[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20756-20762]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      JUDGES AND OUR CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak tonight regarding some very significant things that are happening 
in our country today. We are in a critical time in our history when we 
have two U.S. Supreme Court vacancies and when we have a nominee like 
Judge John G. Roberts put forth by the President for Chief Justice of 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the importance of having 
people on the courts who will read the Constitution for what it says, 
because I believe that it goes to the very heart of this Republic.
  Our Founding Fathers, those who fought in the Revolution, did so 
because they wanted a rule of law and not a rule of men. Mr. Speaker, I 
believe with all of my heart that the historical moments that we are in 
will dictate whether or not that revolution is affirmed or vitiated, 
and I hope with all of my heart that the President, that the U.S. 
Senate and that this body will do everything that they can to make sure 
that we find people who will have fidelity to the Constitution and will 
read those words that our Founding Fathers so meticulously put down for 
what they say and not for what a liberal activist judge might wish them 
to say.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we write constitutional words down, the 
reason we write words down in agreements, in constitutions, or 
declarations is because we want to preserve their intent. We want to 
preserve the agreement between the parties. We also want to make sure 
that no one can distort them in the future. And I will say more about 
that later; but, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a great battle in 
the body next to us, because the liberal activists in that body will do 
everything they can to stop the confirmation of John G. Roberts or 
anyone who is committed to the rule of law, anyone who is committed to 
the original intent of the Constitution.
  I am convinced that no matter what the President does in the next 
nomination, no matter what he does, they will attack the next nominee 
with equal force. It occurs to me that it is just important for us to 
encourage the President, to encourage the Senate to appoint and confirm 
people that will read the Constitution regardless of the outrage that 
the liberal activists put forth.
  There is an old rhyme that says: ``No one gains when freedom fails. 
The best of men rot in filthy jails. And those who cried appease, 
appease, are shocked by those they tried to please.'' And that is 
really the scenario before us. No matter how the efforts are made to 
appease those that want to use the judiciary to impose liberal activist 
notions on the people as a whole, no matter how we try to appease them, 
they are going to attack. I just hope that we see people that will 
firmly read the Constitution for what it says and will do what is right 
no matter what. And I pray the President can steel his heart and that 
the Senators that stand for the rule of law will steel their own and 
that we will make sure that we find people on that Court that will do 
what is right.
  You know, popularity sometimes overrules principle; but in this case 
I do not think it is going to, because popularity has always been 
history's pocket change. It is courage that is history's true currency, 
and I pray that for the President and for the U.S. Senate.
  I use one example to start out this evening to relate how an out-of-
control liberal judiciary affects our Nation. Just last week, an 
activist Federal judge once again ignored the law and the great 
traditions of this Nation to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance of 
the United States of America is unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
this speaks to the desperate need that I have outlined here to confirm 
judges who will apply the law, judges like John G. Roberts. Mr. 
Speaker, Mr. Roberts is a man that will read the Constitution for what 
it says, and the Pledge of Allegiance should have no fear with him as 
Chief Justice.
  Last week's ridiculous ruling and decision by Jimmy Carter-appointee 
and Federal liberal judge Lawrence K. Karlton is an outrage and a 
breathtaking example of arrogance on the part of a bigoted tyranny of 
liberal extremists on the Federal bench. In this decision, this 
activist judge cited as binding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
ruling that said that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge violates 
``the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm 
God.''
  In 2003, the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of 
standing that preposterous 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit, and that 
is the one we all know that found the Pledge unconstitutional. Michael 
Newdow, a self-professed atheist, did not even have custody of his 
daughter when he sued on her behalf. What is more, Mr. Speaker, his 
daughter did not even object to reciting the pledge in the first place. 
So when the Supreme Court vacated this obscene ruling, the late Chief 
Justice William Rehnquist concurred, and he so eloquently put forth the 
very simple truth of this matter. He said that the phrase ``under God'' 
does not change the Pledge into a religious idiom and it ``cannot 
possibly lead to the establishment of religion or anything like it.''

                              {time}  2015

  The late Chief Justice listed many references to Presidents invoking 
God, going all the way back to the very first one, George Washington. 
He cited other events as well that, ``strongly suggest that our Nation 
and our national culture allows public recognition of our Nation's 
religious history and character.''
  Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurrence even stated that to eliminate 
references to divinity would ``sever ties to a history that sustains 
this Nation even today.''
  Mr. Speaker, for 50 years the Pledge of Allegiance has been 
voluntarily recited in schools throughout the United States of America 
and it has always been voluntary. Nobody in America has ever been 
required by government to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And if they say 
it voluntarily, they are not required to say the words ``under God.'' 
However, it is an outrage that beggars my vocabulary for those who hold 
the office of Federal judge to rule that it is now unconstitutional for 
students who want to voluntarily say the words ``under God'' if they so 
choose.
  In my opinion the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution would 
deem those who handed down such outrageous rulings to be pitiful 
excuses for Federal judges and to be traitors to the Constitution 
itself. This ruling is a prime example of the liberal, activist 
priesthood of the black robe seeking to force upon the people a state 
of irreligion, and it is a pathetic example of jurisprudence that has 
dictated that the people must ignore their own belief and faith and 
embrace only a nonreligious expression. Mr. Speaker, it is a violation, 
pure and simple, of the free exercise clause.
  We must not allow the people of this Nation to be forced by judicial 
tyranny to follow such an empty creed. This ruling is disgraceful and 
it serves as exhibit A in the case against judges who are intent on 
ignoring the Constitution and imposing their own twisted ideology upon 
the people. When liberal activist judges discount laws enacted by the 
people's representatives to enact their own agenda, the Constitution 
itself provides a remedy; and it is time for the people's House to 
fulfill our duty to the people, to protect the Constitution from 
liberal activist Federal judges.
  Mr. Speaker, in striking down our Pledge of Allegiance, this judge 
has once again ignited a resolve in the American people that will 
ultimately

[[Page 20757]]

lead to Federal reforms limiting their power to legislate from the 
bench. This judicial obscenity will not stand.
  With all of that said, I still stand on this floor with great hope in 
my heart for the future of this country, because even a cursory, a 
cursory glance back at America's history should impart hope to all of 
us.
  By the time the 1860s had come to America, the world had marked 7,000 
years of powerful societies enslaving their fellow human beings. And, 
sadly, this was also true of America. However, America was never truly 
at peace in her heart with this hellish institution of slavery, and so 
it was that American slaves began to earnestly pray to God to 
intervene, and it seems God sent them President Abraham Lincoln, a man 
who understood the true meaning of those magnificent words, ``We hold 
these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.''
  Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote those words down for us 
because they did not want us to forget their true meaning or fall prey 
to those who would deliberately destroy it. That has always been the 
preeminent reason why we write down documents, agreements, or 
constitutions in the first place: to preserve their original meaning 
and intent.
  When the smoke of a horrible Civil War finally drifted from the air, 
7,000 years of the world accepting the unrequited toil of human slavery 
was over. The prayer of slaves had been answered, and the United States 
of America began to emerge as the flagship of human freedom in the 
world.
  But only 100 years later we began to stray from that path. We began 
to think only of ourselves. And in 1973 Roe v. Wade was handed down by 
the U.S. Supreme Court, and it brought wholesale abortion on demand to 
the land of the free, and the veil of darkness fell upon America. In 
that darkness we heard, but we disregarded the mortal cry of one little 
baby in the womb, and then there was another, and even another was 
heard until that sound had become the soul-wrenching cry of tens of 
millions.
  We found ourselves and our national conscience disoriented and awash 
in the blood of our own children. Millions of prayers called out for 
another leader to remind us of those words that speak the divine 
message of human dignity, ``all men are created equal.''
  Mr. Speaker, from the time we were conceived, all human beings are 
created equal. We do not become equal when we each reach a certain age 
or status. This is America's creed, that is our foundation, and how 
grateful we should all be that our Founding Fathers wrote those words 
down, and how desperate our commitment should be to remember what they 
mean.
  Now in this day, in these moments, that test is upon us. The 
President of the United States has nominated an individual in John G. 
Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States who understands that all 
men are created equal. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this President 
understands those words in his own heart; and, indeed, it is his 
commitment to their meaning and his commitment to human dignity itself 
that has given him the courage to stand resolutely against terrorists 
to protect innocent human life.
  But this President and each one of us in this body and each person in 
the body across the way must never forget that this thing called Roe v. 
Wade has taken more than 15,000 times the number of innocent lives lost 
on that tragic day of September 11. We live in a time when there is 
truly a glimmer of light breaking on the road before us; but the curve 
just ahead is sharp, and to miss it may be to plunge into the darkness. 
The voice of destiny calls to our President and all of us in these 
decisive days to once again steel our hearts and to ask anew, Is it 
true in America that all men are created equal?
  Mr. Speaker, our legacy to future generations and the survival of 
human freedom in the world will depend upon our answer. May God bless 
America, may God bless President George W. Bush, and may God bless 
Judge John G. Roberts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), whom 
we call Judge, who we all have the deepest respect for.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
taking this time tonight to talk about this very important matter 
before our Nation right now.
  The House of Representatives does not have a vote in this issue, but 
it does and should have a voice in the issue concerning the selection 
of the highest court of this land, and of all of the judicial 
appointments.
  One of the duties of this House is to be a voice of the people of 
this country, because we of the elected officials in this House of 
Representatives, we are the ones that have the smallest districts and 
are closest to the people. Most of us are home every weekend talking to 
the folks back home. We have a good idea of the kind of capabilities 
that our people are looking for in their judges.
  We have one of the great debates in history going on right now, with 
two potential justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court. We were 
here last week talking about this, and we told you that we would hope 
that everyone would watch the hearings that took place last week to see 
Judge Roberts. I predicted that Judge Roberts would be outstanding 
before the Senate, and I think my prediction was absolutely proven 
true. I think everyone acknowledges he showed great intelligence and 
great insight. He answered the questions appropriately. He asked to be 
excused from questions which were inappropriate for a judge to answer. 
He handled himself with charm and grace and intelligence, just exactly 
the way I predicted last week. I am not clairvoyant, I just know this 
man is the right man to be on the Supreme Court and to be the Chief 
Justice to lead that Supreme Court.
  We know the Constitution gives them the vote. We hope that they will 
hear our voice. There is a lot of criticism that has been out there, 
and I want to ask the American people to think about just exactly what 
is the role of a judge in our society. I served for 21 years as a judge 
in Texas, a proud 21 years as part of the justice system of this 
Nation. I think what the lawyers that appear before a court and what 
the people who those lawyers represent want from a court is a judge 
that comes into the court with no preconceived notions, that will 
listen to the facts that pertain to the case, examine those facts 
carefully, apply the law and the facts, and come up with a solution. 
That is what they want from the judge. That is what the Founding 
Fathers wanted for the justices of our Supreme Court. They wanted them 
to examine American law as it relates to each set of disputed facts 
that comes before that court, and, from the American jurisprudence and 
the common law, come up with an interpretation of whether or not our 
Constitution has been violated under certain circumstances, and to 
examine the laws of the United States and make them proper.
  I do not think anybody argues with that. I think that it would be 
totally inappropriate to ask a judge to make a pretrial statement 
before a case is brought before the court as to where he would stand on 
an issue without hearing the full presentation in the court, reading 
the briefs, and making a decision based upon what has been presented in 
the court and the law as it stands in the United States at that time. 
That is what we want from our judges. Judge Roberts is that kind of 
judge and will give us those decisions.
  I think it is almost laughable if you know how the court works. When 
a man is hired as a lawyer for somebody else, when a client comes into 
a lawyer's office and says I want to hire you to represent me in a 
case, now you would not want that lawyer that you hired to represent 
you in that case to go into court and argue the other side of the case 
against you, because that is not what he is getting paid to do. His job 
is to be an advocate for his client. And yet the criticisms that we 
hear against Judge Roberts are that he made arguments as a lawyer for a 
side before the Supreme Court or before other courts in favor of or 
against certain positions that some Members of

[[Page 20758]]

the Senate do not agree with; therefore, he is inappropriate to be 
involved in any case that has to do with that.
  We will start off with the pro-life issue. They argue that Roberts is 
pro-life because of two arguments that he made while he was 
representing the United States of America as a deputy solicitor general 
in Rust v. Sullivan and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. 
Roberts' opponents argue that Roberts unnecessarily called for the 
Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in Rust, a case challenging 
Federal regulations which prohibit certain recipients of Federal funds 
from counseling patients on abortion. Critics argue that the case could 
have been argued solely on the basis of statutory construction of the 
provisions at issue. Critics also point out that Roberts coauthored the 
government's amicus brief in Bray, a private suit brought against 
Operation Rescue, which argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in 
a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection rights.
  Who was he arguing for? His side, his client, the people paying him 
to make an argument for them. And who is someone sitting outside the 
courtroom, who are they to tell a lawyer how he should argue his case? 
Well, he should argue his case but not argue Roe. If he felt the 
interest of his clients were best protected and put forward by arguing 
against Roe, it is his job to argue against Roe.

                              {time}  2030

  If the next time he comes into court and someone has hired him to 
take the opposite position, that same lawyer would be arguing the other 
side of that case because that is what lawyers get paid to do. And an 
argument a lawyer makes in the courtroom and whom a lawyer represents 
in the courtroom, if that defines that lawyer, there is something wrong 
with how we think. That would be accusing every criminal lawyer in 
America of being a criminal because they talk in favor of criminals.
  But if we do not have defense lawyers in criminal cases, we do not 
have a case because the State has the burden of proof in that case. The 
defense has no burden of proof whatsoever, but they have the right to 
representation under our Constitution.
  Would we say that no lawyer would ever be fit for a court if he 
argued any position that might come before that court and we can tell 
what his position is going to be by his arguments in court? That, Mr. 
Speaker, is just one of the most ridiculous arguments that I think 
anyone could ever make. And anybody who would hire a lawyer to go into 
court to argue the other side of a case ought to fire his lawyer before 
the third word came out of his mouth and ask the judge to give him some 
more time to hire a decent lawyer to represent his position, and I 
think most lawyers would grant that.
  And almost every argument that is made in this whole list of things 
that says Roberts is a right wing extremist, Roberts is anti-
environment, Roberts is hostile to civil rights and affirmative action, 
Roberts is hostile to the rights of criminal defendants, Roberts is 
hostile to the first amendment of the establishment clause, all of 
these things are baloney because about 90 percent of their arguments 
are that he made this argument as an advocate for a client, which is 
his job. Lawyers argue every day in court as advocates for their 
clients when, in their heart of hearts, we cannot tell whether they are 
for what their client is for or against what their client is for. But, 
by golly, they make us think they are because that is their job to 
represent their client and convince the court that their position is 
valid. That is what they get paid for.
  The other arguments they have in here are some arguments about 
dissents that were written by Judge Roberts on the court of appeals. 
Well, what do we want from a judge, a multijudge panel on the court? Do 
we want everybody up there that thinks exactly the same way on every 
issue? Then why do we need all of them? Why not just pick one every 
day, and we know we can get the same verdict every time because they 
all just think alike? Or why do we even need judges? If we have a set 
of criteria that we absolutely feel that everybody ought to have to be 
a judge, why do we not just program it into the computer, feed the 
facts and the argument into the computer, and if it does not fit the 
computer program, we spit it out and they lose?
  That is not what a court is all about. That is not what a multijudge 
court is all about. It is about intelligent students of the law with 
experiences in the courtroom, both as advocates and as fair and 
impartial judges, who are able to go together, take their combined 
intelligence, make arguments to themselves as they discuss the case, 
and come up with the combined intelligence of those people and the 
combined opinions of those people, which may be diverse, which comes 
up, we have discovered, over and over and over in our courts of 
justice, comes up with good decisions that fit the appropriate actions 
that are necessary for the court.
  If we have everybody who thinks just alike and there is a litmus test 
for every member of the judiciary, we do not need all those Supreme 
Court Justices. Let us just give one guy superpower and dictatorial 
power over the judiciary and move on.
  I think that both sides would feel passionately about issues 
concerning the Court. But the reality is there is a place in that Court 
for diverse opinion, and if we do not have diverse opinion, we do not 
have a Court that can effectively give a broad-based analysis of the 
law that comes before it. And then to go and try to come up with stuff 
that does not mean a thing by saying he represented somebody is just on 
the verge of laughable, and I think in all reality the arguments that 
are being made are spurious at best.
  I would encourage our colleagues in the Senate that they pass this 
case on, bring it up on the floor as soon as possible. We now have a 
Court that has basically two vacancies, one being filled until another 
Justice is selected and one that is empty. We have a Court that is 
going to work in October. I think it is important that we pass Judge 
Roberts out to a vote on the floor of the Senate, that they have an up-
or-down vote on the floor of the Senate; and if Judge Roberts does not 
get the vote, then let us find somebody else to fit the job with an up-
or-down vote on the Senate side. If he does get it, let us get him in 
to start working on the job so he can be ready as this Court convenes 
in October. And then let us get to work on our next Justice that is 
coming down, and let us not try to establish litmus tests.
  Let us not try to make people walk the line of somebody's political 
agenda. Let us say, Mr. President, give us a fair and impartial judge 
that knows the law, knows how to find the law, knows how to interpret 
the American jurisprudence, not some foreign jurisprudence, but the 
American jurisprudence and the common law and come up with the solution 
to our problems in our Supreme Court, and we will have fair and 
impartial justices in the Supreme Court of the United States. But there 
should be no litmus test whatsoever that is required of these nominees.
  And I hope the President will come up with a good nominee for this 
next vacancy; and if he comes up with one with the quality of Judge 
John Roberts and the ability of Judge John Roberts, we will have hit a 
home run in the two nominees that have been submitted to the Senate. 
And I hope for rapid confirmation of both so that we can put the 
Supreme Court back to work with a full house.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Carter) for his comments. Mr. Speaker, we are all, again, so 
fortunate to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in the House of 
Representatives because of the experience that he has. I could not help 
but see so clearly his commitment to the Constitution itself and his 
understanding of what the role of a judge is. I have to say that I 
think that the only time I have ever heard it put as succinctly was 
when Daniel Webster said: ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution 
and to the Republic for which it stands. For miracles do not cluster, 
and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on 
to the Constitution,

[[Page 20759]]

for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy 
throughout the world.'' And I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Carter) holds on to the Constitution.
  I want to also yield to another man that holds on to the 
Constitution. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is one who always has 
a copy of the Constitution in his pocket wherever he goes, and he is 
someone who has shown himself to be a true champion of this 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Franks) for yielding to me. It is an honor for me to join him here 
on the floor again tonight. The last time, as I recall, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and 
also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I were here together to 
celebrate the life of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. That was a 
somber moment, a moment of reverence and respect and reminiscing; but 
also, we came away from that evening and we came away from that week 
with a sense of the legacy that was left by the years on the bench by 
Chief Justice Rehnquist.
  And tonight we are actually looking ahead now, looking ahead to the 
future of this country, the future of this Constitution, this one that 
they have checked to see if I would have it in my pocket. And, of 
course, it is there. That rumor has started around this Congress. Now I 
do not dare be without it. But I have carried it in my pocket for 
years, and it is not the freshest one. The old one that I had I 
autographed and handed over to the chief justice of the supreme court 
of the People's Republic of China as he visited here. I thought he 
should have a copy of the United States Constitution.
  It is clear to me that already soon-to-be-Chief Justice Roberts is 
very familiar with this Constitution document and very reverent and 
very respectful.
  A number of things in the conversation, particularly the gentleman 
from Texas's (Mr. Carter) remarks reminiscing the press accounts and 
the critics of Judge Roberts, that he is hostile to Roe v. Wade or 
hostile to this or hostile to that. And as I look across that list that 
was presented, it occurs to me that he is hostile to one thing that I 
think we can agree on: he is hostile to enemies of the Constitution. I 
am grateful for that hostility. It might be the only sign in the 
gentleman's character that one can see that is of a hostility.
  And I want to tell my colleagues that my background and history with 
him is not extensive, but I did have the privilege to have breakfast 
with Judge Roberts a couple months before he was nominated by the 
President. There was a group of about six or eight of us at the table, 
and certainly it was a larger room. I had a conversation with him that 
was not a continuous type of conversation where I could probe into his 
constitutional thoughts so much as it was to judge his reactions and 
judge by his remarks.
  I would say that, of course, what I saw there was the man that we 
have seen day after day here before the Senate Judiciary confirmation 
hearings. The man that I think in the private life of John Roberts is 
the same person that we see in the public life of John Roberts. The 
people whom he surrounds himself with, the people who count themselves 
as his friends, the people who know him far better than I do I am 
impressed by, and I know them far better than I know John Roberts. But 
one can be judged by the company they keep, and the company that he has 
kept has been stellar company throughout.
  I do not think that one could write for a blueprint for a life that 
would better describe a path to the Supreme Court and, in fact, to the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court than the life so far, the bio, 
resume of John Roberts. It is exemplary. I know that when they did the 
background check, or I am told this through the media, that there was 
not a single thing, it was the cleanest background check one could have 
asked for. Of course, I expected that, but I wanted to put that into 
the record as well.
  There would not have been a nomination if there had been a problem; 
but it was one of the more stellar background checks, I understand, 
that has been run. And that is through the grapevine. Nothing that has 
been public that I know of.
  I want to tell the Members that Judge Roberts has this reverence for 
the Constitution, and I have put together some of the quotes that have 
come out of the confirmation hearings over in the Senate, and some of 
these quotes fall into different categories, but one is under strict 
construction of the Constitution. Judge Roberts confirmed my initial 
beliefs that he would uphold the true intent of our Founding Fathers by 
strictly construing our Constitution. And over and over in his 
testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, he verified 
that he is a strict constructionist and that he believes judicial 
activism is dangerous to our system of government.
  He summed it up in one line, the duty of all of us in the Federal 
Government, when he stated: ``My obligation is to the Constitution. 
That's the oath.''
  I would like those words to echo again: ``My obligation is to the 
Constitution. That's the oath.''
  If that happened to be the conviction of everyone in a black robe, we 
would have a lot easier task on the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
House of Representatives and on the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
United States Senate, for that matter.
  His qualifications for the position of Chief Justice are, I think, 
clear. And the President has been impressed with not just his clarity 
of thought, not just with his brilliance of his legal reasoning but 
also with his personality, his character, his leadership abilities.
  He explained his support for strict construction of the Constitution, 
and this would also be part of the record, when he said in the 
hearings, ``Judges are not to put in their own personal views about 
what the Constitution should say, but they are supposed to interpret it 
and apply the meaning that is in the Constitution . . . and the job of 
a good judge is to do as good a job as possible to get the right 
answer.'' And over and over again, this kind of philosophy comes 
through, not an activist philosophy but a strict constructionist 
philosophy.
  The same day he further described a judge's proper role, and he 
explained: ``We don't turn a matter over to a judge because we want his 
view about what the best idea is, what the best solution is. It's 
because we want him or her to apply the law.''
  ``We turn a matter over to a judge because we want him or her to 
apply the law.'' Not to apply their judgment, not to apply their whim, 
not to apply what they think the policy should be. That is the job of 
the legislative branch. And that is consistent with the vision of our 
Founders, and it absolutely consistent with the language and the text 
of the Constitution, and it certainly is not something that we see 
within the activist judges that sometimes come before our courts and 
make those kinds of decisions, particularly the ninth circuit out 
there. And I know the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) referenced 
that, and I appreciate his bringing that subject up before the Speaker 
and before this country.

                              {time}  2045

  And Judge Roberts went on when he said, ``It is because we want him 
or her to apply the law.'' I will continue that quote: ``They are 
constrained when they do that. They are constrained by the words that 
you choose to enact into law,'' meaning the Senate or the Congress, 
``in interpreting the law. They are constrained by the words of the 
Constitution. They are constrained by the precedents of other judges 
that become part of the rule of law that they must apply.''
  Constrained, constrained, constrained, constrained. Four times in 
that paragraph he used the word ``constrained.'' I think that is 
indicative of the kind of judge we are going to see, a judge that 
exercises constraint, and a constraint that is bound up within the 
words of the Constitution, within the

[[Page 20760]]

text of the Constitution, within the clear meaning and the defined 
boundaries of the Constitution, and the rule of law, and constraint 
within the boundaries of being a member of the judicial branch of 
government whose job it is to, as he said, call the balls and the 
strikes.
  I want to express some gratitude to Phyllis Schlafly for bringing 
that idea before this country and, in her book ``The Supremacist'' when 
she said that a judge's job is to be the umpire, to interpret the rule 
book. And now this man in his hearings picked up one more notch on that 
philosophy and said, my job is to call the balls and the strikes. Who 
would want to play a game before an umpire that did anything else? Who 
would want to play a game before an umpire that called the balls and 
the strikes as he wished them to be rather than what they actually 
were? That is what the judge's job is, and it is a very, very clear way 
to describe that.
  Mr. Speaker, John Roberts will not be a justice who seeks to usurp 
the roles of the other two branches. On the first day of his hearings 
he stated, ``I prefer to be known as a modest judge. That means an 
appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that judges are to 
decide the cases before them,'' and I continue to quote, ``they are not 
to legislate, they are not to execute the laws.''
  They are not to legislate, they are not to execute the laws.
  He also explained that, ``Judges have to decide hard questions when 
they come up in the context of a particular case. That's their 
obligation. But they have to decide those questions according to the 
rule of law; not their own social preferences, not their policy 
reviews, not their personal references, but according to the rule of 
law. According to the rule of law.''
  Now, I never dreamed as a young man, and I began in about eighth 
grade to study this Constitution and read this document and understand 
and really get some depth and appreciation for our history; I never 
thought I would be standing on the floor of the United States Congress 
celebrating an appointee to the Supreme Court because they want to rule 
according to the rule of law. I believed that every judge that ever put 
on a black robe would rule according to the rule of law. And here we 
have come to this point where activist judges cause me to come to 
celebrate because we have one before the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary for a confirmation.
  On the second day of the testimony, Judge Roberts said to his 
colleagues, ``Judges need to appreciate that the legitimacy of their 
action is confined to interpreting the law and not making it, and if 
they exceed that function and start making the law, I do think that 
raises legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of their authority to 
do that.'' Another challenge, another constraint.
  I could stand here and repeat Judge Roberts' testimony all night, Mr. 
Speaker; showcasing what a great candidate he is for this position 
would be something that I would continue on with. But when asked about 
his threats to the rule of law, he stated, ``The one threat, I think, 
to the rule of law is a tendency on behalf of some judges to take that 
legitimacy and that authority and extend it into areas where they are 
going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're 
making the law. And because it's the Supreme Court, people are going to 
follow it, even though they're making the law.''
  That is chilling to those of us who revere this Constitution, but we 
do revere the Supreme Court. And because it is the Supreme Court, in 
his testimony, ``people are going to follow it,'' even though they are 
making the law. Now, I will expand that and say, even though they are 
not following the law, even though they are not following the 
Constitution, people will respect and revere the decisions of the 
Supreme Court, because of the stature of the Court, without regard to 
the text and the intent of the Constitution or the law itself. That is 
my edit.
  Then I will pick up that quote again. He follows that with, ``The 
judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the 
basis of their legitimacy. Judges have to have the courage to make the 
unpopular decisions when they have to. That sometimes involves striking 
down acts of Congress. That sometimes involves ruling that acts of the 
executive are unconstitutional. That is a requirement of the judicial 
oath. You have to have that courage.''
  And I continue to quote: ``But you also have to have the self-
restraint to recognize that your role is limited to interpreting the 
law and doesn't include making the law.'' And doesn't include making 
the law. I repeat that for effect because it has significant effect on 
me, Mr. Speaker.
  This man, who is poised to step forward and don the robes of the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is a young man with a clear legal 
mind, a solid moral set of values, a clear understanding of his duty 
before the Court, a constitutional understanding, a rule of law 
understanding, and a duty to history. The years that I have left on 
this earth may not be as many as I pray he has, but every year that 
this unfolds and every year that these cases come before the Court, I 
pray that the President can appoint some justices to this court that 
will match the vision and the clarity and the legal understanding of 
this man, John Roberts, so that one day we can work ourselves back to 
this Constitution, this Constitution that he reveres, that we revere.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank 
the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would 
just echo some of the comments of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) in 
that this man, Judge John G. Roberts, is perhaps the most qualified 
person for Chief Justice, certainly in my lifetime, that we have seen. 
And if he is somehow castigated by liberals in the Senate and attacked 
because of his fidelity to the Constitution, then it seems that our 
only road leads to a judicial oligarchy, and those of us in this body 
can lock the doors and go home and quit pretending to be lawmakers, 
because the courts will then prevail over all.
  It is interesting, because some of the Founding Fathers, and one in 
particular, Thomas Jefferson, said it this way. He said, ``The object 
of my great fear is the Federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, 
ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground 
step by step and holding when it gains, is engulfing insidiously the 
special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.''
  This is not a new concern. Our courts have ruled that the black man 
was property. Our courts have ruled that unborn children are not human 
beings. Our courts have ruled that marriage and the family itself may 
be unconstitutional. Our courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional 
to protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography. Our courts have 
ruled that that same little girl cannot say a certain prayer in school. 
Our courts have now ruled that it is unconstitutional for her to say 
the Pledge of Allegiance. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if those of us 
standing in this place would look out across the fields of Arlington 
and ask ourselves, is that why they died, so that we could uphold those 
kinds of asinine, ridiculous interpretations of the greatest 
Constitution that was ever written by man?
  I think that we are turning a corner, and I think John G. Roberts is 
going to be a significant part of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to yield to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. In 
fact, I am humbled to follow my colleagues in this discussion about 
this great man, Justice Roberts, and of course my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Iowa, are both members of 
the House Committee on the Judiciary, and my great friend and 
classmate, in fact all four of us are classmates, but our own judge, we 
have several in the House, but my judge, the gentleman from Texas Mr. 
Carter. It is an opportunity, though, for this physician Member to 
stand up here before this body, Mr. Speaker, and say while

[[Page 20761]]

sometimes physicians are probably pitted against attorneys, I have 
great respect for them. In fact, I have two members of my immediate 
family, my brother and my daughter who are attorneys, who I am very 
proud of.
  But just to have watched this gentleman in the hearings in the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, after a week of questioning by 
our counterparts in the other body, I believe that the Congress and our 
Nation has a good sense of what kind of a jurist John Roberts will be 
if confirmed as our Nation's 17th Chief Justice. In fact, on one of the 
television news shows this past Sunday, a member of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from South Carolina, Senator 
Graham, when asked how did Judge Roberts perform, he said, ``Well, let 
me just put it this way: If it had been a prizefight, they would have 
called it in the second round as a technical knockout and the person on 
the ropes would not have been Judge Roberts.''
  Without question, it was a technical knockout heading for a knockout.
  Judge Roberts will indeed, Mr. Speaker, bring a refreshing, fair, and 
balanced approach to the United States Supreme Court which has not had 
a vacancy in 11 years.
  Our Nation is a different place than it was in 1994. We have more 
access to information, more technology, a stronger economy; we have our 
brave soldiers defending democracy in our global war against terrorism. 
The United States Supreme Court needs a perspective that understands 
accountability to both the American people and, as the gentleman from 
Iowa said, especially to the United States Constitution. Like one of 
his mentors, the late Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts has a strict 
constructionist view of the Constitution. He interprets laws 
considering the intentions of our Founders instead of the whims and 
desires of a political party or electorate. That is why we need Judge 
Roberts on the Supreme Court. He can restore a sense of restraint to 
some very creative interpretations of late. The gentleman from Arizona 
just talked about a few.
  Judge Roberts' qualifications are, Mr. Speaker, unquestioned. 
However, the Supreme Court nominee has to face a litmus test on 
ideology. Some Senators are asking whether or not this particular 
justice will protect their favorite judicially constructed rights. 
Others have questioned how he might use the position as Chief Justice 
to help the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Roberts very politely 
responds that he will interpret our laws on a case-by-case basis, he 
will hear each side and will always heed restraint to the separation of 
powers and constitutional government.
  I could go on and on, but my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have said it so 
well. This is a man that is a brilliant jurist, and it showed through 
so clearly during the Committee on the Judiciary hearings. I hope that 
when they have the vote on Thursday, or whenever it comes to a vote in 
the Committee on the Judiciary, there should not be many, if any, 
``no'' votes, and I look forward to a speedy confirmation by the United 
States Senate.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona and my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Texas and the gentleman from Iowa, for letting me participate in 
this special hour. It is so important, as the gentleman from Texas 
said, that while we do not have any official role in regard to advice-
and-consent responsibilities, we do have a responsibility and we have a 
voice, and it is good that we have this opportunity tonight to express 
that voice and to commend to the American people the new Chief Justice, 
John Roberts.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
and I are such good friends and that I hold him in such high regard, I 
am going to forgive him here on the floor for suggesting that I might 
be a lawyer. I do not know if the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) might 
want to extend such a forgiving hand as well. We are both on the 
Committee on the Judiciary and, of course, sometimes it is assumed that 
we are lawyers. But his points are so well taken, in that we do need 
judges that will simply read the law for what it is.
  I know that we repeat this a lot, Mr. Speaker, but when courts 
forcefully interject false and unconstitutional notions that go against 
justice and natural law and common sense, without allowing the issue to 
go through the legislative process of debate and consensus, it 
abrogates the miracle of America and it abridges the freedom of the 
people to govern themselves. I just am hopeful that we can recognize 
that our courts, I say to the gentleman from Texas, were never intended 
to decide social policies, or any policies, for that matter. This is 
the job of the people's Congress. This is why people send us here. The 
legislative process creates a dynamic for opposing voices on any issue 
to be heard in an open forum, and a strong consensus is necessary for 
any kind of decision, and where each decisionmaker can ultimately be 
held accountable by the people they govern.

                              {time}  2100

  And I know that the people of Texas are very proud that they have 
sent Judge Carter to the Congress.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I am happy to be 
privileged in that when Judge Roberts made his opening statement, and 
he started talking about balls and strikes, calling the balls and 
strikes, being the umpire, as far as I was concerned, it was over right 
there; he had won, because he understood the role of being a justice.
  And he happened to use something that I had used on multiple 
occasions. You know, back in the small town where I started out as a 
judge, it grew to be a big town, we have a lot of baseball and girls' 
softball, and one time they said, hey, Judge, would you come out and 
call the balls and strikes; we lost our umpire.
  And I said, friends, I call balls and strikes for a living. And I am 
not about to get up there and call balls and strikes at my daughter's 
softball game. But that is exactly right. That is understanding what a 
judge's job is. It is so very important that we have a judge that has 
the common sense of the American people to go along with a great 
intellect into the law.
  It is just so very important that we have that kind of a judge that 
comes to the Court. This is exactly want we have in Justice Roberts. He 
is so impressive, I mean phenomenally impressive. So Judge Roberts 
stole that from me. But probably I would say stole it from lots of good 
judges. I kind of think that I was a good judge; but lots of good 
judges in the United States, because they understand the concept of 
what their job is.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, Judge Carter can call the balls 
and strikes, in my judgment, any time.
  With that, I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King), for any further comments he might have.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude for you 
setting up this hour and providing an opportunity for myself to speak. 
And as I stand here as a nonlawyer and reflect upon the future and upon 
this Constitution, I think there is something that young people lose 
sight of. And I gave a guest lecture at Central College in Pella a week 
ago last Friday, so that has been about, what, 9 days ago or so. And in 
that guest lecture, it was on the Constitution, and it lasted maybe an 
hour and 40 minutes or so. And it was interesting to me that one of the 
professors there came up afterwards and he said, you have made the 
Constitution interesting. I had not seen that before.
  It never occurred to me that the Constitution was anything but 
interesting. It is a fascinating document. And if you know the history 
of it, there is a piece of it that we seldom talk about here, we often 
forget, and that is this guarantee, this guarantee of our freedoms and 
our liberties in this foundational document that is drawn upon the 
Declaration of Independence, and that our rights come from God, clearly 
in the Declaration, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain 
unalienable rights. Among them are

[[Page 20762]]

life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. But those rights are even more 
clearly defined in the Constitution, the rights that come from God. No 
man can take them away, because they come from God. And the 
Constitution defines that.
  But as we watch this Constitution get amended with decision after 
decision by an activist Court, we see these rights be diminished by 
decisions of the Court.
  And so I will take us to this question, which is: The Constitution 
either means what it says or it does not. If it means what it says, 
then we are constrained by the language, and we are further constrained 
by the language that was the intent of the original meeting, because 
the founders cannot be held responsible for an evolving language or 
evolving values system, or any idea that it should be read in light of 
contemporary values.
  People try to do that with the Bible and they get off base. Truth, 
justice, sin, virtue have always been the same. They have been the same 
1,000 years ago, 4,000 years ago, and they will be the same 4,000 years 
from now.
  But the Constitution is our guarantee. And when we deviate from that 
language, that strict construction, that originalist, the understanding 
of the guarantee that the States have all opted into voluntarily, an 
irrevocable bond that was established at the end of the Civil War, and 
we understand that guarantee must be maintained through the constraint 
of the judicial branch, not the activism of the judicial branch, 
because an active judicial branch of government undermines our 
Constitution, erodes our rights.
  If that is the case, then what value has that document whatsoever, if 
you are going to let the majority of nine justices determine the future 
of America? We have stepped back from that now with this appointment. 
We need at least two more to get there. It is a long evolutionary 
process to see this Constitution reestablished by the Court.
  We did not get here overnight. We got here over 40 years or longer. 
It will take at least that long to get back again. But I look for that 
day.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of these men. 
You know, it is said in this place that the friends you find here, you 
can pick your pallbearers out of them. And I certainly feel that way 
about these three men.
  I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve at this time in 
history with men that love America, that love freedom, that love their 
fellow human beings as much as these men do.
  We have talked a lot tonight about protecting the Constitution. But 
you know, really, sometimes it is good for us to step back and ask why 
we are really here. And ultimately we are here because we believe that 
the miracle of life in America is something that is unique.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, let us point out that when our founders as 
States decided they wanted to write a document that they were going to 
submit to govern our Nation by, the Constitution of the United States, 
they chose to sit in Congress as a group of diverse opinions 
representing their various States to come up with this document.
  They did not ask a battery of judges to come in here and do that. 
They asked people that represented their States to come in and 
represent the interests, and they debated, as we debate here in 
Congress, the laws we designed, and the intent is clear, that they 
wanted a Congress to make the laws of this United States.
  They, in Marbury v. Madison, set the precedent that said the Courts 
may interpret the laws that are made, to see if they comply with the 
Constitution of the United States, which is the sovereignty of our 
Nation.
  Of course, our true sovereignty is in God; and it is clear as the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) points out, we stated the sovereignty 
that we look to in the Declaration of Independence, where we get our 
rights from. And they are not given to us by our government, they come 
from the divine authority of God. But they went forward on that and 
they established the Congress to make the laws.
  And I agree 100 percent that is the intent of our founders, and that 
is the way it is supposed to be. That is the right and proper place. 
And the interpretation of Judge Roberts, so adequately and effectively 
and eloquently presented to the Senate to educate that bunch in the 
last week, proves that fact.
  I want to say that I am honored to be here with these four gentlemen. 
These are some of my best friends. Let me point out that Judge Roberts 
is not from any of our States. We have no parochial interest in this 
whatsoever. We are just glad that we have got a great jurist coming 
forward.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I guess he says it so well, there 
is so little to add. But you know, the umpire kind of corollary has 
been used quite a lot here tonight, and what some of us have objected 
to is like in the book, The Judicial Supremacist, when the umpire says 
strike 2, you are out. And that is what has happened a lot in some of 
these decisions lately.
  The courts and some of the activist judges have simply thrown the 
Constitution aside and said that they are not going to follow it. That 
is why we are so grateful that John G. Roberts is going to be our next 
Chief Justice, because he, I believe, will have the erudition and the 
mentality and the heart to bring the rest of the Court to reaffirm what 
the rule of law is all about.
  And, again, we talk about the rule of law. But, really, is it not 
about trying to uphold our fellow human beings? Because if we were 
willing to let judges drag us into that darkness where this concept of 
the survival of the fittest prevails, and whoever was strongest 
prevails, then it would not matter.
  But, no, we believe that all people are created by God and have a 
divine spark in them and that they deserve to be protected and that is 
what the rule of law is all about.
  And I just pray that God will continue to give the President of the 
United States the courage and the insight and the soundness of mind to 
protect America and the world and this United States Constitution that 
has given us the greatest Republic on earth.

                          ____________________