Absolutely not. And judicial nominees, when they come up before the Senate, do not want to answer a question on this or that. If you ask them how they feel about capital punishment, they do not want to answer the question because they may have to render a decision on it. ``Now, what is your position, Mr. Nominee, when it comes to imposing taxes in order to enforce section 1 of this new amendment?'' ``Well, I might have a case come before me.'' I daresay, if this amendment is agreed to, I would be very reluctant to support any judicial nominee who does not indicate to me, one way or another, before I vote, how he is going to stand on this matter.
Harry Flood Byrd: “Absolutely not. And judicial nominees, when they come up before the Senate, do not want to answer a question on this or…”
Editor's note · Context
Byrd discusses the reluctance of judicial nominees to answer questions on contentious issues.
Share
More from Harry Flood Byrd
Only God--only God--and He is not being called upon in this debate, He is not going to be asked by the courts----
I do not think that the standing would necessarily be a major problem in a matter of this kind. Some citizens or groups or Members of Congress themselves might have standing. The point is that somebody somewhere will find a reason to go…
When we write this amendment into the Constitution, who is going to decide what reality is? ... It is somewhat ironic for me to think that that little bit of paper is going to make any difference, when it is the same people who are…
I have observed on many occasions that she has taken a path and chosen the unpopular approach and voted her convictions--after very careful study. I have noted that she reaches her decisions in matters of this kind after the most careful…





