Issue Position: Judicial Nominations
Issue Position
. MR. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address one of the most important obligations that we, as members of the United States Senate, are bound to fulfill - the approval or disapproval of the President's judicial nominations. Perhaps no other constitutional duty vests as much responsibility in the executive or the Senate than Article II, articulating the President's power of nomination. A power that is only realized when the constitution works as it was intended to - when the Senate fulfills its obligations as laid out in the clause requiring advice and consent. This fundamental duty carries with it the weight and responsibility of generations - a lifetime appointment to a position that requires a deep and mature understanding of legal thought, and a solemn oath to uphold the law.
This debate is not about numbers. It is not about percentages - how many Judges that Republicans confirmed or how many Judges Democrats confirmed. To frame the debate as nothing but a statistical argument is to betray the American people. We were not sent to Congress to focus on a numerical count, but instead to make sure that limited government allows for opportunity and promise without stifling individual freedom and liberty. We were sent here to build a stronger Union and to uphold our obligations under the Constitution. The founding fathers referred to judges as "the guardians" of the Constitution and gave to the President the responsibility to appoint them. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that, in order to maintain the health of the three branches of government, all possible care is requisite to enable the judiciary to defend itself. It is frightening to think that a minority in the Senate are eroding the foundation of the third branch by perpetuating obstruction and endangering the citadels of justice.
No where does the Constitution give Congress the ability to ignore the appointment process. By refusing to give judicial nominations an up or down vote, it is nothing more than a Congressional veto with a fancy name. James Madison characterized the appointment of judges as the remote choice of the people. Failure to provide an up or down vote deprives the people of the United States the choice selected by their representatives, denying choice to the very same people that elected us to office and the same people who live under the Constitution that we have sworn to protect.
The legal prowess of a nominee is obviously an important factor to consider when confirming a judge. The Constitution calls upon the Senate collectively to determine whether or not a particular nominee is qualified to serve. This determination is made in one gesture - the approval or disapproval of the nomination itself. In 2003 and 2004, a series of votes were held on various nominees. Some were approved, while others were denied a vote altogether, even though they were clearly supported by a majority of Senators. Procedural processes do not fulfill the advice and consent requirement. Advice and consent does not mean avoiding the question on a judicial nominee entirely by employing a filibuster. If a member of the Senate disapproves of a judge then let them vote against the nominee. But do not deprive the people of the right to support a nominee through their elected representative. It is our vote - the right of each member to collectively participate in a show of "advice and consent" to the President - that exercises the remote choice of the people.
The burden of obstruction is borne by the American people. Empty seats on our highest courts delays the recourse and justice guaranteed by the Constitution. As so many of my colleagues have stated before me, such justice delayed is justice denied.
In the shadow of September 11th, 2001, we now recognize the efforts being made by the enemies of the United States to destroy the liberties and freedom of our great nation. The most basic of our country's values and traditions are under attack. Congress responded by enacting new laws and by providing financial assistance to businesses, families and defense; we acted swiftly to suffocate terrorists and destroy the hateful organizations that work to undermine our society. Through strong and courageous leadership, the President has stood firm against terrorist and terrorist regimes. But our government cannot function without an equally strong Judiciary - the third branch of government. It is through the judiciary that justice is served, rights protected, and that law breakers are sentenced for their crimes. The Senate cannot willingly refuse to provide an up or down vote on judicial nominees without acknowledging that irreparable harm may be done to an equal branch of government.
Judges must take an oath to uphold the law, regardless of their personal views. Time after time, a nomination has been blocked by a minority of Senators because they feel that they are better judges of a nominee's ability to fulfill that oath than a majority of the Senate. The result of this obstruction is a broken nomination process.
Mr. President, I sincerely hope we can work through the impasse the judicial nomination process. I hope those opposed to the President's nominees will vote against them and speak their mind about it. But I also hope that we will be allowed to provide the guidance we are required to provide under the Constitution. As I have said so many times before, "vote em up, or vote em down, but just vote."
Thank you Mr. President.
Source