United States Senate 1800 - 1900
SENATE FLOOR DEBATE:
The Senate meets for Morning Hour. The Senate Continues its debate on the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be the next Justice of the US Supreme Court.
18:00:34.2 very heavy presumption, it is argued is with a nominee and his confirmation. in my view, this is not what the constitution provides in
18:00:44.5 requiring the senate's advice and consent to a nominee to the federal bench, which is, after all, a third separate, independent branch of our national government.
18:01:00.8 from a historical perspective, it's worth noting that over the course of our history, roughly one in every four nominations to the court has not been confirmed by the senate.
18:01:20.1 there have been 158 nominations to the supreme court in the course of the history of the republic, of whom 114 were confirmed.
18:01:34.9 now not all of the others were rejected. some were rejected on votes taken in this body. some withdrew. some were never acted upon. but the notion of this heavy presumption runs contrary to
18:01:55.8 historical practice in the sense that almost one out of every four -- actually a little more than one out of every four nominations has not been
18:02:07.5 confirmed by the senate. as michael gearhart, the sam wall ash distinguished professor of constitutional law at the university of north carolina testified recently before the
18:02:21.6 judiciary committee, -- quote -- "neither the plain language of the appointments clause nor the structure of the constitution requires senators to simply defer to a president's
18:02:42.0 supreme court nomination. let me repeat that quote. "neither the plain language of the appointments clause nor the structure of the constitution
18:02:55.8 requires senators simply to simply defer to a president's supreme court nomination." in my view, it is the senate's
18:03:10.7 duty to advise and consent on nominations as an integral part of the constitution's system of checks and balances among our institution's of government.
18:03:28.0 nomination alone does not
18:03:30.7 constitute an entitlement to hold the office. furthermore, some have said when considering a nominee that we look only to their experience, their qualifications, their
18:03:46.0 character. these are all obviously very important criteria. but in my view, the nominee's judicial philosophy also must be given very serious consideration.
18:04:05.1 we are facing here a decision to place someone on the supreme court for life tenure. it could be 20, 30, 35 years. judge alito is in his 50's.
18:04:23.3 so we're talking about someone who's going to shape the interpretation of our constitution over decades -- over decades. the view that when you consider
18:04:41.1 a nominee to the supreme court, the nominee's judicial philosophy should be given very serious consideration, was well put by former chief justice rehnquist, writing in 1959, long before he went on the court, the
18:05:02.7 late chief justice rehnquist wrote that the senate should follow the -- quote -- "practice of thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a supreme court nominee before voting to confirm him."
18:05:24.5 thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a supreme court nominee before voting to confirm him. in considering judge alito's
18:05:37.5 nomination to be an associate justice of the supreme court, in my view, the question of his judicial philosophy is not only a legitimate question, but indeed an essential question.
18:05:56.2 now inquiring into a nominee's judicial philosophy does not mean discovering how he or she would decide specific future cases. we're always being warned about
18:06:13.5 that, and there's no effort here to predetermine that. rather, it seeks to ascertain the nominee's fundamental perspectives on the constitution , how it protects
18:06:27.3 our individual liberties, ensures equal protection of the law, maintains the separation of powers and the checks and balances encompassed within our constitution.
18:06:46.3 judge alito has served on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit since 1990, during which time he has written hundreds of published opinions. and earlier he served six years
18:07:02.5 in the justice -- in the u.s. department of justice. so there is much to consider in his record, and many lessons to be drawn from it. of the issues the court is
18:07:20.5 likely to face, perhaps none is more basic than the proper reach and exercise of executive power. we're particularly focussed on this issue now, but it's an issue that has recurred
18:07:35.4 constantly throughout our history as we seek to maintain the careful balance that the founding fathers placed in the constitution. they in fact established in the
18:07:51.7 constitution a complex system of democratic governance with three separate, equal branches of the government. at the center of this system lies not any one of the three branches, but rather, a delicate
18:08:10.7 balance amongst the three branches. looking at judge alito's record, one sees a clear and constant deference to the executive which, in my view, would
18:08:29.0 significantly tip that delicate balance with respect to our constitutional system. the constitution, after all, grants the legislative power expressly to congress. it gives the president the power only to approve or veto
18:08:43.9 legislation. the veto power, of course, gives the president very significant authority with respect to legislation. but if a bill becomes a law with or without the president's
18:08:58.6 approval, it then becomes his or her responsibility as the chief executive to see that the law is carried out, to see that the law is properly executed.
18:09:16.0 judge alito's record demonstrates that he would seek to extend the president's power to allow for modification of law by the executive alone. as one example, while he was an
18:09:33.7 official in the department of justice, he was instrumental in advancing a policy of presidential signing, so-called signing statements, to create a platform from which the
18:09:50.1 president could seek to alter the underlying purpose of legislation passed by the congress without the concurrence of the congress. such a deference to executive
18:10:08.8 power, i think, is of deep concern, especially, as we see on occasion now, when presidents, rather than following the constitutional process, by seeking legislative
18:10:23.9 change through the congress; instead, refuse to carry out statutes that the executive finds not to his liking. furthermore, under our
18:10:43.5 constitutional system, the courts are the ultimate guarantors f every individual's rights and the defenders of our liberties. on this issue too, judge alito
18:10:58.8 has been quite clear and consistent. professor goodwin lu of bold hall school of law at the university of california, berkeley, summed up judge alito's work in his testimony to
18:11:14.5 the judiciary committee. quote -- "throughout his career, with few exceptions, judge alito has sided with the police, prosecutors, immigration officials, and other government
18:11:28.9 agents while taking a minimalist approach to recognizing official error and abuse." in an editorial on january 12, "the new york times" made the
18:11:44.7 same point in somewhat different terms. "judge alito time and again, as a lawyer and a judge has taken the side of the big corporations
18:12:01.4 against the little guy, supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities, and the
18:12:19.4 disabled." in a memorandum that he submitted when applying for a political position in the justice department in 1985, judge alito made a series of
18:12:32.6 very sweeping statements about his understanding of the constitution. he wrote that he was inspired to apply to law school by his opposition to certain decisions
18:12:50.5 of the warren court, the court headed by chief justice earl warren. decisions which are now considered bedrock provisions of constitutional law, decisions
18:13:09.4 involving criminal procedure, the establishment clause of the constitution, and reapportionment. in that very same memo, he also took strong positions in
18:13:22.8 opposition to court decisions on affirmative action and the right
18:13:27.7 to choose. when asked about the memo during his confirmation hearings judge alito explained that the 1985 memo reflected his views of the
18:13:44.0 constitution at that time. he did not, however, explicitly disavow those views, and nothing in the hearing record demonstrates that they have
18:13:57.4 changed. in fact, his decisions as a judge on the third circuit reflect that these are the views he has continued to hold and to espouse. the baltimore sun concluded in
18:14:18.6 an editorial that -- quote -- "despite judge alito's periodic assurances of having an open mind, the disturbing impression from the hearings is that on
18:14:34.0 critical issues, such as abortion, civil rights, and the limits of executive power, he does not." mr. president, i think that's a
18:14:52.2 very perceptive observation with respect to judge alito's testimony before the judiciary committee.n mr. president, i am not
18:15:08.8 persuaded that judge alito recognizes either the critically important role the supreme court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power among the three branches of our
18:15:27.2 government, that delicate balance to which i made reference earlier and which was so much a part of the thinking of that distinguished assemblage which gathered in philadelphia
18:15:42.8 in the summer of 1787 to frame our constitution. so i have this concern about his view towards the role the court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power
18:15:58.4 among the three branches of government or that he recognizes the role of the court as the ultimate guarantor of every individual's constitutional rights and liberties.
18:16:20.5 for the ordinary citizen all across our country, the rulingings of the supreme court -- the rulings of the supreme court can be of immense importanting importance in terms
18:16:33.7 of providing for their rights and liberties. because i am not persuaded in this regard about the
18:16:49.4 appropriateness of judge alito's nomination, when the time comes to vote i will vote against his nomination to become an associate justice on the supreme court of the united states.
18:17:06.0 mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: clear n
18:32:57.3
18:32:57.8 quorum call:
18:35:15.0 a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in process be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i've just learned that two of our
18:35:28.8 distinguished senators, both from massachusetts, have made the statement that they're trying to drum up support for a filibuster. in isn't going to happen. you know, i know -- this isn't going to happen. you know, i know that people get desperate. they're afraid that something might happen to their liberal
18:35:44.5 agenda. but the constitution is very cleared. we've discussed this. we've debated this. and there's not going to be a problem there but i think it's worth bringing to the attention of the american people that this is actually taking place right now. nowhere did our founding fathers say that to confirm a judge, you had to have a supermajority.
18:36:01.7 and i just don't believe this is going to happen. let me just share a couple of thoughts with you, mr. president. i -- first of all, i'm not a lawyer and i'm not a member of the judiciary committee in a way that puts me in a position
18:36:16.7 perhaps a little better than a lot of my colleagues who are in fact most of the people who have spoken are members of the judiciary committee. but you know, by now we've heard so much about judge samuel alito's resume about, the type
18:36:32.8 of person he is. and i would have to say yes, he is guilty, he is guilty of being a strict constructionist, of being a strict interpreter of the constitution and he'll rule according to settled law. i don't think anyone has any doubt in their minds that he
18:36:48.7 would. the problem is that some of the democrats have made it clear that they're going to make this a partisan fight. now even talking about perhaps even a filibuster. they have a litmus test. they don't want to confirm any nominee of any president unless that nominee makes some type of
18:37:06.0 a commitment and passes a litmus test for their far left liberal agenda, whether that's gay marriage or whether it's abortion on demand or any of the rest of it. that's what it's really about. you know, we don't talk about this. they kind of dance around this issue, but that's the real issue
18:37:20.6 that they don't like this guy, because he is not going to line up and give a litmus test to some liberal agenda. one of the things that bothers me about this is this is all new. this didn't happen in the past. and i can remember when judge scalia was up for confirmation
18:37:37.2 and people talk about judge scalia and alito, not just because their names sound similar but their temperament is the same and their background is the same, their writings are the same, very similar. and we went through a very long process with judge scalia during
18:37:55.2 his confirmation and he ended up
18:37:58.0 being confirmed by unanimous vote, a unanimous vote. if you'll remember, that was when william rehnquist was taken from the court and made the chief justice and that created the vacancy and a lot of people didn't want to have someone who
18:38:11.2 was a strict constructionist but they realized he was qualified and they realized that he was appointed by a president who was a republican, ronald reagan, and they went ahead and confirmed him. it was unanimous. now, this is something that is really changing now because there's no way in the world that
18:38:28.0 this is going to -- that judge alee stow going to be unanimously -- alito is going to be unanimously confirmed and i -- you know, when we went back to the clinton administration, i remember so well when he nominated judge ginsburg and then pryor -- and then breyer,
18:38:46.8 and they were -- keep in mind, republicans were not excited about that. they didn't have a very conservative background and yet they were overwhelmingly confirmed. and that's what the change i see happening. it's not like it used to be. ginsburg was 96-3.
18:39:00.0 breyer was 87-9 overwhelmingly confirmed. i -- not too long ago just the other day judge -- or jeff sessions, who is our colleague from alabama, made a statement. he said, you know, if you -- we really get into this thing where
18:39:14.7 we're looking at it philosophically, then you're going to have to remember -- and the way he worded it was -- the knife cuts both ways. he said if this new standard is affirmed, then will be more difficult for future democrat presidents to be confirmed. and i -- i agree with this.
18:39:30.0 you know, if a democrat president comes up and makes a nomination, we would change the same way that they're changing during this. and maybe a litmus test would be discussed at that time. on the plane coming up here just a few minutes ago, we just landed, after this recess my
18:39:48.3 wife and i were talking about this and i told her about the comments of senator sessions. and i said, you know, what i think i'll do in my speech on the floor tonight on the confirmation of judge alito is make the statement that if they
18:40:05.2 adhere to this litmus test, that if i'm around -- and i don't think there's going to be a democrat president but if there is and i'm still in the united states senate, i'm going to do the same thing, i'm going to hold them to a litmus test. my wife said, no, don't do that,
18:40:20.2 don't stoop to that just because they're doing it. and so i'm not doing it. i learned a long time ago that my wife and i have been married 46 years and i do what i'm told. and so -- anyway, the -- this is something that is a change that we have observed and i think
18:40:36.0 it's -- it warrants our consideration. now, the democrats are also making really outrageous accusations trying to justify partisan votes. and i really believe in my heart that they don't -- they don't believe these accusations they are making but what they do want
18:40:50.7 to do is have some excuse so they can go home and say i voted against this guy but not tell them the real reasons. let's go over some of these accusations that are made. we start with senator kennedy, who inaccurately stated that alito poses the one person -- opposes the one-person/one-vote
18:41:08.9 principle. i'll just go ahead and give the quote. senator kennedy, this is on the 9th -- the 9th of january. he said, "it expresses outright hostility to the basic principle of one person/one-vote affirmed by the supreme court has essential to ensuring that all
18:41:24.0 americans have a voice in their government. now, the fact is that judge alito has stated that the principle of one person, one vote is a bedrock principle of american constitutional law. he's never taken issue with that principle. and to quote him, he said, "the
18:41:39.7 principle of one person, one vote is a fundamental part of our constitutional law and i do not see any reason why it should be reexamined. and i do not know that anyone is asking for that to be done." i think that is a very well-settled principle but now
18:41:57.7 -- now it's in the constitutional law for our country. and i will adhere to that. well, this is -- you know, couldn't be more emphatic than that. and again, senator kennedy is -- what he said is not true and i know he wants it to be true, he wishes it were true, but it's not.
18:42:11.5 then along comes senator sherman -- senator schumer from new york in attacking alito's jurisprudence. senator schumer tried to paint alito as someone who is too conservative. his statement was, judge alito -- i'm quoting now -- "in case after case, you give the
18:42:28.0 impression of applying careful legal reasoning but too many times you happen to reach the most conservative result." well, the fact is senator schumer's characterization of alito overlooks the bulk of alito's record of nearly 5,000 votes as a court of appeals
18:42:45.3 judge reached on the law and the facts and which are consistent with senator schumer's picture of alito -- or inconsistent with
18:42:56.4 his picture of alee notice. now, if you -- his picture of alito. now, if you question this, the statement that was made by schumer -- by senator schumer, if you believe there might be some merit toirkts let's stop -- the easiest way to refute that is to read an editorial that was
18:43:11.1 in the washington post. there isn't a person who belongs to this body or anyone within earshot of what i'm saying right now is going to say that "the washington post" is a conservative publication or a republican publication. and yet what they said about
18:43:27.4 alito was -- quote -- "judge alito's dissents are not the work of an unblinking ideologue. they are the work of a serious and ideological judgment who deserve respect, a respect
18:43:42.7 evident among his colleagues even when their positions differ. and that's not "the washington times." this is "the washington post" making this statement. so i'd say like senator kennedy that senator schumer, what he said is just flat not true. i'm sure he wishes that it were true but it's not. another statement made by
18:43:57.7 senator kennedy. he -- he said in talking about the -- he's trying to make a position that judge alito wants to through the signing of the -- it is presidential signing statements -- presidential
18:44:12.9 signing statements are statements that are made by the president when a knew law is passed to say what -- this is my interpretation of it. well, he likes to imply that alito supports giving the president absolute power. and senator kennedy said -- quote -- he said "you argued
18:44:29.2 that the attorney general should have absolute immunity even for actions he knows to be unlawful and unconstitutional, suggested that the court should give a president's signing statement great deference in determining the meaning and the intent of the law and argued as a matter
18:44:45.9 of your own political and judicial philosophy for an almost all-powerful presidency." well, the facts are that the president's bill-signing statement is a device developed long before alito came along. they tried to imply that he
18:45:00.9 something to do with this. this has been embraced by democrat presidents and republican presidents for -- for years and years, all the way back to presidents monroe and presidents andrew jackson.n the suggestion that alito somehow invented this notion is
18:45:18.8 patently -- blatantly absurd. again, senator kennedy is wrong. the statement is not true. he further cites false and inaccurate knight ridder analysis.
18:45:31.6 this is interesting. senator kennedy made more outrageous statements about his view of searches. senator kennedy said, and this is a quote he mated on the 10th of january, just last month -- or this month -- he said "mr. chairman, at this point i'd like to include in the
18:45:50.2 appropriate place in the record the knight ridder studies that conclude he never found a government search unconstitutional." first of all, knight rider's steven henderson and howard mintz have been accused of bias
18:46:08.3 and reporting on alito's record. stewart taylor wrote "i focus here not on such egregious error as the assertion on c-span by knight ridder sniewps that a
18:46:26.3 study we didn't find a single case in which judge alito sided with african-americans who were allegedly racial bias." he went on to say, what is remarkable is that any reporter could have overlooked case after case after case in which alito
18:46:43.2 has sided with african-americans alleging racial bias. in just a few minutes, i'm going to be specific on some of these but there would be too many so cite for the amount of time that we have right now. so, again, senator kennedy's
18:46:57.3 statements are inaccurate, are untrue and, again, i know he wushes they were true, but they are not. these guys are grasping at straws. then senator biden came in with inaccurate stawments on presidential treatment toward the state.
18:47:12.2 senator biden charged alito with ruling in favor of the state against the individual. this is what he said. he said, "but as i've tried diligently to look at your record, you seem to come down more often and give the benefit of the doubt to the outfit
18:47:28.9 against whom discrimination is being alleged. you seem to lean in close cases you lean to the state versus the individual. " well, the facts belie that. the facts say judge alito's record shows he consistently
18:47:44.6 approaches each case based on the law and the facts of that case. he rules for defendants when the law supports them and the
18:47:54.0 corporation or the state when the law supports their position. this is an appropriate approach for a federal judge. it's clear he understands the importion of judiciary and has a healthy respect for its role as the ball wash against executive
18:48:10.6 overreaching. alito highlighted to the senate as he often cites in such great law as alexander hamilton. i think he has probably quoted hamilton more than anyone else, at least it seems that way to
18:48:25.4 me. he said, "as lesm beer hamilton aptly put it in federalist 78, the court should carry out the judicial power with firmness of independence. without this he observes all the reservations of particular
18:48:40.4 rights or privileges in the constitution would amount to nothing. " alito continued, still quoting, "when a constitutional or statutory violation by other governmental institutions is proven, a court should not hesitate to impose a strong and lawful remedy if that is what is
18:48:57.2 needed to provide full redress." some of the finest chapters in the history of the federal court have been written when federal judges despite resistance have steadfastly enforced remedies for deeply rooted constitutional violations.
18:49:12.8 " during the 15 years on the bench, judge alito has repeatedly ruled to restrain executive authority reflecting his understanding of the role of judiciary and to protect the constitutional rights, separation of powers and so forth.
18:49:27.8 so what senator biden said is not true and i know he wishes it were. next we had senator feinstein who came in. she was approaching something i'm particularly sensitive to. mr. president, i chair the committee called environment and public works. of course, you remember that
18:49:44.3 committee and we deal with these environmental issues. senator feinstein mischaracterized judge alito's viermal record. let me say this for anyone who might be listening if there's nothing better going on right now, that these senators that i
18:49:59.9 am very critical of. i love them dealer. you know it's possible. it doesn't happen in the other body, seeing the senator here who also served in the house at the time that i was there. you know, we can love our
18:50:15.4 friends, our senators with whom we served and we can detest their philosophy and their agenda. i learned this the hard way. i'll share this story with you, mr. president, that back in 1994 i came from the house to the senate.
18:50:30.1 and operating as i'd always operated in the house, it happened to be a senator on the floor named wendell ford from kentucky. he was known as the bull dog or the junkyard dog as it was of the united states senate. i disagreed with him.
18:50:47.8 i came down here. that was the opening day i was confirmed in the special election. i wept down and i took him on. it was mean and wicked. we were yelling and screaming. i felt pretty good. i went down to go back to the russell building down the
18:51:04.0 elevator and i ran into none other than senator bob byrd. he said right along with me, he said, young man i appreciate your spunk. i liked that because that happened to be november 16, it was my 60th birthday.
18:51:22.5 he said i appreciate your spunk but this isn't the way we do it in the senate. he explained how it must be divinely inspired so that there is a genuine love for your fellow senators, something that doesn't exist in the other body.
18:51:37.2 i don't know what i said all that. senator feinstein accused judge alito of ruling against the clean water act. he said in a case a citizens environmental group sued a chemical manufacturer under the
18:51:53.4 clean water act for polluting a river used by members of the group. your decision, as i understand it, was based upon your conclusion that the environmental group did not have standing to sue under the clean water act because even though members of the environmental
18:52:08.6 group had stopped using the river due to the pollution they do not prove any injury to the environment. the decision if broadly applied would have gutted the citizens lawsuit provision of clean water act. so you see where the concern comes with respect to
18:52:24.3 overthrowing something on a technicality that can have enormous implications. that's what senator feinstein said. that's a quote. let's keep in mind what alito's vote was. he did not write the opinion. he voted in this case.
18:52:38.8 it was a straightforward application of the supreme court's controlling -- control s precedent in luhan versus defenders of wildlife. most of us remember man we will
18:52:55.1 luhan who became the secretary of interior. this was in 1992 in which the supreme court required that in order to file suit a plaintiff must allege the actual injury not just have great concern over
18:53:05.0 the activity such as pollution. i guess what we're saying here is that senator feinstein should have read this. he was interpreting a law he may or may not have agreed with but this was sent down, this was law settled and established by the united states supreme court.
18:53:20.8 alito's vote, which he didn't right, it was one that was well based in law. so i think what senator feinstein said was not true it and needs to be answered. that's the answer. another one that senator kennedy researched -- senator kennedy
18:53:36.5 charged that alito rarely votes for the little guy. senator kennedy charged alito again with false accusations saying that he was biased toward the rich and powerful. keep in mind this is senator kennedy talking about rich and
18:53:52.4 powerful saying he was biased again the rich and powerful and against the little man. i will use the quote that he used. he said "and the on the cases he decided in case after case after case we see legal contortions and inconsistent reasoning to bend over backwards to help the
18:54:09.6 powerful." this is on the 12th of january, stated by senator kennedy. time after time during his hearings alito and other senators have repeated instances in which alito did rule for the little guy in cases involving
18:54:25.0 criminal law, employment and labor law, immigration law and others, judge alito has consistently ruled for plaintiffs or defendants as the facts of law demanded. i'm give you some examples. in dubee versus at&t corporation
18:54:43.9 he dissenting from a case for a plaintiff's advancing of a claim of race discrimination. alito would have applied a longer statute of limitations to let the claim go forward. that's just the opposite of what was inserted by -- asserted by
18:54:57.6 senator kennedy. in another case caruso versus blockbuster sony music entertainment center at the waterfront. writinger for the you -- a unanimous panel judge alito reversed in part the district court's grant of summary
18:55:15.2 judgment for blockbuster sony and against the patriot. the plaintiff was william caruso, a disabled veteran of vietnam who used a wheelchair, brought suit against the a.d.a.,
18:55:31.3 claiming that the wheelchair areas in the pavilion do not provide wheelchair users with lines of sight overstanding speck taters and the lawn area is not wheelchair accessible. judge aleto explained that even though the department of
18:55:47.6 justices standards do not require that wheelchair users must be able to see the stage when other patrons stand, the e center must make assembly areas like the lawn accessible to people in wheelchairs. he concluded, we reject the argument that assembly areas
18:56:05.9 without fixed seating need not provide access to people in wheelchairs. again, alito, who has a stellar record proves that senator kennedy's statement is a false statement. the last one i'll mention was his -- senator kennedy's statement on racial
18:56:23.2 discrimination, senator kennedy wrongly stated that alito had never written an opinion related to race discrimination implying that he could be a racist. senator kennedy said -- quote -- "judge alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in
18:56:40.1 favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job in 15 years on the bench, not, not one. " he said that on the ninth of january. the facts are that alito has repeatedly ruled in favor of minorities making allegations of
18:56:57.1 is racial discrimination in employment. one case is smith versus davis in 2001. alito voted to reverse a grant of summary judgment against an african-american mans claim that he had been discriminated against on employment in the
18:57:13.1 case of race. another one was goes by -- goosby versus johnson & johnson. judge alito and his colleagues concluded that the female african-american plaintiff had -- plaintiff had introduced
18:57:30.0 sufficient evidence to question whether the employer had given her lower quality assignments due to her objective scores on certain evaluations as the employer maintained. that just -- there are many more cases and at this point i ask
18:57:44.7 unanimous consent to include the other cases that we have as part of the record.
18:57:50.6 the presiding officer: without object. mr. inhofe: okay. i would conclude that the facts as we've demonstrated here speak for themselves. samuel aleto is not a racist. he is not a right-wing extremist. he believes in the executive branch authority and rules only
18:58:05.7 in favor of the powerful. all of these things any thoughtful, mainstream, fair, experienced interpreter of constitution. he is really a good guy. he is probably -- i've heard many people say that he is probably one of the most qualified persons ever to be
18:58:21.8 nominated for this high court. those liberal senators desperately grasping at any straw to find justification to vote against judge alito, they have their litmus test and in order to be confirmed to the united states supreme court, a judge must embrace all the left
18:58:37.7 wing extremist agenda. an agenda that is so unpopular in america that the american people reject it and it must be legislated from the bench and that's the problem that they have. i would say this, mr. president, in concluding when my service
18:58:52.7 here in the united states senate is over, when of the greatest honors i will have had for the sake of america and for the sake of my 20 kids and grand kids is to vote to confirm samuel alito to the united states supreme
18:59:07.4 court. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the
18:59:22.7 senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i rise today to voice my strong support for the nomination of judge samuel alito to be on associate justice of the supreme court. judge alito has demonstrated and dedicated his life to public
18:59:39.6 service from serving in the army refers to working -- reserves to working as a prosecutor for the federal government. for the past 15 years he has been a model jurist on the court of appeals and his record reflects a deference to the political branches of our
18:59:54.4 government that is all too often lacking among some on the benchn as stated before, i believe the guiding question for each of us in derling a nominee's fitness for this post should be whether the person is dedicated to applying the constitution to