On the recordMay 18, 2005
we are debating in the Senate today a very important issue. It is an issue that we must deal with and one that may take days of debate. For a series of reasons, it has become more and more of interest to the American people the nature and quality of judges that we appoint. That has resulted in a serious concern about the role of courts, the critical doctrine of separation of powers; that is, what judges do and what they should do and what their prerogatives are and what their responsibilities are as a judge. President Bush, in his campaigns both times, made absolutely clear that he believed the judge should be a neutral arbiter, a fair referee and, as such, not have an agenda when they go on the bench. He has appointed and nominated judges that share that view. And they have been doing splendid jobs--the judges that have been confirmed. He has not asked that they promote his agenda, his politics, his view of the social policies of America, he has simply asked that they do the jobs they were appointed to do--that they serve in the judicial branch of our government. It is true, however, that the American people have seen some things in the judicial branch that have troubled them. They have seen, for a number of years, two judges on the Supreme Court consistently dissent in death penalty cases. They don't like the death penalty so they dissent in cases that uphold its use.…
Source
govinfo.gov




