Hearings on Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts
HEARINGS ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JOHN ROBERTS -- (Senate - July 29, 2005)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to outline the scheduling procedures for the confirmation hearings on Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States. I will be followed by my colleague, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who will state a joint agreement, which is incorporated in my statement. Senator Leahy will deal with the joint agreement.
The decision on when to start the confirmation hearings on Judge Roberts depends on what beginning day--whether August 29 or September 6--is most likely to lead to a vote no later than September 29, so that, if confirmed, the nominee can be seated when the Supreme Court begins its term on October 3. I have stated my own preference for September 6 early on, but I emphasized that I was flexible and would be willing to start on August 29.
Our duty to have the nominee in place by October 3 took precedence on my or anyone else's preferences.
In light of the many possibilities for delay, some justified and some tactical, it seemed to me the safer course was the earlier date. At the same time, I was and am mindful that the Senate and the Judiciary Committee can accomplish more in 3 cooperative hours than 3 days or perhaps even 3 weeks of disharmonious activity. If any disgruntled Senator wants to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, even with the August 29 starting date, there would be no absolute assurance of meeting the October 3 target.
I acknowledge at the outset that it was unrealistic to obtain a binding unanimous consent agreement specifying an exact timetable with a commitment to vote by September 29. There are too many legitimate issues which could arise which would justify delays where Senators would be compromising their rights by such an agreement. Senator Leahy and I have had numerous discussions over the past week with his objective to start the hearings on September 6 and my objective to obtain assurances, if not commitments, that the Senate would vote by September 29.
Our discussions at various times included Senator Frist, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell. We have had many additional discussions in the last 72 hours, too numerous to mention. But in one meeting on Thursday among the five of us--Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and myself--we came to an agreement.
No. 1, the hearings would start on September 6.
No. 2, Senators would waive their right to hold over the nomination for 1 week when first on the Judiciary Committee executive agenda, so the committee vote could occur any time after September 12 and, as chairman, I intend to exercise my prerogative to set the committee vote on our Judiciary Committee agenda for September 15.
No. 3, Democrats and Republicans would waive their right to terminate committee hearings which went past 2 hours after the Senate came into session.
No. 4, all written questions would have to be submitted by September 12, with answers to be submitted in a timely fashion.
No. 5 Senators from both parties would waive their right to submit dissenting or additional or minority views to the committee report.
Beyond these enumerated agreements, the principal basis for the Republicans' willingness to begin the hearing on September 6 was the emphasis by Senator Reid and Senator Leahy of their good faith in moving the nomination process promptly to meet the October 3 date.
All factors considered, it was our judgment that the September 6 starting date was the best alternative for concluding the hearings in time to seat Judge Roberts, if confirmed, on October 3.
I now yield to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, the Senator from Vermont.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/