Scottie gets hammered on the nuke option: transcript

Q Scott, the Senate has managed to function — or not function, as the case may be — for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what’s being talked about up on the Hill?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the Senate is working to move forward on their constitutional responsibility, which is to give nominees and up or down vote. One of the priorities for this President is to put people on the bench that are highly qualified and that have a conservative judicial philosophy — people that show judicial restraint when it comes to the bench. And there are a number of vacancies that the Senate has not moved forward on.

You’ve had a minority of Senate Democrats blocking up or down votes for these nominees. All we’re asking for is for these nominees to receive a simple up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, there are some Senate Democrats that have played politics in taking this to an unprecedented level. We have not seen anything like this in our 214-year history in the Senate. So I would turn that around on you and look at it from the other perspective.

Q Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called “nuclear option” on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are some judicial emergencies that we’re talking about here, where people need to be put into these positions. There are vacancies now. And Senate Democrats have been blocking those nominees from receiving an up or down vote.

In terms of the Constitution, the role of the President is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The role of the Senate is to provide their advice and consent. It’s not to provide advice and block. And what we have seen is that Senate Democrats are taking this to an unprecedented level, something we have not seen in those 214 years that you reference.

And so we would hope that they would move forward in giving all of these nominees an up or down vote, because all of them are well-qualified and would do an outstanding job.

Q What about this equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, the President — the President has made it clear that when it comes to the White House, our view is that those are matters for the Senate to decide when it comes to Senate procedures. And so the Senate is discussing those issues. We simply want to see all our nominees get an up or down vote, and to see politics put aside by Senate Democrats so that these nominees can receive that up or down vote. But I think if you look at these nominees, they have the majority support of the United States Senate.

Q Let me just go back to the constitutional idea here. You said it again today, and you’ve said it many times in the past, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote. Can we agree that the constitutional requirement of the Senate is for advice and consent, but nowhere in the Constitution does it —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Constitution —

Q — but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that nominees are guaranteed an up or down vote.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Constitution said “advise and consent,” and that’s the role of the United States Senate, not “advise and block.”

[snip]

Q Can I go back to judicial nominees just for a second?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q Harry Reid says the goal of this practice is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee that would only need 50 votes to pass the Senate. I know you don’t have any openings on the Supreme Court, but would you foresee using this practice in the future?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn’t speculate on a Supreme Court vacancy because there is not one at this point. And in terms of this matter, this is being discussed by the United States Senate now. They’ve been working to resolve this matter. Our view is that all nominees should have an up or down vote, and that’s what we continue to emphasize.

Q To follow up on Terry’s —

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me go to David, and then I’ll come back to you.

Q On judicial nominees, two of the more controversial selections were at the White House today, I assume getting a kind of pick-me-up from the President, as well as Harriet Miers —

MR. McCLELLAN: They’re here now.

Q And they’re here now.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President strongly supports those nominees, absolutely.

Q Right, and he’s made that clear. You made clear just a moment ago that he opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look, as I’m sure you have, at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal, according to conservatives — not me, but according to some conservatives — judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they’re being nominated to. Is there — is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see —

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me point out a couple of things about these two nominees you bring up. Both these nominees are individuals that are highly respected and have enjoyed strong support in their respective states. Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the bench of the Texas Supreme Court for some time now and has enjoyed strong support from the people of the state of Texas. Judge Brown is someone who was recently retained with 76 percent of the vote in California. They are —

Q This isn’t a popularity contest, these are —

MR. McCLELLAN: They are both individuals who — I’m pointing out the people who know them best and have seen their work. Both these judges are committed to judicial restraint. Both have a conservative judicial philosophy. They are exactly the kind of people that the President is looking to appoint to the bench, and that’s why he nominated these two individuals.

And it’s interesting that you and I are sitting here having this discussion today. All we’re asking for is for the opportunity to debate these nominations on the floor of the United States Senate so that they can receive an up or down vote on their nomination.

Q Fair enough, but anyone who suggests that Janice Rogers Brown is a judicial activist, in your mind, is dead wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. I think, David, when the President refers to activist judges, he is referring to judges that make law from the bench. And I think both these judges are committed to judicial restraint and to interpreting the law, not trying to make law from the bench.

[snip]

Q On judges, Scott, you said that it’s up to the legislature to make their own determination. But the Vice President has said that he’s prepared to cast the deciding vote in favor of a 51-vote threshold, if necessary. Is the administration concerned that, ultimately, should that come to pass, they’re going to be held responsible for a change in the precedent, because the Vice President cast that vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Vice President made clear that it would be up to the Senate leadership to determine how to proceed. And as you are aware, the Vice President has a constitutional role as the President of the United States Senate. And he stated that he would be prepared to support that if the Senate leadership determined to proceed down that path.

And I think that the American people want to see the Senate give these nominees an up or down vote. That’s the role of the United States Senate — not to block nominees from receiving an up or down vote, but to move forward on giving them an up or down vote. And that’s all we’re asking, a simple up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. These senators — I mean, these judges, these judicial nominees enjoy, I believe, a majority of support from the United States Senate.

Unfortunately, while there are judicial emergencies that are vacated, you have Senate Democrats playing politics with the bench. And they’ve taken it to an unprecedented level, one like we’ve never seen before. And that’s the real issue here, is simply getting an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

[snip]

Q Judicial filibusters, Scott. The President has said repeatedly he needs bipartisan cooperation on Social Security, other second term priorities, energy. Does he not worry that by bringing the filibuster issue to a head, he may well sacrifice key elements of his second term?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don’t think that’s the way to look at it, Mark. I think the concern here — the concern here is that you have leaders on the democratic side in the Senate who are intent on simply blocking important priorities, blocking judicial nominees, blocking our efforts to move forward on a comprehensive energy plan.

The President, tonight, is going to be talking about how the Republican Party is the party of ideas. The President is talking about what he’s for, and talking about how we can work together and move forward on the shared priorities facing this nation. There are some Senate Democrats who simply to be — seem to be more intent on simply saying, “no,” and blocking things from happening. The American people want us to get things done. They want us to move forward on the judicial nominees, and make sure that they have up or down votes. That’s all that we’re asking for here.

Q So if that’s the case, does that mean —

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s not — I look at it differently. It’s about up or down votes on the floor of the United States Senate. And why shouldn’t the — as I was saying to David here earlier, why shouldn’t these judges be able to have their nominations debated on the floor of the United States Senate? That’s all we’re asking.

Q I understand what you’re saying, and I heard it. What it sounds to me like you’re saying is that the Democrats are going to block us anyhow, so what do we have to lose? Does that means he’s given up on bipartisan cooperation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me back up, because, again, you’re trying to insert us into this, in terms of the Senate procedures. Those are Senate procedures. The President has made it clear that that’s up to the Senate to decide — that’s his view. It’s up to the Senate to decide their procedures. In terms of the nominees, our view is that all nominees should have an up or down vote.

Q Are you telling me that if the President called Bill Frist and said, look, the rest of my agenda is at risk here, let’s not push this now. He would do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, we’ve always stayed out of Senate procedural or congressional procedural matters.

Q And this doesn’t mean he’s given up on bipartisan cooperation, he still expects bipartisan cooperation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mark, the President has worked to elevate the discourse in this town. The President has reached out to try to find common ground and get things done. The President has put forward ideas. The President has put forward solutions to our most pressing priorities. It’s time for Senate Democrats to start coming to the table with some ideas instead of simply saying, no, and blocking progress.