Executive Session

EXECUTIVE SESSION

NOMINATION OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES--Continued

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise on the advice and consent question of Judge John Roberts.

Before I address my judgment on that, I would like to pay tribute for a second to Sandra Day O'Connor and the late William Rehnquist.

Sandra Day O'Connor's announced retirement caused the nomination by the President of John Roberts, and subsequently the untimely passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist afforded the opportunity for that nomination to be for Chief Justice as well. In the anticipated furor of this debate and confirmation, the credit never was given that should have been to Justice O'Connor or Justice Rehnquist.

Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. She served with honor and distinction. She wrote brilliantly, concisely, and succinctly, and, most importantly of all, she had an insight and wisdom second to none. In fact, I commend to everyone her final writing, her dissenting opinion on the eminent domain case, if you want to see a Justice who was well grounded and interested in the American people.

Judge Rehnquist was the 16th Justice of the United States, an outstanding individual of immense capacity, dedication, and commitment to the United States of America. His loss is a tragedy, and the retirement of Justice O'Connor is a loss to the Court.

But now we are confronted with our constitutional responsibility as Members of the Senate to address the question of John Roberts, the nominee of President Bush.

I come to this debate somewhat differently than a lot who preceded me. I am not an attorney. Before my election to the Senate, I was a businessman, always had been, always will be when I leave. I come also as a new Member of the Senate. In fact, a year ago today, I was engaged in a debate in Columbus, GA, with my Democratic opponent for the Senate seat. The issue that night of that debate was clearly what was the role of the Senate in terms of the confirmation of a Justice to the Supreme Court and the issue of the day, which was filibuster. It was only a year ago when whether a judge could even get an up-or-down vote was a major question on the floor of the Senate.

I happen to have been elected, obviously, to that Senate seat, sworn in on January 4, and came to the Senate to find that advice and consent was impossible because filibuster was the rule of the day. Then a unique thing happened. Fourteen Members of this body made a deal--and I commend them for it. They broke a logjam, and very quickly we were able to confirm six appointments to the court, some who had languished as long--as in the case of Judge Pryor--as 4 years.

No one knew Justice O'Connor would announce her retirement a few weeks later, nor that Chief Justice Rehnquist would die, but all of us knew that when an appointment came, the agreement that had been made might be put in jeopardy because it set forth a standard that filibuster might be necessary under extraordinary circumstances. There were many who anticipated whomever the President appointed would be in and of itself an extraordinary circumstance.

Then along came John G. Roberts, who is an extraordinary man.

I will vote to confirm the President's nomination of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. In large measure, I will do so because of who and what John G. Roberts is, has been, and will be--a decent and humble man of immense intelligence and demonstrated compassion.

We will hear and I have heard earlier today some in this Chamber who will tell us that he never answered any questions; we don't know where he stands. Well, to me, those are simply code words for them saying they couldn't pin him down, tie him in knots, or prejudice him for future decisions. Personally, I don't want a Justice who any lawyer can tie in knots or predispose. I want a judge I can stand before and count on the fact that he will call them like he sees them, that he won't be in one corner or the other, that he will do what is right, what is dictated by the law and the Constitution.

In my 33 years in business, I was in court from time to time--as few times as possible. But all of us have been. I served as a foreman of a grand jury. I served on a petit jury. I have been, in the case as a businessman, in court myself. I don't want to go into a courtroom where I know I have a judge who has a bent, a predisposition, or an agenda. I want to go before a judge who wants to treat me under the law as equally and as fairly as my opponent on the other side, who will rule based on the facts, based on what is before him, based on the law, and based on our Constitution. I want a Justice who will study the law, listen to my side of the case, listen to the other side, and call it as he sees it.

In his introduction, John Roberts said he was an umpire and he was a humble man. That says a lot about John Roberts. If there is anything we need on the bench today, it is those who see themselves umpires making the right call, the right decision the right time in every single case, for there is no instant replay on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. As Judge Roberts said in his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, just as people do not go to a baseball game to watch the umpires, they do not go to court to watch the judge. They go to court to get a fair decision, unvarnished and untainted.

I was in Columbus, GA, during the break in August. I did an education listening session. After it was over, I met with some 6th grade kids of that school, some kids I gave the chance to ask me questions, some children I gave the chance to find out what they would like to know from a Senator.

A little girl by the name of Maleka said: Senator Isakson, I have one question for you. What is the hardest decision you are going to have to make in the U.S. Senate? What is the most important decision you are going to have to make in the U.S. Senate?

That was about a month ago today.

The first answer I gave her was confirming Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It came to my mind instinctively because we all knew the nomination of Judge Roberts had been made and we would make that decision. All of us in here also know that the Constitution specifically says it is our advice and our consent which makes that determination.

We also know that the third leg of the stool which is the great genius of the United States of America is the judicial branch, which is equal and separate from the courts and the executive. But it is also in these confirmations where the executive, the legislative, and the judicial come together. There is no more important decision made by a Member of the Senate than who the next Justice or Chief Justice of the United States will be.

I close my remarks by telling you this: John G. Roberts has made the toughest decision I will have to make an easy one. He is a class act. He is an intellect. He is an honorable man. He is a man who, when the cases of justice in America are decided before our Supreme Court, will call it as he sees it, listen to both sides, rule on the law, and understand the Constitution. You can ask no more of a man than John Roberts has demonstrated time and again. That is precisely what he will deliver.

Thursday at 11:30 I will be honored to cast my vote on behalf of the people of Georgia to confirm John G. Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States in the history of our country.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/