Wilkey, Malcolm R.: Page Letter to Chairman Biden and Senator Thurmond, September 24, 1987...... 6124 Letter to Senator Hatch, with attachments, September 21, 1987 2624 Winter, Judge Ralph K.: Affidavit, September 25, 1987. 3225 Witness List 6501 Women's Bar Association of the State of New York: Statement of Committee to Review the Nomination of Judge Robert H. 6127 Women's Legal Defense Fund, with Federation of Women Lawyers, Judicial Statement, October 19, 1987. 4531 Yale Law School students: Record of opposition to Judge Bork's confirmation, September 11, 1987...... 6144 Young, Andrew: Prepared Statement.. 1071 Testimony 1067 Youth for Democratic Action: Statement of Daniel Press, October 1987. 6145 Zebley, John: Letter to Chairman Biden, September 13, 1987............ 6150 WASHINGTON BUREAU NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE TESTIMONY ALTHEA T. L. SIMMONS DIRECTOR/CHIEF LOBBYIST WASHINGTON BUREAU, NAACP ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERT H. BORK FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am Althea T. L. Simmons, Director of the Washington Bureau and Chief Lobbyist of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I am appearing on behalf of the NAACP's half-million members in our 2100 branches in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NAACP opposes the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. At our 78th Annual National Convention held in New York City in July, 1987, the delegates, as a first order of business, passed unanimously a resolution to oppose the nomination which said in part: "...the confirmation of Judge Bork would place on the Now therefore be it resolved, that the NAACP launch an all-out effort to block the confirmation of Judge Bork." Mr. Chairman, it has been repeatedly reiterated during the course of Judge Bork's appearance before the Judiciary Committee that civil rights groups did not oppose Judge Bork when he was up for confirmation before. A question has been raised as to "why now?" The NAACP did opposed Judge Bork. I wish to excerpt from the testimony (5309) of my illustrious predecessor and colleague, the late Clarence Mitchell, Jr. who in hearings before this Committee in 1977, on the nomination of Judge Griffin B. Bell as Attorney General, stated: "We, in the NAACP have been before this committee at other We opposed the nomination of Mr. Robert H. Bork to be That is, indeed, what happened. It was assigned to But Mr. Bork seriously prevented it, and I am happy to say, Today, we oppose the elevation of Judge Bork from the Appellate Court to the U. S. Supreme Court. Many of our members and persons opposing the nomination are persons who have literally put their lives on the line to gain the freedom envisioned by the Constitution--a living Constitution. We have looked to the U. S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution inclusively. We believe that Judge Bork's views, as we interpret his public statements in articles, opinions, speeches and interviews, as being inimical to the gains made by our struggles for civil rights and individual freedom. SENATE CONSIDERATION OF IDEOLOGY The NAACP submits that the Senate can properly consider the ideology of judicial nominees. Professor Olive Taylor, of Howard University in a report, "Two Hundred Years, an Issue: Ideology in the Nomination and Confirmation Process of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States submitted herewith, states: Ideology and ideological differences have consistently logical considerations. It was ideology that created political Because it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to As the final arbiter of the American constitutional system, the Court's opinions on the nature and scope of federal and state power, on the functions of the various departments of government, and on the meaning of the written language of the Constitution have built up a great body of living and growing constitutional law. Supreme Court opinions are universally accepted as the final word on constitutional questions. The above-mentioned report documents how ideology has been a decisive factor shaping this country from its inception. Over the years, the Senate has given no less weight to ideology in deciding to confirm or not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The Senate has historically considered the ideology of a Supreme Court nominee in exercising its constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" to the President. No less consideration should be given to ideology today. It is not "unAmerican" or "un-" anything else for the Senate to refuse to confirm Judge Bork to the Supreme Court solely because of his ideology. The NAACP holds that Judge Bork does have an ideology. This is found in his prolific writings, speeches and public interviews. Judge Bork has carved a pathway replete with his views on a number of issues which, if acquiesced to, could not only impact the course of social and economic history but have a profound unsettling effect on our lives for years to come.. Judge Frankfurter said it best that the Court has been from its inception the interpreter of the Constitution and thereby, for all practical purposes, "the adjuster of governmental powers in our complicated federal system." According to Professor Olive Taylor: ...Ideology is the sine qua non of this unfolding process-- enough. It is like boarding a train because you like the Judge Bork's philosophy is at substantial variance with numerous areas of settled constitutional law or court decisions. He still does not accept some established doctrines. He finds many settled court precedents unconstitutional in numerous areas and has publicly stated that a judge with his philosophy would have no difficulty overturning some of the court decisions. The NAACP submits, moreover, that the nominee lacks those very qualifications one looks for in a Supreme Court justice--the ability to use his legal skills to respond to the needs of the nation and its people--the judicial temperament or sensitivity to identify the needs of disadvantaged people--the openmindedness to grow and to change long-held views without having a carrot or reward before him. JUDGE BORK AND ORIGINAL INTENT Judge Bork said that his judicial approach is to follow the original intent of the lawmakers, be they the constitutional framers and ratifiers or legislators at the time a statute was passed by the Congress: How should a judge go about finding the law? The only Where the words are precise and the facts simple, that is As I wrote in an opinion for our court [the appellate court The NAACP recognizes that, as a general principle of constitutional or Where statutory interpretation, a judge should find out what the words mean. the words in the constitution or statute are clear and specific, then a judge is restricted in applying those words to the case. But where the words are unclear and general, then a judge has leeway to find out what the general words mean. To do so, a judge looks to the congressional debate, contemporaneous writings at the time the constitution or law was adopted and other sources of |