Topic: Remarks on Character
Senator: Coburn
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
SPECTER: Senator Coburn?
COBURN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Judge Roberts, I'll try not to take my 20 minutes.
I've heard a little trend that I think needs to be dispelled. I've heard it put forth that you might not be fair to women. I've heard it put forth that you might not be fair to minorities or Latinos. I've heard that you might not be fair to those people with AIDS.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just put into the record about six different documents here that clarifies the record on Judge Roberts' action on affirmative action, on disability rights, on civil rights, on women's rights, his -- actually his involvement in the University of Richmond v. Bell, Title IX, and also his Title VII unemployment discrimination record that I think refutes the underlying tone that I've heard here that is very disturbing to me.
SPECTER: Without objection, Senator Coburn, they'll all be made a part of the record at this point.
COBURN: And the reason it's disturbing to me is I want lawyers who will take the wrong cases for the right people to preserve our country.
And the very fact that you may have taken a case that some other lawyer might not view as right is the very thing that makes the justice system work.
And one of the things that you've reaffirmed is one of the reasons we have people not having equal justice under the law, sometimes they don't have qualified attorneys that will do that.
So, first of all, kudos to you.
COBURN: Number two, the fact that you write positions as a staff lawyer, young -- I remember what I was like when I was 25, and it wasn't very pretty; some people say it's not very pretty now.
(LAUGHTER)
I also would remind that you've got another five years from Senator Feinstein. She said you'd be on there 40 years. So, all power to you.
(LAUGHTER)
But the fact is I've noticed something that I really don't appreciate. And that is this kind of trend to say that you're not a kind, that you're not a considerate person. The fact that you have a wife that's an attorney and a young daughter that's going to be into this world, that you wouldn't believe that they ought to have equal rights; that you don't believe in hiring practices that are fair; you don't believe in treating people fairly -- on the basis of a flimsy record.
And I want the American people to know that that record doesn't hold up to the smell test that has been presented here today. And it's a little bit disturbing to me, because it's this subtle way of trying to say you're not who you really are.
And you've not been able to defend yourself in that because you can't comment without creating a problem for you in terms of being a fair justice. So you're kind of in a double bind. And I want you to know that I want to defend that because I don't think it's appropriate.
The other thing is, I want to enter into the record both the chronology of cases that Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg decided after they met with the White House -- the Clinton White House -- before they were nominated. There was a total of -- on Justice Breyer, one, two, three -- seven cases; on Justice Ginsberg, five cases.
The implication that you're not ethical is the other subtle implication that comes across there. And I find it tremendously uncomfortable that that is the trend where this is going.
The other thing is, I want to address for you and the American public -- Senator Schumer, yesterday, quoted some statements that were made which a lot of people don't agree with and you didn't identify with: Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council and others.
COBURN: The fact that they made them, those statements, whether we agree with them or not, isn't the important thing. The important thing is that the court is losing the confidence of the American people, or they never would have said that.
These aren't bad people. These are people with the perception that says, you know, "What's going on here?" And let me just list for a minute why they might think that.
We had today a judge in California say you can't use "under God" in the Pledge; the abortion issue we've talked about; homosexual marriage we've talked about; the fact that the judges have said online pornography is fine, regardless of what the Congress has said; parents who know that their 12-year-old daughter can be given oral contraceptive without their permission -- an IUD, in many places, without their permission, but they can't be given an aspirin?
These very crucial issues, not to say they're right or wrong, but how we got to the decision is causing some Americans to lose confidence.
And, as you and I spoke in my office, one of my greatest concerns -- and I asked you, how do we build that back up? How do we build the confidence of the American people back in the court?
And part of that is the work of getting more consistent, more unanimous opinions. But also it is making sure the court does what it should do and the legislature do what it should do.
And I don't want you to feel committed to me at all, and I don't want to influence. I am very pleased that every time you're going to look at the law, look at the precedents, look at the facts, look at the litigants, and then work with the other justices to try to do what is under the law, the Constitution, our Constitution, and our statutes.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
