Transcripts For CSPAN Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats H

Prosecution had to occur, that the investigation needed to be done in the right way and to make sure that the rule of law was going to be filed followed and that emotions would not take any partve what we were doing. And it was an interesting time. It was choose. Chaos. Everybody probably wanted to stop what we they were doing because it was the most horrific crime on american soil at the time but we had to go forward, we had to bring the perpetrators to justice. We had to find out what was going on, what actually happened. We also had like ive never seen before in my entire professional life as a prrks more tools, more agents, more cops, more First Responders all in one spot and all anybody wanted to do was to help and we needed somebody to be the conductor and to orchestrate all that energy, all that smartness, all that brains, all that power, to go ahead and investigate the case. And i can answer you plenty of questions with you, but merrick and i literally, when he got there, we walked the building. We walked through the murrah building, around the building. At the time we walked past the day care center. Neither of us said anything. We just kept walking and there cars that literally were still smowled smoldering between the murrah building and the daily register. There were cadaver dogs and first rescue dogs trying to find remains of people that perished in that going building that day and walking through there, it was more not being talked about. Actually we didnt talk about it until the 20year reunion in Oklahoma City we finally just talked about it and both of us have had tears in our eyes the whole time. Tears in our eyes did not happen in Oklahoma City. Oo much adrenaline and we made sure we were doing our job for the American People. But watching merrick literally navigate his way to mike sure everybody had a role and had their voices heard was just something remarkable. Merrick is daum under pressure. You never really know whats going on in his head and hes always 25 steps ahead of everybody else and there were some decisions made early on in that investigation that but for merrick we could have made a mistake. We could have made lots of mace mistakes because at the time everybody just wanted to throw the evidence at us, without making sure that our papers were documented and we had done exactly what needed to be done in following the rule be law. But im going to allow the rest of my colleagues here to speak about merrick and ill be more than happy to answer any questions about judge garland and his qualifications. Senator leahy thank you. And judge lewis, weve heard that we cant move forward because its an Election Year. You were nom inayed to the third sict september 1992, so it was an election yeah, also a president ial Election Year. You were nominated by a republican president , the Senate Democrats were in the majority and we got you through in confirmation in october of the Election Year. Am i correct on those dates . You are correct. Yes, you are correct. Senator leahy so would it be safe to say that if the democrats had said theres an Election Year exception, you would not have been confirmed . I think it is fair to say that and i think its also fair to say that especially when it comes to nominations for the United States Supreme Court, i have never ban ware of an Election Year exception until this happened. Yes, i was nominated by president george h. W. Bush for a vacancy on the Third Circuit court of appeals on i believe september 18, 1992. This of course was on the eve of a president ial election. It was a hotly contested one, of course, as they all are and i was unanimously confirmed on october 8. The elect election was november 3. I am living proof that that can happen. And i am also living proof that the republic still survives and goes on and does fairly well, i hope. Ou know, its also true that not only did the party who then was a Majority Party in the senate and obviously on the committee proceed with my nomination and confirmation as well as others, on the eve of party tion, but that also took the house. So there was, as i wrote in my statement, really no harm, no foul, and i think that at that time, and this was now 24 years go, there was a culture of bipartisanship that is seve errly lacking today, and thats most unfortunate. You know, i come from a wonderful commonwealth that has produced the likes of hugh arlen ick squiker, specter, my current senator this is, this is so unfortunate to those of us who have whiched witnessed over the years, my home state senators reached out across the aisles to get things done in so many ways. John heinz. And today we are mired in a very unfortunate and dysfunctional place that is resulting in what is going on now with respect to a wonderful judge, a highly qualified nominee, and incidentally a terrific human being, Merrick Garland. So you ask why i am here, i am here because i refuse to accept that and i think the country should refuse to accept it, too. I believe that it is the responsibility of the united it is enate, just as the responsibility of citizens of this country, to rise above these petty self interests and to act with honor and with decency and i think that that is compelled by the very oath that members of this body have taken. I think that we respect the values and traditions that are timehonored such as the confirmation process. Just a hearing, whether or not a hear confirmation even happens remains to be seen, but a hearing. The decency to provide a hearing and let the American Public view judge garland under questioning, vetted fully. At a minimum its the decent thing to do, whether it is compelled by law or not, it is certainly compelled by tradition and decency. I am also here because i believe that the United States Supreme Court should never be viewed as a political arm, not party. Cal arm of any i detest as a former federal judge seeing that occur today. Is ieve the Supreme Court a simwol of our greatest aspirations as a society and i believe we have to do whatever we can and thats why im here today to help ensure that that continues. Thank you. Senator leahy thank you very much. I had the privilege of serving with both senators hugh scott and john heinz and i agree with what you said. Of course we have former secretary rodney slater, who i mentioned before and we talked this his and the and nomination so i will turn to you, secretary slater. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, senators. Id actually like to begin with reference to the comments just made by judge lewis because its interesting that i was making my way to washington hopefully, because we were in the midst of a very Rigorous Campaign during that period, october 1992, and i was working for a young governor from a small state, arkansas, and for of ust the anticipation what that journey could be out, it never became clear until now the interesting thread that actually ties us all together as we move across the political process through our system that can take us from one administration to the next that allows our country to continue to move forward as a beacon of light and hope for democracies around the world. Its clear from judge lewis comments that we gather not for y partisan purpose, but as believers in the constitution. A constitution that has caused us all to take a solemn oath to defend and support the constitution and has given some of us the opportunity to be nominated by a president and then confirmed by the senate. That is a very sacred and special process. And it is something to be treasured and guarded. It is also something to be defended, and so in that spirit of just seeing how one administration can move to the next and a process can go forward to bring one appropriately to a seat on the bench and another into an administration, frankly that would have the opportunity to bucella, thank you and thank judge garland for the work that you did and responding to the Oklahoma City bombing. I was the federal highway administrator during my first stint in the federal government , and we lost 11 individuals, members of our team who were part of the 168 killed that day. And it was in that breach of a hollowedout Federal Building of shattered lives and of grave bucella ty that miss and judge garland stepped forward to protect and defend. And so im here to say thanks for that effort. Im also here to say to judge garland and to say to all of had at he and i actually this special relationship with an individual i would also like to lift up at this moment. His name is mr. William t. Coleman. He was the first africanamerican secretary of transportation. He was appointed, nominated, and confirmed during theford administration. And so he, too, came to the fore at a special time and he gave me counsel when i was going through the process. But hes also a very dear friend to judge garland. Interestingly, they both are honored and distinguished graduates of the Harvard School of law, they both clerked at the Supreme Court, and they both have a fond and committed respect for the law and for the rule of law. And so i lift up his connection as well. And then finally id just like to say this. When my wife and i came to washed washington, we didnt nope a lot of people. We had a young daughter, her name was bridget, and we met the garlands, who had two daughters, merrick and lynn and their daughters, rebecca and jesse, gave us a sense of the place and helped us become comfortable in the place. And so over the years weve gone to a host of parentteacher meetings. Weve gone to parents nights, weve gone to sporting events, we have talked about the hopes and dreams and aspirations for our daughters. And so i come also to say that this is a good man. Hes a devoted husband, hes a doting father. And hes an engaged and committed parent. And so im just very, very pleased to be here in this connected group of individuals to lift my voice in support of judge garlands nomination to the United States Supreme Court. Senator leahy thank you very much. Of course, secretary driver, as i said is a professor at the university of chicago law school. He has inside knowledge in that he clerked for judge garland. Also clerked for two Supreme Court justices, one sandra day oconnor, who was nominated by ronald reagan, and the other, justice brier, who was breyer, who was nominated by president bill clinton. So please go ahead. Members of the senate, i am honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today in order to comment on the nomination of chief judge garland to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the senator just mentioned i had the privilege of serving as a law clerk to judge garland on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit from 2005 to 2006. Clayton kershawing for judge garland was an invaluable experience. It was without question the most formative single year of my entire career. As has been well documented by now, judge garland possesses an unbelieveably sharp analytical mind. He works very long hours in order to make sure that his cases come out in the right way. Is, many people have aid said, a judges judge. Hes a judicial crafertsman of the highest order and in order to do that takes long hours immersing himself in the cases and the briefs, talking about the cases with the clerks in order to make sure that hes researching the right conclusion. And his approach to the law, he deliberately avoids offering some sort of grand and sweeping pronouncements and instead keeps the opinions narrow sco as to dispose of the cased that are before him and cases that are before him and to honor the existing precedents. He also makes sure that he never loses sight of the fact that these legal opinions that he and his colleagues produce influence the lives of ordinary citizens. Hes very aware of that. So as i say hes meticulous in his approach and Nothing Better exemplifies that idea than before he would circulate the opinions to his colleagues on the d. C. Circuit he would have two law clerks, one standing on either side of him and he would read each word of the draft opinion allowed aloud in order to make sure everything was exactly right and be open to lastminute modifycations. So thats emblematic of his approach fought law. Hes also, as i say, measured in his approach to the law. He had an uncommon ability to identify Common Ground among his fellow judges. He brought people, you know, from different backgrounds, from different viewpoints together as a way of fostering consensus. Dissented very few times in his years on the d. C. Circuit and he has absolutely first rate demeanor. One of the first questions he would ask when he returned to our chambers chambers offer oral argument was how was my demeanor on the bench . He wanted to be sure he was asking tough questions but also being fair to the attorneys before him and demonstrating represent to these people who were working with him in order to shape our legal enterprise. Its that attitude and that willingness to see people and try to see things from their perspective that has won him a host of admirers on, who are republicans but who are also lawyers and identify judge gharmand garland as being someone who is openminded and fairmind and demonstrates all the qualities of being an openminded, fair justice. Biff close, i want to mention some of judge garlands personal characteristics that inspire such deep loyalty among the law clerks. You know, you clerk for judge garland for unbeaten year and then he stands by you for the rest of your life. There are two instances of relatively recent vintage in my own life that demonstrate that he stands by his law clerks through times difficult and joyous alike. Whether my mother died a little more than two years ago, judge garland wrote an incredibly warm note offering me condolences for my loss. When i received an endowed chair at the university of chicago a few months ago, judge garland was one of the very first people to reach oit and congratulate me on that honor. So through times difficult and joyous, hes there by your side. The other thing is that, you know, one of the really vivid, indelible images from my time during the clerkship is that right around 6 00 p. M. Judge garland would be, i would see him sort of furiously, feverishly packing cases and binders into his briefcase and then rushing out of the office with a quick good night to make sure he made it home to have dinner with his wife, lynn, and their two daughters. There was nothing more important than that. He definitely wanted to have the materials later in the evening for review, but nothing was more important than that. The other thing, i remember a very early conversation i had with him. Judge garland had incisive views about adam levines vocal stylings and maroon 5. Hes incredibly sort of insightful commentary about the relative merits of their ouvre and i was confused. Hes a seemingly sta. Dimplet staid guy, in his early 50s but nevertheless he knows this pop band. The reason of course is periodically he would drive his daughters to school and allow them to commandeer the cars audio system. The lessons this father learned was you need to engage your children at least sometimes on their own terms, and when you do, to do it with vigor. So by dincht his dell sbsh intellect, experience, experience and character i am confident judge garland would make an excellent associate justice of the Supreme Court. Conversely, the failure to confirm justice garland to the Supreme Court would represent not only a grave injustice for this particular nominee but may also, i fear, portend catastrophic consequences for our constitutional order. Thank you. Senator leahy thank you very much. As senator finance has spoken strongly on this, and im going to yield first to her and then be joined by senator casey of pennsylvania and i dont know if you heard the nice comments that judge lewis made earlier but and your predecessors. Senator finance . Senator finance well thank you, thank you very much, mr. Chairman and to those who have testified today i just want to sigh thank you, specifically to rod slater, i can say i knew you before you had gray hair in your head and i hope it wasnt the federal government that put it there, but it probably was. Welcome back. Thank you. Senator finance its good to see you. Feinstein its good to see you. One question thats really bothered me, that has to do with leaving for a substantial period of time the United States Supreme Court in a tied position, 44 position when we know that the court is died divided and what impact thats going to have. I think there are many of us that estimate that the time is likely to be a year and a half by the sometime time you get through the vetting process and all this, that you can process another nominee. So i wanted to ask the question as to what happens when the court accepts, when the lower what happens when the court is tied and the lower courts are split and unable to resolve a case . Weve seen that already in four tied votes. A Public Sector labor case from my home state, a Death Penalty case, a state sovereignty case and a gender discrimination case. And this week the Court Essentially deferred on an important issue involving whether religiously affiliated nonprofits with can withhold contraceptive coverage from their employees. Thats an issue vitally important to women nationwide. So i would like to have your views on what happens when you have a 44 split . Could we begin with you, professor driver . Sure. So the technical answer is that when a, the court is 44, that its affirmed by an equally divide Court Without setting any precedential value. Exactly as the senator suggests, the result is that a conflic