Senator Byrd's Speech Regarding the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to offer a few observations on the manner in which the Senate has conducted its inquiry into the qualifications of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regardless of any Senator's particular view of Judge Alito, I think we can all agree that there is room for improvement in the way in which the Senate and, indeed, the Nation have undertaken the examination of this nominee. Let me be clear. I mean no criticism of the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any particular member of that committee.

I feel compelled to address this issue, not to point fingers, not to scold, not to assign blame, but only to address specific, sincere, heartfelt concerns that have been brought to my attention, by the people of West Virginia in particular. Many people, including foremost, as I say, the people of West Virginia, in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it, but I must. They were appalled.

In the reams of correspondence that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians--the people I represent--West Virginians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another, people of different faiths, different views, different opinions, independently and respectively, used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them an ``outrage'' and a ``disgrace.''

These were not form letters, ginned up by special interest groups on either the right or the left. These were handwritten, contemplative, old-fashioned letters written on lined paper and personal stationery. They were the sort of letters that people write while watching television, in the comfort of their living rooms, or sitting at the kitchen table.

It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that even many who opposed Judge Alito's nomination also opposed the seemingly ``made for TV'' antics that accompanied the hearings.

It is not just the Senate as an institution which is to blame. The virulence of some outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum added fuel to the fire. Multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns either to proclaim or to denigrate Judge Alito's fitness for the position raged across the airwaves.

A solemn constitutional responsibility is not helped when it takes on such a tone.

And then there were the media and the media's contribution to the deterioration of this very important constitutional process.

Was it necessary to subject Mrs. Alito to the harsh glare of the television klieg lights as she fled the hearing room in tears, fighting to maintain her dignity in response to others with precious little of their own? Have we finally come to the point where our Nation's assessment of its Supreme Court nominee turns more on a simple-minded sound bite or an exploitive snapshot than on the answers provided or withheld by the nominees?

Obviously, something is wrong with our judicial nomination process, and we in the Senate have the power to fix it.

The Framers of such a great document presumably had something better in mind when they vested the Senate with the authority to confirm Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact, we know they did. In 1789, Roger Sherman of Connecticut defended the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments. He wrote: It appears to me that the Senate is the most important branch in the government ..... The Executive magistrate is to execute the laws. The Senate, being a branch of the legislature, will naturally incline to have them duly executed and, therefore, will advise to such appointments as will best attain the end.

Alexander Hamilton also had high hopes for the Senate's ability to render its advice and consent function. He proclaimed: It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union.

Exactly what did the Framers mean when they gave the Senate the power to ``consent'' to the confirmation of the judicial nominees?

Historically, a majority of the Framers anticipated that the Senate's confirmation or rejection of a judicial nominee would be based on the fitness of the nominee, not on partisan politics or extraneous matters.

Based on these assumptions, the Framers presumably did not expect the Senate to spend its allotted time on a nominee staging partisan warfare instead of examining his or her qualifications.

Yet the Framers probably also would never have expected that a Senator of a nominee's own party would refuse to ask the candidate meaningful questions. They certainly did not intend for Senators of the nominee's own party to sit silently in quiet adulation, refusing to seek the truth, while smiling indulgently; thus, accomplishing nothing.

The Framers expected the Senate to be a serious check--a serious check--on the power of the President. The Framers clearly thought that the Senate's confirmation process ought to be fair, ought to be impartial, ought to be thorough, and ought to exhibit appropriate respect for solemn duty and the dignity of both the process and the nominee.

I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties--both political parties--exhibit such a ``take no prisoners'' attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, Executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers' rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the judiciary. They should be debated by the people's representatives in the legislative branch.

However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, then they must take it to the Court. As the saying goes, ``If you can't change the law, change the judge.''

This kind of thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers. It is the role of the Congress--the role of the legislative branch--to make and change the laws. Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law.

A better understanding of the Court's role would do much to diminish the ``hype'' that now accompanies the judicial nomination process. The role of the Senate in the Alito debate is not to push legislation or to score points for those who either support or oppose specific legislative proposals. The purpose of the current debate is to evaluate the fitness of Judge Samuel Alito to sit on the highest Court of our land, which includes his temperament, his intellectual ability, and his record.

In a perfect world, this heavy constitutional responsibility of the Senate would have little to do with party affiliation.

Unfortunately, during the first administration of George Washington, as far back as 1795, a bruising confirmation battle over the nomination of John Rutledge to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court established that the same Senators would consider not merely the qualifications but also the political views of a nominee in deciding whether to support or reject his nomination.

I am a Senator who takes this Constitution seriously. I refuse simply to toe the party line when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. And I will make up my own mind after careful contemplation. The President of the United States said partly in jest that he wanted to call me to lobby me on the nomination. I said: Mr. President, I don't lobby very easily. I take my Constitutional duties seriously. I will listen to what anybody has to say, and then, Mr. President, I will make up my own mind.

I am a registered Democrat. Everybody knows that. But when it comes to judges, I hale from a conservative State. Similar to a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges. I have been saying that for years and years. That is, judges who do not try to make the law.

I was once approached by President Richard Nixon to inquire about my interest in being a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I was proud to be considered. Whether I would have been nominated, I have no way of knowing. But as I said to my wife: I don't think I would like that position. I would not like that kind of cloistered life. I like the rough-and-tumble of the legislative branch. She said: Then you had better let the President know that.

I said the same thing to Senator John Pastore, and he responded in the same way. He said: You had better let the President know that.

I declined so that I might continue to serve the people of West Virginia, regardless of what the President may have in his heart and in his mind. This is not to say that I would vote for any judge just because he is a conservative. No. No, sir. If I think a conservative judge is unqualified, I will not vote for him, nor would any other Senator vote for a nominee in that situation.

I have voted against judges on both sides of the political spectrum, who leaned too heavily on their political views rather than on existing law, precedents and on the Constitution and who seemed to have a political agenda.

Much has been made of the fact that Judge Alito has expressed support of the concept of the ``unitary executive.'' Many are afraid his support for this concept means that he favors a broad expansion of Presidential power. And I shared some of that concern. Judge Alito, however, has stated repeatedly that his support for the concept of the unitary executive does not refer to broadening the scope of the power of the President.

Instead, Judge Alito says that this theory refers to the way in which the President utilizes his existing power to faithfully execute the law as it applies to administrative agencies within the executive branch. In describing the unitary executive in his speech before the Federalist Society, Judge Alito stated article II, section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' ``Thus,'' he said, ``the President has the power and the duty to supervise the way in which the subordinate executive branch officials exercise the President's power of carrying Federal law into execution.''

Before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito was asked point blank whether he thought the concept of the unitary executive refers to expanding the scope of Presidential power, or instead to the President's control over the executive branch. As I understood it, Judge Alito confirmed he was speaking of the latter.

Judge Alito was also asked whether he would support an expansion of the scope of Presidential power. Specifically, he was asked if he thought the President should have more power than he is expressly given under the Constitution and by law. Judge Alito stated several times that he would not support that point of view, and he noted, again, that the ``scope'' of the power of the President has nothing to do with the unitary executive.

I met with Judge Samuel Alito. I spent close to 2 hours with him. I asked him what he thought about the establishment clause and the free exercise clause and the power of the purse and the congressional power over the purse. I told him that I believed the Supreme Court has gone too far in prohibiting the free exercise of religion in this country. He listened respectfully and said that he understood. He did not pledge to overrule precedent, but he made it clear that he understood and respected my viewpoint.

I also advised him of my view that the executive branch is continually and improperly seeking to grab power, more power and more power, and that the separation of powers requires the judiciary to be ever vigilant in stopping the abuse of power by the President and in protecting the powers of the other two branches.

I urged Judge Alito, as I urged Judge Roberts before him, to recognize the importance of maintaining the equality of the three branches of our Government, protected by our Constitution. I stressed that he ought to be a Justice who will not forget the people's branch, the legislative branch, the first branch, the primary branch mentioned in the Constitution under article I; the executive is mentioned later on in article II.

I requested he not rule in a way that would expand the authority of an already expansionist executive. I reiterated that the Framers did not place the greatest power in the executive but, instead, the Framers put the greatest power in the people--the people, like you and me. The first three words in the preamble of the Constitution are, we all know, ``We, the People.'' The Framers ensured that the people, through us, their elected representatives in the Congress, would have the greatest power in our Government. In response, Judge Alito told me he respected the separation of powers and would not rule in support of a power-hungry President. I liked that answer. I liked Judge Alito. He struck me as a man of his word, and I intend to vote for him.

I believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to provide its advice and consent with respect to a particular nominee based on the merits or demerits of that nominee, not on focus groups, celebrity endorsements, binders filled with innuendo and slanted analysis or White House photo opportunities.

In truth, there is absolutely no way of knowing what any nominee for our Nation's highest Court will do after that nominee is confirmed. One could cite many examples of Justices who surprised the President who nominated them, as well as the Members of the Senate who supported or opposed their confirmation. Once a man or woman has achieved the high honor of a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, a transformation may occur. The awesome responsibility of protecting our Constitution and preserving the checks and balances for succeeding generations of Americans must elevate and sharpen one's judicial temperament in profound ways. The duty to preserve the freedom of our citizens as enshrined in our magnificent Bill of Rights must ennoble even an already noble mind and character.

In the end, the heavy duty borne by Members of the Senate to evaluate and reject or approve the President's nominees for the High Court should come down to each Senator's personal judgment of the man or woman before us, augmented, of course, by such judicial records and writings as may exist. I may not know exactly what kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be. No one does. No one does. My considered judgment, from his record, from his answers to my own questions, from his obvious intelligence, and from his obvious sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man, a man who loves his country, loves the Constitution, and a man who will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?

I neglected to mention, that in order to view the source, click on

"4 . EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - January 26, 2006)"

From there, click on "Printer Friendly" and you will be viewing the text of all of the speeches regarding the Alito nomination, made on January 26th.

"Bob Byrd personifies what our Founding Fathers were thinking about when they were thinking about a United States Senate. He brings the kind of qualities that the Founding Fathers believed were so important for service to the Nation."

- Ted Kennedy

So how come Trent Lott had to step down for saying something positive about Strom Thurmond? Didn't Swimmer make make a similarly 'offensive' a comment?

So how come Trent Lott had to step down for saying something positive about Strom Thurmond? Didn't Swimmer make make a similarly 'offensive' a comment?

Well, Swimmer didn't say that the country would be better off if the country had evolved according to the Grand Kleagle's plan. ;-)

And Swimmer hasn't had a leadership position to tumble from, either. He and Lott both remain Senators.

Senator Byrd gives a good speech.

Senator Byrd is a pompous blowhard. He is so in love with his own rhetorical flourishes that his speeches inevitably stray off course. He is a walking caricature of a self-important politician.

He deserves some credit for making this particular speech, but not much when viewed against the overall body of his output.

Byrd is an old dog and recognizes the climate change in West Virginia. WV voted for Bush twice. The unions don't own the blue collar working class here anymore. Byrd is up for re-election in a state that is likely to send him out to pasture.

There in a nutshell is the answer to why the Dimocraps are losers.

Right.

Byrd is a regular paragon of virtue. Like Lieberman, he blathers and foams at the mouth at the Senate podium, says something, every once in a while, that is commonsensical, and we should all fawn over him.

I will say this ... the old Klu Kluxer realizes what he needs to do to be able to die a Senator.

Byrd's clearly running scared. He knows his re-election prospects in WV depend on his casting himself as a conservative. Same thing the Dems always do to get elected in red states. If Byrd wasn't up for re-election in 2006, we would have never heard these words come out of his mouth. Instead, he'd have participated with Kennedy, Leahy and the various leftist interest groups in their slander of a qualified, honorable jurist.

All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, Executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers' rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the judiciary. They should be debated by the people's representatives in the legislative branch.

Well, I never thought I would say it, but I agree with Sheets. While I detest his views on so many policy matters and his pork barrel ways, he at least makes an attempt to represent the views of the people of his conservative state.

Byrd is an old dog and recognizes the climate change in West Virginia.

Bingo! And he still should be retired.

I was watching Hardball. Chris Matthews mentioned the bullying and the crying of Mrs. Alito and suggested maybe Pres Bush would invite Mrs. Alito to his SOTU Address and one of his guests, Dana Milbank, Washington Post pinko pinhead, actually became sarcastic and derisive and said something like, "oh, I'm gonna cry."

Now, we all know the antique press is reprehensible and living in a bubble but to see their hatred acted out live was truly impressive and not unlike watching venom shooting out of the mouth of a cobra being milked.

The antique media is beyond disgust; but not my hatred

He deserves some credit for making this particular speech, but not much when viewed against the overall body of his output.

I usually mock his speeches. It's easy to do so for delivery (although I find his delivery quite entertaining), and usually for substance.

But I found this speech to be well organized, well delivered, and surprizingly, he utterd substantive material that I am entirely in agreement with.

"He's just trying to get re-elected in a predominantly
red state."

You hit the kkknail on the head. Had this been 2003, he would have given the same speech with everything negative and everything positive reversed.

Eloquence is not intelligence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.