This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Washington • The ghosts of senators past were evoked Tuesday in the marbled and historic Kennedy Caucus Room during debate over filling a Supreme Court vacancy.
The late Sen. Ted Kennedy — with his brothers, the namesake for the room — was quoted. As was the late Sen. Robert Byrd.
The two longest-serving senators, Utah's Orrin Hatch and Vermont's Patrick Leahy, referred to their former colleagues in expounding very different views about how those past lions of the Senate would have reacted to the current stalemate in which Republicans have refused to hold hearings on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
Hatch cited Byrd as a reason why the Senate shouldn't have to vote on the nominee.
"There is no stipulation in the Constitution as to how the Senate is to express its advice or give its consent….The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing," Hatch quoted Byrd as saying in 2005.
Not to be outdone, Leahy called on Kennedy's legacy, with his widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy in the audience, as reason that the Senate should take up Garland's nomination.
"Ted appreciated the role of the Senate," Leahy said. "He knew that sometimes you had to be an instigator, sometimes a defender, sometimes a compromiser. But no matter what, as senators, we are called to fulfill our constitutional duties. We are called to lead. We need to do our job."
Both Hatch and Leahy are former chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The White House and Democrats have been on a full court press over Garland's nomination to replace the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Republican senators, though, have remained firm that they will not hold confirmation hearings or a vote on Garland.
Several Republican senators have met with Garland but refuse to support hearings. Hatch and his Utah colleague, Mike Lee, have said they will not even meet with the nominee, now the chief judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Hatch said Tuesday the judicial appointment process is an example of what America's Founding Fathers wanted by dividing government power.
"The president has the power to nominate but cannot appoint without the advice and consent of the Senate, and debate continues about how robust or assertive the Senate's role should be," Hatch said.
The Utah Republican said that conducting a "heated, divisive" confirmation hearing in the middle of an "ugly presidential election season" would do more harm than good.
Leahy, for his part, noted a joint letter he signed with Hatch in 2001 that said they would examine and assess all presidential nominations to the high court.
"The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the committee has completed its considerations," the two wrote. "This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees."