WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH) supported the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court Chief Justice in a Senate floor speech on September 27, 2005. The following is a transcript of his remarks:

“Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.

“I note, as did the Senator from Texas, this has been a relatively smooth process. We should all be glad for that. It has been one that maybe has taken a little bit longer than some would have hoped. Everything seems to take longer in the Senate. Maybe that is part of the process. It is a process that is straightforward and clear. This is a life appointment, and for that reason alone it should be a process that is very deliberate and thorough.

 “It is unfortunate that some people have used the deliberate nature of the process to accentuate the dramatic. There has probably been an excess of hyperbole and an excess of rhetoric probably on both sides of the aisle as we consider this nomination. This is something that has been done before; it will be done again for decades to come. The Senate approves nominations for the judiciary all the time. It should be something we are accustomed to and feel comfortable in doing and do in the natural course of things rather than deal with the rhetoric and the hyperbole and sometimes the partisan tactics we have seen, even in this nomination, albeit it has been relatively smooth.

“The hearings are a case in point. One would expect the bulk of nomination hearings to be taken up by testimony from the nominee to be a Justice, to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the bulk of the hearings to be taken up by that nominee answering questions or responding to queries. For those who did watch the hearings, they would agree the bulk of the hearings seemed to be taken up by very lengthy, and at times self-indulgent speeches by members of the committee. I don't think that serves the institution particularly well when we view the nomination process or these hearings as an opportunity to talk about ourselves, to talk about our view of the world, to talk about what we want, rather than to talk about what the country or the judiciary needs.

 “We seek--and I think opponents and supporters of Judge Roberts would agree with this statement--individuals who are well-qualified to serve on the bench. I argue, to the chagrin of ideologues on both sides, we have found just that in John Roberts. I say to the chagrin of people on both sides because in the past the smallest perceived or argued concern about an individual's qualification would be used as a screen or as a justification for voting against a nominee. In the absence of that decoy, the truth is laid bare that the only reason to object to such a qualified nominee is on partisan or ideological grounds.

“Judge Roberts is eminently qualified. I don't need to describe his unbelievably strong record not just as a judge but as an individual bringing cases before the court. He has very distinguished experience in the private sector, as well as Harvard Law School. In recognizing this individual is among the most qualified ever to come before the Senate, his opponents are forced to recognize that their vote against him is simply because he fails their litmus test of partisan ideology because he refuses to tell legislators how he is going to vote on cases that are yet to come before the court because he believes that Justices should decide cases and not write the law.

“There are some Members who have already stated their decision to vote against him for just these reasons. But those are the very reasons, or the very principles, that should be the foundation of an independent and impartial judiciary. So when John Roberts' opponents, when those Senators who are going to vote no, say: He is well respected, well qualified, has a great record on the bench, a great academic record and great experience, but I am going to vote against him anyway, they are saying, I am going to vote against him because he does not fit my view of ideology because he has not committed to vote a particular way on a particular case. That is to say, I am voting against John Roberts because I do not want an impartial or independent judiciary.

 “That is a wrong and, in fact, dangerous view of what the judiciary should be.

 “They are opposing a capable, accomplished, well-qualified individual, and in doing so they are casting a vote against an independent and impartial judiciary. Those who will vote would take to this floor and say: No, that is not the case at all; we are for an independent and impartial judiciary. But I cite for them the very example, the very testimony that was cited earlier by the Senator from Texas. She spoke about a question that concluded in the Judiciary Committee: Will you vote for the little guys? That very question indicates that someone had already presupposed what the best vote was for that case, hypothetical or not. And if you are looking for a judge who agrees with your presupposed verdict in a case, or your presupposed vote in a case, then you have no interest in an impartial or independent judiciary. I think it is very difficult to argue the contrary.

 “This is not just a slippery slope, this is a dangerous precedent to set--left or right, liberal or conservative. To ask any judge, whether it is for the Supreme Court or for the Federal judiciary or the appeals court, to sit in front of a room of elected legislators and ask them about the position that they would take in cases that they are yet to hear is to stand up in front of your constituents, to stand up in public and say: I don't want an independent judiciary. I do not want an impartial judiciary. I just want someone who will commit to me to vote a specific way.

“That is not what any judiciary should do. That is not how judges should comport or handle themselves, and that means that I will not always agree with cases and decisions rendered by the Supreme Court or my judge or Justice, but it means that as an elected official or as an American feeling confident that instead of looking for a biased judiciary, a judiciary that handles its job like a politician selling votes to get where they are, I can sleep at night knowing that I have cast votes consistently for an independent, impartial, well-qualified judiciary.

“I think if you talk to the Republicans who are in the Senate who voted nearly unanimously for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they will argue that is exactly what they had in their minds--not casting a vote for a judge that would vote a particular way but voting for someone who at the end of the day they recognized was capable, was well qualified, and therefore would bring those skills and that capability to the judiciary in a direct and impartial way. Judge Roberts, in his testimony, summarized the importance of this approach quite well. He said the role of a judge is limited. The judges are to decide the cases before them; they are not to legislate. They are not to decide cases.

 “I think it was Justice White who first used those two words to describe the role of a judge as a Supreme Court Justice--decide cases, and decide those cases based on the text of the Constitution as it is written, not as any one of us wishes that it might have been written. I think in Judge Roberts we find just such an individual who is qualified, who is capable, who will, I hope, sit on the bench for a long time supporting, verifying, and validating this very concept of an independent and impartial judiciary. And those who vote against him set a bad precedent in striking a blow and casting a vote against that independence and impartiality that the Framers so hoped for our country for years to come.”

-30-