[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S35-S37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Lobbying Reform
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
efforts to move the issue of lobbying reform forward. We had a good
meeting yesterday amongst other Members, and Senator Lieberman and I
and others also, as the majority leader knows, have introduced
legislation. There has been input made by other Members, and I know the
majority leader joins me in saying we need to put together a bipartisan
coalition to address this issue as quickly as possible. We need to sit
down with Members of both sides of the aisle in whatever format the
majority leader and the Democratic leader decide so we can get to work
right away and get legislation done to curb the lobbying excesses that
have been brought to light that need to be fixed.
At another time I would like to talk with the majority leader about
the issue of earmarks, but I thank the majority leader for urging rapid
action on this issue. We do have a basis for negotiation, and I hope we
will be able to immediately sit down with Members from the other side
of the aisle, come to conclusions and agreements--since it is pretty
obvious the majority of the fixes that need to be made--and move
forward. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for
urging rapid action in addressing this issue which is causing us, our
image and our reputation to be hurt very badly in the eyes of the
American people.
I thank the majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just a very short comment. I have been in
discussion with the Democratic leader on this issue as well. As our
distinguished colleague from Arizona has just said, we on the
Republican side have put together a working group in terms of how to
address this very important issue. It has to be done in a bipartisan
way. America is looking at this body to respond to abuses that we have
all seen in our Government today. I think we all need to be committed
to address this in a bipartisan way.
We have a great structure to build upon in the legislation that has
been introduced in a bipartisan way with Senators McCain and Lieberman.
I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle in developing an
appropriate response over the coming days.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 10 a.m.
until 8 p.m. tonight be divided, with the time from 10 to 11 under the
control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 11 to
noon under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, with
each hour rotating back and forth in that same manner. I further ask
unanimous consent that on Thursday this same division occur, with the
first hour from 10 to 11 under the control of the Democratic leader or
his designee.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I am honored to open debate on the
nomination of Judge Sam Alito to be the 110th Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
I enthusiastically support his confirmation.
Judge Alito deserves to become Justice Alito. Those who oppose him
are smearing a decent and honorable man and imposing an unfair
political standard on all judicial nominees.
I support Judge Alito because he is exceptionally qualified to be a
Supreme Court Justice. I support Judge Alito because he is a man of
integrity and modest judicial temperament. I support Judge Alito
because he has a record that demonstrates a respect for judicial
restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench, and a
commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.
There is no question that Judge Alito is exceptionally well
qualified. He is measured, brilliant, deeply versed in and respectful
of the law, and a man of character and integrity. But there is another
reason I support Judge Alito. I support Judge Alito because denying him
a seat on the Supreme Court could have devastating long-term
consequences for our judicial nomination process. Let me address these
issues one at a time.
Exceptional qualifications: From the moment President Bush nominated
him last October, Judge Alito's exceptional qualifications had a
``wow'' factor that impressed Senators of both parties. In every
respect, Judge Alito is a nominee who meets the highest standards of
excellence.
He is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School. He has dedicated
his 30-year legal career to public service as a Federal prosecutor and
assistant to the Solicitor General, where he argued 12 cases before the
Supreme Court, and for the last 15 years as a Federal judge on the
Third Circuit in New Jersey. He has been unanimously confirmed by this
body not once but twice. On the Federal bench, he has participated in
more than 3,500 cases and has written more than 300 opinions. The
American Bar Association gave Judge Alito its highest rating,
unanimously ``well qualified.'' He is a man of integrity and modest
judicial temperament.
Exceptional qualifications only begin to reveal why Sam Alito should
be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout his career as a
prosecutor and a judge, Sam Alito earned a reputation as a man of
integrity who was fairminded and evenhanded. He earned the trust and
respect of his colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
That is one reason seven Federal judges endorsed his nomination and
testified on his behalf.
Through the Judiciary Committee hearings, we saw a clear picture
emerge of Judge Alito's modest judicial temperament. Despite enduring
relentless questioning of his credibility, integrity, and personal and
political views, Judge Alito remained unflappable, never once raising
his voice or becoming confrontational, focusing clearly and
articulately on the facts, the law, and the constitutional questions
presented to him. He understands the limited role of a judge--judicial
restraint, impartiality, and a commitment to the rule of law.
In addition to all of his exceptional qualifications, integrity, and
temperament, Judge Alito deserves confirmation because he understands
the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from
the bench. He practices judicial restraint and refuses to prejudge
cases or apply a personal political agenda on the bench. In his hearing
before the Judiciary Committee, this philosophy was clear. He said:
A judge can't have an agenda. A judge can't have any
preferred outcome in any particular case. . . . The judge's
only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule
of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the
judge has to do what the law requires.
In his 15 years on the bench, Judge Alito has done exactly that. Just
listen to the words of one of Judge Alito's former law clerks, a
registered Democrat who, by the way, still has a ``Kerry for
President'' bumper sticker on his car. His words:
Until I read [Judge Alito's] 1985 Reagan job application, I
could not tell you what his politics were . . . When we
worked on cases, we reached the same result about 95 percent
of the time . . . It was my experience that Judge Alito was
(and is) capable of setting aside any personal biases he may
have when he judges. He is the consummate professional.
Long-term consequences for the judicial nominations process: Perhaps
the most important reason to support Judge Alito has less to do with
Judge Alito himself and more to do with our judicial nominations
process. Regardless of their political views, Senators should treat
judicial nominees with dignity, respect, and fairness, not just because
it is the right thing to do but because a process that politicizes and
degrades judicial nominees will drive our very best and our brightest
away from the bench. I am profoundly disappointed in the unfair and
unseemly treatment of Judge Alito during this process. His judicial
record has been distorted and mischaracterized. He has been labeled as
nonresponsive during his hearings, despite providing candid and
articulate answers to more than 650 questions and over 18 hours of
testimony--far more than many, perhaps any Supreme Court nominee in the
past--and most sadly, he has been the victim of a calculated but
unsuccessful campaign to smear his character, his integrity, and his
credibility.
In an editorial in support of Judge Alito, published on January 15,
the
[[Page S37]]
Washington Post expressed this concern, even though they would have
chosen a different nominee than Judge Alito:
He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet
Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive
qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous
precedent his rejection would set . . . Supreme Court
confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither
has their history generally been one of party-line votes or
of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road
is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a
Republican law--which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule
of law. However one reasonably defines ``mainstream'' of
contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within
it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may
push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term
implications of denying him a seat. No President should be
denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as
Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Washington Post
editorial of January 15 entitled ``Confirm Samuel Alito on the Supreme
Court'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FRIST. Thirteen years ago, a Republican minority in the Senate
voted to confirm the qualified nominee of a Democratic President by an
overwhelming vote of 96 to 3. Despite a well-documented liberal record,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sits on the Supreme Court today because
Republican Senators chose to focus on her qualifications and not to
obstruct her nomination based merely on her judicial philosophy or
ideology. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Alito by
applying that same fair standard. As we debate this week, I hope we can
put aside partisan rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction
and stand on principle. Qualified judicial nominees such as Judge Alito
deserve respectful debate and a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate
floor. As Senators, it is our fundamental constitutional duty and
responsibility.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2006]
Confirm Samuel Alito
The Senate's decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel
A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito's record raises
concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor could alter--for the worse, from our
point of view--the Supreme Court's delicate balance in
important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been
our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be
confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an
appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his
rejection would set.
Though some attacks on him by Democratic senators and
liberal interest groups have misrepresented his
jurisprudence, Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas.
His generally laudable tendency to defer to elected
representatives at the state and federal levels sometimes
goes too far--giving rise to concerns that he will prove too
tolerant of claims of executive power in the war on terror.
He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and
precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for
aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason
to worry that he would curtail abortion rights. And his
approach to the balance of power between the federal
government and the states, while murky, seems unpromising.
Judge Alito's record is complicated, and one can therefore
argue against imputing to him any of these tendencies. Yet he
is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme
Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we
would like to see.
Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised
concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court
nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election.
The president's choice is due deference--the same deference
that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to
accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.
And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the
bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging
ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and
doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His
colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity,
notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.
Humility is called for when predicting how a Supreme Court
nominee will vote on key issues, or even what those issues
will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's fair to
guess that Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises
restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of
the political branches in areas of their competence. That's
not all bad. The Supreme Court sports a great range of
ideological diversity but less disagreement about the scope
of proper judicial power. The institutional self-discipline
and modesty that both Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts
profess could do the court good if taken seriously and
applied apolitically.
Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of
politics, but neither has their history generally been one of
party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor.
To go down that road is to believe that there exists a
Democratic law and a Republican law--which is repugnant to
the ideal to the rule of law. However one reasonably defines
the ``mainstream'' of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge
Alito's work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety
about the direction he may push the court, we would be more
alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat.
No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a
person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.
Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.