tv [untitled] CSPAN June 13, 2009 10:00am-10:30am EDT
job and those of us that have been following it have been following you as well. my question - >> thank you. >> sure. my question is on the books, there have been um... there have been rules and regulations that were able to stop the naked shorting and we know that someone has been asleep at the switch but what's on our minds is, do you see the loopholes being closed and the you know the reigning in of naked shorting as you will? >> well, thank you for your really generous comments, dan. my thoughts are, well it has been quite a struggle and when americans understand as they are getting an understanding of this issue. i think it's going to turn out to be the biggest financial
crime of all-time. it may be a trillion dollars was lewded out of the savings of america. at least there's enough data in the tens of buildings or hundreds of billions. the loopholes we've fought and we've spent millions of dollars trying educate people in congress about these loopholes. one of them, like i say is the bernie madoff exception. the truth is we've had progress since about september of last year tightening loopholes but there are others and bad guys keep shifting activity. there's one thing that cut as cross all of them. it's called, i won't go in the technical detail bus it's called pre borrow. if we're the pre borrow which is what they did for the banks. it would fix the american marketplace and rid them of this
problem. very fine economist here in town. robert shapiro. harvard economist. clinton's under secretary. one of the most respectable economists i've met. just a wonderful fellow and he's recently done a study and the study says, all their arguments against doing this are go knee. they're just, wall street is blowing blue smoke and mirrors to keep anyone from -dc from understanding the pre bar requirement. secondly, so it wouldn't actually have the bad consequences they say. secondly, if we don't do it what happened last september could happen again. >> thanks for coming on. >> thanks so much. >> on tomorrow a roundtable looking at the spending priorities of the obama administration. michael et linger and they than
the sake of my colleagues, i want to talk about the time of the hearing of the sonia sotomayor nomination. i talked with the distinguished ranking member last week on this -- on this schedule and i would note the concerns he had raised. but i'm announcing today that the senate judiciary committee will hold the confirmation hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court on july 13th. that's a reasonable schedule. it will be the middle of next month. it's in line with past experience. it's going to allow several more weeks for committee members to prepare for the hearing.
several more weeks that if i held the hearing this month, and there's no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee. and she deserves the opportunity to go before the public and speak of her record especially if some have mischaracterized her record or misstated her record. the only place she can speak, i say, madam president, the only place she can speak and speak of her record is in the hearing. but it's also a reasonable schedule that serves the many interests involved. of course, the first and foremost is the american people's stake in a process that is fair and thorough. but not needlessly prolonged. it serves the purpose of the institution of the united states senate who will need sufficient time to prepare for confirmation hearing. and we have a full legislative plate of additional pressing
business in the weeks and months ahead. it's of great importance to our constituents and to the nation. and then, of course, it serves the need of the third branch of government which depends on the other branches of government to fill court vacancies in our independent judiciary. in the needs of the president who nominated judge sotomayor. but less we forget serves the needs of the nominee herself, who is a judge and will only be able to speak publicly about her record when the hearings are weaned. -- convened. convened. madam president, this is important obligation that we as members of the senate take on, and there are only 101 people who get a direct say in the nomination an confirmation of the united states -- the justice of the united states supreme
court. first and foremost, of course, the president of the united states, and in this case, president obama consulted with numerous senators, republicans and democrats alike prior to making his nomination. then once the nomination is made, the 100 members of the united states senate have to stand in for 300 million americans in deciding who will get that lifetime appointment. i voted on every single member in the united states senate currently as well as some in the past and i know how important an obligation that is. the justice who take justice souter's place also needs as much time as possible to hire a law clerk, set up an office, even a place to live here in washington and take part in the preparatory work that precedes
the first session on the first monday in october. i mention that, madam president, because i have put together a schedule to track the process the senate follows by bipartisan agreement in considering president bush's nomination of john roberts to the supreme court in 2005. at that time, i served as the ranking minority member of the district committee and met with the republican chairman. we worked out a schedule and provided for chief justice roberts' hearing 28 days after he was named by president bush. i might say that that agreement on time was reached even before the committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire, and while justice roberts had not -- then judge
roberts did not decide as many opinions as judge sotomayor, he had been in a political policy position in a republican administration for years before and there were 75,00 pages of documents. in fact, some arrived almost on the eve of the hearing itself, and of course that nomination was to replace justice o'connor who was recognized as as as a pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 48 days and republicans and democrats agreed were sufficient to prepare for that hearing in accordance with our agreement in the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare
for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. we're trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair to the nominees and offer the earliest date. it is not fair for the critics to call her a racist and equate her with the head of the chu klux klan -- klu klux klan. she can't speak to it until she is in the hearing. in 2005, when president bush made his first nomination to the supreme court, senator mcconnell, the majority whip, observed that the senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60 to 70 days. we worked hard to achieve that. the nomination of judge sotomayor should more easily be
considered within that time frame. we were still able to complete the senate consideration, and the senate confirmed john roberts as chief justice of the united states 72 days after he was initially designated to be the associate justice. we did this despite the fact that the initial nomination was withdrawn and only shortly before his hearing he was renominated to serve as the chief justice of the united states, and we did this despite the terrible aftermath of hurricane katrina, where everybody, republicans and democrats alike, agreed that we should hold back a week on the hearings so that we could all concentrate the nation's resources on hurricane katrina, and so that required a week's delay, and then 72 days after, we followed the same schedule, 72 days after judge sotomayor
was designated to join the supreme court, and without the week we had with katrina. both republicans and democrats ask questions, raise concerns, evaluate the nominee. our republican colleagues say they intend to ask her about her judicial philosophy. now, it doesn't take four months to prepare to ask these questions. in fact, most have already raised the questions. they are surely prepared to ask them more than a month from now, and during that month, we have a week's vacation from the senate. now, i intend to be using that week without the interruption of committee hearings, without the interruption of votes, without the votes of representative business to prepare for the
hearing. i advise those senators who feel they have to have extra time to forego your vacation and spend that week preparing for the hearing, because this is an historic nomination. this is an historic nomination. we hope all senators will cooperate. the schedule is both fair and adequate, fair to the nominee, but also adequate to the united states senate to prepare for the hearing and senate consideration. there is no reason to involve unreasonable delay. i say this is an historic nomination, because this is to unite and not divide the american people. hers is a distinctly american story. whether you're from the south bronx or the south side of chicago, or south burlington, vermont, the american dream
inspires all of us. her life story is the american dream. so i might add, is the journey of the president who nominated her. she deserves a fair hearing. not trials by attack and assaults upon her character, and let us proceed to give her that fair hearing without unnecessary delay. i have said over are my 35 years here in the senate oftentimes on the floor of this great body that we senators should be the conscience of the nation. there have been occasions when this senate, republicans and democrats alike united, have shown they can be the conscience of the nation. i would say this is one time we should rise above partisanship and be that conscience. when i met with judge sotomayor last week, i asked her about her
approach to the law. she answered that, of course, one life experience shapes who you are, but you should view her work as a judge that followed the law. there is not one law for one race or another. there is not one law for rich and one for poor. there is not one law for those who belong to one political party or the other. one law for all americans. she made it very emphatic that as a judge you follow that one law. there is only one law. we all know that. ultimately and completely the judge has to for he low the law no matter what their upbringing has been. that is the kind of fair and impartial judge that americans expect that. is respect for the rule of law. that is the kind of judge shes
has been. judge sotomayor is extraordinarily we'll quipped to serve on the nation's highest court. to bore he row the -- to borrow the phrase of the first lady, judge sotomayor is prepared to serve all americans on the supreme court, i believe the country is more than ready to see this accomplished hispanic woman do just that. that this is an historic nomination and an occasion for the senate and our great nation to come together. this is a time for us to come together. the process is another step for the american people regaining confidence in their judiciary. our independent judiciary is considered to be the envy of the world, although less visible than the other two branches, the
judiciary knits our nation together under the rule of law. every time i walk up the steps of the supreme court i look at the words engaveed in marble from my native state of vermont, over the entrance of the supreme court, and those words say "equal justice under law." the nomination of justice sotomayor keeps pace with that motto. president obama should be commended for having consulted with senators from both sides of the aisle. i have had senators come up to me, republican senators tell me they have never been called by a president of their own party, say nothing about a democratic president to talk about supreme court nominee, but president obama did call and reach out, and now the senate's duty comes
to the fall. senators of both parties will work with me to move forward to consider this nomination in a fair and timely manner. >> senator sessions, senator kyl and i will talk about the supreme court proceedings leading up to the nomination, and i have notified the democratic floor staff that it might slightly delay the 425 vote and i don't fine that objectionable on the other side. i would just inform our colleagues that we're going to proceed here. >> no objection. >> it will not cause much of a delay if any on the 420 vote i would announce to our colleagues. senator sessions is up and will be the first speaker.
>> i want to thank senator mcconnell for his leadership in so many ways, but in particular his concern that he has shown repeatedly on the united states judiciary from a member of the judiciary committee, and he takes these issues seriously, and i think it's important that he we all do so. i have to say i'm disappointed that this morning we learned from media reports, i did, that the chairman of the judiciary are ry committee, senator leahy, announced that he we would begin the hearings july 13 on judge sotomayor. i believe that's too early. i don't believe it's necessary. it's far more important that we do this matter right than we do it quick. when the announcement was made, p president obama said that the time we should look to is october 1, when the new supreme
court term starts, and i think that is always was an achievable goal and it's something i said i believe we could achieve and do it in a right way. the question is, can we get all this done in this rush-rush fashion? it will be the shortest confirmation time of any recent nominee. it is a time well shorter than that of justice roberts, now chief justice roberts, and we have a need to move that a bit because he was confirmed, as it turned out september 29, a couple of days before the new term began, and hes was going to be chief justice, but the last nominee, whose ord was much like this nominee, justice alito, was coming up in december, and the democratic leader then on the judiciary committee, senator leahy, asked that it be put off
until after christmas, and the republican chairman at that time, senator specter, despite president bush's desire to move forward, he said no, i think that's an unreasonable request and we put it off. it was some 90 some odd days before that confirmation occurred, and well over 70 days before the hearings began, so i just want to say, mr. president, first and foremost, we are committed to giving this nominee a fair, good, just hearing, but to do so, it requires that we have an opportunity to examine her record of some 3,500, probably more than 4,00 cases. in addition to that, she has give an lot of speeches and written law review articles. those need to be analyzed. make no mistake about it, because this is the only opportunity this congress and the american people have to play a role in what would turn out to
be a lifetime appointment, an appointment to a federal bench of independence and unaccountability for the rest of their life. i think it is important we do this right. i thank senator mcconnell for his leadership in trying to insist that we do it right. i believe from what i know today that the time frame set forth is unrealistic. more than that, it's not necessary. let's do this right, take our time and do it in a way that i hope, as i have said repeatedly, this would be what people could say is the finest confirmation process we have ever had. >> i thank the chair and yield to the floor. >> i want to thank my good friend from alabama for his observations about this nomination. he and i have been involved in a number of these confirmation proceedings over the years.
there is -- i think in every one of them, there is a sense of fairness that can be reached on a bipartisan basis so that the nominee is adequately veted appropriately, an that is what the senator from alabama is looking for here as we go forward on the judiciary are ry committee. frankly, i was surprised to learn that the majority had decided unilaterally basically that the schedule would involve hearings beginning on that specific date, july 13, at that senator sessions referred to. during the senate's consideration and it is not a rubber stamp, not a rubber stamp, and how it was more important to do it right than to do it fast. now, if that was the standard, i would suggest to our colleagues
just a few years ago, why would it not be a good standard today. if that was the standard when their republicans were in the majority? in the senate, why would it not be a good standard when the democrats were the majority in the senate? we're talking about the same supreme court. we're talking about the same lifetime appointments that senator sessions was referring to. the chairman of the judiciary committee today said back then, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the american people deserve. it's going to take time. he also said it makes sense that we take time to do it right. i think the american people deserve nothing less. he also said we want to do it right and don't want to do it fast. that was the standard a few years ago when republicans are in the majority. i don't know why it wouldn't be the standard today.
i don't know what our friends on the majority are fear fearful of. this nominee has already been confirmed by the senate twice. she has an extensive record, which is the reason why it takes a while to go for 3,600 cases. in the case of the chief justice, there were only 327 cases. he had only been on the circuit court for a couple of years. she has been on one court or another for 17 years. it is just a larger reference. i'm confident that our ranking member senator sessions confirmed that his staff is working andly to work through this lengthy number of cases but a way to look at it, mr. president, the committee had to he review an average of six cases per day in order to be prepared for judge roberts'
hearings, six cases a day. the committee will now have to review an average of 76 cases, 76 cases, per day in order to be ready for the judge sotomayor and the senate asks for cooperation and the majority leader is a big part to respect each other needs and to respect the senate's needs appropriately here the democratic majority is proceeding, and is basically saying there are legitimate concerns for a thoroughs process. there is no point in this. there is cooperation in the
senate and it is about the way they are going about doing it it will now be much more difficult to achieve the kind of cooperation on this and other matters that he we need and expect around here as we try to deal with the nation's business. i would hope they he reconsider their decision and work with us on a bipartisan basis to allow a thorough review of this lengthy, lengthy record with the nominee of justice. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i'd like to join the ranking member of the committee on which i sit as well as the distinguished minority leader in asking the question of why we have to set a date right now on the hearing for judge
sotomayor. there's no reason for us to do that because there's no way to know at this point whether we'll have our work done by that time, an historicly, and it's for good reason, you want to have the review completed before you question the witness about the matters under review. that makes sense, so there's no reason to set that date today. we don't know whether we'll be ready by the 13th or not, but there's a lot of history that will suggest it will be difficult. the leader has pointed out the fact that if you compare the work that was required to consider the nomination of john roberts as opposed to this nominee, you have more than ten times as many cases to look at with judge sotomayor than you with justice roberts. even with 24 staffers reading these 4,000-plus decisions, it is not just a matter of reading
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on