Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court

NOMINATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT -- (Senate - January 31, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important duties the Senate performs under the Constitution. We should consider the nomination of Judge Alito carefully and conduct our debate on this nominee with dignity and respect.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether the laws of our land conform to the Constitution. Once confirmed to the Court, Justices serve for life, beholden only to the Constitution and the rule of law. It is an awesome responsibility; and for such an important event, we must have a confirmation process fitting of that responsibility. Too often in recent years, we have not.

Though the judicial branch of our government is supposed to be independent of politics, the nomination and confirmation process has become far too political to the point that it no longer serves the Nation's interests, regardless of partisan or philosophical differences.

Judge Alito, whom I have met and found to be an honorable, intelligent man, was placed in the unfortunate position of having been selected as a result of this process. As my colleagues know, he was not the President's first choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. John Roberts was. After his nomination was switched to become Chief Justice, Harriet Miers became the President's second choice. After she was attacked by members of the President's own party, her nomination was withdrawn. Again, politics prevailed.

Judge Alito's nomination was the President's third choice for this seat and, in many ways, a gesture to the organized interest groups of the President's party who had derailed Ms. Miers' nomination. Unfortunately, it was a nomination of, by, and for politics.

This highly charged political process spilled over into the confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee. To secure confirmation, Judge Alito said as little as possible. The strategy was clear: hide, don't explain or embrace, your judicial philosophy.

The Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process has become a game of hide-the-ball. It is a process that does not help to inform Senate deliberations, and it sadly leaves the American people uninformed about who will be sitting on this highest of American courts until it may be too late.

The chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee are not to blame for what has happened to the confirmation process. I also thank Judge Alito for his willingness to appear before the committee for as long as he did. But the entire process is clearly not what the Framers of our Constitution intended. No one in America should be afraid to speak his or her mind openly and honestly. The American people are poorly served by a process that places tactical politics above guiding principle.

If confirmed, Judge Alito will replace one of the most important justices on the Court today, Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor is a conservative, appointed by a conservative President. Over time, she became a consensus builder on the Court who took great pains to strike a careful balance in her opinions, never forgetting that the Court's decisions have real consequences for real people. She was open-minded and independent. Her influence on the Court was tremendous and her reasoning always carried great weight. She did not prejudge cases and applied the law to the facts in a fair manner.

Justice O'Connor, who was appointed by President Reagan, was a swing vote on a number of important decisions. Whether you or I agree with her individual opinions or not, I think she acted responsibly: someone committed to equal justice under the law, who applied the law to the facts as presented to her and did not ``overreach'' from the bench. She showed proper respect for the legislative branch and was careful not to cater to Executive authority.

While Samuel Alito has solid qualifications to become a Supreme Court Justice, it is our duty to look deeper. Though we can never know how a Justice will decide a case before it is presented and argued, it is important to know, during the confirmation process, which principles of judicial philosophy will underlie a potential Justice's future constitutional interpretations. We can give advice and consent to a Supreme Court nomination without this information or these insights, as this Senate is about to do. But without this information and these insights, we cannot give informed advice or informed consent.

It was never intended that the Senate be a rubberstamp, approving everyone the President nominated simply because he sent them to us. The Framers expected Senators to bring wisdom and understanding to the task, not to simply check off boxes on an application form.

Judge Alito's record gives me cause for concern. And his testimony during the confirmation hearings unfortunately did very little to lessen that concern. His opinions and dissents on the bench leave open very serious questions as to how he views fundamental civil rights for all Americans and how he views protecting the individual rights of average citizens, especially when they are threatened by powerful forces, including the government itself. Judge Alito's nonanswers to so many questions presented to him at the confirmation hearing added to those troubling concerns.

I have voted for conservative judges nominated by Republican Presidents many times. John Roberts was the most recent. But I must oppose this nomination. I want my vote against confirmation to send a signal to all who care that the Supreme Court nomination process has become far too political and far too removed from the original purposes set forth by the Framers of the Constitution.

It is time for all of us, Republicans and Democrats of every possible philosophical persuasion, to stand up against a process that so poorly serves the people of the States we represent in this great body.

http://thomas.loc.gov/