Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - July 20, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I add my voice of support to the President's decision to nominate Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. The process of selecting the next Associate Justice should reflect the best of the American judiciary and not the worst of American politics. From the President, the American people deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law. From the Senate, the American people deserve a confirmation process that is civil, dignified, respectful, and one that does its dead level best to keep politics out of the process.

Yesterday, President Bush did his part by announcing the nomination of Judge Roberts, and now it is up to us in the Senate to do our part to ensure that the process for confirming this nomination does honor to the Supreme Court, to the Senate, and to the Nation.

The Supreme Court of the United States is one of our Nation's most cherished institutions. It is also our Nation's most powerful symbol of our commitment to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. We need men and women who serve on that Court who meet the highest standards of integrity, intellect, and character. Most important, we need men and women who are committed to the principle that the duty of unelected judges in a democracy is to apply the law as written by the people's representatives and not to make the law up as they go along.

By every indication, Judge Roberts fits this description of what I would consider to be an ideal nominee. Judge Roberts was educated at Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Before he became a judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2003, he was widely regarded as one of the most outstanding advocates practicing before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has argued dozens of cases before the Court, both as a lawyer in private practice in Washington and as a public servant.

[Page:
S8519]

Over the years, he has held a wide variety of positions with the Department of Justice, including Principal Deputy Solicitor General, the Federal Government's second highest ranking lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. With these credentials, it is not surprising that we confirmed this nominee to the Court of Appeals by unanimous consent just 2 years ago.

Although Judge Roberts has been on the bench only since 2003, his distinguished legal career leaves no doubt that he is extraordinarily well qualified for the Supreme Court. It bears remembering that Chief Justice Rehnquist had never served as a judge before he was nominated to the Court. Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who Justice Roberts will be succeeding if confirmed, had served only briefly as a State court judge before she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at her confirmation hearing, although:

..... her tenure on the appellate bench has not been long in years ..... we should realize that only 60 of the 101 Justices sitting now or in the past have had any prior judicial experience. Only 41 of these have had more than 5 years of service when confirmed, and among those who had no prior experience when confirmed to the United States Supreme Court were included John Marshall and Joseph Story.

As you know, Justices Marshall and Story were two of the most distinguished Justices who ever served on the Supreme Court and, indeed, in our Nation's history. Although the number cited by Senator Leahy has changed some over the years since Justice O'Connor was confirmed, his point still stands. One does not need to be a career jurist to serve this Nation with distinction as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I believe the President has made a commendable decision, nominating Judge Roberts. As I stated earlier, the American people deserve from the President a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law. From all reports, that is exactly what the American people received yesterday. From the Senate, the American people deserve a confirmation process that is civil, dignified, and respectful, and one that keeps politics out of the judiciary as much as is humanly possible.

One of the challenges we face when considering a nominee, and particularly one such as Judge Roberts who has had such a long and distinguished career serving clients, is to understand that his work on behalf of his clients does not necessarily reflect his personal views that may appear on a variety of legal documents likely to come before the Senate. As all of us who have practiced law know, the duty of the lawyer is to make sure to make the very best possible argument on behalf of his or her client, regardless of whether the lawyer would agree with those arguments in the first instance. Litigants in our adversarial system of justice are supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers, not by their lawyers.

I think it very important that we keep this in mind. Just as we would not judge Judge Roberts nor should we judge Judge Roberts by the positions he has taken on behalf of clients he has represented, we would not judge a prospective nominee should he or she have practiced, let's say, in the area of criminal law, and have defended people who have been accused of crimes. We would not impute those crimes or that position to the lawyer who is representing them, providing them the legal defense to which they are entitled under our constitutional system. My argument is we should simply apply that same standard to Judge Roberts and any other nominee as well.

I think it is also important that we remain aware there are those outside of this Chamber who will try to taint this process. Already we have seen those who seem to have had a ``fill in the blank'' press releases, waiting only for the name of the prospective nominee before they send them out into cyberspace and across America and indeed around the world. We know there are those outside these Chambers who will try to vilify any nominee in order to exploit this process for political gain, including raising money. I can only hope we will not, in this body, the 100 Senators who work here and represent our constituents, be tempted by the outside interest groups to engage in the same sort of irresponsible rhetoric that is used by too many of them.

Let us behave as Senators. Let us do our human best to uphold the dignity of this great body. And let us try to uphold the dignity of the U.S. Supreme Court and conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the American people. History affords some benchmarks to the Senate for determining whether the Senate has undertaken a confirmation process worthy of the Court and of the American people. There is a right way and, unfortunately, a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court nominee.

In 1993, as I have observed previously on this floor, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a distinguished jurist but one with an extensive record of activism in a variety of liberal causes outside of the judiciary. The Senate looked past all of that and voted to confirm Justice Ginsburg by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The Senate did so because we understood our proper role in the confirmation process should embody three principles: First, that we should focus our attention on judicial qualifications, not personal political preferences; second, we should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks; and third, we should apply the same fair process, confirmation or rejection by majority vote, that has existed for more than 214 years of our Nation's history.

Yes, this is an important moment for our country. The nomination of any person to the U.S. Supreme Court is a celebration of our Constitution and our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. The President has nominated an impressive individual to serve on our Nation's highest Court and I look forward, as just one Member of this body, to a dignified, civil, and respectful confirmation process in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/