Topic: What Kind of Justice Would You Be?
Senator: Schumer
Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2005
Contents
FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman...
SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Schumer.
FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman...
SPECTER: Wait just a minute. I'll recognize you in a moment.
Judge Roberts, Senator Schumer has postulated quite a number of questions in his last soliloquy.
(LAUGHTER)
But they are summarized in what kind of a justice you'd be. And I think you're entitled to respond to that if you care to do so.
FEINSTEIN: That was my -- that was going to be my request. I think it's very important, getting the response.
SPECTER: Well, in that case, go ahead and make your request.
(LAUGHTER)
FEINSTEIN: Yes. I think...
SPECTER: Better the request comes from you than from me, Senator Feinstein.
(LAUGHTER)
FEINSTEIN: I think that Senator Schumer really summed up the dilemmas. And not only he has them on our side.
I would very much like if you would respond, particularly to the "con" side. The "pro" side speaks for itself.
And many of us are struggling with exactly that: What kind of a justice would you be, John Roberts?
SPECTER: No time limit, Judge.
ROBERTS: Well, I appreciate the comments very much, Senator Schumer. And I very much appreciate the "pro" side of the ledger.
ROBERTS: On the "con" side, the issue of documents, it's hard for me to comprehend that there could be more documents. The number has been ranging from 80,000 to 100,000. And there is a lot of paper out there.
I have tried to be as fully responsive as I thought consistent with my obligations as a sitting judge and a nominee.
And I appreciate that this is not a new issue. You've gone back and read the transcripts and, of course, participated. I've gone back and read the transcripts.
It comes up at every nomination. In some instances members of the committee want more information that the nominee feels that he or she can give in good conscience. That's nothing new.
I've tried to be as fully expansive as I can be and drawn the line where as a practical matter I think it's necessary and appropriate.
The basic question, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, what kind of a justice would I be? That is the judgment you have to make.
I would begin, I think, if I were in your shoes, with what kind of a judge I've been. I appreciate that it's only been a little more than two years, but you do have 50 opinions. You can look at those.
And, Senator Schumer, I don't think you can read those opinions and say that these are the opinions of an ideologue.
You may think they're not enough. You may think you need more of a sample. That's your judgment. But I think if you've looked at what I've done since I took the judicial oath, that should convince you that I'm not an ideologue.
And you and I agree that that's not the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court.
Beyond that, I have the few days that I've been here, all the documents, the questionnaire. You have not just my opinions, but my briefs. I think those also help show what kind of a judge I would be.
You, of course, appreciate that that's presenting a position and I'm just an advocate, but advocates deal with the law in different ways. You can look at other people's briefs, I think, and conclude that that person may not be a good judge because of the way they argue the law.
ROBERTS: I would hope you'd look at my briefs and my arguments before the Supreme Court and conclude that that's a person who respects the law, respects the court before whom he is arguing, and will approach the law in a similar way as a judge.
SPECTER: Thank you, Judge Roberts.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
