|00:00:01||WENT SMOOTHLY, FAILED TO PROVIDE CRITICAL DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THE RECORD THAT COULD HAVE MADE US -- COULD HAVE PROVIDED US WITH A BETTER BASIS TO MAKE OUR JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE NOMINATION.|
|00:00:18||THIS WHITE HOUSE CONTINUES TO STYMIE EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE TO DO ITS JOB, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WITH THE NEXT NOMINEE THAT COMES UP FOR THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE RECOGNIZES THAT IN FACT IT IS ITS DUTY, NOT JUST TO THE SENATE BUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN THOROUGHLY AND ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE RECORD OF EVERY SINGLE NOMINEE THAT COMES BEFORE US.|
|00:00:49||NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, THE DECISION WITH RESPECT TO JUDGE ROBERTS' NOMINATION HAS NOT BEEN AN EASY ONE FOR ME TO MAKE.|
|00:00:57||AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, I'VE NOT ONLY ARGUED CASES BEFORE APPELLATE COURTS, BUT FOR TEN YEARS WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL FACULTY AND TAUGHT COURSES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.|
|00:01:11||PART OF THE CULTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL FACULTY IS TO MAINTAIN A SENSE OF COLLEGIALITY BETWEEN THOSE PEOPLE WHO HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS.|
|00:01:24||ONE ENGENDERS-- --WHAT ENGENDERS RESPECT IS NOT THE PARTICULAR OUTCOME THAT A LEGAL SCHOLAR ARRIVES AT BUT, RATHER, THE INTELLECTUAL RIGGER AND HONESTY WITH WHICH HE OR SHE ARRIVES AT A DECISION.|
|00:01:37||GIVEN THAT BACKGROUND, I AM SORELY TEMPTED TO VOTE FOR JUDGE ROBERTS BASED ON MY STUDY OF HIS RESUME, HIS CONDUCT DURING THE HEARINGS, AND A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH HIM YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.|
|00:01:55||THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT JUDGE ROBERTS IS QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.|
|00:02:02||MOREOVER, HE SEEMS TO HAVE THE COMPORTMENT AND THE TEMPERAMENT THAT MAKES FOR A GOOD JUDGE.|
|00:02:09||HE'S HUMBLE, HE'S PERSONALLY DECENT, AND HE APPEARS TO BE RESPECTFUL OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.|
|00:02:17||AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO ME THAT JUDGE ROBERTS TRULY LOVES THE LAW.|
|00:02:21||HE COULDN'T HAVE ACHIEVED HIS EXCELLENT RECORD AS AN ADVOCATE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT THAT PASSION FOR THE LAW.|
|00:02:29||AND IT BECAME APPARENT TO ME IN OUR CONVERSATION THAT HE DOES IN FACT DEEPLY RESPECT THE BASIC PRECEPTS THAT GO INTO DECIDING 95% OF THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE THE THE FEDERAL COURTS: ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT, A CERTAIN MODESTY IN READING CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, A RESPECT FOR PROCEDURAL REGULARTY AND AN IMPARTIALITY IN PRESIDING OVER OUR ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM.|
|00:03:00||ALL OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS MAKE ME WANT TO VOTE FOR JUDGE ROBERTS.|
|00:03:07||THE PROBLEM THAT I FACE, A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN VOICED BY SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES, BOTH THOSE WHO ARE VOTING FOR MR.|
|00:03:15||ROBERTS AND THOSE WHO ARE VOTING AGAINST MR.|
|00:03:19||ROBERTS, IS THAT WHILE ADHERENCE TO LEGAL PRECEDENT AND RULES OF STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION WILL DISPOSE OF 95% OF THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT SO THAT BOTH A SCALIA AND A GINSBURG WILL ARRIVE AT THE SAME PLACE MOST OF THE TIME ON THOSE 95% OF THE CASES, WHAT MATTERS ON THE SUPREME COURT ARE THE 5% OF CASES THAT ARE TRULY DIFFICULT.|
|00:03:50||IN THOSE CASES, ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION WILL ONLY GET YOU THROUGH THE 25th MILE OF THE MARATHON.|
|00:04:02||THAT LAST MILE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF ONE'S DEEPEST VALUES, ONE'S CORE CONCERNS, ONE'S BROADER PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF ONE'S EMPATHY.|
|00:04:22||IN THOSE 5% OF REALLY HARD CASES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY ON POINT.|
|00:04:29||THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE WILL NOT BE PERFECTLY CLEAR.|
|00:04:34||LEGAL PROCESS ALONE WILL NOT LEAD YOU TO A RULE OF DECISION.|
|00:04:39||IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOUR DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION IN THIS COUNTRY OR WHETHER OR NOT A GENERAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY ENCOMPASSES A MORE SPECIFIC RIGHT OF WOMEN TO CONTROL THE THEIR REPRODUCTION OR WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO SPEAK ON THOSE ISSUES OF BROAD NATIONAL CONCERN THAT MAY ONLY TANGENTIALLY RELATE TO WHAT IS EASILY DEFINED AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER A PERSON WHO'S DISABLED HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ACCOMMODATED SO THAT THEY CAN WORK ALONGSIDE THOSE WHO ARE NONDISABLED -- IN THOSE DIFFICULT CASES, THE CRITICAL INGREDIENT IS SUPPLIED BY WHAT'S IN THE JUDGE'S HEART.|
|00:05:31||NOW, I TALKED TO JUDGE ROBERTS ABOUT THIS, AND JUDGE ROBERTS CONFESSED THAT, UNLIKE MAYBE PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, IT'S NOT EASY FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT HIS VALUES AND HIS DEEPER FEELINGS.|
|00:05:46||THAT'S NOT HOW HE'S TRAINED.|
|00:05:47||HE DID SAY THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE BULLIES AND HAS ALWAYS VIEWED THE LAW AS A WAY OF EVENING OUT THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE STRONG AND THE WEAK.|
|00:06:02||I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE I VIEW THE LAW IN MUCH THE SAME WAY.|
|00:06:09||THE PROBLEM I HAD IS THAT WHEN I EXAMINED JUDGE ROBERTS' RECORD AND HISTORY OF PUBLIC SERVICE, IT'S MY PERSONAL ESTIMATION THAT HE HAS FAR MORE OFTEN USED HIS FORMIDABLE SKILLS ON BEHALF OF THE STRONG IN OPPOSITION TO THE WEAK.|
|00:06:29||IN HIS WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IN THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, HE SEEMS TO HAVE CONSISTENTLY SIDED WITH THOSE WHO WERE DISMISSIVE OF EFFORTS TO ERADICATE THE REMNANTS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS.|
|00:06:45||IN THESE SAME POSITIONS HE SEEMED DISMISSIVE OF THE CONCERNS THAT EVERY WOMAN KNOWS IT IS HARDER TO MAKE IT IN THIS 0 WORLD AND IN THIS ECONOMY WHEN YOU'RE A WOMAN RATHER THAN A MAN.|
|00:07:00||I WANT TO TAKE JUDGE ROBERTS AT HIS WORD THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE BULLIES AND HE SEES THE LAW AND THE COURT AS A MEANS OF EVENING THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE STRONG AND THE WEAK.|
|00:07:15||BUT GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF THE POSITION TO WHICH HE'LL UNDOUBTEDLY ASCEND AND THE GRAVITY OF THE DECISIONS THAT HE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY PARTICIPATE IN DURING HIS TENURE ON THE COURT, I ULTIMATELY HAVE TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO HIS DEEDS AND THE OVERARCHING POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAT HE APPEARS TO HAVE SHARED WITH THOSE IN POWER THAN TO THE ASSURING WORDS THAT HE PROVIDED ME IN OUR MEETING.|
|00:07:42||THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS' NOMINATION.|
|00:07:49||I DO KNOW WITH CONSIDERABLE RETICENCE.|
|00:07:54||I HOPE-- --I DO SO WITH CONSIDERABLE RETICENCE.|
|00:07:57||I HOPE THAT I AM WRONG.|
|00:07:58||I HOPE THAT THIS RETICENCE ON MY PART PROVES UNJUSTIFIED AND THAT JUDGE ROBERTS WILL SHOW HIMSELF TO NOT ONLY BE AN OUTSTANDING LEGAL THINKER BUT ALSO SOMEONE WHO UPHOLDS THE COURT'S HISTORIC ROLE AS A CHECK ON THE MAJORITYTARIAN IMPULSES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.|
|00:08:19||I HOPE THAT HE'LL RECOGNIZE WHO THE WEAK AND WHO THE STRONG ARE IN OUR SOCIETY, AND I HOPE THAT HIS JURISPRUDENCE IS ONE THAT STANDS UP TO THE BULLIES OF ALL IDEOLOGICAL STRIPES.|
|00:08:35||WHICH LEADS ME TO CONCLUDE WITH JUST ONE 0 MORE COMMENT ABOUT THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS.|
|00:08:43||I WAS DEEPLY DISTURBED BY SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY LARGELY DEMOCRATIC ADVOCACY GROUPS WHEN RANKING MEMBER SENATOR LEAHY ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT JUDGE ROBERTS.|
|00:08:59||ALTHOUGH THE SCALES HAVE TIPPED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION FOR ME, I'M DEEPLY ADMIRING OF THE WORK AND THE THOUGHT THAT RANKING MEMBER SENATOR LEAHY HAS PUT INTO MAKING HIS DECISION.|
|00:09:12||THE KNEE-JERK UNBENDING AND WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE UNFAIR ATTACKS ON SENATOR LEAHY'S MOTIVES WERE UNJUSTIFIED.|
|00:09:22||UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH PARTIES HAVE FALLEN VICTIM TO THIS KIND OF PRESSURE.|
|00:09:28||I THINK EVERY SENATOR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, IF THEY WERE HONEST, WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAME UNYIELDING, UNBENDING, DOGMATIC APPROACH TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS HAS, IN LARGE PART, BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KIND OF POISONOUS ATMOSPHERE THAT HAS HELD IN THIS CHAMBER SURROUNDING JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS.|
|00:09:53||IT'S TEMPTING THEN FOR THOSE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE TO GO TIT FOR TAT.|
|00:09:58||BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS ALL OF US RECOGNIZE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT NOMINEE, OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IN FACT THE ISSUES THAT ARE CONFRONTED BY THE SUPREME COURT ARE DIFFICULT ISSUES.|
|00:10:14||THAT'S WHY THEY GET UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.|
|00:10:19||BUT THE ISSUES FACING THE COURT ARE RARELY BLACK AND WHITE AND THAT ALL ADVOCACY GROUPS WHO HAVE A LEGITIMATE AND PROFOUND INTEREST IN THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE BY THE COURT TRY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEIR ADVOCACY REFLECTS THIS COMPLEXITY AND DON'T RESORT TO THE SORT OF BROAD-BRUSHED, DOGMATIC ATTACKS THAT HAVE HAMPERED THE PROCESS IN THE PAST AND CONSTRAINED EACH AND EVERY SENATOR IN THIS CHAMBER FROM MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE VOTING ON THE BASIS OF THEIR CONSCIENCE.|
|00:10:50||THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.|
|00:11:00||LET ME SUGGEST AN ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.|
|00:11:02||THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.|
|00:11:06||QUORUM CALL: / '|
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, thank you very much. [Page: S10366] First of all, let me congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for moving the process of confirming the nomination of Judge Roberts along with such civility, a civility that I believe speaks well of the Senate.
Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.
Having said that, the decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.
Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his résumé, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court--adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.
The problem I face--a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts--is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases--what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.
In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled--in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.
I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.
I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process.
I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.
I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.
But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.