“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.”
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ And you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.” - March 10, 2016
Sen. Lindsey Graham (3/10/16): "I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." pic.twitter.com/4aMCyGjv5c
“Let the voters have a say about who they would like to be the next Supreme Court justice.Judge Garland‘s a fine man, but this should be done by the next president.” - April 20, 2016
“I’m a conservative, proud of it, want conservative judges on the court when it’s our turn to pick. When it’s their turn, I’ve honored their picks… Merrick Garland… Justice Scalia died in 2016, the primary process was ongoing, and if you look back at 100 years, no one has been replaced under that circumstance… I felt like I was doing the traditional thing there.
“Now I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait until the next election.” - Oct 3, 2018
Sen. Lindsey Graham justifies his treatment of Merrick Garland: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election" pic.twitter.com/E8N7a8IlIG
“Well, Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you’ve got them both would be different. I don’t want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020. If you look into the history of the country, there had not been an occasion where somebody was confirmed in a presidential election year after primary started when you had divided government.” May 16, 2020 -
“[If a vacancy occurs before the election] I think [confirming a successor before the election] would be the goal… So if a vacancy did occur… you would see an effort by Republicans, I’m sure, to fill the vacancy.” May 28, 2020 -
HUGH HEWITT: [If a vacancy occurred] would successors be confirmed before the election?
LINDSEY GRAHAM: I think that would be the goal. … So if a vacancy did occur … you would see an effort by Republicans, I’m sure, to fill the vacancy. pic.twitter.com/VlfU1jnexo
“After Kavanaugh, I have a different view of judges. I’d like to fill a vacancy. But we’d have to see. I don’t know how practical that would be.” July 20, 2020 -
“Yeah. We’ll cross that bridge . After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned. We’ll see what the market will bear if that ever happens.” Aug 3, 2020 -
“I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from [with respect to filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s seat ‘without delay’].” Sept 19, 2020 -
In light of these two events, I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.” Sept 19, 2020 -
The two biggest changes regarding the Senate and judicial confirmations that have occurred in the last decade have come from Democrats.
<* Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority.
* Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open.
#2
In light of these two events, I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.
“I stand by what I said in Jan. 2019: Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer changed Senate rules to try and stack the courts for Obama. Now it’s coming back to haunt them as I predicted. I’m dead set on confirming @realDonaldTrump’s nominee.” Sept 19, 2020 -
I stand by what I said in Jan. 2019: Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer changed Senate rules to try and stack the courts for Obama. Now it's coming back to haunt them as I predicted. I'm dead set on confirming @realDonaldTrump’s nominee. If you stand with me: https://t.co/MYF6qgyjdIpic.twitter.com/lsejlSs0QQ
“Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department.
“Democrats chose to set in motion rules changes to stack the court at the Circuit level and they chose to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh‘s life to keep the Supreme Court seat open.
“You reap what you sow.” Sept 20, 2020 -
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department.
Democrats chose to set in motion rules changes to stack the court at the Circuit level and they chose to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat open.
