Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/03/2005 02:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| SB101 | |
| SJR12 | |
| SB154 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 12 - URGE VOTE ON US SUPREME COURT NOMINEES 2:29:00 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12(JUD), Requesting the United States Senate to move quickly to a majority floor vote of the United States Senate on all nominations by President George W. Bush to the United States Supreme Court. 2:29:06 PM DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Senator Therriault that the original form of the resolution sought an expeditious confirmation of judges to the U.S. Supreme Court but seemed a bit "too politically flavored." Therefore, CSSJR 12(JUD) now simply asks the U.S. Senate for an expeditious vote, up or down, on judicial nominees. He explained that although there might still be a difference of opinion regarding some of the language used in CSSJR 12(JUD), such as "dilatory tactics", that language in particular was intended to avoid use of the term "filibuster". He remarked: It's an open policy call as to whether or not people feel that those typical procedures that have been used are constitutional, what the history is, and so forth. I think the resolution, overall, before you, just seeks to get some final ... action, up or down, from the [U.S.] Senate on these judicial nominees. And we realize and want to put on the record that our folks back in Washington [D.C.] are going to look at this in various ways and use their best judgment on what's best for the state of Alaska in the political process, and this in no way, shape, or form is to supersede their judgment whatsoever. ... It's just a statement ... that people want to see the process move forward. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, close public testimony on SJR 12. 2:31:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he takes great offense - personally, as a member of the democratic party, and as a former staffer to U.S. Senator Ted Stevens - to terming what the U.S. Senators have done with regard to judicial nominees as a dilatory tactic. He pointed out that what has recently occurred is not the same thing as using a filibuster to block civil rights or similar issues. Instead it is merely an attempt to make certain that the people who are going to have lifetime appointments to the federal judicial bench are the best people in the sense that they are not adopting a political agenda but rather a judicial approach that is fair and balanced. He offered his understanding that a filibuster is similar to the three-quarters vote required to access Alaska's Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) in that it serves as a check and a balance for the minority. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he cannot support the resolution, but added that it would become more palatable to him if the "Whereas" clause on page 2, lines 2-4, were deleted. He remarked: I don't have a problem with working with the language, here, but I do think that language is political and it does inflame the situation, and I would call [members'] ... attention to [Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure], Section ... 760, which says that we are not to comment on what is done in the other house because the opinion of each house should be independent and not influenced by the proceeding of the other. Now, the U.S. Senate is not "the other house," but the principle is the same, that the Senate of the United States and the Senate of New York and the Assembly of California ... all conduct their business independent of the Alaska State House [of Representatives]. So I think that we should not be commenting on their rules of procedure there. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, therefore, made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to delete the language on page 2, lines 2-4. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, adding that he agrees with the statement that the tactics being taken are meant to delay the confirmations. He said he would like to send language saying that "those tactics being what they are," the Alaska State Legislature would still like the confirmation process to go forward. Opining that it is self evident that there is a partisan debate occurring in the U.S. Senate, he said he would be willing to entertain a motion to simply strike the word "dilatory" from page 2, line 2. 2:36:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not oppose that concept, but is wondering, then, whether the aforementioned "Whereas" clause could also be rephrased. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated a preference for including language that acknowledges that members of the U.S. Senate are engaged in a tactical battle. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked on the tactic of not allowing a filibuster. He suggested that what is now occurring in the U.S. Senate could serve as an object lesson to the Alaska State Legislature - "it's what happens [when] ... the parliamentary war escalates out of control." He said he won't hold the resolution up but thinks he won't support it, adding that he would like it if they would at least not go down the road of a "mini nuclear war" on this resolution by keeping it as "nice" as possible. CHAIR McGUIRE referred to that as a fair goal, adding that she would agree to the concept of either removing the word "dilatory" or changing it to "delay", characterizing that term as objective. She opined that the "Whereas" clause itself should be left in, though. 2:40:09 PM CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the motion of whether to Adopt Amendment 1 was still pending. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there would be a way to rephrase the aforementioned clause in a positive way, to send a message that there is a desire to see a resolution to the current state of affairs regarding judicial nominees. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that both sides are using certain tactics, and offered his understanding that CSSJR 12(JUD) is simply charging that the filibuster is a tactic, though the adjective "dilatory" is also being used. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested replacing "dilatory tactics" with "the rules of the Senate". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not know that such a change would result in a true statement. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that a filibuster is part of the rules of the Senate. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that that is part of the current debate in the U.S. Senate, and he is not sure that they should enter into it. 2:41:51 PM MR. STANCLIFF indicated that the sponsor would be comfortable with removing the word "dilatory". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GARA sought confirmation that the sponsor simply does not like the actions being taken in the U.S. Senate regardless of [which political party] is doing it. MR. STANCLIFF said: "The process is not working as it should with regard to final decisions by the full body of the [U.S. Senate]; the sponsor wants to urge that to happen regardless of who's controlling the [U.S. Senate or] who's in front of the [U.S. Senate]." 2:43:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt [Amendment 2], to replace "George W. Bush" with "any President" in the resolution's title. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He pointed out that CSSJR 12(JUD) is being sent to the current President and that just happens to be George W. Bush. He expressed a preference for keeping the name of the current President in the resolution. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that should similar problems occur for a future President, members of this legislature would be free to draft another resolution on the same issue. She remarked that one of the points of CSSJR 12(JUD) is to get it to the current President, George W. Bush. REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that an advantage of changing the language in CSSJR 12(JUD) to "any President" is that another resolution on this issue wouldn't have to be sent. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested simply adding to the title, after the name, "George W. Bush", the words, "and any other President". REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would accept such a change as a friendly amendment to Amendment 2. [Amendment 2 was treated as amended.] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he would be maintaining his objection. 2:46:27 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 2, as amended. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made motion to adopt Amendment 3, to delete from page 2, line 7, "President George W. Bush" and insert the words, "any President". He offered his understanding that the testimony has indicated that they do not want the resolution to be either political-party- or President-specific. Amendment 3 would then result in a resolution that said in part: "the Alaska State Legislature requests the United States Senate to move quickly to a majority floor vote of the United States Senate on all nominations by any President to the United States Supreme Court". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL and CHAIR McGUIRE objected. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that because the current situation regarding judicial nominees is specific to the current President, the current U.S. Senate, and the current nominees, it would not be worthwhile to send a generic resolution. REPRESENTATIVE GARA characterized that as a fair point. He also went on to say: I think it's a fair point to say, "This is a resolution: nobody's going to read it, it's not going to have a hoot of impact in Congress, and all we're doing with this resolution is offending a certain number of members of the legislature, perhaps just for a sound bite." And if we're going to go through this process of offending a certain number of legislators, then I think I, on behalf of those legislators, have every obligation to try and make this [resolution] as neutral as possible so [that] we can sort of avoid the acrimony ... that we could otherwise have this last week and a half for something that's just not that important. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the resolution is not meant to give offense; rather it is meant to speak to a topic that is being hotly debated in Congress at this time, a topic that many legislators feel strongly about. So although the language in the resolution will fall along party lines, it is not meant with disrespect, he added. 2:49:24 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:49:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made motion to adopt Amendment 4, to delete the language beginning on page 1, line 15, through page 2, line 1. He said: I certainly understand those who believe that President [George W. Bush] has expressed a commitment, as it says here, to appoint federal judges who will strictly interpret the United States Constitution, and people are free to express their opinion in that regard. My belief is that this President is trying to appoint federal judges who will support his political agenda, and so I guess I disagree with this statement - I'd like it taken out of the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He remarked: There has been a political litmus test put on judges so long, that when somebody is called upon to ... follow the [U.S.] Constitution in a strict constructionist manner, that it's not even accepted in our society today. So I strongly object. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that if one looks at judges' opinions, those with extreme politics all are activists, actively trying to push their own agendas, and therefore he is not willing to pass a resolution that appears to sort of cast his favor upon judicial nominees whom he doesn't know, whose records he hasn't reviewed. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that he and Representative Gara were probably not going to agree on this issue. 2:51:34 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:51:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that recent news articles written by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski indicate that she feels that certain groups are attempting to put pressure on her to vote a certain way with regard to the issues surrounding President George W. Bush's judicial nominees and that she feels that this is inappropriate. He said he agrees that political pressure should not be put on any U.S. Senator in this manner. Therefore, he opined, they should not send CSSJR 12(JUD) to U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski because it could be viewed as an attempt to put just that kind of pressure on her. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, to delete U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski from the list of those who would be receiving copies of the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. MR. STANCLIFF relayed that the sponsor has contacted U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and is of the belief that she, too, desires that a full, expeditious process occur though is reserving the right to make up her own mind on the issues placed before her. 2:54:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired whether U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski was specifically asked whether she would view [CSSJR 12(JUD)] as undue pressure. MR. STANCLIFF said she was and offered his understanding that her response was that she did not view it as undue pressure. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 5. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated a desire to include a "Whereas" clause that expresses the Alaska State Legislature's respect for Alaska's delegates' decisions regarding how they support judicial nominees coming to a vote. MR. STANCLIFF opined that inserting such a clause would constitute an appropriate conceptual amendment. CHAIR McGUIRE said she would not want someone to use CSSJR 12(JUD) as a means of embarrassing U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. 2:56:30 PM2:56:31 PM CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt a [new] Conceptual Amendment 5, to add a "Whereas" clause that says the Alaska State Legislature respects Alaska's delegation's "individual decisions about how it is that they will encourage an up or down vote on these judicial nominations." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He opined that those that receive resolutions such as CSSJR 12(JUD) will probably really just be looking at the "Be it resolved" clause, which currently requests the U.S. Senate to move quickly to a majority floor vote. Therefore, he does not think anyone would be using CSSJR 12(JUD) as a tool to embarrass one of Alaska's delegation members. He offered his belief that such a clause will make the Alaska State Legislature look less resolved, and that such language is not needed. CHAIR McGUIRE made mention of recent political advertisements, and opined that a simple clause saying that the Alaska State Legislature supports and respects the state's congressional delegation is in order. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to new Conceptual Amendment 5. There being none, new Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, to delete the words "move quickly" from the two places in the bill where it occurs and insert the words "move thoughtfully". He added, "I don't think that ... it's the [U.S.] Senate's constitutional role to rubberstamp a President's nominees; I think it's their role to advise and consent and I think that involves thoughtful deliberation, not just quick deliberation." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He said, "We want them to move quickly, and to assume that they wouldn't move thoughtfully, I think, is disrespectful." CHAIR McGUIRE suggested changing the language in the bill to read, "move quickly and deliberately". REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he didn't think that language would address his concern. CHAIR McGUIRE said she would echo Representative Coghill's comments, adding her belief that adequate time has passed for U.S. Senate members to consider the nominees in question. She expressed her hope that in acting quickly, U.S. Senate members would also be deliberate and thoughtful. 3:01:33 PM MR. STANCLIFF remarked: I think that there is a sense of urgency that's been created because of the holdups that have gone on. It's a procedure that has been used very effectively to create that push back, and so there is a sense of urgency. And "quickly" isn't perhaps a very artful term; if there were to be some compromise, it might be "responsibly" or something like that. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Representative Gara would be amenable to changing the words being inserted via Amendment 6 to, "responsibly". REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that the U.S. Senate should move "thoughtfully". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that the sponsor's representative has indicated that the sponsor would be amenable to changing the word "quickly" to the word "responsibly", relayed that changing the language in that fashion would go a long way towards garnering his support for the resolution. 3:03:02 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 6. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 2-4. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, to replace on page 1, line 1, and on page 2, line 6, the word "quickly" with the word "responsibly". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that asking the U.S. Senate to move quickly is not asking that they not be deliberate. The delay has been significant, and the word "quick" conveys the message he wishes to send, he concluded. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that "responsibly" is a dignified term, and reiterated his understanding that such a change would be supported by the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he still objects to Amendment 7. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she tends to agree with Representative Coghill's comments. 3:05:13 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 7. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-4. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSJR 12(JUD), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He said: I suppose all of us, at some point, are guilty of being partisan, [but] I find the resolution [to be] over the top. I don't think that it's going to have any benefit of any sort and it's only going to cause damage. And if we're going to go down this road, soon we're going to have resolutions ... asking the President to reverse his decision to cut certain veterans' benefits, and things like that - also resolutions that will have no impact whatsoever. It just invites more resolutions like this and I just don't think it's a good road to go down. And I would just finally note that if we're really going to be fair about this, we would spend a lot of time in this resolution talking about how the [U.S.] Senate republicans stood in the way of so many of President Clinton's nominees, not through the use of the filibuster but through, still, a very unprecedented use of their advise and consent power, also to block judicial nominees. And, frankly, sort of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. REPRESENTATIVE GARA then withdrew his objection to the motion. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HCS CSSJR 12(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|