still in the process of hiring big guns in the delegates manipulation area, really counting their noses and big ring out the strategy. indicate and how important is it, that delegate process? >> right now we are in that area where this has become a delegate race. questionsa lot of that still exist about how the delegates will come into play after the convention and donald trump realize that before the convention takes place in louisiana, we just saw his campaign say that they will move forward with a complaint about the allocation and distribution of delegates in that state. i think that error on their part really reinforced the idea and the importance of how -- the role that delegates play and that they needed to bring some of the on board who has been this delegate hunter who has expertise in that area to make sure they don't get blindsided at the convention.

ted cruz has organize really well in terms of making sure that his delegates representing him, delegates favoring him our representatives on committees and going into the convention, he will have a decent amount of individuals he will be deciding on the rules of the convention, this is it is important at point and i'm sure john kasich as well, they have been paying attention to it. >> what's the snapshot for the democrats? uluru clinton continues to be the large front runner, but i think bernie sanders is the front runner in wisconsin and just like that too weak period -- that two week period of no vote, i think he could potentially win wisconsin. 12lary clinton is only up points in one poll this week, so

it is still a competitive race. ae continues to accumulate delegate lead and the superdelegates, but the democratic contest is not over. >> thanks to both of you for being here on newsmakers. >> the media teaches us that democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other, and i think people need to wreck dies -- need to recognize that we need to be respectful toward each other and we need to understand each other and that will be more conducive to getting real policy done instead of just vitriol. >> these people we see on television and c-span are real people, when we saw president obama, the thing that stood out was he had tags under his eyes, he was tired, he is a real person dealing with real things. >> tonight, south high school

students from around the country attending the 54th annual u.s. senate youth program talk to us about their experiences in the government in leadership program, plus their plans for the future. they met with members of the three branches of government plus military and media representatives. >> -- talk to us and i really loved the insight he gave us about the outside source, reporting back to us and the electorate about what's going on in our government. --kris jenner ginsburg brings banerjee's berg -- either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. >> i understand the need for bipartisanship at times but i also think it is important that politicians go to washington or the state capitals with their eyes on a goal and determine to meet that goal instead of

sacrificing it in the light of bipartisanship or whatever it is. back toed to get constructive discourse, respecting all americans to matter the background and making this country a more respectful place. >> tonight at 85 eastern on c-span's q and a -- u.n. day. -- q and a. >> president barack obama has nominated merrick garland, chief judge of the d.c. circuit court of appeals to fill the seat of antonin scalia on the supreme court. republican senators have vowed to block that nomination, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president. senate democrats have said there's plenty of time left in this year's senate session to hold hearings and floor debates on the president's nominee. over the next few hours here on c-span, we'll show you what some of the major figures at the center of today's debate have said in the past about the nomination and confirmation process for the supreme court and lower courts including a

summer, 1992 speech by then senator joe biden, which has received a lot of attention lately. we're going to start, though, with president barack obama in the rose garden a few weeks ago announcing the nomination of merrick garland. president barack obama: good morning. everybody please have a seat. of the many powers and responsibilities that the constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a supreme court justice , particularly one that succeeds justice scalia one of the most influential jurists of our time. the men and women who sit on the supreme court are the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not men.

they're charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take lightly. the decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow politics so as to maintain faith with our founders and perhaps more importantly with future generations. that's why over the past several weeks i've done my best to set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. i've sought the advice of republican and democratic members of congress. we've reached out to every member of the senate judiciary committee, to constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups, to bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum. and today after completing this exhaustive process, i've made my

decision. i've selected a nominee whose widely recognized not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even handedness, and excellence. these qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle. he will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the supreme court. an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. today i am nominating chief judge merrick bryan garland to join the supreme court. [applause]

now, in law enforcement circles and in the legal community at large, judge garland needs no introduction. but i'd like to take a moment to introduce merrick to the american people. he was born and raised in land of lincoln, in my hometown of chicago and my home state of illinois. his mother volunteered in the community. his father ran a small business out of their home. inheriting that work ethic, merrick became valedictorian of his public high school. he earned a scholarship to harvard, where he graduated summa cum laude and graduated law school by working as a tutor, by stocking shoes in a shoe store, and in what is always a painful moment for any young man by selling his comic book collection.

[laughter] been there. merrick graduated from harvard law and the early years of his early career bear all the traditional marks of excellence. he clerked for two of president eisenhower's judicial employees first for a legendary judge on , the second circuit judge henry friendly and then for supreme court justice william brennan. following his clerkships, merrick joined a highly regarded law firm where the practice focused on litigation and pro bono representation of disadvantaged americans. within four years he earned a partnership. the dream of most lawyers. but in 1989 just months after that achievement, merrick made a highly unusual career decision. he walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service. merrick accepted a low level job as a federal prosecutor in

president george h.w. bush's administration, took a 50% a pay cut, traded in his elegant partner's office for a windowless closet that smelled of stale cigarette smoke. this is a time when crime here in washington had reached epidemic proportions and he wanted to help. he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals. his sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the justice department where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in the including overseeing every 1990's, aspect of the federal response to the oklahoma city bombing. in the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing act of terror when 168 people, many of them small children, were murdered, merrick had one evening to say good-bye to his own young daughters before he boarded a plane to oklahoma city and he would remain there for weeks.

he worked side by side with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement. he led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought timothy mcveigh to justice. but perhaps most important is the way he did it. throughout the process, merrick took pains to do everything by the book. when people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead. because merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent americans might go free on a technicality. merrick also made a concerted effort to reach out to the victims and their families updating them frequently on the , case's progress. everywhere he went, he carried with him in his brief case the program from the memorial service with each of the

victim's names inside, a constant, searing reminder of why he had to succeed. judge garland has often referred to his work on the oklahoma city case as, and i quote, "the most important thing i have ever done in my life." and through it all, he never lost touch with that community that he served. it's no surprise then that soon after his work in oklahoma city merrick was nominated to what's often called the second highest court in the land, the d.c. circuit court. during that process, during that confirmation process, he earned overwhelming bipartisan praise from senators and legal experts alike. republican senator oren hatch who was then chairman of the senate judiciary committee supported his nomination.

back then he said, in all honesty i would like to see one person come to this floor and say one reason why merrick garland does not deserve this position. he actually accused fellow senate republicans of trying to obstruct merrick's confirmation of playing politics with judges. he has since said judge garland would be a consensus nominee for the supreme court who would be very well supported by all sides and there would be no question merrick would be confirmed with bipartisan support. ultimately merrick was confirmed to the d.c. circuit. the second highest court in the land. votes from a majority of democrats and a majority of republicans. three years ago he was elevated to chief judge. in his 19 years on the d.c. circuit, judge garland has brought his trademark diligence,

compassion, and unwavering regard for the rule of law to his work. on a circuit court known for strong minded judges on both ends of the spectrum, judge garland has earned a track record of building consensus as a thoughtful, fair minded judge who follows the law. he has shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide ranging judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions. this record on the bench speaks i believe to judge garland's fundamental temperament, his insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing. his habit to borrow a phrase from former justice john paul stevens of understanding before disagreeing and then disagreeing without being disagreeable. that speaks to his ability to persuade. to respond to the concerns of others with sound evidence and

air tight logic. as his former colleagues on the d.c. circuit and our current chief justice of the supreme court john roberts once said, any time judge garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area. at the same time, chief judge garland is more than just a brilliant legal mind. he is someone who has a keen understanding that justice is about more than a abstract legal theory, more than some footnote in a dusty case book. his life experience, his experience in places like oklahoma city informs his view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise. he understands the way law affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy and in rapidly changing times. and throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread, a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every american,

a conviction that in a democracy powerful voices must not be allowed to drowned out the -- to drown out the voices of every day americans. to find someone with such a long career of public service marked by complex and sensitive issues, to find someone who just about everyone not only respects but genuinely likes, that is rare. that speaks to merrick garland not just as a lawyer but as a man. people respect the way he treats others. his genuine courtesy and respect for his colleagues and those who come before his court. they admire his civic mindedness mentoring as clerks throughout , his careers urging them to use their legal frame to serve their communities, setting his own example by tutoring a young student at a northeast d.c. elementary school each year for the past 18 years.

they're moved by his deep devotion to his family. lynn, his wife of nearly 30 years, and their two daughters, becky and jessica. as a family, they indulge their love of hiking and skiing and canoeing and their love of america by visiting our national parks. people respect merrick's deep and abiding passion for protecting our most basic constitutional rights. it is a passion i'm told manifested itself at an early age and one story is indicative of this, notable. as valedictorian of his high school class, he had to deliver a commencement address. the other student speaker spoke first and unleashed a fiery critique of the vietnam war. fearing the controversy that might result several parents decided to unplug the sound system and the rest of the

student's speech was muffled. merrick didn't necessarily agree with the tone of his classmate's remarks nor his choice of topics , for that day but stirred by , the sight of a fellow student's voice being silenced he tossed aside his prepared , remarks and delivered instead on the spot a passionate, impromptu defense of our first amendment rights. it was the beginning of a life long career as a lawyer and a prosecutor and as a judge devoted to protecting the rights of others. he has done that work with decency and humanity and common sense and a common touch. i'm proud that he'll continue that work on our nation's highest court. i said i would take this process seriously and i did. i chose a serious man and

exemplary judge, merrick garland. over my seven years as president in all my conversations with senators from both parties, in which i asked their views on qualified supreme court nominees, this includes the previous two seats that i had to fill, the one name that has come up repeatedly from republicans and democrats alike is merrick garland. now, i recognize that we have entered the political season, or perhaps these days it never ends. a political season that is even noisier and more volatile than usual. i know republicans will point to democrats who made it hard for republican presidents to get their nominees confirmed. and they're not wrong about that. there's been politics involved in nominations in the past, although it should be pointed

out that in each of those instances, --sk instances democrats ultimately , confirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's out sized role on the court and in american law and the fact that americans are closely divided on a number of issues before the court, it is tempting to make this confirmation process simply an extension of our divided politics. the squabbling that's going on in the news every day. but to go down that path would be wrong. it would be a betrayal of our best traditions. and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. at a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when

norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comedy are so often treated like they're disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight and treat the process of appointing a supreme court justice with the seriousness and care it deserves. because our supreme court really is unique. it's supposed to be above politics. it has to be. and it should stay that way. to suggest that someone is qualified and respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote to join an institution as important as our supreme court when two-thirds of americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented. to suggest that someone who has served his country with honor

and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the american people, might be treated as one republican leader stated as a political pinata, that can't be right. tomorrow judge garland will travel to the hill to begin meeting with senators one-on-one. i simply ask republicans in the senate to give him a fair hearing. and then an up or down vote. if you don't, then it will not only be an abdication of the senate's constitutional duty. it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. it will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics. everything. it will provoke an endless cycle of more tit for tat and make it increasingly impossible for

every president to carry out their function. the reputation of the supreme court will inevitably suffer. faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. our democracy will ultimately suffer as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. now it's time for the senate to do theirs. presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate will take a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. my ernest hope is that senators take that time to reflect on the importance of this process to our democracy.

not what's expedient. not what's happening at the moment. what does this mean for our institutions? for our common life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do. when they returned, -- when they return, i hope that they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they're fair. that's all. i hope they are fair. as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit, i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court. so that he can take a seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. he deserves to be confirmed.

i could not be prouder of the work that he has already done on behalf of the american people. he deserves our thanks and he deserves a fair hearing. and with that i'd like to invite judge garland to say a few words. [applause] judge garland: thank you, mr. president. this is the greatest honor of my life other than lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. it's also the greatest gift i've ever received, except, and there is another caveat, the birth of

our daughters jessie and becky. as my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. and for me there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. my grandparents left the pale of settlement at the border of western russia and eastern europe in the early 1900's, fleeing antisemitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in america. they settled in the midwest, eventually making their way to chicago. there my father, who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers, always impressing upon me the

importance of hard work and fair dealing. there my mother headed the local , p.t.a. and school board and directed a volunteer services agency, all the while instilling in my sisters and me the understanding that service to the community is a responsibility above all others. even now my sisters honor that example by serving the children of their communities. i know that my mother is watching this on television and crying her eyes out. so are my sisters who have supported me in every step i've ever taken. i only wish that my father were here to see this today. i also wish that we hadn't told my older daughter to be so adventurous that she would be hiking in the mountains out of cell service range. [laughter] when the president called.

it was the sense of responsibility to serve the community instilled by my parents that led me to leave my law firm to become a line prosecutor in 1989. there, one of my first assignments was to assist in the prosecution of a violent gang that had come down to the district from new york, took over a public housing project, and terrorized the residents. the hardest job we faced was persuading mothers and grandmothers that if they testified we would be able to keep them safe. and convict the gang members. we succeeded only by convincing witnesses and victims that they could trust that the rule of law would prevail. years later when i went to oklahoma city to investigate the bombing of the federal building, i saw up close the devastation that can happen when someone abandons the justice system as a

way of resolving grievances and instead takes matters into his own hands. once again, i saw the importance of assuring victims and families that the justice system could work. we promised that we would find the perpetrators. that we would bring them to justice. and that we would do it in a way that honored the constitution. the people of oklahoma city gave us their trust and we did everything we could to live up to it. trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what in a large part distinguishes this country from others. people must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. for a judge to be worthy of such trust he or she must be faithful to the constitution and to

statutes passed by the congress. he or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law. not make it. fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life. it is the hallmark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which i have been nominated today, i promise to continue on that course. mr. president, it's a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow chicagoan. i am grateful beyond words for the honor you have bestowed upon me. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. congratulations. good job.

>> joining us now to discuss the modern history of the supreme court confirmation process, david hawkings, senior editor of "roll call" and the editor of the hawkings here blog. the controversies of the supreme court nominees is nothing new but a lot of republicans are pointing to the nomination of robert bork back in 1987 as a turning point. the nomination came after the resignation of justice powell who was considered a moderate on the court. what was that period like and why are people still talking about that nomination today? >> one thing that makes it unusual by historic standards is that it was at a time of divided government and only recently divided government. the first six years ronald reagan was working with a

republican senate but in the mid-term election of 1986 the democrats regained control of the senate. in 1986 there were two supreme court confirmations, justice william rehnquist was elevated to chief justice and actually 33 senators voted against that but -- it was contentious but not a , knock down, drag down fight. and when rehnquist was elevated from an associate justice to a chief justice that was oat -- that was the occasion when antonin scalia was nominated to essentially fill the associate justice spot. scalia as many people who recently recalled his career at his death was confirmed, 98-0. , this all happened at a time when the republicans were running the senate, so it was no surprise that reagan's two nominees got through. the next year louis powell retired. the democrats had taken the senate back. they were ready for a fight.

and they had known that robert bork was coming. i mean, robert bork had been on the short list for a republican president supreme court nomination really since the 1970's. robert bork had been assistant attorney general for richard nixon. he had been a solicitor general for richard nixon. he had been part of the so-called saturday night massacre during watergate when several senior people to him resigned and bork was acting as attorney general. as soon as reagan became president in 1981 one of his first judicial appointments to the d.c. circuit court of appeals was robert bork. so the democrats knew this was coming and they were prepared and they wasted no time at all. some people complained in the current situation that senator mcconnell waited less than a couple hours after antonin scalia died before staking out his claim to this nomination fight we're now in. in fact, senator edward kennedy went to the floor of the senate something like 45 minutes after bork was announced as the nominee and essentially said, we

the democrats are going to go after this guy hammer and tongs. he is all wrong. he's out of the main stream. so the stage for the confrontation was definitely set. >> let's take a look. we'll go back to 1987 and show you what republican senators chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell had to say about the senate handling of the bork nomination. these speeches are from 1987. you can also find them in their entirety in our video library at c-span.org. >> i would like to be the first before i start to you and your family as you appear before this committee -- i know you are eager to use your appearance as a way to address the many questions raised about your nomination and i am eager to hear your views as well. it is often said, and i think correctly, that one of the senate's most important functions is that of reviewing

the president's nominations to the supreme court. sadly, i believe this important function has been demeaned. your nomination has been turned into a real life and death battle among the direct giants of american lobbying. the intense lobbying has transformed this nomination into the legislative equivalent of a porkbarrel waterpark. all stronger politics, those substance. as thetisans who act generals in this world mudslinging have had some. members of the senate have outflank each other for the honor of taking the most extreme positions, even before the first day of the hearing. i think such positions are premature. it puts the judgment ahead of

the inquiry, precisely the kind of closemindedness that some accuse this nominee of having. ofse remarks are remind full alice ins passage from wonderland where the queen of hearts said to alice, sentence first, arctic afterwards -- verdict afterwards. at the outset of these hearings, --ave found much of the heat behavior of the past four months deplorable. what comes as a big surprise to at least one of our constitutions founders, alexander hamilton. hamilton was the first to articulate the power of judicial review and he did that in federalist 78. at the same time, he recognized that the judicial branch was to

be the weakest of the three departments and his words, it was supposed to have neither judgment.will, only as hamilton,such expected that choices among competing social values would be made on the people's elected representatives, not by the unelected judiciary. furor during the summer of 1987 only confirms how far the judiciary has drifted from its original purpose of 1787. it is no exaggeration in saying, especially in this year of the bicentennial of our constitution, that the existence of constitutional government in america hinges on the capacity and the willingness of the supreme court to interpret the

constitution consistent with its true intent. accordingly, it is our responsibility to ensure as best we can, that a president's nominee to the supreme court possesses this capacity and willingness. beyond the mere resume of this nominee, outstanding as it may be, he is not qualified to serve as a justice in my view unless he is willing to exercise self-restraint. self-restraint which enables him to accept the cost to ship as his rule of decisions. self-restraint which makes him resist the temptation to revise or amend that document according to his personal views of what he thinks is good public policy. former chief justice stone

identified this issue of the court when he remarked in u.s. versus butler in 1936 and i thee, that while constitutional exercise of power by these executive and legislative branches of government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self restraint. license to toilet the constitution as if it were their personal plaything, rather than the precious heritage of all americans. as justice frankfurter wrote in quote,nion, and i nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process. outing old can be taken with not that same process. unfortunately, a new generation of judges seems to have forgotten that they are appointed, not anointed.

these judges, including some who have served of the supreme court have demonstrated an impatience with the democratic processes upon which our nation was founded and on which it has flourished. abuse thehey would power of judicial review to impose their own views of wise public policy. they would prefer to act as scientists, who use some kind of judicial alchemy to transform the words of the constitution into meanings concurrent to its plain reading or intent. i am unalterably opposed to this kind of judicial irrigation of legislative and executive functions. i believe that judges must give full effect to values that may be rarely discovered in the text

, language and history of the constitution and of course, apply them to modern inclinations, but unelected and unaccountable judges should not freely overturn the legitimate policy choices of the equal elected branches, solely because of personal preference. that is why the founding fathers such as out -- alexander hamilton referred to the judiciary branch as the least dangerous branch. that is what judicial restraint is all about. the nominee before us today has weighed in many times against the kinds of judicial activism that tends to create rights not granted in the constitution or the statutes. his views -- his view that judges ought to confine themselves to interpreting the law right of advocating their own ideas of wise public policy

is very appealing to me. i am anxious to hear more of these views, to see if it alone in the traditions of restraint practiced by frankfurter, stewart, powell and a few others. along the way, i expect that opponents of this nominee will likely focus on specific views or decisions that they disagree with i urge my colleagues to keep their eyes on what i believe to be the real issue in this concert that conversation and debate. the real issue is the extent to which judges should respect the decision-making of the elected representative ranches of government. make no mistake, the critics of this nominee know the law they prefer is just made and therefore, susceptible to change by other judges. their loud protest underscored

at the law they prefer is not found in the constitution or the statutes. found in thes were democratically elected law, they would have no care of any new judge likes to live by the credo of judicial restraint. instead, these critics prefer judges who will act as some kind of super legislature, who will give them victories in the courts when they lose in the legislature. bork, i look more to that i look forward to learning more about you from your own words in next few days. having identified my standard of review for this nomination, i would like to turn to a much debated point, and that is the senate's proper advise and consent role for this nomination. traditionally, the senate's role is very limited.

the senate has not made a nominee's political plot the task for confirmation. it is universally acknowledgment nominees should not be asked to commit themselves a particular point of all in order to satisfy a senator's politics. i can illustrate this in its usual advice and consent standard with some passages from the nomination hearing of justice o'connor. as our now chairman said, we are not attempting to determine whether or not the nominee on eachith all of us and every pressing social or legal issue of the day. onehat were the task, no could be passed by this committee, much less the full senate. stated thatennedy stated at the same time and i quote, it is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the supreme court must pass

some presumed test of judicial philosophy and even more offensive to suggest that any atential justice must pass litmus test of any single issue interest group. senator metzenbaum who said at the same time and i quote, i come to this hearing with no preconceived notions. if i happen to disagree with you on any specific issues, it will in no way affect my judgment of your abilities to serve on the court. i might add that i very much agree with everyone of my colleagues in these statements on the senate's role. each of these views recognizes that the power to give advice is not the power to decide the issue. from george washington, ronald reagan, the president has enjoyed a range of discretion in nominating in court justices.

since 1894, the senate has the word to the president choice in all but four cases. the senate should refuse its consent only when the president 's discretion has been abused, giving the senate the last word without such deference would mean the senate has the only word. this constitutional power, the framers did not give to us. in the absence of constitutional power, political power can fill the vacuum. i will stipulate right now the ability of a handful of my colleagues to block this nomination, but i believe it would be the wrong way to approach the serious senate duty , the dangers of politicizing the nomination process are exceeded only by its shortsightedness. after all, presidential elections and supreme court

nominations come and go. i urge my colleagues to resist the clarion call of raw politics that undermines the independent judiciary contemplated by article three of the constitution. in closing, if my colleagues cannot resist the use of political power, i would at least hope that they have the courage to shed the fig leaf behind which they hide their real agenda. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have been a member of this committee for the entire seven years i have been in the united states senate. i have been through four nominations to the supreme court. i've been in public office 28 years of my lifetime. never, have i seen such an unjustified and on trampled assault on a distinguished american citizen as i witnessed

these last few weeks. words are very inadequate to express my shame at the distortions i've heard in this room. three weeks ago, i decry the fact that some had transformed constitutional debate into the worst pressure group politics i've ever seen. i spoke out then the unprincipled attacks on judge bork when he would finally have an opportunity to speak. today, i am frank to note that i underestimated the power of mob , three weekserica ago, i set out what i believe anda nonpolitical principled standard for the confirmation of nominees to the supreme court. foremost, and out of respect to the constitution as a precious inheritance for all of us americans and as the sole

rule of the decisions in next, foronal cases, appreciation of the separate functions between the unelected judiciary and the political branches of government. lastly, self-restraint. self-restraint would check the well-intentioned urge to short-circuit government by the people. thatind of restraint jefferson spoke of when he warned of the unbridled third branch and i want to quote jefferson. peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. let us not make it a blank paper by construction. the kind of restraint that hamilton spoke of when he said in federalist 78, that the judiciary was and i quote, beyond comparison, the weakest

of the three departments, having neither horse nor will, but force judgment -- neither nor will, but merely judgment. because he meets the principled standard for confirmation, robert bork has earned my vote. he is a person of unquestionable integrity. are solid gold as one witness put it. his legal scholarship together with his spotless record on the bench make him, in chief justice burger's views, not mine, as qualified as any candidate to serve the supreme court in the last 50 years. in short, he is precisely the kind of person that we need on the supreme court. someps, that is why sitting justices have taken the unprecedented steps of recommending him.

these qualification should end the debate, that is given the senate historical deference of advice and consent. after all, since 1894, this body has only rejected four nominees to the supreme court by all the previous presidents. that was before a new confirmation standard was minted , just in time for this proceeding. now the senate's last word is the only word. lettuces that politicizing of the supreme court nomination process can only bring this body into further disrepute and will harm the supreme court as well. what kind of evil picture has been painted of this man after nearly three months? --e americans believe he is

some actually believe he would sterilize his fellow man if it suited the balance sheet of some big business firms. others believe he would single-handedly roll back the clock so that blacks in america would be banished to the back of the bus and women to the kitchen forever. he has -- even said to wink at the cameras in the bedroom. how else would we all know that people are using contraceptives, illegally? breathtaking are and are unsurpassed in their ugliness. inform, designed not to but to inflame. what is so frightening to me about this litany of lies is that the people who helped spread the hysteria actually

know that they are lying. this ought to scare the daylights out of every american, because as any wrongly accused person will tell you, it is a very tiresome and a very tedious -- process to disprove reckless allegations. tosked my fellow americans consider how much tougher it is when every special interest group with a washington box number and a photocopying machine repeats those lies week after week after week, some of my colleagues may believe that this nomination process has been useful. i disagree. has been more than 30 hours before this committee. during that time, he was called on to answer questions that no judge should ever have to answer and no judge before him has ever answered. i believe it sets a dangerous

standard and president to make nominees commit themselves to specific legal issues, whether it happens to be clear and present danger test or a generalized right to privacy or go on and on. for what reason but to satisfy some senator's politics. politicians, nor should they be transformed into a politician. the framers of our constitution gave article three judges gave -- like tenure in parts of that they would be insulated from having to give campaign promises. it is inconceivable that the framers put an intended ideological interrogation that we have seen over the past three weeks. , giving weightn to what the framers intended. i should know by now that the senate of 1987 deserves the right to amend the constitution

on the fly. the fact is that the real fear over this nomination arises out viewdge bork's long-held that elected legislature and those people accountable to the people and not judges, must make laws. as he put it three weeks ago and thent to vote judge bork, judge must be every bit as governed by law as is the congress, the president, the state governor and legislature's and the american people. no one, including a judge, can be above the law. to say that judges must follow the law, rather than their personal bias, is not to say that a crab version of liberty is the result. quite to the contrary.

when deciding constitutional cases in gray areas, judge bork testified that the judges responsibility is to discover -- judge's possibility is to discover the framer's values defined by the world that they lived in and new and apply them to the world we know. i don't suggest that this formula always yields an easy result or even a result that i will always agree with. -- it is actly perfectly respectable way to grapple with tough issues that come before the court. the result is not a constitution that is worthless, or somehow has to be a worthless dried parchment, but is in fact a charter filled with vitality. consider the expansion of the

first amendment protections to covering electronic media, the fourth amendment with electronic surveillance. when social change is mandated by a principal within the touche and, or a statute, then the court has a legitimate warrant to bring about an expand liberty as judge bork explained at brown ,ersus board of education brought about enormous social change and he said properly so. make no mistake, judge for stands foursquare with the tradition of frankfurter when he states that when the constitution is absolutely silent, the democratically elected representatives of the people have a right to be heard. fundamentally, and robert ports america, the people are in america, robert bork's the people are in charge.

i am confident that we will secure our liberties well. i have undying faith in democracy, that is why i am honored to serve the people of the great state of iowa. that is why i am proud to support robert bork for a seat on the supreme court of the united states. president, i had originally planned to speak at some length on this subject, as others have. i've been sitting here listening with considerable interest, to it has been a great history lesson for those of us charged with the responsibility of advising and consenting the supreme court nomination.

in the 200th year of our history, we look back at the document and we honor the framers and we think about the debates that they had. looking at the particular force of the constitution which applies to this exercise, i might say that this particular -- i've only been in the senate for , but i'vehalf years been feeling with supreme court nominees for 18 years, going -- 1969.9 c nine carswelle haynesworth period, we struggled, then with the question of what advice and consent meant. as an idealistic young lawyer in

those days, i wrote an article for the kentucky law journal entitled haynesworth and carswell, a new senate rendered of excellence and with the codify what seemed to be an appropriate role for the senate. -- describing the president's responsibility, set -- that the president shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint judges of the supreme court. clearly, the word advising -- ent on the one hand mostenate, one of the political bodies

after which we have either approved or rejected the nominee. in the 20th century, however, we .ave been more responsible a little more inclined to decline,iate between nominated, and can set. it seems to me, this is what i said to me in 1970 in the law article, it is clear that the senate has settled upon the following inquiry -- criteria. i listed at the time five criteria that are obviously

appropriate that no one would argue with. first, you want to make sure the nominee is absolutely confident -- competent. all, it is the supreme court we're talking about. clearly, we would want someone who would have attain distinguished achievement in his or her life. judicial temperament, clearly an of weighing the credentials of any nominee to the supreme court, obviously, something the senate ought to look at. conduct on the bench, clearly, we want somebody who has handled himself on the bench properly. and finally, personal integrity at this level of our judicial system, at the very top is obviously something we should be looking for. standards,ply those i concluded back in those days

that judge haynesworth had been erroneously denied confirmation, but the judge carswell had deserved to be defeated, apply the very same standards to both nominees and people have a tendency to link the two together. at that time, people thought, if you are against haynesworth, you are against carswell. relativelyat objective standards of a judge haynesworth should have been refuted. i came back from kentucky as a volunteer and help that in the confirmation of william morean west, at that time being appointed by president nixon to the supreme court. later, asy years

member of the senate judiciary committee, participating in the nomination of justice rehnquist and judge scalia. this pointto make thisthis senator has given what- a great deal of the the words mean and how they are to be applied and what the responsible role of the senate should be in advising and consenting. but until this episode, a majority of the members of the senate in the century have felt that advise and consent did , somesome restraint modification of the inquiry. and most senators have felt in the century that that meant the

kinds of criteria that i outlined earlier in looking into the confidence of the nominee. world the reasons we reluctant to throw all of that to the wind and say politics is just as relevant for us is that line in a very excellent article , some experts that i want to read from 1983. the title of the article is "the transformation and sent response and supreme court nominations, from reconstruction to the cap administration and beyond." pointing out some relevant points, relevant segments, madam president, friedman says, when, as during reconstruction, senator straight the supreme court as a political institution that they expect to that expected particular ideological line, the public is likely to see the court in the same light

and so is the court itself. further on, friedman says, perhaps more importantly, if unpopular supreme court decisions tend to lead nasty confirmation controversies that but the court in an unfavorable light, then it is natural to expect that the core will render fewer such decisions. he goes on -- the court is not primarily a policymaking institution, it even to the extent it may be considered one, we do not allow it to make also because it is politically accountable. on the contrary, it is the court's independence and at least the appearance of impartiality that we prize. the core is useful in our precisely, able

because it is an perceived to be different from the other branches. the senate is a political body. part of a senator's job is or should be transformation of his believes or those of his constituents into public policy. easier for a senator to accept willingly the nomination of injustice will act contrary to those beliefs and decisions deeply affecting the life of the nation. but for several reasons, i thoughtful senator should realize that any benefits barring meteorological opponent -- the court is friedman goes on. ideological opposition to a

nominee from one end of the political spectrum is likely to help generate similar opposition to later nominations from the opposite end. run, the result of such opposition would probably be to politicize the selection process, not to shift the court either to the left or to the right. a second reason why opposing a supreme court nominee, friedman says, i need a logical grounds, is less beneficial than might , is thet the time difficulty in predicting the nominee's political partiality and future assessment of that ideology. this is quite interesting. one survey estimates that one justice and for turned out to be quite different from what is a pointer wanted.

friedman goes on. a senator should have some humility and opposing a supreme court nomination on ideological more than in the case of major public issues, there is a strong possibility that he would friedmanin's actions goes on. there is a third reason why the senator should resist the temptation to oppose the nomination on ideological grounds. that the justice can do is limited. is limited. we've heard a lot of dire predictions about how judge mark was going to remake america.

i tend to agree with mr. friedman. justice newsat the limited, often of course, he may provide the original for throat vote for a decision that they reviewing senator would find harmful. but his vote counts no more than his more moderate colleagues and no more than with a vote of a second choice appointee of the same president. friedman goes on. the selection process would unimaginably politicized and the appointment power would in large part be shifted from the president to the senate.

madam president, i asked that the entire article appear in the record at point. so where are we? where we are is that it is not likely that a body as political as this one is going to be able to render the ,ind of impartial judgments based upon the standards that the senator from kentucky laid out, standards like competence, achievement, temperament, judicial conduct, and personal integrity. and limit our record to those items.

frankly, the senator from kentucky thinks that is the way it ought to be. but if i am nothing else, i am practical. and having studied this issue done thesehem and nominations, i have concluded , uttered bytandards 28-year-oldalistic lawyer, are not likely to be honored in this body. it seems to me the only time that we are inclined to restrain ourselves and to limit the inquiry to those kinds of got -- onere when we

we get in on controversial nominee. is,president, whoever he sends up a nomination that is not very controversial, then we can stand up and praise to each other on how the advise and consent role means those five standards. the president sends up , itntroversial nomination seems unlikely that we will restrain ourselves. the opportunity to go after the political raw meat is just too great. i wish it were the ways i said it ought to be in 1970. it isn't. and it seems to me we might as well accept and adopt what the new standard really is. with no particular

bitterness, i might add, even though in a sense it makes my article that i was proud of 18 years ago dated, and some would argue irrelevant. i nevertheless and prepared today to say i accept the new standard. it is just asking too much of us to ignore the political and vocations of a nomination to the print -- to the supreme court. we are going to do it. we are going to do it when we want to. and when we want to his going to be when the president, whoever he may be, sends a summary we don't like. and there will be darn few people in the united states and it who can limit their inquiry on that occasion to things like competence, kijiji yes achievement, achievement. doing isre going to be

try to create a reason to oppose a nominee that we object to on. grounds. and so it seems that where we is that advice and consent in 1987, as a result of the defeat of judge robert bork means this. means that for the majority of the united states senate, that we are going to make this decision on any basis we darn well please very and if we object as a matter philosophical that they president is trying to move the court to the right or to the left, we will just end up and say that an vote legally. and i must say i reach this conclusion in some respects with a sense of relief.

because, if my party, for example, were not to win the presidency next year, i expect that a nominee to the supreme court might be of a persuasion and wereuld not prefer i to continue to apply the that i defend in the intucky law journal in 1970, would make a limited inquiry into that nominee based upon his confidence desk operatives, achievement, temperament, conduct, integrity. but it seems to this senator, if nobody else is going to apply that standard, then he shouldn't either. and so, as i said with no particular bitterness, i think we should apply the new rule.

that we will,e is consider all aspects of every nominee. henceforth. -- and as far as my vote is concern, and from robert bork forward, the senator from kentucky will consider it the new standard established by the united states senate in this confirmation proceeding and apply it respectively. and the senator from kentucky will do that with some relief, as i indicated earlier. because, after all, it is not

easy for us politicians to restrain ourselves, holdback, if you will, to confine the inquiry to something as standardized and thate as trying to ensure we have truly outstanding members of the legal profession on the united states supreme court. in conclusion, where we are in 1987, the words nominate and up appoint pint -- and give to the president the power of selection. that we interpret now advise and consent in this body wrongly -- broadly. and if we don't like the philosophical meaning of the nominee, then i think as for the

majority of the senate will simply reject nominees on it. basis -- on a philosophical basis. it is my prediction the president will send up another nominee, a. , 10 or 15judge bork -- and weger, and me may waltz thrown this maple one more time. and it will be interesting to see if what happens to the next conservative nominee in the united states senate. is the standard going to be applied in the same way?

it is the formula for gridlock. but it is, a bit of freedom for each of us. our own thing. we may not be able to pick the nominee, but we can sure shoot them down. in conclusion, i say with some regret that we have reached this point. judge bork, although controversial, one of the outstanding nominations of the century, he would have ranked up there with the brandeis, core does a, frankfurter and others. yes, i suspected the president would have been disappointed on him on occasion. i doubt he would have turned out exactly the way the president predict it. we wouldrved, i expect have heard at least in the cloak

room if not on the floor or the number of senators who opposed him same, boy, that bork really did surprise me. he ended up being a lot better than i thought he was going to be. i made a mistake, much like we heard from numerous people about judge change worth. and speaking of judge haynesworth, if there is a parallel in this, it is the haynesworth affair. what did climate haynesworth do when he was defeated? did he resign and go home and sulk? no. matter of president, clement hayes worth spent the rest of his affectional career on the fourth circuit, proving that his detractors had made a mistake. bork, youay to judge are an outstanding public servant. on've distinguish yourself

the court of appeals for the district. i hope you will stay there. it's the second most important court on in the land. the best way to deal with this crisis is to prove for the rest of your professional life how of the unitedsion states senate was. judge robert bork, you fight the good fight. you did your best. it was a tough contest. who seten to be the one the new senate standard that will be applied in my judgment by the majority of the senate prospectively. it got set over your dead body, so to speak, politically.

stay on the court, bob bork. prove your detractors wrong. continue your outstanding career. madam president, i yield. was david we are back hawking's. republicans today are repeatedly set the 1992 speech by then senator joe biden where he errs president george h.w. bush to refrain from making any nominations to the supreme court that summer. vera marks included a play for more moderate nominees who could receive bipartisan support. explain the context for that speech and why the future vice president towed -- chose to speak at such length. 1992.s was in june of

it was clear that bill clinton was going to be the democratic nominee for president. ross perot was then in the mix and it was a highly unpredictable three-way race for the presidency at that time. there weree also, two justices on the court, byron white was in his 70's and harry blackmun was in his early 80's. there were widespread rumors that one or both of them were going to retire the day after biden gave the speech. this was the last week in june. dayas supposed to be the before the last day decisions came out. and the chairman -- again, divided government, the republican president, democrats in charge of the senate. this was the inverse of what we had today.

the chairman of the judiciary committee, goes to the senate floor and more than an hour essentially saying the words that republicans are now trying to hang around the obama administration's neck, which are it is too late in the portable for theo be fair president, to the senate itself or to the nominee. it is too late in the political citizen -- season to give the nominee a fair hearing emphasize, senator biden says, it would be wrong for george h.w. bush to continue in the trend of the reagan-bush years of nominating what biden describes as polarizing conservative judges. to remember the role depends in who in control.

we will also show you the vice president's most recent comments. >> mr. president, good morning. i would like to apologize in advance for trespassing on the president's time in the time of .he senate in my over 19 years in the senate, i have never sought to speak before the senate for as long a period as i have sought today. the subject to which i speak is something that i have given a great deal of thought, been asked the senate to spend some considerable time thinking about , and is extremely controversial. in light of the fact that, within a day, we are within a day of the time that

historically supreme court justices make judgments about whether they will stay on for another year, it seems somewhat propitious, although i have -- although i know no justice who intends to resign. i don't mean to imply that. but my speech this morning is about reforming the confirmation process and the need for a new wen with regard to how conduct ourselves relative to the confirmation process involving supreme court nominees. seven years ago, harvard law professor lawrence tribe reflected on what was then the second oldest supreme court in history. "a supreme court is a sort of haley's comet in universe, ational

rare event arriving only once before returning to the deep space of constitutional history. period, inat a quite which there were justice -- two supreme court nominations in 15 years was "the, before the constitutional storm that surely lies ahead." sometime inthat " this decade, we will be tossed into the turbulent process that has gripped this nation." today, after the naming of seven men to fill five vacancies on the supreme court in just five years, we find ourselves in the professorhe storm tribe forecast.

in this five years, the senate has her through the most contentious confirmation fights in the united states. the 1986 nomination of rehnquist who was confirmed by the most votes cast against him of any judge to the spring court. our history up to that point. the 1987 rejection of robert bork at the end of an epic conflict between constitutional visions. and a subsequent withdrawal of douglas ginsburg, just days after president reagan had selected him to secede -- to succeed bork as his nominee. , as none ofe fight us will forget, a 1991, or dance thomas's, nation to the -- over clarence thomas's nomination to court, after receiving the most negative ads in senate

history. the immediate product of these conflicts, the change of the ,ourt over the past few years has already been dramatic. but there is every reason to believe that there may be as many as five more justices retire within the next four years. in all likelihood, we stand only at the halfway or -- halfway controversiesmany in the presidential term is or saw over the past two terms .ombined sometime we arrive at the next election year, 1996, there is a substantial chance that no member of the order who is serving on the court in june of 1996 will remain on the bench. such a complete replacement of hascourt in just 10 years

only one precedence in socorro was permanently expanded to nine -- since the court was properly expanded to nine .embers i would like to discuss what has transpired over the past few years with respect to the confirmation process. i also want to discuss the question of what should be done if a supreme court vacancy occurs the summer. offer fory, i want to general proposals for how i believe the nomination and confirmation process should be .hanged for future nominations but let me start first with the confirmation process of the past decade. as i mentioned earlier, reagan and bush have named eight nominees for six positions on the court during their presidential term eric is is not the first time in her -- term.

this is not the first time in our history that a strong ideological president and his successor have combined to define the court. washington and adams made nine nominations, which 14 were confirmed. presidents lincoln and grant nominated 13 candidates to the court, of whom nine were confirmed and serve. and presidents roosevelt and truman named 13 justices, all confirmed in the combined terms in the white house. distinguished the reagan-bush is that half of them have been nominated in a period of a divided government. in each of these times, in each of these previous times, a sweeping nationwide consensus

, as reflected by the election of both political ranches of like-minded officials. which justified the sweeping changes that took place at the supreme court. but over the past two decades, mr. president, no such consensus , on like the eras i have pointed. washington-at them, like in, roosevelt have an -- roosevelt-truman. the public has nine given either party a mandate to remake the reflective ofody a strong vision of our respective philosophy. should our parties finally honestly admit to that

fact, both our parties should honestly had conceded this fact. has thus far. of course, this is not the first period when a divided government -- hasn hard to fill been required to fill the third government. about 1/5 of all supreme court justices have been confirmed by senates of a party different from the president. third of all justices confirmed since 1930 have been approved under these systems answers. bywas a senate controlled progressive republicans and democrats that confirmed three of president hoover's for nominees to the court. and a democratic senate reviewed and approved four eisenhower nominees. periods ofe previous divided government, indeed, in some periods when the president

and the senate shape -- share the party, presidents commonly have the constitution is's for the senate's advice -- advice as well as. the conservative republican conservative justice have in years but also ,amed a moderate, wound roberts owen roberts, and a liberal, benjamin cardozo.

even president nixon, who showed no roll up is to take full full advantage of presidential prerogative, balanced his choices conservative burger and a, with those of moderate republican blacksmith and conservative democrat lewis powell. this of course has not been the model that president reagan and bush have followed. indeed, even lacking the broad support for the vision of the court, which presidents washington and adams, lincoln and then, and roosevelt and truman hand, president reagan and bush have tried to recast the court in their ideological image.

put another way, this is not the first time that a tandem of presidents have sought to remake the supreme court. nor is it the first time that a divided government has had to philly number of seats in that body. thatt is the first time both have been attempted simultaneously. and that, more than anything else, has been the root of the current controversy surrounding the selection of supreme court justice. is to cope with this stress, created by the decisions of reagan and bush, to move the court ideologically into a radical new direction, which this country does not support. it was to cope with this stress that the modern confirmation process was created. and on this point, there should .e no doubt and no uncertainty

the use of presidents reagan and bush made the nominating process in a period of divided government is without parallel in our nations history. this power grab that has unleashed the powerful and diverse forces that have ravaged the confirmation process. people arerican satisfied were debts with where they find the process today. they must understand where the discord that has come to characterize a began. but presidents reagan and bush in their decision to cede power in the nominating power to the radical right with their debts within their own administration -- radical right within their own administration. we in the senate developed an unprecedented confirmation process. the centerpiece of this new

process was a freight recognition of the legitimacy of ae nickens duration of nominee see's judicial philosophy as part of the confirmation review. consent atnanimous this point that a speech i made to look at the obligation of the nominee to be inserted in the record. first set forth this notion, during the work nomination debate, it was a widely controversial notion. well as if we come as the president, had a right to look at ideologically. have alwaysorks found a solid basis for this view in the intentions of their framers in the history of our nation. they view, the debate over view has in for fall.

the senate must defer to a presidents choice of a supreme court justice. the men and women of the apex third branch of government, as the senate properly does for nominees of the executive branch. the role of the senate as a vital partner has been in hand. and the debate over this role caused even those who were initially skeptical, like professor henry morgan, who outlined the grounds for his conversion in the 1988 are -- article in the harvard law review, joined in the low broad consensus of the more active senate participation. more fundamentally, the series of profound debate that the bork nomination sparked was among the most important national discussions about our constitution, and meaning in the

direction of asset named gordon forcentury area and they the bork nomination fight, the leg in the best the legacy of the court was seen as tenuous by scholars and ill supported by the public. the late goal right thought the judicial activism was a rallying cry that would move america. against the court's projection it is onel freedoms, person, one-vote doctrine and other progressive decisions that the legal right thought had no popular support. and let's legal foundation.

in the legal left, prior to the board fight, standing at the right might be correct in this assessment. a popular opinion. that is if the warren court makes a decision to renounce popular supported. but the public reaction to judge earn's views, its rejection of the legal philosophy and tradition, notions, proved just the opposite. while some aspect of the warren court's decisions remained under assault, particularly in the area of criminal law, others have been revocably secured in the heart and minds of americans, such as the remission for the right to privacy. a right that if you recall, mr. president, prior to the board fight, right, and ideological right that was not supported by americans. this could not have been said before the board confirmation fight, and yet it can be safely proclaimed today that americans, americans strongly support the right to privacy. and find that there is such a right protected in the

constitution. nor do i limit the success of this process of the boards rejection only. i uniquely satisfied that for different reasons as to how the process functioned in approving justices kennedy and souter. neither man is one whom i would have chosen had i been president. but each reflects a balanced selection, a non-ideological conservative that stands between the white house philosophy in the senate's. i might go back to the decision yesterday on school prayer. it is prayer before complications at public schools. justices souter and kennedy took a position, diametrically opposed to that that has been proffered by this administration and the previous one for the past 11 years.

while i have disagreed with some of the decisions by these two jurists, i know that president bush must say the same thing. that he disagrees with some of the decisions of the two men, kennedy and souter. i offer them as examples, mr. president, both men vicious of opinions that are sharply reject, but during a period of divided government, both of the sort of compromise candidates who are appropriate for the court and whose confirmations i supported. in my view, the contemporary confirmation process functioned well in rejecting judge bork and approve his justices kennedy and souter. even in so succeeding, one can see within the process and explosion that was to calm with the promise nominations -- was to calm with the promised nominations.

as i said earlier, the root of the collapse of the confirmation process is the administration's campaign to make a supreme court an agent of an ultra-right conservative socialist agenda which lacks support in congress and the country. i will just point out again, mr. president, the entire socialist agenda of the reagan administration has yet to gain a majority support in the united states senate or the united states house of representatives,

or among the people over the past 11 years. the ability to do that, but presidents have concluded and did conclude that the avenue to that change was to remake the court. in describing as i am to how the results and reactions are by different forces and factions have brought about the difficulty we now face, i don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that it is the administration's nomination agenda that is the root cause of this dilemma. that is, if you will, the original sin, which has created all the problems which plagued the process today. the administration's desire to placate the right wing of its party, which is driven by a single issue, overturning roe v. wade. to the members of the republican faction, no mere conservatives such as justices o'connor or powell is safe to use the word they often use. the of ministration is urged to reach for scalia, thomas. if this is the original sin behind today's woes, it is not the only cause of the confirmation deadlock.

and here, there are three consequences of the reagan-bush nomination strategy which have been treated to the problem. first, democrats and moderate republicans have played into the hands of the republican right by accepting roe as the divining rod in reverse. making a nominee's views or refusal to state views on this question, the overriding concern in the confirmation process. permitting a single issue to dominate the debate, they have lost sight of the fact that nominees are chosen by republicans, over conservatives. -- older conservatives. they can have other jurisdictional views other than abortion, but at the far end of the spectrum. to put it another way, the center and the left, which had broad public support or the public decision against judge

bork, have allow them to feel defined as a single issue participants. this has given rise to even more frustration about the process from both participants and observers. with one cause for the schism that emerged in the thomas confirmation debate. moreover, the focus on roe prevents the committee from exploring legitimate issues because questions about the nominees of use on many matters from the cutting is issue of the right to privacy to the age-old legal doctrine are immediately assumed by all of those observed the process to be covert questions about abortion when they have nothing to do with abortion. among the most frustrating aspects of the souter and thomas hearings was when i try to question the nominees on whether

they thought individuals had a right to privacy. everyone, the press, the public, the nominees, my colleagues, thought that i was trying to ask about abortion in disguise. no matter how many things i said, truthfully and frankly, and i quote, no, forget about abortion. you will face many unknown questions that will confront the court in the 21st century, i must know whether or not you think individuals have a right to privacy. end of quote. no matter how many times i insisted, everyone believed i was talking about abortion. that is how powerfully the issue permeates our process. -- dominates our process. second, during the bork and thomas nominations, there developed what could be called an unintended conspiracy of

extremism between the right and the left to undermine the confirmation process and question the legitimacy of its outcome. simply put, the right to could not accept that any process which resulted in the rejection of judge bork was fair and legitimate. notwithstanding, the contemporaries declaration of -- the contemporaneous declaration of many republican senators at the hearing and the process for handling the bork nomination were fair, a subsequent mythology is developed that claims other ways. we are told the hearings were tilted against the bork. but there were more witnesses that testified for him then the opposition. i have heard to be blamed on scheduling the witnesses. recently alternated pro-con, pro-con. power after panel. that's panel after panel.

the list of excuses goes on and on. with the camera angle, they said. the beard, the light, the timing. all unfair. all engaged in by those who oppose bork to bring him down. and some, the conservative ring in the republican party is never accepted the cold, hard fact that the senate rejected joint bork because his views came to be well understood and considered unacceptable. and because this rejection, because of -- excuse me, because of this rejection of their core philosophy is inconceivable to the legal right, they have been on a hunt for vilains ever since. they have attacked the press as in a recent tempered speech by conservative federal judge, new york times reporters, among the finest supreme court covered

hearings. but most of all, these movement conservatives have attacked the confirmation practice it self and the senate for exercising its constitutional duties to conduct it. at the same time, the left has closed its frustration with the inability to persuade the american people of the intelligence of the agenda in the confirmation process as well. they refuse to accept the fact that when one political branch is controlled by conservative republicans and the other has its philosophical fulcrum resting on key seven democrats -- southern democrats, in those circumstances, it is inevitable the court is going to grow more conservative.

accepting candidates -- acceptable candidates must be founded on those who'd straddle the ideological goal, like justices kennedy and souter, who were approved by combined total of 188-nine in the senate. the last, mr. president, is -- the left, mr. president, frustrated, because a conservative president and the senate where the fulcrum is held by southern democrats is not going to nominate justice brennan. he was a great justice and should find people to replace him and ideology. they refuse to accept reality, mr. president. just as the right refuses to accept the reality of a bork defeat. he was defeated because of his views. what he thought america should become. was different than that held by the vast majority of americans, a majority of senators.

it had not a wit to do with whether or not he had a beard, a camera angle, and added by an -- an ad by an outside group, or the order of witnesses. so mr. president, the confirmation has become a convenient scapegoat for ideological advocates of competing social ventures. -- social visions. advocates who have not been able to persuade the generally moderate american public of the wisdom of either of their views when framed in the extreme. in effect then, mr. president, these advocates have joined in an ad hoc alliance, extreme right, extreme left, to undermine public confidence in the process, in a process, which is aimed at moderation. hoping perhaps to ferment a great social war in which one or the other will prevail.

the third problem, mr. president, the confirmation process has been affected by the -- has been infected by the general meanness and nastiness that pervades our political process today. what i believe, they played little or no role in the outcome. the inaccurate television ads that were run against judge bork's confirmation only target increasingly cutting responses from the right. the thomas nominations included a level of senators that maybe -- a level of personal bitterness that maybe typical of modern local campaigns but is destructive to any campaign on the consensus as is the confirmation process. after the nomination was announced, one opponent of judge thomas outside the senate threatened to bork him, a menacing play that serves no purpose.

and then as the hearings were , about to begin, the same conservative groups produce the willie horton ads, ran commercials, attacked members of the judiciary committee including myself. with the intent to intimidate as they so stated, intimidate review of the nomination. i find ironic, mr. president, that we can recognize the cause if not find the answers for this nastiness in the context of presidential elections, but lack the same insight to respect the confirmation process. many the same voices have criticized the committee for not going hard enough every allegations that judge thomas had improper travel expenses , spitefully transferred a whistleblower at eeoc, or was friends with a fellow part

-- a pro-apartheid lobbyist, many critics of a committee are among the first to say that presidential campaigns in 1992 been dominated by questions of personal wrongdoing instead of quote, the real issues. we can't have it both ways, mr. president. i too believe the nation would be better off if the current campaign was centered on disputes over public policy rather than gossip about marital fidelity or marijuana use. but i must say that the same is true about the review of the supreme court nominee. the nation is enriched them -- enriched when we explore their jurisprudential views. it is base in my view when we plow through their private lives for dirt. as with presidential campaigns, mr. president, the press, perhaps because it is easier, perhaps because it sells papers,

is too often focused on coverage of supreme court nominees, focused on supreme court nominees on such gossip and personal matters rather than on the substantial a difficult task of trying to discern their philosophy and ideology, because it is their philosophy and ideology that will affect how i am able to live my life. how my children will be able to live their lives. not whether or not when they are 17 years old, they smoked marijuana, or anything else. let me make it clear, mr. president, i am not speaking on professor hill's allegation on judge thomas, which we are certainly serious is significant enough to merit the full investigation the committee conducted both before and after the public enclosure. rather, i'm speaking of numerous lesser allegation against nominees, bork, kennedy, souter, thomas with the committee

-- which the most extreme committee critics saying we have done too little to pursue. each time the airing of these charges, enraged republican nominees allies, they consider it unfair to the right of privacy, each time with committee at my direction refuses the rumors, the more -- refused to explore todd tawdry the more -- rumors, the more extreme critics grew more and more frustrated with the results. this was another tension which came to be heard during the thomas nomination and exploded when professor hill's charges were made public. to sum it up then, the confirmation process launched in 1987, which was an attempt to provide a means for dealing with the supreme court ideological at campaignhe reagan-bush the supreme court

ideological at the time, when their use lacked public support. this process began in 1987 to dualize this has been torn asunder. its credibility has been slowlyn make it work. credibility has been slowly eroded by the criticism has received from liberal and conservative ideologues. the process building good faith to identifying and confirming consensus nominees has been destroyed by many of the same corrosive influences that have said devastated our presidential policies and our national dialogue in public affairs. thatquently, it is my view particularly if the reality of a divided government during a time of great change in the court continues in the next administration, future confirmations must be conducted