“As we write, we are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.
“Over the last few days, much has been written about the constitutional power to fill Supreme Court vacancies, a great deal of it inaccurate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant, or withhold, consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. This is not a difficult or novel constitutional question. As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, ‘The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.’
“We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
“Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.”
“A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year…
“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the Court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” - March 16, 2016
“We have a unique opportunity for American people to have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court. The American people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this important manner. Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly the people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president, the type of person that should be on the Supreme Court.” - April 16, 2016
“Well, I don’t know what history will do [about my role in blocking Merrick Garland from receiving a SCOTUS appointment hearing] and I don’t care what history will do. I’m just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992. They set the pattern. I didn’t set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.” - May 12, 2018
“If I were chairing the [Senate Judiciary] committee, based on what I told people in 2016, I could not process [a 2020 SCOTUS nomination ].” - June, 2020
“If I were chairman of the [Senate Judiciary] committee and this vacancy occurred [in 2020], I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016.” - July, 17, 2020
“Over the years, and as recently as July, I’ve consistently said that taking up and evaluating a nominee in 2020 would be a decision for the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate Majority Leader. Both have confirmed their intentions to move forward, so that’s what will happen. Once the hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits, just as I always have. The Constitution gives the Senate that authority, and the American people’s voices in the most recent election couldn’t be clearer. While there was ambiguity about the American people’s will for the direction of the Supreme Court in 2016 under a divided government, there is no such ambiguity in 2020.” Sept 21, 2020 -
