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

2009-06-17- Patrick Leahy
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=287045-1
 

2009-06-16 20:14:09... SOUND A LITTLE BIT LIKE AN ATTACK ON EMPATHY? [LAUGHTER] OF COURSE, I WOULD MENTION...

2009-06-16 20:14:17... I WOULD MENTION THAT THE OPPOSITE OF EMPATHY IS INDIFFERENCE. DO WE REALLY WANT...
 

The Supreme Court and the Nomination of Judge Sotomayor

Text

Good morning, everyone. Good morning. It is indeed a good morning. I am indeed privileged to be the professor of public interest law here at the university of the district of columbia. David clarke school of law. I also privileged to serve, as many of you know, as the president of the leadership conference on civil rights. And for those of you who don't know, the leadership conference is the nation's premier civil and human rights coalition with over 200 national organizations working to build an america as good as its ideals. And so, today the introduction of this year's lecturer is a very special honor for me. There are few individuals, and i can honestly say without fear of contradiction, even if you were in congress who exemplify his integrity, his passion and commitment to building in america that we all want to live in.

 Now, ted kennedy is one, john lewis is another. And so is the man i'm privileged to introduce this morning, senator patrick leahy of vermont. [applause] .. You can occasionally see it in his eyes as the thunders against the denial of an important civil rights or when he speaks of the dangers of trampling on the checks and balances or civil liberties in the name of national security. And, with the kind of criticism he has turned over the years from people like dick cheney, including some language that i won't repeat here, it is obvious that he has been remarkably effective. Even when senator leahy himself wound up being a target of-- during the wake of the anthrax attacks in 2001, leading to his being under 24 hours a day police guard, he never set aside his principles. And, he continued to speak out for balancing safety with freedom and against irrational hatred that followed 9/11. He was with us for example when the leadership conference held a vigil at the national japanese-american memorial to patriotism, to join us in speaking out on behalf of arab americans and seek americans that were being scapegoated in many of the same ways that japanese americans have endured 60 years earlier. In that same environment, he put politics aside and fought to make the patriot acts more protective of civil liberties and later was one of only a handful of senators to vote against its renewal because it clearly was not striking the right balance.

Speaking of hate crimes, i should point out that with the killing last week of officer stephen tyrone jones at the holocaust museum, it appears that we may be seeing a new, perhaps bolder phase of the hate crime problem. And i know that senator leahy, who has long been one of our strongest allies in the effort to pass a stronger hate crimes law would agree on the need for more aggressive congressional action. Now of course as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator leahy will be presiding over the confirmation proceedings for a judge sonia sotomayor, who i am thrilled to know as currently in line to be the first latino american member of the united states supreme court. Perhaps we will hear and i suspect we will, more about the confirmation process when senator leahy takes the podium in just a moment. I should make one final point.

 Senator leahy recently reestablished the judiciary subcommittee on human rights and the law, a move that i strongly support and hope will help to eliminate what is essentially an artificial distinction between what we usually referred to as domestic civil rights and what we call global human-rights. The first step we should take of course is to restructure the u.s. Civil rights commission but i will save that for another day. Now, before coming to washington, pat leahy was the state attorney in chittenden county vermont for eight years. He was first elected to the senate in 1974 and has the distinction of being the first and only democrat in vermont history to ever hold that office. He also has an even more interesting distinction i believe of being the first and only u.s. Senator delever be endorsed for re-election by his own upon it. [laughter] terry farmer fred title, let's hear it for fred. [applause] this happened in 1998 and obviously speaks volumes about how proud the people of vermont are to have senator leahy represent them. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in a very warm welcome for senator patrick leahy. [applause]

Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. It is great to be here. Michael, i told you earlier you remind me so much of your late father, and of course dr. Sessions, dean broderick and especially my dear friend wade henderson, the longtime president of the leadership conference of civil-rights at now the joseph rauh, jr. Professor of public interest law here. I have to tell you, wade and i have worked on so many things and it is kind of funny in the judiciary committee because you can see when these debates are going on and i am ready to tear out whatever hair i have left. I look over and wade will be there in the back and kind of give me a smile or a thumbs-up and i will say what the heck, let's keep this thing going. We are going to win eventually. And we usually to. So, it is great to see the students here. You are going to law school at such an exciting time.

You have a president who is committed to restoring the role of the united states around the world on such important issues as human rights and economic recovery. I think when he was asked by some students, french and german students, they said is there really change in america? He said, i am a black man named barack hussein obama. , edgemoor change do you expect? I see it when i go abroad and people want to shake my hand. And they say are you american? The weekend after changing planes at degaulle airport in france, where before the french had been rather hostile toward us and saying excuse me, we have just been in america. Argue and american? Yes i am an american. I am so happy for america. I am like, okay. [laughter] when i was in the law school i was inspired by another young president, john kennedy who was president while i was here in law school and the senate. I have had the privilege of working with his youngest brother, ted kennedy, for the past 35 years on some of the most pressing issues in this country. Next month as wade said, the senate judiciary committee is going to hold hearings on president obama's historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states.

And when we were meeting about this, and i see bruce cohen, my chief council here, the question was asked their we going to get her confirmed? You better believe we are going to give her confirmed. [applause] take that one to the bank. [applause] just think of the number and her nomination, president obama's first nominee to the supreme court, she is the first nominee in well over a century to have been nominated to three different federal judicial offices by three different presidents, george h.w. Bush to the district court, president clinton to the second court of appeals and now president obama to the supreme court, and of course she is the first hispanic nominated to the supreme court. Being first is not always easy. Some may be the first in your family to attend law school or to even attend college. I know that my family came around 1850, the leahy's to vermont and yet that became the first leahy to receive a college degree. My sister was the second one. Judge sotomayor was only the third and only the third class of women admitted at princeton. She graduated summa cum laude and phi beta kappa. She went on and excelled in law school. She began her legal career as a prosecutor in new york city and, and the d.a. Of manhattan, bob morganthal wrote a piece saying what a great prosecutor she was. I remember when president clinton had nominated her to the second circuit. Republican controlled senate put a hold on her nomination.

They tried to block her. I made more than a dozen speeches on the senate urging those who placed a an anonymous-- to come forward and they didn't. In june 1998 there was a call from the "wall street journal" who said, they were trying to hold her up because they were afraid president clinton might nominate her to the supreme court if there is a vacancy. When the supreme court ended without it they concede the republican controlled senate finally released her nomination. She was confirmed overwhelmingly and not one word was spoken on the senate floor against her by those who thought it was so important to hold her up for a disgraceful period of time. So this brings me back. When thurgood marshall was nominated to the second circuit, he faced stiff opposition. It didn't make any difference that he graduated first in his class at howard university law school or that he had been the council for the naacp legal defense fund. He had all kinds of hostile questions in his confirmation hearing. His nomination was stalled in the senate for some time. He was appointed solicitor general of the united states. Throughout his career as a supreme advocate, he successfully argued in nine out of 32 cases before the supreme court. He 129 auto of 32 and when president johnson nominated him to be the first african-american supreme court justice, the president noted it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it.

Well, president obama hess follow that tradition. It is long overdue that such a jurist to our highest court, not only her experience as a prosecutor but her experience in private practice. She is served on a court longer than any nominee to the supreme court in 100 years. I think is the first lady said, not only do i believe judge sotomayor is prepared to serve all americans as the supreme court justice. I believe the country is more than ready to see this accomplished and respected women to do just that. This should be a time, instead of the divisions we are seeing and the people who are trying to block her, this is a time we should come together and say what a wonderful example of diversity in america to see this nomination. [applause] thank you. And it makes my skin crawl when i hear of one of the leaders of the other party on his radio show compare her to the head of the ku klux klan.

This is shameless. This is wrong. This goes beyond rhetoric. And I think about history over justice marshall's hearing. And again, them in 139-- and the questions were embarrassing light, are you prejudiced because of white people in the self? Come on, give me a break. Let's not go back to those kind of days. I would hope that the senate republicans remember the proud history of the party of Lincoln and the civil-rights act of 1960, and as the party that eventually voted unanimously, unanimously for thurgood marshall for the united states supreme court. Justice Marshall wasn't the only the first to face adversity.

 When justice Brandies, one of the giants of the supreme court was nominated to the high court he had to overcome severe anti-Semitism, significant opposition. The commentary at the time was questions about the Jewish mind, how its operations are complicated by altruism.  Does that sound a little bit like an attack on empathy? [laughter] of course, i would mention that the opposite of empathy is indifference. Do we really want that in a justice?

 I think of the first catholic nominee had to come the argument that says hickham i.t. He would be dominated by the pope, which reminds me it has absolutely nothing to do with the speech. That was an argument that john kennedy faced when he was running, the joke he told of the word that, had they lost some of the pope was going to move into the white house, the pope is going to run things. He said had we lost, we would only have enough money to send a one word telegram to the pope, unpacked. [laughter] but you know, i asked sonia sotomayor about the comments she has made. She said, of course one's life experience shapes to they are. I would hope your life experience shaped everyone in this room but she was not to say ultimately completely, and those are her words, ultimately and completely as a judge will follow the law. There's not one law for one race or another. There's not one law for one color or another. There's not one law for one rich and poor. There is only one law and ultimately and completely a judge has to follow the law of the matter what his or her upbringing might be. That is the kind of impartial judge that we want. That is respect for the rule of law. That is also the kind of judge sonia sotomayor has been and i think that when she is elevated to the nation's highest court, she will live up to justice thurgood marshall's description of the work of a judge. He said in our day-to-day work we must continue to realize we are dealing with individuals, not statistics. And i think those are important words because we could have, the court could have a fundamental impact on people's lives. Let me tell you about one case. The lilly ledbetter case and the students will study this, five justices struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across the country. 40 years ago congress put in place a lot to outlaw discrimination in the workplace. So, men and women would receive equal pay for equal work. Now, what they did, the supreme court did in an activist court. The court made up of people who talked about judicial modesty and judicial restraint during their confirmation hearing. The court basically is that-- struck down equal pay for women. I was very proud to be standing with lilly ledbetter, standing right behind president obama and wade, you were there, when he signed aleve ledbetter the law as his first act and that is going to change us. Do you know, those who care about the constitution, we should ask whether judge sotomayor will act in the mold of those conservative activists on the court now to go to legislation designed to protect americans from discrimination in their jobs and voting. Laws meant to guarantee the access of americans to healthcare and education, law is meant to protect the privacy of all americans in overreaching government. When those laws are in place, and conservatives on the court strike goes down, are they not being the same kind of activist they tell us to avoid? So, it took the supreme court who understood the real world to take this seemingly doctorate separate but equal. What could sound more fair? And reality of course, it is a straitjacket, offensive to the constitution. Ada loud segregation and all americans have come to respect what the supreme court did in brown versus board of education to end racial discrimination, but just two years ago in the seattle school desegregation courts, the narrowly divided supreme court undercut that landmark decision. Something i thought i would never see in my lifetime. Chief justice roberts opinion failed to recognize the struggle for equality and that persisted long after brown versus board of education. Segregation did not end with the case of brown versus board of education. It may have ended, but it did not end de facto, so we should always fight and justice stevens wrote in a dissent, and please read that, in the case that the chief justice's opinion twisted brown versus board in a cruelly ironic way. Justice breyer's dissent criticized the justice, the chief justice's opinion as applying in overly theoretical case, approach to case law and he said, lot is not an exercise in mathematical logic. If it was, we would not need judges. We could do with computers and i don't ever want to see that day. [applause] chief justice warren, chief justice warren m. Man who had real life experience that took two and a half years but he made sure it was going to be a unanimous decision, so it deeply divided united states of america could accept this. In contrast the roberts court in its divided desegregation decision to years ago ignored the real world experience of millions of americans and said it would depart from the hollowed presidents of the court. In a few days the supreme court will issue one of its most important decisions in years. The constitutionality of the reauthorized voting rights act. Voting rights act provision section 5 is a time-honored way to prevent discrimination. The court has always upheld the constitution of section 5. I have got to tell you, i listen to that argument in the supreme court and i am very, very worried about-- you know students are taught that there is no more explicit brand of power to congress than that of the 15th amendment to allow us to protect the right to vote. The passage of the voting rights act was the result of that historic struggle for civil rights. Your dead remembers that. He remembers when it reached a crucial turning point on march 7, 1965. I was 15 years old and at that time-- i was 25 years old, i am sorry. [laughter] i wish i was 15. But on the edmonds pettis bridge in selma alabama straight troopers dirtily john lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers and if you ever have a chance to meet john lewis, you were meeting a hero. The events of that day now known as bloody sunday were captured in newspapers dotus, on television and prove to be a catalyst. America woke up to the ugly face of segregation. And congress that the voting rights act within months so the constitution guarantees of equal access to the political process regardless of race would not be undermined by discriminatory practices. Now, there was a big battle to get that through but three years ago, republicans and democrats in the senate and house of representatives came together. We reauthorized this. We did this after 20 hearings in the house and senate. We had an overwhelming vote. President george w. Bush had a major signing ceremony on it, and now we have to worry whether the supreme court is going to undermine that. I said to john lewis when we were walking out after the signing, i said john, isn't this wonderful that we have kept this? He said you know patrick, it is wonderful not just for african-americans. It is wonderful for poor whites, it is wonderful for hispanics, it is wonderful for all of those people that the power structure of might want to keep from voting. So, when we consider judge sotomayor's nomination this summer, think with the enormous impact justices have on our freedoms and values. And whether you are from the south bronx where the south side of chicago, or south burlington vermont the american dream inspires all of us. Her life story is the american dream. Instead of having this division in the senate we should unite all senators because only 101 people get a voice in the appointment and the seating of the supreme court justice. First and foremost the president, who makes the nomination, then 100 senators who have to sit in place of 300 million americans. We should come together. Remember what the vermont marble over the entrance of the supreme court says, equal justice under law. We should get this nomination and we should confirm her, and we should guarantee equal justice under law. Thank you very, very much. [applause] [applause] any questions? Way, you are the professor.
Senator first of all thank you for that wonderful speech. Thank you for honoring us by coming to the david a. Clarke school of law. The dean has a cup, which i know she wants to present to you. I also know your schedule is tight in you agree to take a couple of questions from students so that if their students in the audience that would like to test senator a question, let me ask you to identify yourself, stand up and ask quickly if you would. Yes maam. Identify yourself please.

Class of 2012. I am going back to the voting rights act. Why after all this time should still be just nearly to certain states and counties in virginia? Why not apply to everybody so all jurisdictions have to submit their redistricting? When that the more there?

The question should all districts have to resubmit their application? Actually because most districts did not show history of segregation. For example, my state of vermont is considered one with the fairest among the fairest election laws in the country. We do not have racial imbalances in vermont. We are probably the most homogeneous state in the country, but what we do is we know those areas where there have been problems. As new areas come up with problems, then they decision can be made to submit it. It is done in a very careful way and it has worked very well. Most places, even those that submit it, have to submit their program and don't mind. I have had people tell me from those, look, it is a way of keeping us on this. I go back to the days of brown versus board and other segregation was made illegal. At i remember i was 18, who i was the fed jr. And college. I came down here with my parents to d.c. And i saw for the first time signs that still said and whites only. My son-in-law, who is african-american remembers even though it was illegal growing up in richmond, there were places he could not go. It is not only getting rid of legal segregation, it is getting rid of de facto segregation.

One last question. Anyone else? I am sorry, please identify yourself. [inaudible] change in that dialogue around what happens in this country and i'm wondering within the context of the judiciary committee if there's going to be any effort or any willingness to address some of the issues that have happened over the last eight years from the last administration as far as human rights abuses around the world? Historically the u.s. Has not tried to put its own citizens of four, in that context for accountability on human rights issues around the world. Wet the same time we have tried to hold of the country's accountable for their human rights actions, so i am wondering what will the judiciary do in terms of the last eight years in this country and human rights abuses that have been done by people in this country?

I think our subcommittee on human rights will be doing a lot of that but a lot of it is by our own example, closing guantanamo bay, the president-- prison is going to be one of the best examples. [applause] i think a president who was not afraid to talk not only to the greatness of america, there are so many things great about our country but also to be willing to talk about where we made mistakes. That is an example to countries who don't want to ever met their own mistakes. I think we lead by example. In the past we were able to lead by example. But we have to restore our own principles. I had this fight over the department justice, in this last administration as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, and i remember being extraordinarily frustrated, maybe that is a new england understatement, with then attorney general gonzalez about what was going on, the manipulation of the prosecution. I told him about, when i was in law school, i was interviewed by the then attorney general who had brought in a few students, trying to get this to come to the department of justice. I remembered saying to the attorney-general, and you know who i am talking about in just a moment here, i said to the attorney general, would you allow interference from the white house in a prosecution? He said under no circumstances. I explained to the president that neither he nor anybody from the white house can interfere or get involved in prosecutions during this last administration they had over 40 people who could be involved. And i said to him, i said thank you attorney general robert kennedy. That means a lot to me. He ended up prosecuting the man who was vital to his brother's election as president, but the man was going to be prosecuted. He did say to a staff, is this going to be a problem? He said i probably won't go to many family reunions for a while but that is the kind of independence there should be. Let me just close with one word to the students. I was very fortunate to be a law student in washington during that time of john kennedy but i remember the sadness up when my wife of 47 years ago, she was working as a nurse to put me through law school. .. The more the obligation the more you have to do for others, do pro bono work will. How about others? Do things that make you part of the community, not isolated from the community. You be a better person your community will be a better place. Thank you were very much. [applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, join me in thanking patrick leahy.

Thank you. [applause] senator, six or seven years ago for its bitter ginsburg was a lecturer and talked about how lonely it was to be a woman on the supreme court bench so i know you're going to do the right thing. I also have to tell you the students last year provided 85,000 hours of legal services to the most vulnerable d.c. Residents through the clinical program which is the most extensive in the country so you're talking about the right group. They are here to make a change. Thank you, senator leahy. You rock. [applause]