On the recordFebruary 26, 2003
After I finish. When the Clinton nominees came before the Judiciary Committee under the control of the Republicans, they were peppered with questions. Some of those questions I think went way beyond the realm of reasonable inquiry. I can recall one woman from California who was asked to explain how she had voted on every proposition before the California voters over the previous 10 years; in other words, to disclose the secrecy of the ballot place, how she had voted and why on every proposition. That was a question propounded by a Republican Senator from the Judiciary Committee, still serving there, to this Clinton nominee. She said that is unfair, and we agreed with her. Because of that stance she took, she waited forever and ever to be confirmed. In this situation I think what we are dealing with is a reasonable inquiry--positions on Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court cases. We are not asking for Miguel Estrada to disclose his personal conscience and feelings on issues that may be of some personal note to him, but, rather, to focus on his view of the law. I think that is reasonable. I hope we will continue in our efforts to do that.
Source
govinfo.gov




