Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 14, Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 13, Thomas Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 12, Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 41.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to lay out the schedule for everyone. I know they are interested in knowing the way forward. I have discussed with the Democratic leader where we go from here.

The Senate is going to debate the pending joint resolution tonight for as long as there is interest in debate. Tomorrow the Senate will convene at 6:30 a.m. and immediately proceed to two rollcall votes: passage of the joint resolution of disapproval and cloture on the nomination of Betsy DeVos.

Restating that, debate tonight as long as our friends on the other side would like to debate, and tomorrow we will convene at 6:30 a.m. and immediately turn to two rollcall votes: passage of the joint resolution of disapproval and cloture on the nomination of Betsy DeVos.

Yes.

Madam President, last night President Trump announced an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado. While Judge Gorsuch has a significant legacy to live up to as the nominee for the seat left vacant by the loss of Justice Scalia, I am confident his impressive background and long record of service will prepare him well for the task ahead.

Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands the constitutional limits of his authority. He understands that a judge's duty is to apply the law evenhandedly, without bias toward one party or another. He understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not impose his own viewpoint or political leanings.

He has also been recognized from people on both sides of the aisle as a consistent, principled, and fair jurist. Judge Gorsuch has a stellar reputation and a resume to match, with degrees from Harvard and Columbia, a Ph.D. in legal philosophy from Oxford, and just about every honor, award, and scholarship you can possibly imagine.

When he graduated from law school, Judge Gorsuch did not just clerk for one Supreme Court Justice, he clerked for two. They were Justices nominated by Presidents of different political parties--Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, and Byron White, who was nominated by JFK.

Judge Gorsuch received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association when he was nominated to his current position on the court of appeals. He was confirmed without any votes in opposition. That is right--not a single Democrat opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, not Senator Barack Obama, not Senator Hillary Clinton, not Senators Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy. In fact, not a single one of the Democrats who still serve with us opposed him, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the Democratic leader himself, Senator Schumer. In the coming days, I hope and expect that all Senate colleagues will again give him fair consideration, just as we did for the nominees of newly elected Presidents Clinton and Obama.

This is a judge who is known for deciding cases based on how the law is actually written, not how he wishes it were written, even when it leads to results that conflict with his own political beliefs. He understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not impose his own viewpoint. Here is how Judge Gorsuch himself put it: ``A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.''

Some of our colleagues and some others on the left see the role of a judge very differently. In last year's Presidential debate, our former colleague, Secretary Clinton, stated her view that a Supreme Court Justice--now listen to this--ought to look more favorably on certain political constituencies than others; that it was the job of the Supreme Court to ``stand on the side'' of this group or another over that one. Some of our current colleagues seem to share this view. The assistant Democratic leader said that what is important to him are the political views of a Supreme Court nominee, what or perhaps whom they are going to stand for.

The problem with that approach is that it is great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes; it is not so great if you are the other guy. Justice Scalia believed this to his very core. He was an eloquent champion of the Constitution who was guided by important principles like applying the law equally to all, giving every litigant a fair shake, and rulings based on the actual meaning of the Constitution and our laws, not what you or your preferred political constituency wished they meant. These principles

helped guide Justice Scalia for many years. The record of Judge Gorsuch indicates that he will continue this legacy of fair and impartial justice.

Now, of course, that does not much matter to some over here on the far left. Despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support, some on the far left decided to oppose Judge Gorsuch before he was even nominated. We already know what they will say about him as well. It is the same thing they have been saying about every Republican nominee for more than four decades. They said Gerald Ford's nominee, John Paul Stevens, ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face.'' They said Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, was a ``sexist'' who would ``be a disaster for women.'' They said George H.W. Bush's nominee, David Souter, was a threat to women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups. So it is not terribly surprising that they would say it again this time. What is disappointing is that leading Democrats in the Senate would adopt the same rhetoric. The ink was not even dry on Judge Gorsuch's nomination when the Democratic leader proclaimed that Judge Gorsuch had--you guessed it--demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights. I hope our colleagues will stick to the facts this time around.

We know that Justice Scalia's seat on the Court does not belong to any President or any political party; it belongs to the American people. When it became vacant in the middle of a contentious Presidential election, we followed the rule set down by Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Leader Senator Schumer, which said that Supreme Court vacancies arising in the midst of a Presidential election should not be considered until the campaign ends. It is the same rule, by the way, that President Obama's own legal counsel admitted she would have recommended had the shoe been on the other foot.

I have been consistent all along that the next President, Democrat or Republican, should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I maintained that view even when many thought that particular President would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over and we have a new President who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat. So I would invite Democrats who spent many months insisting we need nine to join us in following through on that advice by giving the new President's nominee a fair consideration and an up-or-down vote, just as we did for past Presidents of both parties.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on confirmation.

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to reconsider, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move that the reading of the Journal be waived.

I ask for the yeas and nays.