[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21029-21030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 
to bring the nomination of John Roberts to the full Senate for its 
consideration. I am quite sure that by October 3, 2005, Mr. Roberts 
will be sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.
  Today is a very important day for the Senate. I say this because 
several months ago this body was mired in a partisan judicial battle 
that many thought would end in a nuclear winter. Very few people, 
including a majority of the American public, thought that we would 
weather the storm and find common ground. But instead of nuclear 
winter, this body was able to rise above the partisan bickering that 
has plagued us for some time, and we were able to come to an agreement, 
an understanding that has allowed the judicial process to move forward.
  While I do not intend to review that entire agreement, there is one 
part that is worth noting.
  It states:

       We believe that under Article II, Section 2, of the United 
     States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to 
     consultation between the

[[Page 21030]]

     Senate and the President with regard to the use of the 
     President's power to make nominations.
       We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult 
     with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, 
     prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for 
     consideration.
       Such a return to the early practices of our government may 
     very well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately 
     accompanies the advice and consent process in this Senate.

  I think that in the case of John Roberts, the clause I read has been 
heeded by this administration, and I applaud President Bush for 
following in the tradition of past Presidents who have sought 
meaningful consultation with the Senate.
  For the first time in my short tenure as a Senator, I felt as though 
this administration put forth an effort to gauge where the Senate was 
on a nomination and acted accordingly.
  I believe the White House, when working together with the Senate as a 
coequal branch of Government, will always be able to find a consensus 
nominee who will faithfully uphold the Constitution and represent the 
best of our justice system.
  I think in the case of John Roberts, that was accomplished. This is 
one of several reasons I have decided to vote to confirm John Roberts 
as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  When President Bush nominated Mr. Roberts, I said then that I felt 
very strongly the Senate must fulfill its constitutional duty to learn 
as much about John Roberts' judicial record as possible, including his 
work over the past 2 years since he has been on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our liberties and freedom, 
and appointments for these gatekeepers are rare and pivotal. A Supreme 
Court Justice deserves a high threshold of review, and I think John 
Roberts was put to the test.
  I applaud the Judiciary Committee for all of their hard work over the 
past few months and for the quality of last week's hearings. The 
quality of the questions and the ensuing debate were a testament to the 
important work the committee does and a testament to the valued 
leadership of Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Patrick Leahy.
  I had an opportunity to meet personally with John Roberts. He is 
someone with whom you can sit down and talk for hours about the law. He 
is genial and easy to get along with. He is a family man. While these 
are all wonderful qualities, it is not why I am voting for him.
  I am voting for Mr. Roberts because he meets the criteria I have set 
out for judicial nominations, criteria I have used in assessing all 
judicial nominations that have come before this body.
  When looking at the nomination of Mr. Roberts, I first asked: Does 
John Roberts have the qualifications or credentials to be a judge?
  I think the answer to this question is obvious to anyone, and no one 
in this body will dispute it. Judge Roberts brings with him excellent 
credentials. He is a brilliant lawyer, and I was very impressed with 
his breadth of knowledge of the law. He has also, on multiple 
occasions, demonstrated a genuine understanding of the law.
  I was also very impressed with his testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee. While some of my colleagues and I would have liked for Mr. 
Roberts to further explain some of his answers and positions, no one 
can dispute he has the ability to take this most prestigious post.
  My second criteria: Will Mr. Roberts be of the right judicial 
temperament? As a lawyer who has argued in front of the U.S. Supreme 
Court 39 times, I believe Mr. Roberts has a high level of respect for 
the law, its institutions, and its traditions.
  I am convinced, after spending time with Mr. Roberts, that he will 
conduct himself with the dignity befitting of a Supreme Court Justice 
and that he will lead the Federal judiciary with honor and integrity.
  My third criteria: Will John Roberts be fair and impartial and not an 
activist? I want to believe the answer is yes.
  I do not think it is any secret there are Members of this body, 
including myself, who were and still are in disagreement with some of 
President Reagan's domestic policies, especially pertaining to civil 
rights.
  I, of course, was not in the Senate during the 1980s, and being a few 
years younger than Mr. Roberts, I was still in school when he was 
starting his legal career. I do not agree with many of the opinions Mr. 
Roberts expressed in his memos while serving in the Office of the U.S. 
Attorney General, but I can say that as a lawyer I have taken positions 
that were not my own but were my client's.
  I can also say that time has a way of changing a man. It is my hope 
that after 20 years of gaining life experience, John Roberts has a 
better understanding and appreciation of how important civil rights 
protections are to the survival of this country and that he has moved 
away from some of his earlier writings.
  There will be people in my home State of Arkansas who are going to be 
very pleased that I am voting for Mr. Roberts. I will also face 
constituents who will be disappointed. I am sure those constituents 
will ask: Senator Pryor, how can you be sure? How can you be sure, 
without broader explanations from Mr. Roberts, or without more 
documents, that he will vote this way or that way on an issue?
  My answer to that is twofold. First, I do not believe it is my duty 
as a Senator to confirm only judges I believe are going to vote the way 
I want them to 100 percent of the time. My duty as a Senator is to use 
my discretion to put the best jurist possible on the bench. I believe 
we have achieved that threshold with John Roberts.
  Just as importantly, I would answer those critical of my decision to 
support Judge Roberts by saying, you can never be 100 percent sure.
  I have chosen, based upon the evidence I have, based on my talks with 
John Roberts, based on his testimony, to put my faith in Judge Roberts.
  I have chosen to believe him when he says he is not an ideologue. I 
have chosen to believe he will uphold the Constitution above all else 
and that he will not let politics or personal agenda get in the way of 
his job.
  I am certain in the years that follow there will be times I laud 
Justice Roberts' opinions, and there will be times I will be 
disappointed in his rulings. But I am confident I will never be 
disappointed in his integrity, his temperament, or his ability to 
conduct himself as a man of the Court, not as a man of politics. 
Therefore, I once again state my intention to vote for Judge Roberts 
when his nomination comes to the floor.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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.
  (The remarks of Mr. Santorum pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1750 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________