, the latter, benjamin cardoza, after heated executive senate consultation, similarly, president eisenhower's choices for the court included conservatives john harlan and charles whitaker. moderate stuart and liberals earl warren and william braddock. even president nixon, who showed no reluctance to take full advantage of presidential prerogatives, balanced his choices of conservative warren burger and william rehnquist with those of moderate republican harry blackmun and conservative democrat lewis foul. this has not been the model president reagan and bush have followed. indeed, even lacking the broad support for their vision of the court which presidents washington and adams, lincoln and grant and roosevelt and truman had, president reagan and bush have tried to recast the court in their ideological image. as these presidents did. put another way, this is not the first time attend him of presidents have sought to remake the supreme court, nor is it the first time that a divided government has had to fill a number of seats in that body. but it is the first time that both have

justices have been confirmed during presidential lection years, including louis grandeis and benjamin cardoza, two of the great member os they have supreme court of the united states. during the kennedy confirmation process in 1988, president ronald reagan said this, quote, the federal judiciary is too important to be made a political football. i would hope the senate republicans who often cite president reagan as a guide for the kind of leader they want to be would heed his admonition. some have had the political courage to rejeck their colleague's disrespectful approach of refusing even to meet with judge garland. i congratulate them. they are doing their job. not only should all members of the senate give him the courtesy of a meeting, they ought to do their jobs as well and not stand in the way of the hearing. and consideration. the senate's duty to advise and consent certainly, certainly, madam speaker, was not envisioned by the founders to be optional. or that the senate could effectively pocket veto a nomination to the court. the senate ought to do its job. i don't think a single found