sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. sessionenate was in saturday to consider the supreme court nomination of amy coney barrett. day'sa number of the floor speeches, starting with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. sen. mcconnell: the judge is one of the most impressive nominees for public office in a generation. on advancingvote our nomination toward final confirmation on monday. our recent debates have been , talk ofut curiously

judge barrett's actual credentials or qualifications has hardly featured and it. democratic leader summarized his view yesterday, he said it is not about qualifications. his words. instead, our mechanic colleagues have tried to claim the senate process itself is not legitimate. are supposed to lay radicalrk for institution wrecking changes down the road. but of course they are not true. we live in a constitutional republic. the legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes and politicians. let me say that again.

the legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes in politicians. precedentscomes from , rules and ultimately the constitution. restate a few facts for posterity. there is no inconsistency between the republican senate's decision in 2016 and our decision to confirm judge barrett this year. here is what i said in my very first floor speeches following scalia,h of justice quoting myself. the senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year window there was divided almostent since 1888,

130 years ago. precedent, some new just stating the 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 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. in 2016wed precedent and we are following precedent this week. number two. that --een claimed broke the rules with the nomination. thursday,firmed on standing rule 26 of the senate president are crystal clear. committeeity of the is physically present in votes in favor of a nomination, it is a valid action irrespective of what committee rules may say. chairman graham did not violate the rules of his own committee.

chairman lee and the democratic judgesy voted multiple to the floor without members of a minority present just a few years ago. unprecedentedly took place not in committee, not on the floor. three, timing. some colleagues keep repeating the absurd claim this is the most rushed confirmation process in history. that is flat out false. from the announcement of the nomination to the start of hearings, eight supreme court nominations in the last six years moved more quickly than this one. years moved last 60 more quickly than this one.

hearingm the end of the to the committee vote, half of all confirmations six -- since 1960 move faster than this one. in the past, justices have been confirmed in one week. some in one day. there is no argument that judge movedt's nomination has at some breakneck pace. facts are facts. number four, contrary to what has 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 had multiple supreme court justices confirmed in december of election years. senates have even confirmed nominees for lame-duck presidents who just lost. another non-issue. these false of claims embarrass those who repeat them, but the most important point is this -- in legitimacy does not flow from the whims of the politicians. legitimacy does not depend on which political party makes the decision. legitimacy comes from traditions, rules and the constitution. our democratic colleagues have spent months obsessively demanding our president will bely acknowledge

illegitimate even if he loses. senate with his confirmation process, democrats are flunking their own test. let me say that again. democrats want president trump to repeat that the election will be legitimate regardless of whether he wins. in the senate, the same people are saying our vote will only be valid if they like the outcome. abide anyic cannot political function making illegitimate a sloppy synonym for we are not happy. of course they are 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.

keep correcting the record, even though it might seem silly. if republicans have the votes, why not just ignore my colleagues statements and move on? i have chosen not to do that. it remains our duty to separate right from wrong, fact from fiction for the good of the senate and our country. has followed every rule. t's followed the constitution in every respect. e have abided by the norms dictated by history, and mr. president, we're going to vote tomorrow. democrat sident,