[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10477-S10478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Energy

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am going to vote for Judge 
Roberts as Chief Justice. I will be making a lengthy statement later on 
in the day as there is time allowed, since the time allocated right now 
under the previous order is very limited.
  However, I did want to take this opportunity to say, with the fresh 
memories of Katrina and now Rita, I think it is incumbent upon us to 
finally get our collective heads as Americans out of the sand and face 
up to the fact that we are dependent on foreign energy sources, and 
that since we cannot drill our way out of the problem because the 
development of those resources of oil would take years and years to 
complete, one of the great natural resources of this country is coal.
  Of course, that does not affect my State of Florida; we have 300 
years of reserves of coal, and we now have the technology to cook this 
coal with highly intense heat in what is known as a coal gasification 
project. It burns off the gas, and that is a clean-burning gas.
  It would be my hope that this country will start getting serious 
about weaning ourselves from dependence on foreign oil by using our 
technology to address this problem.
  So that is what I wanted to share with my colleagues, since there 
were a couple of minutes under the previous order, and then I will be 
making my statement about Judge Roberts later in the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended 
until the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. By his 
nomination of Judge Roberts to be Chief Justice, President Bush has not 
only fulfilled his constitutional responsibility but he has 
demonstrated sound judgment and great wisdom by this nomination.
  In bipartisan fashion, our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have 
similarly demonstrated such judgment and wisdom in recommending that we 
consent to that nomination. I urge my colleagues to follow the 
committee's recommendation.
  Judge Roberts is an able jurist, a decent man, and he should be the 
next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Both by 
his professional career and his answers to questions during the 
committee's consideration of his nomination, Judge Roberts has 
demonstrated his unwavering fidelity to the Constitution and commitment 
to the rule of law.
  ``The rule of law'' is a phrase often used in public discourse. It 
trips easily off the tongue. Too often, it seems, we recite it with a 
banality that comes with the assumption that it is self-evident and 
self-executing. It is neither.
  Jefferson wisely taught that eternal vigilance is the price of 
liberty. So, too, the rule of law requires both vigilance and 
continuous oversight.
  Far beyond fulfilling the constitutional responsibilities of this 
body, the confirmation process involving Judge Roberts has served as an 
essential reminder of the constitutional role of judges and the 
judiciary under our Republican form of government. At a time when too 
many of those in the judicial branch have sought to use their lifetime-
tenured position to advance their own personal ideological or political 
preferences in deciding matters which come before them, at a time when 
too many within the legal, media, and political elites have sought to 
recast the role of the judiciary into a superlegislature, approving of 
and even urging judges to supplant their views for those of the elected 
representatives of the American people, Judge Roberts has served to 
remind us that such actions and such views are anticonstitutional and 
contrary to the rule of law itself.
  The American people have listened to Judge Roberts in this regard. 
They like what they have heard because it rings true with what we all 
learned but some have forgotten, from high school civics class and what 
we profess in doctrines of separation of powers among the branches of 
our Federal Government.
  Let me repeat some of what Judge Roberts has said:

       Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other 
     way around.
       Judges are not to legislate, they're not to execute the 
     laws.
       Judges need to appreciate that the legitimacy of their 
     action is confined to interpreting the law and not making it.
       Judges are not individuals promoting their own particular 
     views, but they are supposed to be doing their best to 
     interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according 
     to the rule of law, not their own preferences, not their own 
     personal beliefs.

  These are simple but profound statements. They go to the heart of our 
constitutional system and what we mean by the rule of law.

  As Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts will not only 
serve as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but he will also serve 
as the leader of the entire Federal judiciary, setting the standards, 
showing the way, and speaking for an entire branch of our Federal 
Government. Every judge in our Federal system and every person who 
aspires to join its ranks at some future date should hear and receive 
Judge Roberts' words and seek to follow them with fidelity. A lot is 
riding on their willingness to do so.
  Judicial independence is another phrase bantered about of late by 
judges and others who feel threatened by legitimate congressional 
oversight of the judiciary. Judicial independence does not exist to 
shield judges from congressional and public scrutiny from improper 
judicial actions. Judicial independence does not shield judges from the 
inquiry of impeachment and removal from office for lawless actions on 
the bench. Federal judges, appointed for life, subject to removal only 
upon impeachment, are afforded this extraordinary power precisely to 
permit them to follow the law, even when following the law may be 
politically unpopular.
  Describing his own fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of 
law, Judge Roberts told the Judiciary Committee:

       As a judge I have no agenda. I have a guide in the 
     Constitution and the laws and the precedents of the Court, 
     and those are what I would apply with an open mind, after 
     fully and fairly considering the arguments and assessing the 
     considered views of my colleagues on the bench.

  We should confirm Judge Roberts not merely because he said that; we 
should

[[Page S10478]]

confirm him because he has lived it. We can ask no more of our judges 
but we must ask no less. Let this be the standard we apply to this 
nominee and to future nominees, both to the Supreme Court and to lower 
courts.
  I urge my colleagues to confirm the President's nomination of Judge 
John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________