[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24281-24283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Friday, the President formally withdrew 
from the Senate his nomination of Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice 
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, he announced his intention to 
nominate Judge Samuel Alito to that same position. To those who are 
keeping count, this will be the third nomination to fill

[[Page 24282]]

the seat vacated by the future retirement of Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor made by the President.
  Justice O'Connor is still there. Three people have been nominated to 
fill her seat. I am concerned that the nomination may be a needlessly 
provocative nomination. Obviously, I will do as I have always done on 
nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I will make up 
my mind based on the hearings. But the President had before him a 
number of names of people who would have gotten probably 95 or 100 
votes out of this Chamber, virtually every Republican and virtually 
every Democrat. Such a nomination would have united, not divided, the 
country. It appears that instead of uniting the country through his 
choice, the President chose to reward one small faction of the party 
and risked dividing the country. Instead of rewarding a small faction, 
which has put him under a great deal of pressure, I wish he would have 
rewarded the American people, all 280 million of us. There were many 
conservative Republican candidates who could have easily been 
confirmed.
  Just last week, the President succumbed to partisan pressure from the 
extreme rightwing of the Republican Party to withdraw his nomination of 
Harriet Miers. The pressure did not come from the Democrats. Actually, 
the pressure did not come from the majority of Republicans. It came 
from one small, vocal wing of the Republican Party.
  I believe the President abdicated his own role in the Constitution's 
process of selecting Supreme Court Justices and allowed his own choice 
to be vetoed by extremists within his party without hearings by the 
Judiciary Committee or a vote by the Senate.
  Both the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, 
and myself said, Why do we not have hearings and then make up our mind?
  The Miers nomination became an eye-opening experience for the 
country, exposing for all to see what a vocal and virulent wing of the 
Republican Party really wants. These are not the mainstream Republicans 
I know in my own State of Vermont, the party that has done so much for 
our green mountain State. This wing did not want an independent Federal 
judiciary. They want a rightwing litmus test, not the selection of 
Justices and judges who will be fair and impartial in applying the law. 
They, in fact, demand judges who will guarantee the results they want.
  With turmoil engulfing the White House, with no exit from the 
disastrous and deadly occupation of Iraq, with an escalating Federal 
debt, and with obscenely high profits that continue to pile up for the 
administration's oil company friends, catering to an extreme wing of 
one political party jeopardizes the vital checks and balances that 
protect ordinary Americans.
  It is a pity that the President thought his position was so weak that 
he had to bend to a narrow but strident faction of his political base. 
The Supreme Court is the ultimate safeguard of our system to protect 
the fundamental rights of all Americans. I hope the White House is not 
using this announcement today to try to distract the public from the 
scandals and failures that are mounting by the day for this 
administration. Nor will the press be fooled into assuming this is the 
only issue before America.
  With the announcement of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the position to 
be vacated by Justice O'Connor, the White House failed to follow 
through with its initial discussions and engage in meaningful 
consultation. I regret the President has not chosen a clear path of a 
consensus candidate to unite the American people and the Senate. 
Actually, the Nation and the Senate would have overwhelmingly welcomed 
his choice if he had.
  Now, as I said, I am not forming a final judgment as to the merits of 
this nomination, just as I did with now Chief Justice Roberts when he 
was initially nominated to fill the Sandra Day O'Connor seat, a seat 
not yet vacated. I said I would not make up my mind until after the 
hearing, and I will do that, but an initial review of Judge Alito's 
record suggests areas of significant concern for all of us. His 
opinions from the Federal bench demonstrate that he would go to great 
lengths to restrict the authority of Congress to enact protective 
legislation to protect people in the areas of civil rights, consumer 
protection, and the rights of workers, consumers, and women. Judge 
Alito has also set unreasonably high standards for ordinary Americans 
who are victims of discrimination to meet before being allowed to 
proceed with their cases.
  The Democratic leader of the Senate and I wrote to the President last 
week. We urged him to pick one of the many qualified, mainstream women 
and minority candidates who could win widespread bipartisan support in 
the Senate. Even more importantly, they would get the same widespread 
public support in America.
  We noted the unique circumstances that now attend this nomination and 
that make it essential that Justice O'Connor be replaced by a 
mainstream nominee, not by an activist who would bring an ideological 
agenda to the Court.
  The Court that serves America should reflect all America, but 
although President Bush declared in reference to filling Justice 
O'Connor's seat on the Court that he is ``mindful that diversity is one 
of the strengths of the country,'' with the nomination of Judge Alito, 
of course, he weakens that strength. Should Judge Alito ultimately be 
confirmed, the Court will lose some of that diversity.
  There were a lot of highly qualified women, highly qualified African 
Americans, highly qualified Hispanics, and other individuals who could 
well have served as unifying nominees while adding to the diversity of 
the Supreme Court. I am one Senator who looks forward to the time when 
the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court is more reflective of the 
country it serves.
  As the grandson of Italian and Irish immigrants, I know that Italian 
Americans, like all of my mother's family, and President Bush's guest, 
the Italian Prime Minister, will be feeling pride today, but this 
nomination does not add to the diversity of the Supreme Court any more 
than I add to the diversity of the Senate.
  I imagine this announcement is a disappointment to many Hispanic 
Americans who had expected the President to seize this historic 
opportunity given to him for a third time by nominating the first 
Hispanic to the Court. I also imagine that all of the women in our 
Nation's Capital today to honor Rosa Parks, the first woman to lie in 
state in the Capitol Rotunda for her work in bringing racial justice to 
our Nation, are somewhat saddened that the seat of the first woman to 
serve on our Highest Court is not going to be filled by another woman.
  I do not expect Democrats to engage in the kinds of personal attacks 
on this nominee that the rightwing used to force the President to 
withdraw his nomination of Ms. Miers, whom he described as the best 
qualified person in the country to replace Justice O'Connor. I do 
believe we need to take the time necessary to examine the record of the 
nominee in the Reagan Justice Department and on the bench before we 
proceed with full and thorough hearings.
  The stakes for the American people could not be higher with this new 
nomination. Justice O'Connor brought an open mind to the cases she 
reviewed. She served especially as a moderating influence on the Court. 
The person who replaces her replaces a pivotal vote on our most 
powerful Court. That person has the potential to dramatically tilt the 
Court's balance. Maintaining the stability of the Court is crucial for 
the Nation, and that is going to be an important factor for me as I 
consider this nomination.
  At this critical moment and in light of the circumstances that led to 
the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, all Senators should perform our 
constitutional advice and consent responsibility, but we should do it 
with heightened vigilance. The Supreme Court is the guarantor of the 
rights of all Americans.
  I look forward to the hearings. I will, as I did before, work with 
Senator Specter, the chairman, to make sure they are open and fair as 
they were for Chief Justice Roberts. Those were open

[[Page 24283]]

and fair hearings because we had the time to prepare for them. I urge 
the President and even the leadership of this august body to allow the 
Judiciary Committee to take the time to do it right. It is far more 
important to do it right than to do it fast.
  The appointment must be made in the Nation's interest, not to serve 
the special interests of any partisan faction, even though today we 
have one that is claiming credit for destroying the chances of Harriet 
Miers but for also in effect telling the President of the United States 
who to appoint as his third nominee for this one seat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some remarks about Rosa Parks and 
the events of the day. I see the Senator from North Dakota. I do not 
know what his timeframe is, but I am to preside and relieve the chair 
at 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator. I would 
like to speak as well in morning business. I would like to speak for 15 
minutes. I ask unanimous consent to speak following the presentation by 
my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________