Senator: Sessions
SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am disappointed that the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, has apparently urged his colleagues to vote no on this nomination. I don't know that it would have affected any members of this committee, but I think it may affect votes on the floor to make this a leadership issue.
This is a towering legal figure, a person who has been on the bench for 15 years; not a part of the Bush team or administration, but has been there ruling fairly and justly with wisdom and intelligence and restraint throughout those years.
SESSIONS: As a result, the American Bar Association, after making inquiry of 2,000 people and interviewing 300, have found uniformly that -- I think every single person said he has the highest of integrity. No one disputes his legal ability. And that he's well within the mainstream of legal thought. They gave him their highest possible rating.
And, in fact, one of the members of that committee that testified are John Payton, an African-American who argued before the Supreme Court -- the University of Michigan quota case -- strongly supported him and noted that he had the, quote -- he was held in, quote, "incredibly high regard by those who knew him" -- "incredibly high regard by those who knew him."
His fellow judges who testified here, many senior judges who've seen a lot of people come and go on the bench, could not have been more complimentary. It was almost stunning the respect they had, the genuine admiration and affection that they had for Judge Alito.
I don't think I've ever seen a panel, Mr. Chairman, more impressive, that knew the judge so well, having served with him on average nearly 10 years each, who would say those kinds of things.
SESSIONS: And as Senator DeWine said, he was a magnificent witness. When we saw him there, he was unflappable. He answered the questions more than John Roberts, more than others that we've had come before the committee -- far more -- without ever crossing that line in expressing an opinion on the ultimate issue of a case that would come before the court.
It was extraordinary to see him perform that way. He represented the very best in judges.
Look, a judge is not a politician. A judge is there to decide discrete cases before that court, base it on the law and the facts of that case. That's what they do. That's what we pay them to do. That's what we want them to do.
Their personal, philosophical bent or political ideas or social concepts should be irrelevant to them.
Let me tell you what the standard should be here.
The standard should be not whether he has any political, social, economic views, whatever they are. His classmate at Princeton said he never knew whether he was a Republican or Democrat. He certainly was not an activist in that way.
The question is not what his views are. The question should be, of any nominee that comes before this bench -- this court -- this committee: Will they follow the law even if they don't like it? Will they be faithful to the Constitution, the good and bad parts?
As Professor Van Olstein (ph) said, "If you respect that document, you respect the rule of law in America, you will follow the law as written, whether or not you like it."
SESSIONS: And that's what his record is. That's what his heritage is. That's what his basic philosophy of judging is: "I am bound to follow the law."
We have taken cases out of context here.
They talked about searching the young girl. The affidavit that was approved by a magistrate long before Judge Alito ever knew that case existed. He attached the affidavit to the search warrant, and the affidavit asked to search all parties on the premises. And the police officers thought they had the right to do that. Somebody later said, "Well, the affidavit shouldn't be made a part of the warrant and he shouldn't have been able to search it."
But the case before Judge Alito was whether that police officer could be sued personally for money damages for violating the warrant. And he said, under the standard of law, he was acting within the scope of his employment and was acting sufficiently within his duties that he couldn't be sued personally.
To have police officers sued every time some judge concludes the search warrant isn't perfectly written?
You know, so, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, as we think about how we analyze the confirmation process, that the question is, Do we love the law? What do we want out of a judge?
We want a judge who every day will go in and call the law according to the facts and the law. If he will make his decisions based on the facts and the law, as a practitioner before federal judges for 15 years, I'm satisfied with that. I'll win some; I'll lose some, but the legal system will be affirmed and strengthened.
It's when judges take the liberty to allow their personal values and insights and concepts and social agendas to infect their decisions, that's when we have a problem with the law.
SESSIONS: I believe this judge, his philosophy is to show restraint. He's committed to showing restraint. He will follow the law day after day. And some days conservatives will win and some days liberals will win. And that's what we want in a judge.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
