What Joe Biden ACTUALLY SAID about confirming Supreme Court justices during election years.
Controversy rages about election year confirmation of Supreme Court justices in the wake of the unexpected death of Antonin Scalia on February 13th of this year.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have both stated that they will refuse to consider President Obama’s nomination to fill Justice Scalia’s seat until a new president takes the oath of office in January of 2017.
Last Monday, C-Span released a segment of a video from a floor speech delivered by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) on June 25, 1992 – an election year. As Vox explains, in the clip Biden “explicitly calls on then-President George H.W. Bush to not nominate anyone to fill whatever Supreme Court vacancies should arise between then and the presidential election in November, and suggests that if Bush did put forth a nominee, the Judiciary Committee might not hold hearings.”
Taken in the context of the C-Span clip, those statements seem to contradict the Vice President’s current position on election year nominees.
Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election…" #SCOTUShttps://t.co/setQGLzePt
— CSPAN (@cspan) February 22, 2016
“As a result, 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.
“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.
“And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
“I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision, and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election.
“Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — 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 essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Republican like Sen. Grassley were quick to jump on those remarks. As The New York Times reports, Grassley referred to Biden’s points as the “Biden Rules,” adding that his point had been: “It’s the principle that matters, not the person.”
“If the president of the United States insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, Senator Biden, my friend from Delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of this chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do,” Grassley said, adding: “And, I believe, in his heart of hearts, he understands why it must.”
However, Biden is pushing back against this interpretation in an official statement. “Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.” He continued, adding: “In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today.”
Indeed, another clip from Biden’s 1992 floor speech confirms the vice-president’s claim. As Think Progress reports, “Rather than urging his colleagues to deny Bush’s potential nominee a hearing, Biden was bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process — hence his suggestion of not holding a hearing in the heat of a presidential election — and what he saw as Bush’s refusal to properly consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.”
“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.“
Noting that Biden “made his remarks in the context of reforming the entire judicial confirmation process,” Think Progress confirms that Biden indeed worked with then-President Bush on confirming judicial nominees.
“As Chairman, Biden repeatedly confirmed Bush’s judicial nominees during the 1992 election season. In the second session of the 102nd Congress, ‘the Senate confirmed more nominees, 11, to the courts of appeals that year than in any other presidential election year in United States history,’ holding hearings ‘on district court nominees every month from January to September; court of appeals nominees received hearings in every month from February to September.'”
- Source Links – August 29, 2020
- About Pat Warde: Eulogy Tribute by Eleanor Hughes – April 1, 2019
- Editorial Note – January 15, 2019
You must be logged in to post a comment Login