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.
Editor's note · Context
Byrd discusses the reluctance of judicial nominees to answer questions on contentious issues.
Share
More from Harry Flood Byrd
Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate today proposes to set aside more than 6.6 million acres of land in California as wilderness or national parks. The objective of the legislation is to protect the desert ecosystem of southern…
for centuries, an ability to read has been regarded as a sine qua non of civilized life, and, more recently, as the entry-level ticket to a higher living standard and the minimal prerequisite to advancement in the workplace. In recognition…
In this case, we are talking about microeconomic policy when we talk about balancing the budget, whether we have to raise taxes, whether we have to cut spending or have both. And we are talking also about a circumstance that may be very…
The courts are increasingly looking to the four corners of the law, rather than to legislative history as expressed on the Senate floor. I know the majority leader's intentions are what he said they were, namely, that this term…





