and confirmed by a Democratic Senate - within four weeks of a presidential election.

Hello, everyone. That's right. And I'm living proof that President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court

Chief Judge Merrick Garland-deserves similar consideration by today's Senate.

Not only because Merrick Garland is recognized I might know - without exception - by the right and the left as one of America's sharpest legal minds and a model of integrity.

But also because that's what the Constitution requires.

The sitting President shall-not may-but shall nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

That includes consulting and voting.

Here's how it works. For 17 years, I was chairman or the ranking member of the top opposition party person and Senate Judiciary Committee, which overseas nominations to the Court, all court, all federal courts.

I presided over nine supreme court nominees-more than anyone alive. Some I supported. Others I didn't.

But every nominee was greeted by committee members.

Every nominee got a committee hearing.

Every nominee got out of the committee to the Senate floor, even when a nominee did'nt receive under the law's majority support in my committee to be reported out.

As I thought the senate should advise the scene not the committee,

And every nominee, including Justice Kennedy - in an election year-got an up or down vote by the Senate.

Not much of the time. Not most of the time. Every single time.

That's the Constitution's clear rule of Advice and Consent.

And that's the rule being violated today by Senate Republicans.

Nobody is suggesting that Senators have to vote "yes" on a nominee.

Voting "no" is always an option for any senetor.

But saying nothing, seeing nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing, and deciding in advance, to simply to turn your back-is not an option the Constitution leaves open to United States.

And it has real consequences for all of us.

In the four months since Merrick Garland's nomination, we've already seen

how the Senate's refusal to act is preventing the Court from fulfilling its duty of interpreting what the law is and resolving conflicts in lower courts.

This historic obstruction is leading to greater litigation costs and delays

the burden falling mostly on average Americans rather than corporations with endless resources.

Unresolved decisions by the Supreme Court are leading to federal laws that should apply to the whole country being constitutional in some parts but unconstitutional in others.

If this continues, our freedom of speech, our freedom to practice our faith, our right to vote, our right to privacy-all could depend on where we happen to live.

And the longer the vacancy remains unfilled, the more serious the problem-with greater confusion and uncertainty about our safety and security.

You know, if you have eight Justices on a court, Justice Scalia himself wrote, that it raises the, "possibility that, by reason of a tie vote,

the Court will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issues presented by the case."

And if Republican Senators fail to act, it could be an entire year before a fully staffed Supreme Court can resolve any significant issue before it.

Folks, there's enough dysfunction in Washington, D.C. Now is not the time for it to spread that dysfunction from the Congress to the Supreme Court.

And we're better than what we're seeing.

As a country, we're only as strong as the traditions we value- that we sustain by dedicating ourselves to something bigger than ourselves.

Folks, the defining difference of our great democracy has always been

that we can reason our way through to what ails us and then act as citizens, voters, and public servants to fix it.

But we have to act in good faith. For unless we can find common ground, we cannot govern.

So for the sake of the country we love-we all have to do our job.

The President has done his. The Senate Republicans must do theirs.

Thanks for listening and hope you have a great weekend.