[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is available for morning 
business.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last Thursday I submitted a statement 
expressing my concerns with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the 
United States Supreme Court.
  I am here today to reiterate these concerns as we move toward a final 
vote on this nomination.
  There is no higher legal body in the United States than the Supreme 
Court. It is the final authority on the meaning of laws and the 
Constitution.
  A Supreme Court Justice could serve for the life of the nominee, so 
the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court Justice can span 
decades.
  The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most 
important votes a Senator will take.
  With that in mind, after careful consideration, I have concluded I 
cannot support Judge Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  My first step in evaluating a nominee is to consider whether he or 
she is appropriately qualified and capable of handling the 
responsibilities of a Justice.
  Looking over Judge Alito's qualifications, it is clear this minimum 
standard has been met. However, there are additional factors in 
considering a judicial nominee.
  One such factor is the judicial philosophy of the nominee. Many of my 
colleagues argue this should have no part in the Senate's 
deliberations.
  However, if judicial philosophy helps determine who the President 
chooses, the Senate should also be allowed to consider this factor when 
deciding whether to approve or disapprove the nominee.
  This information is critical to retain the balance of power that the 
Framers of our Constitution envisioned.
  In addition to the individual's judicial philosophy, we must also 
consider the cumulative effect that approving a nominee will have on 
the Supreme Court.
  In the recent past, Republican Presidents have made 15 of the last 17 
nominations to the Supreme Court.
  The Republican stamp on the current Court is undeniable, and clearly 
the prospects of the Court becoming more moderate in the near future 
are unlikely.
  Upon this backdrop, I have evaluated the decisions and writings of 
Judge Alito, closely watched the nomination hearing in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and listened to the statements of many colleagues 
on his nomination.
  I have come away from this review with a number of concerns.
  First, Judge Alito did not provide complete answers on many important 
topics the way now Chief Justice Roberts did during his nomination 
hearing. These included many critical issues such as: Is Roe settled 
law? What are the limits of the executive branch's power?
  Second, Judge Alito failed to distance himself from the radical views 
he expressed in his earlier writings on the supremacy of executive 
power.
  Third, Judge Alito's record includes troubling decisions on vital 
issues such as search and seizure, reproductive rights, the power of 
Congress, civil rights, and affirmative action.
  Because of these facts, I have concluded that the addition of Judge 
Alito to the Supreme Court would unacceptably shift the balance of the 
Court on many critical questions facing our county, such as:
  Are there limits on the power of the presidency?
  Can the Congress regulate the activities of the states?
  How expansive is the right to privacy?
  What deference should be given to legislative acts of the Congress?
  How the Court addresses these questions goes to the heart of what we 
stand for as a country, which is why this nomination is so important.
  While many of my colleagues will disagree with my assessment of Judge 
Alito, this will be a lifetime appointment and a lifetime is too long 
to be wrong.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________