The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S12060-S12061 on Oct. 31, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Friday, the President formally withdrew from the Senate his nomination of Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, he announced his intention to nominate Judge Samuel Alito to that same position. To those who are keeping count, this will be the third nomination to fill the seat vacated by the future retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made by the President.
Justice O'Connor is still there. Three people have been nominated to fill her seat. I am concerned that the nomination may be a needlessly provocative nomination. Obviously, I will do as I have always done on nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I will make up my mind based on the hearings. But the President had before him a number of names of people who would have gotten probably 95 or 100 votes out of this Chamber, virtually every Republican and virtually every Democrat. Such a nomination would have united, not divided, the country. It appears that instead of uniting the country through his choice, the President chose to reward one small faction of the party and risked dividing the country. Instead of rewarding a small faction, which has put him under a great deal of pressure, I wish he would have rewarded the American people, all 280 million of us. There were many conservative Republican candidates who could have easily been confirmed.
Just last week, the President succumbed to partisan pressure from the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers. The pressure did not come from the Democrats. Actually, the pressure did not come from the majority of Republicans. It came from one small, vocal wing of the Republican Party.
I believe the President abdicated his own role in the Constitution's process of selecting Supreme Court Justices and allowed his own choice to be vetoed by extremists within his party without hearings by the Judiciary Committee or a vote by the Senate.
Both the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and myself said, Why do we not have hearings and then make up our mind?
The Miers nomination became an eye-opening experience for the country, exposing for all to see what a vocal and virulent wing of the Republican Party really wants. These are not the mainstream Republicans I know in my own State of Vermont, the party that has done so much for our green mountain State. This wing did not want an independent Federal judiciary. They want a rightwing litmus test, not the selection of Justices and judges who will be fair and impartial in applying the law. They, in fact, demand judges who will guarantee the results they want.
With turmoil engulfing the White House, with no exit from the disastrous and deadly occupation of Iraq, with an escalating Federal debt, and with obscenely high profits that continue to pile up for the administration's oil company friends, catering to an extreme wing of one political party jeopardizes the vital checks and balances that protect ordinary Americans.
It is a pity that the President thought his position was so weak that he had to bend to a narrow but strident faction of his political base. The Supreme Court is the ultimate safeguard of our system to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans. I hope the White House is not using this announcement today to try to distract the public from the scandals and failures that are mounting by the day for this administration. Nor will the press be fooled into assuming this is the only issue before America.
With the announcement of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the position to be vacated by Justice O'Connor, the White House failed to follow through with its initial discussions and engage in meaningful consultation. I regret the President has not chosen a clear path of a consensus candidate to unite the American people and the Senate. Actually, the Nation and the Senate would have overwhelmingly welcomed his choice if he had.
Now, as I said, I am not forming a final judgment as to the merits of this nomination, just as I did with now Chief Justice Roberts when he was initially nominated to fill the Sandra Day O'Connor seat, a seat not yet vacated. I said I would not make up my mind until after the hearing, and I will do that, but an initial review of Judge Alito's record suggests areas of significant concern for all of us. His opinions from the Federal bench demonstrate that he would go to great lengths to restrict the authority of Congress to enact protective legislation to protect people in the areas of civil rights, consumer protection, and the rights of workers, consumers, and women. Judge Alito has also set unreasonably high standards for ordinary Americans who are victims of discrimination to meet before being allowed to proceed with their cases.
The Democratic leader of the Senate and I wrote to the President last week. We urged him to pick one of the many qualified, mainstream women and minority candidates who could win widespread bipartisan support in the Senate. Even more importantly, they would get the same widespread public support in America.
We noted the unique circumstances that now attend this nomination and that make it essential that Justice O'Connor be replaced by a mainstream nominee, not by an activist who would bring an ideological agenda to the Court.
The Court that serves America should reflect all America, but although President Bush declared in reference to filling Justice O'Connor's seat on the Court that he is ``mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country,'' with the nomination of Judge Alito, of course, he weakens that strength. Should Judge Alito ultimately be confirmed, the Court will lose some of that diversity.
There were a lot of highly qualified women, highly qualified African Americans, highly qualified Hispanics, and other individuals who could well have served as unifying nominees while adding to the diversity of the Supreme Court. I am one Senator who looks forward to the time when the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court is more reflective of the country it serves.
As the grandson of Italian and Irish immigrants, I know that Italian Americans, like all of my mother's family, and President Bush's guest, the Italian Prime Minister, will be feeling pride today, but this nomination does not add to the diversity of the Supreme Court any more than I add to the diversity of the Senate.
I imagine this announcement is a disappointment to many Hispanic Americans who had expected the President to seize this historic opportunity given to him for a third time by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. I also imagine that all of the women in our Nation's Capital today to honor Rosa Parks, the first woman to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda for her work in bringing racial justice to our Nation, are somewhat saddened that the seat of the first woman to serve on our Highest Court is not going to be filled by another woman.
I do not expect Democrats to engage in the kinds of personal attacks on this nominee that the rightwing used to force the President to withdraw his nomination of Ms. Miers, whom he described as the best qualified person in the country to replace Justice O'Connor. I do believe we need to take the time necessary to examine the record of the nominee in the Reagan Justice Department and on the bench before we proceed with full and thorough hearings.
The stakes for the American people could not be higher with this new nomination. Justice O'Connor brought an open mind to the cases she reviewed. She served especially as a moderating influence on the Court. The person who replaces her replaces a pivotal vote on our most powerful Court. That person has the potential to dramatically tilt the Court's balance. Maintaining the stability of the Court is crucial for the Nation, and that is going to be an important factor for me as I consider this nomination.
At this critical moment and in light of the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, all Senators should perform our constitutional advice and consent responsibility, but we should do it with heightened vigilance. The Supreme Court is the guarantor of the rights of all Americans.
I look forward to the hearings. I will, as I did before, work with Senator Specter, the chairman, to make sure they are open and fair as they were for Chief Justice Roberts. Those were open and fair hearings because we had the time to prepare for them. I urge the President and even the leadership of this august body to allow the Judiciary Committee to take the time to do it right. It is far more important to do it right than to do it fast.
The appointment must be made in the Nation's interest, not to serve the special interests of any partisan faction, even though today we have one that is claiming credit for destroying the chances of Harriet Miers but for also in effect telling the President of the United States who to appoint as his third nominee for this one seat.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some remarks about Rosa Parks and the events of the day. I see the Senator from North Dakota. I do not know what his timeframe is, but I am to preside and relieve the chair at 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator. I would like to speak as well in morning business. I would like to speak for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to speak following the presentation by my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
____________________
