Johnny Isakson Quotes

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.

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

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 Constitution gives the president the power to appoint, upon the advice and consent of a majority of the Senate, and it plainly does not give a minority of senators any right to interfere with that process.

The Senate is not a rubber stamp!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Presidents have the right to nominate their own cabinet secretaries. But their nominees don't have a right to confirmation. Senators have a constitutional duty to advise and consent to the appointment of all Cabinet officials. They should take that duty seriously.

I believe the two biggest mistakes made by the Founders were giving Federal judges life-time appointments and permitting them to be confirmed without the agreement of two-thirds of the members of the United States Senate.

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.

Exempting judicial nominations from filibusters would expand Presidential power.

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.

We in Congress don’t have much influence on the Supreme Court. We confirm judges and then we never hear from them. They don’t call. They don’t write.

You don’t hold Presidential nominees for Attorney General hostage to other issues.

The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

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 Constitution makes very clear what the obligation of the United States Senate is and what the obligation of the president of the United States is. To allow a Supreme Court position to remain vacant for well over a year cuts against what I think the intentions of the framers are and what the traditions of the Senate and the executive are.

Voting for a candidate for the DC circuit is very different from confirming someone to the US Supreme Court. I have been very clear that the Senate should not confirm any nominee in a lame duck session.

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.

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.

Every member of the Senate has a constitutional duty to follow the Constitution and to uphold the Constitution.