(Texas Senator John Cornyn's)Floor Speech: Judicial Nominations

cornyn.senate.gov ^ | February 17, 2005 | John Cornyn

[SwinneySwitch]

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will spend a few minutes correcting the record in response to a question of press availability on Tuesday about whether Democrats were opposing as a caucus all of the renominated judges that previously were denied an opportunity for an up-or-down vote when a bipartisan majority stood ready to confirm them last year.

The Senate minority leader said, "Renomination is not the key. I think the question is, those judges that have already been turned down in the Senate" -- in other words, he said these judges, even though they commanded the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate during the last 2 years and were not permitted to have an up-or-down vote, he characterized those judges who have now been renominated by the President as judges who have, in fact, been turned down by the Senate.

So my question is, to whom is the distinguished Democratic leader referring? None of President Bush's nominees have been turned down by the Senate-- none, zero. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether. In fact, all of these nominees would have been confirmed last Congress had majorities been allowed to govern as they have during the entire history of this country and the entire history of the Senate -- save and except for the time when Democrats chose to deny a majority the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.

So I would say, correcting the record, it is a little difficult to turn down a nominee, as the minority leader has said, if the nominee never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Now, the second part I would like to correct is that when the Democratic leader was asked whether obstruction would create a 60-vote threshold for all future judicial nominees, he said:

It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is -- nothing change[d].

He said:

Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.

Well, we took his advice, and we did go back over the years.

It turns out it has not always been that way. Indeed, there has never, ever, ever been a refusal to permit an up-or-down vote with a bipartisan majority standing ready to confirm judges in the history of the Senate until these last 2 years. Many nominees have, in fact, been confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators.

In fact, the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed a majority but not 60-vote support, including Clinton appointees Richard Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway; and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter.

Specifically, the distinguished Democratic leader, yesterday, when he said this had been used by Republicans against Democratic nominees, mentioned Judge Paez. Well, obviously, that is not correct because Judge Paez, indeed, was confirmed by the Senate and sits on the Federal bench today.

So it reminds me of, perhaps, an old adage I learned when I was younger, when computers were not as common as they are now, and people marveled at this new technology, and those who wanted to chasten us a little bit would say, well, they are not the answer to all of our concerns, and they said: Garbage in, garbage out. In other words, if you do not have your facts right, it is very difficult to reach a proper conclusion.

So I thought it was very interesting -- and I thought it was important -- that the Democratic leader would make this claim, first of all, as I said, that these judges had been somehow turned down by the Senate when, in fact, they had been denied an opportunity for an up-or-down vote; and, secondly, that somehow there is a 60-vote requirement, and it has always been that way, because the facts demonstrate that both of those conclusions are clearly incorrect.

Finally, he said something I do more or less agree with, although I would differ a little bit on the contentious tone. He said: We're hopeful they'll bring them to the floor so there will be a fair fight. Well, I think I knew what he meant. I hope he meant a fair debate. Frankly, the American people are tired of obstruction and what they see as partisan wrangling and fighting over judicial nominees.

In the end, that is what happened during the Clinton administration when, perhaps, judges who were not necessarily favored by our side of the aisle did receive an up-or-down vote and did get confirmed. And that is, of course, what happened during the Carter administration. In fact, that is what has happened throughout American history -- until our worthy adversaries on the other side of the aisle decided to obstruct the President's judicial nominees and they were denied the courtesy of that fair process, that fair debate, and an up-or-down vote.

Let me just conclude by saying this really should not be a partisan fight. Indeed, what we want is a fair process. We want a process that applies the same when a Democrat is in the White House and Democrats are in the majority in the Senate as we do when a Republican is in the White House and Republicans are in the majority in the Senate.

We want good judges. The American people deserve to have judges who will strictly interpret the law and will rule without regard to some of the political passions of the day. A judge understands that they are not supposed to take sides in a controversy. That is what Congress, the so-called political branch, is for. That is why debate is so important in this what has been called the greatest deliberative body on Earth. But we do not want judges who make political decisions. Rather, we want judges who will enforce those decisions because they are sworn to uphold the law and enforce the law as written. Members of Congress write the laws, the President signs or vetoes the laws, and judges are supposed to enforce them but not participate in the rough and tumble of politics.

So it is important that the process I have described produces a truly independent judiciary because we want judges who are going to be umpires, who are going to call balls and strikes regardless of who is up at bat. So I think the process we have seen over the last couple years, which, unfortunately, it sounds like, if what I am hearing out of the Democratic leader is any indication, is a process that has not only been unfair because it has denied bipartisan majorities an opportunity to confirm judges who have been nominated by the President, but it is one which, frankly, creates too much of a political process, one where it appears that judges who are sworn to uphold the law, and who will be that impartial umpire -- it has made them part of an inherently political process.

Now, I want to be clear. It is the Senate's obligation to ask questions and to seriously undertake our obligation to perform our duty under the Constitution to provide advice and consent. But, ultimately, it is our obligation to vote, not to obstruct, particularly when we have distinguished nominees being put forward for our consideration, when they are unnecessarily besmirched and, really, tainted by a process that is beneath the dignity of the United States. Certainly none of these individuals who are offering themselves for service to our Nation's courts in the judiciary deserve to be treated this way.

So, basically, Mr. President, what we are talking about is a process that works exactly the same way when Democrats are in power as it does when Republicans are in power. That, indeed, is the only principled way we can approach this deadlock and this obstructionism. I hope the Democratic leader -- who I know has a very difficult job because he, no doubt, has to deal with and reflect the views of his caucus on this issue -- I hope he will encourage his caucus, the Democrats in the caucus, and we will all, as a body, look at the opportunity to perhaps view this as a chance for a fresh start, a chance for a fair process, one that is more likely to produce an independent judiciary that is going to call balls and strikes regardless of who is at bat.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[MEG33]

I was comparing his "popularity" to polls I see about Kay Bailey.

She has been around a long time, though. I like him better!

[ArmyBratproud]

John Cornyn, of San Antonio, is a voice for Texas values in Washington. He was sworn in to the U.S. Senate on December 2, 2002, succeeding Phil Gramm.

Sen. Cornyn continues to take a leading role on many issues in the Senate. He is committed to bolstering America’s national defense and homeland security, working to strengthen the economy and grow jobs, making health care more accessible, and improving educational opportunity for all Texans.

After just one year in the Senate, John Cornyn was chosen by leadership to serve as a Deputy Whip. As a member of the Whip team, he helps mobilize votes and support on major issues. Sen. Cornyn serves on five key Senate committees: Armed Services; Judiciary; Budget; Small Business and Entrepreneurship; and the Joint Economic Committee. He chairs the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.

Sen. Cornyn is a prominent supporter of President Bush’s judicial nominees, he continues to work for Texas military personnel and veterans, and has been a leader on working to bring about common sense, balanced immigration reform. He stands as a dedicated defender of free markets, traditional values, and individual liberty.

In addition to his legislative committees, Sen. Cornyn is the chairman of the Senate India Caucus, vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs, vice chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, and a member of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health Care Costs and the Uninsured, the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, and the President’s Export Council.

While in the Senate, John Cornyn has received various awards and recognitions, including the National Child Support Enforcement Association’s Children’s Champion Award; the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Friend of Farm Bureau Award; the Texas Association of Business’s Fighter for Free Enterprise Award; and the Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce’s (TAMACC) International Leadership Legislative Award; among others.

As Texas Attorney General from 1999-2002, John Cornyn directed many initiatives vital to the interests of Texas families. Cornyn served for six years as a District Court Judge in San Antonio before being elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 1990, where he served for seven years.

John Cornyn was born in Houston on February 2, 1952, the son of John and Gale Cornyn, both native Texans. His father, a B-17 pilot in World War II, served for thirty-one years in the U.S. Air Force and, later, taught at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. A graduate of Trinity University and St. Mary’s School of Law, both in San Antonio, John Cornyn also earned a Masters of Law from the University of Virginia Law School in 1995. He was named the St. Mary’s Distinguished Law School Graduate in 1994 and a Trinity University Distinguished Alumnus in 2001.

Sen. Cornyn is married to Sandy, his wife of 25 years. They have two daughters.

[doug from upland]

I called his office yesterday and asked if they would trade him to California for Boxer. I also gave them Chuckie Schumer's quote March 7, 2000 when Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were up for confirmation ---

Mr. Schumer: I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity -- vote them up or down.

[MeekOneGOP]

He has been a nice surprise for me. I wish Texans
in general were aware of the great job he is doing.

Well, let's ping a few Texans to this and get the word out.
And I'm pinging my General Interest list here, too.

Thanks for the post and ping here, folks.

---

(Texas Senator John Cornyn's)
Floor Speech: Judicial Nominations

Excerpt:

So my question is, to whom is the distinguished Democratic leader referring? None of President Bush's nominees have been turned down by the Senate-- none, zero. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether. In fact, all of these nominees would have been confirmed last Congress had majorities been allowed to govern as they have during the entire history of this country and the entire history of the Senate -- save and except for the time when Democrats chose to deny a majority the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.

So I would say, correcting the record, it is a little difficult to turn down a nominee, as the minority leader has said, if the nominee never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Now, the second part I would like to correct is that when the Democratic leader was asked whether obstruction would create a 60-vote threshold for all future judicial nominees, he said:

It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is -- nothing change[d].

He said:

Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.

Well, we took his advice, and we did go back over the years.

It turns out it has not always been that way. Indeed, there has never, ever, ever been a refusal to permit an up-or-down vote with a bipartisan majority standing ready to confirm judges in the history of the Senate until these last 2 years. Many nominees have, in fact, been confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators.

In fact, the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed a majority but not 60-vote support, including Clinton appointees Richard Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway; and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter.

---

This Texan is PROUD to say: "John Cornyn: You are MY Senator!"

John Cornyn (R)
Texas

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas or General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

Full Texas Ping List

[Bahbah]

Thanks for the ping, Meekie. I am very impressed with Cornyn.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks. I loved this. Cornyn did a good job to put lil Harry in the spotlight, saying, in effect:

Harry Reid, you are one lying little weasel !!!!

And never even used the word "lie", "liar" in any form.

[txrangerette]

Indeed. I, too, mourned the loss of Phil Gramm. Cornyn is Gramm with the earthy edge OFF. I can live with that. (Still miss Dickie Flatt of Mexia, though, with those permanently ink-stained fingers from working in his print shop, which BTW, I have personally visited.)

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you. :^D

bump!!

[txradioguy]

Yes Cornyn was a pretty good AG as well. I'm glad he's one of my senators. Between him and Sen. Hutchinson Texas is in good hands.

[TheGrimReaper]

Cornyn bump

I have to admit...John has done MUCH better than I ever expected.

[bitt]

thanks for ping. good stuff. right stuff. future stuff.

[rapture-me]

After the election in '06 Cornyn will be the Senior Senator From Texas, Kay Bailey will be unemployed, and Rick Perry will still be Governor. The real question is who will replace Kay Bailey? (Karl Rove perhaps?)

[altura]

I always liked Cornyn and voted for him, but he has exceeded my expectations.

He would be a great candidate in '08. He's good looking,
well spoken, principled...

unfortunately, he's from Texas...and that might make people think Texas wants to rule the nation.

It does, of course, and rightly so, but ....

[TRY ONE]

"This Texan is PROUD to say: "John Cornyn: You are MY Senator!""

Here! Here!
BTW, where is our SENIOR Senator, Kay Bailey?
What has she accomplished in the last 12+ years?
When she is interviewed on TV she is almost incoherent.
Now I hear she is going to run for Gov.
I hope Don Evans runs instead --- we need a real leader.

[MEG33]

;)

[txrangerette]

Henry Bonilla

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Bump.

[native texan]

and I've been worried that he would be timid his first year or so. What a great Texan!

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep! Cornyn has pleasantly surprised. :^)

Thanks, folks.

bump!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!