Executive Session

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - January 26, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Samuel Alito. President Bush has made a very excellent choice in picking Alito. He has the intellect, judicial temperament, and integrity to be an excellent Justice.

He seems to have a very clear understanding of the proper role of the judiciary in our government. That came out very clearly in the hearings.

He commands the respect of his colleagues on the Third Circuit, as their testimony before our committee demonstrated.

He also has the respect of the lawyers who practice before him and the employees who have worked with him. That was demonstrated in testimony before our committee as well.

But we can't always accurately predict how an individual ultimately will make decisions once he or she gets on the bench. But we do have a constitutional process in place, and we have to use our judgment within that process and trust the confirmation process.

I would say the 225-year history of our country succeeding as it has is an affirmation that the process has worked well.

We have confirmed many outstanding individuals to the Supreme Court, and the process has worked well thus far and will continue to work well with Judge Alito.

Judge Alito was very impressive in the hearings. He did an excellent job under a great deal of fire. He was thorough, he was candid, and he was forthright with all 18 of us on the committee, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the law and a deep understanding of the law and our Constitution.

Contrary to the claims of some of my colleagues from whom we have been hearing this morning and yesterday, Judge Alito's testimony was very substantive, and he was responsive.

Let me quantify that. Judge Alito answered more than 650 questions during nearly 18 hours of testimony. Compared to the performances of Justice Ginsburg who answered 307 questions at her hearing, and Justice Breyer, who answered 291 questions, one can hardly swallow what we hear on the other side--that Judge Alito was not forthcoming with the Committee.

I easily conclude, as I think the public concludes, that he has been one of the most forthcoming nominees to come before the Judiciary committee.

The Constitution provides the President with the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices. And it provides the Senate with advise and consent duties, presumably ending up in an up-or-down vote.

In Federalist No. 66, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice he may have made.

That is Alexander Hamilton commenting on the role of the President and the Senate in the judicial confirmation process. I have been on the Judiciary Committee for more than 25 years. I take this constitutional responsibility very seriously. Our work in committee allows us to evaluate whether a nominee has the requisite judicial temperament, intellect, and integrity. We also evaluate throughout that process whether the nominee understands the proper role of a Justice in our democratic system of government; mainly, but not limited to, respect for the rule of law and respect for the Constitution, all over any personal agenda the nominee might have. A Justice, to do justice, cannot have a personal agenda.

Specifically, a Supreme Court nominee should clearly understand that the role of a judge under the Constitution is a limited role, to say what the law is, rather than make the law.

I quote Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78:

The courts must declare the sense of the law, and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.

In fact, most Americans want judges who will confine their job to interpreting the law and the Constitution, rather than making policy and societal choices from the bench. But what we have seen lately is a trend where the courts have expanded the role of the judiciary far beyond what was originally intended in the Constitution and by the Framers. The courts have taken on a role that is much more akin to what we do in Congress, the legislative branch, making law, which is to make policy choices and to craft laws based on those choices.

As a consequence of this power grab by the courts, the judicial confirmation process also, unfortunately, has become extremely politicized. That is because when judges improperly assume the role of deciding essentially political questions rather than legal questions, the judicial confirmation process also devolves into one focused less on whether a nominee can impartially and appropriately implement the law. Instead, the process devolves into one focused on whether a nominee will implement a desired political outcome from the bench, regardless of what the law says, regardless of what the Constitution requires.

But Judge Alito understands the proper role of a judge. Judge Alito understands the judicial branch plays a limited role in our system of government--but not surprisingly so because that is what the Constitution intended. Judge Alito testified:

The judiciary has to protect rights, and it should be vigorous in doing that, and it should be vigorous in enforcing the law and interpreting the law . . . in accordance with what it really means and enforcing the laws even if that's unpopular.

He continues:

But although the judiciary has a very important role to play, it is a limited role. . . . It should always be asking itself whether it is straying over the bounds, where it is invading the authority of the legislature, for example, and whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law. And that has to be a constant process of re-examination on the part of the judges.

Judge Alito's record is clear that he will not make law, but rather he will strictly interpret the law we write. His record is clear that he will do his very best to remain faithful to the actual meaning of the Constitution, rather than mold it into what he would like that Constitution to say.

Judge Alito said, along that line:

Judges do not have the authority to change the Constitution. The whole theory of judicial review we have, I think, is contrary to that notion. The Constitution is an enduring document and the Constitution does not change. It does contain some important general principles that have to be applied to new factual situations that come up. But in doing that, the judiciary has to be very careful not to inject its own views into the matter. It has to apply the principles that are in the Constitution to the situations that come before the judiciary.

Judge Alito possesses a knowledge of and respect for the Constitution that is necessary for all Supreme Court Justices. Judge Alito, in his testimony, demonstrates an understanding of the proper role of a Justice. He understands and respects the separate functions of the judicial branch as opposed to the functions of the legislative branch and the executive branch, the political branches of government.

Judge Alito explained that a judge's role is not one of an advocate. He testified:

The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desired result for the client in a particular case at hand, but a judge cannot think that way. A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in a particular case. And a judge certainly does not have a client. The judge's only obligation, and it's a solemn obligation, is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.

For all of his opponents, when we hear things such as that and they fit in with what the Constitution's writers intended for the judiciary to do, how can we find fault with Judge Alito's approach? Why would we fear him at all?

Judge Alito also believes in justice for all, as

afforded by the laws and the Constitution of our great nation. He told the 18 members of the Judiciary Commitee:

No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.

He said:

Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all circumstances.

Another very important position Judge Alito takes:

Results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policy makers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preference that we have.

Contrary to the claims of his opponents, Judge Alito understands the Judiciary has an important role in our system of checks and balances. He understands the importance of the independence of the judicial branch. Judge Alito will not shirk from that responsibility and he will see that the Judiciary is an effective check on abuses of power, both by the executive and the legislative branches of government. In fact, as Judge Aldisert, who served with Judge Alito on the Third Circuit testified:

Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.

Let me quote former Judge Gibbons, who also served with Judge Alito and who now is litigating with the Bush administration over the treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo. He believes Judge Alito will not shy away from checking Government abuses. He does not believe Judge Alito will rubberstamp any administration's policies if they run counter to the law and the Constitution. And he certainly did not have any concern about Judge Alito's judicial independence.

Judge Gibbons testified:

It seems not unlikely that one or more of the detainee cases that we are handling will be before the Supreme Court again. I do not know the views of Judge Alito respecting the issues that may be presented in those cases. . . . I'm confident, however, that as an able legal scholar and a fairminded justice, he will give arguments, legal and factual, that may be presented on behalf of our clients careful and thoughtful consideration, without any predisposition in favor of the position of the executive branch.

I agree. I believe Judge Alito will be that independent judge who will apply the law and the Constitution, not just to Congress, but to every branch of government, and every person, because Judge Alito knows no one, including the President, is above the law.

Not only is Judge Alito an intelligent and experienced jurist, he is also an openminded and fair judge. I am telling everyone that, but anyone that saw the hearing knows that, from the 18 hours he testified before the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. He is an openminded and fair judge. He told the committee:

Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One . . . is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered. Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read or the next argument that is made by an attorney who is appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague when the judges privately discuss the case.

How much more appropriate is that approach to the law than just yesterday the Supreme Court decided to hear an execution case of a person in Florida when they got the decision made and the word down as they were strapping him in to inject the lethal chemical into him: Wait, don't make a decision until all the facts are in. So that person did not die last night.

In fact, Judge Alito acknowledged he has changed his opinion in the middle of the judicial process because he is waiting for all the facts, those motions, those debates, to be done before he finally concludes. He testified:

There have been numerous cases in which I've . . . been given the job of writing an opinion . . . and in the process of writing the opinion, I see that the position that I had previously was wrong. I changed my mind. And then I will write to the other members of the panel and I will say, I have thought this through and this is what I discovered and now I think we should do the opposite of what we agreed, and sometimes they'll agree with me and sometimes they won't.

Now, what do you hear from the people opposed to Judge Alito? His critics have tried to paint him out to be an extremist. An activist judge with some agenda hostile to individual rights and to what his critics have called the ``average American.''

We were presented with analyses on how outside the mainstream Judge Alito's opinions were. But that is not what we heard from the American Bar Association. This group of men and women unanimously voted to award Judge Alito its highest possible rating: ``well qualified.'' We have heard from the Democrats that this ABA rating is the ``gold standard'' about how to make any judgment about who is qualified to serve on the judiciary.

But that is also not what we heard from the panel of four sitting and two former Third Circuit judges who have worked with Judge Alito for more than 15 years. They did not think Judge Alito was out of the mainstream, as certain people on the floor are trying to claim, or an extremist, as you have heard often argued by the other side. We heard quite to the contrary.

I have to say the committee received absolutely extraordinary testimony from these appellate judges, which included nominees from--just think, these different Presidents nominated these people who testified before us, who said Judge Alito will make a great Justice--President Lyndon Johnson, President Richard Nixon, President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton, these Presidents appointed the people who came to us and said Samuel Alito will make a good Justice.

There is disagreement on the floor of the Senate as to whether he will be a good Justice. These are individuals we have heard from who have had the opportunity to witness the interworkings of Samuel Alito as a judge during their private conferences, on a daily basis, behind closed doors, when all the hair is let down. They saw his deliberative process. They know the ``real deal'' Sam Alito. And these witnesses--all respected and accomplished judges in their own right--each of them only had glowing comments about Judge Alito. Their support was unqualified.

As Judge Aldisert told the committee:

We who have heard his probing questions during oral argument, we who have been privy to his wise and insightful comments in our private decisional conferences, we who have observed at first hand his impartial approach to decision-making and his thoughtful judicial temperament and know his carefully crafted opinions, we who are his colleagues are convinced that he will also be a great justice.

Let's go to Judge Becker:

The Sam Alito that I have sat with for 15 years is not an ideologue. He's not a movement person. He's a real judge deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal views, whatever they may be. He scrupulously adheres to precedent.

Judge Becker said:

I have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or litigants. .....His credo has always been fairness.

Chief Judge Scirica said:

Despite his extraordinary talents and accomplishments, Judge Alito is modest and unassuming. His thoughtful and inquiring mind, so evident in his opinions, is equally evident in his personal relationships. He is concerned and interested in the lives of those around him. He has an impeccable work ethic, but he takes the time to be a thoughtful friend to his colleagues. He treats everyone on our court, and everyone on our court staff, with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. He is committed to his country and his profession. But he is equally committed to his family, his friends, and his community. He is an admirable judge and an admirable person.

Judge Barry said:

Samuel Alito set a standard of excellence that was contagious--his commitment to doing the right thing, never playing fast and loose with the record, never taking a shortcut, his emphasis on first-rate work, his fundamental decency.

So contrary to what his misguided critics have alleged, Judge Alito is fair and open-minded, and will approach cases without any bias and without a personal agenda.

Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record--as you have heard for the last 2 days and as you heard 2 weeks ago in the hearing--has been wildly distorted. Contrary to these critics' claims, Judge Alito has ruled for plaintiffs as well as defendants in civil rights, ADA, and employment discrimination cases. I think a statistical analysis of how many times a certain kind of plaintiff wins or loses is not the best way to judge a judge's record. It is wrong to think there should be a scorecard on how often plaintiffs or defendants should win, like some basketball game. Who should win depends upon the facts presented in the case and what the law says, just as it should be in a country based on the rule of law.

What is important to Judge Alito is that he rules on the specific facts in the case and the issue before his court, in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Judge Alito does not have a predisposed outcome in a case. He does not bow to special interests, but sticks to the law regardless of whether the results are popular or not.

Similar to Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Alito rules for the ``big guy'' when the law and the Constitution say the ``big guy'' should win. He rules for the ``little guy'' when the law and the Constitution say the ``little guy'' should win. That is precisely what good judging is all about, and that is precisely the kind of Justices who ought to be on the Supreme Court and, for most of the time in our history, have been on the Supreme Court--I think it will be 110 of them when Alito gets there.

The claims that Judge Alito is somehow hostile to civil rights, minorities, women, and the disabled are really off the mark, and those arguments are intellectually dishonest. It is easy to cherry-pick cases and claim that a judge is out of the mainstream. His fellow colleagues on the Third Circuit, though, give you a completely different picture of Judge Alito than what you have seen painted here in the last 2 days. Fellow colleagues on the Third Circuit testified about Judge Alito's fairness and impartiality with respect to all plaintiffs.

For example, Judge Garth testified:

I can tell you with confidence that at no time during the 15 years that Judge Alito has served with me and with our colleagues on the court and the countless number of times that we have sat together in private conference after hearing oral argument, has he ever expressed anything that could be described as an agenda. Nor has he ever expressed any personal predilections about a case or an issue or a principle that would affect his decisions.

Judge Higgenbotham, Jr., a liberal judge, said:

Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda.

Kate Pringle, a former Alito law clerk and Democrat who has known the judge since 1994, testified that:

[Judge Alito] was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense. His opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant.

I found Judge Lewis's testimony to be particularly compelling. Judge Lewis described himself to the committee this way. These are his words: ``openly and unapologetically pro-choice'' and ``a committed human rights and civil rights activist.'' That is how he described himself, Judge Lewis.

He testified about Judge Alito:

[I]t is in conference, after we have heard oral argument and are not propped up by law clerks--we are alone as judges, discussing the cases--that one really gets to know, gets a sense of the thinking of our colleagues.

Judge Lewis continued:

And I cannot recall one instance during conference or during any other experience that I had with Judge Alito, but in particular during conference, when he exhibited anything remotely resembling an ideological bent.

Judge Lewis further said:

If I believed that Sam Alito might be hostile to civil rights as a member of the United States Supreme Court, I guarantee you that I would not be sitting here today. ..... My sense of civil rights matters and how courts should approach them jurisprudentially might be a little different. ..... But I cannot argue with a more restrained approach. As long as my argument is going to be heard and respected, I know that I have a chance. And I believe that Sam Alito will be the type of justice who will listen with an open mind and will not have any agenda-driven or result-oriented approach.

Judge Lewis concluded:

I am here as a matter of principle and as a matter of my own commitment to justice, to fairness, and my sense that Sam Alito is uniformly qualified in all important respects to serve as a justice on the United States Supreme Court.

So who do you believe has accurately depicted Judge Alito's qualifications and record? The speeches of opponents today and yesterday? Or the people who have worked with the judge, day in and day out for years, who know him personally, and who have seen him up close and in the trenches? I will pick those people who have worked with Judge Alito for 15 years, particularly because they come from different political backgrounds and different approaches to the law and the Constitution, as opposed to the partisan, liberal outside interest groups that have probably never even met Judge Alito. I, then, know whom I believe.

Not only that. If one wipes away the distorted and deceptive characterizations, as well as the false insinuations and calculated smears, Judge Alito's record plainly shows that he is a dedicated public servant who practices what he preaches: integrity, modesty, judicial restraint, devotion to the law, and devotion to the Constitution.

Let me briefly address this issue which has been brought up that somehow Judge Alito's appointment is going to upset the balance of the Court. As I said before, history will take care of the proper ``balance'' on the Court. But some of my colleagues--or maybe speaking for their outside liberal interest groups--have taken the position that Judge Alito has to share Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy and voting record in order to take her seat on the Court. They argue that Judge Alito should not be confirmed, regardless of whether he is qualified or not, because he does not appear to be Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy ``soul-mate'', and he would change the ideological balance of the Court.

Well, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court does not have seats that are reserved for a conservative or a liberal or a moderate or a Catholic or a Jew or a Protestant, one philosophy or another philosophy--no! The Senate has never taken the position, moreover, that like-minded individuals should replace like-minded Justices leaving the Court. And until just recently, I never heard the argument from the other side of the aisle. That kind of reasoning is completely antithetical to the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government.

The reality is that the Senate has historically confirmed individuals to the Supreme Court who are determined to be well qualified to interpret and apply the law. It has not been the Senate's tradition to confirm individuals to promote special interests or represent certain causes. That is not what the Constitution says for the Senate to do. In fact, the Court's composition has changed with the elected branches over the years. Almost half of the Supreme Court Justices have been replaced by individuals appointed by a President of a different political party.

The truth is that the Senate has not ever understood its role as maintaining any perceived ideological balance on the Court. In fact, the Senate outright rejected that kind of thinking when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before us. She was a known liberal, a former general counsel for the ACLU, and she was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate by a vote of 96 to 3. She replaced whom? A conservative justice, Justice Byron White. Yet there were not any arguments from the other side of the aisle or from this side of the aisle that she would upset the balance of the Court. And she did--change the balance of the Court, radically swinging it to the left.

I certainly did not agree with Justice Ginsburg's liberal judicial philosophy, but I voted for her. The fact is that the Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg because President Clinton won the election. He made a promise in that election who he was going to appoint to the Supreme Court. He had a right to nominate who he wanted based upon the results of that election--the same thing for George Bush in the 2000 election and the 2004 election. Moreover, and more importantly, though, Justice Ginsburg had the requisite qualifications to serve on the Court, and she was not a political hack. So she was confirmed.

This was the same for Justice Breyer. I knew that Breyer was a liberal and that I probably would not agree with his judicial philosophy, but he was qualified. So I voted for him. The Senate confirmed Justice Breyer by a vote of 87 to 9. The President had made his choice. The Senate found him to be qualified, and we confirmed him. Republicans certainly did not put up any roadblocks to the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. I would say that Judge Alito is no more out of the mainstream than Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.

The Democrats and liberal outside interest groups are intent on changing the rules of the game because they did not win at the ballot box in 2000 and 2004, or maybe over the last 10 years. The way the Democrats want to operate now is not the way we have operated in the past. But the truth is, by politicizing and degrading the nominations process, and the nominees themselves, we will end up driving away our best and brightest minds from volunteering for public service. It is disappointing to me to see a decent man and his family have to endure hurtful allegations and insinuations which are just plain false and, moreover, mean-spirited.

It is disappointing to me that so many of my colleagues are going down this path, creating a standard that can only harm the independence of the judiciary, and severely distort our system of government.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to quote from a letter I received from an Iowa constituent. I will only quote it in part, but I will include it for the RECORD. Her name is Joan Watson-Nelson, and she wrote about her very personal impressions of Judge Alito when they attended high school together in the late 1960s in New Jersey. I don't know exactly how she got to Iowa. But she is there and she wanted me to know how she remembered Sam Alito.

She wrote:

I remembered [Samuel Alito] because he stood out in his class and in the school. He was one of the leaders of the school. ..... I remembered him being very bright, well prepared, and brilliant. He appeared to be an individual with vision. . ..... He stood out as a young man with a great deal of integrity. Many of his teachers from high school are gone now. But I know if they were here and could write letters on his behalf, they would have many stories to tell about the kind of student he was both inside and outside the classroom.

The letter continues:

I am not a very political person. I have some issues that I believe in deeply and others that I do not have a deep commitment about. I am sure that Sam and I do not agree on all the issues that will be placed before him. The abortion issue is likely to be one of those, as I understand from the media that he may be against abortion. However, I do strongly believe that he will listen to the arguments placed before him, research the law, and decide honorably.

She concludes her letter this way:

It has been nearly 40 years since he graduated from high school.

I think the implication is she hasn't even talked to him in the last 40 years. She says:

And although I have a good memory for details, the specific details of my involvement with Sam are not as clear as I would like to have them be in my endorsement for him. What is left, however, is the internalized memory of Sam. That memory tells me that he will make an excellent Supreme Court justice. I hope that with your hearings on his appointment, you and the others will be able to make that clear to any who may wish to try to discredit him for political reasons. What I learned about the Supreme Court branch of government--

Talking about when she was in school--is that this part of the ``checks'' in our system is to be devoid of politics. I believe that Sam has what it takes to fulfill that role.

I think this is a very nice testimonial about the man we are going to vote on and hopefully confirm to become the next member of the Supreme Court. I appreciate Ms. Watson-Nelson's letter letting us know about her personal experience with Sam Alito. She hit the nail on the head. The Supreme Court needs to get out of the business of politics, and we need to stop discrediting good nominees for political reasons. She, like most Americans, knows what is going on.

So, it is clear to me, the people who know Judge Alito personally believe, without any reservation, that he is a judge who follows the law and the Constitution without preset outcomes in mind. They believe he is a man of great intellect and insight. They believe he is a fair and open-minded judge committed to doing what is right, rather than committed to implementing a political agenda or a personal agenda. They believe he is a man of integrity, modesty, and restraint.

I am pleased to support Judge Alito's nomination. Judge Alito will be a great Justice, not a politician on the bench. He won't impose his personal views or be a judicial activist, but will make decisions as they should be decided--in an impartial manner, with the appropriate restraint, in accordance with the laws and the Constitution. Judge Alito will carry out the responsibilities of a Justice in a principled, fair, and effective manner. I am proud to cast my vote in support of this decent and honorable man.

I wish this story would end with qualifications, integrity, and judicial restraint, because only those considerations should matter. But it looks as though the most partisan and political among us won't let that happen. There may be some who will vote against Judge Alito's confirmation, not because of qualifications or integrity, and not even because they want somebody to legislate from the bench or treat the Constitution as a blank slate that judges can freely draw upon.

No, it appears some Senators will vote against this nominee because they think doing so is a good political issue. Instead of applying the same standard we Republicans applied when the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Justice Ginsburg, the most liberal Justice on the Court, these partisans will change the rules in the middle of the game once again. They will vote against Judge Alito with an eye toward the next election and the demands of their most extreme and activist supporters.

The Washington Post had it right when it editorialized on January 15:

A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election.

I would go a step further than that editorial. A Supreme Court nomination is not a forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important constitutional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the Nation's highest court.

I hope my colleagues will cast their vote based on Judge Alito's outstanding qualifications, rather than on the distorted claims of liberal outside-interest groups. I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan politics and support this worthy nominee, Samuel Alito. Samuel Alito deserves our overwhelming vote of approval, and it would be a great shame if he doesn't get it.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the letter from which I quoted.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEAR SENATOR GRASSLEY: I spoke with you briefly at the Iowa Farm Bureau annual meeting on November 30th regarding Sam Alito. You requested that I follow up our discussion with a letter about how I felt about him.

He graduated from Steinert High School (AKA Hamilton High School-East) in 1968 and I graduated from Steinert in 1969. I remember well that he was one of 4 Valedictorians that year, a first for the school. There were 2 men and 2 women. I knew one of the women well and I remembered him because he stood out in his class and in the school. He was one of the leaders of the school. He was student council president at Steinert his senior year, and I think he was also student council president at Reynolds Jr. High as well. I had worked with him on the school newspaper staff my Junior year, the year he was the editor of the paper.

I remember him as being very bright, well prepared, and brilliant. He appeared to be an individual with vision. His high school ``crowd'' of kids were the leaders of the school and his class. I knew some of his crowd well during my high school years. He stood out as a young man with a great deal of integrity.

Many of his teachers from high school are gone now. But I know if they were here and could write letters on his behalf, they would have many stories to tell about the kind of student he was both inside and outside the classroom. The teachers at Steinert at the time Sam and I were in high school were a family and they viewed the student body as part of that family. His first principal at Steinert was my father, Richard F. Watson. When we discussed that Sam was up for the Supreme Justice opening, he remembered him and hoped that he would be approved.

I am not a very political person. I have some issues that I believe in deeply and others that I do not have a deep commitment about. I am sure that Sam and I do not agree on all of the issues that will be placed before him. The abortion issue is likely to be one of those, as I understand from the media that he may be against abortion. However, I do strongly believe that he will listen to the arguments placed before him, research the law, and decide honorably.

The best summary of the type of person that I believe Sam to be is that I believe that he has many of the same qualities that I have observed in you, Senator, over the years that you have been our State senator. Those qualities and values are the reason that I continue to vote for you and support you. I think that this is the best endorsement that I can give to Sam. It has been nearly 40 years since he graduated from high school. And although I have a good memory for details, the specific details of my involvement with Sam are not as clear as I would like them to be in my endorsement for him. What is left, however, is the internalized memory of Sam. That memory tells me that he will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice.

I hope that with your hearings on his appointment, you and the others will be able to make that clear to any who may wish to try to discredit him for political reasons. What I learned about the Supreme Court branch of our government is that this part of the ``checks'' in our system that is to be devoid of politics. I believe that Sam has what it takes to fulfill that role.

Sincerely,

Joan Watson-Nelson.

http://thomas.loc.gov/