Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on May 19th, 2011 :: 3:28:50 to 3:33:40
Total video length: 8 hours 40 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:70 Duration: 0:04:50 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Chuck Grassley

3:28:47 to 3:29:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i'd like time we have on our side. the presiding officer: 3 minutes and 45 seconds. mr. grassley: okay. my objections to this nominee can be summarized with five areas of concern: his controversial writings and speeches, an activist judicial philosophy, his lack of judicial

Chuck Grassley

3:28:50 to 3:33:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

3:29:08 to 3:29:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: temperament, his troublesome testimony, and a lack of candor before the committee. mr. grassley: i would hope that the president would withdraw the nominee and send up a consensus nominee. we on this side have demonstrated over and over again our cooperation in moving

Chuck Grassley

3:29:30 to 3:29:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: forward on consensus nominations nominations. the president needs to nominate a mainstream individual who understands the proper role a judge. nominees who would bring a personal agenda and political ideology to the courtroom will have great difficulty in being

Chuck Grassley

3:29:52 to 3:30:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: confirmed. i have troubles with a statement that's been made that the court of appeals is where law is made and we need the finest minds in the world for that. first, intellect is an important element that we ought to consider in any confirmation process. this nominee has an outstanding academic record.

Chuck Grassley

3:30:16 to 3:30:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: his intellect is not the issue. the nominee himself noted there was more to being a judge than intellect because he said this in regard to chief justice roberts' nomination -- quote -- "there is no doubt roberts has a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect."

Chuck Grassley

3:30:37 to 3:30:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that's the end of the quote. he then voiced concern that with remarkable consistency throughout his career, roberts had applied his legal talent to further the cause of the far right. mr. liu went on demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament to disparch justice roberts' view

Chuck Grassley

3:30:59 to 3:31:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on free enterprise, private property and limited government in my statement yesterday, i made my views very clear on how i feel about mr. liu's remarks. the point is intellect is only one component. using mr. liu's standards, a nominee -- quote -- "must be

Chuck Grassley

3:31:20 to 3:31:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: evaluated on more than legal intellect." end of quote. mr. liu does have a fine talent but he has used his talent to consistently promote views that are far out of the mainstream. shortly after president obama was elected he said -- quote -- "now we have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the

Chuck Grassley

3:31:41 to 3:32:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: constitution and of the laws and the policy into practice." i will not give mr. liu that opportunity. a second problem i have with his statement is the assertion that -- quote -- "the court of appeals is where law is made. we have heard this view before.

Chuck Grassley

3:32:04 to 3:32:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: while serving as a circuit judge, justice sotomayor stated that the court of appeals -- quote -- "is where policy is made." i understand there are elements of our society who wish this were the case. those who can't get their policy views enacted through the legislative process, as our constitution requires, often turn to the courts.

Chuck Grassley

3:32:29 to 3:32:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: but i flatly reject that notion. the constitution vests legislative power in the congress, not the courts. judges are simply not policy-makers. unfortunately, this philosophical disagreement occasionally finds its way into debate on nominations. let me remind the senate where this started, going back to the tphopbgs of william --

Chuck Grassley

3:32:51 to 3:33:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: nomination of william rehnquist in 1971, democrats used the filibuster to delay or defeat judicial nominees. fortunately, it is a rare occasion. there have been a total of 46 cloture votes, including this one, on 32 different judicial nominations in american history. of the 32 judicial nominees

Chuck Grassley

3:33:13 to 3:33:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: subject to cloture vote, 22 were against republican-nominated judges, between 1971 and the year 2000 there were 11 cloture votes on judicial nominees. most of those filibusters attempted by democrats were unsuccessful, and cloture was invoked. however, beginning in 2002,

Chuck Grassley

3:33:34 to 3:33:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senate democrats changed the rules. i ask to put the rest of my statement in the record, and i

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid