howard taft, and as the first alexander m. bickel professor of public law. for almost 4 years i served as solicitor general of the united states, in which capacity i submitted hundreds of briefs and personally argued about 35 cases before the supreme court of the united states. finally, for the past five years i have been a judge in the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit, where i have written, according to my counts, counts of very here this morning thismorning-about 150 opinions, opinions and0 participated in over 400 decisions. i have a record in each of these areas of the law and it is forthis committee and the senate to judge that record. i will be happy to answer the committee's questions. >> of next, we continue our look back. , i have our portion of the --, a portion of the

senate committee vote. justice anthony kennedy eventually fill the vacant seat. >> i would like to, at the indicate how i would like to proceed today. i have spoken with the ranking member senator thurmond about this what i'd like to do. i would like to withhold any motions of the outset. and give these our colleagues an opportunity to make a statement. if they wish to on the nomination, and i will have a briefs statement, and then we will proceed the voting and i , will at that time indicate how i like to proceed. i look to the will of the committee. but what i'd like to do now is

yield to senator thurmond for any statement he would wish to make and then we'll just go through the entire committee. and then we'll get to the matter of a voting. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have thoroughly reviewed deadbolts -- judge bork 's background and qualifications. i believe he has all requirements to be an associate justice of the supreme court. phi beta kappa, distinguished law professor. and second judge of the court of appeals. he has received the highest rating the aba can give at the

american law -- the american bar association, can give to a nominee on two occasions. first, first review is nominated -- when he was nominated to the covert of appeals -- court of appeals and now his nomination to the supreme court. we have had twelve days of hearings on this nomination. most exhaustive and comprehensive into a judicial nominees qualifications that i can remember when my three years -- in my 33 years in the senate. water i have been disturbed over , the methods used by some with ,- some of the judges opponents and advertising on radio, television, and in the press has distorted the truth character and exceptional qualities of judge bork that one of those high will who felt compelled to counter this lobbying campaign against him.

general ford, former president of the united eight, introduced him and urged favorable action by the committee and confirmation by the full senate. during the hearings we also , heard testimony from paula justice warrant for, who stated "i was so concerned about the dissent from nation as some of these full page ads that i felt as amount of -- as a citizen, i had an obligation to say what i believe. if the judge is not the --nstream, neither my and mi, and neither have i been." " it wouldted astonish me to think that he is an extremist anymore than i am an extremist. plane, it was said

" the thing that is distressing to me is that it really is not just propaganda. propaganda you can understand. , that is part of the way we do things. never this case, i have seen such misrepresentation, distortion, and downright lying. i mean there are people in very , important positions in the government who are lying to the american public. formerturner -- mari attorney general john smith was joined by five other former attorney general. judge borkpports for .

the list of supporters never stop there. governor thompson of illinois, the former governor pennsylvania, to former assistant attorney general's from the department of justice, and singlet distinguished -- seven distinguished law school beans and members of a national law enforcement organizations with a membership of over 500,000 members. presidents, a former -- eight former president of the american bar association. as well as many other respected people came forward to this vote -- support the judge's nomination. these are truly impressive and respected individuals who have great knowledge of our system of government and particularly our judicial system. i believe these people provide a strong endorsement for the

president's nomination of judge bork to be an associate justice of the supreme court. mr. chairman, i was particularly impressed with the testimony of medical, -- daniel j maddock, professor of law at university of virginia. professor mehta stated that there were three tests that should be fast to be -- have to be confirmed by the senate. first, it is the confirmation supported by a substantial array of supporters and legal scholars who themselves are well-regarded professionally, who are independent of the administration and to come from varying political backgrounds? an affirmative answer suggests that the nominee is within the mainstream, even though there may be professional opinion in opposition to confirmation. second, does the nominees

conception of the role of courts, his view of legal doctrine, and his approach to the techniques of judging by asponding views held significant numbers of other well-regarded judges, lawyers, and people's dollars? if a nominee has a substantial .mount -- legal scholars if a nominee has a substantial amount of professional company on these matters, ache in her belief that he is outside the mainstream. third, has the nominee, as a judge, frequently taken distant positions -- different positions from other judges on his court, and often been reversed by high court? an affirmative answer was to guess that the nominee does indeed have eccentric legal views outside the example range. but this is not the case with the judge. his positions have been in line with a substantial number of judicial colleagues.

reversalshave been no of his decisions by high court. mr. chairman, i believe the judge meets all of these criteria. was candid and straightforward and his testimony before the committee, and this is definitely to his credit. all of the foregoing reasons comedy new leaving the should report his nomination to the full senate with a recommendation. >> i want to commend you for the fair and thorough matter in which you conduct of the hearings on this nomination. this is the bicentennial year of the constitution. and these proceedings have been a timely lesson of our commitment to the rule of law. to equal justice for all americans, and to the fundamental role of the supreme court in protecting our basic rights.

this is not an argument about politics. it's a debate about the future of justice in america. the record should show that those of us who oppose this nomination, democrats and republicans, have supported many conservative justices in the past. confirm president ofhard nixon's nominations his chief justices. i have voted to confirm president gerald ford's nominations, and i voted to confirm president reagan's nomination of justice o'connor and justice scalia. in addition i have voted to confirm all but a tiny handful of the more than three hundred district and circuit judges.

but this nomination is different as many of us in congress and , millions of americans across the country have recognized from the beginning. these hearings have given the country an unusual opportunity to reflect on the constitution. and what it means for our country and our future. we have come too far to turn back the clock. , and projectunds achievements that continue to make america a beacon of hope and opportunity, not only for our own it is, but for people throughout the world. in broad variety of areas, the judges views lay some outside even the conservative mainstream of constitutional thought. and against the tide of progress towards greater justice in america. judge bork is wrong on civil rights. he is wrong on equal rights for women. wrong on the right to privacy.

wrong on freedom of speech. and president reagan is wrong to try to put him on the supreme court. america deserves a justice who understands meaning the of justice in america. the committee and the full senate should reject this nomination. >> thank you, senator. senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we all know the intense lobbying that has been done for and against. we all would i think wish to distance ourselves from some of those underhanded political tactics. just prior to the vote, i would ask my colleagues to forget just for a moment the lobbying. forget the newspaper ad forget the radio commercials in some. -- commercials, and for some,

forget the politics the played such a dominating role in this proceeding. i share the same opinion of senator thurmond. the ads in this matter and some of the outside lobbying has been abominable. but instead i would urge the committee to turn its focus to where it ought to be. that's on robert h. bork, the compassionate individual. the capable individual. the caring individual. the considerate individual. now this is an individual who broke all rules by answering in great detail every question we put to him for over thirty hours. never been done before. this is the individual who has a --, as a junior associate, stood up to senior partners to prevent anti-semitism from claiming another victim. this is the individual who stood up to colleagues at the department of justice on behalf of a black woman to prevent subtle discrimination from claiming another victim. this is the individual who stood by his former wife. he made great personal

sacrifices that our health was best when her health was drained away from her by a debilitating and eventually a fatal disease. this is an individual who after fulfilling active duty. and an active duty assignment. willingly returned country service as a marine when the korean war posed such a national security rest of the song. -- risk to us all. this is an individual who gave torly half of his 60 years teaching and public service, issuing the enormous financial ewing the- esch enormous financial rewards that would have been his had just playing the used his talents in the practice of law rather than in favor of educating our children and assisting our government. this is the individual who won significant advances for civil rights as solicitor general. he never advanced a position on civil rights which was less sympathetic to the minorities and women than the supreme court itself.

so i particularly resent the implication that he is somehow less for civil rights than members of this particular panel or the supreme court itself. it seems to me this is the individual who took no position on civil rights cases in the five years as a judge less favorable to minorities and women in the position adopted by the supreme court. this is an individual of on unquestionable and ability and integrity. who has for years stated that the congress should be allowed to make policy because their elected representatives and that he is a judge. and i don't like to judge would not and should not impose his own ideas of social agenda on the nation. this is an individual who

confirmed unanimously to two of the most significant posts of -- congress twice before confirmed unanimously to two of the most significant posts of our government. this is an individual who all witnessed the great moments of our age and we can carry on this , list indefinitely but my point is evident. we are not dealing today so only with politics. we are not dealing today solely with lobbying pressures. nor are we dealing solely with the single issue of marital privacy or homosexual privacy or abortion privacy or prostitution privacy or any of the other issues that the single issues that may interest one or more of us us senators. we're dealing with an individual. in fact one of the most qualified individuals ever to one of the most important additional jobs in the whole nation. we are all buffeted by political pressures and we all have to do what we feel is right. so prior to casting a vote i ask

each of my colleagues to reflect again on this remarkable record , on this remarkable experience, on this remarkable man of character. indies the remarkable life of , this individual who is before us today. we've heard a lot of talk about compassion about caring. and i simply ask this entire committee to demonstrate those same qualities that they aren't -- as they honestly reflect upon the life of this individual. and last but not least, as important as robert h. bork really is, and he's i think we have to all think it through. regardless of what this committee says i hope there will , be a vote and i believe there will be a vote on the senate floor. i hope we all think through what's being done here. because if we politicize the judiciary of this country. i don't know how anybody can conclude otherwise and reject this nominee in the end.

let me tell you, we will lose one of the most valued freedoms and liberties and rights to freedom and liberty. that is a full, complete, and independent federal judiciary. colleagues sayd words that have curdled my blood . if this goes down because of politics, every judicial nominee will be scrutinized like this one was -- i think they are all be scrutinized but they ought to be scrutinized fairly and politics should pay a relatively modest role in the overall organization, -- discrimination here displaying the paramount , -- scrutinization, here displaying the paramount role in the process are a complete judicial system may be in jeopardy.

they have been independent up to now on when we've had these great issues on liberty on freedom of speech, civil rights, etc.. by gosh we've had judges who , were willing to stand up and not test the wind before they made their rulings. and this judge has been one of them on the bench. i think we'd better all think it through. so i thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to make these two comments. i felt the primary function not to attempts to persuade my colleagues, although i had made a judgment myself. but to make sure the issues were laid squarely before all of us and before the american people. process, i found the entire undertaking, quite frankly, both educational and somewhat fascinating. i find it fascinating that those

who are supporting the judge can do it with such great skill, and obviously with such passion and principal that in a sense, they undersell and undercut the wisdom of the american people. notwithstanding the fact that there has been some advertising that i do not want to be associated with on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the question i should say, notwithstanding the fact that there has been shrill criticisms of the judge, they have not been those who testified before this committee. notwithstanding the fact that there has been money spent by organization groups, referred to time and again here, i find it

hard to believe that the american people do not get the vast majority of the information from those television cameras that are looking at us right now. testifying,ge was and i know nothing about television, but i'm told millions of people, millions of people were watching. testified, judge for -- the judge testified for 40 hours -- 30 hours, more than 30 hours. to suggest that and that he was treated fairly by his own admission, and then to suggest that the only reason people now is because about him of some slanderous advertising seems to, in fact, miss the point. by allthe money's rent

of the interest groups, for and against, could not have paid for one day the television or one portion of one day of the television that was covered here. i think the american people are pretty smart. part ofican people were a great, constitutional debate. the debate is one as old as the republic. role doeshat relative the government play in the lives of individuals, and what rights do we individuals cede to our government? rk'sfrom judge bo perspective, what rights did our government confer upon us. that is the issue, as old as the constitution.

senator hatch is very eloquent. statement onuent behalf of the judge today, reciting this as an individual who, this is an individual who, this is an individual we are speaking of. a man of honor, integrity, and intellect. but notwithstanding, i must tell you honestly i feel sorry for him, sitting home at this moment, watching this nomination go down. feeling, because we have all been there at one went in our lives, the small loss you must feel at this moment. with all due respect, this is not about the judge. this is about the constitution. this is about the resolution of the debate that, in its most fundamental form, can be put in my view as follows. do i have certain inalienable

rights merely because i exist? i have those rights because my government has conferred them upon me? forthrightlyiew stated it is the latter. mine is the former. . i have never had any doubt at all that once the issues were colleagues, my address them in the american and the american people saw them, there would be no doubt on where the american people and my colleagues come down. notwithstanding the fact that there has been, as almost all 32nd ads and full-page newspaper assertionssleading about the judge. and so, i suggest to you all that it was not merely a group

of some -- a group of crazies we had at that table. we had some of the most eminent scholars in the world, in the country, on the constitution. 40% of the legal scholars in america, 40% of the practicing law teachers signed petitions, saying do not put this judge on the supreme court. 40%. 2000 of them. six extremely distinguished law deans came before us and said this is the most wall of white man in america, put him on the lawt, and 30's do -- 32 deans, from harvard through georgetown, said do not put this man on the word -- court. this was a debate of consequence.

notwithstanding how any of us conducted, the men and women who testified for us with a few notable exceptions, where the -- were those of the highest intellect, integrity, and the reasonably schooled up people on the ones book both for and against him. this was a debate about the constitution. more importantly, about the future. correctly, and one thing i learned from a first chairman on this committee, almost 14 years ago, i learned how to count. correctly, the majority of this committee has concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of those who testified before us, thank you not what this honorable man with a narrow view

-- you said do not put this honorable man with a narrow view of the constitution of on the supreme court. in conclusion, i say to my colleagues i believe, not with hitting the misrepresentation -- notwithstanding the representations, i believe how i wish those second or third days someoneearings that else was on the front full of the paper instead of me. believe me. [laughter] but i think we belittle the institution and the american people to suggest that the conclusion reached by our colleagues and the conclusion temporarilyat least reached by the american people, was the consequence of a handful of interest groups spending a million dollars to hoodwink us all. much more than that transpired

here. there is not a man who sits on this committee who is not better informed on the constitution today then when this began. there is not a fresh person out schooled is not better in what the constitution is about then they were before this hearing began. and there is not an american who observed these hearings, regardless of whether they like or dislike any of us participating, who did not learn something about the substance of the document and the essence of the debate. this has been a debate at its core about principle, and the principle that is at stake in this senator's view is not whether or not judge work will turn back the clock, not whether or not -- the judge will bring

back segregated lunch counters or anything like that, but whether or not the constitution will be read with all of its and ogling language in a way -- and obling language in a way that promotes growth and change rather than tackling it. the president obviously perforce the form of you -- prefers the former view. -- prefer the latter. and i off from a prepared statement to be put in the record. we had 12 days of hearings over witnesses -- 110, 122 , and it seems to me that the is denying the purpose and the point of this committee, and that would for not just -- i

indicated to a ranking member earlier that the chair is going motion, and ifa need be, three motions in the following order. judge first move that bork reap -- report to the united states senate with a favorable recommendation. if that fails, i will move for there to be a vote to report the judge to the floor with a negative recommendation. if that fails, logic dictates that we would have a vote to report the judge to the floor without recommendation. that is what the chair plans on doing. discussion, is would make the motion that we report robert bork out with a

favorable recommendation. those in favor of the nomination will vote icon, those opposable but no. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. kennedy? no. no. >> mr. fermin? >> i. >> mr. simpson? >> no. >> mr. biden? no. >> the vote is five favorably, nine against favorably. the motion failed. i place the second motion, their motion to report the nomination

to the supreme court with a negative recommendation. the current desk clerk will call the roll. >> i. >> i. >> i. >> i. >> i. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> i. >> no. >> i. robert borkation of is reported to the floor of the senate with a negative recommendation of 9-5. the senator from wyoming? chairman, i admired your remarks. you commented about a very human aspect of judge bork.

i want to report that i talked to him last thursday, and he asked if i called to cheer him up? i said no, not really, but i think when we get to the floor and get it all heard. he said do not feel any anguish or despair for me. boy -- am a big boy and know what is happening. i have a fine job and will be doing it for the rest of my life i do not go to the record. but we now go to the floor, and i want you to know that i think the worst four letter word in the op-ed is pity, and i do not think he needs any pity. i think all of us see him as a scrapper. >> i want to make it very clear that i do not in any way pity him, but i would be less than candid with you if i didn't tell you i feel badly for him at this

moment. interested in american history tv? visit our website, seat.org/history. you can do our schedule, preview upcoming programs, and watch college less use -- college lectures announcer: tonight on afterwards. a biochemist looks at the history and science behind body fat in her new book. she is interviewed by a medical reporter for "the new york times." >> is it changing as you get older? what happens to it? >> as we age, we accumulate more fat. we lose fat busting hormones. they