Skip to main content

tv   Today in Washington  CSPAN  July 21, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EDT

6:00 am
worried about has passed. the election that all of us are concerned about are our own coming up. how do you balance those two? how do you stay within keeping your job and honoring the fact that the people have spoken? this is what senator graham, phil gramm said about justice breyer so i'm going to vote for the nominee not because i agree with him philosophically but i believe he is qualified and credible. i believe his views though they're different than mine are within the mainstream of thinking of his political party. whether i like it or not and i do not, i do not, the american people put bill clinton into the white house. this nomination is a result of that. i'm not going to stand in the way of it because i differ philosophically with this nominee. i'm going to vote for him and
6:01 am
that doesn't mean i'm pro-choice. i'm very pro-life. i'm going to vote for him because i believe that the last election had consequences and this president chose someone who was qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who's in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician. at the end of the day after the hearing it was not a hard decision for me to make. i thought she did a very good job and she will serve this nation honorably and it would not have been someone i would have chosen. but the person who did choose president obama i think chose wisely. >> senator graham, i thank you
6:02 am
for your statement and senator schumer, you're recognized. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. again, i thank you and senator sessions. i agree with senator graham, you conducted yourselves well and the hearing was an excellent hearing and i am pleased, mr. chairman, to cast my vote today for the confirmation of solicitor general elena kagan to become an associate justice on the united states supreme court. now, elena kagan has every quality you'd want in a nominee except perhaps the luck of good timing. sadly it appears election year politics may deprive her of the vote total that her nomination deserves on the merits. having seen general kagan's true colors during the hearings, i don't think we can color her anything but intelligent, thoughtful, mainstream and moderate as many predicted, when general kagan's hearings began
6:03 am
she did a superb job. she gave us very meaty answers and a lot of them. she answered some 700 questions on at least 51 different topics. she explained her views of current abortion rights, precedent election law, the second amendment, commerce clause, the list goes on and on. i'd say to my good friend senator graham unlike miguel estrada she answered the questions whereas he refused to answer just about any question and that was the reason some of us voted against him. now, some of my colleagues across the table are citing general kagan's failure to directly answer questions as a reason to vote against her. i find that really puzzling since by almost any standard she was more direct and forthright than justice roberts was at his hearings and they voted for him. so i don't think that's the real reason that people are voting no. time and time again, her answers
6:04 am
to questions were clear and thoughtful, i was repeatedly struck by how modestly and judiciously she handled herself and how moderately. general kagan's hearings showed us two things, first they showed us what an extraordinary candidate she is. she showed as much or more facility with the law and her own judicial philosophy as any candidate whom i can remember. she was not evasive. she wasn't flippant and she didn't try to play hide the ball. general kagan said that she would not grade cases, but i'll take the liberty to grade her. i give general kagan an a plus for thoroughness, directness, in addition, the value of her diverse experience shined through the four days of hearings. at harvard she bridged deep divides among the law school's faculty. we need her to do the same for this sectarian court, for the
6:05 am
good of the country we ought to give her a chance, running a law school gave her valuable practical experience. she managed 500 personnel, controlled the budget of 160 million. she knows what it's like to run a business. and she served in all three branches of government. undoubtedly this experience helped make her answers so poised, so intelligent and frankly so practical. on eye court with eight justices who each has experience as a lower court judge i think that this practical experience will add perfectly to the mix. secondly, and i want to underscore something senator feinstein talked about these hearings showed us how far we have come as a country in terms of equality of justice and opportunity and where we're going. 90 years ago women first received the right to vote in the united states. just 46 years ago congress passed the most comprehensive civil rights law in history, the civil rights act. the law was passed using congress' broad power to
6:06 am
regulate the flow of goods and services throughout the country under the commerce clause. congress mandated that our nation's business should be conducted without regard to race or sex or religion. since then we've improved on this act. we're outlawed discrimination based on age and disability. we've passed the religious freedom restoration act and strengthened the voting rights act. so it is heartening and positive at a time when people are negative to just realize how far we've come as a country. we've come so far that we felt little need to contemplate we're about to confirm the fourth woman to be an associate justice of the supreme court. it seems that we've almost taken this accomplishment for granted but it's a great one. make no mistake about it, this diversity is of crucial importance. with elena kagan on the court i'm confident our path towards equal justice and opportunity will only quicken. she is a role model who has already shattered glass ceilings
6:07 am
as harvard law school dean and solicitor general but more broadly she'll be a much needed additioned to court that does not see the real world the way most of us do, a court that doesn't believe that congress has an interest in regulating massive special interest spending in our elections, a court that is no hesitated to roll back decades of age discrimination law making it harder for american workers to prove they're treated unfairly. i believe that she'll bring deep experience and open mind to these issues. general kagan, mr. chairman, will be a welcome addition to the highest court in the land and i'm pleased and very proud to cast my vote today for general kagan. >> thank you, senator schumer. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have previously announced i will vote no on the nomination for elena kagan for the supreme court and will take a couple of minutes to explain why. i asked my staff, you know, like
6:08 am
senator graham and others, i was touched bur the very nice letter that miguel estrada wrote in support of elena kagan's nomination. and i asked my staff just to remind me when it was because it seems like just a short time ago that miguel estrada was before this committee and actually he was nominated in may of 2001. show you how quickly time flies. he was filibustered seven times in 2003 and ultimately withdrew his nomination in 2003. i would say that as impressed as i many by miss kagan's letter saying nice things about miguel estrada's qualifications by my account comes about seven years too late. and i worry because the confirmation process seems to be more theater than it does anything of any real substance and i know a number of our colleagues on both sides of the
6:09 am
aisle have decried that development. i don't expect nominees to announce how they'll rule on cases. they shouldn't answer those questions but by skillful inevasion and vague answers this has become sort of like kabuki theater and we all know what the outcome is going to be but everyone still goes oohs and h ahhs at the skillful maneuvers of the performers and i think that's a shame. the votes of this committee on nominations to the supreme court are among the most consequential votes we will make because these are, of course, lifetime appointments. each senator must carefully study the nominee's views age reach a decision on whether to vote for the nominee on the high court. in my view, that decision must be based on a standard of excellence. to gain my vote, a nominee must also establish that he or she
6:10 am
would adhere to a traditional, traditional judicial philosophy. the nominee must establish through her testimony through her experience, her nonjudicial writings and through her experience that she would ekzer size the judicial power of a supreme court justice with a deep understanding of the importance of judicial restraint and the need to enforce our laws as written including our constitution. by my judgment elena kagan falls short of that standard. miss kagan's testimony before the judiciary committee did not convince me that she agrees with this traditional role of a judge. i believe that judges should strictly interpret the written constitution, which means enforcing limited -- limbtations on the scope of government power including that of congress. such as the second amendment and the commerce clause as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their policy views on
6:11 am
the american people under the pretense of interpreting the constitution or our written laws. miss kagan's testimony as i suggested earlier particularly about her judicial philosophy erbil is intentionally vague and open to multiple interpretations. in her written responses following the hearings, for example, solicitor general kagan said she would base them on constitutional values, closed quote but acknowledged that her constitutional values can quote point in different directions closed quote and claimed she would, quote, exercise prudence and judgment in resolving the tension between them, closed quote. i don't know what that means. i bet no senator that's going to vote on the committee or the floor of the senate on this nomination can know what that means because i think it was intentionally vague and open to multiple the interpretations so what do we know about this
6:12 am
nominee? i submit not much after it's all over with. i believe that we need more certainty than that the nominee will, quote, exercise her prudence and judgment at a minimum we would expect that. we've also expected and deserve to know more. solicitor general kagan also testified that the constitution is written in general terms that enable courts to change the law in response to new conditions and new circumstances, changes that she testified occur all the time. but miss kagan did not tell us how to know or how we could know how any objective on verver could know when circumstances have changed such they would justify judicial law making under the guise of interpretation. i suppose this is just another matter where we would be left to rely upon her prudence and her judgment. i was also troubled by her testimony in specific areas of
6:13 am
the law. for example, the commerce clause, solicitor general kagan was unable or unwilling to articulate limits on the federal government's authority under the commerce clause. she recognized that the u.s. supreme court used to impose such limits but she seemed to be resigned to the fact that the 10th amendment of the constitution has been largely written out of the constitution by judicial interpretation. she recalled that the apparent approval of how the supreme court changed the law and no longer imposed such restrictions because the old jurisprudence really wasn't working, closed quote. whatever that means. i assume this is just another example of how she believes, quote, new conditions and new circumstances, closed quote, justified a change in the law. in this case gutting the foundation of the federal government as a government of enumerated powers with those powers not so delegated being
6:14 am
reserved to the states and individual citizens. i was also troubled by solicitor kagan's testimony on the second amendment. while she recognized that the sprblth's decision in heller and mcdonald were existing law she referred to them as settled law which has a particular meaning to judges and lawyers but her testimony made clear that settled law at least in the way she seemed to be talking about it had little meaning, if any. settled law, i fear, may come to mean that the law is the law until a new judge is appointed and confirmed. and then they unsettle these decisions by overruling them. we saw the same problem i fear with justice sotomayor's testimony on the second amendment. last year she testified that heller was settled law. and that the right to keep and
6:15 am
bear arms was an individual right. but last month she joined a dissenting opinion in the mcdonald case urging it be overturned because she said the right to keep and bear arms is a not a fundamental right. the second amendment and the rest of our constitution are too important to rest on empty promises. finally i'm troubled by solicitor general kagan's testimony on military recruiting during her time as dean of the harvard law school. i believe that her refusal to allow the military to recruit on campus just like any other employer reflects a willingness to stigmatize the u.s. military. it suggests the nominee -- well, and i take the point that others have raised that recruiting actually was improved during that time but no one including the nominee could tell us what impact it would have had if they had been able to continue like every other employer to talk to
6:16 am
them -- talk to individuals in the office of career services. so we just don't know what impact it had except we do know that it did stigmatize the military over something they had no control over since they were complying with a federal law that the u.s. congress passed. well, every supreme court nominee bears the burden of proof of establishing they deserve the trust of the person people tore a lifetime appointment on the high court and in my view, elena kagan is not satisfying that burden of proof and for these reasons i will oppose the nomination. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i thank the senator from texas. the senator from oklahoma has already notified senator sessions and i that he will be speaking subsequently on the floor. the next senator will be senator durbin. just so everybody knows the route, after we vote on -- at
6:17 am
the end of this, we'll -- i think senator sessions has a short comment he wishes to make. i may or may not respond and then we will have a vote on the kagan nomination, and then i would like to bring up the other matters of the agenda especially the deputy attorney general, a nomination which as we all know handles major law enforcement and national security issues and is vacant and needs a vote one way or the other. senator durbin? >> thanks a lot, mr. chairman and let me say at the outset i believe that you and senator sessions have handled this nomination in the best traditions of the united states senate with decorum, thoughtful consideration and i believe giving every member, both sides of the table, an opportunity to ask most important questions
6:18 am
they can imagine for a lifetime appointment to the highest supreme court in the land. you've done it again, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator sessions for complimenting you in that effort and also want to say a word about one of our colleagues here and that's senator specter. this is the third time i've considered -- been on this panel to consider a supreme court nomination with senator specter a member of the panel and sat in different chairs in different places but never failed to have thoughtful and insightful observations about what is an historic decision here. this is likely to be the last supreme court nomination for you, senator specter but i want you to know here's one fan who appreciates what you brought to this hearing and not only today but in the past. and a word to too about senator graham on the other side. i suppose it's easy to say something nice about someone when they'll vote the same way you are, but i will tell you that lindsey graham is an extraordinary senator and i've got to be careful saying these
6:19 am
things because every once in a while i'll say nice things about one of my republican colleagues and shows up in their campaign brochures like senator grassley but that's okay because i still like him a lot. senator graham is an extraordinary member who not only has a thoughtful way of looking at these important decisions, but putting them in a perspective which few members can. and during the course of his statement, i -- timing is everything. kagan's many nomination comes less than 100 days before an
6:20 am
historic election when a closely divided court reflects a closely divided country. her fate would have been in doubt on the other side of the table under normal circumstances after all she is the choice of a democratic president, but now that we are in a political season of contrast and confrontation, elena kagan faces stiff odds in winning many supporters on the other side. for many months the senate has focused on her nomination but as senator cornyn reminds us a few years back we focused on the nomination miguel estra think d virtually every republican senator and most sitting here today came to the floor to speak about miguel speak about the unique qualifications to serve on that court and to praise his legal prowess. if he is a man of great legal akman, he has said extraordinary things about the current
6:21 am
nominee. he writes -- i write in support of elaina. she is calm and mature in her judgment. she is a qualified nominee. i will not dispute that politics were pretty intense on both sides of the table.
6:22 am
as i reflect now and on the comments made by senator graham, i believe that miguel deserves a day in court or before the chittee. forring as senator graham said in the past, a majority didn't face a record vote. this has become not only a record vote but a very closely watched vote. this is a lifetime appointment. that is a hard thing to glean by asking questions.
6:23 am
as members of the united states senate. we are political animals and we know how to answer questions and maybe not answer questions. i think of the reference that the senator made to justice sotomayor and her positions on the second amendment. but it could be that committee promises are as reliable as campaign proms and we need to look at more. who would have been able to predict at a who would serve as an attorney representing the mayor clinic, the role he would play in the case of row versus waed our justice stevens, if i am not mistaken from nomination by gerald ford it was a matter of weeks. and justice stevens was appro
6:24 am
approved. here was a chicago attorney considered a republican business attorney whom few people would have guessed would play the role that he does today on the supreme court. the same thing is true with justice sutors. appeared to be a conservative north nevada backwoods lawyer. we know what she will be. look at the role she played at the end of her career. the deciding vote and key questions and people were kind of surprised by the outcome. how much can we learn from this? i think we can learn there are ways to measure people and ask them important questions but what they will do in a lifetime appointment with the decisions they make, it's almost impossible to predict.
6:25 am
i can recall when chief justice roberts were before us. i thought they were extremely skillful. justice roberts still retired the trophy when it came to supreme court nominees answering questions and sat there for two days and pounded every question that came his way. i knew from his background as i knew from justice alido's backgrou background. the first woman to ever serve as dean of the harvard law school and the first woman to ever serve as solicitor general of the united states of america. a woman who has worked at the highest levels of government with the highest praise from those that she worked with. we know she has the intelligence and integrity to deal with the
6:26 am
important issues before the court. i remember when the panel came before us to question her policies at harvard when it came to recruiting there were strong words said about whether or not she was truly sensitive to how the military felt about her decigs. but i thought that what she told us in the course of her testimony was reassuring. yes, she believed don't ask don't tell was wrong. and she believed that consistent with the university position that she could demonstrate that if they would acknowledge that there was a time when there was rank discrimination against people of color. it for the most part took place throughout history up through world war 2.
6:27 am
though the great eest they were largely serving in a segregated military. . to praise our military and what they achieve and still be honest with the fact that this was a deficiency. i think that is what she was trying to make a point on. that those she respects in the military in this particular area don't ask don't tell she believed that was diskrim tory policy. i don't think that is an indication that she dislikes the military. the last point i will make is this. there has been a lot said about judicial activism. i think some of the decisions by this supreme court have gone beyond the pale.
6:28 am
>> this te sigs has the power to troun out the voices of average americans. this was judicial activism by any description. as retiring justice stevens wrote, five justices were unhappy with the limited case were us so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law. historically someone with the mainstream judicial philosophy would receive a large bipartisan vote of the support. unfortunately we are living in
6:29 am
an age where politics often trumps tradition and where her timing is less than perfect. but i look forward to joining the majority in the senate in supporting and voting for the nomination of elaina kagan to the supreme court. >> i thu for the reference that we are filling. i heavily overwhelmingly democratic majority voted, i think we had 64 democrats at the time vote d nan mousily for justice stevens and i recall the things that president ford said
6:30 am
about him. >> every member had a chance to ask their questions at second and third rounds. we examine tens of thousands of pages of documents i think we all agree that she has the experience, temperment and integrity that you would want on a supreme court justice. her experience is well known. she is the first woman the solicitor general of the united states. she was the first twom be dean
6:31 am
of harvard law school. something that i think will serve her well on the supreme court. democrats and republicans given good testimony on the preem court of the united states sochl the real test that i think all of us would like to know is whether she as associate justice will follow legal precedents giving due deference to congress, and protecting the rights of americans against abuses of power.
6:32 am
i think that's how most of us define judicial restraint. she will be in the mainstream of american values. affects all of us. we are all impacted by the decisions made pi these nine justices. and recently we have seen a trend where the narrowest of margins the so-called conservative justices being in the majority have legislated from the bench. it was in those cases that i did my questioning when i had an opportunity to talk -- to ask questions during the confirmation hearings.
6:33 am
. reversing prior holdings. i think it's going be healthy for the american people to have more women on the supreme court of the united states. and the conservative members are making it more difficult for ordinary americans to be able to stapd up for age discrimination in the workplace. changing the rules. and citizens united we heard senator durbin and others talk about where the court ruled on the side of corporate america.
6:34 am
reversing a congressional action. reversing court rulings. reversing precedent and congressional intent. i am sure the people of louisiana are watching that case very closely as to whether the supreme court is going to be on their side or on the side of powerful corporate interests, reversing congressional action when it comes to holding bp oil responsible for the damages that have occurred.
6:35 am
i believe that she will follow in the best tra tigss of the supreme court. she said in her opening statement she wants to give a fair shake to the people of this nation. i am convinced that she will protect under the ind pend dense of the ordinary people from the special corporate interest. let me just quote her reply when i asked her about environmental laws. when congress enacts such legislation the job of the courts is to construe a consistent with congressional intent. i would think we all agree on that. i am proud to pass my vote for
6:36 am
her confirmation. >> i thank the senator from marylan maryland. >> thank you particularly for your skilled and patient leadership of this committee through this process. i am proud to vote for confirmation. i am honored to be here on this day when after nearly 30 years on this committee our colleague senator speck tore spoke for the last time on a supreme court nominee. she is a remarkably qualified attorney and public servant. she is a lawyer for the united states and managing appellate litigation across the country. she is the former dean of harvard law school and she is a
6:37 am
thoughtful lawyer who always seeks to understand and reconcile. she will bring strong judgment, analysis and a commitment to consensus building to the supreme court. she also understands the proper role of a judge as she stated law is not a robotic enterprise. and everything is clear cut and there is no judgment in the process. the simplistic umpire met fore does not explain how to resolve tension between competing constitutional values or apply new rules to the founders unimaginable factual situations.
6:38 am
if it were simple, every decision would be 9-0 the right answer appears as what they think it is. and any conclusion must be liberal act vision. look at the objective facts. you would make a lot of 5-4 decisions. the court is notorious for 5-4 decisions. if you were a court to achieve your purposes you would run over restrictions like the limits senator speck tore referred to on appellate fact finding.
6:39 am
if you were an activist court you would want to advance a theory to undermine precedent you didn't like. if you were an activist court you would give no deference. and most of all if you were an activist court a pattern would emerge to your decisions as you move the kaurt in the desired direction and on the roberts court the clear pattern of corporate victims are arbitration, anti-trust, employment discrimination, campaign finance or legal pleading to name a few. the current supreme court has over and over rewritten our law consistently in big
6:40 am
corporation's favor. consistently throwing obstacles up to americans' right to a jury. the one institution of government where corporate money carries no influence. i look forward to following her career. i hope she returns to court to the center, to modesty and to the true colleague y'allty of super majority opinions. >> thank you very much. >> a lot of questions were asked and we got a good sense of what this nominee is like and i am glad to support her.
6:41 am
i asked her about the metaphor that chief justice roberts made famous. judges are like umpires who need to call balls and strikes. she actually said the metaphor is useful in some respects and less useful in others and i thought it was a typical thoughtful answer that we came to expect from her. she said it's useful because judges have to be fair and neutral. and judges have to be modest. they are elected officials. if it makes people think that judging is some kind of an easy automatic kind of thing.
6:42 am
and if in fact, a supreme court justice was just deciding easy cases we wouldn't have all these people here today for this hearing. our role is to decide if someone is qualified to do this job, if they have the character to do this job. it is very hard for me to understand how someone could find that she does not meet those tests. she has always been in the arena. she has chosen tough jobs. she has been a manager, a teacher, an advisor and a lawyer and always been a consensus builder.
6:43 am
thinking about the laws and policies on americans. when you are involved in considering the knitty gritty, or whether it is is decisions about who to hire at the law school, you are in the game as a decision maker. you have to figure out when to compromise and figure out when to hold firm. you have to know exactly what the consequences of your recommendations will be and you have to think of how your recommendations, how your decisions will impact people. we need that on the court. she will be the only one that doesn't come from what's been called a judicial monostair. he thought that was a good thing to have a judge on the court that hadn't been a judge.
6:44 am
when you look back in history. if you look back in history, a third of the supreme course justices did not serve as a judge before they fwot to the court. as a law school dean, she was widely credited with bringing together a faculty that was rif with division. it strikes me that it takes an extraordinary person who got a standing ovation from the federalist society. she has a lot of practical experience reaching out to people who hold very different beliefs.
6:45 am
i know a number of our members have been members of that associate and it's an important associate and i just noted this week what they wrote. i am not sure we talked about it at the hearing. they said the national district attorney's association believes that the solicitor's diverse and impressive life experiences will be a welcome addition to the court in fashioning theory that will work in practice. throughout the hearing, she consistently demonstrated the qualities that some of us had already seen in her record. she was pragmatic, smart, and she showed how she earned her reputation as a consensus builder. i hope she will be swiftly confirmed and i look forward to supporting her nomination. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.
6:46 am
what we have here is a difference of opinion about so many issues. i think there were strongly held views on this issue. it was all done with incredible stability throughout the hearings and i think it is impre impressive. i want to thank them. >> for all the reasons already stated, solicitor is an outstanding nominee. she has a superior intellect, broad experience, superb judgment and unquestioned
6:47 am
integrity. throughout her career she has consistent consistently and intensely pragmatic approach to identifying and solving problems. made a statement on the floor in support of kagan and i would like to make it part of this meeting. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> one senator franken speaks, unless senator sessions has a short comment he wishes to make, we will vote on the kagan hearing at the end of that and we will then turn to james
6:48 am
michael to be deputy attorney general. and please go ahead, sir. >> thank you. because i think that general kagan understands the place of the supreme court and its relationship to the executive, to the legislature and to the american people. suddenly conservatives are saying that there is no such thing. a judicial activist is just someone who rules in a way that
6:49 am
you don't like. in a way, kagan was a breath of fresh air. and she said that an activist judge is someone who doesn't take three principles to heart. approximate principles don't take to heart. first, deference to the political branchs in making the policy decisions of the nation. second, and in case after case,
6:50 am
it fit that definition of judicial activism to a t. just take citizens united for good reason. in citizens united, the roberts court struck down two federal statutes, overturned two of its own precedents and was never the grounds of an appeal. all to allow corporations basically unlimited spending in our elections. it's not just citizens united.
6:51 am
it's 5-4 decision after 5-4 decision. my friends, judicial activism exists. it's alive and well and i'm glad she was alive enough to realize that. general kagan she did more than acknowledge the judicial activism. that she woumd be a modest justice for ask why congress passed the statutes she is interpreting and won't ignore this body's intent. she will not be the judge who
6:52 am
ignores 100,000 pages of evidence that congress prepares to justify a law as the roberts court did in citizens united. she won't be the judge who reads statutory protections for workers so narrowly that they become meaningless a a vote for judicial modesty and a vote for the american people. i applaud general kagan's patience. i applaud her judicious demeanor. and i think she will make a great justice kagan.
6:53 am
thank you. >> thank you very much, senator franken. senator sessions, did you want to say anything? >> i want to summon a few specific issues. those are activist cases. we are, in fact, face iing natil decision abour courts. there are two views of the
6:54 am
courts. one is the judge as a neutral umpire. that's what i was taught all along. i see smiles and laughs. he thinks this is ridiculous to discuss that a judge could be a -- >> whose definition of neutral? many of us think citizens united was not a definition of a neutral umpire. >> all right. i get elected. i studied the law and participated in it for a long time. i think the supreme court and citizens united looked at the first ammendment to the constitution and said congress has no power to deny a group of citizens the right to run an ad attacking some politician or even publishing a book.
6:55 am
you can limit how much money they can give but you can't this is a serious issue. the other view is it has grown quite prominent in the many of the great law schools and by some judges is that a judge should be activist. this should be celebrated. the judge should show empathy. he said that he looks for judges who will allow for what america should be to influence how they meet decisions about the law and the facts of the case and the case before them. for me, that's not law. not in the american tradition of law. it's not good. i am not for it.
6:56 am
i have to tell you, i think that the american people understand that a complex fully drafted statute that by congress when the statute of limitations runs and supreme court wrestling with how to describe that. that's not ak vichl. and it's a big, big issue and i think that we have a glorious legal system. the greatest threat to the
6:57 am
independence of the federal judiciary which i support and believe in is judges who become politica political. the judges are to be impartial, do equal justice to the poor and the rich and to serve under the constitution and laws of the united states not above it. so this is what -- this is what this is all about and we have to wrest wl this nominee as to whether or not she fully understands that and would be in the mainstream of law with regard to these areas. is her philosophy such that she would be an activist and based
6:58 am
on who her judicial heros are, her actions throughout her life and the political nature of her background i have concluded that she cannot be the kind of justice the court needs and therefore i would oppose the nomination. >> thank you. we will keep the record open. i will include in the. the poll shows the vast majority of americans disagreed with the citizens united case [ taking vote ]
6:59 am
>> cspan is a noble and over 100 million homes. this is a public service created by america's cable companies. >> up next, today's "washington journal" live with your phone calls. later, live coverage of the house as they begin their legislative day this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. in about half an hour, congresswoman jan sekowski and we will talk about immigration


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on