Senate Debate on Empathy
=====================================

2009-05-13 -Roland Burris 2009-05-13

1 10:30
3 3:00
4 5:00

6 6:00

[D-IL]
Begin 15:33:30    3:30
End 15:40:36
Length00:07:06

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as I address this Chamber today, politicians and pundits across the country are bracing for the spirited tug-of-war which precedes the confirmation of any new Supreme Court Justice. A list of names has appeared, seemingly out of thin air, and the media is already beginning its speculative debate on who this person will be.

Many seem eager to attack or defend potential nominees based on ideological grounds or even specific issues. I see little value in this overblown rhetoric and idle speculation. We must be careful in our approach to such an important task. I call upon the White House to give us a nominee who will provide diversity to the Court and ensure that each ruling is informed by real-life experience as well as sound legal reasoning. The greatest jurors in our history have been drawn from the Federal bench,
private life, academia, and even elected office. It is these exceptional, independent leaders to whom our President must now turn.

Some will warn that any Obama nominee will be prone to political bias and judicial activism. We must be wary as we evaluate such claims. Certainly, it is right to oppose any jurist who would attempt to legislate from the bench. The Supreme Court must be bound by law and the weight of precedent. Justices must respect our Constitution and remain unbiased on all matters.

But too often, we mistake insensitivity for impartiality. We cannot afford to choose a clear record at the expense of clear judgment. Decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education display compassion, not activism. Roe v. Wade stood on principle, not on ideology. Some call it activism; I call it courage. Our judicial history is full of these independent decisions, and we should demand such strength and integrity from every jurist we place on the bench. After all, without any kind of courage,
the Supreme Court itself would hardly exist as we know it. Marbury v. Madison was a landmark ruling that forever altered the role of the Court. It established judicial review and laid the groundwork for almost every decision in the last two centuries.

We must oppose jurists who would overreach, but we would be well served to find a candidate with the integrity to draw on his or her God-given sense of empathy and personal life experiences.

Above all, we must ensure that he or she will bring diversity to the Supreme Court. I encourage the President to give serious consideration to naming a woman of color to the High Court. Diversity of race and gender, diversity of background, diversity of thought, and diversity of judicial philosophy--all of these qualities would bring new views and experience to the Supreme Court and would encourage healthy debate among its members, bringing new perspective to each ruling.

Any experienced attorney--and there are many of us in this Chamber--knows that finding legal truth is not easy. Few issues are black and white. Judges must sift through shades of gray to make informed decisions. Legal truth arises from this dialog, from the collision of different perspectives and opinions. In shaping the Supreme Court, we seek to build debate, not consensus.

Justice David Souter, throughout his 18-year tenure on the Supreme Court, has consistently given a thoughtful voice to the principles of fairness, equality, and the importance of precedent. He has always been a consistent advocate for ``a philosophy of all philosophies'' which values fresh ideas, unique perspectives, and inclusive debate. As this brilliant jurist moves into retirement, we must embrace his independent legacy by confirming someone who will bring diversity, empathy, and a powerful intellect to the bench. In short, we must ensure that he or she is worthy to be placed among the highest legal minds in the United States of America.

As a former attorney general of Illinois, I can speak to the awesome impact the Supreme Court has on ordinary citizens. It is a testament to the enduring strength of our democracy that nine individuals, appointed and confirmed by representatives of the people, stand squarely at the crossroads of justice. They are entrusted to navigate difficult legal ground in order to distinguish right from wrong and to guard the sanctity of the Constitution. When any five of these individuals [Page:
S5421]
come together to hand out a ruling, it becomes the law of the land. There is no implicit threat of violence to back up these decisions--merely the quiet force of a written opinion. That is the wonder of this thing called a democracy and the power of this Court.

This is a rare and remarkable opportunity for this body to have a voice in shaping the highest court in the Nation--a court whose actions will continue to reverberate across the legal landscape for future generations of Americans. With the full weight of this serious task resting on our shoulders, I ask my fellow Senators to ignore the media's idle speculation. Now is the time to exercise our constitutional powers of advise and consent. The urgent needs of the American people demand that we think
outside of the box. We must confirm an individual whose unique perspective can bring fresh diversity into the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to join with me in communicating to President Obama that we will settle for nothing less.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.