent weeks, foremost on people's minds as they reflect on Justice Scalia's legacy and his life is his dedication to the letter of the law, his respect for constitutional and statutory text, his view that the U.S. Constitution is a sacred document which must be read and adhered to.

His decisions and opinions were aimed to follow the Constitution wherever it took him, even if it may not have been to a place where he would agree politically. Justice Scalia not only understood the importance of not legislating from the bench, but he also cared deeply about the lesson being taught by the work of the Court. Through his writings, his opinions, including his dissents, he taught us great lessons.

Now all of this is very important and relevant, ironically, as we consider our role and path forward in the decision to fill his vacancy. Instead, unfortunately, we have seen rhetoric and arguments which fly in the face of that dedication to the text, to the Constitution, to statutory law and rules, and following that letter.

My esteemed Democratic colleagues have taken to the Senate floor, and they have encouraged outside groups to storm committee rooms--all arguing that somehow there is a legislative or constitutional mandate that the Senate have hearings, take a vote now, and not allow the American people to weigh in through the election. They argue that somehow the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and vote right now before the election, but as Justice Scalia would surely point out: Read the text. Look at the Constitution. Look at all relevant statutes and rules. That is not the case. It is clear, otherwise. In fact, it is crystal clear. So let's do that in homage to Justice Scalia.

He wrote many opinions arguing for exactly what I am saying: Read the clear language that is at issue--either the Constitution or a statute or whatever is at issue. He wrote opinions against what before his time was rampant use of so-called legislative history, looking at the history of how a law was passed really to give people fodder to make it up as they go along and reach almost any conclusion and interpretation they want to. Justice Scalia taught us--and he had a real impact on the Court through his decisions--that we need an unwavering commitment to principle and respect to statutory text as written.

As he often said in so many different ways, ``Legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory text is clear.'' In one opinion he noted that ``if one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history.'' He said directly that ``our cases have said that legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory text is clear.''

Again, that is a big part of his legacy and very relevant in this discussion about how the Senate should fulfill its duties. Let's look at the text of the Constitution and any relevant text like our rules below the Constitution.

In the U.S. Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 2 says clearly: The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.''

That is what it says on the issue. That is all it says on the issue. Those words are straightforward, and those words do not mandate a hearing or a vote in any certain timeframe. It is very clear from the Founders and from numerous Court decisions since then that within the constraints of those words, the Senate sets its rules of how to proceed on all Senate matters, including confirmations. So another very important and very clear text that we should read word for word and adhere to are the standing Senate rules. Senate rule XXXI states: ``When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, `Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?' which question shall not be put on the same day on which the nomination is received, nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee, unless by unanimous consent.''

It only says when the vote cannot be taken. It doesn't say that a hearing has to happen or a vote has to be taken within a certain amount of time.

Another part of rule XXXI is even more direct on this point: ``Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President.''

So this is even more direct and makes crystal clear that there is no requirement of a hearing or a vote on any particular nomination in any particular timeframe during a session. Again, that is very straightforward, very crystal clear, but the Congressional Research Service has a report which validates and confirms the obvious. Upon their review of all of this text, they say:

A committee considering a nomination has four options. It can report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to take no action.

So they say the obvious from reading the relevant text. Those are the options. There is no requirement for a hearing or for a vote within any certain timeframe.

There are other ``authorities''--I will put that in air quotes--which confirm this view, and ironically those authorities I am referring to are Democrats who are taking exactly the opposite view now. When the shoe was on the other foot, time and time again, they said: There is no requirement to move forward on any certain timeframe.

The minority leader, Harry Reid, said: ``Nowhere in [the Constitution] 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.'' That is a direct quote.

In June of 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy--he is significant because he is ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--said clearly:

The Constitution divides the appointment power between the president and the Senate. It expects senators to advise the President, not just rubber stamp his choices. It says advise and consent, not nominate and rubber stamp.

Even further back, in June of 1992, then-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now-Vice President Joe Biden argued for the need to set aside partisanship and work to bring unity forward in the Senate by saying: ``President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'' He said that during a Presidential election year, just like we are in the midst of a Presidential election year right now.

Chuck Schumer, another leader of the Judiciary Committee, said much the same thing in the past, making crystal clear that there is no requirement--in fact, he said 18 months before the expiration of President Bush's term. So not during his last year, but 18 months before the end of that term that the Senate shouldn't confirm any Bush nominee, except in extraordinary circumstances.

It is very clear from their own words that there is no obligation to use any certain timeframe to have any absolute committee hearing or vote within a certain period of time. So then the question is, What is the best thing to do for the American people? I firmly believe the best thing to do for the American people is to put the American people in charge, to put them in the lead, to maximize their role, their power, and their vote. That is what the opportunity of a major Presidential election gives us.

Of course, if you have a vacancy early on in the term of a President, you are not going to have another big election for some time, but that is certainly not the case right now. We are in the midst of a huge election with enormous consequences for the future, and it is very clear the choices--whatever the final two choices may be--would offer very different options in terms of the type of Supreme Court Justice they would appoint.

I think we best serve the American people in almost all cases-- certainly in this case--by maximizing their voice, their role, and their power. They often feel absolutely shunned, put to the side, ignored by Congress, by Washington now. We need to put them in charge, and in this Presidential election year we have a unique opportunity do that. That certainly is what I am committed to doing.

I can tell you, as I travel Louisiana, the huge majority of my fellow citizens whom I have talked to agree with that approach. I just finished doing four townhall meetings in all different parts of the State. In a few weeks I am going to do four more, all different parts of the State. That is not a scientific survey, but nobody came to those townhall meetings who didn't agree with that path forward. A great majority of calls and emails and letters from my fellow Louisiana citizens on this issue absolutely confirm and support that path forward.

Let's put the American people in charge. They are crying for a voice. They are crying with frustration over not being listened to by Washington. This is a major decision. Let's put them in charge. Let's let them lead in this Presidential election year on this very important issue.

Of course, whoever is elected, the next President will have a big impact on our country. That person will serve for 4, maybe 8 years and make decisions that are enormous on a whole host of issues, but this appointment to the Supreme Court could have an even more lasting impact, could have an impact for decades to come, and it is even more important in that frame of mind, in that viewpoint, to put the American people in charge, to maximize their role and their voice about what direction we should take.

So many Louisianians feel as I do. The Court has strayed from Justice Scalia's proper philosophy of actually reading the Constitution and reading statutory text and applying it as written. So many Louisianians feel as I do; that they are making it up, in many cases, as they go along; that they are legislating from the bench; that they are using clever techniques, such as looking to legislative history--something Justice Scalia, as I noted, railed against--as ammunition to get to whatever endpoint they desire to get to. That is not the role of any court, certainly not the role of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court should apply the Constitution and the law as written, not make it up as they go along, not legislate from the bench, not get to some political endpoint through clever legal arguments--just as we in understanding our role should read the Constitution, should read the Senate rules and not suggest what is clearly not the case; that somehow there is a mandate to have a hearing, to have a vote in some set period of time.

I urge my colleagues to put the American people in charge. This is a big decision, and I think we will do far better putting them in charge than allowing some insider Washington game to control and manipulate the process without hearing their voice, which we have every opportunity to properly hear through this important election this year.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source