Madam President, I have a statement to make about the President's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different from mine, especially regarding second amendment rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character, and intellect to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2005, I said on this floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the Democratic Senators to vote against John Roberts--a superbly qualified nominee--solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts' ``overarching political philosophy'' and ``his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office'' that ``consistently sided'' with ``the strong in opposition to the weak.'' Today, it would be equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not ``on my side'' on some issues.
Courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges ``on your side'' who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases. Courts are supposed to do just the opposite: decide difficult cases with impartiality.
The oath Judge Sotomayor has taken twice and will take again when she is sworn in as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court says it best:
. . . I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich and . . . I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
During her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor expressly rejected then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions, ``the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in a judge's heart . . . and [in] the depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' In answer to a question from Senator Kyl, she said in her confirmation hearing:
I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge.
Giving broad Senate approval to obviously well-qualified nominees helps to increase the prestige of the Supreme Court and to confirm its impartiality. For that reason, until the last few years, Republican and Democratic Senators, after rigorous inquiries into the fitness of nominees, usually have given those well-qualified nominees an overwhelming vote of approval. For example, no Justice on the Supreme Court that John Roberts joined in 2005 had received more than nine negative votes. Four were confirmed unanimously. All but three Republican Senators voted for Justice Ginsburg, a former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. Every single Democratic Senator voted to confirm Justice Scalia.
In truly extraordinary cases, Senators, of course, reserve the prerogative, as I do, to vote no or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote.
During the 8 years I was Governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. In doing so, I looked for the same qualities Justice Roberts and Judge Sotomayor have demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law, and respect for those who came before the court. I did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation. I appointed the first female circuit judge in our State and the first African-American court chancellor and the first African-American State supreme court justice. I appointed both Democrats and Republicans. That process served our State well and helped to build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary.
In the same way, it is my hope that my vote now will not only help to confirm a well-qualified nominee but will help to return the Senate to the practice only recently lost of inquiring diligently into qualifications of a nominee and then accepting that elections have consequences, one of which is to confer upon the President of the United States the constitutional right to nominate Justices of the Supreme Court.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my floor remarks in support of Judge John Roberts on September
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows;Floor Remarks of U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander in Support of Judge John
My only respectful suggestion to President Bush is that he try to remember what he was thinking when he appointed John Roberts, and to do it again. For anyone who has been trained in the law, as I have, and who knows something about the profession, it has been a pleasure to watch Judge Roberts' nomination and his confirmation process. It is difficult to overstate how good Judge Roberts seems to be. He has the resume of most talented law students' dreams: editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerk to Judge Henry Friendly. I was a law clerk to Judge John Minor Wisdom in New Orleans who regarded Henry Friendly as one of the two or three best appellate judges of the last century. Judge Roberts learned from Judge Friendly. Then he was law clerk to the last Chief Justice. Add to that his work in the Solicitor General's office where only the best of the best are invited to work. Then add his success as an advocate before the Supreme Court both in private and in public practice. Then still further add his demeanor, his modesty both in philosophy and in person--something that is not always so evident in a person of superior intelligence and great accomplishment. And his kindnesses to individuals with whom he has worked. His performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated all of those qualities: restraint, good humor, intelligence, and a command of the body of law that a Supreme Court justice must consider. The televised episodes could be the basis for a law school course or any civics class. Judge Roberts brings, as he repeatedly said, no agenda to the Supreme Court. He understands that he did not write the Constitution, and it's not his job to rewrite it but to interpret it. That he does not make laws, but is obligated to apply them. He understands the federal system. For a devotee of the law, watching the John Roberts hearings was like watching Michael Jordan play basketball at the University of North Carolina in the early 1980s or Chet Atkins as a session guitarist in the 1950s in Nashville. One doesn't have to be a great student of the law to recognize there is unusual talent here. So then if Judge Roberts' professional qualifications and temperament are so universally acclaimed why do we now hear so much talk of changing the rules and voting only for those justices who we can be assured are ``on our side.'' That would be the wrong direction for our country. In the first place, history teaches us that those who try to predict how Supreme Court nominees will decide cases are almost always wrong. Felix Frankfurter surprised Franklin Roosevelt. Hugo Black surprised the South. David Souter surprised almost everybody. In the second place, courts were never intended to be set up as political bodies that could be relied upon to always tilt one way or another in controversial matters. Courts are supposed to do just the opposite: to hear the facts and impartially apply the law and the Constitution in controversial matters. Who will have confidence in a system of justice that is deliberately rigged to be on one side or the other despite what the facts and the law are? Finally, failing to give overwhelming approval to an obviously well-qualified nominee like Judge Roberts just because he is ``not on your side'' reduces the prestige of the Court. It jeopardizes its independence. It makes it less effective as it seeks to perform its indispensable role in our constitutional republic. For these three reasons Republican and Democratic senators, after rigorous hearings and discussions, have traditionally given well-qualified nominees for Supreme Court justice an overwhelming vote of approval. I'm not talking about the ancient past, I'm speaking of justices who are on the Court today, none of whom are better qualified than Judge Roberts. Justice Breyer--Confirmed by a vote of 87-9 in a Congress composed of 57 Democrats and 43 Republicans. Justice Ginsburg--Confirmed by a vote of 96-3 in that same Congress. Justice Souter--Confirmed by a vote of 90-9 in a Congress composed of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Justice Kennedy--Confirmed by a vote of 97-0 in a Congress composed of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Justice Scalia--Confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in a Congress composed of 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. Justice O'Connor--Confirmed by a vote of 99-0 in a Congress composed of 46 Democrats and 53 Republicans. Justice Stevens--Confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in a Congress composed of 61 Democrats and 37 Republicans. The only close vote on this Court was for the nomination of Justice Thomas following questions of alleged misconduct by the nominee. Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. However, even in that vote, 11 Democrats crossed the aisle to support the nominee. If almost all Republican senators can vote for Justice Ginsburg, a former General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, and a nominee who declined to answer numerous questions so as not to jeopardize the independence of the court on cases that might come before her, and if every single Democratic U.S. senator could vote for Justice Scalia--then why can't virtually every senator in this chamber vote to confirm Judge Roberts? I was governor for eight years in Tennessee. I appointed about fifty judges. I looked for the same qualities Judge Roberts has demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for the law, and respect for those who came before the court. I did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation. I appointed the first woman circuit judge, as well as men. I appointed Tennessee's first African American chancellor and the first African American state Supreme Court justice. I appointed Republicans and Democrats. That process served our state well and helped build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary. I would hope we would try to do the same as we consider this nomination for the United States Supreme Court. It is unlikely in our lifetimes, that we will see a nominee for the Supreme Court whose professional accomplishments, demeanor and intelligence is superior to that of John Roberts. If that is so, then I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do what they did with all but one member of the current Supreme Court, and with most of the previous justices in our history, and vote to confirm him by an overwhelming majority.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
- January 17, 2007
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food And Drug Administration, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010August 3, 2009
- March 2, 2015
Tom Lantos And Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against Hiv/Aids, Tuberculosis, And Malaria Reauthorization Act Of 2008— ContinuedJuly 16, 2008
- September 23, 2009
- August 6, 2009
- January 7, 2014
- January 25, 2011
- January 26, 2011
- January 25, 2011