Nomination of John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court

NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on the issue brought to the fore last night by the nomination of John Roberts to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts, as we are all beginning to learn, has an impressive record. He has keen intellect, sterling integrity, and a judicious temperament. Most importantly, Judge Roberts will faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. He has earned the respect of his colleagues, and I am confident he will make a fine addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He was raised in middle America in Indiana, a neighboring State to my own State of Kentucky. Judge Roberts is a son of the Midwest who went on to argue a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court, more than virtually any other member of the Supreme Court bar. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and then graduated with high honors from Harvard Law School where he served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. If that were not enough, he then went on to clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, actually during the Chief Justice's period as Associate Justice, and served in various positions in the Justice Department. Now he serves with distinction on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, often referred to as the second highest court in the land, and, of course, the Senate unanimously confirmed him to that position in 2003.

The President of the United States has discharged his constitutional obligation under article II, section 2 to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. He has chosen a truly outstanding nominee. It is now our job to provide advice and consent. In doing so, we should follow basically three principles. No. 1, we should treat Judge Roberts with dignity and with respect. No. 2, we should have a fair process. And No. 3, we should complete that process with either an up-or-down vote in time for the Court to be at full strength for its new term beginning October 3 of this year. These principles are simple and they are sound. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always followed them.

As to the first principle, the Senate has not always treated judicial nominees of Republican Presidents with respect. Last Friday, for example, I recounted how some of our colleagues spoke harshly about Justice Souter's fitness for office. Our colleagues' harsh criticism of Justice Souter was hardly unique. President George Herbert Walker Bush's other Supreme Court nominee, Justice Clarence Thomas, suffered far worse attacks. By engaging in an unprecedented level of consultation, the President has respected the views of Senators. Now Senators ought to reciprocate and treat Judge Roberts with the same dignity and respect that we afforded President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees over the last 10 years.

The Senate did not defeat Justice Ginsburg's nomination, even though she had argued in her capacity as a private lawyer for such provocative positions as abolishing Mother's Day and Father's Day in favor of a unisex parents day, and for other even more colorful positions. Those arguably unusual positions were not held against her during her confirmation process. I can recall voting for Justice Ginsburg myself. Similarly, we should not caricature Judge Roberts' beliefs or views. We should not attribute to him the actions of clients he has represented. We certainly should not criticize Judge Roberts because his position in a particular case did not mirror a Senator's personal policy preferences, nor when it comes to a fair process should we require Judge Roberts to prejudge cases or to precommit to deciding certain issues in a certain way. We should respect the fact that he may place himself in a compromising position by doing so, just as we did with Justice O'Connor, Justice Ginsburg, and other nominees who have come before us in the past. The inquiry should be thorough but at the same time fair.

Slow walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process. The Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. As Senator Frist has pointed out, the average time for a nomination to confirmation for the current justices was 62 days. The average time from nomination to confirmation for President Clinton was 58 days. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed in only 42 days. The Senate has 72 days to complete action on Judge Roberts' nomination, in time for him to join the Court by the start of its new term, October 3. By any standard, that is a fair goal. What is not fair and what is, quite frankly, a little curious is for some of our colleagues who, before even having heard a single word of testimony, have already come up with excuses as to why we should depart from this historical standard. It is disturbing that they seek to justify so far in advance why the Court should begin its proceedings at less than full strength.

We, on this side of the aisle, are not asking the Senate to change its practices or standards. We are not asking that this President be treated better than his immediate predecessor. We are asking for equal treatment. Let's treat President Bush's nominees as we treated President Clinton's nominees. I am hopeful that the respect the President has shown the Senate will be reciprocated and that our handling of Judge Roberts' nomination will bring credit to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/