Senate Proceeding on Jan 30th, 2006 :: 1:04:44 to 3:18:33
Total video length: 9 hours 41 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:47 Duration: 2:13:49 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

1:04:27 to 1:04:44( Edit History Discussion )

should. not sway in the wind -of public. opinion at. any~ time.".> @b @~-certainly that's a very&?-important. element, as well-he's asked about his perso?inal-views. and how that would afz7fect?-it he said, "i would approach. the -question with. an open mind, and i

1:04:44 to 1:05:01( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: . have zw"? would listen. to. arguments that are made."&b -someone. said, when you. become. a b-judge, you really. have. to. put aside the. things. that @ you did as -a lawyer, and at. the prior t?@ime.v: in your legal. career. and think about. the issues. the way a judge thinks about?{

1:04:44 to 3:18:33( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Rear Adm. Barry Black

1:05:01 to 1:05:17( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: them-when he. was asked about relating-to the things. he. had done. as a?`-lawyer the things. you do. as. a ? judge could be and areb.~. indeed&?-[ quite different. because your&b-role is quite different and. he : recognized. that.2 b

1:05:17 to 1:05:33( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: `?-asked. abo?ut upholding the-highest. standards of z6? integrity ?-he said,? "wh~?at&7 i tried t?o. do 2throughob.ut my. career as a. judge,&b-i. tried to go beyond. the letter-of ethics. r

1:05:33 to 1:05:49( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: ules and to avoid any situation. where? there might be.b-ethical.uestions raised."-it just seems. to me t?>hose are the. kinds of. responses that. make-you. feel. comfo?rtable with. the?b-candidate and so i'm very pleased that 2b-appantly we're getting down-towards. the.

1:05:49 to 1:06:05( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: . end&?-certainly it's? time.z~ to. get down &b-towards the. end ?-there's. just. no. reason. to&?-continue to. drag. this. out?ab -we know. what we need to know, and. it's. there and it's. time to-do it -so i think throughout theb ;?-process @ this.

1:06:05 to 1:06:21( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: judge candidate has. answered. theb questions to `?-b-the best of. his abilityb &-unfort?aunately, many. of. theb-questioners. spent more. tv?ime-v-giving speeches. and?-circumventing. thev? process than-asking relevant. questions butb-thb.at's part of the process?~.h so ib[.

1:06:21 to 1:06:37( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: must. confess i am getting.b-a little? concerned about the [ senate confirmation @v process ?&?@ we? o?ught to. take. another look. at b-our role and not deviate from.b-th?at role. for?> otherb @ unrelated reasons-so i hope. members have not. taken

1:06:37 to 1:06:53( Edit History Discussion )

Rear Adm. Barry Black: us down. the path of setting a bad. precedent, and ~ i'm sure. that-that's not the case.b:?[ i'm looking forward. to.~-co?mpleting this. starting. this.b-afternoon. and c~?ompleting. it-tomorrow, and. i think we. have-before us. a?xreat opportunity.

1:06:53 to 1:07:09( Edit History Discussion )

. to -confirm one of the most. capable?r ?-persons. that we could have. in.b`b-our supreme. courtv?b y mr. president, i yield the floor -the presiding officer: the clerk will call the. roll , quorum call:. ,?;?

1:07:09 to 1:07:24( Edit History Discussion )

?@7"? b

1:07:24 to 1:07:39( Edit History Discussion )

,b ,?b 6 qb ~b.^6 -the presiding officer: the ?-senator. from. utah.mr. bennett: i ask further&? -proceedings under. t?qhe quorum-call be.

1:07:39 to 1:07:55( Edit History Discussion )

dispensed wit&=h&b-the presiding ofb.ficer: without objection mr. bennett: mr. president, i-was. here in the chamber in the --role a~?s pres?eiding officer. d?@uring-the presentation of the senior-senator from massachusetb.ts ib.n. -wh?ich. he. referred. to > a story in-this morning's "new y

1:07:55 to 1:08:11( Edit History Discussion )

ork times"`b-with respect to.~ public.bq relations activity aimed at @ supporting-judge. alitob-and. he. was quite outraged. at-what he. had read in the "new-york times" and talb.ked. about how improper it. was for? a public.

1:08:11 to 1:08:28( Edit History Discussion )

relations. firm. or. any group of.b-lawyers. to. gather. together i &4 and?&b-mount.z7 a campaign. on. behalf of?`?6 this nomineeb -that should be left to the senate and there should be. no

1:08:28 to 1:08:44( Edit History Discussion )

-outside. interferenc in. this.i process -"the new york times" had?2 fzocused on theba activities that had been.b-done in favor. of the. nominee ?-and the sena?or. from-massachusetts. found that-objectionable -as i listened. to. him i could not. help.

1:08:44 to 1:09:01( Edit History Discussion )

but think?r of. the-actib.ons. that. went. forward~?~? in-opposition to. this.z7?: nominee by-groups o?f 7 lawyers who gathered-together to. get their ammunition ready in the public. arena by -public relations firms.

1:09:01 to 1:09:17( Edit History Discussion )

. that. were `?-br hired. to opposes the? nominee ?~ i. remembsber. the story in "the washington?a post" w~?hen johnb&?-roberts was. proposed. wherehey-described those groups. that. wer?e-opposed tob the president,-gath

1:09:17 to 1:09:33( Edit History Discussion )

ering. wb.ith. their press?-releases to. attack. theb. nominee,-who. were. forced to strip. out the b-name of i the person. they. thought ?-the @z nominee would be. and~? put it-john roberts'. name so. that theyb -could. issue the press releases-as soon as the name.~. wasr made

1:09:33 to 1:09:48( Edit History Discussion )

.@b-publb.ic they had prepared. theirb2 ammunition to. attack. theb.b&b-president's. nominee?i before. they-knew who he. was ? and they were embarrassed. by. the fact. that ; they had? guessed wrong but they`b-didn't change. a single. word.

1:09:48 to 1:10:03( Edit History Discussion )

of &?[ their attack once. they. knew. that`b-the actual nominee was someone^-different than they had.b-anticipa?ated -my only commeb.nt to the senator`-from massachusetts would be that-if he. decries thev. work. that. was ?-done?i in favor. of. theb.b

1:10:03 to 1:10:19( Edit History Discussion )

. nominee?@ by.b`~&b-outsid?[e lawyer groups. and public.b-relations ; firms he should. join with some. of. the rest. of us andb`b-say. that. the same. criticismr?`b-applies. to.by those who were.ba ?-prepb.ared to. savage. theb.

1:10:19 to 1:10:34( Edit History Discussion )

brb. nomineeb-whomever he. might have. been.@b-if the senator from -massachusetts. will. have. aa conversation with. ralph nees. andb`?-the people for theb b2 america^.n. way and. s~ay to. them, back. off let?&^-the.b

1:10:34 to 1:10:49( Edit History Discussion )

. nominee?@ be. made ~bi^ known let b-his. views or her.b" views be. made.b-known, have. a clear? evaluation-of where they. sta?nd before. youb-start. your. public @ relationsb`? -attack, then i? will ~?

1:10:49 to 1:11:06( Edit History Discussion )

?2?6 turn to theb-groups on. the right and say? the?[?r?-same thing you back :b off b`?-le?t the nominee ?e. known?`?-let the. views be examined before you moun?@t. your.ba public.bb relations campaign but we saw what. happened. when

1:11:06 to 1:11:22( Edit History Discussion )

-people in support of. a republican president's nominees.v-back off?@ and allow the field to @ b-be dominated by. those who are on&&-the. attack-out of that. first experience. of.2 seeingttack.

1:11:22 to 1:11:38( Edit History Discussion )

after ab.ttack after attack into. an. empty field we.b-have created a new word in the-english r language`?-it is @@ a verb -- to. bork the. nominee wasb

1:11:38 to 1:11:54( Edit History Discussion )

.@ robert. bork-i. have my problems. with. robert-bork?-i'm. not sure % how i would have @ voted. having. heard his: record, but. i? do. know. that. the record-was. distorted and the opportunity to hear."@ his record`v3 v3 was changedb.

1:11:54 to 1:12:10( Edit History Discussion )

by virtue of. the?-groups that. were. all prepared. to`b-savage? him ~ to. attack.i his?-personality, to destroy any ?-careful. analysis. of. his record bihe was.

1:12:10 to 1:12:25( Edit History Discussion )

. borked, and?2 we. heard that `?r other people would be borked. b7y. this6 same. savage. attac?k. from @? the?-leftb-so?, i.% have. sympathy. with ?3thet senator from. massachusetts when-he complb.ains aboutv{ the~ groups on the. right that were

1:12:25 to 1:12:41( Edit History Discussion )

marshalled -in advance of. the?i nomination. to-deb.fend the@? nominee but i say to.b`b-him, they. were.7 marshalled. to&?-defend the n?ominee because they.b-saw what?6? happened. when |@?@?@ such.b`b

1:12:41 to 1:12:57( Edit History Discussion )

-previous activitb.y was = not carried. forwardb.b-i. wv:ould? hope. t hat the way~? in.* 2which judge - the chief&-justice, john. roberts moved[b `b -through here. with. both sides?

1:12:57 to 1:13:14( Edit History Discussion )

?a having their say but ultimately qv:@?-the. public demonstrating a? sense of revulsion about this. whole?@?`?&b-borking. process and now with -judge. alito ? moving. forward in. a?@ nner far more. dignified than-we have. seen in.

1:13:14 to 1:13:30( Edit History Discussion )

. the past-i. would?4 hope. that.v; borking would become an. historic. artifact. and would. disappear and thab.t. groups-b.on the far left. and the far ?-right would. finally realize that-the senate is. not moved by. these kinds. of

1:13:30 to 1:13:46( Edit History Discussion )

tactics b: that the. ads that are run televb.ision. ads attackinbig. a nominee boomerang we've seen some. of. these group:s.bq that have. attacked judge. alito bq had. to. hb.ave. their ads?hz7 taken down ecause. they.b

1:13:46 to 1:14:02( Edit History Discussion )

. were.i falb.seb a ?`-they were attacked by the media-generally. for the severity. and?-the fals?ity of. their position b.bs?v-borking 2?a doesn't?t work. anymore,&-and. i would hope. that. both.

1:14:02 to 1:14:18( Edit History Discussion )

sides would recognize. that. the senate h v{ has. demonstrated.i a level of-civility and intelligence. i?@n-this situation that. says, we-^-will not be. moved by >br those who?&-raise. large sums. of. money ? who-run. television

1:14:18 to 1:14:33( Edit History Discussion )

. ads in. our home &bx states sav?aging. the nominee,? we-will be. focused on.@ what 2?@ happens ?-in theb hearings&-we will. e focused on. the actual.bq?b`b&?: recordb--we wb.ill. not? allow this. to. turn-into an .

1:14:33 to 1:14:49( Edit History Discussion )

.% electoral circus-that was? done in the?: case of-judge. bork?-it was not done successfully, ?-bhalthough it.: wasv? attempted wb.ith-ch?[ief justice. rober&ttsb&b&?- is. not working now with judge a alito, and i hope. people

1:14:49 to 1:15:04( Edit History Discussion )

. on bothb-sides. will. then.b2 abandon those?-ki@nds. of. tactics?|.7?b r:?6b.b-i yield the. floor and suggest the absence of a quorum`?{ the presiding officer: the clerk will call the. roll ,b.b-quorum call:. ,

1:15:04 to 1:15:21( Edit History Discussion )

be?a?yb.*b.2b a?@b

1:15:21 to 1:15:37( Edit History Discussion )

,@b >?v:?eb.y@. ,

1:15:37 to 1:15:53( Edit History Discussion )

b @>v.b2b ib

1:15:53 to 1:16:09( Edit History Discussion )

,?v? v2? ,

1:16:09 to 1:16:24( Edit History Discussion )

bq~b e~~?b

1:16:24 to 1:16:40( Edit History Discussion )

.~ i vi?2 b 7b.zb ,

1:16:40 to 1:16:56( Edit History Discussion )

bb.b7b2b 7b

1:16:56 to 1:17:13( Edit History Discussion )

,b ,>7@", ?"eb q?ab.

1:17:13 to 1:17:29( Edit History Discussion )

? ,l>~3?zh@?v?b.~

1:17:29 to 1:17:45( Edit History Discussion )

.z. ,b >~?a

1:17:45 to 1:18:01( Edit History Discussion )

. ,b qb bhbb@r2.

1:18:01 to 1:18:16( Edit History Discussion )

2? ,b ~~b 2?i">?e?ea?i

1:18:16 to 1:18:31( Edit History Discussion )

b @?@? @b ,~?b "?b e?byb."e?

1:18:31 to 1:18:47( Edit History Discussion )

b 2. ,?b.@b e bl?>

1:18:47 to 1:19:03( Edit History Discussion )

b,h~2ib.^ 7r?b h?b v

1:19:03 to 1:19:19( Edit History Discussion )

.s?rrb 7. ,ib ab @b &q?

1:19:19 to 1:19:34( Edit History Discussion )

zb ,b.ib"z6?x?b @b

1:19:34 to 1:19:49( Edit History Discussion )

@b ,b @7b.br?yb @b."?b.

1:19:49 to 1:20:05( Edit History Discussion )

b 2b aa. ,?@v?b7b@b1.

1:20:05 to 1:20:21( Edit History Discussion )

@b @? ,?b.ba?~@?q

1:20:21 to 1:20:37( Edit History Discussion )

? ,b.~?i

1:20:37 to 1:20:53( Edit History Discussion )

n?" ,?[?av?b.@

1:20:53 to 1:21:09( Edit History Discussion )

bi?~b ,? zb

1:21:09 to 1:21:26( Edit History Discussion )

"?b b[?2b i

1:21:26 to 1:21:43( Edit History Discussion )

?b ,?pb.i?6.

1:21:43 to 1:21:58( Edit History Discussion )

, ba?i?[^7bb

1:21:58 to 1:22:14( Edit History Discussion )

b bqb ,b[?@?vb.b

1:22:14 to 1:22:30( Edit History Discussion )

bi?b zb ,b ~?

1:22:30 to 1:22:46( Edit History Discussion )

b.bb ,b 7?e b2?

1:22:46 to 1:23:02( Edit History Discussion )

.6b ,b i?rv2 b.vrb2b >v3

1:23:02 to 1:23:17( Edit History Discussion )

b.zb ,^6b 3b h?@ ?b v:b.b

1:23:17 to 1:23:34( Edit History Discussion )

v? v:b:b ,bb bh?b

1:23:34 to 1:23:50( Edit History Discussion )

ba?qh?{">b,b,^.v

1:23:50 to 1:24:06( Edit History Discussion )

.~;. ,?{?izw?b.

1:24:06 to 1:24:22( Edit History Discussion )

b,b.>{b bib

1:24:22 to 1:24:38( Edit History Discussion )

b.^:b a? ,bi?b.>7b2?@{b.

1:24:38 to 1:24:55( Edit History Discussion )

?;b bqv?b.i?e?,?,zb v3.

1:24:55 to 1:25:11( Edit History Discussion )

.bq?@?[?s2. ,b bivi

1:25:11 to 1:25:28( Edit History Discussion )

b 7. ,b: ?av;q "l

1:25:28 to 1:25:44( Edit History Discussion )

3. ,*~?b

1:25:44 to 1:26:00( Edit History Discussion )

?@b2?b ? ,v3b.b2?v;b

1:26:00 to 1:26:16( Edit History Discussion )

vhb ,?ib :

1:26:16 to 1:26:32( Edit History Discussion )

bi. ,b.7?i b

1:26:32 to 1:26:47( Edit History Discussion )

@v?iz7b ,b.v{b 2?b ib

1:26:47 to 1:27:03( Edit History Discussion )

?yzh?qbib ,b qb.2br?>v @b

1:27:03 to 1:27:19( Edit History Discussion )

ab , qb ;b "?~7

1:27:19 to 1:27:35( Edit History Discussion )

>>?b2? ,bqb bq?@z2zb.

1:27:35 to 1:27:50( Edit History Discussion )

v?b ,zb ;?6b3

1:27:50 to 1:28:05( Edit History Discussion )

?qb vq?@b ,b.>sb ?bb.@?

1:28:05 to 1:28:21( Edit History Discussion )

2b ,?;?~b2@b.~v? v?

1:28:21 to 1:28:36( Edit History Discussion )

b ~?v@?:. ,b@?

1:28:36 to 1:28:52( Edit History Discussion )

@ v?b ,?yb 2 v@b

1:28:52 to 1:29:07( Edit History Discussion )

b @z2b ,b @v2v2 b

1:29:07 to 1:29:23( Edit History Discussion )

.qb.7? ?[@v?b ,b ,?sb 2?@b @i

1:29:23 to 1:29:39( Edit History Discussion )

?i?>~? ?@b @. ,"e?i7b&| b

1:29:39 to 1:29:54( Edit History Discussion )

,b ,?@b-quorum call:? ,v>b.bb qbb

1:29:54 to 1:30:09( Edit History Discussion )

?ib.~ a. ,? ,b " xv7 ~7ba?3v

1:30:09 to 1:30:24( Edit History Discussion )

b7br ,bb.7?b.iv2r?~? ?a?h

1:30:24 to 1:30:39( Edit History Discussion )

?ibab ~7b. bs. ,v , ., ba?[ibb ba senator: mr. presidentb`?-the presiding officer: the -senator from iowa

1:30:39 to 1:30:55( Edit History Discussion )

mr. grassley: i ask. that. the callin g of the quorum. be.b-suended-the presid?ing officer: without ?&b-objectionmr. grassley: mrb president, i ?a assume the order of. business is?-to speak on the. alito ?&?&b-nominab.tion r-the presiding officer: t~ -senator is correct?@?mrb gr?assley: mr. president, ib`?i choose to do that--i. support the?[ nominatio?n of.b`?-samuel alito

1:30:55 to 1:31:09( Edit History Discussion )

judge. alito as. we. heard in.r7? our?-hear@ings ab.nd so far in. most of the. debate. on. the floor is a.b-person who is. a dedicated public-servant, who practices what. he 7?[ ?-preaches - integri modesty ?

1:31:09 to 1:31:25( Edit History Discussion )

&b-b-judiciali restraib.nt and?2 ab.b`?-devotib.on to 6@?2b the law and to. theb b-constitution v-he understands that. a judge? ; should not have. a personab.l @? ?b-agenb.da or. be. an.r>z> actb.ivist. on > the?@ ?-bench. ?ut should

1:31:25 to 1:31:41( Edit History Discussion )

make.i decisions b&?@ as they should be. decidedb v? , do it` in an. imptial?r manner, do it ?-b-with an. open. mind ?zand do it. with-appropriate ~b restraint and of-course in. accordanc e with the?

1:31:41 to 1:31:56( Edit History Discussion )

-laws and the constitutionb 2 listening. to a. lot of. my &?-colleagues on the committee andb`?-last week, i'm extremely disappointedv? that we're?> loo

1:31:56 to 1:32:12( Edit History Discussion )

king~> z-now. at. an attemptb.{ by.^~ senators, ?-and. they. are all on. the other ?side of the. aisle to, delay? and?-filibuster this. ?> nominee b.it's just. too?b

1:32:12 to 1:32:27( Edit History Discussion )

bad that majority leader "? frist had to. take theb `?&?-extreme. posit ion. of. z>b.~> filing.b-cloture. on. this. very.z important nomination b-no s upreme court nom nomination - has ever?p been. defeated.

1:32:27 to 1:32:43( Edit History Discussion )

?y.b-filibuster if. a mority ofb theb-senators stood ready to @ confirmz&b-that7 nominee?b.b&?-now, that. certainly isn't theb -case here. because we already know that. a bipartisan. majoritb b`b-of senators. will vote. to

1:32:43 to 1:32:58( Edit History Discussion )

? confirmb-judge. alito if. we. get to. t hat-point. tomorrow 4 at s 1:00, and we.b-also know -- at. 11:00 an. and? we -also know. we've? had plenty. of-time to. debate. this. nomination-so it really is unfortunate tb.hat.z`b -certain senators. wil

1:32:58 to 1:33:14( Edit History Discussion )

l. vote `?-against. this.ba nominee becauseb-they think doing so is a good-political issue. for tb.hem.b2?-the senators are apply?6ing. a very.b&?@ different. standard. to ? what. has been the his?tory and?q?b theb-tradition in.

1:33:14 to 1:33:30( Edit History Discussion )

. the senat?:e of.b--considering supr eme court a?-nominees the. position. of.% these senator?is.b-is bei.%ng taken that judge.~7 alito ought. to somehow share justice

1:33:30 to 1:33:46( Edit History Discussion )

b @?&b-o'connor's judicial @ philosophy.bs in order for him to. fill. that.b-b-seat where she's been. for?@ theb&?-lab.st 25 | yearsb-wellb., that sort. of. thinking. is.b&b-totally. at odds with. what @ theb.bi constitution requires, but more

1:33:46 to 1:34:02( Edit History Discussion )

@importantly. than. what. the bq constitution requi^.res, what h hasr been the senate's. tradition in.b-the. last 225 yearsv3z. ?`?-and. that. is @? that judge alito.

1:34:02 to 1:34:18( Edit History Discussion )

@ doesn't.i have to be. justice b`?-o'connb.or's judicial. philosophy `?-soulmate to. deserve the b&?i confirmation of.b: this. senate-because the supreme courtb

1:34:18 to 1:34:34( Edit History Discussion )

-zdoesn't have seats reserved. for one philosoph?y. or another that-b-kind of. reasoni?rng is. completely.b-antithetical to the. proper roler6?-of the judiciary in i our system-of government @bzb-my colleagues.: on the.

1:34:34 to 1:34:50( Edit History Discussion )

2 other side br then have. it all wrong-therb2e's. n?ever been.q? an. issue of.b`?-ideological. balance on the?&?-court-if that. were the case, do. you-; think. that. president ford

1:34:50 to 1:35:05( Edit History Discussion )

. would have nominatedbq justice?[vr stevensb`?`?-or president bush. one would have.b-nominated 3 justice souter, two republican appointees. tha have.v -turned out to. be. the most -liberal. members on

1:35:05 to 1:35:20( Edit History Discussion )

the court?a appointed by republicans?@v?-those presiden?*ts didn't think in-terms.bi of @ ideological balance?b7b `b-the senate's. tradition then. hasb

1:35:20 to 1:35:35( Edit History Discussion )

-b-not been to. confirm individualsb&?-to the supreme court that 3?`?&b-promote special interes~ts or.b:?`b -reb.present certai n. b.v: causes-the. s?@enate. has never understood-its. role. to. ? maintain. anyb`b-perceived. ideological balance on y

1:35:35 to 1:35:51( Edit History Discussion )

?-the. court b-tob; the contrb.ary, t?e senate's ?-tradition has beqen to q confirm?&b-individuals who. a?re`b-wev?ll-qualified to b[ interpret and?`?-to apply? the?i law andb 2 who~-understand the proper. role a of

1:35:51 to 1:36:07( Edit History Discussion )

@ ?-the. judiciary?y to."?b dispense -ju.%stz>ice.b-in recent. history, of course,?@ there's. proof of. that. because in : ^> ?qmy years in [b.>? the?@? senate,ut as.b`

1:36:07 to 1:36:22( Edit History Discussion )

recently as. ten 12% years ago when ruth bader. ginsburg. was?-b-before? the senate, we >b gave-overwhelming confirmation ; to @ r, a?: former. g~?eneral counsel of -the. very

1:36:22 to 1:36:38( Edit History Discussion )

. liberal group the? aclu -now,?; she replaced. ab conservative.v2b-justice, buy?:? - byron white on-the court. at that.7 time-the senate?r confirmed justice ?&b-ginsburg?-why?

1:36:38 to 1:36:54( Edit History Discussion )

because president clinton won 2?-abelection campaigning on. the bp basis of the kind. of. peo?qple. he-was going to ominate, and ?-president clinton did. that b&?-and. that's. really. what. the constitution says. the role ofb-the. president the role of th

1:36:54 to 1:37:09( Edit History Discussion )

ebq.er b-b-senate i s."e?b -some of. my. colleagues have. said,b 2 elections haveb v: results and theb.b-constitution says that the ?-president gets to nominate`b -supreme court. candidates2

1:37:09 to 1:37:24( Edit History Discussion )

~?b @ and, of. course,?a?:?6 justice b-nsburg whether you agree with-her or not,ed. that. requisiteb-qualifications to. serve on 7z theb`?@ cour?rt&b-right. after her justib.ce breyer-came tb.o

1:37:24 to 1:37:40( Edit History Discussion )

. the supreme court b-b.appointed by president. clinton b.b`?-a. liberal as. well, but the ?-b-senate?a confirmedb.bpb @ that justicby@ a ?ig

1:37:40 to 1:37:56( Edit History Discussion )

vote-the president. m?ade. hisb choic?e,"-sending to?2b the senate, and the b-senate found him qualib.fied and?`ba b&h he?e was confirmed on. an-up-or-down vote,a no. filibuster-ever?>z7 talked about. and no one "

1:37:56 to 1:38:11( Edit History Discussion )

`?&?-talked about2?@ maintaining any&, ideological balance on the co?2urt -the su?preme. b2:? court then."? and~7b`?&b-historically the not the p?2lab.ce?-to

1:38:11 to 1:38:26( Edit History Discussion )

? play. politics.zq ?-the court is : supposed to be, and b&&z-as far as.ba i know, free "? of.b`b&?-b.politics b-the democrats. and liberal outside. interest. groups. wt to b-change the rules because they -didn'

1:38:26 to 1:38:41( Edit History Discussion )

t win at. the? ballot. boxmentb -they want. to. implement theirb-agenda from. the court ?@ and ob.f&b-b-course, that's ab 7b dangerousb path, making the supreme court a s uperb @ ?-legislature?

1:38:41 to 1:38:56( Edit History Discussion )

?b @?@ z@?`?-the. cb.onstitution. doesn't presume b-that underz our?2 checks and alances system ofb government`b-we do not. want. to go"? down that `b-path going down tb.hat.

1:38:56 to 1:39:11( Edit History Discussion )

pat will. create`b&b&?-a.r? stand?@ard. that.bq wilb.l.~6 seriously jeopardize the independence of.zr>b &b-the. judiciary and distort our system ob.f government,? ab system.ba?&?-b-based. upon.

1:39:11 to 1:39:27( Edit History Discussion )

?ybq the judiciary being? -the? arbiter of. the? warb that-often -- i shoul.ed. say?e?ib abh b-co?ntinually goes on. between the b-executb.ive branch of @ government z2b`?-and the. legislative branch. of.b

1:39:27 to 1:39:43( Edit History Discussion )

&b&b-v7 government?-democrats. want. the supreme courtbi?b&?& to assume. an e expansive role. well.b-beyob.nd what was.bi originally-intended by. the constitution. and"-its q writers they want. the~? court to. take. on ?&b-the. role that is closer to the b-role of. t

1:39:43 to 1:39:58( Edit History Discussion )

he7? legislativeranch, which. is. to. make policy @ and bring about. changes in bq~? ourb-society be ?-now, this has consequences when you go down this. road

1:39:58 to 1:40:13( Edit History Discussion )

-it has brought about thez>?-politicalization off. the judicial`b&b-confirmation process that @ we've seen evidenced particularly in the. alito but also in theb.b`?&b-roberts' nomb.inatb.ion, or. go. back -three.ba years

1:40:13 to 1:40:29( Edit History Discussion )

v?b."? pre?svious to the?a holding. up. of. several?:b > circuitb-court nominees. before p thi body.b-through the. threat of-filibuster?`b-or not just. the t hreat, the use?-b.of the.

1:40:29 to 1:40:44( Edit History Discussion )

. filibuster a@b`b-politicizing^7 the judicial.bsbab -confirmatib.on p?rocessr7 is wrong7 ?-and that's? becaub.se when. judges.b-improperly assume. the role. of @^`b adeciding essentially political?

1:40:44 to 1:41:00( Edit History Discussion )

v-questions. rather. than. legalb`-questions, the judicial.z confirmation" process can? devolvez-into one?@?{i?z focus?aed on. whether a?`b e nomine e. can impartially andb."@?[`b-appropriately. implement lawbs?[ ?-ins

1:41:00 to 1:41:16( Edit History Discussion )

tead. it.bi becomes?> one more. ?& e focused onb whether a? nominee willz> implement a desiredb-political outcome and do. it. from b-the bench a regardless. of s the law -and."s regardlesb.s of what the constituti"eona

1:41:16 to 1:41:32( Edit History Discussion )

? says@?@b americans. want. wha~?t.ba the-constitution writers have. always called for jungs who will.vs confine. their jz.ob to ?-b-interpreting the law as passe?@d-by legislative bodie?s. andb

1:41:32 to 1:41:48( Edit History Discussion )

.; t?rhe ?-consb.titution as. written ?irather than. having. the same-group. of. men and women make.bq ?-policy and societal. changes from a the benchb-we need. tb.o. reject hr firmly. the notion

1:41:48 to 1:42:05( Edit History Discussion )

that. the supreme court should be in"? the businv:ess of-political decision making. or inb &-the. business. where? politicians b-are, you and i who are? elected to the united. states. senate -the. constitution. provides that.

1:42:05 to 1:42:20( Edit History Discussion )

-the president. nominates a supreme. court justice and the?-senate provides r its? advice. andab "@b -consent-and."? aleb.xander hamilton a wrote an-awful. lot aboaut theb.br role bi of. what.b-the 2 judiciary was to

1:42:20 to 1:42:36( Edit History Discussion )

playbi and 7 what?> judges. were. supposed.~? to. do ecause. he had. to. explain that.s?-to the ratific?@ation. of.he?-original 13. states.b-so he. wrote several papers,"

1:42:36 to 1:42:53( Edit History Discussion )

. but?` inv. "federalistb brvr 66,". i?r quote "it will be. the office of theb b-president. to. nominate. and with -the. advice. of. the senate. to.

1:42:53 to 1:43:08( Edit History Discussion )

?-influence-the. senate may. defeat one choice-of the executive and oblige him-to make another but they --meaning the. senate -- cannot ab&b2 b-themselves c?hoose `b&?~ they canb o nly. ratify. or

1:43:08 to 1:43:24( Edit History Discussion )

. reject`b&b-the. choice. that he m?ayb hav>?e -made."?-the way. that. the@ senate. provides -its advice andb consent has been.bs bys?2 ab tho?rough ju?@dici?ary-commit?@tee.

1:43:24 to 1:43:39( Edit History Discussion )

?:?* evaluation. and then. by.b`b-an up-or-down vote in. the fv?ull `b-senate`?-the judiciary. committee has an important. jo? because its ?wb @ b-meb:mbers. can ask in-depth ab-questions of the nominee ?-the. committee.

1:43:39 to 1:43:54( Edit History Discussion )

2b eva?;luates>> whether ?-the.z; nominee hvas the requisite judicialb[ t?~empe?rament intellect and integrityb&br b-the. committee also looks. to. see?a b&b-whether. ab nomv;inee understands b: the. proper role of. a justice and respects the rule.

1:43:54 to 1:44:09( Edit History Discussion )

of law. and the?&>> words ofb theb2 constitution over q any personalb agenda-because. no justice should bev? b-sitting on the court that has. a?`?-personal agenda."? that he or she&b

1:44:09 to 1:44:25( Edit History Discussion )

-wa?3nts. to carry out?&b-i've been. a m@ember. of. the?&?-judicib.ary committee y for more-than 25 2 years and take this-b-responsibility. seriously as. do &?-myb i colleagues, and i thoughtb-that judge alito did a very.> good&?: job answering our

1:44:25 to 1:44:40( Edit History Discussion )

b queions andb-that he. was? candid, no. doubt he b&?@ b.was. thorough, a?nd? as far. as. i'm ?-concerned, he. was very &?-responsive?2?-judge. alito ub.nderstands thev>b`b proper role of the? judiciary is 3.

1:44:40 to 1:44:56( Edit History Discussion )

-not to make. thev? law he will. strictly. interpretb 3 the law.2 as written and do his. best`?-to remain. faithful to the actual-meaning of? the constitution vr~ 7>?b -judg

1:44:56 to 1:45:11( Edit History Discussion )

?res don't have. the authority to change. the constitution -the. wv?hole theory. of judicial.bab.bq v-review we have i think is-contrary to. that notion h?2 b#bsv;bb-the constitution is @2 an. enduri

1:45:11 to 1:45:27( Edit History Discussion )

ng-document and the?a? constitution -doesn't. change`?-it?@ does. contain some. importantb`?-general. principles. that. have to be appliedv?v?2 to. new factualb`?-sibtuations that. come up b*?@?r?v:-but in doing that, the judiciary has to be.z> very. careful

1:45:27 to 1:45:42( Edit History Discussion )

b.br not to&?@ ?-inject its own vieb.ws into a the?:b -matterb-it has to.^6 app?2ly the principles-that are in the constitution to--the 2 situations b3that come. before b.v&?: the.z judiciary end that. quote but. quickly to. quote againb

1:45:42 to 1:45:59( Edit History Discussion )

"a judge can't have. any a genda-a. judge can't have. any?a@ preferred outcome. in. any particular. c?aase -a jub.dge. certain.|ly doesn't have. a ?a client?b &?-the 3 judge's only. obligation. -and. itsv3?@ a solemn.

1:45:59 to 1:46:15( Edit History Discussion )

obligation - &b-is to. the rule. of law`v2 and. what. that. means is. that? in-every single. case 2 ?6 the judge has to do. what. the law requires "bp?-judge alito. also

1:46:15 to 1:46:31( Edit History Discussion )

. understands that the constitution. provides-justice. for all for everybody b.b-and he told the committ?aee this,b-and. so. quote again --| "no?i person -in this. countryb @ no. matte?qr. howb-high or. powerful

1:46:31 to 1:46:47( Edit History Discussion )

is. above the law.z and~? nbao. person in this-counqtry. is. beneath the lawabsb.bq>b" again he said -- quote - "our `v3 ?-constitution applies in. times of-b-peace and in. times of. war"? and it&?-protects the rights. of. americans.

1:46:47 to 1:47:02( Edit History Discussion )

.bit under all circumstances b""-judge.lito? understands thebq ~-importan?hce o?2f. theb 2 independence-of the judiciary in. our system`-xof checks. andv. balances 2 and

1:47:02 to 1:47:18( Edit History Discussion )

? we`b&?-ought to be. very. careful to. mak e sure that. we. only. approve judges ;?; ?-that do. understand. that qb.b2b2?b-his. colleagues. believe that `b-judge. alito will be. an.~3 independen judgeb2 wyho will. apply-the. law.

1:47:18 to 1:47:34( Edit History Discussion )

. and the constitution. to. &b-every. brancb.h. of. government andb`&&b-every. person. because judge alito?;b-knows. no. one including the president, is. above the lawb: ?@?`?-and. when i. said. "his b-co>?lleagues," i mean. those?`

1:47:34 to 1:47:49( Edit History Discussion )

colleagues that testi?@fied before-our committee$ and who have`-worked with. him for a long-period of time on. that. circuitb-one. of. his colleagues. judgezh?>b`?-aldersb.tart ? testified - quote -- "judicial independence. ib.s

1:47:49 to 1:48:04( Edit History Discussion )

simply incompatible. with`b&-political loyaltiev.s and judgeb.b-alitb.o'v?s. judicial. record. on ob.ur b-court. bears witness to this -fundamental truth.r?>~" former judge gibbons who nowv? b &b-represents clients againstb.

1:48:04 to 1:48:19( Edit History Discussion )

the b-bush administration over. i?tsb`b .trz2eatment. of. detaineesb @ i.>n `b&?-guantanamo doesn't believe?, that &?-juv?dge. alito will. rubber. stampb @ b-"e an y."@ administration. policy @ if. it.b-violatesz. the law and?-constitutionv`b-b-he said.b

1:48:19 to 1:48:34( Edit History Discussion )

2 - quote - "i'm&?-confiden?2t, however that a?s. an `?-b-able legal scholar?@?@ and ab-b-fair-minde?pd justice he. will.b`b-b-give arguments legal and&?r ?-factual 7, that may be. presentedb`?-on behalf. of o urbi?a

1:48:34 to 1:48:49( Edit History Discussion )

?;?6b6bab* clients?@ b`?-careful. andz2 thoughtful &?-consideration % without any?q b-predisposition i n. favori of. the executive branch>?2?:b" ?b.b-yeb.t. judge alito's critics?:v?b v2.

1:48:49 to 1:49:04( Edit History Discussion )

claim he is. out of theb.v2 mainstream`b-b.that's what. the debate. last. w eek.b&b-was. all about ?@b f?erom. the other?-sidev? that. he. is. a>. judge wit.%h. an `-agenda hostile?b to.

1:49:04 to 1:49:19( Edit History Discussion )

iividual ?-rights and civil rights.bx and?`~-women. and the disabled.b-the truth. is. that.zb.b3 judge alito's6-record~~ has been. distortedv3 andb-been misch?aracterized -first, a statistical analy?isis `?&?> ?-thb.at some

1:49:19 to 1:49:34( Edit History Discussion )

. try to useb ; of how many ? -time?s a. certain kind of.r> b&b -pl aib.ntiff wins. or @ loses ib.s. not?-the. way we. dispense. justice in.b`b-america.b-it's a bad way to.r?z3 loob.k. at. ab-judge's record?-it's easy. to. manipulate. a

1:49:34 to 1:49:48( Edit History Discussion )

ndb-cherry-pick. cases to. reach ?-certbqain b6 desired conclusions of.~&?-why somebody shouldn't be. on. the &~-bench hz7 v2 but the". ottom line is ~b 7,-whb.o should win in. a?@ case.~? depends ?&?-on the fact

1:49:48 to 1:50:03( Edit History Discussion )

sbbb presentedb in. that -specific case 6 and what. theb.v`b-applicable law saysb&b-whb.at's important to. judge alitozb 7b2b`b&?-b-b.as he. rules on. specific. factsb in `b-b-a caseb a

1:50:03 to 1:50:19( Edit History Discussion )

nd?h the issues. before. the b-v-court in accordance is6?y that. it -- @ is. that. it be in. accordance-with the law and theb&b&?-b-constitution?z> as his colleagues. attested. to,?`?s judgz6e. alito doesn't have @ ab-predis?posed. out?come in

1:50:19 to 1:50:34( Edit History Discussion )

. cases?h he-b.doesn't bowb.^: to. special interests ?-but stb.icks to. the law regardless`?z of whether the results areb b-popular.z> or. notb``?&b -and. thab.t's."@b preciselyb 7 what. good -judges shoul db.o.

1:50:34 to 1:50:49( Edit History Discussion )

and what. good-judging. is. allb aboutb -moreover ? hen you?: consider. asll ?-these. accusations?@ look. at. what.b-the.v2? a.bah the american bar-association.>>b

1:50:49 to 1:51:03( Edit History Discussion )

said bab bqzqb&b-they unanimously voted to. awardbrb -judg^e. alito its highest possible 7b sb`?&z-rating and that's. in. their b.b`b&b&" zwo?2rds, well. qualified?-a. panel of.

1:51:03 to 1:51:19( Edit History Discussion )

third circuit judges v> b 2 ?--- i already referred. to. two of.z&?-these. folksb - who worked @ with &b-judge alito more than 15. yearsb. b ib.7z7b &?-in their testimony had?^7b-unqualifie d.

1:51:19 to 1:51:33( Edit History Discussion )

support for judge b-alito. as. they.r7?> appeared. before-our. commi tteebp?@?:?-these s?b colb.leb.agues. didn't. seeb x judge. alito to a be. an. extremist-hostile. to. specific groupb.s

1:51:33 to 1:51:48( Edit History Discussion )

zb b.zw or`?& with hb.aving. a~?: personal."ba agenda`? -they testified about2 j?udge ?&b-alito's. fb.airness, testified?b b-about.bq his impartiality. b ~"? with -- respect. to. all plaintiffs b.^

1:51:48 to 1:52:02( Edit History Discussion )

~ b b-ju?dge. lewis one that. i haven't b-quoted yet described himself to.b-the. committee to. be.r7? i?qn his?-wob[rdb.s -- these are his words "openly. and unob.n.~? poll. get i&b-cannily. pro-choice -xb -unapologeticly pro-choice."`?-and anot

1:52:02 to 1:52:16( Edit History Discussion )

her. set of. words he.r used.b`?`b&b-about. himself "a commi^tted b-hu.7man. rigb.hts. and civil rights.ib-activistz." but yet. a person. coming from @ this end of. the ?@brz legal continuumb bs?ab& a fully. endorsed jb.udge alisto to &?-the. supreme?@ courtb tes?2tifying --and. i quote?

1:52:16 to 1:52:30( Edit History Discussion )

~ - "i. cannot.bq recall.b`b&?-one. instance durbrin g. conference q?&?-or during. any other ebqxperience` br ?-that i. had with judge alito?b but .b&?-in particularly. during -cob.nference whe?in. h?e. exhibitedb-anything remot@ely resembl?@ing.^6?^ an.

1:52:30 to 1:52:45( Edit History Discussion )

?-ideological. bend ^"?i?; ?-but his.br testimonyb2 of.r?b judge l?ewis?@b `?`?-continues-"ib.f i. believe that. sam?> alitob&b-b"might beb hostileb to civil rights`?`b&[ b-as a member of the.

1:52:45 to 1:52:59( Edit History Discussion )

.b[ ubsb supreme&b = ?icourt." i guarantee you tb.hat i `b-would. not be sitting h?ere. todb.ayv. b @b4z&?-i. believe that. sb.am alito will be-b-the. type. of. justib.ceba who will`b& -listen with an. ob.pen. mind. and?`b-wib.llr6 notb have. any age?rnda.

1:52:59 to 1:53:13( Edit History Discussion )

b -driven.r ?-b-orv;. results-oriented. approach.b"b @rbb.bi b -i. think that a justiceb@b.z alderstart,?&b& who i. previously quoteb.d,b.b-summarizedb

1:53:13 to 1:53:27( Edit History Discussion )

.> theseb justiceb.z b-jub.dges testib.mony best on the day bbthey appeared. before. theb-committee. wheb.n he s?6aid. this z[ yb-quote -- "b.we who?@? have. heard hisb -probing questions? durb.inb.g. oral b-argument we. who hb.ave.

1:53:27 to 1:53:42( Edit History Discussion )

been. b-privy&?-toes wise. and insightful&b-commenb.ts in.b2 our privateb&b-> decisional conferences we.z who?-haveb observed.^7 at b.@ firsthand his?@b`?6 ?-impartial approach to. decisb.ion`b-maki.ng? and his?@bh^6 thoughtful -judicial temperament?@?

1:53:42 to 1:53:56( Edit History Discussion )

% and? know.b-his. carefully-cz>rafted opinions [7?b.,-we who are his colleagues. areb&?: convinced. that. he will. also.br be ba? ab&b-great. justiceb "? b"6

1:53:56 to 1:54:10( Edit History Discussion )

b`b&bb well what. other conclusiob.n. can?~b-you. come. from.^> when. your? listen. to .people that. have. been. close to `b&?-b.him for a lon?@g ?iperiod of time`?-and we hbaad a lot of. people. that.b-worked?2?@ with him in. the court whobr ?-weren't. judges. who also. app?3ea red -of ?otb.h. political?ab z7 parb.ties b-how. c?an you?

1:54:10 to 1:54:26( Edit History Discussion )

. come. to. any b-conclusion?: other than @ ?b alito is `?&?@ going to do. wb.ha?%t.7bb justices on the b-supreme. court? ought to. do basedbrbh b-upb.on his 15.z7 years on tb.he circuit?> court.v that. h7e's. fair andb 7?`b-open-minded.

1:54:26 to 1:54:40( Edit History Discussion )

and will. approach.^`b&b-cases. w?ithob.ut bias bsb and without a?`b-b-personal agenda.r-the. peoplre. who knob.w. judge alitoz7 best believe without reservationb @b.b-that he's.b"b @ a judge who follows>> the. law and the constitution 2

1:54:40 to 1:54:55( Edit History Discussion )

-without. a preset. outcome in mindb:vb`b-theybr believe he's. ab man of b.^> great integrity modesty intellect ?&?-and. insightful b.v;?3 ?&?-b-they belieb.ve he's. fair b @ and?b.

1:54:55 to 1:55:11( Edit History Discussion )

open-minded. judge?z committed to? doing what. is. rightb.b:?sb @b -rather than. committed to -implementing?b a personal [>. agenda - so ab*fter hearing all that.>?>?ab h.

1:55:11 to 1:55:27( Edit History Discussion )

., some ?-of my. c?olleagues ought to. be&b-ashamed @?ab.v@ of the blue. s mokeb that-they're. making. out of. thi?s-nominatizon o?er. the?r ghosts. tha?@t-b-th?4ey're. puttingbr up. to. scare us r-judge. alito

1:55:27 to 1:55:42( Edit History Discussion )

?3? will. carry out theb2b-responsibilities that. a justice on the supreme cou^7rt should a?nd?-he'll. do. it. in. a principled, fair and ^6 effective?@ manner r ?`b-so if you. have. any doubtbh.

1:55:42 to 1:55:58( Edit History Discussion )

. where ib-stand, i'm going to. cast. my. vote`?-to support?@ samuel. alito?ib @?i?-this highly. qualified nominee~~b `~-deserves to be confirm?2ed to. theb&-supreme court.b:b.vr b-i. hope. that. my. colleagues. will.b-see that. as. wel

1:55:58 to 1:56:13( Edit History Discussion )

l. b" and vote accordingly. and? parti?cularly on a. very. toughb: vote. because the ?-extraordinary majority it. takes? ato also ^. vote. t o. end a?@i filibuster9.9 ?! b!?! ba b-filibust, the. first filibuster