From the Congressional Record

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

Do note that Harkin and Leahy BOTH felt that then Governor Bush had a fine idea of "a 60-day deadline for judges - once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor". Note also that after Daschle said what he did then actively obstructed he became an ex-senator.

SEN. LEAHY: One of the things that most Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on is what (then-)Governor Bush said: Do it and vote them up or down in 60 days. Let's make a decision. (7/25/00)

SEN. DASCHLE: Among the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the Senate, none is more critical to the well-being of our democracy than providing advice and consent on Presidential nominations. (3/8/00)

SEN. LEAHY: No one will be here forever. All will leave at some time. When we leave, we can only look back and say: What kind of service did we give? Did we put the country's interests first? Or did we put partisan interest first? Did we put integrity first, or did we play behind the scenes and do things that were wrong? (9/21/99)

SEN. KENNEDY: Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process. (3/7/00)

SEN. SCHUMER: By not filling vacancies, we hamper the judiciary's ability to fulfill its own constitutional duties. . . . This delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo. (3/7/00)

SEN. LEAHY: I hope we will have a chance to vote on them, not just in committee . . . but on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do - to vote for or against. I do not question the judgement or conscience of any man or woman in this Senate if they vote differently that I do, but vote. (9/21/99)

SEN. REED: This is one of our enumerated duties in the Constitution. . . . I ask my colleagues to take their constitutional duty seriously and vote for these nominees on the basis of their objective qualifications, and not on the basis of petty politics. This process is much too important to the citizens of this great democracy to do otherwise. (3/9/00)

SEN. LEAHY: One of our most important constitutional responsibilities as United States Senators is to advise and consent on the scores of judicial nominations sent to us to fill the vacancies on the federal courts around the country. I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all nominees. . . . We must redouble our efforts . . . . That is our constitutional responsibility. It should not be shirked. (7/25/00)

SEN. LEAHY: There are only 100 of us who are elected to represent a quarter of a billion Americans. . . . Let us not play silly parliamentary games and tell the American people we do not have the guts to vote . . . (3/8/00)

SEN. KENNEDY: Many of us have been concerned about the Senate's continuing delays in acting on President Clinton's nominees to the federal courts . . . . This kind of partisan, Republican stonewalling is irresponsible and unacceptable. It's hurting the courts and it's hurting the country. . . . The continuing delays are a gross perversion of the confirmation process that has served this country well for more than 200 years. When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations, they never intended the Senate to work against the President. . . . (9/21/99)

SEN. LEAHY: We are not being responsible. We are being dishonest, condescending, and arrogant toward the judiciary. It deserves better and the American people deserve better. . . . Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch. . . . We are seeing outstanding nominees nitpicked and delayed to the point that good women and men are being deterred from seeking to serve as federal judges. (9/8/99)

SEN. LEAHY: We should be the conscience of the Nation. On some occasions we have been. But we tarnish the conscience of this great Nation if we establish the precedence of partisanship and rancor that go against all precedents and set the Senate on a course of meanness and smallness . . . . For the last several years, I have been urging the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to proceed to consider and confirm judicial nominees more promptly, without the months of delay that now accompany so many nominations. (10/1/99)

SEN. DASCHLE: I believe there is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it. I cannot imagine that anybody could justify, anybody could rationalize, anybody could explain why, in the name of public service, we would put anyone through the misery and the extraordinary anguish that these nominees have had to face for years. Why would anyone ever offer themselves for public service . . . ? (3/9/00)

SEN. HARKIN: I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side. . .will listen to the words of Texas Governor George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges - once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor. . . . If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don't we act accordingly? (10/3/2000)

SEN. LEAHY: If I could make a recommendation, I would join an unusual ally in that. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas (stated that) presidential nominations should be acted upon by the Senate within 60 days. He said: 'The Constitution . . does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation. Yet somewhere along the way, that is what Senate confirmations became - lengthy, partisan, and unpleasant. It has done enough harm, injured too many good people, and it must not happen again.' Governor Bush is right. . . . I have said the same thing. (7/21/2000)

SEN. DASCHLE: The Republican majority should not be allowed to cherry-pick among nominees, allowing some to be confirmed in weeks, while letting other nominations languish for years. . . . Let the Senate vote on every nomination. (10/5/99)

SEN. LEAHY: Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people . . . just hanging forever with even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and besmirches the Senate. . . . (10/5/00)

SEN. DASCHLE: There is going to be no payback. We are not going to do to Republican nominees, whenever that happens, what they have done to Democratic nominees. Why? Because it is not right. Will we differ? Absolutely. Will we have votes and vote against nominees on the basis of whatever we choose? Absolutely. But are we going to make them wait for years and years to get their fair opportunity to be voted on and considered? Absolutely not. That is not right. I do not care who is in charge. I do not care which President is making the nomination. That is not right. (3/9/00)

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info