Executive Session
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - September 29, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I announced on this floor last week, I intend to vote against the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. In my meetings with John Roberts, I found him to be a very nice person. I like him. I respect his legal skills. I respect much of the work he has done in his career. For example, his advocacy on the environmental side of the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago was remarkably good.
He decided the law did not look too good to him, so he figured the way to win the case was to argue to the Court the facts, and he did that and he won the case. So I admire his legal skills, as I think everyone in this body does. But at the end of the day, I have had many unanswered questions about the nominee, and because of that, I cannot justify a vote confirming him to this lifetime position.
Each one of the 100 Senators applies his or her own standard in carrying out the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. That is a constitutional role that we have. I know that elections have consequences, and I agree that Presidents are entitled to a measure of deference in appointing judicial nominees. After all, the Senate has confirmed well over 200 of President Bush's nominees, some of whom possess a judicial philosophy with which I disagree. But deference to the President can only go so far. Our Founding Fathers gave the Senate the central role in the nominations process, and that role is especially important in placing someone on the Supreme Court.
If confirmed by the Senate, John Roberts will serve as Chief Justice of the United States and leader of the third branch of the Federal Government for decades to come. He will possess enormous legal authority. In my view, we should only vote to confirm this nominee if he has persuaded us he will protect the freedoms that all Americans hold dear. This is a close question for me, but I will resolve my doubts in favor of the American people, whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for the job.
As I have indicated, I was impressed with Judge Roberts the first time I met him. This was a day or two after he was nominated. I knew that he had been a thoughtful member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for the last 2 years. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view. Most notably, I was disturbed by memos that surfaced from John Roberts' years of service in the Reagan administration. These documents raised serious questions about the nominee's approach to the rights of women and civil rights.
In the statement that I gave last week, I gave some specific examples of the memos that concerned me. I also explained that I was prepared to look past these memos if the nominee distanced himself from these views at his Judiciary Committee hearings. He did not. I was so disappointed when he took the disingenuous stance that the views expressed in these memos were merely the views of his client, the Reagan administration. Anyone who has read the memos can see that their author was expressing his own personal views.
When I saw Senator Schumer throw him the proverbial softball in these hearings, I waited with anticipation for the answer that I knew would come. This brilliant man, John Roberts, certainly could see what Senator Schumer was attempting to do. He was attempting to have John Roberts say: Well, I was younger then. It was a poor choice of words. If I offended anyone, I am sorry. I know it was insensitive. I could have made the same point in a different manner.
But he didn't say that. For example, the softball that was thrown to him by Senator Schumer was words to the effect: In a memo you wrote that President Reagan was going to have a meeting in just a short period of time with some illegal amigos, Hispanics--that was insensitive. It was unwise. And it was wrong. And he should have acknowledged that and he did not.
That affected me. It gave me an insight into who John Roberts is.
My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened when the White House rejected a reasonable request by the committee Democrats for documents written by the nominee when he served as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. The claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents was unpersuasive. This was stonewalling, plain and simple.
In the absence of these documents, it was equally important for the nominee to answer fully questions from the committee members at his hearing. He didn't do that. Of course a judicial nominee should decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the Court to which the witness has been nominated. We all know that. But Judge Roberts refused to answer many questions certainly more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.
Finally, I was swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women's rights leaders against this confirmation. As we proceed through our public life, we have an opportunity to meet lots of people. That is one of the pluses of this wonderful job, the great honor that the people of the State of Nevada have bestowed upon me. During my public service, I have had the opportunity to serve in Congress with some people whom I consider heroes. One of those is a man by the name of JOHN LEWIS. JOHN LEWIS was part of the civil rights movement, and he has scars to show his involvement in the civil rights movement. Any time they show films of the
beatings that took place in the Southern part of the United States of people trying to change America, John Lewis is one of those people you will see on the ground being kicked and stomped on while punches are thrown. He still has those scars.
But those scars are on the outside, not the inside. This man is one of the most kind, gentle people I have ever met, someone who is very sensitive to the civil rights we all enjoy. Congressman JOHN LEWIS is an icon and, as I have said, a personal hero of mine. When JOHN LEWIS says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history and should not be confirmed, his view carries great weight with me.
So I weigh John Roberts' fine résumé and his 2 years of mainstream judicial service against the Reagan-era memos, the nominee's unsatisfactory testimony, and the administrations's failure to produce relevant documents. I have to reluctantly conclude the scales tipped against confirmation.
Some have accused Democrats of treating this nominee unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are volumes written about the uncivil atmosphere in Washington, about how things could be better in the Senate. All those people who write that, let them take a look at how this proceeding transpired in the Senate and I hope on the face of America. It was not easy to get to this point. In 20 minutes, we will have a vote on the Chief Justice of the United States. But people should understand that the Judiciary Committee conducted itself in an exemplary fashion, led by ARLEN SPECTER and PAT LEAHY. No better example in Government could be shown than to look at how they conducted the hearings and the full breadth of everything that took place with this confirmation process. It is exemplary.
People have strong feelings, not only in that committee but in the Senate, and there were many opportunities for mischief. But because of the strong leadership of two distinguished Senators--one from the tiny State of Vermont and one from the very heavily populated State of Pennsylvania--it all worked out. They trusted each other and the members of the Judiciary Committee trusted them, and after a few weeks of this process, which went on for months, by the way, every Member of the Senate saw that this was going to be a civil proceeding, and it was. It has been. I commend and applaud the dignity of these hearings.
Each Democrat considered the nomination on the merits and approached the vote as a matter of conscience. Democrats were not told how to vote, not by me, not by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not by the senior Member of the Senate, Senator Byrd. They will vote their conscience.
Democrats have not employed any procedural tactics that we might have otherwise considered. As Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have said to the President himself--I have been there when they said it--we want the next nominee not to be extreme.
The fact that some Democrats will vote no on this nomination is hardly unfair. We are simply doing our duty under the Constitution that we hold so dearly. The Constitution--that is what this is all about, this little document. We have a role, a constitutional role, of giving advice and consent to the President. The consent will come in a few minutes. The advice has been long in coming.
In the fullness of time, John Roberts may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. I hope that he is. If so, I will happily admit that I was wrong in voting against his confirmation. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.
http://thomas.loc.gov/