Topic: Senator Warner, Presenter
Senator: Warner
Date: SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
Contents
SPECTER: Senator Warner, welcome back.
When you were here earlier this morning, I said you'd be recognized at about 3:20. I want to apologize for being two minutes off.
WARNER: It's all right, Mr. Chairman. I'll take till (inaudible) to finish my statement and you yield back your time to me.
SPECTER: Your full statement will be made a part of the record, Senator Warner.
WARNER: Members of the committee and Judge Roberts and his family, I find this a singular privilege in my now 27 years in this institution.
Speaking of the institution, in 218 years since the Constitution was ratified, we've had 43 presidents, and this is the 17th chief justice.
Seems to me that underscores the importance of this hearing.
Further, the Senate deliberations in this hearing, followed by subsequent floor debate, provide a unique opportunity for generations of Americans, particularly the younger Americans, to acquaint themselves with how our government operates.
And I'm absolutely confident that this distinguished committee, before whom I've appeared many, many times in these years, will comport yourself in a manner in the finest traditions of the Senate and will impart in our audience across America, particularly the younger ones, a respect for and an understanding for the institution of the United States Senate and its responsibilities.
WARNER: The Constitution, together with the Bill of Rights, is an amazing document, for it is the reason that our nation's government stands today as the oldest continuous, democratic republic form of government in the world today.
Indeed, most all of the other bold experiments in government have gone into the dustbin of history. Little wonder that why so many other nations are forming their governments today, patterning their government on ours.
But only if the president and the Senate fairly, objectively and in a timely manner exercise these respective constitutional powers, can the judicial branch have the numbers of qualified judges to properly serve the needs of our citizens.
For this reason, in my view, a senator has no higher duty than his or her responsibilities under Article II, Section 2.
Recently, 14 senators, of which I was one, committed ourselves in writing to support the Senate leadership in facilitating the Senate's responsibility of providing advice and consent.
In our memorandum of understanding, Senator Byrd and I incorporated language that spoke directly to the founding fathers' explicit use of the word "advice."
Without question, our framers put the word "advice" in the Constitution for a reason: to ensure consultation between a president and the Senate prior to the forwarding of a nominee to the Senate for consideration.
I commend President Bush for the exemplary manner in which he conducted the advice-and-consent responsibility.
Now, with the beginning of these hearings, the Senate commences the next phase -- the consent phase of this constitutional process -- after the committee consideration and nomination move to the full Senate for debate, followed by a vote.
Throughout this process, the ultimate question will remain the same: whether the Senate should grant or deny consent.
Now to this distinguished jurist.
I judge his credentials to be chief justice in the same manner as I've applied to all others. Since I've been privileged to serve in this institution, I recounted there are about over 2,000 nominations that have come in this quarter of a century plus.
I can say without equivocation I have never seen the credentials of any nominee with stronger qualifications than Judge Roberts.
Some two years ago, when nominated to serve in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, I was privileged at his request to introduce him. At the time, he was relatively unknown; today, the world knows him.
We were brought together because we were both fortunate to have been partners at different times in our careers at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, a venerable firm known for its integrity and rigid adherence to ethics.
WARNER: Among the firm's many salutary credentials, it has been long known for its pro bono work. In fact, I'll share a personal story.
In 1960, I was an assistant U.S. attorney. Been there about four years. A knock came on my door and in walked a very tall, erect man, introducing himself as having just been appointed to represent an indigent defendant charged with first-degree murder.
We had a brief consultation. The trial followed. Midway in the trial the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser defense.
That man was Nelson T. Hartson, senior partner and founder of this firm.
I firmly believe that John Roberts shares in the belief that lawyers have an ethical duty to give back to the community by providing free legal services, particularly to those in need. The hundreds and hundreds of hours he spent working on pro bono cases are a testament to that. He didn't have to do any of it, the bar doesn't require it, but he did it out of the graciousness of his heart and an obligation.
Those who know him best can also attest to the kind of person he is. Throughout his legal career, both in public and private practice, his pro bono work, Roberts has worked with and against hundreds of lawyers. Those attorneys who know him well typically speak with one voice when they tell that you that dignity, humility and a sense of fairness are the hallmarks of this nominee.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I take a moment to remind all present and those listening and following that this exact week 218 years ago our founding fathers finished the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, after a long, hot summer of drafting and debating.
And when Ben Franklin ultimately emerged from Independence Hall upon the conclusion of the convention, a reporter asked him, "Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?" And he said, "A republic, if you can keep it." And that is ultimately what this advice and consent process is all about.
WARNER: But while the Constitution sets the course of our nation, it is without question the chief justice of the Supreme Court who must have his hand firmly on the tiler to keep our great ship of state on a course consistent with the Constitution.
I shall follow carefully the deliberations of this committee. I will participate in the floor debate. I look forward to the privilege of voting for this fine, outstanding public servant.
Judge Roberts, I'm the last. You're on your own.
(LAUGHTER)
SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Warner.
Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Thank you, Senator Bayh.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
