Patrick Leahy

The reason I say that, there have been some states and some jurisdictions that has not happened, or where the least competent counsel has been appointed at a small flat fee in a capital case, and that is where we have problems.

Do you feel that it is an absolute, that especially in a capital case, that a judge should make sure that there is adequate counsel, and I mean real counsel for the defense?

Do you think there are changes that are warranted in the way the death penalty is administered?

We have a certain independence here, and yes, the Government does lose on occasions.

I think as judges we have to be very concerned about the rights of defendants, especially in capital cases.

One thing that we talk about is the impartiality of our Federal Judiciary.

I mean I love politics and I am sure you do too, giving up some of those things.

You assure us that if somebody walked into your court, if you are confirmed, that they would not have to worry about whether they were the right political party or the wrong political party.

The level of controversy is a lot different here.

I would suggest, I would urge you to go back and reread Judge Noonan's book.

Another day or so to be able to complete an adequate hearing and have an adequate hearing record for the Senate does not do the nominees bad nor does it hurt the Senate.

The Strom Thurmond rule, which has been followed in this for the nearly 30 years I have been here

Several of us have spoken prior to this hearing of concern of having three controversial Court of Appeals judges on the same day

I will support the Chairman in maintaining the decorum.

I believe we also have a court that is totally ignoring the legislative record or saying that it is virtually irrelevant.

But you understand some of the concerns that many of us up here are suggesting, that the States are suddenly being protected from taking responsibility for discrimination, for example, that they or their agencies decide to do or violating…

I understand, but we are also not going to have too many Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson or cases like that.

Are you comfortable with that direction of the Supreme Court?

Why should it not compensate victims for the harm it wrongly causes?

I was persuaded by the conclusion that the best reason that States should not enjoy immunity from suit is that such treatment is simply unjust.

But on the other hand, it cannot be that all liberal victories become insulated by stare decisis, while all conservative ones remain open to question.

It is not unheard of for a circuit to reverse itself in a subsequent case.

The very point of the article or this section of the article--this was the same article, I should point out, that was criticizing the Court for a ruling that heard disability rights.

I don't know where this pesky idea of the Federalist Society came from, probably because one of the nominees testifies here under oath that he was told if he wanted to be a Federal judge appointed in the Bush administration, he should join…

The Federalist Society's membership certainly hasn't stopped people.