jeff sessions has said. this is the most activist court in my lifetime. they rewrote the law to say women could be paid less than men. they said age discrimination laws won t apply if corporate interests don t want them do. rewrote the law to give exxon mobile a $2 billion windfall. they rewrote the law to say that corporations could come in and medal in elections in this country. all this went against the laws of this country. the question i asked is whether you think a nominee should unite the country? i think a nominee, if republicans and democrats want to set aside politics, stop listening to the single issue groups, either the far right or the far left, they can. remember, john paul stevens was nominated by a republican president who was facing election. he was a conservative republican and a democratic-controlled
let me just say i disagree with pat s analysis and criticism of the court. i don t think there court is an activist court. i think they ve attempted to faithfully follow the law. just because they reach a decision that he may not like does not mean it s an activist court. senator sessions, the only jeff, we wrote it badly, what you re saying it s okay they rewrote the law? that s not what the court is supposed to do. they re supposed to interpret the law, not make law. you re exactly right. the court should interpret the law, not make the law and should interpret it in a way that s faithful to the constitution. senator sessions, can you promise an up or down vote on the president s nominee? a filibuster possible? i promise a fair hearing, and i promise that the nominee will have a chance to explain any criticisms that are raised. but if the nominee is one that is so activist look lui who has
no, i m not. let me just say i disagree with pat s analysis and criticism of the court. i don t think there court is an activist court. i think they ve attempted to faithfully follow the law. just because they reach a decision that he may not like does not mean it s an activist court. senator sessions, the only jeff, we wrote it badly, what you re saying it s okay they rewrote the law? that s not what the court is supposed to do. they re supposed to interpret the law, not make law. you re exactly right. the court should interpret the law, not make the law and should interpret it in a way that s faithful to the constitution. senator sessions, can you promise an up or down vote on the president s nominee? a filibuster possible? i promise a fair hearing, and i promise that the nominee will have a chance to explain any criticisms that are raised. but if the nominee is one that is so activist look lui who has
american people. actually, not for the reasons he may think. i agree with what jeff sessions has said. they have written the law. this is the most activist court in my lifetime. they rewrote the law to say women could be paid less than men. they said age discrimination laws won t apply if corporate interests don t want them do. they rewrote the law to give exxon mobil a $2 billion windfall. they rewrote the law to say that corporations could come in and meddle in elections in this country. all this went against the laws of this country. the question i asked is whether you think a nominee should unite the country? i think a nominee, if republicans and democrats want to set aside politics, stop listening to the single issue groups, either the far right or the far left, they can. remember, john paul stevens was nominated by a republican president who was facing election. he was a conservative republican
sotomayor was nominated. are you able to say they re well qualified to be on the supreme court? i think we better look at that. i m not prepared to make an announcement before we get into the background on it. no, i m not. let me just say i disagree with pat s analysis and criticism of the court. i don t think this court is an activist court. i think they ve attempted to faithfully follow the law. just because they reach a decision that he may not like does not mean it s an activist court. let me ask you about procedure they wrote the law badly. senator sessions, the only jeff, we wrote it badly, what you re saying it s okay they rewrote the law? that s not what the court is supposed to do. they re supposed to interpret the law, not make law. you re exactly right. the court should interpret the law, not make the law and should interpret it in a way that s faithful to the constitution. senator sessions, can you promise an up or down vote on the president s nominee? is