Coons: Republicans twisting Biden's words on nominees

Chris Coons

is a Democratic U.S. senator from Delaware

More than a month after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, most Senate Republicans have doubled down on their refusal to hold hearings, take a vote, or even meet with Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on our nation's highest court.

Garland - chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - is a respected and seasoned jurist, and the Constitution requires the Senate to provide "advice and consent" on judicial nominees. Yet Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) still insists that the Senate will not act to fill the vacancy on the court.

While I strongly disagree with their position, I simply can't accept Republicans' attempt to justify their unprecedented position with misleading citations of a speech given by Vice President Biden in 1992, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

By twisting Biden's words and taking them out of context, some of my colleagues have begun invoking what they now refer to as the "Biden Rule" to support their refusal to consider Garland's nomination. As Joe's friend and successor representing Delaware in the Senate, I would like to correct the record.

First, then-Sen. Biden's remarks were made in a dramatically different situation. In June 1992, there was no vacancy on the Supreme Court, and no nominee awaiting consideration. Biden was instead discussing a hypothetical court resignation animated by politics, not a vacancy created unexpectedly by a justice's death.

Moreover, when read in their entirety, rather than quoted to serve political convenience, the meaning of Biden's remarks is clear:

Do not play politics with the Supreme Court.

Speaking then as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, within a divided government and in the midst of a contentious presidential election, Biden promised that if a vacancy were to arise, he would hold hearings on a consensus nominee and consider supporting that nominee.

As Biden put it then: "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore, I stand by my position . . . if the president [then George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

This commitment to the Senate as an institution and reverence for the Supreme Court are not only reflected in Biden's remarks but also demonstrated by his actions.

The vice president's record serving on the Judiciary Committee defines the true Biden Rules:

When a president of either party nominates someone to serve on the Supreme Court, that nominee gets a hearing and a vote in the committee, and members of the committee have the respect and decency to meet with that nominee in person - regardless of which party controls the Senate.

These are the rules that guided Biden's tenure as committee chairman.

As an example, one needs to look no further than the confirmation of Anthony M. Kennedy, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was reviewed by the committee under Biden's leadership, and confirmed unanimously by a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1988 (the last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year). Or consider the dozens of Circuit and District Court nominations that Biden considered both before and after his oft-quoted remarks - with judicial confirmations clearing the Senate as late as October 1992.

Biden's actions were also consistent with the committee's legacy. Since the committee began holding hearings in 1916, every pending Supreme Court nominee has received a hearing, a floor vote, or both.

As a Delawarean, I have known Joe Biden for many years, and in addition to serving in the Senate seat he held from 1973 through 2009, I also worked as an intern on the Judiciary Committee's nomination unit under his leadership in 1991. Biden's record as a senator who worked with the White House to consider qualified nominees reflects his deep respect for the Constitution and our system of government.

Today, as my Senate colleagues consider whether to proceed with Merrick Garland's nomination, I urge them to take a closer look at the real Biden Rules.

Garland is, by all accounts, the definition of a consensus candidate. Whether we're looking at Biden's rhetoric or his record, the takeaway should be clear: Members of the Judiciary Committee should do their jobs by meeting with the nominee, holding appropriate hearings, and voting promptly on his nomination.

@ChrisCoons