S5296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 23, 2010 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Citizens United—their judicial views lier this week, the Supreme Court has objection, it is so ordered. were much different. allowed many circuit splits to remain f Both Chief Justice Roberts and Jus- unchecked. There is an informative ar- tice Alito talked at length about how ticle in the July/August 2006 edition of NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN it was the legislative function to have the Atlantic entitled ‘‘Of Clerks and Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I hearings, compile the record and find Perks,’’ written by Stuart Taylor, Jr. have sought recognition to comment the facts; that it was not a judicial and Benjamin Wittes. In that article, on the range of questions for Solicitor function, and that when judges engaged the authors point out about how much General Kagan on her forthcoming in that, they were engaging in legisla- time the Supreme Court Justices have, hearings before the Senate Judiciary tion. But when it came to the case of noting that one Justice produced four Committee. Citizens United, overturning a century popular books on legal themes while on Solicitor General Kagan has issued a of a prohibition on corporations engag- the bench, another is working on a $1.5 fairly broad invitation, in effect, on ing in paying for political advertising, million memoir, and another Justice questioning. In an article that she pub- both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice took 28 trips in 2004 alone and pub- lished in the Chicago Law Review back Alito found the 100,000-page record in- lished books in 2002, 2003, and 2005. in 1995, her comment at that time was, sufficient. Both of them talked about Madam President, I ask unanimous in part, as follows: stare decisis and the value of precedent consent to have printed in the RECORD When the Senate ceases to engage nomi- and the factors that led to the the full article to which I just referred. nees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, strengthening of stare decisis. Chief There being no objection, the mate- the confirmation process takes on an air of Justice Roberts spoke emphatically rial was ordered to be printed in the vacuity . . . and the Senate becomes incapa- about not giving the legal system a RECORD, as follows: ble of either properly evaluating nominees or ‘‘jolt.’’ Well, that is hardly what has [From the Atlantic, July/August 2006] appropriately educating the public. For happened during their tenure on the OF CLERKS AND PERKS nominees, the safest and surest route to the bench. WHY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE MORE prize lay in alternating platitudinous state- FREE TIME THAN EVER—AND WHY IT SHOULD ments and judicial silence. Who would have So the question which we will put to Solicitor General Kagan, among oth- BE TAKEN AWAY done anything different in the absence of (By Stuart Taylor Jr. and Benjamin Wittes) pressure from Members of Congress? ers, is, How does Congress get those There are few jobs as powerful as that of That is a fair-sized invitation for a promises translated into actual prac- tice? And in making the comments Supreme Court justice—and few jobs as little pressure from Members of the cushy. Many powerful people don’t have time Senate. I think she is right in her pro- about Chief Justice Roberts and Jus- for extracurricular traveling, speaking, and nouncements, and it is something we tice Alito, I do so without challenging writing, let alone for three-month summer ought to do. She goes on to write in the their good faith. There is a big dif- recesses. Yet the late Chief Justice William law review article: ference between answering questions in Rehnquist produced four popular books on a Judiciary Committee hearing and de- legal themes while serving on the bench. Chairman Biden and Senator Specter, in Clarence Thomas has been working on a $1.5 particular, expressed impatience with the ciding a case in controversy. But the question remains as to how we handle million memoir. And Sandra Day O’Connor, game as played. Specter warned that the Ju- who retired to general adulation, took twen- diciary Committee one day would ‘‘rear up that. ty-eight paid trips in 2004 alone, and pub- on its hind legs’’ and reject a nominee who As expressed in my statement earlier lished books in 2002, 2003, and 2005. refused to answer questions. Senators do not this week, I am very much concerned All this freelancing time breeds high-hand- insist that any nominee reveal what kind of about the fact that there has been a edness. Ruth Bader Ginsburg tars those who a Justice she would make by disclosing her denigration of the strong constitu- disagree with her enthusiasm for foreign law views on important legal issues. Senators tional doctrine of separation of power with the taint of apartheid and Dred Scott; have not done so since the hearings on the and that we have moved to a con- Antonin Scalia calls believers in an evolving nomination of Judge Bork. Constitution ‘‘idiots,’’ and carries on a pub- centration of power. That has happened lic feud with a newspaper over whether a Solicitor General Kagan goes on to by the Supreme Court taking on the write: dismissive gesture he made after Sunday proportionality and congruence test, Mass—flicking fingers out from under his A nominee lacking a public record would which, as Justice Scalia noted in a dis- chin—was obscene. Meanwhile, on the bench have an advantage over a highly prolific au- sent, is a ‘‘flabby’’ test designed for ju- the justices behave like a continuing con- thor. dicial legislation. stitutional convention, second-guessing There has been some questioning as The Court has also ceded enormous elected officials on issues from school dis- to whether this nominee has such a powers to the executive by refusing to cipline to the outcome of the 2000 election, small paper trail that it will be doubly while leaving unresolved important, if dust- decide cases where there are conflicts dry, legal questions that are largely invisible difficult, or significantly more dif- between the executive and legislative to the public. ficult, to find out her views. But in her branches. I spoke at length earlier this Many lawmakers are keen to push back law review article, noting the dif- week about the failure of the Supreme against a self-regarding Supreme Court, but ference with that kind of a paper trail Court to deal with the conflict between all of the obvious levers at their disposal in- is, again, another invitation. Congress’s Article I powers in enacting volve serious assaults on judicial independ- The author of the law review article, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ence—a cure that’s worse than the disease of Solicitor General Kagan, goes on to judicial unaccountability. The Senate has al- Act versus the President’s authority as ready politicized the confirmation process write: Commander in Chief. I did that in the beyond redemption, and attacking the fed- The Senators’ consideration of a nominee, context of noting that the Supreme eral courts’ jurisdiction, impeaching judges, and particularly the Senate’s confirmation Court has time for deciding many more and squeezing judicial budgets are all bludg- hearing, ought to focus on substantive cases. eons that legislators have historically avoid- issues. These are, I think, impressive statis- ed, and for good reason. Well, that, then, raises the question tics. In 1886, the Supreme Court had So what’s an exasperated Congress to do? about how do you get answers on sub- 1,396 cases on its docket and decided 451 We have a modest proposal: let’s fire their clerks. stantive issues, and what is the value cases. In 1987, a century later, the Su- Eliminating the law clerks would force the of the substantive issues when the preme Court issued 146 opinions. By justices to focus more on legal analysis and, nominee, after being confirmed, is on 2006, the Supreme Court heard argu- we can hope, less on their own policy agen- the bench? ment on 78 cases, wrote opinions in 68. das. It would leave them little time for silly Earlier this week, I made an exten- In 2007, they heard argument in 75 speeches. It would make them more ‘‘inde- sive statement reviewing the records of cases, wrote opinions in 67 cases. In pendent’’ than they really want to be, by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito 2008, they heard arguments in 78 cases, ending their debilitating reliance on in their confirmation hearings. Al- twentysomething law-school graduates. Per- wrote opinions in 75 cases. haps best of all, it would effectively shorten though both professed to give great In addition to not deciding cases such their tenure by forcing them to do their own deference to Congress on findings of as the terrorist surveillance program work, making their jobs harder and inducing the facts of the record, when it came to and the sovereign immunities case, them to retire before power corrupts abso- making a decision—for example, in which I talked about extensively ear- lutely or decrepitude sets in.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G23JN6.024 S23JNPT1 rfrederick on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with SENATE June 23, 2010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5297 No justice worth his or her salt should once they are on the bench, what they for years the practice in this country. need a bunch of kids who have never (or are talking about in the confirmation The executive branch did not handle it, barely) practiced law to draft opinions for hearings? That is hard to determine. but the Court was able to integrate our him or her. Yet that is exactly what the The best way, in my view, and I have schools in a recognition of the chang- Court now has—four clerks in each chamber to handle the lightest caseload in modern spoken about this in some length, is by ing values and the flexible interpreta- history. The justices—who, unlike lower- publicizing their failures. I think when tion of a living Constitution. court judges, don’t have to hear any case we take up their budget, for example, It is often said that the Court is not they don’t wish to—have cut their number of it is fair to consider how many clerks final because they are right, but they full decisions by more than half, from over they need, given their workload. The are right because they are final. Some- 160 in 1945 to about 80 today. During the number started at one, went to two and body has to make these final decisions, same period they have quadrupled their ret- three, and is now at four. Is it fair to and I think the Court should do it. But inue of clerks. consider the recess period? In evalu- Because Supreme Court clerks generally I do believe it is of great value if the follow a strict code of omerta` , the individual ating their budget, we have to be very people in this country understood what justices’ dependence on them is hard to docu- careful not to intrude upon judicial the Court is deciding. ment. But some have reportedly delegated a independence, which is the hallmark of Madam President, I ask unanimous shocking amount of the actual opinion writ- our Republic. But on the issue of publi- consent to have printed in the RECORD ing to their clerks. cizing what the Court does, I think it is a statement of some 11 cases entitled Justice Harry Blackman’s papers show fair game; preeminently reasonable. ‘‘List of Cutting-Edge Decisions of the that, especially in his later years, clerks did For decades now, I have been press- Roberts’ Court.’’ most of the opinion writing and the justice ing to have the Supreme Court pro- often did little more than minor editing, as There being no objection, the mate- well as checking the accuracy of spelling and ceedings televised. Only a very limited rial was ordered to be printed in the citations. Ginsburg, Thomas, and Anthony number of people can fit inside the RECORD, as follows: Kennedy reportedly have clerks write most chamber—a couple of hundred; less LIST OF CUTTING-EDGE DECISIONS OF THE or all of their first drafts—according to more than 300. People are permitted to stay ROBERTS COURT or less detailed instructions—and often make there for only 3 or 4 minutes. Twice the Citizens United v. Federal Election Com- few substantial changes. Some of O’Connor’s Judiciary Committee has passed out mission (2010). A five-four majority of the clerks have suggested that she rarely legislation by substantial margins—12– Court struck down as facially unconstitu- touched clerk drafts; others say she some- 6, and in the current term 13–6—calling tional section 203 of the McCain-Feingold times did substantial rewrites, depending on on the Supreme Court to be televised. Act, despite an extensive body of Congres- the opinion. sional findings, two Supreme Court prece- There’s no reason why seats on the highest When the case of Bush v. Gore was argued, Senator Biden and I wrote to dents explicitly uphold section 203 (Austin court in the land, which will always offer (1990) and McConnell (2003)), and prohibition their occupants great power and prestige, the Chief Justice asking that the tele- on corporation money in federal elections should also allow them to delegate the de- vision cameras be permitted to come stretching back to 1907. tailed writing to smart but unseasoned in. The Chief Justice declined, but Parents Involved in Community Schools v. underlings. Any competent justice should be did—in a rather unusual way—author- Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). In a 5–4 able to handle more than the current aver- ize a simultaneous audio. opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court age of about nine majority opinions a year. There have been continuing efforts struck down narrowly tailored race-con- And those who don’t want to work hard by C–SPAN to have more access to the scious remedial plans adopted by two local ought to resign in favor of people who do. boards designed to maintain racially inte- Cutting the clerks out of the writing will Court, and I ask unanimous consent to grated school districts, contrary to a ‘‘long- also improve the justices’ decision- making, have printed in the RECORD a document standing and unbroken line of legal author- by forcing them to think issues through. As entitled ‘‘C–SPAN Timeline: Cameras ity tells us that the Equal Protection Clause the eighty-six-year-old John Paul Stevens, in the Court’’ at the conclusion of this [of the Fourteenth Amendment] permits the only justice who habitually writes his presentation. local school boards to use race-conscious cri- own first drafts, once told the journalist The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without teria to achieve positive race-related goals, Tony Mauro: ‘‘Part of the reason [I write my objection, it is so ordered. even when the Constitution does not compel own drafts] is for self-discipline . . . I don’t it.’’ really understand a case until I write it (See exhibit 1.) Hein v. Freedom from Religion Founda- out.’’ Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I tion, Inc. (2007). In a 5–4 opinion by Justice This is not to suggest that the justices don’t have time to go into it now, with Alito, the Court held that an individual tax- should have to spend their time on scut the limited time available, but the payer did not have standing to challenge the work—reading all 8,000 petitions for review reader of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD constitutionality of government expendi- filed in a typical year, or hitting the library can see how frequently the Court has tures to religious organizations under the to dig up obscure precedents. These are the denied access to even the audio. Bush administration’s ‘‘faith-based initia- tasks that law clerks used to do. And this It is a matter of general knowledge tives’’ program. That conclusion ran counter sort of thing is all they will have time to do to a four-decade-old precedent holding that if Congress cuts each justice’s clerk com- that the Supreme Court Justices en- taxpayers have standing to challenge federal plement from four back to one, as legal his- gage in television interviews with some expenditures as violative of the Establish- torian David Garrow has suggested. frequency. Justice Scalia, for example, ment Clause (Flast v. Cohen (1968)). For much of American history, the life of appeared on the CBS News program ‘‘60 Morse v. Frederick, (2007). In a 5–4 opinion a justice was something of a grind. Watching Minutes’’ on April 27 of 2008; Justice by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the strutting pomposity of modern justices, Thomas was on ‘‘60 Minutes’’ on Sep- the suspension of high school students for this ‘‘original understanding’’ of the job—as tember 30, 2007; Justices Breyer and displaying a banner across the street from a grueling immersion in cases, briefs, and Scalia have engaged in several tele- their school that read ‘‘BONG Hits 4 JESUS’’ scholarship—seems increasingly attractive. Justice Louis Brandeis once said that the vised debates, including a debate on did not violate the First Amendment. That reason for the Supreme Court justices’ rel- December 5, 2006. All Justices have sat holding ran counter to a long-standing prece- atively high prestige was that ‘‘they are al- for television interviews conducted by dent, Tinker (1969), which held unconstitu- most the only people in Washington who do C–SPAN. tional the discipline of a public-school stu- their own work.’’ That was true then. It A point I have made with some fre- dent for engaging in First Amendment-pro- should be true again. tected speech unless it disrupts school ac- quency on the floor of the Senate is the tivities. Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, great importance of the Supreme Court Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett (2009). In a 5–4 this raises the issue about deciding in our government. The Supreme Court opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court upend- these cases where the workload is not has the final word. There is nothing in ed the Court’s unanimous 1974 decision in Al- very high, where there is a recess of the Constitution which gives the Su- exander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974), which some 3 months, extensive travels, and preme Court the final word, but they held that an employee cannot be compelled extensive lectures. Now they may do took it in the celebrated case of to arbitrate a statutory discrimination what they please, and they will, but Marbury v. Madison, and I believe it claim under a collectively bargained-for ar- bitration clause to which he did not consent. there is a balance here. The question has been for the betterment of the The Court held otherwise in Pyett, thereby is: How do you get more cases decided? country. You find the inability of the depriving many employees of their right to How do you deal with the question of Congress to act. The most noteworthy bring statutory discrimination claims in fed- having the Justices put into practice, illustration of that was segregation, eral court.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A23JN6.001 S23JNPT1 rfrederick on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with SENATE S5298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 23, 2010 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Court invalidating the Arizona clean television coverage of civil cases before two PSKS (2007). In a 5–4 opinion by Justice Ken- elections law. federal Courts of Appeals and six District nedy, the Court overturned a century-old Arizona set up a law to provide Courts. 11/2000—Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist precedent holding that vertical price-fixing matching funds. The District Court in agreements per-se violate the federal anti- requesting camera coverage of Bush v. Palm trust laws. Arizona declared it unconstitutional, Beach County Canvassing Board. Court Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin but the Ninth Circuit overturned the agreed to release audio only. Right to Lift (2007). In a 5–4 opinion by Jus- district court. The district court had 12/2000—Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist tice Roberts, the Court ruled that the issued an injunction—that is, to pre- requesting live audio release of Bush v. Gore. McCain-Feingold Act’s limitations on polit- vent the law from being carried out— Received early audio release, not live. ical advertising were unconstitutional as on matching funds. The Ninth Circuit 2003—Sent letter requesting early audio re- they applied to issue ads like WRTL’s (which lease of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. reversed that. The Supreme Court—in Bollinger. (Affirmative action cases) Court in this case encouraged viewers to contact an unusual decision, to put it mildly— two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose agreed. filibusters of judicial nominees). Justice earlier this month, on June 8, put the 2003—Requested early audio release of Scalia went so far as to accuse Chief Justice injunction back into effect. McConnell v. FEC. (Campaign finance rules) Roberts and Justice Alito of practicing what This is in the context where there Court agreed. he called ‘‘faux judicial restraining’’ by ef- hasn’t even been a petition for certio- 5/2003—Justice O’Connor participates in C– fectively overruling McConnell (2003) ‘‘with- rari filed. The regular practice—the SPAN’s ‘‘Student and Leaders’’ with stu- dents at Gonzaga College High School in out expressly saying so.’’ regular order—is a petition for cert, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Dis- Washington, DC. briefs, argument. That is the way cases 5/2003—Justice Thomas participates in C– trict v. Holder (2009). An opinion by Chief are decided. But here, in the wake of Justice Roberts discussed whether the 2006 SPAN’s ‘‘Student and Leaders’’ with stu- extension of 5 of the Voting Rights Act of Citizens United, invalidating a key dents at Banneker High School. 2004—Requested early audio release in the 1965 was supported by an adequate legislative part of McCain-Feingold, we have the following cases. Rasul v. Bush and Al Oday v. record. Although the court ultimately de- Supreme Court invalidating the Ari- United States; Cheney v. U.S. District Court; cided the case on a narrow statutory ground, zona law without even the customary Hamdi v. Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Roberts made clear that he was disinclined procedures. Court agreed. to accept Congress’s legislative finding as to All of this is in the face of congres- 2004—Requested early audio release of the need for § 5, despite an extensive record sional action and action by states to Roper v. Simmons. (Execution of juveniles) amassed over ten months in 21 hearings. try to respond to public opinion. A re- Denied. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber cent Hart poll showed that some 95 per- 2005—Requested early audio release of Van Company (2007). In a 5–4 opinion by Justice Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. Alito, the Court ruled that Ledbetter’s em- cent of the American people think that corporations make contributions to ACLU of Kentucky. (Separation of church ployment discrimination claim was time- and state) Denied. barred by Title VII’s limitations period, de- exert political influence, and 85 percent 1/2005—Senator Arlen Specter (R–PA) in- spite the fact that she had only recently of the people feel that corporations troduces legislation to televise the Supreme found out that the discrimination was occur- ought not to be able to contribute to Court Statement. Read ring. political campaigns. 4/2005—C–SPAN airs live a ‘‘Constitutional Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. These are among the questions which Conversation’’ moderated by Tim Russert Twombly (2007). In these decisions, the Court with Justices Breyer, O’Connor and Scalia. fundamentally changed the long-standing we will be considering with the con- firmation proceeding on Solicitor Gen- They discuss the role and operation of the rules of pleadings under the Federal Rules of Court, among other subjects. Watch Civil Procedure while refusing to acknowl- eral Kagan. I cited at some length her 10/2005—First letter to Chief Justice Rob- edge that a change had been made. These de- law review article where she is inviting erts offering C–SPAN capabilities to provide cisions created a heightened pleading stand- us to do so, committing at least in her gavel-to-gavel camera coverage of Supreme ard that may impair the ability of American law review article in 1995 to provide Court. to access the courts. substantive answers and acknowl- 11/2005—Requested early audio release of: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), In a 5– Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern 4 decision, the Court held that the Second edging that someone with a thin paper trail, as she has, is under more of an New England (abortion) and Rumsfeid v. Amendment guarantees an individual right Forum for Academic and Institutional to bear arms unconnected with service in a obligation to respond. Rights (‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy). state militia, and, in doing, struck down a I note the time has expired. Agreed. District of Columbia gun control law that EXHIBIT 1 11/2005—C–SPAN CEO Brian Lamb testifies had been in place for over three decades. The C–SPAN TIMELINE: CAMERAS IN THE COURT before the Senate Judiciary Committee hear- majority and minority opinion diverged ing on the issue of cameras in the Supreme C–SPAN has sought to provide its audience sharply on the framer’s original under- Court. Watch/Read standing of the Second Amendment. with coverage of the Judiciary, just as it has 11/2005—U.S. House passes provisions of covered the Legislative and Executive Sunshine in the Courtroom Act Statement. Mr. SPECTER. There is insufficient branches of government. The prohibition of time to go over them now, but most of Read televised coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2006—Requested audio release of tape of them are 5–4 decisions. The Supreme oral arguments has been an obstacle to ful- the investiture of Justice Alito. Denied. Court decides everything from life to filling that goal. Below is a record of C– 2006—Requested early audio release of vot- death, Roe vs. Wade to the death pen- SPAN’s efforts to make the Court more ac- ing rights act cases. League of United Latin alty cases and double jeopardy. These cessible to the public. v. Perry; Travis County, Texas v. Perry; cases involve the integration issue, re- 1981—C–SPAN televises its first Supreme Jackson v. Perry; GI Forum v. Perry. De- Court Senate confirmation hearing with ligious freedom, freedom of speech, col- nied. gavel-to-gavel coverage, with the nomina- 3/2006—Requested early audio release of lective bargaining, the antitrust laws, tion of Sandra Day O’Connor. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Military Tribunals) and all of the cutting-edge questions 1985—C–SPAN launches ‘‘America & the Court agreed. Press Release are decided. Courts,’’ a weekly program focusing on the 3/2006—Sens. Grassley (R–IA) and Schumer It is my hope that we will find time Judiciary with an emphasis on the Supreme (D–NY) introduced Sunshine in the Court- on the Senate’s agenda—with as many Court. room Act. Press Release quorum calls as we have had we ought 1987—Court permits C–SPAN to originate 6/2006—Letter to Chief Justice Roberts re- live Interview and call-in programs from its to find some time—to take up the issue questing simultaneous release of all oral ar- Press Room. guments beginning with 2006 term. Denied. of televising the Supreme Court. And 2/1988—First letter to Chief Justice 8/2006—C–SPAN’s Brian Lamb interviews as we approach next Monday’s hearings Rehnquist requesting camera coverage of Su- Chief Justice John Roberts in one of his first on Solicitor General Kagan, we will be preme Court. television interviews since joining the court. pursuing these very important issues. 11/1988—Participated in demonstration of Transcript/Watch In the remaining time available, one potential camera coverage in Supreme 10/2006—Requested early audio release of other matter which I wish to comment Court. Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood and Gon- about—and I have sent Solicitor Gen- 9/1990—C–SPAN airs first live telecast of a zalez v. Carhart (abortion). Court agreed. federal court proceeding from a military ap- Press Release eral Kagan three letters setting forth peals court. 10/2006—C–SPAN airs live a discussion be- the areas of questioning which I intend 1991—C–SPAN is instrumental in advo- tween Justice Scalia and Nadine Strossen, to make—is a remarkable, perhaps un- cating and implementing a 4-year experi- President of the ACLU, called ‘‘ The State of precedented, action by the Supreme ment with the Judicial Conference to test Civil Liberties.’’ Watch

VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:19 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A23JN6.002 S23JNPT1 rfrederick on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with SENATE June 23, 2010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5299 11/2006—Sent letter requesting early audio 1/16/2008—NY Times Editorial on Cameras 5/10/10—Pres. Obama nominates U.S. Solic- release of Parents Involved v. Seattle School in the Supreme Court. itor General Elena Kagan. She gave remarks District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson 3/2008—Request denied for same-day audio on cameras in the court during a Ninth Cir- County Board of Education (affirmative ac- release of oral argument in United States v. cuit Judicial Conference from July, 23, 2009. tion). Court agreed. Ressam (‘‘Millenium Bomber’’ case). Click here to watch 11/2006—Requested early audio release of 3/2008—Request granted for same-day audio f oral arguments in Parents Involved v. Se- release of oral argument in District of Co- attle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. lumbia v. Heller (DC Gun Law). Press Re- RECESS Jefferson County Board of Education (Af- lease firmative action) Court agreed. Press Re- 3/6/2008—The Senate Judiciary Committee The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- lease passes the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act’’ ate stands in recess, under the previous 1/2007—Sent letter requesting early audio which allows cameras in federal court rooms order, until 2:30 p.m. release of Davenport v. Washington Edu- with a vote of 10–8 with one member abstain- Thereupon, the Senate, at 1:01 p.m., cation Association and Washington v. Wash- ing. The bill is referred to the full senate for recessed until 2:30 p.m., and reassem- ington Education Association (Union dues). consideration. Press Release bled when called to order by the Acting 3/21/2008—Rochester Democrat and Chron- Denied. President pro tempore. 1/2007—Introduction of the Sunshine in the icle Editorial on allowing cameras in the Su- Courtroom Act of 2007 in the 110th Congress, preme Court. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- co-sponsored by Sens. Grassley (R–IA), 4/14/08—Request for same-day audio release pore. The majority leader is recog- Leahy (D–VT) and Schumer (D–NY). of oral argument in Kennedy V. Louisiana nized. 1/2007—Sen. Arlen Specter (R–PA) intro- (Death Penalty for Rape) denied. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unan- 9/26/2008—Request for same-day audio re- duces cameras in the Supreme Court legisla- imous consent that Senator NELSON of tion. Watch lease of oral argument in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good (Marketing of ‘‘Light’’ Cigarettes) Florida be recognized for up to 11 min- 2/2007—Sent letter requesting early audio utes as in morning business and Sen- release of Rita v. United States and Clai- and Winter v. Natural Resources denied. Re- ator DEMINT be recognized for up to 10 borne v. United States (Federal sentencing quest Letter guidelines). Denied 10/15/2008—Request for same-day audio re- minutes; that during this time that has 2/2007—Rep. Ted Poe (D–TX/2nd), a former lease of oral argument in FCC v. Fox Tele- been requested, there be no amend- judge, delivers a floor speech about opening vision Stations (Television Indecency Stand- ments or motions in order, and that the court to cameras. Watch ards) denied. Request Letter Story upon use or yielding back of the time, 2/2007—Sens. Specter and Cornyn discuss 11/12/2008—Request for audio release of oral argument in Pleasant Grove City v. Sum- I be recognized. cameras in the courts with Justice Anthony The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- Kennedy during Judiciary Committee hear- mum (Free Speech) denied. 12/3/2008—Request for audio release of oral pore. Without objection, it is so or- ing. Sen. Specter questions Justice Kennedy argument in Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Wil- directly. Watch/Sen. Cornyn remarks on his dered. liams (Supreme Court-State Court author- experience with cameras. Watch/Watch Hear- The Senator from Florida is recog- ity) denied. ing nized. 12/10/2008—Request for same-day audio re- 3/2007—Justices Kennedy and Thomas com- lease of oral argument in Ashcroft v. Iqbal f ment on cameras in the court before a House (Can President’s Cabinet be sued for con- Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on THE GULF COAST DISASTER stitutional violations by subordinates) de- the FY08 Supreme Court budget. Watch Jus- nied. Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Presi- tice Kennedy/Watch Justice Thomas 3/3/2009—Request for audio release of oral 3/2007—Sent letter requesting early audio dent, in my at least weekly report to argument in Caperton v. A.T. Massey release of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life the Senate about what is happening (Should elected state judges recuse them- and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (Cam- down on the Gulf Coast, I am sad to re- selves) denied. paign Finance). Denied. 3/27/2009—Joint request for same-day audio port to you that as of this moment, one 3/7/2007—Sent letter requesting camera cov- release of oral argument in Northwest Aus- of the remote operating vehicles has erage of 3rd circuit CBS vs. FCC hearing on tin Municipal Utility District Number One v. bumped into that top hat process that Television Indecency Standards. Received Holder 4–291 granted. Request Letter Article was funneling the oil off of the big permission for audio only. 7/2009—Judge Sotomayor questioned about structure, the blowout preventer from 8/16/2007—Aired camera footage of Ninth cameras in the court during her confirma- Circuit Court of Appeals 8/15/07 oral argu- the pipe, the riser pipe, with the result tion hearings. Sen. Specter on Opinion Poll that all of that oil now is not being si- ment in two cases on the government’s Sen. Specter on Cameras in the Court Sen. warrantless wiretapping program. Al- Kohl on Cameras in the Court phoned off. The estimates now are up- Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush 7/2009—British Supreme Court decides to wards and probably pretty close to Hepting v. AT&T televise events from inside the court’s three 60,000 barrels a day of oil gushing into 9/11/2007—Aired same-day audio of CBS vs. chambers. Article the Gulf of Mexico. FCC hearing on Television Indecency Stand- 8/7/2009—Boston Herald op-ed by Wayne Remember, when it started off, oh, it ards. Woodlief: ‘‘Televised justice would be for was only 1,000 barrels a day. Then it 9/27/2007—C–SPAN President Susan Swain all.’’ Article testifies before House Judiciary Committee 9/9/2009—Request for Citizens United v. was only 5,000 barrels a day. Then it on H.R. 2128, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act Federal Election Commission (Campaign Fi- was maybe 12,000 barrels a day but max of 2007. Watch/Read Testimony nance). Agreed. 20,000 barrels a day. Senator BOXER and 9/2007—Sent letter requesting early audio 11/2009—Requests for audio releases of oral I were able to get the streaming video release of Medellin v. Texas (Presidential arguments in Jones v. Harris Associates (In- out so the scientists could look and Powers) and Stoneridge Investment v. Sci- vestment fund fees), Graham v. Florida (life they could make their estimates, their entific-Atlanta (Securities Fraud). Denied. sentence for minor), and Sullivan v. Florida calculations. Anyway, it has gone on 10/2007—Sent letter requesting early audio (life sentence for minor). Denied. release of Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. 2/16/10—Request for request for same-day and on. It is now up to 60,000 barrels of U.S. (Guantanamo Detainees) Court Agreed. audio release of oral argument in Holder v oil a day. Press Release Humanitarian Law Project. Denied. The oil industry had said they had 11/16/2007—9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2/26/10—C–SPAN requests for same-day started siphoning off—first it was opinion in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation audio release of oral arguments in Skilling 10,000, then it was 15,000. They were v. Bush cites C–SPAN’S request to record v. United States and McDonald v. City of trying to get it up to 25,000. Now, since oral argument and date footage was tele- Chicago on Tuesday, March 2nd—denied. this accident, that is being shut down— vised. See footnote 5, page 14969. 4/7/10—C–SPAN requests same-day audio 12/06/2007—Senate Judiciary Committee release of oral argument in Christian Legal let’s hope just very temporarily, but votes in favor of sending S. 344 to the full Society Chapter v. Martinez on April 19. De- we are now back to the point that most Senate for a vote. The bill would require tel- nied. of the oil is gushing back into the gulf. evision coverage of the Supreme Court’s 4/15/10—During hearing of House Appropria- We know the result. open sessions unless a majority of justices tions-Subcommittee on Financial Services If this continues for another 2 vote to block cameras for a particular case. and General Services, Supreme Court Justice months, to the end of the summer, it is 1/2008—Request for same-day audio release Stephen Breyer comments on cameras in the going to fill up the gulf with oil and it of oral argument in Baze v. Rees (Lethal In- court. Click here to watch jection). Court agreed. Press Release 4/29/10—C–SPAN statement on today’s Sen- is going to do just what it is doing now. 1/02/2008—Request for same-day audio re- ate Judiciary Committee passage of two bills When the wind comes this way, it lease of oral argument in Crawford v. Marion concerning TV cameras in the Supreme brings the oil from the South to the County (Voting Rights). Denied. Court. Press Release North; it brings it in onshore. The oil

VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:19 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A23JN6.004 S23JNPT1 rfrederick on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with SENATE