Steve Inskeep Quotes

I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President [Barack] Obama has sent to them. That's the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.

It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

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.

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'm disappointed, depressed, and demoralized. [...] It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

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.

I am told that very early on in this transition process, to expect that [Donald] Trump will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court.

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.

Call me a cockeyed pessimist, but I'm having trouble finding any good news in the trashing of Harriet Miers.

The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the president.

If you look at the Constitution, the two clauses of the Constitution make it very clear the president shall nominate, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It's been since 1888 that a Senate of a different party than the president in the White House confirmed a Supreme Court nominee.

Before we announced Judge Merric Garland, people were saying they would not even deign to meet with him. And we're also aware that early in the week, when the Congress comes back, in fact, Senator Collins, the Republican from Maine, has agreed to meet with Judge Garland up in the Senate.

The [President's] Nomination, of Course, brings the Subject fully under the Consideration of the Senate; who have then a Right to decide upon its Propriety or Impropriety.

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

[Donald Trump] said that he would likely have a decision and an announcement by the end of January [2017] and that'll obviously take a great deal of energy. It's enormously important in the life of the Court and the life of the nation.

It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.

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.

I will not vote in favor of Senator Sessions' nomination for attorney general.

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.

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

Filling a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a solemn process for our nation, and I hope Senate consideration of Judge Barrett will not descend into the dishonorable spectacle that Americans witnessed during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Judicial Watch is pleased that Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court will provide President Trump another opportunity to nominate a constitutional conservative who will honor the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than legislate from the bench.

Jon Tester needs to be held accountable for his extreme partisan liberal record of supporting President Obama's judicial nominees 99% of the time but then opposing President Trump's nominees.

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.