Executive Session

Floor Speech

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - August 06, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. I rise today, fellow Senators, to discuss the current nomination that is under consideration by the Senate for the U.S. Supreme Court seat.

Like every Member of this body, I take this responsibility seriously. The Constitution of the United States gives each one of the 100 Members of this body the solemn duty to participate in this under what has been called the advice and consent provisions.

Obviously, there are two parts here. First ``advice'' and the second ``consent.'' The first part, the advice that the President seeks, is not under the control of any Member here but is under the control of the President. He did not seek my advice on this, which is not surprising.

But, secondly, I am required to exercise my constitutional duty to express either consent or the withholding of consent. I appear here this morning to explain the conclusion I have reached in that regard.

This is a serious constitutional duty. I think every Member here takes it seriously. I think as we do exercise this constitutional duty, it is incumbent upon each one of us to create, in our own mind, a path forward and a criteria, if you would, as to how to reach a conclusion concerning that consent.

I think all of us come at it from a different point of view. Some of us have had some experience in that regard. Although I have not had experience here in this body with a U.S. Supreme Court appointment, I had the opportunity at the State level, since I have served as Governor and had to appoint judges, to determine if, in my mind, a path forward, if you would, or a way, a method, in which we would reach that conclusion as to the appropriateness of a person, their qualifications to serve in a judicial capacity. I have done that.

In addition to that, I think all of us look to other people who have exercised this responsibility and looked for the type of matrix they used to reach the conclusion. I have also done that. I have chosen someone to emulate as far as how I would reach a conclusion as to whether I would grant the consent or withhold the consent.

That person whom I have chosen to emulate is a person who actually chose a matrix that is similar to mine; that is, when we do this, we judge who the person is, and what that person stands for--the ``who'' and the ``what.''

Like the person I have chosen to emulate, my focus is not on the ``who,'' my focus is on the ``what.'' What does this person stand for? Because it is, indeed, at the end of the day, the ``what'' that will guide that person when that person, when the nominee, makes decisions in their capacity as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

I met with the nominee. I have read her opinions. I have read a lot that has been written about the nominee, and weighed those using the matrix I have chosen, and that person I chose to emulate chose to reach a conclusion as to whether to grant the consent or to withhold the consent.

I think this is a decision that no one should reach lightly but should reach based upon weighing the factors that they have chosen. When it comes to the ``who,'' I find the nominee that the President has put forward to be a person who is engaging, who is very wise, who has had clearly the experience to fill this position. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am honored that she would spend the considerable time she made available for me to meet with her and discuss with her the various issues that are important to the great State of Idaho.

At the end of the day, I have to move from the ``who'' to the ``what.'' And in that regard, I want to talk about now who I chose to emulate when it comes to making this decision. The person I chose to emulate is a person who currently serves as the President of the United States.

He came to this body and had the opportunity to do just what I have done; that is, to go through this exercise to determine the ``who'' and the ``what'' when it comes to the appointment and the qualifications to serve as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then-Senator Obama went through this exact same exercise. At the end of the day, when he voted on two of the nominees, two of the Supreme Court nominees, he determined that based upon his weighing of the nominees, he could not, in good conscience, vote for the nominees because--not because of the ``who'' part of the equation but because of the ``what does this person stand for'' part of the equation.

He did that based upon his vision of what he wanted to see in America. I did likewise. He concluded that when he withheld his consent on those two, that person did not meet his view of what the vision for America was. I have reached the same conclusion on this nominee.

In all good conscience, I must withhold the consent. My fellow Senators, I will withhold my consent based not on the ``who'' but on the ``what'' on this nomination. I will vote no.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source