Skip to main content


Follow the confirmation hearings online:

Information in this section:

Heard at the Hearing
Thursday, September 15, 2005
For entries from the confirmation hearings, click here.
For entries from the hearings on September 15, 2005, click here.
For entries from the hearings on September 14, 2005, click here.
For entries from the hearings on September 13, 2005, click here.
For entries from the hearings on September 12, 2005, click here.

11:40 a.m.  The Committee reconvenes to hear from 30 selected witnesses.

The Committee will now here testimony from 30 witnesses, 15 selected by the Republicans, and 15 selected by the Democrats.  Members of the Committee will be afforded the opportunity to question the witnesses, who will appear in a serious of six panels. 

A list of witnesses is available below.  For biographies of the witnesses selected by the Democrats, click here

This concludes Sen. Leahy's "Heard at the Hearing" blog.  It will return when the Committee considers the nominee selected to fill the Justice O'Connor's seat.  Today's blog entries continue below.


PANEL I
 

Stephen L. Tober, Esq.
Chairman
American Bar Association
Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary

Portsmouth, NH

Tom Hayward, Esq.
Past-Chairman
American Bar Association
Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary

Chicago, IL

Pamela A. Bresnahan, Esq.
DC Circuit Representative
American Bar Association
Washington, DC


PANEL II
 

The Honorable Dick Thornburgh
Former Attorney General of the United States
Former Governor of Pennsylvania
Counsel
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham
Washington, DC

The Honorable John Lewis
United States House of Representatives
[D-GA-5th District]
Jennifer Cabranes Braceras, Esq.
Commissioner
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
and Visiting Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum
Boston, MA

Wade Henderson
Executive Director
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Washington, DC
Peter Kirsanow, Esq.
Partner
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplay & Aronoff
and Commissioner
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Cleveland, OH

The Honorable Nathaniel Jones
Retired Judge
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
to the Sixth Circuit

Of Counsel
Blank Rome LLP
Cincinnati, OH


PANEL III
 

Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq.
Partner
Latham & Watkins
Washington, DC

Carol M. Browner
Former Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Principal
The Albright Group
Washington, DC
Kathryn Webb Bradley, Esq.
Senior Lecturing Fellow
Duke Law School
Durham, NC

Anne Marie Tallman
President and General Counsel
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Los Angeles, CA
The Honorable Denise
Posse-Blanco Lindberg

Judge
Third Judicial District Court
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT

Reginald M. Turner, Jr.
President
National Bar Association
Detroit, MI


PANEL IV
 

Catherine E. Stetson, Esq.
Partner
Hogan & Hartson
Washington, DC

Marcia Greenberger
Co-President
National Women’s Law Center
Washington, DC
The Honorable Bruce Botelho
Former Attorney General
State of Alaska
Mayor of Juneau
Juneau, AK

Roderick Jackson
Coach
Ensley High School
Birmingham, AL
Henrietta Wright, Esq.
Of Counsel
Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright
and Chairman of the Board
Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center
Dallas Texas

Beverly Jones
Lafayette, TN


PANEL V
 

The Honorable Charles Fried
Former Solicitor General of the United States
Beneficial Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA

Peter B. Edelman
Professor of Law; Co-Director
Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy
Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC
Patricia L. Bellia
Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
South Bend, IN

Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
New Haven, CT
Christopher S. Yoo
Professor of Law
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, TN

David Strauss
Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law
University of Chicago Law School
Chicago, IL


PANEL VI
 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Senior Fellow
Hudson Institute
Washington, DC

Robert Reich
University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter
Professor of Social and Economic Policy
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA
Rabbi Dale Polakoff
President
Rabbinical Council of America
Great Neck, NY

Susan Thistlethwaite
President
Chicago Theological Seminary
Chicago, IL
The Honorable John Engler
Former Governor of Michigan
President
National Association of Manufacturers
Washington, DC

Karen Pearl
Interim President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
New York, NY

11:07 a.m.  Senator Specter closes the question and answer session.

Sen. Specter is now instructing that questions to be submitted to Judge Roberts are due.  The Committee will now move to a closed session, under Senate Rule 26.  At which time the committee will consider the FBI report about the nominee.  Under Sen. Biden's tenure, this session was made mandatory, regardless of the content of the investigative FBI report.  The Committee will hear from the first panel of witnesses at the conclusion of the closed session.

11:05 a.m.  Senator Graham is discussing the content on which a nominee should be judged.

Sen. Graham says that he would not like to be judged by the people he has represented.  Sen. Graham sys that no one can question Judge Roberts' intellect.  He is discussing that it comes down to what Judge Roberts' heart says.  Sen. Graham says that if the Committee goes down the road where it is the quality of someone's "heart" that determines if they should be confirmed, the Committee will be doing a disservice.

11:01 a.m.  Senator Durbin questions Judge Roberts about

Sen. Durbin is now asking Judge Roberts about the memo concerning the EEOC which Sen. Kennedy addressed.  Sen. Durbin is now returning to a case discussed yesterday about an HMO and the insurance coverage of thousands of families.  Judge Roberts has said that he takes the cases that come to him, and if an opposing side had come to him, he would have taken their case.  Sen. Durbin is asking if Judge Roberts would have taken a case that would have overturned rights for minorities or specific groups, if he would accept the case.  Judge Roberts says that he does not sit in judgment of clients when they come to him; he believes that the Court is responsible for those decisions.  Sen. Durbin is asking Judge Roberts where he would draw the line where his personal views would prevent him from taking a particular case.  Judge Roberts says that people become lawyers for various reasons, and he became a lawyer because he believes in the point of the law.  Judge Roberts says that he became a lawyer to promote the rule of law.

10:47 a.m.  Senator Cornyn is asking Judge Roberts about documents that have been released.

Sen. Cornyn is now asking Judge Roberts to discuss why documents may not have been released.  Judge Roberts is discussing why several documents may not have been released due to attorney-client privilege.  Judge Roberts says that that privilege pertains to a company or to the President of the United States.  Sen. Cornyn is now submitting for the record letters indicating that it is appropriate for the documents that have been withheld to be withheld.

10:42 a.m. Senator Schumer is questioning Judge Roberts about the appropriateness of questions that have been asked of him.

Sen. Schumer is asking Judge Roberts if he would personally object to the Administration releasing requested memos.  Judge Roberts says that he does not think it appropriate for him to take a position on that matter.

Sen. Schumer is talking about Judge Roberts refusal to answer certain questions.  Sen. Schumer is asking Judge Roberts what questions he would pose to a nominee if he were in the position to do so, and how Judge Roberts would answer the question eh would ask himself.  Judge Roberts says that he would ask a lot of the same questions he has been asked, including what his view of the proper role of a judge in our legal system.  Judge Roberts says that he would ask how a nominee would approach cases.  Sen. Schumer would like to know what question Judge Roberts would ask that hasn't been asked.  Judge Roberts says that he would ask what a person's personal views are.  Judge Roberts says that he would answer that question by saying that he sets aside his personal views, and so they are not an issue when deciding cases. 

Sen. Schumer is returning to the Commerce Clause.  He is asking Judge Roberts if he believes that Congress has the authority to regulate local activities if they are commercial in nature.  Judge Roberts says that the question comes to whether an activity is in fact commercial.  Sen. Schumer is now asking if under the Commerce Clause, Congress could pass a law banning cloning for commercial activity.  Judge Roberts says that he does believe that Congress would have that authority.

Sen. Schumer is now concluding by thanking Judge Roberts for his three days of testimony.  Sen. Schumer is expressing his concerns about the seriousness of this nomination on the future of the Court.  He is highlighting Judge Roberts brilliance, familiarity with the law, that he believes Judge Roberts is a lawyer above all, and Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy of modesty and humility.  Sen. Schumer is also discussing his hesitations in Judge Roberts' nomination, including the question of compassion and humanity, the refusal of the Administration to release documents from Judge Roberts' tenure on the Solicitor General's office, and Judge Roberts refusal to answer several questions from the Judiciary Committee.

Judge Roberts is now responding to the question of what kind of justice Judge Roberts would be.  Judge Roberts says that he has been as fully responsive as he could be during the hearings.  He says that his opinions demonstrate that he is not an ideologue. 

10:23 a.m. Senator Sessions is asking Judge Roberts to clarify his position on educating immigrant children.

Sen. Sessions is asking Judge Roberts about a case decided in Texas where education would not be provided to immigrant children.  Sen. Sessions is asking Judge Roberts if he is judging the constitutionality of the right of the state of Texas to legislate on this issue.  Typically, governance of education is handled by the states.  Judge Roberts says this is why he attempted to separate the legal question and his personal views on education.

10:21 a.m.  Senator Feingold is asking Judge Roberts about ethics on the court.

Sen. Feingold is asking Judge Roberts if he would curb the lobbying of federal judges should he be confirmed.  Judge Roberts says that he does not know how the funding rules regulate this practice, he finds it inappropriate for judges to be lobbied, and he would review these practices.  Judge Roberts says that he does think that it is important for judges to get out of Washington to visit law schools and discuss issues with other people.

Sen. Feingold is now asking Judge Roberts about honoraria.  He is asking Judge Roberts if he thinks it is appropriate that judges are banned from accepting honoraria.  Judge Roberts says that he is unfamiliar with the area.

Sen. Feingold is asking Judge Roberts about the death penalty.  He is asking Judge Roberts about the right of death row inmates to habeas corpus, or the right to have a case heard in court.  Sen. Feingold is asking Judge Roberts if his thoughts about habeas corpus have changed.  Judge Roberts says that he was referring to a time when there was no limit to the number of petitions that individuals could file.  Judge Roberts says that Congress has since passed laws that restrict and limit the number of repetitive and successive petitions individuals could file.

10:00  a.m. Senator Feinstein is questioning Judge Roberts about educating immigrant children.

Sen. Feinstein is stating that she is now not sure how she is going to vote for Judge Roberts.  She is commenting that his long tenure on the Court would raise several additional concerns in voting to confirm him.  She has asked Judge Roberts if he believes that he was wrong in drafting a memorandum suggesting that some children should not be educated based on their immigration status.  Judge Roberts is stating that he has respect for the ruling of the Court in this particular case, and that he believes that there is a legal issue at play, and his opinions on this particular case comes from a legal perspective. 

Sen. Feinstein is now highlight a review conducted by a Duke professor in which Judge Roberts was considered to be a consistent vote against worker's rights.  Judge Roberts says that according to another study, he was labeled as having voted more than any other Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court in favor of workers rights and against corporations. 

Sen. Feinstein is now questioning Judge Roberts about executive power. 

9:41 a.m.  Senator Kennedy is asking Judge Roberts about discrimination issues.

Sen. Kennedy is asking Judge Roberts if he believes that the Congress has the authority and ability to legislate to free the country from discrimination based on sex, race, and disabilities.  Judge Roberts has responded that he does believe that Congress has that authority.  Sen. Kennedy says that it has been decided that states should be given the authority to legislate about disabilities.  Judge Roberts says that the issue is whether Congress has the authority to act on this issue without violating the individual rights of states to legislate. 

Sen. Kennedy is now asking Judge Roberts about affirmative action.  Sen. Kennedy is saying that several memos from Judge Roberts tenure in the Solicitor's General's office regarding this issue have not been furnished to the Committee.  Sen. Kennedy is asking Judge Roberts what in his record would give some sense of hope to women, minorities, and the disabled who are looking for a chance in this diverse society to be able to have an equal opportunity.  Judge Roberts says that there is a lot in his background that would suggest he would give that opportunity.  Judge Roberts is saying that he has volunteered in programs that work for minority students heading to law school.  Judge Roberts says that if you look at his record on affirmative action it will show that he is opposed to quotas, but has argued in favor or affirmative action.

Sen. Kennedy is now discussing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Sen. Kennedy is highlighting a memoranda written by Judge Roberts where he wrote that the "we should ignore the EEOC..."  Judge Roberts says that the memo must be read in its entirety, and that it was referencing a specific case in which an individual was disgruntled with the EEOC.  Judge Roberts says that he was responding to a concern that the individual who suggested that President Reagan had promised to abolish the EEOC.

9:25 a.m.  Senator Leahy is questioning Judge Roberts about the FICA Courts.

Sen. Leahy is asking Judge Roberts about the FICA courts, the foreign intelligence courts.  Judge Roberts, as Chief Justice, would be the overseer of the FICA Courts.  Sen. Leahy is asking Judge Roberts if he would work with Congress to shine more light on the FICA Courts.  Judge Roberts says that he does not know enough about the operations of the FICA Court and how it functions to know what he would do.  It is an unusual Court that he would be sensitive to the issues of the court.

9:19 a.m.  Senator Leahy questions Judge Roberts about Congressional spending powers.

Sen. Leahy is questioning Judge Roberts about Congressional spending, and the role of the courts in determining whether the responsibility lies in this spending right - the states or the federal government.  Sen. Leahy is asking whether individuals can sue to receive the benefits from social programs.  Judge Roberts says that it's not about whether individuals can sue, the question is whether the Congress intends for individuals to be able to sue for those benefits.  Judge Roberts says that if Congress wants them to sue, Congress can write that into the laws which they pass.  Judge Roberts says the issue is what Congress intends.

Sen. Leahy is now asking Judge Roberts if he believes that people have a right to counsel.  Judge Roberts says that he agrees that individuals should have the right to competent counsel.  Judge Roberts says that he thinks the basic principle in this matter is that without appropriate counsel, people's rights would not necessarily be protected.  Sen. Leahy is now asking Judge Roberts if Congress has the authority to stop a war.  Judge Roberts says that Congress has the power of the purse, and has acted through that measure in the past.  The issue of what Congress's authorities are in ending a war are unclear, says Judge Roberts.

9:00 a.m.  The Committee reconvenes to finish questioning Judge Roberts.

 

Contact Senator Leahy Site Map and Search Privacy Policy Contact information
Contact Senator Leahy Site Map and Search Privacy Policy