Orrin Hatch: “a few weeks ago, the debate in this Chamber captured the attention of the Nation. At stake was the maintenance of core…”

“a few weeks ago, the debate in this Chamber captured the attention of the Nation. At stake was the maintenance of core constitutional principles of separation of powers and a limited judiciary against an unprecedented strategy of filibustering judicial nominees. Prior to 2003, Senators exercised self-restraint. In theory, the opportunity was always there for us to filibuster the President's judicial nominees, but out of proper respect for the President, whoever the President was, his power of appointment, and with an appropriate modesty about our own constitutional role, we refrained from exercising this power to filibuster judges. We kept ourselves in check. In spite of real philosophical differences about the nature of judging and the meaning of the Constitution's fundamental guarantees, we all agreed on one thing: The Constitution's separation of powers prevented us from adopting a strategy of permanent minority-led filibusters of judicial nominees. That self-restraint was tossed aside, however, in 2003. Led in large part by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leadership determined to engage in a full-blown inquiry of what they called the ideology of judicial nominees. Never before have opponents of a limited judiciary been so brazen with their litmus tests.…”