The judge is one of the most brilliant admired and impressive nominees for any public office in a generation tomorrow, we’ll vote on advancing our nomination toward final confirmation on monday. Our recent debates have been heeded, but, curiously, curiously, talk of, judge, barrett’s, actual credentials or qualifications has hardly featured in it. Democratic leader summarized his view. Yesterday quote he said it’s not about qualifications. His words. Instead, our democratic colleagues have tried to claim the senate’s process itself. Is not legitimate. These claims are supposed to lay groundwork for radical institution, wrecking changes down the road but, of course, they’re not true. We live in a constitutional republic. The legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes in politicians. Let me say that again, the legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes and politicians. Legitimacy comes from precedence, rules and, ultimately the constitution. So let’s restate a few facts for posterity number one. There is no inconsistency between the republican senate’s decision in 2016 and our decision to confirm judge barrett this year, here’s what i said in my very first floor speech following the death of justice scalia, quoting myself, the senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election Year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago, not setting some new precedent, just stating a fact 15 times in american history during a presidential election year, new supreme court vacancies have arisen and presidents have made nominations seven of the 15 times.

Voters had elected an opposite party senate to check and balance the sitting, president, not surprisingly, in those situations, only two of the seven were confirmed and none none since 1888., the other eight times the same party controlled the senate and the white house. Seven of those eight were confirmed all but one the one exception, unraveled in a scandal. We followed precedent in 2016 and we’re following precedent. This week, number two it’s been claimed, but chairman graham broke the rules by reporting out judge barrett’s nomination, not so, as the parliamentarian confirmed on thursday standing rule 26 of this and senate precedent are crystal clear if a majority of a committee is physically present and votes In favor of a nomination reporting it to the floor is a valid action, irrespective of what committee rules may say, and chairman graham didn’t even violate the rules of his own committee past. Chairman of both parties have done precisely what chairman graham did on thursday morning. In 2014., for one example, chairman leahy and the committee’s democratic majority voted multiple federal judges to the floor without two members of the minority president, just a few years ago, nothing remotely unprecedented, took place, not in committee, not on the floor number three timing: some colleagues kept Repeating the absurd claims, this is the most rushed confirmation process in history. Well, mr president, that’s flat out faults from the announcement of the nomination to the start of hearings. Eight supreme court nominations in the last 60 years moved more quickly than this one.

Eight in the last 60 years moved more quickly than this one, then, from the end of the hearing to the committee vote, half of all confirmation since 1916 actually moved faster than this one justice. John paul stevens is confirmed in 19 days from start to finish justice sandra day o’connor in about four weeks in the past, justices have been confirmed in one week, some in one day, there’s no argument that judge barrett’s nomination has moved at some breakneck pace. Facts are facts number four, contrary to what’s been claimed. The senate has absolutely confirmed supreme court nominees later in presidential election years than this. One multiple justices were confirmed after elections had already happened. We’Ve had multiple supreme court justices confirmed in december of election years. Senates have even confirmed nominees for lame duck presidents who just lost so another non issue. So look all of these false claims, embarrass those who repeat them, but the most important point is this: in this country: legitimacy does not flow from the whims of politicians. Legitimacy does not depend on which political party makes a decision, legitimacy comes from traditions, rules and the constitution. Our democratic colleagues have spent months obsessively demanding that our president repeatedly acknowledge that the election will be legitimate, even if he loses, but here in the senate. Here with this confirmation process, democrats are flunking their own tests, so let me say that again. Democrats want president trump to keep repeating that the election will be legitimate, regardless of whether he wins, but here in the senate.

The very same people are saying that our vote on monday will only be valid if they like the outcome. Our republic cannot abide any political faction making illegitimate a sloppy synonym for we’re. Not happy well, of course, they’re not happy that doesn’t make anything about this illegitimate. That kind of recklessness, mr president, leads down a road. None of us should want to travel so that’s. Why i keep correcting the record, even though it might seem silly? After all, if republicans have the votes, why not just ignore my colleagues and statements and move on, but i’ve chosen not to do that? It remains our duty to separate right from wrong fact from fiction for the good of the senate and for our country, judge. Barrett’S confirmation process has followed every rule. It’S followed the constitution in every respect.