My Constitutional Duty
By Sen. John Thune
Ruth Bader Ginsburg served with distinction on the Supreme Court for more than 25 years, and she embraced the law at a time when being a woman meant a constant uphill battle. She was involved in some of the court’s most memorable exchanges and was always able to disagree with her colleagues without indicting their character. Justice Ginsburg could disagree without being disagreeable – a principle that’s always guided my life, too. She will be missed, and my thoughts and prayers are with her family.
After the nation says its final goodbye to Justice Ginsburg, the Senate will turn its attention to its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the president’s nominee. I always take that responsibility seriously, but there’s an added layer of importance when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee.
There has been some criticism that in 2016, the Senate decided it would not confirm President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, but that decision follows longstanding Senate precedent and practice. You’d have to go back to the 1800s to find the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was created and filled during an election year when the Senate majority and White House were controlled by opposite parties. While some people disagreed with our decision, the Senate fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities in 2016 by withholding consent on that nominee.
On the flip side, in all but one case (which involved an ethics scandal and bipartisan opposition), every single Supreme Court nominee who was nominated in an election year when the Senate majority and White House were occupied by the same party was confirmed. I’m by no means predetermining confirmation of President Trump’s nominee, but the precedent for considering her is clear.
I’ve voted on six of the current members of the Supreme Court, and I’ve applied the same standards for each of them as I considered their nominations. I’ve always looked for someone who acts as an umpire and call balls and strikes when it comes to interpreting the law. We cannot have Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench – that’s the job of the Congress. When I meet with her, I will underscore that I believe it’s important for the Supreme Court to apply the law as Congress intended and decide cases with impartiality, free from personal opinions or preferred outcomes.
Over the last few decades, we’ve seen too many examples of judicial activism and pushing a political agenda from the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. That’s not what our Founders intended.
One of the main reasons many of my colleagues, myself included, ran for the Senate was to be in a position to restore the Supreme Court to its original constitutional purpose as a judicial body, not a legislative one. We ran for this. We were elected for this. Now, we will follow through.
###
In a recent KELO piece, Senator Thune claimed that Ms. Barrett was an impartial nominee, in terms of her qualities. Yet, it appears that the Senator thinks it is best, or okay, to confirm a judicial nominee under partial leadership, where the US Senate and the presidency are controlled by the same political party during an election year, but the opposite is not right like in 2016 with Judge Garland.
Being impartial is a good quality, indeed, but when you oppose a give and take between political parties, during their contemporaneous control of different branches of government, in the evolution of a judicial nomination, then you cannot claim to be one who truly supports impartiality and the true constitutional duty of the US Senate to advise and consent.
Your selective outrage is noted and ignored.
I’ve also found that the best way to ignore a point is by engaging it. You sure showed him.
I’d have more respect for his position if he just admitted he was a hypocrite (as he is) and that this is just politics (as it is).
there’s no hypocrisy. history will judge the republicans as smart for ignoring pressure and doing this, OR dumb for caving and squandering an opportunity. all this ‘moral imperative to wait’ crap is what the party out of power always says. ginsberg’s demise has been on the radar for a whole year now, it’s time for both sides to fight it out and move this thing forward without the fake histrionics.
JKC,
FIrst, there has never been an example of a President appointing and the Senate NOT confirming in an election year when both the President and Senate are of the same party but have confirmed over 15 times. The precedent is there.
Second, trying to right a new rule because we are so divisive is rich for a Democrat to assert. The filibuster used to be the principal tool to moderate and force compromise but it was eliminated regarding judicial appointments by the Dems (a new procedure followed now by the Republicans) and the Democrats are now saying they will eliminate the filibuster on legislation if appointed. So, I’m calling sanctimonious BS. We are no longer your fools and will play by the rules of the game you have changed to your benefit.
Finally, Supreme Court Justice RBG told us 4 years ago there is no time restriction prior to an election for a President to nominate and a Senate to advise and consent. She just died. This is an appointment to her seat. And, I’m shocked you are not praising Senators Thune, Rounds and the Republican caucus (and criticizing the Democrats) for not honoring RBG’s clear public statement on this. I guess the Democrats don’t have the real respect for RBG claimed. Says a lot you are even willing to throw her under the bus when it isn’t convenient.