Mitch McConnell Quotes

The following years brought legislative accomplishments, to be sure. While John's constituents were lucky to have him as their Senator from Arizona, John also remembered that our titles say "United States Senator." He worked across the aisle on the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, whose work helped heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam. He led congressional delegations and overseas travel that were famously as grueling as they were educational. John was seemingly immune to jet lag, and he was never more excited than when he had an opportunity to share American values abroad. And, of course, he was singularly devoted to the men and women of our Armed Forces. From countless visits with deployed units in Iraq and Afghanistan to his committee meetings right here in this body, John honored their sacrifices in a way that only he could. He never forgot that notwithstanding the grandeur of our military might and technological prowess, our armed services are made up of people--of our constituents, of volunteers, of the brave.

Generations of McCains have served with distinction in our great Navy. As John described his Scottish heritage in one memoir, "The McCains [were] bred to fight." And fight they have. One by one, McCains have entered the academy's gates in Annapolis. One by one, they marched past a centuries-old battle flag bearing the phrase "Don't Give Up the Ship." While honorable service was in his DNA, John's story was never simple. At Annapolis, as he would come to explain with some relish, his major distinctives were mostly the weakness of his grades and the length of his disciplinary record. The first miracle in John's military career was the fact that he somehow made it through school. But he prevailed, and bigger tests soon came. He stared death in the face aboard the USS Forrestal and again when he was shot down and dragged, battered and broken, into the hands of our Nation's enemies. Five and a half hellish years in captivity. Merciless beatings for the uniform he had worn and the values he would not renounce. That stubborn, rebellious streak went from a stumbling block to a saving grace. Stubborn virtue sustained John. He declined early release in solidarity with his brothers. He never gave up the ship.

I am just glad we never found ourselves in opposite dugouts. You see, John and I spent years as neighbors in the Russell Building. Often, when softball season rolled around, our offices would take the field together as one united McTeam, we called it. As a seriously wounded war hero and a childhood polio survivor, I would have to say John and I didn't exactly have the makings of an elite double-play duo. I took the mound once or twice, but I admit, we mostly offered moral support. Moral support. Really, that is what John McCain gave this body and this country for so long. His memory will continue to give it because while John proudly served with us as the Senator from Arizona, he was America's hero all along. Just this month, Congress finalized a major bill for our All-Volunteer Armed Forces that we named after John. This might seem like a small detail, but, really, it was a fitting capstone for a career so thoroughly defined by service in and then service for the ranks of those who wear our Nation's uniform.

John treated every day, every issue, with the intensity and seriousness that the legislative process deserves. He would fight like mad to bring the country closer to his vision of the common good. But when the day's disputes were over, that very same man was one of our most powerful reminders that so much more unites us than divides us; that we should be able to differ completely on policy and stay united in love of our country.

When John saw an issue the same way you did, you knew you had just found your most stalwart ally. You would thank your lucky stars because when you found yourself on the other side of that table, as I think all of us learned, you were in for a different kind of unforgettable experience. Either way, serving alongside John was never a dull affair. I found myself on both sides of that table over the years. John and I stood shoulder to shoulder on some of the most important issues to each of us, and we also disagreed entirely on huge subjects that helped define each of our careers.

Madam President, on Saturday evening, a great loss echoed throughout our country. Six decades of patriotic service came to an end. We have suspected for some time that we would bid farewell to our colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain. John took full advantage of the months since his diagnosis. His hard work continued, but happy reminiscing, fond farewells, final reflections, and time with family actually came to the fore. I was privileged to spend a small share of that time with John. We sat on his back porch in Sedona under the desert sky, replaying old times. John did things his way these last months. For his colleagues here, the time confirmed a sad but obvious truth: The Senate won't be the same without John McCain. I think it is fair to say that the passion John brought to his work was unsurpassed in this body. In more than 30 years as a Senator, he never failed to marshal a razor-sharp wit, a big heart, and, of course, a fiery spirit.

We know that Justice Scalia's seat on the Court does not belong to any President or any political party; it belongs to the American people. When it became vacant in the middle of a contentious Presidential election, we followed the rule set down by Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Leader Senator Schumer, which said that Supreme Court vacancies arising in the midst of a Presidential election should not be considered until the campaign ends. It is the same rule, by the way, that President Obama's own legal counsel admitted she would have recommended had the shoe been on the other foot. I have been consistent all along that the next President, Democrat or Republican, should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I maintained that view even when many thought that particular President would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over and we have a new President who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat. So I would invite Democrats who spent many months insisting we need nine to join us in following through on that advice by giving the new President's nominee a fair consideration and an up-or-down vote, just as we did for past Presidents of both parties.

The problem with that approach is that it is great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes; it is not so great if you are the other guy. Justice Scalia believed this to his very core. He was an eloquent champion of the Constitution who was guided by important principles like applying the law equally to all, giving every litigant a fair shake, and rulings based on the actual meaning of the Constitution and our laws, not what you or your preferred political constituency wished they meant. These principles helped guide Justice Scalia for many years. The record of Judge Gorsuch indicates that he will continue this legacy of fair and impartial justice. Now, of course, that does not much matter to some over here on the far left. Despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support, some on the far left decided to oppose Judge Gorsuch before he was even nominated. We already know what they will say about him as well. It is the same thing they have been saying about every Republican nominee for more than four decades. They said Gerald Ford's nominee, John Paul Stevens, "revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face." They said Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, was a "sexist" who would "be a disaster for women." They said George H.W. Bush's nominee, David Souter, was a threat to women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups. So it is not terribly surprising that they would say it again this time. What is disappointing is that leading Democrats in the Senate would adopt the same rhetoric. The ink was not even dry on Judge Gorsuch's nomination when the Democratic leader proclaimed that Judge Gorsuch had--you guessed it--demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights. I hope our colleagues will stick to the facts this time around.

This is a judge who is known for deciding cases based on how the law is actually written, not how he wishes it were written, even when it leads to results that conflict with his own political beliefs. He understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not impose his own viewpoint. Here is how Judge Gorsuch himself put it: "A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels." Some of our colleagues and some others on the left see the role of a judge very differently. In last year's Presidential debate, our former colleague, Secretary Clinton, stated her view that a Supreme Court Justice--now listen to this--ought to look more favorably on certain political constituencies than others; that it was the job of the Supreme Court to "stand on the side" of this group or another over that one. Some of our current colleagues seem to share this view. The assistant Democratic leader said that what is important to him are the political views of a Supreme Court nominee, what or perhaps whom they are going to stand for.

When he graduated from law school, Judge Gorsuch did not just clerk for one Supreme Court Justice, he clerked for two. They were Justices nominated by Presidents of different political parties--Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, and Byron White, who was nominated by JFK. Judge Gorsuch received a unanimously "well qualified" rating by the American Bar Association when he was nominated to his current position on the court of appeals. He was confirmed without any votes in opposition. That is right--not a single Democrat opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, not Senator Barack Obama, not Senator Hillary Clinton, not Senators Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy. In fact, not a single one of the Democrats who still serve with us opposed him, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the Democratic leader himself, Senator Schumer. In the coming days, I hope and expect that all Senate colleagues will again give him fair consideration, just as we did for the nominees of newly elected Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Madam President, last night President Trump announced an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado. While Judge Gorsuch has a significant legacy to live up to as the nominee for the seat left vacant by the loss of Justice Scalia, I am confident his impressive background and long record of service will prepare him well for the task ahead. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands the constitutional limits of his authority. He understands that a judge's duty is to apply the law evenhandedly, without bias toward one party or another. He understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not impose his own viewpoint or political leanings. He has also been recognized from people on both sides of the aisle as a consistent, principled, and fair jurist. Judge Gorsuch has a stellar reputation and a resume to match, with degrees from Harvard and Columbia, a Ph.D. in legal philosophy from Oxford, and just about every honor, award, and scholarship you can possibly imagine.

She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.

Apparently there’s yet a new standard now to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that’s something the American people simply will not tolerate.

One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.