Thursday, January 26, 2006

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on the Nomination
of Judge Samuel A. Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

Mr. President, at the outset, I thank Mike Quiello and Nick Pearson of my staff for the research and preparation they gave me in my deliberation and consideration of Samuel Alito, Jr., and his appointment to the Supreme Court. Further, as a second generation American, the grandson of a Swedish immigrant who came to this country about 11 years prior to Samuel Alito, Sr.'s coming to this country from Italy, I am pleased that in the next few days I will have the chance to cast my vote to confirm Judge Alito as a Justice of the Supreme Court and reaffirm the promise that is the American dream of those who have come here from backgrounds that are diverse and far away to be a part of a great nation and have pledged their allegiance to all it stands for.

I have thought a lot about what I would say in confirming my vote on behalf of Judge Alito, and I decided, after listening to the speeches over the last couple of days, that I would try to draw a distinction that, to me, has been apparent in this debate but also is clearly the reason that I support Judge Alito. As we have heard today from a number of my colleagues, he has been criticized for being narrow and restrictive. It is important that we understand what the opposite of narrow and restrictive is to understand where those who oppose him are coming from.

The opposite of narrow and restrictive is broad and unlimited. The last thing the United States of America needs, or our Founding Fathers intended, is to have a Supreme Court that is unrestricted and broad in its interpretation of the Constitution and the laws the legislative branch passes under its authority. Therein lies the philosophical difference in this debate.

It has saddened me that through innuendo and reference in some of the previous speeches over the last couple of days, Judge Alito has been cast as being exactly the opposite of what Judge Alito really is. For example, in the recent aftermath of the tragedies in West Virginia, one speaker referred to Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in the case of RNS Services v. Department of Labor as exemplifying the fact that Judge Alito was against the little man and the worker.

That was a case where a ruling was made on the application of a rule on mine safety. But if you read the rule, Judge Alito did what you would hope a judge would do: He ruled on the application of the rule given the circumstances of the case. He didn't rule against the little man, nor did he rule for the big guy; he ruled based on the laws and the regulations promulgated by the agency this Congress appointed to be over mine safety. That is precisely what we need--a Court that will show us direction, but a Court that will never direct the laws we have passed in the wrong direction.

Secondly, there have been those who have talked about his commitment to civil rights, or really his lack of commitment to civil rights in terms of the claims of a few. I went to do some research on that issue because everything I saw in Judge Alito when he and I talked was the opposite of what those allegations would imply. I went to the testimony of Jack White, an attorney from San Francisco, CA, an African American, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union who came to Washington, DC, and testified before the Judiciary Committee on behalf of Samuel Alito. Rather than me trying to paraphrase what Jack White said, I would like to read it verbatim and then ask anyone who hears this speech the question whether Samuel Alito is a man who is not for the civil rights of all and the individual rights and liberties of every American:

Now, as I clerked for Judge Alito, I saw a deep sense of duty, diligence, humanity, and respect for his role as a Federal appellate judge. .....

..... He uniformly applied the relevant law to the specific facts of every case. Judge Alito recognized that every case was the most important case to the parties and attorneys with something at stake.

See, Judge Alito doesn't judge people by their color; he judges everybody individually in the cases he calls, as the cases are, understanding that every party has an equal interest.

I further quote Jack White:

I never witnessed an occasion when personal or ideological beliefs motivated a specific outcome in a case.

..... I left New Jersey without knowing Judge Alito's personal beliefs on any of them. Now, the reason I didn't know his personal beliefs on all these issues was that the jurist's ideology was never an issue in a case that Judge Alito heard.

You see, Jack White, who was an African-American law clerk for Judge Alito, said that when he left, he never saw the ideological beliefs of the judge interfere with his judgment of the law and his ruling in a case.

I end my quote by reading simply what he said:

Without fail, I saw Judge Alito treat everyone, every individual, with dignity and respect.

I will take the word of Jack White, who worked for Sam Alito, any day over any of us who, through innuendo or what we may have heard, want to castigate this nominee on his commitment to civil rights. Jack White's word, and his experience, is good enough for me. And Jack White knows what I know about Sam Alito--that he is committed to equity and fairness in the treatment of all Americans.

There has been something made of the fact that he is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. I wish to talk about that for a minute.

Sandra Day O'Connor is one of my favorite Justices. I am not a lawyer. I came to the Senate from the House, but prior to my years in the House, I ran a small business. I am a businessman, and that is the interest I know and that which I know the best. Judge O'Connor was, without question, during her period on the bench the very best Justice in dealing with the complex issues of business that came before the U.S. Supreme Court. When I had the chance to meet with Judge Alito, I made that point to him and I asked him questions about American business, free enterprise, and the law. In every case, I became convinced that he had the same commitment Sandra Day O'Connor had.

To that end, and with regard to ``narrow and restrictive'' and with regard to the little guy, I wish to conclude my remarks on behalf of Samuel Alito by taking a second to talk about the Kelo v. New London case, the dissenting opinion which Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, and the answers to questions Judge Alito gave before our Judiciary Committee because they completely contravene any comment anybody has made about his commitment to the little guy or the benefit, or lack thereof, of narrow and restrictive ideology.

Justice O'Connor was one of the four dissenting Justices in the Kelo case. They didn't believe in the broadening of eminent domain to take property just because somebody could pay more taxes and would benefit more from it, and I concur with that. I think they made the right ruling. She said:

For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property--

She is speaking within the context of the ruling in the majority.

Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

What more brilliant statement can be made on behalf of the little guy, the average American, or the small homeowner than Sandra Day O'Connor's? What better affirmation of someone's capacity to replace that distinguished Justice could you possibly make than by reading the last sentence of Judge Alito's answer to that question before the Judiciary Committee when he was asked about the Kelo case? He said:

I would imagine that when someone's home is being taken away, a modest home, for the purpose of building a very expensive commercial structure, that is particularly galling [to me].

Sandra Day O'Connor was a great Justice and did a great service to America. She broke the glass ceiling in being the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe Justice Alito will serve our people on this Court every bit in same way Justice O'Connor did. The criticisms of Judge Alito of being narrow and restrictive may, in fact, be, if you look at them in the perspective I have given, a great compliment to his ability and that which all of us seek, and that is a jurist who will rule based on the law, not legislate based on the position. A jurist understands the value and the strength and the power of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I look forward to casting my vote in favor of the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court.