Archive: Confirmation Hearings
Committee Approves Alito for High Court
The vote is 10-8 for Alito along party lines.The Roberts vote in the committee was 13-5. Biden(D)-NoBrownback (R)-YesCoburn (R)-YesCornyn (R)-YesDeWine (R)-YesDurbin (D)-NoFeingold (D)-NoFeinstein (D)-NoGraham (R)-Yes.Grassley (R)-YesHatch (R)-YesKennedy (D)-NoKohl (D)-NoKyl (R)-Yes.Leahy (D)-NoSchumer (D)-NoSessions (R)-YesSpecter (R)-Yes Click here for transcript of today's judiciary committee proceeding. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 24, 2006; 10:19 AM ET | Comments (139)
The Commitee Vote
Biden(D)Brownback (R)Coburn (R)Cornyn (R)DeWine (R)Durbin (D)Feingold (D)Feinstein (D)Graham (R)Grassley (R)Hatch (R)-YesKennedy (D)-NoKohl (D)Kyl (R)Leahy (D)-NoSessions (R)Specter (R)-Yes Kennedy-10:16-No: "The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms," he said. It is to be an "independent check" on the other branches, Kennedy stated. "Today we have a president who believes torture can be an acceptable practice....a president who claims he has the capacity to spy on Americans on American soil," he said. "We cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle" when the president is "out-of-bounds," Kennedy said. Hatch, 10:05-Yes: Republicans approved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in deference to President Clinton's right to choose his nominee. Democrats should do the same in the case of Judge Alito. "It seems that some on the left cannot abide a judge" who interprets the constitution strictly. "A judge like this is bound to make us legislators act like,...
By Fred Barbash | January 24, 2006; 09:33 AM ET | Comments (58)
SJC vote on Alito set for 9:30
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet starting at 9:30 this morning to vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most observers expect a 10-8 party line vote, with the nomination moving to the Senate floor as early as Wednesday. Return to this site for live coverage of the vote. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 24, 2006; 06:27 AM ET | Comments (3)
Hearings End, Schedule Uncertain
Sen. Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said he planned on having a committee vote on Tuesday with a floor vote on Jan. 20. Sen. Leahy, the committee's ranking Democrat, would like to wait until the following Tuesday. As the committee wrapped up the proceeding, it was uncertain when the committee would vote. "We'll talk about it," Leahy said. It has already been reported that some Democrats would like to hold up the floor vote by at least a week. Sen. Specter then announced that he intended to vote in favor of Judge Alito....
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 01:19 PM ET | Comments (20)
Jack White, Reginald Turner, Theodore Shaw.
Jack White, an attorney who served as a law clerk for Alito from 2003-2004, said "I am the son of African-American parents born in the South. . . . As I clerked for Judge Alito, I saw a deep sense of duty, diligence and respect." He recognized that "every case was the most important case to the parties and attorneys with something at stake." "I saw in him an abiding loyalty to a fair judicial process," rather than to any personal ideology. "I never witnessed a situation where personal or ideological beliefs" influenced the outcome of any of his cases. "When I left New Jersey, I did not know his personal beliefs" on any of the cases. Reginald Turner, president of the National Bar Association, said the association evaluated Judge Alito and "we cannot support this nomination." A nominee to the highest court must share an "unequivocal commitment" to...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 12:26 PM ET | Comments (18)
Witnesses: Kate Pringle, Charles Gonzalez, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Kate Pringle, who clerked for Judge Alito from 1993-94, said, "We are all here because we feel strongly about Judge Alito's talent and his character" and feel he will make a great justice. Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Tex.), representing the Hispanic Caucus in Congress, said the caucus was disappointed that the president failed to appoint a Hispanic to the court. He said the Hispanic Caucus had a number of concerns about Alito, especially in voting rights cases, racial discrimination in jury selection, constitutional rights of non-citizens, Commerce Clause applications that would reduce government power to enforce civil rights and employment discrimination. "We know that the nominee will be someone of President Bush's choosing," he said, "but that does not mean the nominee should be a mere extension of the executive branch." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, "I cannot imagine my childrens' future in an America without privacy rights." Based on...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 12:13 PM ET | Comments (4)
Witnesses: Amanda Frost, John Flym,
Amanda Frost, an assistant professor at the American University Washington College of Law, testified on the subject of the recusal process for federal judges and justices, saying that there is "a procedural vacuum" that tends to undermine the integrity of the judicial branch. Whatever one's views on Alito's failure to recuse in the Vanguard case, she said, the process used in determining when to recuse is woefully inadequate. She proposed a series of procedural reforms for recusals. John Flym, a law professor at Northeastern University and an attorney for Shantee Maharaj, the plaintiff in the Vanguard case who filed a complaint about Alito's failure to recuse himself, spoke about that case. He argued that contrary to Alito's statement that he did not have to recuse, the law required recusal when a judge has a financial interest. Moreover, ownership in a mutual fund, contrary...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 11:17 AM ET | Comments (7)
Witnesses: Fred Gray, Kate Michelman, Ronald Sullivan
Fred Gray, a legendary civil rights attorney (he defended Rosa Parks in Alabama:), said, "As one who has been in the trenches, I appear today to attest to the importance" of the reapportion cases. He noted that he originated the 1960 landmark case of Gomillion v. Lightfoot, which was the first significant reapportionment case decided by the Warren Court, striking a historic blow against racially based reapportionment and racial vote dilution. Gray said he remained troubled by Alito's views on the Warren Court, which, he said, made it possible to remedy inequities across the nation in the area of voting rights for African Americans. "When I filed Gomillion," he said,"there were no black legislators" in the Southern states. Since then, in part as a result of Warren Court decisions, there have been thousands. "But we still need a strong Supreme Court to enforce these laws." Alito, he said,...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 11:12 AM ET | Comments (12)
So far...
The hearing is in brief recess to allow senators to attend a service for New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum. The subject-matter of the hearing has shifted over the past day to the question of presidential authority and seems to be addressed by Democrats as much to President Bush as to the debate over confirmation of Judge Alito. The majority of the questions being directed at professorial witnesses, for example, are on that subject. The focus on Alito's 2000 Federalist Society speech -- "Presidential Oversight and the Administrative State" -- reflects this shift. Republicans on the committee have been relatively silent on the subject, choosing not to engage on presidential powers, perhaps because it's not necessary for purposes of securing Alito's confirmation; perhaps simply because it calls attention to the eavesdropping and torture controversies. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 10:31 AM ET | Comments (12)
Witnesses: Charles Fried, Laurence Tribe
Charles Fried, a former solicitor general and a law professor at Harvard Law School, for whom Alito worked in the Reagan administration, said that the Reagan administration had a point of view about the law that is not unusual and that Alito, as a Reagan administration lawyer, argued in support of that view. That is what elections are about, said Fried. And part of that view was that the lower courts had gone too far in limiting the ability of law enforcement, too far in implementing affirmative action in the form of quotas and that the Supreme Court, as in the Roe opinion, had gone too far in "making things up." Alito did not, in fact, argue that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. Nor did he argue for the absolute immunity of the attorney general in wiretaps. What he said, Fried stated, was "'I don't question that immunity...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 09:48 AM ET | Comments (2)
Witnesses: Kronman, Nolan
Anthony Kronman, professor at Yale Law School and a former classmate of Alito, praised Alito for his "faith in the law," his faith in the "essential fairness" of the legal system. His allegiance, said Kronman, "is to the law itself . . . . He had no political agenda of any kind. I would have described him in law school as a lawyer's lawyer. . . . If you had asked me in law school if he was a Democrat, as I am, I could not have told you," Kronman said. Kronman said he has read a number of Alito's opinions and they show "a judicial temperament entirely consistent with his human temperament," which reflects an acute understanding for the limitations of his own office. "We call these qualities judiciousness," he said, "and they are the special qualities of a judge." "His judicial temperament is rooted...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 09:27 AM ET | Comments (3)
Witnesses: Profs. Demleitner, Chemerinsky
The first witness today was Nora Demleitner, a former Alito clerk and Hofstra University law professor. Describing herself as "a left-leaning Democrat" and member of the ACLU, she said Alito's confirmation "will not pose a threat to the rights of women or minorities," as critics have charged. She stressed, as many Alito supporters have, his "practical" or pragmatic case-by-case approach to the law, in contrast to the notion of him having an ideological agenda. Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at Duke University Law School, then addressed the impact on the Supreme Court of Alito replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, particularly on crucial questions of assertions of executive power. He said he has carefully read Alito's memos, speeches and decisions and "they all point in one direction . . . great deference to federal authority." He cited Alito's support, in the Solicitor General's office, of absolute...
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 09:18 AM ET | Email a Comment
Hearings Resumed at 9
Additonal witnesses are set to testify pro and con Alito's confirmation....
By Fred Barbash | January 13, 2006; 09:03 AM ET | Email a Comment
Hearing Recessed; More Tomorrow
Sen. Specter recessed the hearing at 6:36 p.m. because he felt it would go too late if continued. It will reconvene tomorrow at 9 a.m. with more witnesses. Good Evening....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 06:38 PM ET | Comments (6)
Outside the Hearing Room: Bork on Alito On Bork
Wolf Blitzer interviewed Robert Bork tonight on CNN's Situation Room, in part on the subject of what Alito said about Bork. Here's an excerpt: BLITZER: Here's what Samuel Alito said about you, back in 1988. Let me put it up on the screen. "I think he - referring to you - was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century. He is a man of unequaled ability, understanding of constitutional history, someone who had thought deeply throughout his entire life about constitutional issues and about the Supreme Court and the role it ought to play in American society." He was asked about those remarks on Tuesday. Listen to what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: When I made that statement in 1988, I was an appointee in the Reagan administration and Judge Bork...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 06:35 PM ET | Comments (17)
Other Witnesses
The committee, somewhat depleted, has begun hearing the first of four panels of witnesses both for and against the Alito nomination. The first panel included: Edna Ball Alexrod, former Chief of the Appeals Division, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Jersey-pro. Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina Law School professor of constitutional law-con; Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, pro; Samuel Issacharoff, Professor at the New York University Law School--con; Carter Phillips, appellate lawyer and former colleague of Alito's in the Reagan Administration's Office of Solicitor General--pro; Goodwin Liu, assistant professor of law, University of California-con....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 05:40 PM ET | Comments (6)
More Judges
Judge Leonard Garth, also of the 3d Circuit and the judge for whom Alito clerked, testified next. He said he had had some 85 law clerks and that "Sam Alito stands out even among that elite group." Others were former Judge John Gibbons of the 3d Circuit and former 3d Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis. An "awkward moment" occurred when Sen. Leahy took exception to appeals court judges testifying on behalf of a possible Supreme Court justice who is likely to be in a position to review their decisions. Sen. Feingold had earlier raised this with Judge Alito, who declined to respond. Leahy did not pursue the issue other than to mention it, saying he would decline to question them so as to not "create difficulty" for the judges or for Alito....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 04:20 PM ET | Email a Comment
Judges in support of Alito
Third Circuit Chief Judge Anthony Scirica testified next, along the same lines as Judge Becker before him. Others praising Alito were Judge Maryanne Trump Berry, also of the Third Circuit (she happens to be the sister of Donald Trump.) "If confirmed, Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., will serve as a marvelous and distinguished associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States," she said. Next was Third Circuit Senior Status Judge Ruggero Aldisert (who said he swore in Orrin Hatch as a lawyer in Pittsburgh years ago. "He won his first case." ( "Oh, that's sweet," said Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, laughing. "I never knew you won one," Leahy said to Hatch.) "I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years and based on my experience I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 03:43 PM ET | Comments (5)
Judges in Support of Alito
A group of judges testified in support of Judge Alito. Judge Edward Becker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (Alito's court) was the first to speak. Sen. Specter noted that Becker was appearing at Specter's request. Becker said Alito was a "wonderful human being . . . decent, kind, generous, modest and self-effacing." "There is an aspect of appellate judging that no one gets to see" except the judges themselves, that is, the conference after an oral argument. "I have never seen Sam raise his voice," he said, or behave in any way that was not temperate. "He will often change his mind" after listening to colleagues. Becker noted that his own wife owns Vanguard funds but that he (Becker) does not include Vanguard on his standing list for recusal and believes that there is no reason...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 03:26 PM ET | Email a Comment
American Bar Association
A three-person committee of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Judiciary appeared with chairman Stephen Tober speaking for it. As has already been reported, the committee, after reviewing Judge Alito's work and interviewing 300 people including experts and other federal judges and Judge Alito himself, found him exceptionally well qualified. That is the ABA's highest rating. Tober said the committee reviewed Alito's recusal practices, including the Vanguard matter that was cited by Democrats in the hearing, and found no ethical problems and nothing to quarrel with. Alito made a few mistakes on recusals, the panel found, but they were very few and there was no pattern. Tober, questioned by Sen. Specter, said some of Alito's colleagues on the bench called him "a judge's judge." Based on the interviews, Tober said: "This is a judge who brings pragmatic skills to...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 02:39 PM ET | Comments (6)
Outside Witnesses
The hearing has resumed. Witnesses (31) pro and con will testify, as well as representatives of the American Bar Association. Chairman Specter reported that the background check of Judge Alito produced nothing of consequence....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 02:32 PM ET | Email a Comment
Transcript
Click here for a transcript from this morning's hearings....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 02:09 PM ET | Email a Comment
Alito is Finished; Committee to go in Executive Session
The Judiciary Committee has concluded questioning of Judge Alito after a total of 18 hours of inquiry. The committee will go into executive session -- a routine matter -- to review any relevant material that arose in the FBI background check. Sen. Specter stressed that the executive session does not mean anything has come up. At 2.30 p.m., witnesses pro and con Alito will begin their testimony....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 01:11 PM ET | Comments (41)
Durbin Questions on Search
Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.) pressed Alito about his ruling on searches by government agents and went back to a case raised earlier in the hearings, Doe v. Groody, in which a 10-year-old girl was strip searched by police officers investigating drug transactions. Alito said he was concerned about the age of the child and said so in his dissent on the case. But he said the issue in the case concerned the interpretation of the warrant and not the action of the police....
By Lexie Verdon | January 12, 2006; 01:11 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sessions on Separation of Powers
Sen. Sessions (R-Ala.) had few questions for Alito but made the point that it was too early for a judicial nominee to be commenting on the question of whether the president had broken the law by ordering NSA eavesdropping of Americans without a warrant. Alito agreed....
By Lexie Verdon | January 12, 2006; 01:05 PM ET | Email a Comment
Schumer
Schumer told Alito he probably won't vote for him. "I remain very troubled" Schumer told Alito, about his record "in which you all too often reach for the legal theory that allows you to side with the more powerful....Unfortunately, by refusing to confront our questions directly, many of us have no choice but to conclude that you still embrace those views," Schumer said. This comment was preceded by a series of questions from Schumer, in which he ran through a series of Alito opinions and dissents designed by Schumer to support his contention that Alito is a judge who uses technical issues of jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies, etc.,. to avoid hearing cases brought by the individual in civil as well as criminal cases. Schumer, his time running out, showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy answers, which tend to be drawn out and utterly...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 12:30 PM ET | Comments (15)
Feingold
Much to Sen. Feingold's (D-Wis.) irritation, Alito declined again to say whether an innocent person has a constitutional right not to be executed. Rather than answering it, Alito dwells on technical matters relating to the availability of the federal courts for relief in various habeas corpus situations. On another matter, Feingold did elicit from Alito agreement that under our system, "evidence obtained by torture" is not admissible evidence and that the Fifth Amendment forbids compelled self-incrimination which, Alito said, is exactly the issue raised by torture. On a wholly unrelated matter, Feingold raised an objection to the fact that a group of federal judges are planning on testifying in support of Alito. Feingold asked whether Alito would need to recuse himself from cases from those judges as a consequence of their appearance. Alito said he has not thought about this....
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 12:11 PM ET | Comments (2)
So far...
The hearings are winding down. Most of the questions are now strictly for the record or promotional statements on behalf of the pet interests of senators on the panel, such as Sen. Grassley's interest in the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which concerns the role of whisleblowers in recovering funds for fraud against the government. The act is "serving a purpose and I'd like you to look at it in a completely unbiased way," Grassley said, prompting laughter from the committee, as if to recognize that these statements have lost any connection with the confirmation process. Sen. Feinstein's lengthy questioning on the power of the president to eavesdrop under the Foreign Intellitence Surveillance Act also appeared to contain no question, serving merely as a soapbox for Feinstein. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 11:48 AM ET | Email a Comment
Feinstein on Presidential Power
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pressed Judge Alito on what restrictions Congress might have over a president's power as commander in chief. She asked directly about the president's ability to order eavesdropping of Americans even though Congress did not authorize the program. Alito said again that the president like everyone else is bound by statutes enacted by Congress if the laws are constitutional, but he said a conflict between Congress and the president would require judges to seek to interpret the statutes and perhaps an analysis of whether the president's inherent pwoers are sufficient for the action. He said he was not suggestion how such a determination in this issue would come out....
By Lexie Verdon | January 12, 2006; 11:44 AM ET | Comments (2)
Video: Alito Queried on Vanguard -- Again
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. defends his handling of the Vanguard recusal in an exchange with Sen. Kennedy. Click below for the video excerpt: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011206-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=011206-3v&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage =...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 12, 2006; 11:03 AM ET | Comments (4)
Biden: War Powers of President
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), reflecting the Democrats' increasing focus on presidential power in time of war, focused on the division of war-related powers between Congress and the president. Alito said that it is unsettled whether the president can invade a country without the authorization of Congress. He enumerated the war-related powers vested in Congress and those vested in the president and went back over the history of the War Powers Resolution, but did not give his own opinion. Biden then suggested that Alito "agrees" with the argument that the president has the authority to move to a state of war without congressional authorization. "I did not mean to say that," Alito said. Biden asked again whether the president can go to war without the approval of Congress, and whether he can just go ahead and violate international law ("that's the administration's position," said Biden.) "I would...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 10:38 AM ET | Comments (2)
Hatch Takes Exception
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took strong exception to Sen. Kennedy's questioning of Alito on the issue of his membership in the Princeton CAP alumni group and whether the judge failed to recuse himself froma 3rd Circuit case involving Vanguard mutual funds while Alito had money invested in the funds group. Hatch said bringing up the issues again was not necessary. He said Alito abided by the judicial rules and that he recognized that he made a mistake in initially working on the Vanguard case and recused himself when he needed to. Hatch added that Alito's record was examined by the American Bar Association and he received an excellent rating and several ethics officials found nothing improper in Alito's actions. "You lived up to the law," Hatch said. " . . . I don't think you've been fairly treated."...
By Lexie Verdon | January 12, 2006; 10:15 AM ET | Comments (9)
Sen. Kennedy Returns to Vanguard
Kennedy continued to pound away at the issue of whether or not Alito behaved properly when he failed to recuse himself from a 3d Circuit cases involving Vanguard mutual funds, in which he had a substantial investment, especially in light of a promise he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings for the appeals court. Kennedy said Alito had given too many different explanations as to why he did not recuse himself-a computer glitch, a time lag between the pledge to the committee and the case, which was 12 years later, the fact that it was a "pro se" case in which the plantiff represented herself...and so on. How come, Kennedy asked, he did not put Vanguard on his "standing recusal list" at the 3d circuit, which helps judges spot cases where they might have the appearance of a conflict. Alito...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 10:08 AM ET | Comments (13)
Leahy: End of Life Issues, etc.,
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Alito about so-called "end of life" issues, including Washington v. Glucksberg in 1996, in which the court declined to affirm a right to assisted suicide, the Nancy Cruzan case, Cruzan v. Director, in 1990, in which the court declared a right to refuse medical treatment, and the case last year of Terri Schiavo. Assume, for the sake of argument, that each individual has a right to say they don't want medical treatment, Alito said. English common law would make such treatment an assault, basically. Cruzan assumed that it would be a fundamental constitutional right, he noted, without expressing his own view on the subject. With regard to Schiavo, Leahy asked if a Senate committee could subpoena a death row inmate to testify just hours before his scheduled execution, holding it up, a variation on a move Republicans attempted in the...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 09:21 AM ET | Email a Comment
No Alito Mention in CAP Files
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said the Judiciary Committee staff, accompanied by representatives of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), reviewed four boxes of documents pertaining to a Concerned Alumni of Princeton and found no mention of Alito. Alito has told the committee he has no memory of joining the now defunct alumni organization that, among other things, opposed co-education at Princeton. But he did put the membership down on a job application for the Reagan administration. Among the documents were canceled checks for subscriptions to the organization's magazine, Prospect, which Sen. Kennedy quoted yesterday in an apparent attempt to link Alito with them. No record of any subscription for Alito was found. This pertains to attempts by Democrats to challenge Alito's candor in his statements about his recollections of CAP. Alito had said he had no recollection of any significant involvement with CAP. Kennedy, attempting to...
By Fred Barbash | January 12, 2006; 09:09 AM ET | Comments (62)
Hearing Finishes for the Evening
Hearings will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow, Sen. Specter announced at about 6:30 p.m., closing the third day of hearings on Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Democrats, who want more time to question the federal appeals court judge, convinced Specter to break for the night so that they could look at the transcripts of the hearings and, in Sen. Patrick Leahy's words, "ask better questions." Leahy (D-Vt.) said the long day had been a "strain" for both Alito and his family. Nine hours after the day's hearings began, Specter complimented the judge on the "remarkable stamina" and "remarkable patience" he had shown. "People may not like your answers," Specter concluded, "but they are your answers." Also expected to testify tomorrow are witnesses who both oppose and support Judge Alito's nomination....
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 06:44 PM ET | Comments (13)
Sen. Coburn
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sought to defend Alito on the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) issue, noting that Coburn was a member of the American Medical Association and certainly did not agree with everything it did and said. Thus, he said, it was unfair to associate Alito with various comments, some of them said to be racist, made in a CAP publication. Having worked in the fact that he is a physician, Coburn asked Alito how the courts can make decisions involving medical or scientific concepts, such as the viability of a fetus at any particular point in a pregnancy. All knowledge, Alito responded, is relevant to the decision-making process and the courts should be receptive to considering how it might be relevant, if at all, to the law. Coburn then asked how someone could be held accountable for the death of an...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 06:32 PM ET | Comments (4)
Alito Hearings -- Video Archive
FRIDAY * At the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito Friday, Jack White testifies about his experience as a clerk for Alito from 2003 to 2004 * At the confirmation hearings for judge Samuel Alito Friday, Kate Michelman, former president of pro-choice activist organization NARAL, testifies. Michelman discusses her own abortion experience and Alito's view of privacy rights THURSDAY * Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. answers questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) about congressional power in regard to end of life and death penalty issues. * Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. defends his handling of the Vanguard recusal in an exchange with Sen. Kennedy. WEDNESDAY * Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) asked Alito about studies that he said show that Alito has tended to go against defendants in death penalty cases. Alito responded by enumerating cases in which he went the other way, in favor of the...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 06:30 PM ET | Comments (17)
Sen. Brownback
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), not surprisingly, said he will vote in favor of Alito, then yielded the rest of his 20 minutes to another Republican senator. Outnumbered Democrats do not have the votes to stop the nomination, and have not indicated that they are likely to mount a filibuster to delay the vote....
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 06:24 PM ET | Email a Comment
Video: Sen. Feingold's Questions on Capital Punishment
Click below to watch a video excerpt of Sen. Feingold's second round of questioning, in which he said studies have shown that Alito has tended to go against defendants in death penalty cases. Alito responded by enumerating cases in which he went the other way, in favor of the defendant: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011106-9v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 06:20 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Durbin
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) picks up on the "unitary executive" theme that Democrats have raised several times because of a speech Alito once delivered on the subject. Alito repeated that his own view of the "unitary executive" does not confer upon the president additional power vis a vis the other branches of government. "When I talk about unitary executive I'm talking about the president's control over the executive branch," not the power of the executive branch. Democrats have focused on this issue with some intensity because of pending legal issues involving the president's national security powers to detain individuals without trial and to order eavesdropping. Durbin asked Alito what role his personal religious or moral beliefs might have on his work on the bench. He said the answer was none . . . the same answer given by Chief Justice John Roberts during...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 06:19 PM ET | Comments (5)
Alito's Wife
Judge Alito's wife, Martha, is back in the hearing room after leaving in tears. Martha Alito, center, broke into tears and left the hearing room late on day three of her husband's confirmation hearings. (Source: AP Video) Mrs. Alito broke down during an exchange in which Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an Alito supporter, played devil's advocate to Democratic attacks on Alito's membership in a controversial alumni group by asking, "Are you really a closet bigot?" Alito said no, and Graham said he had believed him because of the way "you have lived you life." Graham then said, "I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this." Mrs. Alito started crying, and left the room. She returned after a committee break with her husband....
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 06:11 PM ET | Comments (59)
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) barely asked Alito a question during his 20 minutes, instead using some of his time to opine that Alito has been quite responsive to the many probing questions that other senators have asked. Republican staffers have been doing a little research throughout the day, and Cornyn held up the product of that work -- a chart purporting to show that Alito has answered a greater percentage of questions than did Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg during their confirmation hearings. When Cornyn did get around to pressing Alito, it was to query him on whether he was a clone of other conservative judges, as some of Alito's critics have claimed. "I am who I am, and I'm my own person," Alito replied. "You are indeed your own man," Cornyn concluded. Cornyn declared that Alito is a man of integrity and that his...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 05:44 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Graham defends Alito, predicts he won't get as many votes as Roberts
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham used his time to declare himself satisfied with Judge Alito's explanations about his membership in a controversial Princeton University alumni group and his failure to recuse himself, as he promised the Senate in 1990, from a case involving the Vanguard Group, which handles his mutual fund investments. Graham's declarations followed what has become a pattern on this third day of confirmation hearings: Democrats use their time to criticize Alito on a variety of issues, Republicans then ask friendly questions to allow Alito to rebut those criticisms. Graham said he had been scratching his head, trying to figure out why Alito would have purposefully declined to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard. Replied Alito: "There's no reason why I would make such a conscious decision." Alito said the "idea that the outcome of this case could have some effect" on his personal finances is "preposterous." Moving on,...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 05:11 PM ET | Comments (6)
Sen. Schumer
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) resumes the "minuet," as Sen. Specter has called it, over Roe v. Wade. It's ridiculous, Schumer said, for the newspapers to be headlining Alito's comment yesterday that he will be "open minded" on Roe. "I'll keep an open mind . . . Judge Alito," Schumer said, "Have you ever heard a nominee testify that he would not be open-minded." He ran through the same exercise with Alito's other comments: that no man is above the law, that he respects precedent, and so on. "Someone pledging an open mind doesn't tell us very much," said Schumer. "These are responses not answers,'" he said. Then he resumed what has become the Democratic tactic of exposing Alito as cherry-picking his answers, commenting on some issues, such as one-man, one vote -- but not on others, such as Roe v. Wade. How come, Schumer asked, "you...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 05:07 PM ET | Comments (12)
Sen. Feingold
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) raised the issue of capital punishment, claiming that studies have shown that Alito has tended to go against defendants in death penalty cases. Alito responded by enumerating cases in which he went the other way, in favor of the defendant. Feingold asked whether he agreed with Justice John Paul Stevens that three issues -- jury selection, inadequate legal representation and pressure felt by elected state judges -- were tainting death penalty cases. Did he agree, Feingold asked, with the Supreme Court's holdings that capital punishment cannot be applied to retarded people or juveniles. Alito said he recognized these decisions as precedent. "I would work within the body of precedent that's available," he said. Feingold pressed him further on his failure to recuse in a case involving Vanguard at a time he owned Vanguard mutual funds and drew the same defense Alito had...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 04:40 PM ET | Comments (42)
Sen. Sessions
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) used his time to rebut Democratic charges that Alito, as a judge, has accumulated a pattern of tilting against the individual, going through a list of cases where Alito ruled for individuals. The critics have "cherry picked" through the cases, Sessions said. Then he rebutted charges that Alito tilted against environmental causes. Then he quoted an article by the National Journal's Stuart Taylor rebutting charges that Alito tilted against individuals and another article that quoted people describing Alito as "fair minded." The Taylor article has been widely quoted during the hearing. Republicans have not quoted another Taylor article suggesting the Alito is more of a right winger than commonly believed. Then he quoted all kind of other people saying good things about Alito. He asked no real questions....
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 04:07 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Feinstein on abortion, end of life decisions
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) picked up where her colleagues left off in pressing Alito on his views on Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case granting women the right to an abortion. She noted that in answering questions on Tuesday, Alito said that the principle of stare decisis -- giving weight to prior court precedents -- is not an "inexorable command." Feinstein noted that the late Justice William H. Rehnquist used the same "inexorable" term to argue for overturning Roe, and asked Alito "did you mean it that way?" Alito said he believed that "the statement that precedent is not an inexorable command" has been used in other cases. Feinstein read from a transcript of last year's confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Contrary to the statements of a Republican senator earlier in the day, she noted that Roberts had in fact stated that Roe is the "settled"...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 03:56 PM ET | Comments (11)
Sen. DeWine
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) engaged Alito in a largely academic discussion about doctrines of free speech, specifically about access to public forums and commmercial speech. Alito responded by describing, accurately, the state of Supreme Court jurisprudence in these fields. It was not clear what, if anything, DeWine was looking for, other than to express what he called his own "concerns" about restrictions on public forums. This appeared to be an example of the oft-noted phenomenon of senators using confirmation hearings to attempt to influence the thinking of future justices....
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 03:26 PM ET | Comments (2)
Round 2 on Alito alumni group
Round two in the battle over Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton went to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), after Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced that he had arranged for the Democrats to peruse the group's records. Earlier in the day, the two senators traded sharp words after Kennedy proposed issuing a subpoena for the group's records, held in a private collection at the Library of Congress. Alito listed his membership in the controversial group on a 1985 job application, but has testified that he has no recollection of joining or being an active member. He has disavowed some of the group's controversial positions, such as its opposition to Princeton University's programs to diversify the once all-male student body. Specter said he did not immediately get Kennedy's December written request for the group's records because of a mix-up. He said that given the fact that he and...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 03:14 PM ET | Comments (12)
Sen. Kohl
The Democrats are increasingly using as a line of attack the charge that Alito has "distanced himself" from the sentiments he voiced in the past, on issues such as abortion, reapportionment, and the role of the courts in upholding traditional values. They continue, as well, to suggest that he is answering questions selectively. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), for example, wanted to know why Alito comments on the underlying principles on some precedents but declined to comment on the underlying principles of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Alito said it's important to distinguish between issues that could realistically come before the court -- issues that are in play --a nd issues that are not, such as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling declaring school segregation unconstitutional. Roe is "involved in a considerable amount of litigation before the courts," Alito said, and therefore he...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 02:56 PM ET | Comments (22)
Alito explains refusal to answer more abortion questions, "disavows" alumni group
Answering a question from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Alito said that the Supreme Court frequently hears cases involving abortion rights, explaining his refusal to spell out in advance how he might rule on abortion cases. "To do that would undermine the entire judicial decision-making process," Alito said. "When an issue comes before us, the briefs are not a formality. The arguments made by the attorneys are not a formality." Alito said judges need to study those arguments, not jump to a conclusion in advance. "You shouldn't decide legal questions," he said, "even in our own minds without going through that whole process." If judges did that, he said, "people would lose all their respect for the judicial system." Kyle, referring to what he called the "scurrilous material" read into the record by Sen. Kennedy concerning positions held by the controversial alumni group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, asked Alto whether...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 02:38 PM ET | Comments (12)
Sen. Biden
Sen. Biden (D-Del.), following Kennedy's lead, focused once again on Alito's one-time membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Biden donned a Princeton Cap, "proudly," he said, because a large percentage of the students are now women and minorities. "When you listed CAP" in his 1985 job application, Biden asked, was he doing it just to impress the higher-ups in the Reagan administration. "Because you don't impress me as someone . . . that would want to keep Princeton" as an all-male institution. "You don't impress me as belonging to that club. . . . Only thing I can figure," said Biden, is that Alito was trying to impress the Reagan administration and get a job. Alito said that by the time he entered Princeton there were many minorities in the class and Princeton went coeducational while he was a student there. Biden then cut him off before...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 02:20 PM ET | Comments (6)
Transcript of Today's Hearing
Click here for morning transcript of the hearings....
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 02:03 PM ET | Comments (3)
Video: Specter-Kennedy Clash on Alumni Group
Click below to watch a video of Sen. Kennedy proposing that a subpoena be issued to obtain records from Concerned Alumni of Princeton regarding Alito's membership. Chairman Specter responds: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011106-6v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true......
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 01:29 PM ET | Comments (34)
Video: Leahy's Questions on Presidential Powers
Click below for Sen. Leahy and Alito discussing the pesident's power to authorize eavesdropping that is otherwise prohibited by Congress: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011106-7v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 01:15 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Grassley
Moments after Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) went at it, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) told Alito that his opponents were "desperate." Comparing Alito to a quarterback whose team is ahead in the fourth quarter, Grassley charged that Democrats are going to keep "trying to sack you." "They haven't hit you all day," he said, so expect some "last minute Hail Marys." In an apparent reference to Sen. Kennedy's request that the Senate subpoena records from a conservative alumni group that Alito once said he was a member of, Grassley told Alito that his critics are "grasping at any straw . . . to tarnish your reputation." Responding to another Grassley question, Alito elaborated on 1980s-era memo in which he criticized 1960s-era Supreme Court decisions on legislative reapportionment. The most famous of those decisions established the "one-man, one-vote principle" requiring legislative districts to be...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 01:05 PM ET | Comments (12)
Alito & "The Women"
Jonathan Darman, writing for Newsweek's Web site Wednesday ("Getting to Know You"), gives political junkies who are glued to the Alito hearings the final word on a question popping up on political blogs -- who is the woman who can be seen over Judge Alito's left shoulder? Judge Alito, flanked by his wife, Martha (left), and Rachel Brand, Assistant U.S. Attorney General. (Source: AP Video) Darman identifies her as Rachel Brand, the Assistant Attorney General assigned to help shepherd Alito through the hearings. Darman describes Brand and Martha Alito, the judge's wife (who appears over his right shoulder), as "two rosy angels." "Seated just behind him as he took the podium yesterday were nine females, including his wife, sister, daughter and mother-in-law. These women were largely silent (though the Alito women were overheard breezily joking with one another on a ladies' room break). But their mere appearance makes a difference....
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 12:55 PM ET | Comments (2)
Kennedy and Specter Have Words
Things really got ugly -- really ugly -- between Sens. Kennedy and Specter. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked further hostile questions on CAP -- the Princeton University concerned alumni organization that, among other things, opposed co-education at the university. Kennedy said he did not think Alito's responses to the committee on CAP "add up." Kennedy proposed issuing a subpoena to the owner of the organization's records and go into executive session to do so. Specter reacted angrily, asking why Kennedy had brought this up in public as opposed to consulting with Specter on it in advance. Kennedy claimed he sent Specter a letter. Specter, angrily, said he never got one. "If you're going to rule it [a subpoena] out of order, I want to have a vote on that," Kennedy said. "I take umbrage at you telling me what I received," Specter said, with growing anger. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 12:42 PM ET | Comments (195)
Video: Alito on Stare Decisis
Click below to watch a video excerpt from Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) question period, in which he asked Alito about stare decisis: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011106-4v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 11, 2006; 11:50 AM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Leahy
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) had a significant exchange with Alito on the subject of the President's power to authorize eavesdropping that is otherwise prohibited by Congress: LEAHY: Could he order the FBI to conduct surveillance in a way not authorized by statute? ALITO: The president is subject to constitutional restrictions and he cannot lawfully direct the FBI or anybody in the Justice Department or anybody else in the executive branch to do anything that violates the Constitution. LEAHY: I'm speaking now of statute. Could he order our intelligence agencies to do something that was specifically prohibited by statute? ALITO: Well, my answer to that is the same thing. He has to follow the Constitution and the laws of the United States. He has to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. If a statute is unconstitutional, then the Constitution would trump the statute. But if a statute is...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 11:49 AM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Specter Chastises Supreme Court
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) led off the second round of questioning by senators with a series of questions regarding congressional power. The Supreme Court in recent years has struck down all or part of a number of major legislative initiatives, something Specter called an "insult" to elected lawmakers. Do you judges have some method of reasoning superior to the method of reasoning used by the Congress, Specter asked. "I would never suggest that judges have superior reasoning power," Alito said. And he thought that even after appearing here for a day-and-a-half?, Specter jokingly asked Alito. Alito, wisely, said he did. While the exchange was lighthearted, the questioning went to a key question. Congress must ground legislation that it passes in the Constitution, which gives it the authority to regulate interstate commerce as well as to enforce provisions of the 14th Amendment. The court has from time to time questioned the...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 11:29 AM ET | Comments (3)
Sen. Coburn on Foreign Law and "Heart"
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) pursued two themes, the citation in court opinions of foreign law and whether, and to what extent, Alito is a man with "heart," the latter question giving Alito an opportunity, once again, to refer to the fact that his parents were poor immigrants and to demonstrate that judging is more than a matter of dry case law. "You've been unfairly characterized" as not caring about "the little guy, the weak and the poor," Coburn said. How do you plead? "When I get a case about discrimination," said Alito (clearly prepared for such a question). "I have to think of people in my own family who suffered discrimination" because of ethnic origin or gender. "I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and experiences...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 10:54 AM ET | Comments (3)
Brownback on Roe
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) used most of his time as a forum to criticize the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that granted women the right to an abortion in 1973 and has been affirmed numerous times since. Brownback told Alito that justices should not always vote to uphold prior court decisions just because they are so-called "super-duper precedents." Sometimes, he said, the court gets it wrong, as it did in upholding the separate but equal doctrine in the Plessy case. Clearly some court precedents aren't deserving of respect because they are "repugnant to the Constitution," Brownback said, a broad view that Alito said he could agree with. Brownback then cited a number of liberals criticizing the reasoning of Roe. "Settled law?," he asked. "Superduper precedents?" Some don't seem to think so, he said. Alito calmly gazed at the senator, waiting for a question. Brownback also quizzed Alito on his...
By JoBecker | January 11, 2006; 10:45 AM ET | Comments (6)
Sen. Durbin
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he, and others, were concerned that Alito would be a deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He was concerned, he said, because Alito has declined to disown his 1985 memo saying there was no constitutional basis for a right to abortion and because he declined to state his current views on Roe. Why, Durbin asked him, was he willing to answer questions about Griswold [the 1965 decision establishing a right to privacy in the context of contraceptives] and Brown [v Board of Education] but not Roe v. Wade. "For you to say that you'rr for Griswold . . . but you can't bring yourself to say there is a constitutional right to a woman's privacy . . . I'm troubled by that." Alito said Brown was squarely based on the Equal Protection Clause. Griswold, while based on "emanations and...
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 09:53 AM ET | Comments (3)
Best Blog Commentary on Alito Hearings
The award for most entertaining blog commentary on yesterday's hearings goes to Professor Stephen Bainbridge at professorbainbridge.com:After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.) Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Schumer and Leahy's feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side........
By Fred Barbash | January 11, 2006; 08:05 AM ET | Comments (17)
Video: Schumer-Alito Exchange on Abortion
Click below for a video excerpt from Sen. Charles Schumer's (D-N.Y.) exchange with Alito on the subject of abortion: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-10v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the flash...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 07:07 PM ET | Email a Comment
Cornyn Chats
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) made it his business for 30 minutes at the end of very long day to show that Judge Alito would rule like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the associate justice that he has been nominated to replace and who was often considered a voice of moderation on the court. Repeatedly referring to O'Connor as "the model supreme court justice" -- a clear reference to Democratic praise of her, Cornyn displayed charts to show that Alito had ruled similarly to her in particular cases. "You and Justice O'Connor bear a lot of similarities," said Cornyn, a comparison that is nails on black board to his opponents. "If Sandra Day O'Connor is not outside the mainstream, then Sam Alito is not outside the mainstream." In response to Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) questions on abortion, Cornyn pushed the point with Alito, that the right to abortion is not specifically stated...
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 07:05 PM ET | Comments (1)
Committee Adjourns
The committee adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow....
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 07:03 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Schumer
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), like Lindsey Graham and others before him, used his questions as a forum for his own views on Roe v. Wade, on stare decisis and on Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito was largely a prop, except for what Schumer acknowledged was a symbolic attempt to get Alito to commit himself on whether he still believed the Constitution did not embody a right to abortion. Schumer said he is "greatly disturbed" by Alito's unwillingness to "distance himself" from earlier statements on Roe. "We can only conclude that you would overrule Roe v. Wade," said Schumer. "I don't know a way to answer how I would decide a constitutional question," Alito said....
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 06:12 PM ET | Comments (12)
Graham Lectures
Capturing the repetitive nature of the long day of questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) opened his session by joking that "I guess there's no rule against beating a dead horse." Graham then proceeded to testify himself on various issues, expressing his view that the president should have powers that allow to be at his strongest in time of war. "This is really not about you so you don't have to listen," Graham candidly said to Alito as he lectured on presidential power. He pressed the judge about World War II cases he couldn't remember and tried to draw Alito out on the issue of presidential power -- but rarely let him answer. At times, it wasn't clear that Graham was with the GOP program, sparring with himself and asking Alito questions the nominee wasn't sure how...
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 06:03 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Feingold
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) tried, with little success, to get a sense of Alito's views on the role of the courts in disputes such as that over National Security Agency eavesdropping. He then used his question time largely as a forum on that subject. In the process, however, he pursued an unusual line of questioning that made Alito visibly uncomfortable. He asked Alito whether the subject of the eavesdropping and its legality came up during his rehearsals for the nomination. After some hesitation, Alito, who was taken aback, said that the general area of wiretapping and foreign intelligence did come up. Who was present during these practice sessions, asked Feingold. "Nobody at these practice sessions has ever told me what to say," Alito stated, answering an unasked question, somewhat defensively. Feingold said he only wants to know if Alito got any feedback on the subject or...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 05:09 PM ET | Comments (10)
Sessions Speaks
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) took to testifying himself during his question time, casting what he thinks Alito would do on the court in the most positive way. Alito comfortably agreed with his GOP ally, permitted to cite his views unchallenged by Democrats. Seven hours into questioning in a packed, hot room, Alito's tone, demeanor and appearance have remained unchanged. He is most loquacious when Republicans are questioning him and everyone is happily in agreement. Sessions afforded him that opportunity. Alito even made his first joke. When Sessions asked him if the president could cut his salary, Alito quipped to much laughter, "The president certainly can't -- and Congress can't either." In raising Alito's 1985 memo as a young Justice Department lawyer in an abortion case, Sessions took pains to note that Alito's anti-abortion position did not advocate striking down the landmark abortion case permitting Roe v....
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 04:43 PM ET | Comments (2)
Video: Alito on Warren Court; One Man, One Vote
Click below for video of Sen. Kohl's exchange with Alito regarding Alito's views about the Warren Court: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-8v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the flash movie page...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 04:28 PM ET | Email a Comment
Video Excerpt: Alito on Robert Bork
Click below for Sen. Herb Kohl's (D-Wis.) questioning of Alito on what the nominee thought of Judge Robert Bork. The question related to comments Alito made in 1988 regarding the Senate's rejection of Bork's Supreme Court nomination: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-7v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page //...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 04:17 PM ET | Email a Comment
So far...
The past hour, except for the time consumed by Sen. Sessions, has been more productive than the first part of the day. Sens. Kohl and Feinstein asked serious questions and got serious answers on the subjects of one-man, one vote, congressional power under the Commerce Clause, the meaning of precedent and the circumstances under which precedent may be overruled. Alito, in turn, has been more forthcoming in explaining the reasoning behind some of his more controversial opinions on the 3d Circuit. What, exactly, he meant in his 1985 job application memo (saying he was inspired to enter the practice of law by wrong-headed Warren court decisions) remained a mystery. In fact, he said he approved of most of the decisions he had appered to disapprove in the memo....
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 04:15 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), trying to tease out Alito's views on the right to abortion, pressed Alito on Roe and when it was appropriate to overrule precedent. She made reference to Alito's memo, when an assistant solicitor general, mapping out a strategy to undermine Roe. "I did not advocate in a memo that an argument be made that Roe be overruled," said Alito, protesting Feinstein's characterization. On stare decisis, in the context of Roe, Alito responded that there were a host of factors to be considered when contemplating overcoming precedence. But he would not be pinned down. "This is not a mathematical formula," he said. The Supreme Court has said there has to "be a special justification." Feinstein pressed for examples. If the rule has proven to be "unworkable," he said, that might justify overruling precedent, as when the court overruled the 1976 decision,...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 04:03 PM ET | Comments (6)
Alito Agrees with One-Man, One-Vote
Sen. Herb Kohl questioned Alito at length on the 1985 job application he wrote expressing his opposition to the direction of the Warren Court, eliciting some actual news as he sought to settle some of the hottest controversies surrounding his nomination. Alito stated that he had no objection to the "one-man, one vote" principle" enunciated by the Warren Court in Reynolds v. Simms and Baker v. Carr, and also that he had no objection to Griswold v. Connecticut, the Warren Court ruling establishing a "right to privacy" that later served as the basis for Roe v. Wade. He agreed also, said Alito, with a 1972 Supreme Court opinion barring the executive branch from conducting "domestic security" wiretaps without a proper warrant. In this exchange, Alito also distanced himself from Judge Robert Bork, who he once praised as a worthy Supreme Court nominee but has...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 03:02 PM ET | Email a Comment
More from Kyl
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) returned from the lunch break driven to help the nominee refute Democratic charges that Alito is not sympathetic to minorities or the aggrieved in discrimination cases that come before him. Armed with cases from the 3rd Circuit, Kyl threw a number of soft balls to Alito that allowed the judge to articulate cases in which he ruled in favor of the party that charged discrimination over the government or an employer. "I have to decide every case on its merits," Alito pledged. "There are a number of cases in which you have ruled in favor of minorities. . . . It would be inaccurate to say you have not taken that position [in favor of minorities] in the 4,000 cases you have decided," offered Kyl almost rhetorically. Kyl also took issue with the Democrats claim that since Alito...
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 02:48 PM ET | Comments (33)
Transcript of Today's Hearing
Click here for a transcript of today's hearings. It will be augmented as available....
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 01:05 PM ET | Comments (1)
Video: Alito on Presidential Powers
Click below for a video excerpt in which Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) questions Alito on limits to presidential power: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-5v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the flash...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 01:04 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Kyl
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) denounced what he called a trend of judges citing foreign law. Alito said he did not think that looking to the courts of other countries was very helpful. "We should look to our own Constitution, our own precedents," he said. But he said there were situations in which it is appropriate to bring up foreign law, such as cases involving treaties, or a contracts case involving the law of another country. "There are situations . . . when it is legitimate to look to foreign law, but I don't think it's helpful when interpreting the Constitution."...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 01:03 PM ET | Email a Comment
Biden
Sen. Joseph Biden ( D-Del.) was 10 minutes into his 30 minutes of allocated time before he asked his first question -- instead repeatedly assuring Alito that his party was not personalizing the hearing but that members were merely "puzzled" by many of his comments and rulings. Biden took the time to emphasize the controversial nature of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative group to which Alito belonged that opposed women and minorities at Princeton. Biden was also focused on using his time to raise the fact that Alito would be replacing Sandra Day O'connor -- moderate and often the swing vote on the divided court. Raising a discrimation case in which Alito was the only judge out of 12 on his circuit to side with an employer, Biden said of O'Connor: "She was much more prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the employee -- and you're much more prepared...
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 12:59 PM ET | Comments (7)
So far...
So far, some of the senators -- Kennedy, Biden, Grassley and Hatch among them -- have done a lot more talking than Judge Alito. Had Alito been in a mood to elaborate on his judicial philosophy, he would have had little opportunity to do so. What's happened, predictably, is that senators have led him into a series of platitudes (no man is above the law, the president should not have unchecked power, judges should not legislate, I promise to be open-minded) that would be newsworthy only had he said the opposite (the president should have unchecked power . . . .") The committee has given Alito his first opportunity to respond to charges leveled against him by various interest groups: with regard to his failure to recuse in the Vanguard case, his membership in a Princeton organization opposed to coeducation, his supposed disinterest in the rights of...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 12:50 PM ET | Comments (1)
Video: Hatch-Alito Exchange on Vanguard Recusal
Click below to watch a video excerpt of Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) exchange with Alito regarding the Vanguard case that Democrats have raised questions about: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-4v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm";...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 12:40 PM ET | Email a Comment
Grassley Questions Alito
Following Sen. Kennedy's lengthy comments critical of Alito, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) delivered lengthy comments favorable to Judge Alito. He had an aide hold up large blue placards inscribed with pro-Alito statements, such as the American Bar Association's determination that Alito is well qualified to serve on the court. He then pressed Alito on a series of tough questions: "Judge Alito, do you believe the executive should have unchecked authority?" asked Grassley. "Absolutely not," said Alito. "Do you believe the president of the United States is above the law?" "No man is above the law," responded Alito. And so on and so forth. In spite of Grassley, Alito did present a broad and, for a conservative, a relatively flexible view of constitutional interpretation, saying that among a judge's most challenging jobs was to decide constitutional questions unanticipated by the framers and thus unmentioned in...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 12:23 PM ET | Comments (3)
Kennedy Questioning
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) came out predictably swinging this morning as he pressed Alito on why the judge did not recuse himself from a 3rd Circuit case involving a financial institution in which he had a stake. Kennedy emphasized that Alito had promised the same committee years earlier that he would not rule on any Vanguard cases. Alito said he simply overlooked that Vanguard was a party to the case and said he would do it differently if it came up again. "I just didn't focus on the issue of recusal and that was an oversight on my part . . . . And it didn't give me a chance to apply my personal policy." Kennedy, who has been one of the most vocal opponents of Alito, questioned the judge's propensity to routinely favor the government in 3rd Circuit rulings. "We need to know whether the average citizen can...
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 12:07 PM ET | Comments (43)
Video: Alito on FISA, Princeton Alumni Group
Click below to watch a video excerpt of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) questioning Alito on the FISA law and his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton University: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 12:01 PM ET | Email a Comment
Video: Alito Discusses 1985 Abortion Comments
Click below to watch a video clip of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. about his 1985 statement on abortion: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=011006-2v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage =...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 10, 2006; 11:23 AM ET | Email a Comment
Hatch Questions Alito
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) played the role he has played in every confirmation hearing involving a Republican appointee: Making lengthy supportive statements designed to rebut critics of the nominee, in this case on the subject of coeducation at Princeton, recusal in the Vanguard case and on Alito's views of executive power and the importance of judges not invading the legislative sphere. Alito said that while the judiciary "has to protect rights, and should be vigorous" in doing so, the role "is a limited role. It should always be asking itself whether it is straying over the bounds, whether it is invading" the authority of the legislature, for example. On the other hand, a judge should always approach cases "with an open mind." Excerpts below: Hatch did give Alito his first opportunity to explain why he did not initially recuse...
By Fred Barbash | January 10, 2006; 11:07 AM ET | Comments (6)
Leahy Questioning
Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) stepped it up a notch, pressing Judge Samuel A. Alito about his views on the current political controversy -- whether the president has the right to exercise executive authority in wiretapping during time of conflict. Alito tried to assure the committee that he felt the president was obligated "to comply with the statutes that are passed." But the nominee, to Leahy's frustration, left some room in his answers for judicially exploring whether there were overriding circumstances that the government could defend. While Sen. Specter led the nominee through Alto's prepared responses on the hot-button issues, Sen. Leahy tried to push Alito out of his comfort zone by challenging the answers he had spent weeks rehearsing. Leahy asked Alito to explain his dissent in a third circuit cases that defended the police's decision to strip search a 10-year-old girl in drug case....
By Lois Romano | January 10, 2006; 10:43 AM ET | Comments (13)
Video: Judge Alito's Opening Statement
Click below to watch Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: var movieSrc = "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player2.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=center&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=010906-8v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=alitohearing&playlistxml=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "427" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "300" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the flash movie page var...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 9, 2006; 05:20 PM ET | Comments (3)
Judge Alito's Statement
Judge Alito tried to communicate several important points in his testimony, in an apparent attempt to answer some of the critics of his nomination as well as to provide support to his allies. First, he stressed, there is a great difference between being a lawyer representing a client and being a judge. "When I became a judge," he said, "I stopped being a practicing attorney. That was the big change. The role of the practicing attorney," he said, is to "achieve an outcome." "A judge can't have a preferred outcome in any case," he said, "and a judge certainly doesn't have a client. A judge's only obligation is to the rule of law . . . . In every case a judge has to do what a law requires." Second, he emphasized the duty of a judge to keep an open mind on all...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 03:53 PM ET | Comments (15)
So far...
The Republican senators' statements have now shifted from the parameters of the hearing -- what a nominee can or cannot say -- to Roe v. Wade. The "real debate here is about Roe," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) Coburn, Brownback and Graham have all in succession used the hearing to denouce Roe. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 03:09 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Brownback
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said he, like Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall, supports the concept of a limited judiciary. "That narrow scope of judicial power was the reason people accepted that the courts could have the power of judicial review." He said he agrees with Justice Frankfurter also that "courts are not representative bodies . . . their judgment is best informed . . . within narrow limits." Brownback took issue with suggestions that the Senate should be worrying about "ideological balance." Seats on the court, he said, "are not reserved" for specific points of view. Therefore, contrary to what Democrats say, it makes no difference that Alito would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a centrist. During Justice Ginsburg's hearing, practically "no mention was made of balance" on the court, he said. To illustrate his point, Brownback came equipped with a visual aide chart...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 03:01 PM ET | Comments (5)
Sen. Durbin
Prepared text of the statement of Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) Judge Alito, I welcome you and your family to the Judiciary Committee. First, I would like to thank Chairman Specter for waiting until the new year to hold this hearing. Holding this hearing earlier would not have given us enough time to review Judge Alito's record as thoroughly as the Constitution requires and the American people deserve. Why has this nomination risen to the level of historic importance? The Supreme Court has handed down 193 decisions over the past ten years that were decided by a 5-4 vote. Justice O'Connor was the fifth and deciding vote in 148 of these 193 cases. Time and again the vacancy you seek to fill was the most important vote on the Court for civil rights, human rights, women's rights, workers' rights, and restraining an overreaching President. Justice O'Connor, the Justice whom you...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 02:42 PM ET | Comments (2)
Sen. Graham
"My main concern here is not about you, it's about us," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) a sentiment no doubt shared by many observers of the confirmation process in recent months. "If we don't watch the way we treat Judge Alito, we're going to drive" good people away from the judiciary, he said. Graham then delivered the most straightforward statement of the day. He likes Alito and will surely vote for him, he said. He's glad Alito worked for Ronald Reagan because "we like Ronald Reagan." What sort of person did people expect President Bush to nominate, anyway, he asked. Democratic nominees worked for Democrats; Republicans for Republicans. Graham said he doesn't like Roe v. Wade and hopes to see it fall. He said he sees no reason, in the case of Roe, why a nominee must be bound by all precedents, especially when "millions of children have been...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 02:35 PM ET | Comments (2)
Video: Excerpt of Sen. Kennedy's Opening Remarks
Click below to watch an excerpt of Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-Mass.) opening remarks: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=nation&postvideo=010906-7v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none" ; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or alternate html code into current page // set next three vars if useRedirect is true... var flashPage = "flash.htm"; // the location of the flash movie page var noFlashPage = "noflash.htm";...
By washingtonpost.com Editors | January 9, 2006; 02:25 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Sessions
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) came armed with specific Alito opinions designed to rebut Democratic criticisms and charges that he almost always sides with the state against the individual and against minorities. First, it fell to Sessions to recite Alito's resume (Phi Beta Kappa, Assistant SG, U.S. Attorney etc.,.) and note his many qualities: He praised Alito as a "brilliant but modest" jurist "who does not use the bench" to promote any political or legal agenda, who has lots of experience, who has obtained the American Bar Association's highest rating, who did "great job" working for the Reagan Administration. "This is exactly what the American people want," Sessions said. Sessions said he really liked Chief Justice John Roberts' description of himself as a "modest" judge, and said several times that he believed Alito too would be a "modest" justice, based on his appeals court record as a "modest"...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 01:53 PM ET | Comments (6)
So far....
So far, the opening statements have gone in predictable directions, with Republicans arguing, in line with the so-called "Ginsburg" precedent, that nominees should not give their views on issues that might come before the court, thus attempting to set the stage for a certain amount of silence on Alito's part. Democrats, by contrast, have tried to make the case that nominees, particularly this nominee, (in light of his extensive paper trail,) must give their views to the greatest extent possible. Each Democrat has then reeled off a series of Alito statements or decisions that concern them, with Roe v. Wade getting the most mentions, followed closely by his views on presidential power in the context of national security, followed by what they claim is a pattern of Alito coming down on the side of government as against the individual. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 01:40 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Kohl
The opening statement of Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) was, for him, aggressive. "Before we give you the keys to the car, we'd like to know where you're going to take us," he said. Particularly, he said, he would want to know about memos Alito wrote while a Reagan administration attorney, especially his job application, where he said there was no constitutional right to abortion and criticized decisions of the Warren Court in the areas of voting rights and criminal law. "Your supporters" dismiss some of those memos as no longer relevant, Kohl notes. "So it is our job to sort out the truth about your record," to determine whether you are a "mainstream conservative" who will fairly decide all cases or someone who, as has been suggested, too often sides with government authority against the individual. "We want to know what is in your mind and in your heart," Kohl...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 01:29 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Kyle
Where Sen. Hatch focused on the parameters of the hearing, and Sen. Grassley on criticizing the critics, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) turned his attention to Alito's qualifications, noting that he is brings more judicial experience to the court than any nominee in recent memory. Alito's experience as a prosecutor could also prove helpful, he said, as will his experience as a lawyer in the Reagan administration. Of course, he noted, the Reagan administration "set the agenda" and "you followed it." "You have a great deal of hands on experience," Kyl said. But the judicial record "should be the focus" of the committee. "I view your nomination with a heavy presumption of confirmation," said Kyl, thus becoming the first senator to explicitly forecast his vote. The "little guy" versus the "big guy" framework raised by Democrats, he said, is inappropriate. "Big guy. Little guy. It should...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 01:20 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Biden
Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) said he believes Alito's nomination was a possible turning point in the direction of the court. "We all act like there's not an elephant in the room," he said, "without, as far as I can determine, specifying what that elephant is." In contrast to Sen. Hatch's warning about what nominees cannot say, Biden said he wants to stress what a nominee can say and indeed, must say because this is "the democratic moment" in the process. The Founding Fathers "intended" that people know what a judicial nominee thinks, Biden said. "We owe it to the American people to have a conversation" about the issues that affect their lives profoundly. "This is not about you. You find yourself in the middle" of one of the great constitutional debates in U.S. history," Biden said, over states' rights, the right to privacy, the interpretation of the 10th and...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 01:08 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Kennedy said Alito's record "troubles me deeply." Especially in the context of the president's "spying program," he said he found Alito's deference to presidential authority especially troubling. "I'm gravely concerned by Judge Alito's clear record of support for vast presidential authority" unchecked by the other branches of government. I'm concerned, he said, about Alito's support for intrusions on individual privacy and indeed, finds his views "frightening." Alito, Kennedy says, has too often ruled against the individual...."Average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom." Judge "Alioto" (sic) has not written in favor of a person of color, Kennedy claimed. Here is a text of the opening statement by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) Judge Alito, I join in welcoming you and your family to this committee. I appreciated the opportunity to visit with you in my office a few weeks ago. I was particularly...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 12:40 PM ET | Comments (40)
Sen. Hatch
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) tried to set some parameters for the hearings, particularly with reference to what a nominee should and should not say in the confirmation hearing. "We must remember that judicial nominees are constrained on what they can discuss and how they can discuss it," he said. He said some interest groups "obsess" about one or two matters or "cherry pick" from a few cases or "look at the facts" and ignore the law. The committee must not do this, Hatch argued. The committee, by contrast, must consider Alito's entire record, Hatch said. Nor should the committee apply "litmus" tests but rather it should "put aside the scorecards" and consider how he does "what judges are supposed to do." He said he hoped the hearings would "cast more light than heat" on the nomination. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 12:38 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Leahy
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, expressed his concern, once again, about the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination and the implication that the president yielded to the right wing of the Republican Party. He, too, raised the new issue of eavesdropping and presidential powers and said, as did Sen. Specter, that he would question Alito on his views on the scope of presidential powers in the context of national security. Here is a full text of the opening statement by Leahy: The challenge for Judge Alito in the course of these hearings is to demonstrate that he will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans and serve as an effective check on Government overreaching. The President has not helped his cause by withdrawing his earlier nomination of Harriet Miers in the face of criticism from a narrow faction of his own party. ...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 12:22 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Specter
Click here to see the text of Sen. Specter's opening statement. Specter said that the dominant issue was "probably" a woman's right to choose, because of Alito's advocacy in the Solicitor General's office and his dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in the 3d Circuit. The president's powers of national security will also be a major focus because of recent revelations about National Security Agency eavesdropping, he said. Another major area of concern will be "congressional power," Specter said, Supreme Court decisions "denigrating the role of Congress." ...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 12:18 PM ET | Email a Comment
Alito Hearing Begins
12:03 pm.: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) opened the hearings on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court at 12:03 p.m. Judge Alito introduced his wife Martha, his sister Rosemary, his daughter Laura, his son Philip and his father and mother-in-law and his cousins. Sen. Specter said each senator would have 10 minutes to speak before Alito is presented and begins his testimony. The opening round of questions will begin tomorrow at 9:30 a.m....
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 12:03 PM ET | Comments (2)
Durbin Statement
Here is an advanced text of the opening statement by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) Judge Alito, I welcome you and your family to the Judiciary Committee. First, I would like to thank Chairman Specter for waiting until the new year to hold this hearing. Holding this hearing earlier would not have given us enough time to review Judge Alito's record as thoroughly as the Constitution requires and the American people deserve. Why has this nomination risen to the level of historic importance? The Supreme Court has handed down 193 decisions over the past ten years that were decided by a 5-4 vote. Justice O'Connor was the fifth and deciding vote in 148 of these 193 cases. Time and again the vacancy you seek to fill was the most important vote on the Court for civil rights, human rights, women's rights, workers' rights, and restraining an overreaching President....
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 11:52 AM ET | Comments (38)
Schumer Opening Statement
Here is an advanced text of the opening statement by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.): Judge Alito, welcome to you, Mrs. Alito and your two children. I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your nomination to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, you will be one of nine people who collectively hold power over everyone who lives in this country. You will define our freedom; you will affect our security; you will shape our law. You will determine, on some days, where we pray and how we vote; you will define, on other days, when life begins and what our schools may teach; and you will decide, from time to time, who shall live and who shall die. The decisions are final, and appeals impossible....
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 11:45 AM ET | Comments (21)
Specter Opening Statement
Welcome to washingtonpost.com's live coverage of Samuel A. Alito's confirmation hearing. Here is an advance text of opening remarks by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) No Senator's vote, except for a declaration of war or authorization for the use of force, is as important as voting to confirm a United States Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime appointment. Judge Samuel Alito comes to this hearing with extensive experience as a government lawyer, prosecutor and judge. From his over 4800 votes and 361 opinions in fifteen years on the federal bench, cases could be selected which would place him at any and every position on the judicial spectrum. This hearing will give Judge Alito a full opportunity to address the issues of concern to 280 million Americans in response to probing questions...
By Fred Barbash | January 9, 2006; 11:28 AM ET | Comments (5)
The Fate of HEM
Gail Russell Chaddock has this story in the Christian Science Monitor:Rising stakes for Miers hearing Just a half-dozen GOP senators could derail her confirmation to high court.After the initial shock and awe over her nomination, the outcome of Harriet Miers's bid to join the Supreme Court now depends on how many Senate Republicans join conservative critics determined to bring her down. The White House had expected a small army of conservative groups to provide covering fire for nominees as they charged through the Senate. But many are now missing in action or outright hostile, because they doubt the nominee's legal and conservative credentials. The result is that Ms. Miers is now going it alone, making her testimony at next month's Judiciary Committee hearings even more important....
By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 06:48 PM ET | Email a Comment
The Senate's Role
From the Economist's "Lexington" column:The question now is whether the Senate will play its proper constitutional role. Will the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee put the spotlight where it ought to be--on Ms Miers's qualifications and her relationship with the president? Or will they just waste time quizzing her on how she will vote on abortion (which she won't answer anyway)? If ever there was a time for the Senate to rise above the culture wars, it is now....
By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 06:19 AM ET | Comments (6)
Karen Pearl: Planned Parenthood Against
"What is at stake in these hearings is nothing less than women's health and lives" said Karen Pearl, of Planned Parenthood of America. Roberts's record reveals a nominee who is "not likely" to uphold the rights of women. There are forces seeking to restrict sex education and contraception, "the very things that will reduce the number of abortions in this country," she said. Roberts refuses to say how he would vote on these issues and "we ask that you oppose" his nomination for that reason. "The American people deserve a chief justice who will uphold Roe," she said. She said Roberts argued in favor of the legal position of "violent protesters" in the Bray case and nowhere did he volunteer a statement against them. When Roberts is willing to comment on Griswold and Eisenstadt [the right to privacy] but not on Roe [abortion], he is "drawing lines of convenience"...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 06:33 PM ET | Comments (52)
John Engler: National Assoc. of Maufacturers For
Former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R), head of the National Association of Manufacturers, said his organization supports Roberts because he and members believe Roberts will help "achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable." Explaining why the NAM is for the first time taking a position on a high court nominee, Engler said Roberts is "committed to applying the law rather than applying his own personal views," and he "understands the practical consequences" of court rulings. NAM describes its mission is "to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth and to increase understanding among policymakers, the media and the general public about the vital role of manufacturing to America's economic future and living standards."...
By | September 15, 2005; 06:28 PM ET | Email a Comment
Susan Thistlethwaite, Chicago Theological Seminary
Susan Thistlethwaite is president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. She said our society is becoming more religiously diverse. Such increasing pluralism, she said, calls for "greater vigilance" in maintaining the Supreme Court's traditional principles separating church and state. She said she does not have confidence that Roberts would do so....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 06:22 PM ET | Comments (30)
Rabbi Dale Polakoff
Rabbi Dale Polakoff of the Rabbinical Council of America, an organization of Orthodox rabbis, said "the contours of religious liberty in this nation are still being shaped by the Supreme Court," but that his organization is "optimistic that a Justice Roberts will be supportive and solicitous of religious liberty in America."...
By | September 15, 2005; 06:15 PM ET | Email a Comment
Robert Reich, Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor
Sen. Arlen Specter joked that he was still waiting for answers to questions he had submitted to Reich when he was secretary of Health and Human Services. "That's because I was Secretary of Labor," Reich replied. Reich noted that he was once an assistant solicitor general, working for Robert Bork. In those days, the solicitor general regarded himself as working for the Supreme Court, not the incumbent administration. Then they brought in a "political" deputy solicitor general and "there is no doubt in my mind that Roberts," in that very role, "came down on the side of very conservative social and economic values." Reich said he is troubled by Roberts's apparent views limiting the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause, as in the "hapless toad" case (Rancho Viejo). He said he didn't care so much about the hapless toad but "what about the hapless worker" in, say, West Virginia....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 06:08 PM ET | Comments (1)
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor during President Bush's first term, said those who worry about Roberts's views about "comparable worth" are misguided. Comparable worth embraces the notion that men and women should be paid equally for different jobs if they are valued equally by society. Roberts had called comparable worth "highly objectionable" and "pernicious" in earlier writings. "Women made extraordinary progress during Ronald Reagan's presidency," Furchtgott-Roth said. Male-dominated occupations paid more than those dominated by women, she said, "because people are willing to pay more for them." "Women often choose careers with a more pleasant environment and more potentially flexible schedules, such as teaching," she added....
By | September 15, 2005; 06:05 PM ET | Email a Comment
David Strauss, University of Chicago Law School
Strauss said he was not here to speak about Roberts directly but about judicial conservatism. The hallmarks of the new conservatism include a skepticism about the powers of Congress, particularly about Congress's power to address the concerns about the American people, he said. That power is under unprecedented challenge in many fields, including the rights of disabled, age discrimination, the protection of intellecutal property rights, as well as to the right to privacy. The question of the right to privacy and whether it even exists or should be applied narrowly is "on the table," he said. There are points in history when the court redefines its relationship with the rest of the government and the people. "We may be at such a point," he said. "Those are the stakes presented by this appointment and other appointments," he concluded....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 05:41 PM ET | Comments (2)
Judith Resnik, Professor (Against)
Judith Resnik is a Yale Law School professor. "This hearings isn't only about John Roberts," she said. "It's about us. Point one. "Point two. This is no ordinary hearing. This is about who's going to be chief justice of the United States.... This person is the chief executive officer of the entire federal judicial system," she said, "the head of the policy-making body of the federal judiciary." "Point three. This is the occasion to determine what the qualifications are. Which gets me to point four. The chief justice should be the chief advocate for justice in the United States," she said. The chief should be "the guardian of justice," who understands that "law has to be a source of strength for those who need it." "I regret to report that ... Judge Roberts has not expressed an affirmative vision" of the "needs the courts fill for ordinary Americans," she said....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 05:28 PM ET | Comments (18)
Patricia Bellia, Notre Dame Law Professor (Backs Roberts)
Patricia L. Bellia, a former attorney-adviser in the Justice Department's office of legal counsel and a constitutional law professor at Notre Dame, said John Roberts has shown through his work on the Court of Appeals that his philosophy defies "categorization as conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat," and that he "possesses one of the nation's foremost legal minds."...
By | September 15, 2005; 05:23 PM ET | Comments (1)
Peter Edelman, Lawyer (Against Roberts)
Peter Edelman is a former Clinton administration lawyer who opposes Roberts. The history of the court and Constitution is one of increasing protection for the individual, he said. With Roberts, the record "adds up to a troubling likelihood of a chief justice who will try to turn the clock back." It's not just a matter of one case, but "about his judicial philosophy across the board, how he views the Constitution as a whole." His memos were often "written on his own initiative.... He was at the right fringe of even his conservative colleagues in the Reagan administration. This is a pure case about the direction" he is going to take. His conservatism "radically threatens the Constitution" as we know it, he said. Former nominee Robert Bork "made things easy for the committee," said Edelman. "He put it all in one article in the Indiana Law Journal. Judge Roberts is...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 05:15 PM ET | Comments (3)
Former Solicitor General Charles Fried
Former solicitor general Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor, called Roberts, whom he said he does not know personally, "a model of intelligence, fairness, substantiveness and civility." He said he could "warmly support Judge Roberts ... he knows the difference between law and politics." He said opinions written by Roberts show a man with a "head and a heart." "As I read and hear some of the criticism," Fried said, "I wonder whether we are talking about the same man." Roberts's critics, Fried suggested, are complaining because they would prefer that Roberts "start with the result, and then wrestle the law around until it fitted." Instead, Roberts applies "fidelity to the law, not the pursuit of an agenda," Fried said....
By | September 15, 2005; 05:12 PM ET | Comments (2)
Beverly Jones (Plaintiff in Tennessee v. Lane)
Beverly Jones was a plaintiff in Tennessee v. Lane. She is a single mother and disabled person and was seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After an accident disabled her and she trained as a court reporter, she found she could not get into many courthouses to work because there was no access for individuals in wheelchairs. She often had to ask strangers to physically carry her up stairs, and even into bathrooms. Tennessee challenged the constitutionality of the ADA in her suit. The Supreme Court sided with her by a 5-4 vote. Now she can do her job with much greater ease. "My case is over ... but it's not the end of the issue.... There are too many others who need the protection of the law and Constitution." Goodman v. Georgia is coming up in the next term, she noted, raising similar issues in the context...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 04:27 PM ET | Email a Comment
Henrietta Wright, Lawyer and Friend
Henrietta Wright (who worked in the Carter White House) said she was not there to comment on Roberts's judicial record but rather on Roberts as a person. She said he is "definitely a man who respects smart women; his wife has two more degrees than he does." He is "a very likeable and congenial person." Perhaps as chief justice he can help bring some unity to the court's opinions. "I laughed and groaned", she said when she read about critics picking apart his comments in a memo about women lawyers, knowing how he really felt. "I can assure you ... that what you see here is the justice you will get," she said. He has "no agenda other than to apply the law as it is written."...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 03:46 PM ET | Comments (3)
Roderick Jackson: High Court Touches Lives
Coach Roderick Jackson, the named plaintiff in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, urged the panel to "confirm justices who will understand their key role in protecting our civil rights, who will recognize the significant impact of their decisions on our everyday lives, and who will help to continue to make the promise of the law a reality." Jackson told the panel about his struggle to get equal amenities for his girls' basketball team."My story," he said, "shows the impact the Supreme Court can have on the lives of regular citizens and how key a role the court plays in making sure that our civil rights laws truly guarantee fair treatment for all.""My team didn't have it easy, and the girls were treated worse than the boys in many ways. The girls were not allowed to practice in the new, regulation gym used by the boys' team; instead, the girls...
By | September 15, 2005; 03:42 PM ET | Comments (3)
Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau, Ala.
Bruce Botelho said he came to know Roberts when serving as attorney general of Alaska and retained Roberts on various matters. He noted that he is a Democrat. He said Roberts's briefs are "technically perfect." His oral presentation is straitforward and comprehensible. This summer, Judge Roberts agreed to meet with a group of Boy Scouts coming to the Washington area for the jamboree. He kept the appointment even though he had just been nominated to the Supreme Court, saying "I could think of no better use of my time," Botelho said. He met with the scouts for an hour. Roberts, he said, "has an unparalleled reverence" for the law in our society, an open mind on all issues and he will "decide cases not causes."...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 03:35 PM ET | Email a Comment
Women's Law Center's Greenberger Opposes Roberts
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said Roberts's support for women family members, friends and colleagues does not extend to women's legal rights. Instead, she said, his "past work" has undermined them. "Judge Roberts's record consists of document after document detailing his past work to undermine women's legal rights on the job, in schools and in government programs. This week, Judge Roberts told Sen. Feinstein he could not identify anything he would change in his writings and memoranda except the tone he used -- and his support for limiting life tenure for judges. "Judge Roberts provided a clear explanation for this seeming contradiction. He testified that he forms his legal views without regard to his life experiences as 'a father, husband, or anything else.' Unfortunately, John Roberts's view of the law is entirely divorced from its real-world consequences on women's lives. In contrast to Justice Oliver Wendell...
By | September 15, 2005; 03:31 PM ET | Comments (2)
Catherine Stetson: Roberts Was a Mentor
Catherine Stetson worked for Roberts at Hogan. Roberts was her mentor, she said. When she came back to Hogan after maternity leave as a working mother, the transition back to working with Judge Roberts was "seamless." He "never questioned the balance I chose to strike" between work and family. In 2001, he helped her become a partner even though she had been working part time as an associate....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 03:22 PM ET | Comments (1)
Reginald Turner of the National Bar Association
Reginald Turner is head of the National Bar Association, representing African American lawyers. "We've reviewed Judge Roberts's record," he said, and it's "troubling." The stakes in this appointment could not be higher, according to Turner, especially in light of the inequities exposed by Katrina. "The available record precludes us from supporting Roberts's nomination," he said. The record is incomplete because documents have been withheld, he said, and available documents show he does not support equal justice under law or civil rights and civil liberties. He said the National Bar Association cannot support Roberts's confirmation....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 02:49 PM ET | Comments (4)
Denise P. Lindberg: Hogan & Hartson Colleague
Judge Denise P. Lindberg, a state trial judge in Utah, worked with Roberts at Hogan & Hartson, a Washington law firm. She praised his "keen intellect, sound judgment, honesty." She said he was "incredibly nice but never arrogant," and someone who "reveres the law and treats it and everyone associated with it with the utmost respect." Roberts's view is that the job of a judge is not, she said, to solve social problems, but to handle whatever cases come before them, Lindberg said. "To this high office, John brings a remarkable combination of skills, personality," which will make him "an outstanding leader of the federal judiciary," she said. Excerpts below:...
By | September 15, 2005; 02:44 PM ET | Email a Comment
Anne Marie Tallman Against Roberts for MALDEF
Anne Marie Tallman, of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the writings and decisions of John Roberts place him in opposition to the interests of minorities. If some of his legal views had been adopted, thousands of immigrant children would have been barred from public schools, left illiterate and made part of a permanent underclass. The electoral achievements of Latinos, African Americans and Native Americans would not have happened, she said. He has shown a lack of respect for Latino immigrants, equal pay for women and Indian tribes, according to Tallman....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 02:40 PM ET | Comments (2)
Maureen Mahoney: Roberts Knows the 'Role of a Judge'
Maureen Mahoney, a partner in the Washington office of Latham & Watkins, and a former Roberts colleague in the solicitor general's office, used her testimony to try to deflect any concerns that Roberts's early writings and work in that office necessarily reflected his personal views. "He was not viewed as a partisan operative. Instead he was viewed as a brilliant advocate in the finest tradition of this office," she said. During Mahoney's tenure in the solicitor general's office, President Bush nominated her to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Senate did not act on her nomination. "Please do not presume that the views that are expressed in briefs on behalf of the United States ... necessarily reflect the views he will adopt," as chief justice. "Our job was to defend the policies of the administration within the bounds of the...
By | September 15, 2005; 02:28 PM ET | Comments (1)
Carol Browner Against Roberts
Carol M. Browner is the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She said the court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to undermine the federal government's authority to enforce laws protecting the environment, particularly with regard to "citizen suits" and implied rights of action. She said little about Roberts, however....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 02:27 PM ET | Comments (6)
Nathaniel Jones
Nathaniel Jones is a retired federal appellate judge for the 6th Circuit. He said that Judge Roberts has "argued in the past against" eradication of the badge of slavery and servitude. So much of his record is against implementation of civil rights laws, he said. The question before the committee is one of values, not competence, he said. The author of the Dred Scott Decision, Chief Justice Taney, was undoubtedly a talented lawyer, as was the author of Plessy v. Ferguson. But they "lacked the values" to sensitize them....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 01:04 PM ET | Comments (10)
Peter Kirsanow - for Roberts
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. [Roberts's] "approach to civil rights is exemplary," he said. "It is legally sound, intellectually honest and with a deep appreciation for the civil rights cause." Critics have misrepresented his record, Kirsanow said. He did not adopt an anti-civil rights approach to the Voting Rights Act, as alleged. He advocated for "vigorous enforcement." His views on affirmative action are, in fact, those of the Supreme Court and are not "out of the mainstream." Excerpts below:...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 12:57 PM ET | Email a Comment
Wade Henderson - Against Roberts
Wade Henderson is executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "All evidence indicates that John Roberts would use his undeniably impressive legal skills to bring us back to a country we would not recognize...," he said. "As we've seen over the past two weeks, when the federal government's role is diminished, the least of us" suffers most. Roberts has a "pre-Brown" position that "prevents the federal courts from fulfilling" its role in the field of civil rights, he said. "America can and should do better."...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 12:51 PM ET | Comments (10)
Jennifer Braceras - for Roberts
Jennifer Braceras is an attorney and Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. She said John Roberts is the victim of "deliberately misleading attacks" that would have been leveled against anyone nominated by this president. "It is clear that Judge Roberts has a strong commitment to equal opportunity," she said. Individuals should turn to the legislative bodies rather than the courts if they desire far-reaching civil rights remedies. "The Supreme Court is neither the first nor last word on civil rights."...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 12:44 PM ET | Comments (1)
John Lewis - Against Roberts
Civil rights veteran Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) testified against Roberts, saying that his confirmation would be a setback to civil rights. "I feel if Roberts is confirmed the court will no longer hear the peoples' cries for justice.... If the federal courts had abandoned us during the civil rights movement in the name of judicial restraint, we'd still be struggling." Roberts's memos "reveal him to be hostile to civil rights and to the Voting Rights Act." Excerpts below:...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 12:38 PM ET | Comments (5)
'No Disqualifying Factors' in FBI Report
"Sen. Leahy and I are here to report, there are no disqualifying factors," Sen. Arlen Specter said, after the committee met in closed session to review the FBI's background report on Roberts. If anything, said Leahy, "this was a housekeeping chore."...
By | September 15, 2005; 11:45 AM ET | Email a Comment
Senators Will Submit Questions in 24 Hours
Sen. Specter said his colleagues would submit questions in 24 hours. "I have a strong inclination, however many questions there are, you will be able to answer them in the appropriate course." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he was compiling a list of questions other nominees had declined to answer, saying they involved issues that might come before the high court. Then he gave a short speech about the matter of Roberts's "heart," suggesting that some on the panel might define it as whether or not Roberts agreed with their views. "No one could question your intellect," he said. He said he completely disagreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's value system -- "she wants the age of consent to be 12," he said. "She has a different value system than I do," Graham said. "But she has a good heart." Watch video of Roberts' final comments before the committee: var...
By | September 15, 2005; 11:10 AM ET | Comments (3)
Durbin: Roberts as Hired Gun
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) expressed concern that Roberts, as a lawyer, will "play with any team that wants you to play," that the first client who comes to him is the client he will ultimately represent. To some extent, Roberts agreed. In the gay rights case from Colorado (Romer), for example, he would have represented Colorado had the state come to him first. Roberts, while saying the concept of being a "hired gun" was a negative way to put it, agreed that the cause and the nature of the client was not that relevant to him. He believed every client was entitled to solid representation. "If you'll play with any team that wants you to play," said Durbin, it raises questions about where "you draw the line." He has been asked if he's "on the side of the little guy," Roberts said. "If the Constitution says the little...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 11:03 AM ET | Comments (10)
Roberts Says He's 'Not an Ideologue'
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested he has not made up his mind how to vote. Picking up from Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), he said it's not only a "roll of the dice.... It's betting the whole house." In support of voting for Roberts, Schumer praised his mind and his prowess as a lawyer and his judicial philosophy of "modesty and stability.... Modest jurists tend not to be ideologues," although he wondered about Roberts's definition of modesty. On the other hand, Schumer said the committee had not succeeded in penetrating Roberts's heart. "You wouldn't admit now that any of those views you argued for in the 1980s were misguided. That's troubling," he said. Also on the negative side is the administration's withholding of documents. "This was not your decision but you carry its burden," Schumer said. Most important is "your refusal to answer"...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 10:47 AM ET | Comments (3)
Feingold Questions Roberts on Habeas Review
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) questioned John Roberts about memos and a letter expressing reservations about the use of habeas corpus to slow down death penalty cases. In one, Roberts said, the system, which allowed multiple appeals, "goes far to making a mockery of the justice system." "Your memos clearly indicate that I think, that these were your views," Feingold said."The comments in your memos in the 1980s, I am sorry to say, don't even show the slightest concern about innocent lives being lost if federal habeas review were eliminated," Feingold said. Watch video of Feingold questioning Roberts: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091505-5v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ;...
By | September 15, 2005; 10:21 AM ET | Email a Comment
Kennedy: What About the Less Advantaged?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) tried again today to elicit responses from Roberts that might show empathy for the less advantaged in the United States. While Roberts appeared to satisfy some of Kennedy's concerns, he also continued to talk about them in terms of legal nuance. But as their conversation wound down, Kennedy reminded Roberts that he had spoken of his admiration for former Chief Justice Earl Warren, and his willingness to show he had a "head and a heart." Roberts replied: "My point with respect to Chief Justice Warren was that he appreciated the impact the decision in Brown would have, and he appreciated that the impact would be more beneficial and favorable ... with the court speaking with one voice [rather] than a splintered court." "He spent time in the reargument to convince the other justices ... of the importance of what the court was doing and its...
By | September 15, 2005; 10:03 AM ET | Comments (3)
Feinstein: She's Still Undecided
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) does not know, at this time, what she will do when it's time to vote on the John Roberts nomination, although she suggested she is confident he will indeed be confirmed, that "you will be there for 40 years...." She struggled, as she did yesterday, to try to get him out of his lawyerly role. She tried, again, to get him to say he was wrong in questioning the holding in Plyler v. Doe. He responded, once again, that opposing that holding did not question his commitment to the education of immigrant children. Nor is it fair to characterize his positions or discern some sort of pattern on the basis of a small sample of cases from the appeals court, as some have done, he said. She questioned him on the circumstances under which he believes statutes imply a private right...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 09:58 AM ET | Comments (1)
Leahy: Private Right of Action
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Roberts about a number of cases (such as Wilder v. Va. Hospital Association) in which he has argued against a private right of action to vindicate various federal statutes. Roberts responded that these cases involved determining the intent of Congress to provide a right to sue. The real problem, he said, was that Congress too often failed to be explicit on that subject. Referring to a Roberts memo on the invasion of Grenada, Leahy asked Roberts if he thought Congress can "stop a war." Short of exercising its power of the purse, that is an "unsettled" question, Roberts responded. It's difficult to articulate in the abstract where the line would be drawn, he said, or "even what the role of the courts would be" if such a question were to arise. Leahy asked whether the secret FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance...
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 09:25 AM ET | Comments (2)
Hearings Open - Third Day
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) opened the third day of hearings at 9:01. There will be a third round of questioning for Democrats, at their request. At 11 there will be a closed session. At 11:30, six panels of witnesses will start testifying....
By Fred Barbash | September 15, 2005; 09:02 AM ET | Comments (2)
Schumer's Test: Is Roberts 'Conservative Mainstream'?
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would really like to vote for Roberts. The test is whether he is "conservative mainstream.... I'm going to try a few other ways to try to find out who you are?" "Where do you place yourself on the ideological spectrum of the D.C. Circuit?" Schumer asked Roberts. Roberts responded that it was a difficult question to answer. "I do know I saw a study that was done that showed I agreed more with some judges appointed by Democratic presidents than with judges appointed by Republican presidents." "Just assure me ... that 'modesty' isn't a concept you use when you want to slow things down" in the law, Schumer said. "It's a grievous insult to a judge," Roberts said, to suggest that he applies principles one way to achieve a certain result and another way to achieve another result. The notion of "modesty" in the...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 07:01 PM ET | Comments (20)
Feinstein Attempts to Get at 'the Man'
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) resumed what she called her attempt to get at "you, the man," as opposed to "you, the judge." How, she asked, can Roberts make sure he stays in touch with the "real people out there." Roberts noted that there are "a lot of soccer games" in the future and that he will be seeing "other parents and other children" at them and that that will help him keep in touch. If it's just through your children, Feinstein said, "that's going to be a limited segment of society." Roberts said he's also involved in the "Streetlaw Program," which educates teenagers about the law. She went on to ask him his views on affirmative action. "Do you personally subscribe -- not to quotas -- but to measured efforts that can withstand strict scrutiny?" "Affirmative action of that sort is a very positive approach," Roberts responded. "People will disagree"...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 06:44 PM ET | Comments (6)
Coburn: Unfairness to Roberts
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he thinks it's unfair that some have suggested that Roberts "is not a kind, not a considerate person ... on the basis of a flimsy record. That record doesn't hold up to the smell test. You've not been able to defend yourself...." Where did our law come from, Coburn asked Roberts. Didn't some of it come from "natural law? Like don't kill someone. Don't steal.... There's a theological component of that to many people.... I just want to tell you you've been very strong today to just tolerate this." ...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 06:28 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Brownback: Stay Away From Gay Marriage Issues
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) complained about the court's free speech rulings, suggesting they have gone too far, even striking down congressional acts attempting to regulate child pornography, laws designed to protect children from "pediophiles" [sic]. At the same time, he complained the court has upheld statutes regulating campaign finance, that is, political speech. "How do you square such a broad interpretation of the First Amendment" in some cases with such a narrow interpretation in others, he asked. "Doesn't this strike you as odd?" "I certainly appreciate that concern," said Roberts. Brownback, acknowledging that Roberts can't comment, then warned that if the court "comes in and trumps" the issue of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, it would be a tremendous "jolt." "I just hope, if you're confirmed on the court, that you'll consider what happens if the court stomps on this issue. If you come in...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 06:14 PM ET | Comments (9)
Durbin Asks About Educating Undocumented Students
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Roberts to explain why he so willingly embraced the holding in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and yet could not similarly endorse Plyler vs. Doe, in which the high court voted 5-4 in 1982 to strike down a Texas law banning undocumented students from obtaining a public education. Roberts said he could not remember much about a memorandum he had written to Attorney General William French Smith criticizing his solicitor general's office for failing to urge the high court to uphold the law. Durbin noted that the memo had helped spur two Hispanic groups to oppose Roberts's nomination, the first time the groups have opposed a Supreme Court nominee.Roberts said he was doing the work of a diligent staff lawyer, advising his client, the attorney general, about "activities within the department which were inconsistent," with Smith's previously stated positions. Durbin wondered if Roberts...
By | September 14, 2005; 06:13 PM ET | Comments (4)
Specter: Hopes Nomination Will Go to Floor on 9/26
Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the committee, said the nomination will probably come to the Senate floor on Sept. 26. He notes that the Democrats on the committee desire a third round of questions. While he said he opposes this, he said he will go along with it. ...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 05:37 PM ET | Comments (10)
Sen. Cornyn: Questions About Answers
Senators on both sides are increasingly preoccupied now with the extent to which John Roberts has or has not been responsive to substantive questions. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) says he's keeping count. Roberts has "responded to" 66 questions, he notes, suggesting that it would be futile for members to "keep asking the same question over and over again" in slightly different ways. Cornyn equates the tradition of declining to answer with the principle that judges should not provide "advisory" opinions, citing the authority of Chief Justice John Jay, in an apparent attempt to elevate to constitutional status the code of silence for nominees testifying before the Judiciary Committee. "In addition to the ethical, constitutional and practical" reasons for silence, Cornyn said, the framers wanted judges to be insulated from political pressures. Cornyn spent the balance of his time complaining about fragmented Supreme Court decisions that...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 05:33 PM ET | Comments (1)
Graham Renews Discussion Over Voting Rights
By midafternoon, the panel was reviewing issues others had asked John Roberts about, giving him a chance to reiterate his views and show that he has the temperament and takes an approach that makes him qualified to be chief justice. Was he ever asked to take a legal position that he thought was "unethical or not solid," while serving in the Reagan administration's Justice Department? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked. No, Roberts said. Did his position on a key voting rights case show that he is a racist? Roberts said it did not. Graham said he was impressed with Roberts's stamina, especially because it is very warm in the hearing room in the Russell Senate Office Building. "It must be 150 degrees in here. I just don't know how you are doing it, but I'm impressed," Graham said at the beginning of the questioning....
By | September 14, 2005; 03:37 PM ET | Email a Comment
The Second Amendment: No Opinion Expressed
In response to Sen. Russell Feingold's (D-Wis.) questioning on the right to bear arms, John Roberts gave no opinion as to whether the right was "collective," as some judges have held (guaranteed to militias), or "individual," as others have ruled. Since the circuits are split, Roberts said, the question might come before the court. Nor would he comment on the Supreme Court's rulings (Hamdi and Rasul) on the government's detention powers in the "war on terrorism." Feingold raised once again questions about the ethics of Roberts sitting on a case involving President Bush's detention powers while discussing a court appointment with members of the Bush administration. This is a reference to the Hamdan case in the Court of Appeals for DC, in which Roberts participated. While Roberts declined to say anything on the subject yeterday, he did answer some questions today. The transcript of the exchange is excerpted...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 03:22 PM ET | Comments (7)
Rehnquist Was Always Looking for a Salary Boost, Sessions Says
Sessions told Roberts said he was disinclined to boost lawmakers' and justices' pay "when we can't balance the budget." "The chief was always over here knocking on our door for a pay raise. We do have a deficit in our country," Sessions said. Roberts said he wouldn't be back "right away" asking for a pay hike....
By | September 14, 2005; 03:03 PM ET | Comments (1)
A Policy-Making Body?
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) offered his kudos for Roberts's "excellent manner and your forthrightness in answering these questions." He asked Roberts if he understood the "danger" of the high court making policy. Roberts said a judge's job is "to interpret the law, not make the law." Sessions said the drift toward making policy is happening on the high court. "I think it does threaten the legitimacy of the court." A majority of the justices on the high court were nominated by Republican presidents. Sessions questioned if "the ideal of a blindfolded justice, a neutral umpire, is that a romantic naive idea." Roberts said, "Good judges, working hard, cannot only achieve it but also can achieve it together in a collegial way."...
By | September 14, 2005; 02:53 PM ET | Comments (2)
Feinstein: Man v. Legal Automaton
Oddly, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) suggested that Roberts had "shut down" after lunch yesterday, and become "very cautious" after a morning of relatively candid testimony. "Did someone caution you?" she asked. "Did anyone [outside the hearing] ask you your opinion on Roe?" "No," said Roberts. She said she was concerned that Roberts was now coming across as "Judge Roberts, the legal automaton" as opposed to "Judge Roberts, the man.... I do expect to know a little bit more about what you think as a man.... You could be chief justice as long as 40 years ..." That said, she failed, as did Biden, to find out what Roberts would do in an "end-of-life" situation involving a relative. She did get him to say quite a bit about the Lopez case (U.S. v. Lopez), in which the court, offending most of the Congress, invalidated a 1990...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 02:28 PM ET | Comments (2)
DeWine: 'Great justices never forget who they are'
In his remarks, Sen. DeWine cautioned John Roberts to hold on to his modesty and sense of self, assuming he is confirmed. "Great justices are more than legal automatons, legal technicians. They are more than just that.... Great justices never forget who they are. I wish you well."...
By | September 14, 2005; 02:26 PM ET | Email a Comment
Roberts Offers a Civics Lesson
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) gave Roberts an opportunity to provide a civics lesson, first asking about standing and then asking about what was most surprising to him on his first day as an appellate court judge. The doctrine of standing, Roberts said, comes down to a very basic task: "First make sure you have got a real case.... The doctrine requires that you are actually injured by what Congress is doing ... the injury can be aesthetic, it can be environmental ... so you are not just voicing a gripe, you're trying to get a case decided," he said. While the road map may be in the Constitution, the customs of appellate courts are more obscure, he said. After hearing his first oral argument, Roberts adjourned with the two other judges on the panel to begin their discussion. After much silence, he learned from a senior judge that it was...
By | September 14, 2005; 02:19 PM ET | Email a Comment
Kohl: Eminent Domain
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), continuing his relatively friendly line of questioning, elicits from Roberts the view that the court ought to be taking more cases. "They could contribute to the clarity of the law" by doing so he said. At the moment, the court only takes about 80 cases per term, compared to 25 years ago, when it took 150 or 180. Asked about his criteria for granting review in cases, Roberts recited the standard circumstances: when the appeals courts are split; when a case is so important (as with Bush v. Gore) that the court must weigh in; and when a lower court strikes down an act of Congress on constitutional grounds. Kohl, demonstrating the bipartisan horror at the Kelo eminent domain case (Kelo et al v. City of New London et al,), reminded Roberts that in their private conversation, Roberts had said he was "surprised" by Kelo. "I...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 02:00 PM ET | Email a Comment
Kyl: Roberts's Views Are 'Irrelevant'
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) reiterated some Republican panel members' concern that Democrats are unfairly pushing Roberts to provide more of a window into his views. He cited Biden's remarks when he was chairman of the committee during the Ginsburg hearings. Biden had cautioned Ginsburg to determine for herself which questions about issues she would answer and to feel free to deflect those which might come before the court in "50 different forms." Roberts said he thought he had been "more expansive than most nominees. I have gone back and read the transcripts. Some of them would not talk about cases, even though it is unlikely" those cases would make a return to the court, he said. He said his approach "is a more pragmatic approach. If I think a case is unlikely to come before the court, I have told the committee what my views are.... Other nominees may have...
By | September 14, 2005; 12:25 PM ET | Comments (3)
On Whistleblowers and Courtroom Cameras
Sen. Grassley asked about the qui tam provisions of the False Claim Act and whether John Roberts had any "bias" about those cases. Roberts said he had none. Grassley also urged his colleagues to move quickly on legislation he introduced earlier this year to allow cameras in federal courtrooms after Roberts, in reply to a question, said he lacks "a set view on that." Grassley replied: "I suggest to the chairman that we move quickly on that bill before he has an opinion on that." Rehnquist had opposed cameras in federal courts. Many states and localities allow photography in courtrooms....
By | September 14, 2005; 11:58 AM ET | Comments (1)
Biden: 'We are Rolling the Dice With You'
"Good morning, Judge. How are you?" said Sen. Biden (D-Del.), grinning, before launching his most aggressive line of questioning yet, on the subject of the right to privacy as applied to such issues as assisted suicide and sexual conduct, and promising to interrupt Roberts as he pleases because, said Biden, "you're used to being interrupted aren't you." "I'm used to being interrupted -- by a court," replied Roberts. "Well ... we're the court here," said Biden. Watch video of the Biden-Roberts exchange: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-8v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text....
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 11:54 AM ET | Comments (33)
Grassley Asks About Judicial Interpretation of Statutes
It is going to be very hard for people to cast a no vote against you, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said. He then asked John Roberts about issues already raised, including voting rights and deference to the intent of Congress. Roberts repeated his earlier statements that the right to vote is a crucial right from which all other rights flow. Grassley then returned to an issue that has bothered both Republicans and Democrats during the hearings -- the court's willingness to defer to the intent of legislatures and Congress when evaluating statutes. Roberts signaled his willingness to go beyond the words of a statute and try to divine the intent of the bill's sponsors. "Obviously when you are dealing with interpreting a statute, the most important part is the text," Roberts said. Sometimes that is where you end, too, Roberts said. As an appellate judge, he said, he also has...
By | September 14, 2005; 11:38 AM ET | Email a Comment
Kennedy: Voting Rights, Affirmative Action
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) continued questioning Roberts on the Voting Rights Act and on affirmative action, in an apparent effort to get him to separate himself from positions he advanced while working for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration. To some extent, he succeeded, eliciting from Roberts a statement that his views then were those of a junior administration lawyer advancing his bosses' policies and do not necessarily represent his current thinking. Watch video of Kennedy questioning Roberts: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-7v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion =...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 11:31 AM ET | Comments (13)
Hatch Praises Nominee's 'Fair Line'
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spent much of his time during this second round praising Roberts's performance before the committee, and at times issued pointed rebukes to some committee Democrats for putting what he said was a misleading spin on Roberts's remarks. "I think you have really acquitted yourself as anyone I have seen," in the 10 high court nominations he has considered during his 29-year Senate tenure, Hatch said. Watch video of Hatch praising nominee Roberts: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-6v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version...
By | September 14, 2005; 10:56 AM ET | Comments (2)
Leahy: Lawyers and Clients
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to pin down John Roberts on the handling of death penalty cases, pressing him on the government's position in the Herrera case, where, as a deputy solicitor general, he signed a brief urging limits on the ability of capital defendants to bring successive habeas corpus claims in federal court. Leahy contended that this position was tantamount to a position that an innocent person should not be able to bring new evidence to the courts even though it could prevent an execution. Roberts responded, as he has before, that the case was not about "actual innocence" but rather about repeated and duplicative habeas corpus claims. Watch video of Leahy questioning Roberts for the second time: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-5v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 10:50 AM ET | Comments (3)
Specter and Roberts on Original Intent
After Sens. Brownback and Coburn finished, the senators on the committee started a second round of questioning. Specter began by discussing the idea of "a living Constitution, which he said Rehnquist demonstrated in U.S. v. Dickerson. He asked Roberts what he thought about that notion. Roberts said, "I think the framers, when they used broad language, like liberty, like due process ... were crafting a document that they meant to apply down the ages ... to changing conditions."When it came to permitting segregation, he said, those who instituted it strayed from "the principles of the framers." He said his view of "original intent" differed from some. "I depart from some views of original intent ... some people view it as just the conditions at that time, just a particular problem. I think you need to look at the words they used," to determine if those words should be applied "more...
By | September 14, 2005; 10:19 AM ET | Comments (10)
Coburn: 'Reliance' on Foreign Law
While Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was a friendly questioner, his statements were such that Roberts ultimately felt compelled to challenge some of them. Coburn complained, as have other Republicans of "reliance" on foreign law by the court, asking Roberts whether such behavior by a justice constituted the "good behavior" demanded of him by the Constitution. Roberts explained that it was not appropriate to "accuse judges" of violating their oaths for reaching an opinion contrary to particular views. "Judges who reach a contrary result on those questions are operating in good faith. I wouldn't want to suggest that they're not doing that." Roberts also noted that the court does not generally "rely" on foreign law, in the sense that cases turn on foreign law citations."In the prior opinions, those cases are not determinative in the sense that those cases turned on foreign law," he said. (Note: The case that has...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 10:00 AM ET | Comments (5)
Brownback on Roe and Leadership Qualities
Sen. Brownback gave a speech about Roe v. Wade and said the facts "had been falsified" by Norma Corvey, the Roe in Roe v. Wade. And he asked about Roberts's views about the rights of the unborn in the womb. Roberts said he "had to refrain" from commenting. He also asked about Roberts's leadership qualities. Roberts described former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, for whom he clerked, as "a mentor to a great many people.... He appreciated the appropriate limits on the judicial role, on judicial power.... I do think it is important for judges on every level," to take the same approach. Watch Brownback's questioning of Roberts: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have...
By | September 14, 2005; 09:34 AM ET | Comments (33)
Brownback Frustrated by Response on Kelo
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) complimented Roberts on his testimony yesterday. "You revealed a great deal," Brownback said. He said the extensive questioning on Roe v. Wade from his colleagues "only make the point that it should be left to the political system." He then immediately went to Kelo v. New London, which he said had stirred intense reaction across the country. "We thought private property rights were established and set. Now it appears it is not....You can take private property...and now give it back to another individual." He added: "Now isn't it easier for one man's home to become another man's castle?" In June, the high court voted 5-4 to uphold a New London, Conn., plan condemning homes in a large swath in a moderate-income neighborhood. The ruling allowed the city to give the land to a developer for $1, with a 99-year lease, to build a waterfront hotel, office...
By | September 14, 2005; 09:29 AM ET | Comments (3)
Hearings Resume - Second Day
Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) resumed the John Roberts confirmation hearings at 9:02. Most of the chairs are empty at the moment. In an opening comment Specter assured Judge Roberts that he was not suggesting yesterday that his answers were "misleading." Watch video of Specter's comments: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091405-2v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash page into browser // "false" embeds movie or...
By Fred Barbash | September 14, 2005; 09:03 AM ET | Comments (33)
Roberts: Bob Jones Was Not the Correct Position
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was the first to broach the subject of the death penalty, specifically the Herrera case, in which Roberts, as a deputy solicitor general, argued against the defendant. "Obviously, any case involving the death penalty is different," Roberts said. "The court has said that.... And I certainly know the magnitude and scrutiny" the court has brought to the subject. "No one wants an innocent person executed. Period." He declined to go further, however. He also declined to be explicit on separation of church and state cases, except to describe how the court has wrestled with a workable test. Durbin asked if Roberts had ever "stood up" to administration officials during his years as deputy solicitor general in favor of the rights of an individual or of a defendant. He then asked Roberts about the Bob Jones University case in 1983, in which the Reagan administration attempted to...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 07:23 PM ET | Comments (8)
Cornyn Defends Roberts
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) used most of his time to defend Roberts from criticisms leveled by Democrats. He counted up the number of times Roberts answered questions about constitutional issues and said he had been "forthright" with the committee. He said that some of Roberts's memos have been "taken out of context." And he praised him for his "modesty" as a judge and for his philosophy of a limited role for the judiciary. If Americans don't like their elected representatives, "they can throw the rascals out," he said. They "can't do that with judges."...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 07:20 PM ET | Comments (3)
Sen. Graham on Conservatism
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) quizzed John Roberts on the nature of his conservatism, attempting, with little success, to get the nominee to associate himself with Rehnquist conservatism or Reagan conservatism or Scalia conservatism. He tried, but failed, to get him to denounce the American Civil Liberties Union. Graham also denounced the views of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that all of her offensive views were "put aside" by Republicans so that President Bill Clinton could choose his own type of justice. Roberts remained silent. Graham did succeed in eliciting concern from Roberts about what Graham described as the politicization of the confirmation process and the tendency to associate an attorney with the views of his clients. "It's a very serious threat to the integrity of the courts to politicize them," Roberts said. "It is not a good development to regard the courts as an extension of politics...."...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 06:12 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Feingold: Civil Liberties in Times of Crisis
NOTE: Sen. Specter said the hearings today will probably go until about 7:30 tonight. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked John Roberts about the possibility of televising Supreme Court arguments. Roberts said he had "no settled view" and that he would certainly need to consult his colleagues. "I certainly understand the interest," he said. "What kind of impact," Feingold asked, did the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have on Roberts and on his views about civil liberties. "The Bill of Rights doesn't change in times of war. It doesn't change in times of crisis," he said. "The obligations to uphold the rule of law is not suspended." Do you believe that Korematsu was wrongly decided, Feingold asked, with reference to the 1940s Supreme Court case upholding the "exclusion of Japanese-Americans" from areas of the West Coast. Roberts said he believed it was wrongly decided....
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 05:47 PM ET | Comments (2)
Sen. Sessions on a Variety of Issues
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) devoted his questions to rebuttals of some of the challenges raised by Democratic senators. He noted that many of the positions Roberts took in the Justice Department were, in fact, consistent with Supreme Court rulings at the time, the point being that they were not out of the mainstream but rather consistent with the law as it then stood. That was especially true regarding the Voting Rights Act controversy embodied in Mobile v. Bolden, the 1980 decision Sen. Kennedy discussed at length. On the question of "comparable worth" raised by Sen. Feinstein, Sessions said, "You have consistently favored equal pay for equal work, have you not?" Roberts said, "There is no question of equal pay for equal worth. The question" is comparable pay for comparable work, which has been rejected by the courts. Sessions said he was "glad" that Roberts and...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 04:37 PM ET | Comments (18)
Sen. Feinstein Queries Roberts on Women, Roe and Precedents
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked John Roberts about his views of women and their rights, saying that some of Roberts's past comments showed a level of insensitivity to the meaning of his words. Feinstein mentioned a memorandum rejecting the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and a reference to The Ladies Task Force. She said Roberts "implied it is a canard that women are discriminated against because they received 59 cents at that time to every dollar earned by men." "I mention these examples to highlight what appears to be either a very acerbic pen, or else you really thought that way." Watch video of Feinstein's questioning of Roberts: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091305-11v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a...
By | September 13, 2005; 04:14 PM ET | Comments (32)
DeWine: Standards for Free Speech and 'Public Forum'
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) expressed his concern about the "shrinking public square," that is, what he considers a decline in the rights of free speech afforded individuals in various public places. Strip malls are now allowed to restrict the distribution of leaflets and handbills, for example. The "traditional public forum, as we know it, has really shrunk." In response, Roberts noted the changing standards for determining what is and what is not a "public forum" over the years. "It is important," Roberts said, that people keep a "basic principle in mind when addressing these concerns ... It's captured in the expression 'it's a free country.' When you're talking about what people can say, what signs they can put up, people need to appreciate that it's a free country and people can say things that you may not agree with." However, the particular mode of analysis used by the court...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 03:36 PM ET | Comments (1)
Roberts Explains His Role in Rust
Sen. Kohl questioned Judge Roberts about his work on the government's brief in Rust v. Sullivan, defending the Department of Health and Human Services decision to limit the ability of Title X fund recipients to engage in abortion-related activities. Title X funds, the administration said, were to be used only to support preventive family planning services. Roberts reiterated a position he has taken earlier in the hearings -- that he was a staff lawyer, in this case "one of nine" defending his client's position. "I don't think there is anything in there that suggests we think or thought that anybody who disagreed was unreasonable," Roberts told Kohl....
By | September 13, 2005; 03:26 PM ET | Comments (6)
Roberts Says He Has Reconsidered Some of His Writings
Under questioning from Sen. Kohl, Roberts continued to emphasize a theme that he hinted at during his opening statement yesterday: that his writings while at the Justice Department during the Reagan administration were of a lawyer speaking to a client and didn't necessarily reflect his own views. He also said that some of what he wrote 25 years ago, such as advocating term limits for judges, he has since reconsidered. "I don't think any of us would do things or write things today that we did when we were 25 and had all the answers," Roberts said....
By | September 13, 2005; 03:20 PM ET | Comments (5)
Kohl Asks for Endorsement of Roe v. Wade
Questions from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) on the right to privacy elicited a mixed response from John Roberts. Griswold v. Connecticut, Roberts said, essentially is settled and unlikely to make a return visit to the high court. "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that," Roberts said. Kohl pointed out that the Griswold case laid the legal groundwork for Roe v. Wade in 1973, legalizing abortion nationwide. But Roberts would not be drawn into endorsing Roe in the same way he had offered his views of Griswold. "The other is an area," Roberts said, that is "live with business. I don't feel it is appropriate for me to comment on that."...
By | September 13, 2005; 03:13 PM ET | Comments (6)
Biden Says Roberts's Answers 'Misleading'
Sen. Biden continued to pursue a debate about the Reagan administration's course of action in a key gender discrimination case affecting women students in colleges and universities. "The idea that a conservative civil rights division says it is pretty clear that [there is] discrimination against women, you say 'that may be but we shouldn't do anything about it,' " Biden said Roberts wrote. Roberts said he did not fully remember the memo but said he was reminding the attorney general, William French Smith, of the views Smith had previously taken. "I would regard that as very good staff work," Roberts said. "I would view it as very poor staff work," Biden replied. "I was a staff lawyer. I didn't have a position. The administration had a position," Roberts said. Biden interrupted. Sen. Specter, the committee chairman, asked him to refrain. "The answers are misleading," Biden said. "The answers may be...
By | September 13, 2005; 12:49 PM ET | Comments (91)
Biden Continues to Press
"Nominees have to draw the line where they are comfortable," John Roberts said, as Sen. Biden pushed him to talk about his views of the right to privacy. Biden said that Ginsburg had discussed some issues in her confirmation hearing that she had not previously written about. "Did she in fact somehow compromise herself?" Biden asked Roberts. Roberts said he would rather not say. "He's filibustering, sir," Biden said to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who had urged him to allow Roberts to continue speaking. Nominees "should not forecast hints about how they might rule," Roberts said. "I am not going to comment on whether a particular nominee adhered to the approach" of not commenting on certain issues. "You are not answering," Biden said....
By | September 13, 2005; 12:35 PM ET | Comments (18)
Biden Asks About State Regulation of Abortion
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) made a speech on the principles of the Constitution and its staying power. Then he said that all judges have to "infer" rules from the Constitution. "I want to know how you infer," Biden said. Regarding the right to privacy, "do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment?" "I do, Senator," Roberts said. "I think every member of the court subscribes to that proposition, to some extent or another." If a state passed a law banning abortion, Biden asked, what would Roberts's view be? Roberts declined to answer. "That is an area where I think I should not respond," Roberts said. Biden was undeterred. Justice Ginsburg had answered that question at her confirmation hearing, Biden said. Roberts said the justice, then Judge Ginsburg, had written on the topic. He said he has not."If...
By | September 13, 2005; 12:29 PM ET | Comments (15)
Kennedy-Roberts Excerpts
Sen. Kennedy went to the heart of some liberal objections to the confirmation of Roberts during his sharp questioning of the nominee. Two major cases were at issue. In one, Mobile v. Bolden, the court said that discriminatory "effect" or "impact" in voting rights cases was not sufficient to find a violation without proof of intentional discrimination. Congress overturned that decision. Roberts wrote memos supportive of the ruling. In the other, Grove City College v. Bell, the court broadly applied the Title IX, the law barring federal funds grants to educational institutions that discriminate on the basis of gender. Roberts opposed that ruling in memos. Watch video of Kennedy questioning Roberts. See excerpts of exchange below. var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091305-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 12:21 PM ET | Comments (59)
Roberts and Precedents on Property Rights
Sen. Grassley asked Roberts to further discuss his view of stare decisis, or the legal doctrine that courts are bound by precedent. He elicited an approach that showed Roberts's reluctance to particularly tamper with previous cases involving property rights. "No judge gets up every morning with a clean slate and says 'what should the Constitution look like today,' " Robert said. Precedents become "part of the rule of law" that judges must apply. But there are limits to his veneration for precedents, he said. If some precedents prove to be unworkable, are difficult to apply or have been eroded by other cases, that may give a judge cause to re-think them. Decisions regarding private property are particularly sacrosanct, he said. "Property decisions are less likely to be reconsidered because of the expectations that have grown up around them," he said. "You do have to look at whether the decision has...
By | September 13, 2005; 12:09 PM ET | Comments (1)
Grassley Asks About Judicial Power
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said it is important that non-lawyers like him and those in the public understand the limits on judicial power, that judges don't apply their own values to their legal decisions. Grassley asked Roberts's view of the role of judges. "I think ... judges ... are confined by the law.... We don't turn a matter over to a judge because we want his view of what the best idea is, what the best solution is ... They are constrained by the words you choose ... and by the Constitution," Roberts said. "So long as they are confined by the laws, by the Constitution, by precedents, then [a judge is] more comfortable that you are exercising a judicial function ... when you don't have anything to look to is when you worry," Robert said. "That is why judges wear black robes, because it doesn't matter who they are,"...
By | September 13, 2005; 12:00 PM ET | Comments (1)
Kennedy Clashes With Roberts
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) launched the most aggressive questioning of Roberts so far, saying that if his views in the 1980s had prevailed, numerous civil rights protections would have suffered serious setbacks. Roberts, in turn, produced his most aggressive response. Roberts said that (a) Kennedy was not accurately portraying the memos; and that (b) at the time, he was representing the policy views of the Reagan administration, rather than his own views and that (c) the memos involved legitimate disagreements between the administration and the Congress and that there were no questions about his committments to laws enacted by Congress and to civil rights for all Americans. "You have not accurately represented my position," Roberts said at one point. "Senator, you did not accurately represent my position." Watch video excerpts of Kennedy questioning Roberts this morning. var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091305-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 11:36 AM ET | Comments (74)
Roberts Is Calm and Confident
John G. Roberts answers senators' questions Tuesday. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque) John Roberts, as expected, has looked relaxed throughout the questioning so far, answering without hesitation and without resorting to notes. He has responded directly, but not defensively, to questions about controversial memos he wrote as a young lawyer....
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 11:00 AM ET | Comments (6)
Hatch on Role of Judges vs. Legislators
Hatch asked Roberts to address his views on the role of "unelected judges," eliciting from Roberts standard statements from Marbury v. Madison and elsewhere about the role of the judiciary and the importance for judges not to resort to their own "personal" or "policy" preferences when deciding cases. He got Roberts to agree with numerous Supreme Court decisions on the relative importance of precedent in constitutional cases versus statutory cases. "The court has frequently explained," said Roberts, agreeing with Hatch, "that stare decisis is strongest when you're dealing with statutory cases" because if the court gets it wrong, Congress can fix it in statutory cases; whereas Congress cannot overturn a constitutional ruling, short of amending the document itself. Most judges know "when they're going too far," Roberts said in response to an earlier Hatch question. Certainly there are "hard cases" but then you need to focus on...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 10:57 AM ET | Email a Comment
Leahy's Questions Continue
The question of standing in environmental cases and an article in the Duke Law Journal written by John Roberts also were discussed. The discussion was about who had standing; "could someone halfway across the country" be a party to a local environmental case? Roberts said. Watch video excerpts of Leahy's exchange with Roberts. var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091305-2v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = "" ; //requiredVersion: Change this to 8 to test your alternate text. var requiredVersion = 7; // version the user needs to view site (max is 7, min is 2) var useRedirect = false; // "true" loads new flash or non-flash...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 10:34 AM ET | Email a Comment
Leahy
Leahy and Roberts continued to discuss war powers and presidential authority, especially the president's role as commander in chief. Citing Rehnquist in the justice's recent book, Leahy said at time of war, the former chief justice believed that law may "speak with a different voice." Discussing Japanese detention camps during World War ll and the high court's ruling in Koramatsu, Leahy called the case "one of the greatest failings in the court's history." Responding to a question from Leahy, Robert said he would be surprised if there were any arguments that could support internment of an entire ethnic group. "The Bill of Rights remains the same, and the obligation of the court to protect those liberties, in times of peace, in times of war ... that doesn't change." -- Miranda S. Spivack...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 10:23 AM ET | Comments (2)
Leahy Questions Roberts on Congress's War Powers
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the leading Democrat on the committee, questioned Roberts at length concerning memos he had written during the Reagan administration about Congress's power to determine when "hostilities" come to an end. He tried to pin him down on his views now on that power. (Read Roberts' 1984 memo on war powers in Lebanon.) Leahy: "Does Congress have the power to stop a war?" Roberts: "Congress certainly has the power of the purse" and that's the way to stop a war. Leahy: "The power of the purse ... we've cut off money and the wars keep going." Can Congress stop a war? Roberts: "That's not a question that can be answered in the abstract ... There's an argument for the executive and an argument for the legislature ... It's not something that can be answered in the abstract." Leahy asked him whether the president was bound by the...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 10:15 AM ET | Email a Comment
Roberts on Abortion and Privacy
Specter confronted Roberts about Roe v. Wade and abortion, pressing him not on his views on the case itself but on the circumstances under which that case, or any case, can be overturned under principles of stare decisis (which require courts to stand by precedent). He elicited from Roberts a number of important statements, including a comment that his views on the "so-called right to privacy" as expressed in a 1981 memo were not indeed his views, but rather a description of the views of Erwin Griswold as expressed in a Griswold article he was sending to the attorney general. Watch excerpts of Specter's exchange with Roberts. Editor: Jonathan Forsythe / washingtonpost.com 1. He said nothing in his personal views, including his faith, would interfere with his respect for precedent. 2. He said that his interpretation of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which reaffirmed Roe, was that it reinforced Roe and...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 10:10 AM ET | Comments (1)
Specter Preview
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) will presumably lead off the questioning of Roberts today. While he said yesterday he would not ask Roberts's view on Roe v. Wade, he promised to ask "whether you think the Constitution has a right of privacy," likely citing an early Roberts memo calling it a "so-called" right of privacy, as set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision striking down a law that interfered with a couple's access to information and counseling regarding the use of contraceptives. Griswold served as a foundation to Roe. In Griswold, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the court, cited a number of cases suggesting that: ... Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 05:19 AM ET | Comments (8)
The Morning Papers
Good morning. The coverage of the Roberts hearings this morning generally reflects the view that Roberts's performance was masterful, intimating much while saying little; that the debate was really among senators, rather than between Roberts and senators; and that it is all merely a rehearsal for a potentially greater confrontation with the next Bush appointee. Return to this site at 9.30 for play by play coverage. Dan Balz in The Post:The first day of confirmation hearings for Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to become the 17th chief justice of the United States proved to be a tepid opening to what once was billed as a battle of monumental proportions between left and right ... The confirmation hearings are now only partly about Roberts and what he thinks about the law. Instead, they have become a prelude to the coming battle over President...
By Fred Barbash | September 13, 2005; 04:38 AM ET | Comments (2)
Roberts Statement
Here is a transcript of John Roberts's opening statement: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and members of the committee. Let me begin by thanking Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me. I'm humbled by his confidence and, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me. Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for the many courtesies you've extended to me and my family over the past eight weeks. I'm particularly grateful that members have been so accommodating in meeting with me personally. I have found those meetings very useful in better understanding the concerns of the committee as the committee undertakes its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. I know that...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 03:54 PM ET | Comments (13)
Roberts's Opening Statement
Roberts was sworn in at 3:25 p.m. after more than three hours of opening statements by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter complimented him on his patience. Roberts thanked those who introduced him and President Bush for nominating him. He said he hoped to be "worthy of the high trust he has placed in me."Members of the Judiciary Committee, he said, have been very accommodating in their meetings with him and he said he found those meetings "useful." He spoke of his family, mentors and friends, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died earlier this month. He said he was pleased to hear Rehnquist "was not a good patient." Roberts then began his views of the role of the court and the law. "A certain humility should characterize the judicial role," he said. "Judges are servants of the law. They are like umpires. They make sure everybody plays by the...
By | September 12, 2005; 03:37 PM ET | Comments (15)
Sen. Coburn
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), following Sen. Brownback, choked back tears as he gave his statement. My heart aches for less divisiveness," he said, his voice quavering, "less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less partisanship." He said his concern was primarily about "judicial activism" which has "created these huge rifts in the social fabric of the country ... It's a tension pulling us apart" rather than bringing us together. I believe it's time that it's stopped." Coburn said he was "deeply heartened" by statements by Roberts about "a more proper role for the judiciary." Our family structures have declined. Our dependence on government has grown ... We are all Americans. We all want the greatest future for Americans to come ... Most of all we want an America that will live on as a beacon for hope ..."...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 03:09 PM ET | Comments (38)
Sen. Brownback
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), following Sen. Durbin, echoed many of his fellow Republicans in saying that the current high court, whose majority was nominated by Republican presidents, has gone into the "terrain" of making policy. The court should instead "defer to the political branches," on policy matters, instead of becoming "embroiled in the passions of the day." That is the purview of Congress, Brownback said." He said the court had exercised "raw political power" in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which "invented the constitutional right to abortion" Since those twin rulings in 1973, he said, "nearly 40 million children have been aborted in America ... beautiful innocent faces that could bless our existence." If Roberts is confirmed, Brownback said, he is likely to rule on another abortion case. "Your court will decide if there's a constitutional right to partially deliver a late-term child and then destroy it. Partial-birth...
By | September 12, 2005; 03:00 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Durbin
"Judge Roberts ... Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?" asked Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), following Sen. Cornyn. Roberts's memos, Durbin said, "have raised some concerns on where you stand" on civil rights and women's rights, among many other issues. "So it's important for you to answer" our questions and "tell us where you stand ... We can't assume that time or maturity has changed" your views. Durbin suggested he would vote against Roberts if he failed to answer questions fully. Durbin specifically mentioned Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a law banning contraceptive and established the right to privacy underlying Roe v. Wade. "You referred to this right to privacy as an abstraction," Durbin said. "We need to know" what you think. ...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 02:57 PM ET | Comments (10)
Sen. Cornyn
Sen. Cornyn (R-Tex.), following Sen. Shumer, revived the discussion about the questions Roberts should and should not answer, saying that he was not obligated to satisfy the senators' curiosity. "Don't take the bait," he said. He also cautioned against using the court to supersede the legislative branch."This ideal of the Surpeme Court as a super legislature is not a view that I share. Nor did those who wrote and ratified the Constitution ... It doesn't guarantee everything that is good or prohibit everything that was bad." It has some restrictions, but "leaves the rest to be sorted out by the democratic process." He said the court has increasingly shown hostility to the practice of religion. The justices have "erected extraconstitutional and contradictory standards," that have led to "hostility" to religion in public life. As an example, he said, he finds it "baffling" that the court issued two different rulings on...
By | September 12, 2005; 02:48 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Schumer
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is among the most outspoken skeptics of the Roberts nomination, followed Sen. Graham and said the committee has an "obligation" to ascertain Roberts's views. "The first criterion on which I will base my vote is whether you will answer questions fully and forthrightly," he said. "You should be prepared to explain your views" on the First Amendment, women's rights, civil rights and "a whole host of issues." "If you refuse to talk about decided cases, the burden, sir, is on you" to show us what sort of justice you will be, he told Roberts. Schumer said he expects a conservative nominee from President Bush, but not someone who will lead the court to the "extreme right." "Are you within the mainstream, albeit the conservative mainstream?" he asked, looking at Roberts, "Or are you an ideologue, who will impose his views" upon us?...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 02:35 PM ET | Comments (12)
Sen. Graham
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), following Sen. Feingold's comments and a break in the hearing, continued to pursue the notion that his fellow Republicans also have raised, that fairness is an issue in how the hearings will be conducted. He also questioned "whether the Senate will allow President Bush" to keep to a campaign promise to put a "strict constructionist" on the high court. "Elections matter," he said. "We are not hear to talk about liberal philosophy versus conservative philosophy. ... We are here to talk about you." Roberts's memos "reflect a conservative lawyer, advising a conservative president about conservative policies." Conservatives have "a different view" about a lot of issues. "The elections determine how that shakes out," Graham said. Roberts's nomination is the first since the Senate made an agreement in the spring about limiting filibusters, Graham noted. The Senate, he said, "was in chaos. We were at each other's...
By | September 12, 2005; 02:27 PM ET | Email a Comment
At the Break
So far, the opening statements of Republicans and Democrats have separated roughly along party lines, as they have in previous confirmation hearings and in the pre-hearing combat among senators and interest groups. Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. listens to opening statements by various senators on the first day of confirmation hearings. (Getty Images) Republicans, one by one, have tried to build the case that a nominee should not, indeed, cannot, answer questions about specific cases or issues that might come before the court, citing various canons of ethics, codes of judicial conduct and prior statements in prior hearings by Senate colleagues on opposite sides of the aisle. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that it is crucial to get specific answers and that there is nothing unethical about providing them. It's been noted by senators of both parties, however, that Judge Roberts will answer,...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 02:17 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Feingold
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), following Sen. Sessions, continued the Democrats' stress on the need for answers and the need to press a nominee on questions he would otherwise not answer. "I am interested in this nominee's views on a number of cases," he said, and there is nothing wrong with a nominee stating his views, just as sitting members of the court express their views in opinions without prejudicing themselves in future cases. "It is not only permissible but critical" that the committee press a nominee for answers. He expressed concern, as have the other Democrats, about John Roberts's memos, but noted that some of those were written long ago. "I hope to see" how his views have developed since that time. "This is a confirmation," he said, "not a coronation." "It is not undignified to ask questions that press the nominee on important areas of law" the court will...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:59 PM ET | Comments (4)
Sen. Sessions
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), following Sen. Feinstein, used his time to deliver a denunciation of judicial activism, which, he said, "threatens our judiciary." "Even some members of our body" have encouraged the trend, Sessions said, endeavoring to give the court a "license to legislate." He attacked, as well, references to the "standards of foreign nations" in judicial opinions even while declaring that "standards of morality" cannot be employed in the legislative practice. Advocates "on the left and right" want a court that promotes their agendas. What the American people want, howeve, is a "fair and unbiased" umpire, he said. "We must never abandon our ideal of unbiased judges." "The people demand judges who follow, not make, the law," Sessions added. He said he thought Roberts was exactly that sort of judge. ...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:51 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), following Sen. DeWine, said she could not vote for someone who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. She also went directly at issues before the court in the next term and to those on their way to the court, specifically mentioning the standards for reviewing abortion rights; the question of physician-assisted suicide; the application of antitrust laws with regard to energy prices; the rights of enemy combatants, and the Endangered Species Act. "If you ... subscribe to the Rehnquist court's restrictive ability to legislate" on many issues, Feinstein said, that would be a problem. "As the only woman on the committee," she said, she had a special job to make sure that the "hard-earned autonomy" of women is protected. Watch Sen. Feinstein's opening remarks below: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091205-9v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:41 PM ET | Comments (2)
Sen. DeWine
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), following Sen. Kohl, said the U.S. Constitution is "a light for the rest of the world." There are now more than 170 written constitutions in the world, more than half drafted in the past 30 years. Roberts's job, DeWine said, is to "correctly construe" the Constitution and ensure that it is "never unmade." He said there is a growing sense in the country about high court decisions, such as the recent ruling allowing the taking of private property by New London, Conn., for economic development. He said he is also concerned about some recent rulings. "Judges are not members of Congress, they are not members of state legislatures," and should not make policy, he said. Judges should "pay proper deference to the role of the executive, the Congress and the states," while still following the Constitution. Judges will continue to "interpret" the Constitution even as the...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:31 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Kohl
So far, the Republicans have used their opening statements to emphasize that nominees are limited in what they can say during the confirmation process, while the Democrats have stressed how much they need to know before they can confidently cast their vote. Sens. Biden and Kennedy have been most critical, with Biden saying he has distinct "doubts" about Roberts based on the documents he has seen so far. Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.), following Sen. Kyl, has been most explicit about the need for direct answers. "Hiding behind legal jargon will not suffice," said Sen. Kohl. He said Roberts will be expected to describe his views on what he has called the "so-called" right to privacy, on eminent domain, as interpreted in the Kelo case last year; on affirmative action; on Supreme Court decisions on prayer in schools. "We have an obligation to find out where you will take us"...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:20 PM ET | Comments (1)
Sen. Kyl
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), following Sen. Biden, called John Roberts "eminently qualified" and cautioned his colleagues about the scope of the confirmation process. "It is not appropriate for a senator to demand" a nominee's views on potential cases or issues that might come before the court, he said. He cited Lloyd Cutler, a former Democratic White House counsel and eminence grise in the Washington legal community, whom Kyl said, urged the Senate in past hearings to stay away from a nominee's ideology. Otherwise, public confidence in the courts would be weakened, Kyl said, again quoting Cutler. Kyl also said it would be "unethical" for a nominee to discuss issues. He said the American Bar Association's ethics code for lawyers and judges does not permit that if the issues are likely to come before the court. Judicial nominees, he said, "are obligated" to decline to answer those questions. He said he...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:13 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Biden
Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.), following Sen. Grassley, said there is a "great debate" about the rights and protections under the Constitution. There are those who want to expand those rights and those who would deny them. He notes that some officials, such as Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) who have been "unsuccessful" in forcing their ideas through the legislative branch, "now they have a once in a lifetime" opportunity to use the judiciary to achieve their ends. He said he would "have to vote no" based on the documents he has seen. "This is your chance to explain what you have meant" in those memos. Read the prepared text of Sen. Biden's opening statement....
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 01:03 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Grassley
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who followed Sen. Kennedy, said the senators should be concerned about selecting a justice who will adhere to "what the law is, not what it ought to be." The policy choices of elected branches will not be overturned unless the Constitution demands it. "We want Supreme Court justices to exercise judicial restraint," and judges who will not listen to their own "preferences." Otherwise, the country will not be a "nation of law but a nation of politicians dressed in judges' robes." Grassley said he hoped there would be no "badgering of nominees," which he said had been the case in past confirmation hearings. Does John Roberts deserve more scrutiny now that he has been nominated to be chief justice? Grassley asked. Not necessary, he believes. The chief's role and vote are the same as other justices, he said. But it is important to be able to...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 12:54 PM ET | Comments (2)
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) followed Sen. Orrin Hatch and immediately spoke of "disparities" in American society. He cited legislation that has led to equal pay, opportunities for the disabled and other civil rights. He said there were "serious reasons" to be concerned about where John Roberts stands on the important issues, compounded by the administration's unwillingness to provide a "full record" of documents. "We expect our courts to defend our progress," Kennedy said. Read the prepared text of Sen. Kennedy's opening statement. -- Miranda Spivack Watch Sen. Kennedy's opening statement below: var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091205-6v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no" var graphicSrc = "" ; var graphicLink = ""...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 12:47 PM ET | Comments (8)
Sen. Hatch
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) followed Sen. Leahy. He stressed the obligation of nominees to avoid answering questions that might forecast or provide a hint on how they might vote on future cases. He cited the confirmation hearings for Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer in support of the need for a nominee to "draw a line" on answers to questions. He quoted Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), during the hearings for Justice Thurgood Marshall, in support of that proposition. He also took issue, without naming Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), with the contention that Judge Ginsburg at her hearing did indeed answer some questions more explicitly. Watch video of Sen. Hatch's opening statement. var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091205-4v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 12:32 PM ET | Email a Comment
Sen. Leahy
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat, spoke after Sen. Specter. "If anyone needed a reminder of the racial divide" in our nation, "no one can doubt that we have miles to go," he said, referring to Hurricane Katrina. "...The American people deserve a government as good as they are with a heart as big as theirs." "Judge, we've been given a great constitution.... It's a framework for our government, the framework for all our rights and liberties." Some of the issues to be discussed may seem "legalistic" but, Leahy said, they are relevant to everyone. Watch a video clip of Leahy's statement. var movieSrc = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/player.swf?whichMode=normal&justify=left&playad=no&mediatype=stream&postdir=politics&postvideo=091205-3v&cuesfile=none&autoplay=no&starttime=0&endtime=0&largerver=none&image=none"; //URL OF WHERE .SWF MOVIE IS PUBLISHED var movieWidth = "454" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC WIDTH var movieHeight = "275" ; //FLASH MOVIE AND BACK-UP GRAPHIC HEIGHT var backupGraphic = "no" ; // If you have a backup graphic "yes" or "no"...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 12:22 PM ET | Comments (1)
Hearings Open
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) called the hearing to order at one minute before noon. Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr., right, is escorted into the hearing room Monday morning by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), left, and ranking Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.). (Getty Images) Judge Roberts first introduced his family, including his immediate family and cousins. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, "We are at a time of great stress in our nation" because of Hurricane Katrina and said he hoped the people of the affected states would understand the committee's need to proceed. Specter noted that the committee hearing room has been the scene of many important hearings. "This room still reverberates with the testimony" of Judge Robert Bork during his hearings and of Anita Hill during the hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas. "Your persective stewardship of the court, which could...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 12:13 PM ET | Comments (5)
Cornyn: 'Dont take the bait'
Jesse J. Holland of the AP reports:On the opening day of confirmation hearings, Senate Republicans advised Supreme Court nominee John Roberts against responding to probing questions from Democrats on divisive issues: "Don't take the bait," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn. Democrats promised to use the days of hearings to question Roberts on abortion, civil rights, privacy, election rights, capital punishment, judicial activism and the powers of the presidency and Congress. President Bush chose Roberts to be the nation's chief justice, and at age 50, the appellate judge has the potential to shape the high court for decades. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the Senate must determine whether Roberts "has demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional principles that have been so vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society." Republicans warned Roberts against responding to "litmus-test questions." "Don't take the bait," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,...
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 11:17 AM ET | Comments (8)
Hearings Set for Today
Good Morning. Coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts will begin here and in the news sections of washingtonpost.com at noon today, with additional coverage in the print edition. Your views as the hearings progress are welcome in the comment section of this blog. For additional resources on Roberts, the hearings and the committee, click here. Previews of today's hearings can be found in The Washington Post: "Senate to Start Roberts Hearings." The New York Times: "Roberts Spotlight Falls on Senators, Too." "How activist is Roberts?" in Newsday. The Indianapolis Star: "A profile of John Roberts, who grew up in northern Indiana." The BBC: "Supreme Court hearings to start." "Responsiveness may sway opinions" in the Boston Globe. "New Criticisms Aimed at Roberts" in the LA Times. "Court lacks Blue blood on bench" in the Yale Daily News. "Buildup over, the hearings begin" in the St....
By Fred Barbash | September 12, 2005; 05:20 AM ET | Comments (3)
Hearings Schedule and Resources
Below, courtesy of the AP, is a tentative schedule for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation hearings this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For links to summaries of cases likely to arise, click here. For information about members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, click here. For documents and other references relevant to the hearing click here and here. Monday: The committee convenes at noon EDT. Senators give their opening statements of 10 minutes each. Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., as well as Sen. John Warner, R-Va., each spend up to five minutes introducing Roberts. Roberts gives his opening statement. Tuesday: The committee convenes at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Senators begin questioning Roberts in rounds of 30 minutes each....
By Fred Barbash | September 10, 2005; 01:17 PM ET | Comments (1)
Cases Likely to Arise in JR Confirmation Hearings
To assist in following the confirmation hearings, here are links selected by me to summaries of some of the cases likely to arise during the proceedings. More cases will be added as they arise. Thanks toOyez, Supreme Court Multimedia, for most of the summaries. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, SCOTUS, 1954. School desegregation. Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS, 2000. Recount of votes for president in Florida disallowed. Bowers v. Hardwick, SCOTUS, 1986. Sodomy laws. Griswold v. Connecticut. SCOTUS. 1965. Ban on contraceptives struck down as violation of right to privacy. Grove City College v. Bell. SCOTUS, 1984. Scope of Title IX. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. D.C. Circuit. Trial of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists before military tribunals. Hedgepeth v. WMATA, D.C. Circuit, 2004. The case involving a 12-year-old girl arrested for eating on the Metro....
By Fred Barbash | September 9, 2005; 06:45 PM ET | Email a Comment
