Cindy Hyde-Smith Quotes

Deciding whether to confirm a president's nominee for the highest court in the land is a responsibility I take very seriously.

While the president is to nominate that individual [to Supreme Court], we in the Senate must provide our advice and consent. This function is not well-defined. The Constitution does not set down a road map. It does not require hearings. In fact, it does not even require questioning on your understanding of the Constitution nor the role of the Supreme Court.

We've got another nominee coming up, well qualified, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens has a tremendous reputation, tremendous record, but they are already marshalling their forces to try to stop that nomination.

What I wanted was for everyone listening to understand that these things mattered - not necessarily for me, but in this particular forum they mattered in terms of whether of not we were getting a person who should sit on the Supreme Court.

In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide 'advice and consent' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included 'integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.' On that test, Elena Kagan fails.

It's been 80 years since the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee who was nominated during an election. And particularly when the court hangs in the balance, it makes no sense whatsoever to give Barack Obama the power to jam through a judge in the final election year.

The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, and I take that responsibility very seriously.

Any Supreme Court confirmation needs to be a thoughtful process, with full respect for the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, I said that he deserved a fair hearing and a vote. I said this even though Senate Republicans filibustered dozens of President Obama's judicial nominees and then stopped President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

Now, President Obama has to make a decision. He can either propose a nominee who can win over the majority in the Senate or defer his choice to the voters, who in November will elect a new President and a new Senate, which will be responsible for confirming a nominee who will provide balance to the Supreme Court.

The main opposition to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation comes from a handful of Democratic Senators who are using the playbook of far-left special interest groups, the same groups that routinely attack anyone who doesn't actively promote their agenda.

I, for one, want to see Mr. Cruz as a Supreme Court appointee.

The Constitution entrusts the Senate with the duty to provide to the President the 'advice and consent' for a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court. It is a serious responsibility.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg came in front of the Senate and was approved 96-3 to be on the Supreme Court to replace conservative justice Byron White. This is in 1993.Now, Justice Ginsburg, it was noted earlier, was a general counsel for the ACLU, certainly a liberal group. It was abundantly clear during the confirmation hearing that Ginsburg would swing the balance of the court to the left.But because President [Bill] Clinton won the election and because Justice Ginsburg clearly had the intellectual ability and integrity to serve on the court, she was confirmed.

I had the privilege of chairing Judge Samuel Alito confirmation hearing in 1990. And at that time, he had practiced law for 14 years, but only represented one client, the United States government.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences.

This [Judge Samuel Alito] may be one of the most significant or consequential nominations that the Senate will vote on since I've been here in the last three decades.

We respect the role of the Senate. We respect the authority of the Senate to look at the qualifications of Judge Roberts, and at the end of the day I'm optimistic that if given a fair hearing and a fair opportunity, that he will be confirmed.

The liberal groups spent months raising money so they could take down anyone President Bush nominated. But they have not been able to touch judge Roberts.

I think my independence was a big help to getting Judges Roberts and Alito confirmed, and I think that's recognized.

The president does not have any obligation to make a consensus appointment here. What the president's obligation is, is to pick a judicial conservative, and I believe that's what he's gonna do.

I think the Democrats are catering to them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United States of America, there has never been a judge who has been refused a vote when there was a majority of Senators willing to vote for his confirmation, never in history.

I feel very confident that that information should be sufficient for the members of the Senate to make an informed decision about John Roberts' qualifications.

If it can be thought that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap then the nation is really in trouble.

President Obama had two Supreme Court nominees in his first term. There was no filibuster against them.