WASHINGTON— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), released the following video statement regarding President Trump’s decision to nominate D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Judge Kavanaugh—solid pick. President Trump kept his promise, nominating a conservative faithful to the Constitution as written, recognized as having an excellent legal mind. We the Senate have the responsibility to examine his experience and temperament. I’ll meet with him, others will too, we’ll review his record, then vote on his confirmation. But based on his resume, his reputation, I suspect he’ll be confirmed.”
Last month, The Washington Post Fact Checker rejected Democrats’ claims that Republicans were being hypocritical for moving forward with the process to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in an election year, writing, “the Republican position [in 2016], whether you disagreed with it or not, clearly was based on the fact that it was a presidential election year. … [In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell cited the so-called ‘Biden rule,’ which referred to a June 25, 1992, speech that then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) gave on the Senate floor. Biden, in the speech, made it clear he was talking about nominations in a presidential year.” Another Washington Post reporter said Democrats were “grasping at straws” and pushing a “bogus argument.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (an Obama nominee) and Justice Neil Gorsuch (a Trump nominee) were each nominated and confirmed by the Senate within 66 days.
In 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated then-Judge Anthony Kennedy for the Supreme Court, Democrats called his record on civil rights and discrimination issues troubling, and also accused him of being a “sexist” who would be a “disaster for women” if confirmed. This year, however, Democrats bemoaned Justice Kennedy’s retirement.
In 1993, during Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings, she said, “Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
Last year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged the standard set by Ginsburg, saying, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can’t ask a judge who’s nominated for a — or a potential judge who is nominated — for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.”
###