IM taking an extended summer break however i had to share this from senator lugar. it appears as long as satan had the proper education and a president put him forward as a nominee lugar would vote for him. shame on him
Thank you for sharing with me your opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens upon his retirement from the Supreme Court.
I have carefully followed the testimony of Solicitor General Elena Kagan before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the questions of committee members, and the debate and comments about her nomination, both during the public hearings and the mark-up of her nomination in committee. I have concluded that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and that she has demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of court history and decisions.
In order to better understand my thinking on the confirmation process of federal judges, I have included below a portion of the statement I made when Chief Justice Roberts asked me to introduce him to the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing in 2005:
Simply put, John Roberts is a brilliant lawyer and jurist with an extraordinary record of accomplishment and public service. This exceptional blend of professional and personal qualifications is especially important now, given the further responsibilities Judge Roberts has been called on to assume on the passing of the Chief Justice.
I know Judge Roberts is keenly and humbly aware of the large shoes he has now been asked to fill, the more so since the late Chief Justice was his own initial boss when he arrived in Washington a quarter century ago. All Americans can be grateful that Judge Roberts not only learned but has lived the lessons taught by his mentor and role model. In my judgment, he is supremely qualified to carry forward the tradition of fair, principled and collegial leadership that so distinguished the man for whom he once worked and has now been nominated to replace.
Under the judicial confirmation standards that prevailed throughout most of our history, my remarks could appropriately end at this point, and this Committee and the Senate as a whole could proceed to consider Judge Roberts’ nomination in light of his outstanding qualifications. Indeed, nominees almost never testified in such hearings before 1955; and the last Supreme Court Justice from Indiana, Sherman Minton, was confirmed without controversy despite declining even to appear before this Committee following his nomination by President Truman.
I am not troubled by the fact that Committee hearings, including testimony by Supreme Court nominees, are now firmly established as part of the confirmation process. These proceedings serve a vital role in our deliberations, and are a vivid course in “living history” for all Americans. It is important that we write that history well.
Today’s Supreme Court regularly faces issues of enormous public import and attendant controversy. Many are deeply divisive, with well-funded, well-organized advocacy groups passionately committed to one or the other side, and for whom the central, well-nigh exclusive focus is simply “who wins.” Media coverage in the “information age,” whether on talk radio or countless cable outlets featuring “talking heads” for each side, fuels both the controversy and the resultant tendency to see the Supreme Court as a kind of “political branch of last resort.” When a Court vacancy occurs, the confirmation process takes on the trappings of a political campaign, replete with interest-group television ads that often reflect the same over-simplifications and distortions that are disturbing even in campaigns for offices that are in fact political.
All of this may be understandable. It remains, in my view, a fundamental departure from the vision of the courts and their proper role that animated those who crafted our Constitution. The Founders were at pains to emphasize the difference between the “political branches” – the Executive and the Legislature – and the Judiciary. Their concern about the potential dangers of passionate, interest-driven political divisions, which Madison famously called the “mischiefs of faction,” influenced their design of our entire governmental structure. But they were especially concerned that such mischiefs not permeate those who would sit on the bench. Otherwise, they warned, “the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice,” and “would stifle the voice both of law and of equity.”
I believe that each of us in the Senate bears a special responsibility to prevent that from occurring. The primary focus of these hearings and our subsequent debate and vote on the floor will be Judge Roberts and his qualifications. But another focus will be whether the Senate, in discharging the solemn “advise and consent” duty conferred by the Constitution, is faithful to the trust the Founders placed in us.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all members of the Committee for your courtesy in allowing me to introduce Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., a distinguished son of Indiana whom I believe will prove to be an outstanding Chief Justice of the United States.
Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator