Jon Kyl: “this is going to sound too much like the mutual admiration society, but before Senator Specter said what he said, I rose…”

“this is going to sound too much like the mutual admiration society, but before Senator Specter said what he said, I rose because I wanted, in return, to pay him a compliment. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee prior to the last election, he performed admirable service to the Senate. I think it is not well known that that kind of a job requires a lot of different skills to be employed to deal with a lot of cantankerous Senators who have their own ideas about how things should be done. Senator Specter always conducted that committee in a way which allowed us to get business done, and respected the rights of Senators. Far too often, debate, or what passes for debate in this Chamber, is speeches given by Senators on different points of view, like ships passing in the night with no joining of the issues, and no serious discussion of complex legal issues, when that should be required. Certainly the Presiding Officer would be well qualified to judge what I am saying. But I always appreciated the opportunity, even when we were in disagreement, to discuss and to debate with the Senator from Pennsylvania, because he is a serious scholar who takes these matters seriously. He may not always come up with legal theory with which I agree, but it is always interesting to debate him. At the end of the day, I would like to think this kind of debate does add to a record that the Court or other observers might actually find informative and helpful in their decisions.”