On the recordMarch 21, 2012
reserving the right to object, I want to congratulate my colleague Senator Durbin for his able articulation of his view. This is a matter that the Senate and the Congress has considered for quite a number of years. It has not decided to take this step to direct a coequal branch of government on how to conduct their business, and I don't think we should. So I think it would be inappropriate to pass this on a UC without a full debate and discussion and a full vote on it. So I would say that. Also, I would note the Justices have opposed this policy. I think we have a duty to respect the coequal branch of our government. They feel as though it would impact adversely the tenor and tone of the oral arguments. The Justices would also have to feel a burden and explain why they are asking a question, perhaps citing a case by name that all the lawyers would know but having to explain to nonlawyers now what is on their minds as a part of their process of questioning. So I think that is a factor. I would also note it raises constitutional questions. Why would we want to push to the limit and perhaps push over the limit and try to dictate to a coequal branch how to conduct the adjudicative process? Not the political process; we are the political branch. Theirs is the nonpolitical branch, where Justices are given lifetime tenure so as to insulate them from pressure and to allow them to dispassionately decide complex issues.…
Source
govinfo.gov




