Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lindsey Graham Statement on Senate Judiciary Committee Vote on John Roberts Nomination
Senator Graham's official website ^ | September 22, 2004 | Lindsey Graham

Posted on 09/23/2005 8:36:07 AM PDT by YaYa123

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One, I hope Senator Feingold has a long life and he sees many Supreme Court justices come and go. If I can do what my predecessor did, Senator Feingold, I have 50 more years to serve. (LAUGHTER) So this court will flip over four or five times. And I'm going to miss most of you all, by the way. (LAUGHTER)

Senator Biden gave me some good advice when I first came to the Senate. He was gracious enough to come down and speak at Senator Thurmond's funeral upon his passing. And I really do like Senator Biden a lot. He said, "Don't ever question a senator's motive. You can argue with their result, you can disagree with how they vote, but don't question their motive." You know, that's great advice. I am going to adopt that advice. I think that if you vote differently than I do, I don't question your motives.

But I'll make an observation, too, for the long view of things, because I think Russ is on to something here. What we do here today is definitely going to affect the future.

Just for a point of observation, Breyer and Ginsburg and Scalia, I've been told, were reported out of the committee unanimously. Well, that's not going to happen today with Judge Roberts, but I'm not questioning anyone's motives. It's just a fact.

I think people have articulated very heart-felt reasons for voting no and yes. And we're already talking about the next nominee in code. Senator Kohl, who voted yes, is talking about the balance of the court with O'Connor. Senator Feingold has mentioned he may not be too receptive to Justice Brown. I can understand that; that's the way this situation is in 2005.

But this is my first -- hopefully of many -- Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Mr. Chairman, and I think you've done an excellent job.

Senator Leahy, I think you've done an excellent job as the ranking member. I've been very proud of the committee. I've at times refused to come over here because I hated to come, because we'd argue about what time it is. I think the committee distinguished itself very well, I really do. I think the questions were hard, they were probing. And, generally speaking, I think the committee did well.

The mystery is gone: I will vote for Judge Roberts. I'm sure everybody was hanging on whether that would happen. (LAUGHTER) But the reason I'm going to vote for him is because I believe that the president does enjoy some deference here. That's what this debate is about right now: the role of the president versus the Senate.

Senator Kennedy has articulated what he thought the central issue of the hearing was at the beginning and he concluded with his view of the central issue as whether or not the nominee would roll back certain progress that he's seen in the law.

I started out the central issue being whether or not the Senate will allow the president, President Bush, to fulfill a campaign promise he made to the American people, and that is to nominate a well-qualified strict constructionist to the court. Two different views of what the Senate should be doing.

He will get confirmed, thanks to people like Senator Kohl and Feingold and Senator Leahy and others. People who vote their conscience against him, they're doing what they think is right. But that is a basic issue the country needs to come to grips with.

Senator Reid, when he was indicating that he would vote no, made a statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." And The Washington Post wrote an editorial called, "Words That Will Haunt."

I just want to, if I can, in a few minutes, talk about where we're going from here. He's going to be confirmed but the vote totals are going to be fairly dramatically different than they were with Ginsburg, Scalia and Breyer.

If you get away from the qualifications, intelligence and character test, which I think had to be in play there, you're setting up a scenario that could haunt us all.

If we're going to start looking at people's hearts, that is a very subjective thing to do. Justice Ginsburg -- her writings, as Senator Grassley said, "I admire him for voting because she is qualified but from a conservative's point of view, her view of politics and her writings and the role she played in the law was very hard to swallow."

I would just say that one of the attacks on Judge Roberts was that he was a legal genius, well-qualified, intellectually gifted, but we didn't know if he had the worldness of judging others; that he was qualified to really sit in judgment at that level. We're questioning whether or not he's lived his life right.

Well, one could argue that if you're for a constitutional right of prostitution, those of us who have been in the criminal law as prosecutors and defense attorneys would probably come out different; that prostitution's not a good business endeavor, that those women who find themselves in the world of prostitution live in hell. We could start questioning whether or not someone who believed in that view of a constitutional right really was connected to the real world as I see it. But, you know, the real world as Lindsey Graham sees it is -- I'm glad you don't adopt it. It would be a very boring place for the country.

We all have different value systems and we all have different hot-button items. If we start judging the nominee on, "Will you show allegiance to what I think is most important in the country?" then we're going to politicize the process to the point that I think the role of the president has been dramatically changed and undermined. Woe be on to those judges who have to figure out how to navigate our value systems, our beliefs and show allegiance to our heart.

That is a standard I would not want to put on any of you. It's not a standard I want to put on anyone who's going to follow.

So there is a fundamental shift in this nomination to, I think, what the standard has been in the past to what it will be in the future. I have a little bit of concern about that. Actually, I have a lot of concern.

The reasons to vote no, while I respect those reasons, have been very subjective. They've been around a case or a concept that you find so important that that's going to be the end of the discussion.

I would just urge this committee, as we go to the next debate, to remember that Scalia was obviously conservative. There's no way Roberts is more conservative than Scalia. There's no way that Roberts is more challenging and in-you-face than Scalia in his writings. Scalia got 98 votes. Now what's happened? Ginsberg got 96 votes. What's going on?

I think Senator Grassley put his finger on it: There's a lot of pressure on us all. This is the easiest vote a Republican will ever make. This is so easy for us to vote for Roberts.

It is not easy for you, Russ. I know you are a prominent player in the Democratic Party. This is not easy for Senator Leahy. It is not easy for Senator Kohl. It will not be easy for those who choose to side with Roberts because they're trying to drive down the vote numbers because of the next person to come.

Senator Grassley, you're right: Politics is rearing its head like it has not done before. But here's what I worry about, sir: Our day will come. There will be a Democratic president, probably in my lifetime. (LAUGHTER) The pressure that they're feeling, we're going to feel.

The compromise -- Senator DeWine and I felt a little bit of pressure -- if we could look at the person before us based on qualifications, character and integrity and not require them to show an allegiance to a particular case or a cause, it would serve the country well. Because liberals and conservatives come and go, but the rule of law is bigger than all of our philosophies.

The rule of law is about the process. If you want the law to be outcome-determinative, then the process has been cheapened.

The good thing about the law, Mr. Chairman, is that the conservative and liberal philosophy and agenda is parked at the courthouse door and we're judged by facts and what people did before us.

There needs to be one place left in American discourse and politics for the quietness of the merits of individuals to trump the loudness of special interest groups. The last place I know of is the courtroom.

The reason that I think Justice Roberts will be a justice for the ages -- he's probably the most qualified guy, top two or three people in the history of the nation -- is that he believes beyond anything else that the rule of law is for the unpopular cause, is for the quiet discussion not the loud political campaign, and that he believes deep down and loves the law more than he loves politics.

That's all you can ask of anybody that comes through our gatekeeping here: Will you adhere to the law more than you'll adhere to anyone's political philosophy?

The president has chosen well.

Mr. President, you have done a good service to this nation by choosing someone of such intellect and character who will serve this nation for a long period of time.

You have another choice awaiting you. Listen to our Democratic colleagues. Listen to what we have to say. But at the end of the day, ask you to do one thing for the good of your presidency and all to follow: Fulfill your campaign promise of selecting a strict constructionist, well-qualified person who loves the law more than they love politics.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 109th; judgeroberts; lindseygraham; nomination; robertshearings
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: khenrich
These dipsh_t Republicans from the South, whose daddies were all Democrats, haven't really decided which party they want to be in.


41 posted on 09/23/2005 7:43:43 PM PDT by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee
I too have been a Lindsey detractor, after his speech and solid support, I feel humbled and a bit ashamed.

Lindsey, for what it is worth, I salute you.


I too was very angry over the deal the "dirty" 14 made. However, about a month ago Hannity interviewed him on his radio show. Lindsey explained specifically that that deal made it impossible for the dims to filibuster any of the President's nominees for the SC. After that interview I was very insured that Lindsey had made a good choice to make sure no filibustering is possible without huge backlashes for the dims, and they know it!!!
42 posted on 09/23/2005 8:47:46 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

That is an excellent statement by Senator Lindsey Graham.


43 posted on 09/23/2005 8:52:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes
It should put people like Kennedy and Durbin and Schumer to shame (but that's impossible since they have no shame.)


Shame??? These kind of leftist have absolutely no shame. Durbin on the Senate floor comparing our troops with Nazis, etc. Kennedy after Chappaquiddick!??! Are you kidding???
44 posted on 09/23/2005 8:53:47 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: khenrich

we shall see.....until then


45 posted on 09/24/2005 1:00:21 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
Graham has innoculated himself for a future seat on the SCOTUS

SCOTUS isn't his element. He's a trial attorney and a showman, not a behind-the-scenes scholar. If he can't be president, he wants to be governor of South Carolina, where he can draw the media and crowds.

This is a vintage Lindsey Graham closing argument. I've heard him do it in court to great effect. He disarms his opponents, makes them feel at ease,then proceeds to eviscerate their points and leaves only his own standing. He's the best I have ever witnessed at it.

I don't know how many FReepers know it, but Lindsey is already a judge. He is reserve Air Force colonel assigned as a back-up judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. I think that probably about as much judging as he's ever going to want to do. That's my guess anyway.

46 posted on 09/24/2005 1:14:40 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

If the Dems dare filabuster the next nominee..Graham will be the one leading the charge for the nuclear option..


forgive the lack of caps but i'm typing in the dark while watching the rita news....

good speech...after all he is a politician, but i dont trust him after he joined mcblame and the gang of 14. mr bush's next pick will be to the right of roberts (i hope)lets see how Mr. Graham does when the going gets tough.

I doubt he will vote nuclear, perhaps?


47 posted on 09/24/2005 1:17:04 AM PDT by JohnD9207 (Lead...follow...or get the HELL out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

bttt


48 posted on 09/24/2005 1:24:32 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
I hope folks who didn't get the chance to see Graham deliver his powerful speech, will take the time to read it.

I did not see Grahm's speech live. Thank you for posting it, I agree that it was superb. Everyone needs to read this in it's entirety. Should also be posted in all govenment classes.

49 posted on 09/24/2005 1:43:01 AM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
I hope folks who didn't get the chance to see Graham
deliver his powerful speech, will take the time to read it.

Just did.

Outstanding!

Thanks.

50 posted on 09/24/2005 1:49:27 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

After I read the speech I went over to http://www.c-span.org/ to listen to it via RealPlayer. Two things I noticed; he did not read it, and Kennedy got up and left during the 10 minute speech. Leahy had approached Kennedy, probably to make sure he had his proxy vote correct. I'm going back to see what my guy, Jeff Sessions, had to say.


51 posted on 09/24/2005 2:13:58 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Sen. Sessions also gave emotional and compelling remarks that he did not read.


52 posted on 09/24/2005 2:48:06 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
There will be a Democratic president, probably in my lifetime. (LAUGHTER)

I fail to see the humor.

A little earlier in the speech, he noted that he was holding Thurmond's seat. What does that tell you about lifetime?

53 posted on 09/24/2005 2:53:49 AM PDT by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Senator Graham, you don't understand how the Senate works. Knowing that Roberts would be confirmed, the Democraps had to provide a few token votes because the country would not tolerate (and it would be reflected in the next election) a complete party line vote.

So a few hard line Anti-American Socialists would be chosen as the standard bearers of the Democrap Party to suck up to the political base of the Democrap Party!

So nice speech, Senator Graham, but you obviously don't yet understand how the Bob and Billie Club (formerly U.S. Senate) really operates! You should at least learn that before you consider throwing your hat in any future political ring!
54 posted on 09/24/2005 3:13:20 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
You're correct, Lep. Few folks understand how Senate votes are orchestrated beforehand. Ayes and nays on close issues are choreographed like Swan Lake. Not much is left to chance. The final vote on this nomination was known to the committee and insiders prior to the roll call.

The votes of most members of both parties are accomodated when necessary. The member's constituency is a factor, the position of the member's local media, the safeness of the seat......or it could be a number of other Machiavellian things like behind-the-scenes vote trading on pork issues.

There were NO surprises on this Roberts vote. None, nada. Only, perhaps, to a portion of the public.

This MO, unfortunately, destroys many illusions and idealism concerning the Senate. But, remember, The U.S. House of Lords is the most exclusive club in the world......and the members consistently do what members in a lot of private clubs do.....promote their own business (in this case, political) interests.

Leni

55 posted on 09/24/2005 4:07:17 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
leprechaun9, you wrote, "Senator Graham, you don't understand how the Senate works"

I respectfully disagree, and to prove Graham knows exactly how the Senate works, please read what he said about the Democrats.

"... we're already talking about the next nominee in code. Senator Kohl, who voted yes, is talking about the balance of the court with O'Connor. Senator Feingold has mentioned he may not be too receptive to Justice Brown..."

"It is not easy for you, Russ. I know you are a prominent player in the Democratic Party. This is not easy for Senator Leahy. It is not easy for Senator Kohl. It will not be easy for those who choose to side with Roberts because they're trying to drive down the vote numbers because of the next person to come. "

"Politics is rearing its head like it has not done before.."

No doubt in my mind Lindsey Graham "gets it".

56 posted on 09/24/2005 4:20:02 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@ God Bless President Bush As the MSM and Democrats Seek To Destroy Him.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
When Lindsey does bad, I bash him.
When Lindsey does good, I praise him.

Ya done good, Lindsey!
Keep it up and we may reelect ya!
57 posted on 09/24/2005 3:52:08 PM PDT by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson