Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Aug 5th, 2009 :: 1:41:55 to 1:59:40
Total video length: 5 hours 41 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:404 Duration: 0:17:45 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Mel Martinez

1:41:51 to 1:42:14( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: debated thorohly, that their records are reviewed in great detail and t protect the constitution of the united states of america and to follow it as a upheld. my hope is that i'm incorrect about how judge sotomayor will

Mel Martinez

1:41:55 to 1:59:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Mel Martinez

Mel Martinez

1:42:15 to 1:42:35( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: in fact use the constitution. today i announce that i will vote against her. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest -- i yield t floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding senator from florida.

Mel Martinez

1:42:36 to 1:42:56( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: mr. martinez: mr. president, i rise today also to nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states, and i'm happy to have this opportunity for i view this historic moment in many, many ways. the confirmation of a supreme

Mel Martinez

1:42:57 to 1:43:17( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: court nominee is really one of the most solemn and unique duties in our constitutional system of government. the framers recognizing the risk of abuse inherent in a lifetime judicial appointment created a process that brings together all three branches of the federal government. the constitution, article

Mel Martinez

1:43:18 to 1:43:39( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: section 2, requires that a nominee to the federal court must be selected by president -- and then i quote -- "with the advice and consent of the senate." so these appreciated and approached with a great deal of thoughtfulness and this is all the more true when the appointment is to our

Mel Martinez

1:43:40 to 1:44:00( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: highest court, the supreme court of the united states. there was a time when members of the senate understand their role, where senators expected a president of the other party to pick a judge who would likely than someone they would picked. and there's a couple of examples i'd like to use.

Mel Martinez

1:44:01 to 1:44:21( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: justice ginsburg, a very talented person who served as general counsel to the aclu, not likely to have been someone selected by a republican president. but, yet she was confirmed with 95 votes. republicans knew that she would be a liberal justice, but she was also well qualified for the

Mel Martinez

1:44:22 to 1:44:43( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: judge. that's another example, and that's justice antonin scalia. he was picked by a republican president and received 98 votes. every democrat knew or probably should have known that they were voting for a conservative. but they also understood that

Mel Martinez

1:44:44 to 1:45:06( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: then-judge scalia was incredibly qualified and should be serving on the united states supreme court given that he had been nominated by a president and the requisite qualifications, which is really in the essence of what this confirmation process is and should be about. but thing have changed since those votes. they've changed from what is historally acceptable and what

Mel Martinez

1:45:07 to 1:45:28( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: has been the long historic tradition of the senat when it comes to senate confirmations of judicial nominees. over the past decade, the senate has lost sight of its role to advice and consent. i'll notice another example,

Mel Martinez

1:45:29 to 1:45:54( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: miguel estrada and chief justice roberts illustrate have politics have been permitted to overwhelm the question posed to the senate, is this nominee qualified? do you give your advice an consent? my colleagues will recall that mr. estrada was first nominated by the first president bush to

Mel Martinez

1:45:55 to 1:46:15( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: he was unanimously rated well qualified for the bench b the american bar association. mr. estrada had an impressive history and personal res. -- resume. he was a native of honorus, graduated magna cum laude and

Mel Martinez

1:46:16 to 1:46:36( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: receed his law degree from harvard in 1986 where he was a member of the harvard law review and clerked for supreme court justice -- justice kennedy. mr. president estrada entered private practice and was a well-respected lawyer working in a new served as assistant u.s. attorney for the southern

Mel Martinez

1:46:37 to 1:46:58( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: district of new york where i believe our nominee also served. then mr. estrada took a job in the george h. administration as an assistant solicitor general. what do they they prepare and argue cases before the supreme court. what could be a better traing ground in addition to a prior clerkship for a court -- for a

Mel Martinez

1:46:59 to 1:47:19( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: court member than to be solicitor general? as a long-time attorney, i always admired greatly those who served in that office because they were the very best of the very best. but politics intervened. he was branded a conservative. through the course of an

Mel Martinez

1:47:20 to 1:47:40( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: unprecedented seven cloture votes, democrats in this body filibustered her nomination. time and again filibustered his nomination. it lingered for 28 months until he finally get on with his life, knowing that he needed to be able to continue to do work for that he couldn'tontinue to be

Mel Martinez

1:47:41 to 1:48:01( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: in a limbo where he months because of the misguided notion that he was just too conservative. it was ok to filibuster him and for 28 months hanging, dangling in the wind. that was not right. it was not the -- for the preme court.

Mel Martinez

1:48:02 to 1:48:23( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: some feared that it might be. he might have been the first hispanic serving in the supreme court nominated by, perhaps, a republican president. while the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito ended quite differe mr. estrada. during the debates of roberts

Mel Martinez

1:48:24 to 1:48:45( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: and alito, then senator barak obama declared each man to be qualified to sit on the supreme court. then judge john roberts, senator obama said, and quote -- "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts qualified to sit on the highest to which i would then say, so

Mel Martinez

1:48:46 to 1:49:06( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: why won't you vote for him? he then said of judge alito -- quote -- "i have no doubt that judge alito has the traing and qualifications necessary to serve. he is an intelligent man and accomplished jurist, thereon is no indication that of great character." now despite the emphatic statements of confidence, then senator obama voted against

Mel Martinez

1:49:07 to 1:49:27( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: confirmation. and why? because of his perception that their phi him to vote for them. given this record some of my colleagues conclude that what is good for the goose is good for the grander. that because of -- gander. because of these recent presidents and despite qualification, they still might

Mel Martinez

1:49:28 to 1:49:48( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: vote against judgeotomayor's nomination. i couldn't disagree more heartly. it is my hope starting today we will no longer do what was done to miguel estrada. that beginning today no member will pursu the flooof argue against the confirmation of a qualified nominee. so what about our current

Mel Martinez

1:49:49 to 1:50:09( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: nominee? what makes her qualified? well, first, i think we do have in judge sotomayor a very historic moment and opportunity. it will be the first hispanic to serve on the highest court of this land. it is a -- a momentous and historic opportunity. but that's not good enough.

Mel Martinez

1:50:10 to 1:50:31( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: what makes her qualified? well, i think that experience, knowledge of the law, temperment, the law without bias. these qualifications should override a over considerations when the senate fulfills its role to advise and consent to the president's nominee as dictated by the constitutional

Mel Martinez

1:50:32 to 1:50:54( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: charge that we have. these are really the standards by which determine who is qualified to serve on any federal court including the highest court of the land. these are the standards i have used in evaluat sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. she has the experience. she knows the lawsm she has the proper

Mel Martinez

1:50:55 to 1:51:17( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: and here's something that's very important, her 17-year judicial record overwhelmingly indicates that she will apply the law without bias. an that's really very important. because, you know, we could find someone who really is facially qualified, but whose views might be for some reason

Mel Martinez

1:51:18 to 1:51:39( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: the mainstream, so different than what the norm of our jurisprudence would be, that it might presentedder them, while factually?? qualified, unqualified. that they could not be relied on to look at the case and apply the facts and the evidence and apply the law to the evidence presented, that they would not follow the law, that they would

Mel Martinez

1:51:40 to 1:52:01( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: not be faithful to their oath. because of their views would be so extreme. so outside the mainstream. so be the norm or considered to be the norm. but here in this person we a 17-year record. she has written thousands of opinions. and these opinions ought to

Mel Martinez

1:52:02 to 1:52:22( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: provide the body of law of what she does as a judge, not what she said to a group of stunts one day trying to encourage them in their lives and what they might be doing. not what someone might have from reading an opinion and perhaps not agree with. it is not whether we agree with

Mel Martinez

1:52:23 to 1:52:44( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: her outcomes or not, whether her opinions have a reason, foundation in law, whether they were reasonable and whether she based them on law andvidence that are supported by sound, legal thinking. even her cite a single instance where she strayed from sound judicial thinking.

Mel Martinez

1:52:45 to 1:53:06( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: i believe she will serve as an outstanding associate justice to the united states supreme court. and that she will be a terrific role model for many, many young people in this country. where i've had to have my opportunity to pick -- were i to have my opportunity to pick, i would have chosen someone

Mel Martinez

1:53:07 to 1:53:27( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: different from judge sotomayor. that's not my job. i don't get to select judges. we sometimes confuse the role of the senate. elections have consequences. some of her writings might indicate that her might be more liberal than mine. that is what happens in elections.

Mel Martinez

1:53:28 to 1:53:49( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: when i was campaigning for my colleague and their friend, john mccain, i knew it would be important because there would be vacancies to the court and i knew i would be much more comfortable with a nominee that john mccain would nominate than one that my former colleague and friend president president obama would nominate. the president has the obligation, the responsibility

Mel Martinez

1:53:50 to 1:54:10( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: to choose his own nominees. our job is to give advice an consent. -- and consent. e president has chosen a nominee and my vote for her confirmation will be based solely and wholly on relevant qualifications. judge sotomayor is well qualified. she's been a federal judge for

Mel Martinez

1:54:11 to 1:54:32( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: 17 years. she has the most experience of any person, judicial experience, on the bench experience of any in a century -- in 100 years, there hasn't been anyone who has been on the bench with such a di long period of time. and that's why, by the way, her

Mel Martinez

1:54:33 to 1:54:53( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: record is really her judicial decisions. we don't have to wonder. we don't have to sit around and try to divine whether some day she will answer the to judicial activism as i heard someone say on the floor of the senate. it might give you an excuse to

Mel Martinez

1:54:54 to 1:55:14( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: vote againstomeone who is otherwise qualified. the fact is with a 17-year record, you should have a pretty good idea if that si ren was answered now. to my estimation it hasn't been. she received the highest possible rating from the judicial bar association for a judicialandidate.

Mel Martinez

1:55:15 to 1:55:40( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: equal to that of miguel estrada and chief justice roberts and justice alito. she was an outstanding lawyer and as a prosecutor beings she was a tough one. her 17-year judicial record reflects left of center, s well within the mainstream of legal thinking.

Mel Martinez

1:55:43 to 1:56:03( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: her mainstream approac mainstream that it has earned her the support of the united states chamber of commerce as well as the endorsement of several law enfor criminal justice organizations. she's been endorsed by the national fraternal order of police, the national sheriff's association and the

Mel Martinez

1:56:04 to 1:56:24( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: international association of chiefs of police. i dare say she'll be a strong voice for law country. now, i disagree with judge sotomayor about several issues. i would expect to have disagreements with many judicial nominees of the obama administration, but probably fewer with her than some that i might see in the future.

Mel Martinez

1:56:25 to 1:56:50( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: although i might disagree with some of her rulings, we know she has a commitment to well-reasoned decisions, de restraint to apply the law as written. i do believe that she will rule with are restrain. that has been her judicial history and philosophy.

Mel Martinez

1:56:51 to 1:57:11( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: her view in her panels maloney v. cuomo opinion is too narrow and contrary to the founder's intent. i know that there is significant and among the nation's appellate courts on this issue. in other words, not out of the mainstream. on this issue i accept the idea that reasonable

Mel Martinez

1:57:12 to 1:57:33( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: differ. this debate raises critical and difficult issues regarding the role of federalism in the application of fundamental but the confirmation process is not the proper place to relitigate this question nor is judge sotomayor's judicial record on this mainstream. i believe that her statements on

Mel Martinez

1:57:34 to 1:57:58( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: the role of international law and american reflect the view that is too expansive. yet her judicial record indicates that in practice she has given weight, to foreign court decisions.

Mel Martinez

1:57:59 to 1:58:20( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: now, for example, in cr craellv.croll, involving the hague convention on international child judge sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion which she held that the courts of the foreign nations same convention, we were -- quote -- "not essential to her reasoning." i believe that some of her statements that she made on her

Mel Martinez

1:58:21 to 1:58:41( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: speeches about the role of one's personal experience are inconsistent with the judicial oaths requirement that judges set aside their when making those decisions. and there are several of my colleagues to say these statements demonstrate that judge sotomayor has had a

Mel Martinez

1:58:42 to 1:59:02( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: facts. we can throw it out there, but it's not supported by the facts. the relevant facts, her 17-year judicial record shows that she has not allowed her personal biases to jurisprudence. they can talk about her speeches, but they cannot talk about a single, solitary opinion

Mel Martinez

1:59:03 to 1:59:23( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: in 17 years o that type of a view given life. wher that type of a view has found itself into the pages of a single one i would rather put my trust and my expectations for the futur on her 17-year record of judicial decisions than i

Mel Martinez

1:59:24 to 1:59:41( Edit History Discussion )

Mel Martinez: on one or two speeches as she might have given over 10 or 15 years. those who oppose judge sotomayor have yet to produce any objective evidence that she has influence her judicial decision making. moreover, in her testimony

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