Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Aug 4th, 2010 :: 10:05:35 to 10:40:35
Total video length: 11 hours 5 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:144 Duration: 0:35:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Jeff Sessions

10:05:35 to 10:40:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions

10:05:39 to 10:06:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: thank you, mr. p mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the senator from idaho for his comments. he's one of the most capable lawyers in the senate. he's a practicing lawyer, clerked on the court of appeals and is scholarly and careful in what he says. i believe that he has raised

Jeff Sessions

10:06:01 to 10:06:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: some very troubling points about this nomination that should be considered. i notice today senator crapo, that single sitting federal judge in california has just wiped out proposition eight that was passed by a majority of the

Jeff Sessions

10:06:23 to 10:06:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: people in california, i guess millions voting on that, that simply said that -- that a marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and this judge struck down proposition eight, and obviously at some point this will get to the supreme court of the united

Jeff Sessions

10:06:44 to 10:07:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: states, as you well know. go first to the ninth circuit on which you clerked and then it will go to the supreme court probably, and we'll have the nominees before us today who has already demonstrated at harvard that her views about don't ask/don't tell and similar

Jeff Sessions

10:07:08 to 10:07:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: social marriage sexual relation matters involve such strong feelings on her part that she has not been able to follow the law, and i -- i'm worried about that. i think the american people are worried about that, and i just

Jeff Sessions

10:07:32 to 10:07:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: think they have a right to be. she wrote -- well, let me just talk a little bit about today's decision by a federal judge in california that was replete in my view with results-oriented

Jeff Sessions

10:07:53 to 10:08:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: liberal judicial activism. i think that's what it is. as the court explained in substituting its judgment, the judge's judgment and opinion, of california expressed in a full statewide referendum.

Jeff Sessions

10:08:15 to 10:08:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: now, this is a was there some clear statement in the constitution or law that would invalidate the supreme -- the people's expression of what a marriage should be in the state of california? i submit not. this is what the judge said. what remains of the proponent's

Jeff Sessions

10:08:39 to 10:08:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: case is an inference amountly supported by evidence in the -- amply supported by evidence in the record that was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples, whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus toward

Jeff Sessions

10:09:00 to 10:09:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: gays and lesbians, or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men and two women. this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate, close quote.

Jeff Sessions

10:09:21 to 10:09:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: so the judge just declared that laws that are on the books in virtually every state in america and certainly by referendum in california they can't legislate that way. it's not a proper basis to legislate.

Jeff Sessions

10:09:42 to 10:10:04( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and that is what activism is. it's a judge replacing his views with the court's views -- or the people's views with his views. president obama has made a similar statement.

Jeff Sessions

10:10:05 to 10:10:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: he said that judges should decide cases based on -- quote -- "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." this was in a floor speech in the senate, delivered from right

Jeff Sessions

10:10:26 to 10:10:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: over there, from his desk in which he opposed justice -- chief justice john roberts' confirmation to the supreme court, one of the finest nominations ever to be brought before this body. and -- and this is the kind of rationale, the kind of

Jeff Sessions

10:10:47 to 10:11:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: empowerment that many judges feel. well, they can just use their broader perspective on how the world works or the dth and breadth of their empathy or one's deepest values or core concerns. whose core concerns? the judge's core concerns.

Jeff Sessions

10:11:08 to 10:11:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: what has this got to do with law? i ask. indeed, i would suggest that this whole litany of matters raised by president obama are not law. these are invitations for a

Jeff Sessions

10:11:31 to 10:11:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: judge to allow their bias to influence how they decide cases, and encouragement for judges to use their power of defining the words of our laws and constitution to promote their agenda. this is an unacceptable view.

Jeff Sessions

10:11:52 to 10:12:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it's contrary to the great heritage of law this country is based on and should not be tolerated by the judiciary. when justice stevens announced

Jeff Sessions

10:12:13 to 10:12:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: his retirement, whom ms. kagan would replace, he served 38 years -- he served until 88. if ms. kagan were to serve until that age, she would serve 38 years on the supreme court without ever having to answer

Jeff Sessions

10:12:34 to 10:12:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: once to the american people. she has never tried a case. we have no judicial history. she has never really practiced law in any serious way. she has been a political lawyer most of her life. she has been an advocate for a lot of left-wing views, and it's all right. you can have a view that the

Jeff Sessions

10:12:56 to 10:13:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: military don't ask/don't tell policy, law passed by congress, it's a law, not a policy, you could oppose that. that's fine. that shouldn't disqualify you from serving on the bench. you can be against the death penalty and serve as a good judge if you understand, if the law favors the death penalty, you shod have to apply.

Jeff Sessions

10:13:17 to 10:13:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: you can't obstruct the law becaus you don't agree with it. this is basic to the understanding of the american jurisprudence system. justice stevens, when he announced his retirent, president obama rephrased his empathy standard that took a lot of criticism and indeed was

Jeff Sessions

10:13:40 to 10:14:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: renounced by justice sotomayor in her confirmation hearings last year, he said h wanted a nominee -- quote -- "with a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the american people." well, i think that's what congress is supposed to do. we're supposed to be monitoring

Jeff Sessions

10:14:02 to 10:14:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: how the laws affect the daily lives of the american we don't think as a matter of policy it's doing it correctly. we should fix the law, change it, eliminate it, do whatever is appropriate. that's not the judge's responsility. the judge'sesponsibility is to enforce the law, to follow the law. or else he is a lawmaker instead

Jeff Sessions

10:14:24 to 10:14:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: of a judge. and when the president announced elena kagan's nomination, he said -- "quote --" she has often referred to justice thurgood marshall for whom she clerked as her hero and credits him with reminding her that, as she put

Jeff Sessions

10:14:47 to 10:15:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it, behind the law stories of real people. well, they are stories, and the judge should certainly be very aware of the facts in a case. judges should not deny relevant evidence.

Jeff Sessions

10:15:08 to 10:15:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: but in the end, the judge must find the true facts and then apply that truly to the law as it is, whether they like it or not. and activism arises when they apply their values, even deep values, poors, and perspective on how

Jeff Sessions

10:15:29 to 10:15:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the world works, and the depth and breadth of their empathy to influenc decisions. because isn't that bias? who knows what these judges -- they have a lifetime appointment and they get to impose their core concerns on us? huh-u of.

Jeff Sessions

10:15:50 to 10:16:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: this is a serious matter -- huh-uh. this is a serious matte and i think the american people understand it. because when you empower a judge to do these kind of things, you've given them control over you. you've given them the power to redefine marriage when the people of -- of the state don't want to.

Jeff Sessions

10:16:13 to 10:16:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and you have no recourse, they have a lifetime appointment. and some people say, nine judges can do that. only five, really, it onlyakes five. and they meet and have tea and they go to europe and they -- and in the great salons of europe and they get these ideas about how to make america a better place and they want to

Jeff Sessions

10:16:35 to 10:16:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: come back and get itching to just write it into some opinion somewhere. i would say that no drafter of the constitution or any of the provisions in it, at any point that those amendments were adopted, would ever have

Jeff Sessions

10:17:00 to 10:17:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: imagined that a federal judge in california would declare that the people of california's decision to define marriage as it has been since the founding of the republic as between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional unconstitutional. and make no mistake, which a judge says does is

Jeff Sessions

10:17:21 to 10:17:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: unconstitutional, this is not a little-bitty matter. you, the american people, have no resource except to pass a constitutional amendment. it takes two-thirds of both -- the house and three-fourths of the states. they just make it so because they say it's so. there's nothing in the

Jeff Sessions

10:17:44 to 10:18:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: constitution that defines marriage. and if it's defined -- the most logical argument is when it was written, if they wanted to change the definition of marriage, they would have put it in there, because every state in america at the time the constitution was drafted and

Jeff Sessions

10:18:06 to 10:18:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: every amendment to it define marriage as between a mannd a woman. well, that's what we get. right now we've had battles over those kind of issues. they're the cause celeb of the day but because they've further issues in the future. do you think maybe in the future

Jeff Sessions

10:18:29 to 10:18:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it comes down to whether a judge can require the state to raise taxes? will it require state to provide insurance to everyone or the federal government to do so because the constitution somewhere says that everybody should have equal protection of the laws?

Jeff Sessions

10:18:51 to 10:19:11( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that means everybody should have health insurance. we've got one nominee that president obama has submitted, mr. lou, who says everybody in america is entitled to welfare constitutionally. presumably if you file a lawsuit in front of him, he would order the state to provide welfare to everybody, whether or not we could afford it or whether or not the legislature decides

Jeff Sessions

10:19:12 to 10:19:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that's the right thing or not. this is it's a serious matter. now, let me take > -- make a few additional points to discuss that relate to matters that have been raised in the last day or so about this nomination and try

Jeff Sessions

10:19:34 to 10:19:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to be correct in what i say. i really want to be correct and fair. this nominee deserves fair treatment and accuracy and we should try to achieve that in the senate. and if i've said anything before or say anything now that's in error, i hope my colleagues will call that to my attention and i'll be pleased to admit that

Jeff Sessions

10:19:56 to 10:20:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i've made an error, if i have, and correct it. likewise, i'm beginning to wonder -- i've said this before -- since nobody has corrected any significant matter that i've stated, they must be agreeing to it. one of our senators defended miss kagan by insisting my arguments -- that any arguments

Jeff Sessions

10:20:17 to 10:20:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that she made as solicitor general were made on behalf of her client, the united states, and should not be held against her. they suggest that her action as solicitor general should, therefore, be immune from criticism. in other words, she didn't necessarily do what she thought ought to be done but she had a duty to defend the law.

Jeff Sessions

10:20:41 to 10:21:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: well, it misses the point about the witt case, the important case that i talked about in which i criticized her decisions as solicitor general. problem with miss kagan's actions in the witt case is she did not make all appropriate arguments in defense of her cliernghts the united states.

Jeff Sessions

10:21:04 to 10:21:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: she declined to effectively represent her client, the united states. and i went into some length about that today. we're not saying that she must agree with every argument she made as solicitor general in terms of the policy. solicitor generals are required as a matter of duty to defend the laws

Jeff Sessions

10:21:25 to 10:21:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: they don't have to agree with the law but they have a duty to defend it if it's challenged. as being unconstitutional or in some other fashion improper. now, what's most important about this is that in the witt c

Jeff Sessions

10:21:46 to 10:22:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it dealt with the military's don't ask/don't tell policy. people can disagree on that, as i indicated, but it was the law passed by congress and signed by president clinton. she spent five years in the clinton white hse. she never complained to him about the law, to my knowledge.

Jeff Sessions

10:22:08 to 10:22:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: she didn't protester quit work -- she didn't protest or quit working for him. she goes to harvard, however, and bars the military from being able to enter the career services offices and recruit students because she didn't like the law that congress passed and her former boss signed. and she punished the military

Jeff Sessions

10:22:29 to 10:22:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: officers who were there on campus to recruit harvard students to be j.a.g. officers in the military. maybe those officers just got back we wer yet they were treated as second-class citens, not allowed to ent cat rear the career services building. oh, they could call the little

Jeff Sessions

10:22:51 to 10:23:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: veterans group on campus and they could ask them could help them. one officer wrote in a memo that was produced by department, we were relegated to walking up and down the halls hoping somebody would speak to us. they weren't able to recruit properly on the harvard campus. her suggestion and testimony

Jeff Sessions

10:23:13 to 10:23:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: at this was nothing that she was doing and unimportant is not accurate. it was a misrepresentation of the grave circumstances that occurred at harvard when she was dean, and she led this effort. she partially led the effort to reverse harvard's policy and deny the military the right to

Jeff Sessions

10:23:34 to 10:23:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: enter the career services office office. and said, well, it's okay, they could call the veterans group. the veterans group were offended by it. they sent out an e-mail and said we're not able these kind of meetings. we're just law students here who happen to be veterans. we can't do anything like cat rear services -- like the career services can do

Jeff Sessions

10:23:55 to 10:24:15( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to provide assistance to the military. it was plainly against the solomon amendment which was in effect at all times when she reversed harvard's policy and began to bar the military from coming on campus. well, so, when she came up for confirmation just last year to

Jeff Sessions

10:24:16 to 10:24:37( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: be solicitor general of the united states and there were cases filed around the country challenging the constitutionality of don't ask/don't tell, it was clear it might fall into her duty to defendhat law. she was asked in committee about it. she was asked, will you defend the law? and she said

Jeff Sessions

10:24:38 to 10:25:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: would. she committed to -- generally she would commit to defending all laws of the united states and specifically in ans written question she committed to defending don't ask/don't tell. so what i want to say is that my

Jeff Sessions

10:25:05 to 10:25:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: colleagues was -- were in error in -- in their statements about this because it wasn't that she made arguments to the court that she didn't believe in and that somehow we're unfairly criticizing her

Jeff Sessions

10:25:26 to 10:25:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: what arguments she did not make that she was duty-bound defend the law and actions that she was duty-bound to take. it's bee said that one of our colleagues said it's lawyer 101 that an attorney will take positions on behalf of a client even when the lawyer disagrees with them.

Jeff Sessions

10:25:49 to 10:26:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: well, that's exactly right. an attorney does have a right to vigorously defend his or her client. but miss kagan refused to do that. her client was the united states of america and when the solicitor general of the united states stands before the united states supreme court, or any lawyer, as i had

Jeff Sessions

10:26:10 to 10:26:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the privilege to do for 15 years in the department of justice, stand up in a federal court, do you know what they say? first thing they're asked, counsel -- or judge will say, "is the government ready?" and the lawyer says, "the united states is ready, your honor." "the united states is ready."

Jeff Sessions

10:26:32 to 10:26:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that's who the lawyer's client is, the united states of america. it's not her personal view of don't ask/don't tell. it's not president obama's interest or idea of what should be don't ask/don't tell, not his views. america. and how is the position a is the position that she was defending?

Jeff Sessions

10:26:55 to 10:27:15( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the lawfully passed statutes of this congress, signed by her former boss, president clinton, passing the law don't ask/don't tell that was being challenged. so i'm of the

Jeff Sessions

10:27:16 to 10:27:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: failing to properly defend that case, as i said earlier, she violated a direct, specific commitment she made to the congress and violated her duty even if she hadn't made that commitment as solicitor general to defend the laws of the united states.

Jeff Sessions

10:27:41 to 10:28:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: now, one of my colleagues said justice -- mate reference to justice souter and his commencement address recently that -- that different aspects of the constitution point in different directions toward different results and they need to be reconciled and judges have to do that. acknowledging these inherent

Jeff Sessions

10:28:03 to 10:28:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: tensions is not only main street, it's old as the constitution, closed quote. well, there's some truth to that, but justice souter's speech and others in his philosophical mold are very troubled -- troubling.

Jeff Sessions

10:28:27 to 10:28:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: in fact, justice intellectually followed on to justice brennan's 1985 georgetown speech which is clearly the playbook for judicial activism. in it, justice brennan, former justice of the u.s. supreme urt, stated -- quote -- "for the genius of the constitution

Jeff Sessions

10:28:49 to 10:29:10( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world now dead and gone but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. what the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their

Jeff Sessions

10:29:11 to 10:29:32( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: measure to the vision of our time." so if the constitution drafters applied to every american from time immemorial unless the constitution was specifically amended had a right to keep and

Jeff Sessions

10:29:33 to 10:29:53( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: bear arms, justice brennan would sa well, we can look at that why, we need to see what the vision for our time is. maybe we need to consult the europeans, like they did in this recent case, the dissenters, in a 5-4 vote that narrowly

Jeff Sessions

10:29:54 to 10:30:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the right to keep and bear arms. allowing judges to determine the vision of ourime is a recipe for legislating by unelected judges. what is the vision of our time is decidedly in the beholder. it is the job of the elected branches of government to make these calls in our

Jeff Sessions

10:30:15 to 10:30:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: constitutional system, not the unelected judiciary. the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make law. that's so basic. don't we all know that? as professor john vetra of l.s.u. put it the choice is tbeen two distinct modes of decision making.

Jeff Sessions

10:30:36 to 10:30:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: legislators make law. they do not write opinions. legislators can legitimately make laws to govern future conduct only. legitimate judging, on the other hand, concerns existing law. interpretation of the existing

Jeff Sessions

10:30:57 to 10:31:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: law, contrary to law making, focuses on the past. legitimate interpretation of existing law explains the result in a well-reasoned opinion -- close quote. i think that was nicely said. judges are not empowered to amend laws, to promote their vision.

Jeff Sessions

10:31:18 to 10:31:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: they're not empowered to alter the meaning of the words of laws or the constitution to promote their core values. now, w what is

Jeff Sessions

10:31:39 to 10:32:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: ms. kagan's view of that? she wrote a law review article in which she said nominees should be far more forthcoming and when they testify and most people think she failed to meet the standard of her own law review. but in this article, she also quoted steven carter's book,

Jeff Sessions

10:32:01 to 10:32:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: with approval, quoting mr. ca saying that -- quote -- "in every exercise of interpretative judgment, there comes a crucial moment when the judge's own experience and values become the most important data." close quote. the judge's own experience and values become the most important

Jeff Sessions

10:32:25 to 10:32:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: data? what law is this? that's not law. i don't know what that is, but it's not law enforcement in the metropolitan corporate council, she wrote in 2004, "the attitudes and views that a person brings to the bench make a difference in how they reach

Jeff Sessions

10:32:46 to 10:33:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: those is that not bias? is that not an affirmation that a judge can bring to the bench their attitudes and views instead of being a neutral umpire, putting on that black probe to symbolize impartiality?

Jeff Sessions

10:33:07 to 10:33:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i think it is. and this is a philosophy of law that is afoot in many of our law schools. there's just no doubt about it. it is out there. people advocate it. well, she wrote and advocated it. and many judges are adhering to this, and it's wrong. they are not empowered to do these kind of things.

Jeff Sessions

10:33:29 to 10:33:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and in one wint view in a magazine in 2004, she said -- quote -- "there should be a range of opinions on the supreme court. it should not just be about laurel qualifications." well, the opinions we need on the court are that a judge should identify what the law is and follow it.

Jeff Sessions

10:33:57 to 10:34:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that's what the view should be. mr. president, ms. kagan -- i do not believe -- handled the harvard military question in any way that's defensible. i've looked at it very carefully.

Jeff Sessions

10:34:18 to 10:34:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i've laid it out in some detail. but still people are asserting things about it that i don't think are quite accurate, and i want to respond to some of the statements that have been made. one of the efforts has been to pointut that -- and to assert that elena kagan treats veterans

Jeff Sessions

10:34:39 to 10:35:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: at -- treated veterans at harvard law school with great respect, hosted them with private dinners in her home and publicly recognizing them and thanking them, she has been praised by several law school veterans who have said she is not antimilitary. and those things have some truth to them.

Jeff Sessions

10:35:22 to 10:35:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: tense. and it was not suc a pleasant time, and the military veterans were not comfortable. she talked about other students being uncomfortable with the military on campus. she said that herself.

Jeff Sessions

10:35:43 to 10:36:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and so this was -- and so the annual veterans dinners that i referred to began in 2006, after university president larry summers had instructed the law school to restore equal access to military recruiters and a the supreme court had rejected her argument that the solomon amendment, which congress passed

Jeff Sessions

10:36:04 to 10:36:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to make sure that these law schools either admitted the military or ceased getting federal money. her argument the solomon endment did not require harvard to give military access to the career services office was rejected by the united

Jeff Sessions

10:36:25 to 10:36:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: states supreme court 8-0. so according to the military veterans who attended harvard law school during this period period,2004-2006, the dinners were actually iniated at the suggestion of the school, the university's dean of students, dean alan cosgrove, whom the

Jeff Sessions

10:36:47 to 10:37:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: military veterans had expressed their concerns about the hostile campus environment toward t military. they'd gone to dean cosgrove and complained about the hostile environment on campus toward the military, and she started some of these dinners. it was only later that dean kagan, who was speaking at one

Jeff Sessions

10:37:10 to 10:37:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: time to a protest march while the military recruiter was in the next building trying to recruit students, and she's out there speaking to a protest rally about the military being on campus. and saying how wrong she thought the military was.

Jeff Sessions

10:37:31 to 10:37:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and most of the law school veterans who praised dean kagan were either not present at the law school during the height of the controversy or were not then even in the military. almost all of them are more recent graduates or current students at harvard, people who liked her outreach efforts at

Jeff Sessions

10:37:56 to 10:38:19( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that time but those -- that was before -- it would be after she was forced to let the recruiters back on campus by the president of the school and by the supreme court. none of the members that have written have or said positive things were members of the student veterans aso, that she's tried to -- association, that

Jeff Sessions

10:38:20 to 10:38:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: she's tried to conscript to take care of the needs of the military recruiters. none of them have been writing such letter here. so, mr. president, i just want to share a few of those thoughts and again challenge my colleagues to be accurate as you can in what they say, either for

Jeff Sessions

10:38:41 to 10:39:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: or against this nominee. she's eitled to fair treatment. but the matters are very serious. the american people want who are committed to their oath and eir oath says that they are to be impartial, that they e to do equal justice to the poor and the rich, that they are to serve under the constitution

Jeff Sessions

10:39:04 to 10:39:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and the laws of the united states, not above it. that's the commitment that we must have. and if we -- and we should, as a senate, never vote to confirm any judge, liberal actiist or conservative activist, who once

Jeff Sessions

10:39:26 to 10:39:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: they put on that robe will not be impartial, will not provide equal justice but will allow their personal biases or beliefs and prejudices to influence how they decide cases or their politics. that is a disqualifying facr. we must note that any nominee is committed to the ideal of

Jeff Sessions

10:39:47 to 10:40:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: impartial justice. i do not believe this nominee has ever had an opportunity to demonstrate that, that she would be unbiased in these circumstances, and indeed her record indicates that she has consistently allowed her personal feeling to override the law and her duty. therefore, i oppose the nomination.

Jeff Sessions

10:40:09 to 10:40:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

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