by a vote t we con line, yet drew her yer drew Zo evalu tandard es inter e in the to judi chat ob his one. believe portant S posi Circuit ave a Jus bmis and ve to OR his ric left behind. As one Nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality, and the gross disparities that exist in our society. Across the years, we have experienced times of great turmoil and great triumph as each succeeding generation struggled to live up to our founding principle and give it meaning for everyone. Americans have shed blood, campaigned, and marched. They have worked in countless quiet ways, as well, to see that every one of our citizens is part of our democracy and has an equal opportunity for a good education, a good job, and a good life. Today, grandparents who were denied the right to vote expect their grandsons and granddaughters to be able to cast a ballot without discrimination or intimidation. And our society is better because of that progress. Today, fathers and mothers expect their daughters to have the same opportunities as their sons to attend college, play sports, and earn fair pay. And our society is better because of that progress. Today, parents expect their disabled children to live in hope-to receive an education that draws out their talent, enables them to reach for their dreams like all other Americans. And our society is better because of that progress. Too many have sacrificed too much, worked too hard, come too far, to turn back the clock on that progress. Americans today expect their elected representatives to carry on the great unfinished business of making America the land of opportunity for all, and we expect our courts to defend our progress as their constitutional responsibility. The challenge today is especially difficult because of the vast global economic changes and major new threats to our national security, and we need the ingenuity and innovation and commitment of every American. Our military leaders are the first to say that highly qualified, racially diverse Armed Forces are essential to defend our country and the cause of freedom at home and abroad. Every citizen counts, and we must continue to remove barriers that hold back millions of our people. We must draw strength from our diversity as we compete in a new world of promise and peril. So the central issue before us in these hearings is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past and protect the rights that are indispensable to a modern, more competitive, more equal America. Commitment to equality for all is not only a matter of fairness and conscience. It is also our path to sustained national strength and purpose. We also are a Government of the people in which citizens have a strong voice in the great issues that shape our lives. Our system of checks and balances was drawn up in full awareness of the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely and was designed to make sure that no branch of Government becomes so powerful that it can avoid accountability. The people have a right to know that their Government is promoting their interests, not the special interests, when it comes to the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and keep Government from intruding into their private lives and mo personal decisions. But the tragedy of Katrina shows in the starkest terms wh every American needs an effective national Government that wi step in to meet urgent needs that individual States and commu nities cannot meet on their own. Above all, the people and their Congress must have a voice in d cisions that determine the safety of our country and the integrit of our individual rights. We expect Supreme Court Justices to up hold those rights and the rule of law in times of both war an peace. All this and more will be before the Supreme Court in th years ahead, and its judgments will affect the direction and cha acter of our country for generations to come. Judge Roberts, you are an intelligent, well-educated, and seriou man. You have vast legal experience and you are considered to b one of the finest legal advocates in America. These qualities ar surely important qualifications for a potential Supreme Court Jus tice. But they do not end the inquiry or our responsibility. Thi Committee and the full Senate must also determine whether you have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional principle that have been so vital in advancing fairness, decency, and equa opportunity in our society. We have only one chance to get it right, and a solemn obligation to do so. If you are confirmed, you could serve on the Court for a generation or more, and the decisions you make as a Justice wil have a direct impact on the lives of our children, our grand children, and our great-grandchildren. Because of the special importance of an appointment like yours the Founders called for shared power between the President and the Senate. The Senate was not intended to be a rubber stamp for a President's nominees to the Supreme Court--and, as George Washington himself found out, it has not been. Judges are appointed "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and it is our duty to ask questions on great issues that matter to the American people, and to speak for them. Judge Rob erts, I hope you will respond fully and candidly to such questions. not just to earn our approval, but to prove to the American people that you have earned the right to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are real and serious reasons to be deeply concerned about Judge Roberts's record. Many of his past statements and writings raise questions about his commitment to equal opportunity and to the bipartisan remedies we have adopted in the past. This hearing is John Roberts's job interview with the American people. He will have a fair chance to express values, state his views, and defend his record. The burden on him is especially heavy because the Administration, at least so far, has chosen not to allow the Senate to have access to his full record. We can only wonder what they don't want us to know. his In particular, we need to know his views on civil rights, voting rights, and the right to privacy-especially the removal of existing barriers to full and fair lives for women, minorities, and the dis From the start, America was summoned to be a shining city on a hill. But each generation must keep building that city. Even in this new century, some Americans are still denied a voice at the ballot box because of their color, denied a promotion because of their gender, denied a job because of their age, denied hope because they are gay, or denied an appropriate education because they are disabled. Long-established rights to privacy are under heavy siege. We need a Chief Justice who believes in the promise of America and the guarantees of our Constitution, a person who will enter that majestic building near here and genuinely believe the four inspiring words inscribed in marble above the entrance: "Equal Justice Under Law." I look forward to hearing from Judge Roberts about whether, if he joins the Supreme Court, he will uphold the progress we have made and will guarantee that all Americans have their rightful place in the Nation's future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator Grassley? STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR Senator GRASSLEY. Judge Roberts, I welcome you and congratulate you on your nomination. I think it is fitting that you have been nominated to replace a mentor of yours, Chief Justice Rehnquist. You obviously have a tough act to follow, and that is because Chief Justice Rehnquist was a great Supreme Court Justice. He believed in the strict application of the law and the Constitution and was a consistent voice for judicial restraint. And we will all miss his leadership. Judge Roberts, we had a good personal meeting in my office a little over a month ago, and based on our discussions and what I have reviewed, you appear to be extremely well qualified. At our meeting, I was encouraged by your respect for the limited role of the courts as an institution in our democratic society. I look forward to asking more questions about your record and qualifications, as well as your judicial approach. I also look forward to asking you about what you think are priorities for the Federal judiciary, as you now lead that branch. Of course, as we reflect on the enormous build-up to this day and the packed hearing room filled with media lights and cameras, it is worth recalling the fact that judicial nominees never appeared before the Senate until 1925. Ever since then, for the most part, the hearings were not public spectacles. In 1962, for example, when Byron White was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Kennedy, the hearing before the Judiciary Committee lasted all of 15 minutes and eight questions. And it seems to me that the Senate sure got it right within Justice White. And Justice White went on to serve then for a generation. Of course, all this was before we had televised hearings, which has encouraged ratcheting up the rhetoric to play to various con of the Internet age, with millions of eyes scrutinizing thousands downloaded pages of writing, not to mention the hundreds website blogs characterizing the documents that have been pr duced in an accurate or, more likely, inaccurate way, and opini on every record that you have been involved with, and doing it the minute. So to some extent, there is no turning back from what we ha created here, and you just happen to be the latest victim of su scrutiny. During the Ginsburg nomination, Senator Biden, then Chairma of the Judiciary Committee, urged that we not treat these hearing in Senator Biden's words, as "make-or-break trials" of "dramat importance." And I sure agree with what he said then. Rather, the hearing provides a unique opportunity for us to e sure that each person appointed to the Federal bench will be a tru judge and not some sort of super-legislator. The courts should n be made up of seats designated conservative, liberal, moderat Rather, we have a responsibility to fill the Federal bench with ind viduals who will faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution individuals who will withhold any personal, political, or ideologic tendencies from their decisionmaking process. And this is eve more important when we are confirming you now to the Suprem Court as opposed to when we confirmed you to the circuit court. There are a number of qualities that I look for in a Suprem Court nominee. I believe that the nominee should be someone wh knows he or she is not appointed to impose his or her views what is right or wrong. As Chief Justice Marshall said over 20 years ago, the duty of the judge is to say what the law "is,” n what it "ought to be." Moreover, the nominee should be someon who not only understands, but truly respects the equal roles an responsibilities of the different branches of Government and th role of our States in the Federal system. If we confirm a nomine who is all of this, none of us-on the political right or the politica left-will be disappointed, because it will mean in the end that th people, through their elected representatives, will be in charge. O the other hand, if we confirm individuals who are bent on assign ing to themselves the power to "fix society's problems" as they se fit, a bare majority of these nine unelected and unaccountable me and women will usurp the power of the people-hijacking demod racy to serve their own political prejudices. We do not want to g down that road, and we should not go down that road. Why is it, then, so important to have Supreme Court Justice practice judicial restraint? Because that means the policy choice of the democratically elected branches of Government will only b overturned if and when there is a clear warrant to do so in the Constitution itself. We want Supreme Court Justices to exercise ju dicial restraint so that cases will be decided solely on the law an the principles set forth in the Constitution, and not upon an indi vidual Justice's personal philosophical views or preferences. Feli Frankfurter identified this as the highest example of judicial duty A fundamental principle of our country is that the majority has legitimate right to govern. This approach hardly means that the courts are less energetic in protecting individual rights. But the they control legislators, executives, and our citizens. Otherwise, we are no longer a Nation of laws, but a Nation of politicians dressed in judges' robes. During my tenure in the Senate, I have participated in a number of these Supreme Court nomination hearings, and I believe it is nine to date. I am hopeful that we will see a dignified confirmation process that will not degenerate into what we saw during the Bork and Thomas hearings. Rather, we need to see the same level of civility as we saw during the O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer hearings. Moreover, I am hoping that we will not see a badgering of the nominee about how he will rule on specific cases and possible issues that will or may come before the Court. That has not been the practice, as you know, in the past. And let me remind my colleagues that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer refused to answer questions on how they would rule on cases during their confirmation hearings. The fact is that no Senator has a right to insist on his or her own issue-by-issue philosophy or seek commitments from nominees on specific litmus-test questions likely to come before that Court. To do so is to give in to the liberal interest groups that only want judges who will do their political bidding from the bench, regardless of what is required by the law and the Constitution. The result is then a loss of independence for the Supreme Court and a lessening of our Government's checks and balances. Some have suggested that since you have been nominated now to be Chief Justice, you deserve even more scrutiny than before when you were just nominated for Associate. Some are saying that we should prolong the hearings and turn over even more stones than we have already turned over thus far. Well, the Chief Justice has been described as "first among equals." The plain truth is that there really isn't anything substantively different in your role, and your vote will count just the same as other Justices of the Court. So my own questioning and analysis of your qualifications will not really be much different from your previous appointment. But it is true that the Chief Justice has additional duties as the head of the Federal judiciary. The Chief Justice has to be someone who has a good management style, who can run the trains on time, and who can foster collegiality on the Court. So, Judge Roberts, Í think that since you have appeared before the Court 39 times to argue cases on appeal, and that the current Justices know and respect you, that bodes very well in terms of your smoothly transitioning into the Court, into the new role now of Chief Justice. I congratulate you. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Roberts, welcome. Mrs. Roberts, welcome to you. I might note at the outset I have never heard of or seen a Federal judge |