Welcome to the live thread for the discussion of John Roberts’ confirmation hearings beginning Monday, Sept 12, 2005, at 12 pm ET at the Senate Judiciary Committee as he vies for the top job on the US Supreme Court.
You can watch/listen to the coverage online at C-SPAN 3, starting at 11:30 am ET.
You can read some background information about John Roberts’ career in this article by the Seattle Times.
- Some of us will transcribe live for the benefit of the cubicle dwellers and those without access to C-SPAN live.
- Please don’t post any pics because they slow down loading time.
- If the thread belongs lengthy, I will post new parts to this diary as required.
Have at it and please jump in! The more the merrier. (It’s also a good way to stay sane in the face of Republican autocracy.)
I have a few things to do this morning so I’ll be here off and on. Please transcribe the hearings if you’re able to. I’ll do what I can too.
Much appreciated as always, Catnip!
I like these live threads. It’ll take me a bit to get back into the transcription part since it’s been a while now…plus I have to blow dry my hair. 🙂
Just to add some spice to the hearings:
we could ask him if he is circumscized, whether he sodomizes his wife, and which hand he beats off with.
if we were allowed to examine his briefs.
Now, that’s just crude.
Besides, all guys know that you have to rotate, otherwise you’ll end up with a “bent Johnson”….
I thought you had to switch to avoid carpel tunnel syndrome.
Here is Leahy’s opening statement. He’s talking about that “Constitution” thingy.
Self-Government And The Common Good
Today, the devastation and despair facing millions of our fellow Americans in the Gulf region is a tragic reminder of why we have a federal government and why it is critical that our government be responsive. We need the federal government for our protection and security; to cast a lifeline to those in distress; and to mobilize vital resources, beyond the ability of any local or State government, for the common good.
The full dimensions of the disaster are not yet known. Bodies of loved ones need to be recovered, families need to be reunited, the survivors need to be assisted, long-term health risks and environmental damage need to be assessed. But if anyone needed a reminder of the need and role for government, the last days have provided it. If anyone needed a reminder of the growing poverty and despair among too many Americans, we now all have it. And if anyone needed a reminder of the racial divide that remains in our nation, no one can now doubt that we still have miles to go.
I believe that the American people still want, expect and demand their government to help ensure justice and equal opportunity for all and especially for those who, through no fault of their own, were born into poverty. The American people deserve a government as good as they are, with a heart as big as theirs. We are all Americans and all Americans should have the opportunity to earn a fair share of the bounty and blessings that America offers.
We The People
We have been given a great Constitution. It begins: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Our Constitution is the framework for our government and the foundation of our rights and liberties.
Vermont joined the Union in the same year that the Bill of Rights was ratified. Those of us from the Green Mountain State, the nation’s 14th state, have historically been protective of our fundamental rights and liberties. Vermonters understand the importance the Constitution and Bill of Rights and of those constitutional amendments that have expanded individual rights over time.
In these hearings, we will be discussing constitutional issues that may seem legalistic. But these are vital questions that affect each of us, every day. When we discuss the Constitution’s Commerce Clause or Spending Power, for example, we are asking about congressional authority to pass laws to ensure clean air and water, children’s and seniors’ health, safe food and drugs, safe workplaces – even wetland protection and levees that should protect our communities from natural disasters.
Our constitutional values remain constant as we strive to realize the American promise of fairness, equality, and justice. I have noted that our Constitution begins with the words “We the People.” When the Constitution was written, “We the People” did not include Native Americans or African-American slaves but only “free Persons.” It took more than four score years and a Civil War before the Constitution was amended to include as citizens “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Even then, the Constitution failed to accord half of the people one of democracy’s defining rights — women were not yet guaranteed the right to vote. That was not remedied until 1920. Decades later still, it took an historic constitutional ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, and landmark legislation by the federal government, for America to begin to provide a measure of equality to many who were held back for so long because of the color of their skin.
I have long been a proponent of First Amendment freedoms and open government because the public’s right to know what our government is doing promotes accountability and invigorates our system of checks and balances.
Federal judges are not elected. Once confirmed, they serve for life. The people never have the opportunity for effective oversight of their work. The judiciary is the most insulated branch of government from public accountability.
This hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to examine what kind of justice John Roberts will dispense, if promoted to the Supreme Court, and the direction in which he would lead the federal judiciary. This hearing is the only chance that “We the People” have to hear from and reflect on the suitability of the nominee to be a final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Open and honest public conversation with the nominee in these hearing rooms is an important part of this process.
Our Fundamental Rights In A New Century
This hearing is about the fundamental rights of all Americans. Judge John Roberts is the first nominee of the 21st Century. If he is confirmed he serves not just for the remaining three years of the Bush Administration but could serve through the administrations of the next seven or eight presidents. He would be deciding matters that affect not only all of Americans today, but also our children and grandchildren.
Nearly 20 years ago, I noted how critical it is for the Senate to engage in a public exploration of the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court nominees saying: “There can hardly be an issue closer to the heart of the Senate’s role than a full and public exposition of the nominee’s approach to the Constitution and to the role of the courts in discerning and enforcing its commands. That is what I mean by judicial philosophy.” This truth has not changed, as today we consider a successor to Chief Justice Rehnquist and will then be called upon to consider a successor for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The Arc of the Law
What is more difficult to see is the arc of the law in the years ahead, as Justices will vote on which cases to accept and how to decide them. Ours is a government of laws, but when faced with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we are reminded that our fellow citizens on the Court interpret and apply those laws. The balance and direction of the Supreme Court are now at issue with two vacancies. Chief among emerging concerns are whether the Supreme Court will continue its recent efforts to restrict the authority of Congress to pass legislation to protect the people’s interests in the environment, safety, and civil rights; and, whether the Supreme Court will effectively check the enhanced presidential power that has been amassed in the last few years.
The light of the nominations process is intense because it is the only time that light will shine, and the afterglow lasts for the rest of a Justice’s career. “We the People” have just this one chance to inquire whether this person should be entrusted with the privilege and responsibility of interpreting our Constitution and dispensing justice from the nation’s highest court. On behalf of the American people, it is our job to do all we can to make sure we get it right.
my wife and I always refer to Hatch as ‘OrrinHatch.com’ or ‘OrrinHatch2000.com’.
I refer to him as “that cranky, Bush butt-kissing fart from Utah”.
is shorter 🙂
Hatch isn’t as bad as he seems. He’s wrong on most issues, and he’s a fraud. But as Republicans go, he is better than most (as a person).
You’re much kinder than I am. He consistently rubs me the wrong way – like nails on a chalkboard.
I would have agreed with your spin on Hatch before the Clarence Thomas hearings. Ever since then he turns my stomach. What an opportunistic hack. And a dangerous one, at that.
Here is Hatch’s opening statement:
Judge Roberts, I know that you and Chief Justice Rehnquist remained close friends. He would have been proud to have a former clerk join him as a colleague, and now you have been nominated to succeed him as Chief Justice.
When President Bush nominated you two years ago to your current post on the U.S. Court of Appeals, you had two hearings before this committee and answered approximately 100 written questions from various Senators.
The American Bar Association twice unanimously gave you its highest well qualified rating. That process covered a lot of ground, including many of the same issues which are sure to be raised here. You acquitted yourself so well that the Senate confirmed you without dissent. Do not be surprised now, however, if it seems like none of that scrutiny and evaluation ever happened.
Let me mention one example relating to my home state of Utah to show how the confirmation process has changed. President Warren G. Harding nominated former Utah Senator George Sutherland to the Supreme Court on September 5, 1922. That same day, the Judiciary Committee Chairman went straight to the Senate floor and, after a few remarks, made a motion to confirm the nomination. The Senate promptly and unanimously agreed. There was no inquisition, no fishing expedition, no scurrilous and false attack ads.
The judicial selection process has changed because what some political forces want judges to do has changed from what America’s founders established. America’s founders believed that separating the branches of government, with the legislature making the law and the judiciary interpreting and applying that law, is the lynchpin of limited government and liberty. James Madison said that no political truth has greater intrinsic value. Quoting the philosopher Montesquieu, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist no.78 that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”
Times have changed.
Today, some see the separation of powers not as a condition for liberty but an obstacle to their political agenda. When they lose in the legislature, they want the judiciary to give them another bite at the political apple. Politicizing the judiciary leads to politicizing judicial selection. Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo recently said that someone’s personal opinions on issues are as relevant when they are a judicial nominee as when they are a political candidate.
The confirmation process has sometimes been unbecoming of the Senate and disrespectful of nominees. I applaud President Bush for resisting this trend, and for nominating qualified men and women who, as judges, will not legislate from the bench. The conviction that judges interpret and apply but do not make the law helps us sort out the information we need, the questions we ask, the standards we apply, and the decisions we make.
With that in mind, I believe three facts should guide us in this hearing.
First, what judges do limits what judicial nominees may discuss. Judges must be impartial and independent. Their very oath of office requires impartiality and the Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit judges and judicial nominees from making commitments regarding issues that may come before them. I will be the first to admit that Senators want answers to a great many questions. But I also have to admit that a Senator’s desire to know something is not the only consideration on the table.
Some have said that nominees who do not spill their guts about whatever a Senator wants to know are hiding something from the American people. Some compare a nominee’s refusal to violate his judicial oath or abandon judicial ethics to taking the Fifth Amendment. These might be catchy sound bites, but they are patently false.
That notion misleads the American people about what judges do and slanders good and honorable nominees who want to be both responsive to Senators and protect their impartiality and independence.
Nominees may not be able to answer questions that seek hints, forecasts, or previews about how they would rule on particular issues. Senators consult with law professors to ask these questions a dozen different ways, but we all know that is what they seek.
In 1993, President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, explained better than I can why nominees cannot answer such questions, no matter how they are framed.
She said: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” Nominees may not be able to answer questions asking them to opine or speculate about hypotheticals, outside of an actual case with concrete issues and real facts.
Since 1792, as long as the judiciary itself has existed, the Supreme Court has held that judges do not have the authority to render such advisory opinions. We should not be surprised when nominees decline to provide what judges themselves may not provide.
So the first fact that should guide us here is that, no matter how badly Senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real, and it comes from the very nature of what judges do.
The second fact is that nominees themselves must determine where to draw the line. Judges, not Senators, take the oath of judicial office. Judges, not Senators, are bound by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Judge Roberts will be a federal judge for many years to come; this process will only determine which courtroom he will occupy. He must determine how best to honor his judicial obligations.
Different nominees may draw this line a little differently, but they draw the same kind of line protecting their judicial impartiality and independence. Justice Stephen Breyer drew that line in 1994. As he put it, clients and lawyers must understand that judges are really open-minded. Justice Anthony Kennedy drew that line in 1987. He said that the public expects that a judge will be confirmed because of his temperament and character, not his positions on the issues.
Recently one of our colleagues on this committee dismissed as a myth the idea that Justice Ginsburg refused to discuss things related to how she would rule. Anyone watching C-SPAN’s recent replays of Justice Ginsburg’s hearing knows that this is not a myth, it is reality.
I was on this committee in 1993. Justice Ginsburg was not telling mythological tales when she refused nearly 60 times to answer questions, including mine, that she believed would violate what she said was her rule of “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”
Those were her words, not mine. Justice Ginsburg did what every Supreme Court nominee has done. She drew the line she believed was necessary to protect her impartiality and independence.
Finally, the third fact that should guide us is that the Senate traditionally has respected nominees’ judgment about where to draw the line.
In response to some of my questions, Justice Ginsburg said: “I must draw the line at that point and hope you will respect what I have tried to tell you.” Did I wish she had drawn the line differently? Of course, but I respected her decision. This is the historical standard.
In 1967, our colleague Senator Kennedy made the same point at a press conference supporting the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall. He said: “We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the Court or very likely to appear before the Court. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent.”
Justice Marshall drew his line, yet we confirmed him by a vote of 69-11. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor drew her line, yet we confirmed her by a vote of 99-0. Justice Kennedy drew his line, yet we confirmed him by a vote of 97-0. Justice Ginsburg drew her line, yet we confirmed her by a vote of 96-3. Justice Breyer drew his line, yet we confirmed him by a vote of 87-9.
Let me finish up so we can hear from other members of the committee.
We must use a judicial, rather than a political, standard to evaluate Judge Roberts’ fitness for the Supreme Court. That standard must be based on the fundamental principle that judges interpret and apply but do not make law.
Judge Roberts, as every Supreme Court nominee has done in the past, you must decide how best to honor your commitment to judicial impartiality and independence. You must decide when that obligation is more important than what Senators, including this one, might want to know.
As the Senate has done in the past, I believe we should honor your decision, and then make our own. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Specter went first but I haven’t found his opening statement online yet.
Courtesy of WaPo:
When asked about the issue during his 2003 confirmation hearing, Roberts said Roe v. Wade was “settled law.”
Specter planned to question Roberts closely on what he regards as the Supreme Court’s tendency in some cases to usurp congressional prerogatives.
“These hearings present an opportunity to expose the extreme positions taken by the Supreme Court in denigrating the role of Congress in our constitutional separation of power,” Specter said in his prepared remarks. “I will question Judge Roberts on his view of the scope of Congress’s power.”
Here is Kennedy’s opening statement:
Today, our nation’s flags are at half mast to honor the memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist and his deep dedication to his beloved Supreme Court. We know that Judge Roberts was especially close to him, and our thoughts and prayers go to the Rehnquist family and all who knew him.
As we are all well aware, the Senate’s action on this nomination is profoundly important. It’s a defining opportunity to consider the values that make our nation strong and just, and how to implement them most effectively, especially the guiding principle of more than two centuries of our history — that we are all created equal.
Our commitment to this founding principle is especially relevant today. Americans are united as rarely before in compassion and generosity for our fellow citizens whose lives have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
That massive tragedy also taught us another lesson. The powerful winds and floodwater of Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind. As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality, and the gross disparities that exist in our society.
Across the years, we have experienced times of great turmoil and great triumph, as each succeeding generation struggled to live up to our founding principle and give it meaning for everyone. Americans have shed blood, campaigned and marched. They have worked in countless quiet ways, as well, to see that every one of our citizens is part of our democracy and has an equal opportunity for a good education, a good job, and a good life.
Today, grandparents who were denied the right to vote expect their grandsons and granddaughters to be able to cast a ballot without discrimination or intimidation. And our society is better because of that progress.
Today, fathers and mothers expect their daughters to have the same opportunities as their sons to attend college, play sports, and earn fair pay. And our society is better because of that progress.
Today, parents expect their disabled children to live in hope — to receive an education that draws out their talent, and enables them to reach for their dreams like all other Americans. And our society is better because of that progress.
Too many have sacrificed too much, worked too hard, and come too far, to turn back the clock on that progress. Americans today expect their elected representatives to carry on the great unfinished business of making America the land of opportunity for all, and we expect our courts to defend our progress as their constitutional responsibility.
The challenge today is especially difficult because of vast global economic changes and major new threats to our national security, and we need the ingenuity, innovation, and commitment of every American.
Our military leaders are the first to say that highly qualified, racially diverse armed forces are essential to defending our country and the cause of freedom at home and abroad.
Every citizen counts. We must continue to remove barriers that hold back millions of our people. We must draw strength from our diversity as we compete in a new world full of promise and peril.
So the central issue before us in these hearings is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past, and protect the rights that are indispensable to a modern, more competitive, more equal America. Commitment to equality for all is not only a matter of fairness and conscience. It is also our path to sustained national strength and purpose.
We also are a government of the people in which citizens have a strong voice in the great issues that shape our lives. Our system of checks and balances was drawn up in full awareness of the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and was designed to make sure that no branch of government becomes so powerful that it can avoid accountability. The people have a right to know that their government is promoting their interests, not the special interests, when it comes to the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the food and other products we buy. The people have a right to keep government from intruding into their private lives and most personal decisions.
But the tragedy of Katrina shows in the starkest terms why every American needs an effective national government that will step in to meet urgent needs that individual states and communities cannot meet on their own.
Above all, the people and their Congress must have a voice in decisions that determine the safety of our country and the integrity of our individual rights. We expect Supreme Court Justices to uphold those rights and the rule of law in times of both war and peace.
All this — and more — will be before the Supreme Court in the years ahead, and its judgments will affect the direction and character of our country for generations to come.
Judge Roberts you are an intelligent, well-educated and serious man. You have vast legal experience and you are considered to be one of the finest legal advocates in America. These qualities are surely important qualifications for a potential Supreme Court Justice. But they do not end the inquiry or our responsibility. This Committee and the full Senate must also determine whether you have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional principles that have been so vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society.
We have only one chance to get it right, and a solemn obligation to do so. If confirmed, you could serve on the Court for a generation or more, and the decisions you make as a Justice will have a direct impact on the lives of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
Because of the special importance of an appointment like yours, the Founders called for shared power between the President and the Senate. The Senate was not intended to be a rubber stamp for a President’s nominees to the Supreme Court — and, as George Washington himself found out, it has not been.
Judges are appointed “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and it is our duty to ask questions on great issues that matter to the American people, and to speak for them. Judge Roberts, I hope you will respond fully and candidly to such questions, not just to earn our approval, but to prove to the American people that you have earned the right to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are real and serious reasons to be deeply concerned about Judge Roberts’ record. Many of his past statements and writings raise questions about his commitment to equal opportunity and the bi-partisan remedies we have adopted in the past. This hearing is John Roberts’ job interview with the American people. He will have a fair chance to express his values, state his views, and defend his record. The burden on him is especially heavy, because the Administration, at least so far, has chosen not to allow the Senate to have access to his full record. We can only wonder what they don’t want us to know.
In particular, we need to know his views on civil rights, voting rights, and the right to privacy — especially the removal of existing barriers to full and fair lives for women, minorities, and the disabled.
From the start, America was summoned to be a shining city on a hill. But each generation must keep building that city. Even in this new century, some Americans are still denied a voice at the ballot box because of their color, denied a promotion because of their gender, denied a job because of their age, denied hope because they are gay, or denied an appropriate education because they are disabled. Long-established rights to privacy are under heavy siege.
We need a Chief Justice who believes in the promise of America, and the guarantees of our Constitution, a person who will enter that majestic building near here and genuinely believe the four inspiring words inscribed in marble above the entrance, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
I look forward to hearing from Judge Roberts about whether, if he joins the Supreme Court, he will uphold the progress we have made and will guarantee that all Americans have their rightful place in the nation’s future.
all Grassley and Hatch care about is that Roberts doesn’t have to admit he hates women.
can’t find a link yet…
and now look at him sitting at number 3 for the minority.
I’m on a diet…
Here is Biden’s opening statement:
Judge, as you know, there is a genuine intellectual struggle going on in our country over whether our Constitution will continue to protect our privacy and continue to empower the federal government to protect the powerless.
For 70 years, there has been a consensus in our Supreme Court on these issues. And this consensus has been fully embraced by the American people.
But there are those who strongly disagree with this consensus – and they seek to unravel it. And, Judge, you have the unenviable position of being right in the middle of this fundamentally important debate.
And, quite frankly, we need to know on which side you stand. For whoever replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justice O’Connor, will play pivotal roles in this debate.
But for tens of millions of our people this is more than an academic debate.
For the position you take in this debate will affect their lives in very real and personal ways – for the next three decades. There is nothing they can do about it after this moment.
I believe in a Constitution – as our Supreme Court’s first great Chief Justice, John Marshall, said in 1819 – and I quote “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
At its core, the Constitution envisions ever increasing protections of human liberty and dignity for its citizens and a national government empowered to face unanticipated “crises.”
Judge, herein lies the crux of the intellectual debate I referenced at the outset – whether we will have ever increasing protections for human liberty and dignity or whether those protections will be diminished.
In 1925, the Constitution preserved the rights of parents to determine how to educate their kids, striking down a law that required children to attend public schools. In 1965, the Constitution told the state to get out of a married couple’s bedroom, by striking down a state law prohibiting married couples from using contraceptives. In 1967, the Constitution defended the right of a black woman to marry a white man. And in 1977, the Constitution stopped a city from making it a crime for a grandmother to live with her grandchildren.
And, fortunately, even when the Supreme Court, at first, took our Constitution away from the promise and hope of our Constitution’s ennobling phrases; in the end, we have kept the faith.
In 1873, for example, the Court said states could forbid women from being lawyers. It took a hundred years to undo this terrible mistake. But the Court eventually got it right.
In 1896, the Supreme Court said “separate but equal” was lawful. It took 58 years for the Supreme Court to outlaw racial segregation, throwing that doctrine in the dustbin of history. But the Court ultimately got it right.
In the early 1900s, the Court rendered the federal government powerless to outlaw child labor and to protect workers. It took until 1937 for the Supreme Court to see the error in its ways. But the Court finally got it right.
At every step, we’ve had to struggle against those who saw the Constitution as frozen in time. But time and again, we have overcome, and the Constitution has remained relevant and dynamic thanks to a proper interpretation of the ennobling phrases purposefully placed in our great “civic Bible.”
And once again – when it should be even more obvious we need increased protections for liberty – as we look around the world and see thousands persecuted for their faith, women unable to show their faces in public, and children maimed and killed for no other reason than which tribe they were born into.
And once again – when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of a new millennium – terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, and religious intolerance.
Once again, our journey of progress is under attack from the Right.
There are judges, scholars, and opinion leaders – good and honorable people – who believe the Constitution provides no protection against government intrusions into our highly personal decisions – decisions about birth, marriage, family, death, and religion. There are those who would slash the power of our national government, fragmenting it among the states. Incredibly, some have even argued that the Constitution eliminates the federal government’s ability to respond to disasters like Katrina.
Judge, I don’t believe the Constitution these individuals long for could have led to the America our Founders envisioned. Like the Founders, I believe our Constitution is as big and as grand as this great nation.
Our constitutional journey did not stop with women barred from being lawyers, with 10-year-olds working in coal mines, or with black kids forced into different schools than white kids just because the Constitution nowhere mentions “sex discrimination,” “child labor,” or “segregated education.”
Our constitutional journey did not stop then, and it must not stop now. For we will be faced with equally consequential decisions in the 21st Century: can microscopic tags be implanted in a person’s body to track his every movement; can patents be issued for the creation of human life; can brain scans be used to determine whether a person is inclined toward criminal or violent behavior?
Judge, I need to know whether you will be a Justice who believes that the constitutional journey must continue to speak to these consequential decisions – or that we’ve gone far enough in protecting against government intrusion into the most personal decisions we make.
Judge, that’s why this is a critical moment. Those elected officials on the Far Right, such as Mr. DeLay and others, have been unsuccessful at implementing their radical agenda in the elected branches – so they pour their energy and resources into trying to change the Court’s view of the Constitution.
And now they have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – the filling of two Supreme Court vacancies, one of which is the Chief Justice’s – the first time that’s happened in 75 years.
Judge, I believe with every fiber of my being that their view of the Constitution and where the Country should be taken would be a disaster for our people.
Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.
I believe the rights of women must be nationally and vigorously protected.
I believe the federal government must act as a shield to protect the powerless against major economic interests.
I believe the federal government should stamp out discrimination – wherever it occurs.
And I believe the Constitution inspires and empowers us to achieve these goals.
Judge, if I looked only at what you’ve said and written in the past, I’d feel compelled to vote NO. You dismissed the Constitution’s protection of privacy as a “so-called right,” you derided agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that combat corporate misconduct as “constitutional anomalies,” and you dismissed “gender discrimination” as merely a, and I quote, “perceived problem,”
This is your chance to explain what you meant by what you have said and what you have written.
The Constitution provides for one democratic moment before a lifetime of judicial independence, when we the people of the United States are entitled to know as much as we can about the person we are entrusting with safeguarding our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.
This is that moment. That’s what these hearings are about.
(He doesn’t like long paragraphs, apparently).
can’t find a link to his either…what’s with these Republicans not including their opening remarks on their sites?
no link found yet
are a massive waste of precious time. How much is it costing to pay people to write them, read them and listen to them? If these jerks want their opinions known, they can easily convey them in their questions.
Sorry, but I disagree. Not only is it important for the philosophical concerns of the senators to be on the record prior to the hearing, but a historical event of this importance deserves a dignified hearing. Not that it cannot be thorough or impassioned, but it shouldn’t be totally reduced to sound bites. For your consideration: the Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation.
Great oratory is appropriate to a great nation and the key debates of a turning point in its history, and lord knows we need to hang on to what shreds of greatness remain in the hope of better days ahead.
disagree is something only the Bush team wants to stamp out. Your point is well taken. The Senators should be able to state their positions. I would appreciate a little more concision though. The Gettysburg Address was 272 words and power pointing it is of course ridiculous – Biden’s opening statement I’d estimate at over 800 words and to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, “It’s no Gettysburg Address”.
Perhaps my real complaint is the lack of great oratory you so correctly say we need to lead this world to a better future.
these are well thought out and inspiring speeches from the Dem side.
A tad short on soundbites from the media point of view, but I hope these messages will be repeated and argued until they break though to the consciousness of the undecided.
The whole point of ‘We, the people’ only getting one chance to examine a possible 30 years of decisions ahead, si one that needs to be hammered home in order to allow tough questioning.
Here is Dewine’s opening statement:
Over the next several days, we will be spending a lot of time together: you, the 18 members of this Committee, and the American people. This is the time for a national conversation — a conversation about the document that binds us as a nation and a people. That document, of course, is the Constitution.
For more than 215 years, we have been having an extended conversation about the meaning of our Constitution.
Sometimes, the conversation has been civil. Sometimes, it has been passionate. And, sometimes, it has been violent.
The New Deal — and the battles that were fought about the scope of our Nation’s power to combat the Great Depression — was a debate about the meaning of the Constitution.
The civil rights movement — and the vigorous, often violent, resistance to efforts to desegregate all America — was a debate about the meaning of our Constitution.
And, the Civil War — the most violent and bloodiest time in American history — was a war about the meaning of our Constitution.
We have seen a President resign, elections decided, and popular laws overturned all because of our Constitution. But, our Constitution is more than just a symbol of our Nation’s history. It is also a light for the world. As a nation, we were among the first to sit down and draft a document that, quite literally, “constitutes” our government.
But, we were not the last. Since our Founders embraced the idea of a written Constitution, others have followed suit. After the fall of the Soviet regime, we witnessed an explosion of Constitution-writing in Eastern Europe. There are now more than 170 written constitutions in the world, more than half of which have been drafted in the last 30 years. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, “the cause of America” is indeed, “the cause of all mankind.”
That’s why our gathering today is so significant. We are charged with providing our “advice and consent” on the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Our job is important. But, if confirmed, Judge Roberts, your job will be even more important. It will be your job, as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, to correctly construe our Constitution, to preserve the balance of power sewn into it, and to protect those rights and values that are a part of our history and tradition.
Former Chief Justice John Marshall once warned that “people made the Constitution, and people can unmake it.” It will be your job, in other words, to ensure that our Constitution is never unmade.
As of late, however, many Americans believe that the Supreme Court is “unmaking” the very Constitution that our Founders drafted. Many are concerned when they see the Court strike down laws protecting the aged, the disabled, and women who are the victims of violence. Many worry when they see the Court permit the taking of private property for “economic development.” Many are troubled when they see the Court cite international law in its decisions. And, many fear that our Court is making policy, when it repeatedly strikes down laws passed by Congress and the State legislatures.
I, too, am concerned. Judges are not Members of Congress. They are not State Legislators. They are not Governors. And, they are not Presidents. Their job is not to pass laws, implement regulations, or make policy.
Perhaps no one said this better than Justice Byron White. During his confirmation hearing in 1962, White was asked to explain “the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional form of government.” Nowadays, in response to this question, we often hear grand theories about the meaning of the Constitution and its history. Justice White, however, said nothing of the kind.
When he was asked about the role of the Supreme Court in our system of government, White gave a simple answer: “to decide cases.”
It sounds almost too obvious to be true, but that is the right answer. Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy. And, they need to pay proper deference to the role of the Executive, the Congress, and the States — all while closely guarding the language of the Constitution.
We would do well to keep this example in mind. The Constitution does not give us all the answers. It does, however, create the perfect process for solving our problems. The Congress and the President have a role in this process. The States have theirs. And, when there are disputes, the Courts are there to “decide cases.”
There is a reason that Judges need to take on this limited role. As my esteemed colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, explained during Justice Souter’s confirmation hearing, a Judge should not be “pro-this and anti-that. He should rather be a judge of cases, not causes.”
Causes come and go, but cases do not. In years or decades, one cause may fade and another will emerge. But, Judges will remain, deciding cases and interpreting our Constitution.
Our next Chief Justice is not merely for today. He is a Chief Justice for the future — a future that will present Constitutional issues that are now unknown.
The career of Chief Justice Rehnquist proves the point. When he joined the Court in 1972, there was no Internet, and no need to protect our children from the proliferation of on-line pornography. And, at the time, there was no War on Terror, no Presidential order to detain terrorists as “enemy combatants,” and no terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. But, Chief Justice Rehnquist dealt with all of these issues while on the Court.
When faced with new and unexpected issues, a Justice is left only with the tools that every good Judge must use: the facts of the case, the language of the Constitution, and the weight of precedent. This is a simple and limited approach to deciding cases — the kind of approach that Justice White would have understood and our Founders would have admired.
While preparing for this hearing, I came across a statement from a sitting federal judge that neatly sums up this philosophy. Deciding cases, this Judge said, “requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term `judicial restraint.'”
Judge Roberts, those words are yours. And, in my opinion, they are very wise words indeed. You have the talent, experience, and humility to be an outstanding member of the Supreme Court. And, I expect that these hearings will show that you have the appropriate philosophy to lead our Nation into the future as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How’d that one slip in? You’d think they have a dog named Spot or Rex and a cat named Whiskers too…
Rather than post a long comment here, I made a separate diary, looking at the context of these hearings when it comes to women’s equality and liberty….
http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/9/12/13820/8278
no link yet, but Diane’s getting feisty!
great job Catnip…keep it up it is greatly appreciated. Some outstanding opening remarks and I am beginning to believe the dems won’t go down without a good fight. Am I dreaming?
I think this will get interesting: Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer, Feinstein and Biden have made it sound like there’s a fight coming (especially Feinstein and Schumer!).
he’s on the tip-top of most hated republicans.
no link, but he’s being his usual cranky ass bastard self.
Ashcroft is one of CNN’s commentators on the hearings. I expect him to break out into song, Let the Eagles Soar, (good article there) any time now…
Okay, I had to break my vow not to post from work (hey! Its lunch-time), but I wanted to let all of you posting, especially catnip, that yes, this effort is greatly appreciated.
I’m glad to see Biden telling it as it is. I know he’s a slippery snake who can flicker his tongue equally well out of either side of his maw — but at least he’s on-message with regards to Trojan Judge Roberts. I just hope this time he carries through and actually votes NO, instead of just “scolding the little rascal” like he did with Abu Gonzales.
Here is Feindgold’s opening statement:
To our nominee, I want to thank you in advance for the long hours you will put in with us this week. I wish you well, and I admire your record and your impressive career. This is a confirmation proceeding, however, not a coronation. It is the Senate Judiciary Committee’s job to ask tough questions. We are tasked by the Senate with getting a complete picture of your qualifications, your temperament, and how you will carry out your duties. Obviously, nominees to the Supreme Court must be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. As the nominee to be Chief Justice of the United States, you will be subject to the ultimate level of scrutiny. Our colleagues in the Senate, and the citizens of this country, are entitled to a hearing that will actually help them decide whether you should be confirmed. I’m sure you understand that. This is a lifetime appointment to preside over the Supreme Court, and to lead the entire federal judiciary. So I’m sure you appreciate the importance of this hearing for the future of our country.
Some have called for a “dignified process.” So have I. But at times it sounds like what some really want for the nominee is an easy process. That is not what the Constitution or the traditions of the Senate call for. If by “dignified” they mean that tough and probing questions are out of bounds, I must strongly disagree. It is not undignified to ask questions that press the nominee for his views on the important areas of the law that the Supreme Court confronts. It is not undignified to review and explore the nominee’s writings, his past statements, the briefs he has filed, the memos he has written. It is not undignified to ask the nominee questions he would rather not answer should he prefer to remain inscrutable, or, worse yet, all things to all people.
This process is not a game. It is not a political contest. It is one of the most important things that the Senate does — confirm or reject nominees to the highest court in the land. And we as Senators must take that responsibility very seriously.
The most recent nine Justices of the Supreme Court served together almost as long as any other Court in history — more than 11 years. Because the Court has been so stable for so long, and Chief Justice Rehnquist presided over it for 19 years, Members of Congress, lawyers, and the public have come to know the views of the Justices pretty well. Many Court-watchers have become pretty good at predicting the outcome of cases. That predictability is about to be tested because we will now have a new Chief Justice, and because a member of the Court who was the deciding vote in many cases has also announced her retirement.
I don’t think, however, that the public is required to wait until a new Chief Justice is seated on the Court to get some idea of how that new Chief Justice thinks, how that new Chief Justice will approach controversial issues that might come before the Court, and how that new Chief Justice might run the Court. This hearing is our only opportunity to hear from this nominee how he would approach the important issues facing the Court.
I was struck as I was preparing for this hearing by remarks written years ago by Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa and a senior member of the Committee, in the Committee Report on the nomination of Justice O’Connor. The current nomination to the position of Chief Justice makes his remarks even more apt. Senator Grassley said the following:
I do not agree … that commenting on past Supreme Court decisions is a commitment to hold a certain way on future cases and I feel that in order that we, as Senators, fulfill our duty it is incumbent upon us to discover a nominee’s judicial philosophy.
In that we had a very limited number of judicial opinions rendered by Judge O’Connor on constitutional questions it was my hope, by asking specific questions regarding past Supreme Court decisions, that the committee might obtain a clearer understanding of her philosophy. … My purpose was to satisfy my questions regarding Judge O’Connor’s record in that I felt it was less complete than many other Supreme Court nominees who have had extensive experience either on the Federal bench or in leadership positions in the profession of law.
In some ways, the record of our current nominee to the Court raises similar concerns. He has a long record as a lawyer, but he has been on the federal bench for only two years, and we have little in the way of his own writings on the issues before the Court to evaluate. So like Senator Grassley, I am interested in this nominee’s views on a number of cases. I don’t think that getting his reaction to those decisions will commit him to vote a certain way in a future case. After all, it is not that past case he will be deciding, but a different one. Even the current Justices, whose views on specific cases are well known since they either wrote or joined one opinion or another, do not have to recuse themselves from a future case just because we know what they think of a crucial precedent in that case.
So I am looking for Judge Roberts to be forthcoming with this Committee about his views. To show the Senate’s role in this process the respect it deserves, he should make every effort to be responsive.
Chief Justice Rehnquist himself acknowledged the importance of the Senate’s role when he wrote the following in his last annual report on the federal judiciary: “Our Constitution has struck a balance between judicial independence and accountability, giving individual judges secure tenure but making the federal judiciary subject ultimately to the popular will because judges are appointed and confirmed by elected officials.”
That suggests to me that it is not only permissible, but critical, that the Senate seek to learn as much as it can about the views of nominees and that nominees be as forthcoming as they possibly can without compromising their independence.
We do have a mountain of material from the nominee’s early years as a lawyer in the Justice Department and White House counsel’s office of the Reagan Administration. In memo after memo, his writing was highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others. I do, however, recognize that this is a different time, and he has been nominated to play a different kind of role than he played in those early Reagan years. So, I will be looking for a somewhat different John Roberts than the John Roberts of 1985. As I have a chance to ask questions about topics such as executive power, civil liberties, voting rights, the death penalty and other important issues, I hope to see how his views have developed and changed over the years.
Of course, the best evidence of this would be some more recent writings of the nominee. But the Administration has steadfastly refused a reasonable request for documents pertaining to a small fraction of the cases in which he participated as Deputy Solicitor General during the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. I find this refusal very troubling in light of the ample precedent for releasing such documents in this kind of proceeding, and the weakness of any claim that the release would damage the litigating position of the United States, over 12 years later. And I also must say, candidly, the refusal gives rise to a reasonable inference that the Administration has something to hide here. The Administration has done this nominee no service by maintaining its intransigent position.
Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that the Supreme Court is one of the most important institutions in our constitutional system and that the position of Chief Justice of the United States is one of the most important positions in our government. The impact of this nominee on our country, should he be confirmed, will be enormous. That means our scrutiny of this nominee must be intense and thorough. In my view, we must evaluate not only his qualifications, but also his ability to keep an open mind, his sensitivity to the concerns of all Americans and their right to equal protection under the laws; not only his intellectual capacity, but his judgment and wisdom; not only his achievements, but his fairness, and his courage to stand up to the other branches of government when they infringe on the rights and liberties of our citizens.
I look forward to the opportunity to question the nominee about his views later in the hearing, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for the opportunity to speak today.
They must be gettin’ old. 15 minutes? I hope they are seeing a doctor about that prostate problem.
Or are they using the 15 minutes to examine Roberts briefs?
What’s this crap with Democrats calling Roberts “well-qualified?” He is borderline qualified to be an associate justice and clearly, clearly, clearly unqualified to be Chief Justice.
2 years on the becnh???
Hell! He’s barely learned the job let alone qualifies as experienced!
And that is before we get to the fact that the guy is clearly a partisan hack being nominated for a job in which the primary qualifications is “fair and impartial.” What is the matter with these people?
no link but he’s basically saying that since Bush was elected, Roberts should be confirmed…
Great statement…will post when I get the link.
Here is Cornyn’s opening statement – nice headline!:
‘This is not an election and no reasonable person expects you to make promises to politicians on how you might rule on various issues as a condition of confirmation’
Monday, September 12, 2005
-Print-
——————————————————————————–
WASHINGTON–U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement Monday at the opening hearing before the committee to consider the nomination of Judge John Roberts to succeed the late William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:
“I would like to extend to you, Judge Roberts, a very warm welcome to the Judiciary Committee. The last time you were here was more than two years ago, as a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit–a court some have described as the second highest court in the land. You were confirmed to that court by unanimous consent of the Senate, and you have served with great distinction.
“While the importance of your nomination as Chief Justice of the United States can hardly be overstated, it seems as though each new nomination to the Court takes on the drama of an election. Indeed, we have seen special interest groups raising money, running television advertisements, and even trying to coerce you into stating your position on the hot-button issues of the day, as if it were an election.
“But of course this is not an election and no reasonable person expects you to make promises to politicians on how you might rule on various issues as a condition of confirmation. Still, some in our country have lost sight of the proper role of an unelected judge in a nation where the people are sovereign and government enjoys no legitimacy except by consent of the governed. They see unelected judges primarily as policy makers and arbiters of every pressing social question that might arise; with the authority to dictate to the people what they think is good for us.
“This ideal of the Supreme Court as a sort of super-legislature to which we might turn to give us everything that we think is good, and to stop everything that we think is bad, is not a view I share – nor did those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee everything that is good, and it does not prohibit everything that is bad. If it did, it could have been written in two sentences. Instead, the Constitution guarantees some specific things, and it prohibits some specific things, and everything else is left to the democratic process to sort out.
“Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, that the judicial branch would be the “least dangerous” branch of government. He believed that `there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ Its sole purpose was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the land. Its role would be limited. Regrettably, Justices have not always been faithful to this constitutional design.
“All we need to do is review the Supreme Court’s track record to see why abdicating our right of self-government to nine judges isolated behind a monumental marble edifice, far removed from the life experienced daily by average Americans, is a bad idea.
For example, the Constitution says, in part, that the federal government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge freedom of speech. Many Americans, including me, are concerned that the Supreme Court, by erecting extra-Constitutional and contradictory, judge-made standards in this area of law, effectively banned voluntary religious expression from much of our public life, turning what was intended to be government neutrality into official hostility. To be sure, the Court has been zealous in protecting the rights of those who express themselves or promote their products using violence and sex, but voluntary expression of one’s faith, never!
Likewise, many Americans, including me, are baffled that the Supreme Court recently saw fit to strike down a display of the Ten Commandments recently in Kentucky but not in Texas, even while the Ten Commandants is prominently displayed on the ceiling of the Supreme Court itself.
Many Americans, including me, wondered what to read into the Court’s recent dismissal of a suit seeking to deny school children the right to recite the pledge of allegiance because it contains the words, “one nation, under God.” A majority of the Court refused to agree that the pledge was constitutional, leaving this time-honored tradition of school children all across our nation in legal limbo.
And recently, the Court expanded the awesome power of government to condemn private property beyond all previous bounds by reading the “public use” limitation on eminent domain right out of the Constitution. As Justice O’Connor warned in the Court’s Kelo decision, “[t]he specter of condemnation [now] hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
On what legitimate basis can the Supreme Court uphold state laws on the death penalty in 1989, then, strike them down in 2005, relying not on the written Constitution, which hadn’t changed, but on foreign laws that no American has voted on, consented to, or may even be aware of?
When, in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court overruled a 1986 decision on the constitutionality of state laws based in part on collective moral judgments about permissible sexual activity, what changed in the intervening time? The Constitution? Clearly not. The members of the Court? Yes, but should that determine a different meaning of the Constitution? Are some judges merely imposing on all Americans their personal preferences under the guise of interpreting the Constitution? Indeed, it was this same 2003 decision that formed the cornerstone of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision holding that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman are illegal discrimination.
“Let me close on an issue that several Senators have mentioned today: your obligation to answer our questions. Of course, my colleagues and I have the right to ask you whatever questions we would like – and, truth be told, I guess, all of us are curious to know how you might rule on issues that are likely to come before you in a future case.
“But just because we are curious does not mean that our curiosity should be satisfied. You have no obligation to tell us how you will rule on any issue that might come before you if you sit on the Supreme Court.
“It boils down to a question of impartiality and fairness. One characteristic of good judges is that they keep an open-mind on issues that are likely to come before them. If you pledge today to rule a certain way on an issue, how can parties to future cases ever believe they have had a fair day in court?
“That is one reason why the American Bar Association has long said that judges cannot ethically make any pledges with regard to cases or issues that are likely to come before them. It is also why every single Supreme Court Justice in the past has declined to answer questions during their confirmation hearings
whenever they felt their impartiality and independence might be threatened. As Justice Ginsburg–one of the last Supreme Court Justices confirmed by the Senate–noted not too long ago, “in accord with a longstanding norm, every Member of [the current Supreme] Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate . . . . [T]he line each [Justice] drew in response to pre-confirmation questioning . . . is crucial to the health of the Federal Judiciary.”
“I know that some members of this Committee, through their questions, will try to entice you not to follow the rules of ethics and the long tradition described by Justice Ginsburg. But that should not concern you, Judge Roberts. Don’t take the bait. Do exactly the same thing every nominee–Republican and Democrat alike–has done. Decline to answer any question that you feel would compromise your ability to do your job. The vast majority of the Senate, I am convinced, will not punish you for doing so. Rather, I am convinced that the vast majority of the Senate will respect you for this decision because it will show you to be a person of great integrity and independence, unwilling to trade your ethics for a confirmation vote.
“Again, welcome to the Committee. And thank you for your continued willingness to serve our great nation.”
I need to run to the store. I think there are 3 opening statements remaining. Will post the links when I get back and possibly a Part Deux to this diary, since this one is getting long.
Give me a freaking break!
“My heart aches for less devisiveness….”
and then he goes on to blather about culture of life yabber yabber yabber
Oh my goodness – I just turned in and he’s crying…He’s the new Kay Bailey Hutchison. No link yet…
I missed a Dem while I was out…?
Part 2 is up over here. Thanks all!
Don’t forget to unrecommend this one.