Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Aug 3rd, 2010 :: 10:37:55 to 11:11:50
Total video length: 11 hours 12 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:390 Duration: 0:33:55 Discussion

Previous speech:

George Voinovich

10:37:48 to 10:38:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: bill will receive i second reading on the negs legislative day. -- on the next legislative day. mr. lemieux: thank you. i now rise to speak on the president's nomination of elena kagan to serve as associate justice on the united states supreme court. i want to first congratulate my colleague from iowa for his tremendous remarks this evening

George Voinovich

10:37:55 to 11:11:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: George Voinovich

George Voinovich

10:38:09 to 10:38:31( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: as he went through the reasons why he will not be supporting elena kagan and i want to congratulate him on such a reasoned and persuasive oration here this evening. mr. president, ms. kagan has been nominated to fill the seat of justice stevens. i had the opportunity in 2004 to

George Voinovich

10:38:32 to 10:38:52( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: appear before the court in the position as deputy attorney general of plful. during that time, because chief justice rehnquist was ill, justice stevens presided, and i think before i go into an evaluation of solicitor general kagan, it's important to note what an historic figure justice

George Voinovich

10:38:53 to 10:39:13( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: stevens is to the american bench and the bar. even before he began his 35 years of service on the supreme court, he built a stellar reputation as a member of the bar, as a lawyer, and as a careful jurist. graduating from northwestern school of larks servegd as a clerk to supreme court justice

George Voinovich

10:39:14 to 10:39:34( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: wiley rutledge and then he spent nearly 20 years, from 1949 to 1969, as a practitioner of law and one of the country's foremost experts on antitrust law. he taught courses at the university of chicago, served on a department of justice commission and authored various

George Voinovich

10:39:35 to 10:39:57( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: papers on antitrust issues. it was in 1970 that president nixon appointed united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit, and after five years of service there, he was elevated to the supreme court. his service to this country should be rembered, and he gets our thanks, and on behalf

George Voinovich

10:39:58 to 10:40:18( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: of a grateful nation, i extend my gratitude to him for his unique and important service to this country. mr. president,n evaluating a nominee to the united states supreme court, we in the senate exercise a solemn obligation.

George Voinovich

10:40:19 to 10:40:39( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: it is a rare time in our constitutional democracy when the three branches come together in one proceeding. one of those is the unfortunate proceeding of impeachment. thankfully, that is not why we are here. but the other is this proceeding, a proceeding when the president submits

George Voinovich

10:40:40 to 10:41:00( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: consideration a judicial nominee that is then evaluated by this body under the advice and consent clause of article 2, seion 2, clause 2, of the united states constitution. that clause reads in that the president shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to appoint

George Voinovich

10:41:01 to 10:41:23( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: ambassadors, other public ministers, and skulls, judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the united states. and while, mr. president, we do have that advice and consent on a normal occasion for those other officers, for ministers and the like, it is a rare

George Voinovich

10:41:24 to 10:41:47( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: occurrence when it body has the honor and opportunity to evaluate a supreme court nominee. and because it is a rare occurrence, and because thiss a lifetime appointment to the head of one of the branches of our coequal government, we have a solemn responsibility to do our job and to understand what our job is.

George Voinovich

10:41:48 to 10:42:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: so in preparing for this responsibility, mr. president, of providing advice and consent, and in being a lawyer who wanted to do a good job and be lawyerly about this work, i took the opportunity to try to study up on what our opportunity and responsility is here in this

George Voinovich

10:42:09 to 10:42:29( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: confirmation of a supreme court justice. what do these terms advice and consent mean? and what is our responsibility? how do we undergo that responsibility to fulfill our constitutional obligation? certainly, in order to fulfill it, we must understand it.

George Voinovich

10:42:30 to 10:42:50( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: what does advice and consent mean? well, advice certainly means to provide information, counseling and to give some feedback to the president of the united states as to a nominee. it really seems to be more of the role of a counselor than anything else.

George Voinovich

10:42:51 to 10:43:11( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: but of the two words, its eight not the most waste chism the most weighty of the two is consent. in fact, function is not found within the enumerated legislative powers. articles 1 of the -- article 1 of the constitution holds those responsibilities. advice and consent is found in

George Voinovich

10:43:12 to 10:43:32( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: article 2, which enumerates the powers of the executive branch, of the president. and advice and consent is shown as a limitation on the president's power. the president cannot just put whomever he or she wishes onto a court. he can only do so with the

George Voinovich

10:43:33 to 10:43:55( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: advice and consent of this body. in fact, our founders did not place this responsibility in both the house and the senate. they solely put to this aresnsibility among the members of this by. consent being the operative and in my mind meaningful term, because without our consent, the

George Voinovich

10:43:56 to 10:44:17( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: nominee is not confirmed. so our responsibility is not trivialial, and we're certainly not here to be a mere rubber stamp on the president's nomination. it is our obligation to thoroughly evaluate and provide that consent, because but for our consent the nominee will not

George Voinovich

10:44:18 to 10:44:39( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: be seated. well, how do we execute that responsibility? what does it mean to provide consent and how should we do it? well,ertainly we have to look at the nominee and the applicant here. we have to see that the person will be a person of integrity, that they are thoughtful that they have that they will uphold the

George Voinovich

10:44:40 to 10:45:00( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: obligations of a supreme court justice. last may when i started my work of trying to evaluate how i would fulfill my constitutional obligation and started to do some reading of prior nfirmation proceedings, the writings of senators who have come before me, i came upon,

George Voinovich

10:45:01 to 10:45:22( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: mr. president, what i believe is a four-part criteria to evaluate a nominee to the nation's highest court, and it should be stressed how important a position this is. there are only nine justices who sit atop the judicial branch, and they are appointed for life.

George Voinovich

10:45:23 to 10:45:43( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: there is no other portion of government where this is true. to be head of a co-equal branch for life, justice stevens serving 35 years on the united states supreme court. so what criteria should we use? mr. president, i would propose

George Voinovich

10:45:44 to 10:46:07( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: the following. one, a nominee should present a robust body of work. why? because there needs to be something for us to evaluate. we need to have the ability in providing our consent function to look at a body of work so

George Voinovich

10:46:08 to 10:46:28( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: that we can properly execute our responsibility. now, this does not mn nor do i believe that it is required for a nominee to the united states supreme court that they have been a judge. in fact, our provides no requirements for a judge to serve on the united states supreme court.

George Voinovich

10:46:29 to 10:46:51( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: this is unlike what we see in thew? congress. there are specific requirements of how old you have to be to be in the house, to be in the senate, of how many years you must be a resident country. the same requirements apply to the president. there are no requirements for a judge as it's stated in the constitution, for a judge of the

George Voinovich

10:46:52 to 10:47:13( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: supreme court. but in evaluating that there are no requirements, we certainly need to know what the judge stands for and how the judge will fulfill his or her obligations on the court, and without a body of work, that's very difficult to evaluate. so while there is no requirement

George Voinovich

10:47:14 to 10:47:35( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: that you be even in fact a lawyer, although every person who has been confirmed has been a lawyer and there is no requirement that you be a judge, if you are not a not have a robust body of work for us to evaluate. that make it more difficult on our part to make the decision of whether or not we should give

George Voinovich

10:47:36 to 10:47:57( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: our consent, and i would suggest it provides a -- an additional burden to the nominee, to be for thecoming when answering questions. since we do not have a body of work to evaluate, since we cannot look at prior decisions that a judge has handed down, to know how the judge has ruled in the past and maybe therefore

George Voinovich

10:47:58 to 10:48:19( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: glean how the judge will rule in the future, that nominee must be forthcoming so that we can hr how he or she will do his or her job as a judge. second, the nominee must demonstrate an unfailing fidelity to theext of the constitution and proper

George Voinovich

10:48:20 to 10:48:40( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: restraint against the temptation to expand judicial power. why do we find this important? and i'll talk about this more in a because we have a separation of powers and a checks and balances that was imbutted in our

George Voinovich

10:48:41 to 10:49:01( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: constitution by our -- imbued in our constitution by our government. they intended for our government to be balanced by each branch. it is the beauty of the constitution that no branch will exert too much authority because it will be checked by the other, each branch having checks upon the other. furthermore and sometimes forgotten is that the feder government is part of a federalist society.

George Voinovich

10:49:02 to 10:49:24( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: we are a republic, and the federal government is only one piece of the governmental structure. the rest are the governments of the states, and the powers and rights which are left to the people under our constitution. our founders saw checks and balances between the federal government and the state government and the people as well. a nominee must understand that

George Voinovich

10:49:25 to 10:49:46( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: the judiciary cannot expand its role beyond the confines that our founders intended. in fact, we know that our founders intended for the judiciary not to serve as a legislative branch because in article two, the legislative power is vested solely in the congress.

George Voinovich

10:49:47 to 10:50:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: so for a judge or justice to take on a legislative role, to not have a firm adherence to the law as written violates the separation of powers, violates the rights and responsibilities of the congress. third, the nominee must make determinations about the meaning of federal law in the

George Voinovich

10:50:09 to 10:50:30( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: constitution and apply the law as written. again, because of that separation of powers. and fourth, the nominee must understand the court's role in stopping unconstitutional intrusions by the elected branches. our founders knew that each branch of government would seek to expand the scope of its power.

George Voinovich

10:50:31 to 10:50:53( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: that's the beauty of the checks and balances system, is to keep each body in check. they did not want a strong executive. they worried about the tyranny of the executive, but they also worried about the tyranny of the legislative. nor did they hope that the judiciary would become too strong.

George Voinovich

10:50:54 to 10:51:15( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: alexander hamilton wrote in federal 78 that it is the courts that will serve as the bulwarks of limited constitution against legislative encroachment. our founders designed this and balances to -- this intricate system of checks and balances to keep all of the governmental bodies and institutions in check. to not expand to the detriment

George Voinovich

10:51:16 to 10:51:37( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: of another body, to not expand to the detriment of our rights and the rights of the states. now, in evaluating solicitor general kagan -- and i would note also in comparing her to justice stevens, i find that she does not have the experience that gives us the opportunity to

George Voinovich

10:51:38 to 10:51:58( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: evaluate her work, to determine what kind of judge or justice she would be. in preparing for mr. president, i went back and i read a book that was written by one of our predecessors, senat

George Voinovich

10:51:59 to 10:52:21( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: paul simon, and it was a book that he published in 1992, and the book concerned -- it's called "advice and consent." the book concerned the confirmation hearings of bork and justice thomas. interestingly in this book -- and it's a very fine book and i would commend anyone who is interested in this topic to read

George Voinovich

10:52:22 to 10:52:42( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: it -- there is a forward in the book by lawrence tribe, the famous constitutional scholar at the time the tyler professor of constitutional law at harvard university who i believe solicitor general kagan served with when she was the dean of

George Voinovich

10:52:43 to 10:53:03( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: harvard law school. and in this forward, i think that professor tribe provides a very cogent and focused analysis of the problem that we experience in the modern

George Voinovich

10:53:04 to 10:53:24( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: confirmation setting where nominees fail to provide sufficient answers to questions. and why this is so troubling witholicitor general kagan is because we don't have the body of work to evaluate. now, it has been the course in the past 20 years that it seems all the nominees of the supreme

George Voinovich

10:53:25 to 10:53:47( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: court give these sort of vapid answers, and that's not my phrase. that's actually, in fact, her phrase. we'll talk about that in a moment. vapid answers to these questions that come from the senators who are on the judiciary committee. failing to really articulate what her position is on a particular point of law. all the more concern when we have no record to evaluate.

George Voinovich

10:53:48 to 10:54:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: here's what professor tribe said." the court and the nation cannot afford any more stealth nominees who steadfastly decline to answer substantive questions the senate might pose on the oft-invoked ground that the matter might come before the court during their possible tenure. this easy refrain does not

George Voinovich

10:54:09 to 10:54:30( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: provide a valid excuse for stonewalling, no matter how frequently it is repeated. on the contrary, the adversary system works best when all concerned, and not just those who nominated judge, know what there is to be known about the judge's starting predispositions on a pending issue. and let's stop pretending that

George Voinovich

10:54:31 to 10:54:51( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: such predispositions do not exist. it hardly fosters fairness to claim that a mind is completely neutral when, in fact, a lifetime of experiences has unavoidably inclined it one way or the other, and to equate an open mind with a blank one insults the intelligence of all concerned. he goes on to say a nominee

George Voinovich

10:54:52 to 10:55:14( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: whose record is too pale to read with the naked eye or whose views are shrouded in fog too dense for anything but the kleig lights of national television it appears is probably ill-suited for a lifetime seat on the supreme court in any event." a nominee whose record is too pale to read with the naked eye

George Voinovich

10:55:15 to 10:55:35( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: or whose views are shrouded in fog too dense is probably ill suited for a lifetime seat on the supreme court. mr. president, unfortunately, that describes solicitor general kagan. she is an extremely bright and articulate woman.

George Voinovich

10:55:36 to 10:55:57( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: she has a tremendous academic background. i commend her for her public service of serving in a presidential administration. i commend her for serving as dean of a law school. that, too, is public service, but our job is to evaluate these

George Voinovich

10:55:58 to 10:56:19( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: nominees, and we can not evaluate them if they have no record of how they would rule or how they have ruled, and they provide no sufficient information when they come before the jiciary committee of this without that information, how can we faithfully provide our consent.

George Voinovich

10:56:20 to 10:56:40( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: there is a notion in the law of consent needing to be informed. in fact, it really can't be consent in the law if it's really not informed. yet, solicitor general kagan without a judicial record as professor tribe writes fails to give us the information to allow us to give consent in an

George Voinovich

10:56:41 to 10:57:03( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: informed way. and we need to look no further than her own words when she wrote in a spring, 1995, law review article, it was a comment on a book that was talking about the confirmation mess, and then

George Voinovich

10:57:04 to 10:57:24( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: professor kagan also bemoaned the state of confirmation hearings. she said, "when the senate ceases to engage nominees in the meaningful discussion of issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce and the senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating

George Voinovich

10:57:25 to 10:57:48( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: nominees or appropriately educating the public." she described the judiciary committees as becoming vapid, and unfortunately even though she should know more than anyone else because those were her words, the charade that she

George Voinovich

10:57:49 to 10:58:09( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: condemned in her article in the 1990's, she engaged in the same charade when she appeared before the judiciary committee. a nominee whose record is too pale to read with the naked eye or whose views are too shrouded in fog is probably ill suited for a lifetime appointment, said

George Voinovich

10:58:10 to 10:58:32( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: professor tribe. ms. kagan also has very little practical experience. unlike justice ste practiced law for 20 years, ms. kagan practiced law for two. never having served before as a judge, we don't know her record. she said that the confirmation proceedings in the past had an

George Voinovich

10:58:33 to 10:58:53( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: air of vacuity and farce, a vapid and hollow charade. instead of following her own admonishme, she participated in that charade. she engaged in the same vapid exercise that she condemned. the burden was on ms. kagan to

George Voinovich

10:58:54 to 10:59:19( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: demonstrate how she would rule as a judge. with no record for us to evaluate, she could not engage in the same charade that she had previously condemned and leave us with nothing to know how she would act in a lifetime appointment, an appointment if justice stevens' record is any sort of indication of how long a

George Voinovich

10:59:20 to 10:59:40( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: justice kagan might serve for 35 years. i have an obligation, mr. president, under article two, section two, to provide advice and consent, and i cannot do so where the nominee cannot or does not provide a record that me and my colleagues can evaluate. we are left without a solid

George Voinovich

10:59:41 to 11:00:01( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: basis upon which to judge how she would judge. during the judiciary committee proceedings, she said she would give binding precedent all the respect of binding precedent. that is meaningless, mr. president.

George Voinovich

11:00:02 to 11:00:25( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: it gives us no indication of how she might make her decisions, how she might rule. so i'm left with these serious concerns. i'm left with the serious concerns about her commitment to uphold the constitutional principle of a limited government. the fundamental protections of the second amendment and placing law ahead of her personal and

George Voinovich

11:00:26 to 11:00:46( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: political views. i spoke before about up with of these criteria being the fidelity to the constitution and the principle of a limited federal government. thomas jefferson warned us that our written constitution can help secure liberty only if it is not made a blank paper by construction. miss kagan theafd her whole -- testified that her whole life

George Voinovich

11:00:47 to 11:01:08( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: provided indications of what kind of judge or justice she would be, and in that statement, i agree. it was mentioned earlier that before law school when she was writing a thesis at oxford, she stated that new times and circumstances demand a different terpretation of the constitution and that judges may

George Voinovich

11:01:09 to 11:01:30( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. that is not what our founders intended for a justice of the supreme court. in that same thesis, she wrote, "the judge's own experience and valu become the most important element in the decision. if that is too results-oriented,

George Voinovich

11:01:31 to 11:01:53( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: so be it." mr. president, that is a violation of the constitutional requirement that all power legislative be vested in this congress. i was concerned about the colloquy that she had with senator coburn. in fact, it was something i discussed with her in person prior to her testimony before

George Voinovich

11:01:54 to 11:02:14( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: the judiciary committee. this colloquy about the commerce clause and whether or not it was limited. remember that our founders intended for the federal government to be limited in its powers. that's why there are enumerated powers in article 1. they are not plenary, they are

George Voinovich

11:02:15 to 11:02:37( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: limited by their number. senator coburn asked her about sponsoring a bill about requiring americans to eat their fruits and vegetables. and it got a response from police asolicitor general kagan that it sounded like a dumb law. but senator coburn asked whether or not it would be constitutional, and she failed

George Voinovich

11:02:38 to 11:02:58( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: to provide an answer. senator coburn then put some meat on the bones and said, what if i said that eating through fruits and three vegetables would cut health care costs by 20%? doesn't that invoke the commerce clause and since the government says 65% of all the health care costs are because of health care

George Voinovich

11:02:59 to 11:03:21( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: care, isn't that constitutional? no real, meaningful answero give clarity of how solicitor general kagan as justice kagan would rule. mr. president, the federal government has expanded its powers beyond what our framers intended, far beyond what our framers intended.

George Voinovich

11:03:22 to 11:03:42( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: james madison in federalist 45 said "the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite." but that is not how our constitution is modernly interpreted. we are away from what our founders intended.

George Voinovich

11:03:43 to 11:04:04( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: we are away from the clear meaning of the words of the constitution. and solicitor general kagan doesn't tell us that commerce clause has a limit, in her view. and it's through the commerce clause that this congress and congresses in the past have sought to enter and invade every portion of life in this country.

George Voinovich

11:04:05 to 11:04:26( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: things that our founders never intend the federal government to be involved in. and it appears that miss kagan has the same view of an expansive federal government, a federal government that makes states its dependents in apparatuses thereto, a federal government that has no limits, a federal government that can

George Voinovich

11:04:27 to 11:04:47( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: invade every portion of our lives, a federal government that is too expensive and beyond what our founders intended. i'm also concerned about solicitor general kagan's views on the right to bear arms, the

George Voinovich

11:04:48 to 11:05:09( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: second amendment. i think she has too little regard for some of our constitution's most fundamental protections. as a law clerk, she was dismissive of the second amendment, saying that she was not sympathetic to the amendment. during the clinton administration, she developed numerous anti-second amendment initiatives.

George Voinovich

11:05:10 to 11:05:30( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: in her confirmation process for solicitor general, she declined to comment on second amendment rights. there was a discussion earlier, my friend and colleague from iowa talking about natural rights. i think it's important for us to

George Voinovich

11:05:31 to 11:05:54( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: remember the setting upon which our framers brought this constitution to bear. it was in articles of confederation, a loosely -- a loose arrangement between the states, where there was no central government. founders took it upon themselves to seek to enact a stronger federal system but a system

George Voinovich

11:05:55 to 11:06:16( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: that, as the 9th amendment, the 10th amendment and other amendments to the constitution show, leave states to the people. that enumerate specific powers to the federal remember, initially, there were not even the first ten amendments. remember that there was a confirmation bat whether the -- the states individually would ratify the constitution.

George Voinovich

11:06:17 to 11:06:37( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: there were antifederalists who thought that the constitution had gone too far and given too much authority to the federal government. and our founders, hamilton, madison, and jay in writing "the federalist papers" had to make the case of some form of central government, but they gave the assurances that most of the obligations to govern would be

George Voinovich

11:06:38 to 11:06:59( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: left with the people in the states. miss kagan doesn't have that view, it appears. finally, mr. president, i'm concerned about the way that then-dean kagan treated the military as the dean of harvard law school. i think it's outrageous that the

George Voinovich

11:07:00 to 11:07:21( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: united states military was not allowed to recruit on campus while she was the dean of the law school. and this idea that the military could go through another part of the school, the veterans association, but not the career

George Voinovich

11:07:22 to 11:07:44( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: services office is outrageous. the veterans association had no funding, no office, it was not set up to allow law students interview with the military some have called this the same as separate but equal. it was not even equal. it's outrageous. it's outrageous beyond the fact that harvard received federal dollars.

George Voinovich

11:07:45 to 11:08:06( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: it's outrageous that a premier institution like harvard university, won of our first institutions of higher learning, known throughout the world as being an exceptional school would not allow the military the benefit of its students to serve by being interviewed on campus in the regular on-campus process

George Voinovich

11:08:07 to 11:08:28( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: that every law firm or other agency of government is allowed to participate in. and that is a decision that she presided over. that's an error of judgment. but i also bieve there's an error of law. in 1996, congress passed the solomon amendment allowing the secretary of defense to deny federal grants to institutions

George Voinovich

11:08:29 to 11:08:50( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: of higher education if they prohibited rotc or military recruitment on campus. under the harvard law school antidiscrimination policy, the military was banned from utilizing its services and it was concluded that, therefore, those federal funds would be suspended. but miss kagan refused to abide by that solomon amendment when

George Voinovich

11:08:51 to 11:09:12( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: she washe dean. in 2002, harvard was informed by department of defense its practice of letting military recruiters contact students through the harvard law school veterans association but not the office of career services violated the federal law. in response, dean kagan filed a brief challenging the constitionality of the solomon

George Voinovich

11:09:13 to 11:09:35( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: amendment, which is her right. not a good decision but her right. the court of appeals of the third circuit enjoined the law and miss kagan reinstated harvard's, in my view, discriminatory policy. now, you would say, well, the court ruled. therefore, it was apppriate

George Voinovich

11:09:36 to 11:09:56( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: for her if she so chose to go back to the previous policy because it had been enjoined. however, massachusetts is not in the third circuit. it's in the first. an appellate decision in the third circuit is not binding on the third circuit. if dean kagan wanted to go to court again and seek to have it

George Voinovich

11:09:57 to 11:10:18( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: appld, that would have been one thing. what she did instead was unilaterally follow the decision that had no effect upon her and, in my view, violate the law. mr. president, again, i think that solicitor general kagan is

George Voinovich

11:10:19 to 11:10:39( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: a extremely intelligent person, an articulate person. i think that she has a commendable career of public service. but she has failed to meet the burden that is required of someone with no judicial record. she has failed to inform us of how she would judge as a member

George Voinovich

11:10:40 to 11:11:01( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: of the united states supreme cour with no record heightened scrutiny on the nominee. and we did not have the opportunity to have fl and forthcoming answers for miss kagan. instead, what we had was the same vapid and vacuous answers that she condemned in her law

George Voinovich

11:11:02 to 11:11:22( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: review article in the mid-1990's, the same type of charade that laurence tribe said makes somebody ill-suited for a lifetime appointment with such a thin record. if, perhaps, she would more forthcoming, i would have been able to come to a different conclusion.

George Voinovich

11:11:23 to 11:11:43( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: but when you take the lack of her record, her inability to provi responses, to give us an indication of how she would rule, the concerns about the second amendment, about how she treated the military at harvard, and her views about the activism of the court, in light

George Voinovich

11:11:44 to 11:11:50( Edit History Discussion )

George Voinovich: of all those reasons, mr. president, i will be voting "no" on miss kagan's confirmation.

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