Executive Session
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - January 25, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter for his excellent leadership of the Judiciary Committee during both the Roberts and Alito hearings. He squarely addressed the tough issues in the first questioning. He made sure every member of the committee had full and ample opportunity to ask any question they wanted. We had 30-minute rounds. We had opening statements. We had the opportunity to have multiple rounds. Basically, I think the people could have asked questioned theses nominees for as long as they wanted.
Of course, both Roberts and Alito were magnificent in their testimony, superb in their knowledge of the Constitution and the role of a judge in every possible way. That is why they have been favorably received by the American public which is why Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed, and why Alito will be confirmed.
We have the greatest legal system in the world. It is the foundation of our liberties. It is the foundation of our economic prosperity. But the focus and the key ingredient of our legal system is an independent judge who makes decisions every day based on the law and the facts, not on their personal, political, religious, moral or social views. If we descend to that level, if we allow those social, political views to affect or infect the decision-making process, justice has been eroded. That is contrary to every ideal of the American rule of law.
What is important today is Judge Alito's legal philosophy. It is not his political philosophy that is important. What is his legal philosophy? The core of his beliefs as a judge is that a judge should be careful, fair, restrained, and honest in analyzing the facts of the case and applying the relevant law to those facts. For what purpose? To decide that dispute, that discrete issue that is before the Court at that time and not to indulge, as he indicated, in great theories. That is not what a judge is about.
So this is what American judges must do for our entire legal system to work. That is why I am so proud that President Bush has given us two nominees who can explain, articulate that role of a judge in a way every American can understand, relate to, and affirm.
My colleagues, I am afraid, lack a proper understanding of this concept. It goes to the core of our differences over judges. They want judges, I am afraid, who will impose their own views, their personal views, on political issues in the guise of deciding discrete cases before them. Oftentimes, these are views that cannot be passed in the political, legislative process but can only be imposed by a judge who simply redefines or reinterprets the meaning of words in our Constitution, and they declare that the Constitution says that same-sex marriage must be the law of the land. They just declare that to be so. It only takes five unelected, life-time appointed judges to set that kind of new standard for America.
Is there any wonder people are worried about that? It erodes democracy at its most fundamental level when political decisions are being set by judges with lifetime appointments, unaccountable to the public.
So that is what we are worried about in so many different ways. There has been a trend in that regard, no doubt about it, by our courts. I think they have abused their authority by taking an extremely hostile view toward the expression of religious conviction in public life.
They have struck down Christmas displays. Our courts have declared our Pledge of Allegiance to the Government unconstitutional because it has ``under God'' in it. By the way, for those of you who can see the words over this door, ``In God We Trust,'' it is part of our heritage, written right on the wall of this Chamber.
This is an extreme interpretation of the separation of church and state. It is not consistent with our classical understanding of law in America. We had the Supreme Court, in this past year, redefining the takings clause. The takings clause says you can take private property for public use.
It does not say you can take it for any purpose, like a private mall. They redefined the meaning because they thought that was smarter, better policy. But we don't appoint judges to set policy. As legislators, we have that responsibility. We are the people who will be voted out of office if we set bad policy. We are the ones meeting people every day and campaigning, trying to understand what the American people care about. That is not what judges do, at 80 years old, sitting over there reading briefs every day.
This is an important issue. They declared that illegal aliens, despite State laws to the contrary, are entitled to benefits. They struck down every partial-birth abortion law. They have declared that morality--this is hard to believe but true in recent years--cannot be a basis for congressional legislation. Yet they contend that they may decide opinions and redefine the meaning of words and the understanding of words over hundreds of years based on what they declare to be evolving standards of decency.
Is that a standard or is that just a license for a judge to do whatever they feel like doing at a given time? Evolving standards of decency, who can define that? Do they have hearings on what these standards are?
These are important issues. The American people are concerned about it. President Bush was concerned about it. He promised he would appoint judges who show restraint, judges of great ability and integrity but who would show restraint and be more modest in the way they handle these cases. That is a fair standard. It is a legitimate issue for the American people to decide. He talked about it in almost every speech he made. That is what he promised to do, and that is what he has done.
If we were to name judges, there is a legitimate concern that we would appoint judges who would promote some conservative agenda. I don't favor that; I oppose that. We don't want a judge to promote a liberal or a conservative agenda, although the plain fact is, if anybody looks at it squarely, they will see that the Court has actually been promoting a more liberal agenda. But we are not asking that a conservative agenda be promoted. We are asking that the courts maintain their role as a neutral umpire to decide cases based on the law passed by the legislative branch or State legislatures or passed by the people through the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't understand the opposition to Judge Alito. He is such a fabulous nominee. It does appear, according to the New York Times last week, the 19th of January, that our Democratic leader, Senator HARRY REID, has urged his colleagues to vote no so they can, for political reasons, make it a political issue. We need to be careful about that. I am afraid there has been an attempt to change the ground rules of confirmations, to set standards we have never set before for nominees. That knife cuts both ways. If this is affirmed, then there will be more difficulty in the future for Democratic Presidents to have their nominees confirmed.
Judge Alito has a remarkable record. He is the son of immigrants in New Jersey. His father was an immigrant to this country. He goes off to Princeton, gets his degree with honors, declines to accept an invitation to join an eating club that excludes women and others. I guess that was beneath the members of that club. He decided while he was there that he would just dine with everybody else, the scruff and the scrum that you find at Princeton. Then he went to Yale Law School where he finished at the top of his class, served as editor of the Yale Law Journal, participated in the ROTC at a time when that was not an easy thing to do, served in the Army Reserve for 8 years, and was offended that Princeton would kick the ROTC from their campus. I am sure he was not pleased when the rioters bombed the ROTC building at Princeton.
He is an American. He believes in his country. He was prepared to serve his country, go where he was asked to go, if called upon in that fashion.
He was chosen to clerk for the Third Circuit after he graduated, the court on which he now sits with Judge Garth. That is quite an honor. For 3 years he served as assistant U.S. attorney in that great large New Jersey law office for the U.S. attorney where he argued appellate cases. He did the appellate work. That is what he will be as a Supreme Court judge, an appellate judge, not a trial judge. That is what he did when he started out his practice. Then he went to the Solicitor General's Office of the Department of Justice, which is often referred to as the greatest job for an attorney in the world, to be able to stand up in the courts of the United States of America, particularly the Supreme Court, and to represent the United States in that court. He argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. Not one-half of 1 percent of the lawyers in America have probably argued any case before the Supreme Court. He argued 12. That is a reflection of his strength and capability.
Then he became U.S. attorney in New Jersey, which is one of the largest U.S. attorney offices in America, where he prosecuted the Mafia and drug organizations and was highly successful in that office and won great plaudits for his performance. He then was placed, 15 years ago, on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has served as a circuit judge in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, writing some 350 opinions and participating in many others.
He has had his record exposed to the world. What does it look like? Without question, it is a record of fairness and decency. Some of us on the conservative side have questioned the bar association. They are pro-abortion in their positions. They take liberal positions on a lot of issues, and some people have criticized them for that. They declare their ratings of judges are not based on that. But sometimes they have been accused of allowing their personal views to infect that rating process.
How did the American Bar Association rate Judge Alito? They gave him their highest possible rating. They found that he was well qualified, unanimously, by the 15-member committee that meets to decide that issue. They interviewed 300 people, people who have litigated against Judge Alito as a private lawyer, people who have been his supervisors, people who have worked for him, people who had their cases decided by him.
They go out and talk to these people. They will share with the American Bar Association privately what they might not say publicly. So they interviewed 300 people, and contacted over 2,000. They concluded that Judge Alito has established a record of both proper judicial conduct and evenhanded application in seeking to do what is fundamentally fair.
They declare that Judge Alito was held ``in incredibly high regard.'' That was said by attorney John Payton, an African American who argued the University of Michigan quota case before the U.S. Supreme Court, not a rightwinger. He said they found the people they interviewed held Judge Alito in incredibly high regard. I asked him if he chose that word carefully. He said: I did; yes, sir.
Judge Alito represents that neutral magistrate that we look for in our judges in America. His academic record is superb. His proven intelligence is unsurpassed. The experience he brings to the U.S. Supreme Court is extraordinary, including 15 years as an appellate judge doing in a lower court basically the same thing one would do at the Supreme Court level.
This is what he said at the hearing: I had the good fortune to begin my legal career as a law clerk for a judge who really epitomized openmindedness and fairness. He read the record in detail in every single case. He insisted on following precedent, both the precedents of the Supreme Court and the decisions of his own court. He taught all of his law clerks that every case had to be decided on an individual basis. He really didn't have much use for grand theories.
That is what we need on the bench today. I think it would restore the public confidence. I am proud to support this nomination.
Mr. President, I respect Senator Leahy. He is an excellent advocate for the Democratic side. I was pleased he supported Judge Roberts, and I am not as thrilled he is not supporting Judge Alito. It was a process that was a bit rough at times, but fundamentally I think the judge was able to have his day in court.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/