Michael Bennet Quotes

And the president is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote.

Nobody claims that every treaty is entitled to an up or down vote. Nobody claims that every proposed law is entitled to an up or down vote. Why is a judicial nomination entitled to an up or down vote? The Constitution gives the complete power to the Senate to set its own rule.

The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up.

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.

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

There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made.

For a long time in American history, people didn't even come up before the Senate. They didn't come before the Judiciary Committee, and up until about 1923, something like that.

It is plain that, when it comes to inferior officers, Congress itself can pass a law sending these nominees to the President with him having the authority to put them on the bench without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Exempting judicial nominations from filibusters would expand Presidential power.

When voting on the confirmation of a presidential appointee, always vote no, because if he or she is confirmed, it won't be long before your vote is proved politically correct.

The people never have and never will be able to understand how the will of a majority of the House of Representatives can be set aside by the judgment of a few men on a powerful committee.

I suggest that the executive appoint or nominate the Judges to the Senate which should have the right of rejecting or approving.

I advocate the appointment of [Federal] Judges by the Senate.

Whatever the People has last ordained shall be held as binding by law.

In the end, the claim of a single Senator to control all nominations in his State will be found so preposterous that it will fall of its own weight.

Having been on the front lines of the confirmation battles involving Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, I know firsthand what is at stake when the Senate exercises its 'advise and consent' power over federal judges.

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

The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously.

Holding Congressional hearings is the purview of the majority, and during the first years of the Obama administration, Democrats could not be bothered.

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.

As I have said before, that Federal Penal Code could never have been enacted into law if we had had a responsible press who was willing to tell the American people the truth about what it actually provides. Nor would we have had a bill had it not been for the United States Supreme Court.

The Frist fairness rule guarantees up-or-down votes for every circuit court or Supreme Court nomination, regardless of which party controls the Senate or the White House.

We've always said a filibuster is not appropriate for judicial nominees. A filibuster is a legislative tool designed to extract compromises. A judicial nominee is a person. You can't take the arm or leg of a nominee.

The Senate cannot confirm an individual... who would support a scheme that violates our Constitution, eviscerates congressional authority.

I'm a legislator, but it's hard to legislate when my party's out of power.