counts of very here this morning, about 150 opinions and participated in over 400 decisions. i have a record in each of these areas of the law, and it is for this committee and the senate to judge that record. i will be happy to answer the committee's questions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] reel america,"" we continue our look back at the portion of the senate committee vote. they moved with the recognition that judge bork not be confirmed. on october 3, 1987, before i voted 52-48 to reject the nomination. justice anthony kennedy eventually fill the vacant seat. sen. biden: i would

like to, at the outset, 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 each of our colleagues an opportunity to make a statement, if they wish to, on the nomination, and i will have a brief 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 may, 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 voting.

sen. thurmond: thank you, mr. chairman. i have thoroughly reviewed judge bork's background and qualifications. i believe he has all requirements to be an associate justice of the supreme court. his intellectual capabilities are extraordinary -- phi beta kappa, order of the court distinguished law professor. respective author, solicitor general of the united states, and second judge of the court of appeals. he has received the highest rating the aba can give at the -- that is the american bar association -- can give to a nominee on two occasions. first, when he was nominated to the court of appeals and now his nomination to the supreme court. we have had 12 days of hearings on this nomination. these hearings were the most exhaustive and comprehensive into a judicial nominee's qualifications that i can

remember in my 33 years in the senate. however, i have been disturbed over the methods used by some of judge bork's 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 states, introduced judge bork and urged favorable action by the committee and confirmation by the full senate. during the hearings, we also heard testimony former chief

justice warren burger, 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 a citizen, i had an obligation to say what i believe. if the judge is not the mainstream, neither am i, and neither have i been." chief justice burger also stated, "it would astonish me to think that he is an extremist anymore than i am an extremist. " in this same 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. but in this case, i have never seen such misrepresentation, distortion, and such

downright lying." i mean, there are people in very important positions in the government who are lying to the american public. former attorney general john smith was joined by five other former attorneys general. edward leavy, griffin bell, edwin richardson, martin, and , all haveownell support for judge bork. the list of supporters never stop there. lloyd cutler, former counselor to jimmy carter. governor thompson of illinois, the former governor pennsylvania, three former general, twotors former assistant attorneys general from the department of justice, and seven distinguished law school beans and members of eight national law enforcement

organizations with a membership of over 500,000 members. in addition, eight former presidents of the american bar association. as well as many other respected people came forward to this vote support the judge's nomination. if you would please be quiet while i am talking, i would appreciate it. 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

daniel j. meador, professor of law at university of virginia. professor meador stated that there were three tests that should 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 who 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 corresponding views held by a significant numbers of other well-regarded judges, lawyers, and legal scholars? if a nominee has a substantial amount of professional company

on such matters, it can hardly be said that he is eccentric or outside the mainstream. third, has the nominee, as a judge, frequently taken different positions from other judges on his court, and often been a lone dissenter, 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 his judicial colleagues. and there have been no reversals of his decisions by high court. mr. chairman, i believe the judge bork meets all of these criteria. bork wasi think judge candidly straightforward in his testimony before the committee, and this is definitely to his credit.

for all of the foregoing reasons , i believe this committee should support his nomination to the full senate with a recommendation. sen. biden: thank you. senator kennedy? kennedy: mr. chair, 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 is 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.

i voted to confirm president richard nixon's nomination of chief justice burger, justice blackmun, and justice lewis powell. i have voted to confirm president gerald ford's nomination of justice stevens, 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 300 district and circuit judges whom president has nominated to the courts in the past seven years, but judge bork's 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.

, reopen old wounds, and project reject achievements that continue to make america a beacon of hope and opportunity, not only for our own citizens, but for peoples throughout the world. in broad variety of areas, the views place him 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 the meaning of justice in america. the committee and the full senate should reject this nomination.

sen. biden: thank you, senator. senator hatch. sen. 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. is this working? i will just set it up a little closer. just prior to the vote, i would ask my colleagues to forget just for a moment the lobbying. forget the newspaper ads, forget the radio commercials, and for in sum, 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 30 hours. never been done before. this is the individual who, 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 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 risk to us all. this is an individual who gave nearly half of his 60 years to teaching and public service, eschewing the enormous financial rewards that would have been his had just plain 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,

for that matter. 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 unquestioned talent 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 a judge would not and should not impose his own ideas of social agenda on the nation. this is an individual who congress twice before confirmed unanimously to two of the most significant posts of our government. this is an individual whom all witnessed the great moments of jurists of our age. and we can carry on this list indefinitely, but my point is evident. we are not dealing today so only solely 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 u.s. senators. we are dealing with an individual. in fact one of the most qualified individuals ever nominated by -- it seems to me -- 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. indeed, the remarkable life of this individual who is before us today. we have 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 important, i think we have to all think it through. regardless of what this committee does, 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 this nominee in the end, let me tell you, we will lose one of ly has, and that is a full, complete, and independent federal judiciary. i have overheard colleagues say

words that have curdled my blood. if this goes down because of politics, every judicial nominee is going to 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 scrutinization, here displaying the paramount role, and in the process, our complete judicial system may be in jeopardy. they have been independent up to now, and when we have 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 robert h. bork 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. began this when i hearing, i felt the primary function of the chair was not to attempt 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. in the process, i found the entire undertaking, quite frankly, both educational and somewhat fascinating. i find it fascinating that those who are supporting judge bork 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 criticism of judge bork. they have not been those who testified before this committee. notwithstanding the fact that there has been money spent by organization groups, who have been 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. when judge bork was testifying, and i know nothing about the television industry, but i'm told millions of people, millions of people were watching.

it is true, judge bork testified for 30 hours -- more than 30 hours. to suggest that he testified for 30 hours and that he was treated fairly, by his own admission, and then to suggest that the only reason people now are worried about judge bork is because of some slanderous advertising seems to, in fact, miss the point. all of the money spent by all of the interest groups, for and against, probably 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. the american people were part of a great constitutional debate. the debate is one as old as the

republic. that was -- what relative role does the government play in the lives of individuals, and what rights do we individuals cede to our government? or, from judge bork's perspective, what rights did our government confer upon us? that is the issue. it is as old as the constitution. senator hatch is very eloquent. and i mean this sincerely, his very eloquent statement on behalf of the judge today, reciting this as an individual who, this is an individual who, well, this is an individual we are speaking of. a man of honor, integrity, and intellect. but notwithstanding the fact that -- 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 point in our lives, the personal loss he must feel at this moment. with all due respect, this is not about judge bork. 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? or do i have those rights because my government has conferred them upon me? judge bork's view forthrightly stated it is the latter. mine is the former. i have never had any doubt at

all that once the issues were framed, and you, my colleagues, address them, and the american people saw them, there would be no doubt about where the public would come down and where my colleagues come down. notwithstanding the fact that there has been, as almost all 30-second ads and full-page newspaper ads are, misleading assertions about the judge. judge bork. 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 judge bork 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 qualified america, put him on the court, and 32 law deans, from harvard through georgetown, said do not put this man on the court. this was a debate of consequence and caliber, notwithstanding how any of us conducted it, the men and women who testified for us, with a few notable exceptions, were those of the highest intellect, integrity, and the most reasoned and schooled people on

the law who spoke both for and against him. this was a debate about the constitution. more importantly, about the future. if i can count correctly, and one thing i learned from my first chairman on this committee, almost 14 years ago, jim eastland, i have learned how to count. if i 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 who said "do not put this honorable man with a narrow view of the constitution of on the supreme court." so in conclusion, i say to my colleagues i believe, notwithstanding the misrepresentation, i believe how i wish those second or third days of the hearing judge bork

or lloyd cutler or someone else was on the front full of the paper instead of me. believe me. [laughter] sen. biden: please. but i think we belittle the institution and the american people to suggest that the conclusion reached by our colleagues and the conclusion apparently, at least temporarily, 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 than when this began. there is not a press person out there who is not better schooled in what the constitution is

about than 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 bork will turn back the clock, not whether or not judge bork will bring back segregated lunch counters or anything like that, but whether or not the constitution will be read with all of its ennobling language in a way that promotes growth and change rather than stifle it. that is a legitimate

debate. the president obviously prefers the former view. i prefer the latter. it will be all of us to decide in the floor of the senate. and without any further statement, let me suggest, and i ask that my prepared statement to be put in the record. we had 12 days of hearings, over 110, i believe 122 witnesses, and it seems to me that the senate to be denied the purpose and function of this committee in the first instance its recommendation would be for us to have not done our job. i indicated to the ranking member earlier, the chair is going to put forward a motion, and if need be, three motions in the following order. i will first move that judge bork be reported to the united

states senate with a favorable recommendation. if that fails, i will then move for there to be a vote to report georg judge bork to the floor with a negative recommendation. if that fails, logic dictates that we would have a vote to report robert bork to the floor without recommendation. that is what the chair plans on doing. unless there is discussion, i would make the motion that we report robert bork out with a favorable recommendation. those in favor of the nomination nomination will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. kennedy? >> no.

[roll call vote] >> mr. biden? sen. biden: no. the vote is five favorably, nine against favorably. the motion failed. i now place the second motion, their motion to report the robert bork's nomination to the court to the floor with a negative recommendation. the clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. sen. biden: the nomination of robert bork is reported to the floor of the united state senate with a negative recommendation of 9-5. excuse me, the senator from wyoming? >> mr. chairman, i admired your remarks. you commented about a very human aspects of judge bork. i just want to report that i talked to him last thursday, and i was not going to say this, and he said, "did you call to cheer me up?" really but "no, not , i think when we get to the floor and get it all heard."

he said, "do not feel any anguish or despair for me. i 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 don't go to the supreme court." 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. sen. biden: i want to make it very clear that i do not in any weight pity judge bork, -- in an bork, but iudge would be less than candid with you if i didn't tell you i feel badly for him at this moment. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, today at 8:00 eastern, shepherd university professor benjamin banker on stereotypes on americans living in appalachia him on how these stereotypes have changed over time. >> far from the ruthless, inbred

savages, the mountaineer is "it easy, an effective bearish and unselfconscious manner of the well bred." >> sunday on "american artifacts," a tour of the national world war i museum in kansas city, missouri. >> one of the most famous african-american units in the war was the 69th infantry regiment. they were known as the harlem health fighters, and they were andting along the river, they established their reputation as incredible fighters. jeffrey rosen and historians talk about prohibition, the reasons for the movement, and its repeal. kind ofhey had to reorients, and of course amazingly, because of the way the amendment was written, you could purchase as much alcohol as he wanted in that year before, and you could store it.

so there were very good sales leading up to prohibition, and a lot of basements became very full. at 8:00, former nixon administration officials discussed the post-white house years. >> he said it, is only a beginning always. that this whole postpresidential period is an exemplar of the dedication,ence, and patriotism. >> for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. announcer: the united states entered world war i on april 6, 1917, when congress voted to declare war on germany. the conflict was already in its third year. more than 4 million american men and women would eventually serve ni