We will have a hearing for Mr. Cross. Five days. Each committee member may ask up to five questions. However, no questions may be asked before Mr. Cross had made his opening statement.

What is your overall philosophy of the Justice System and its purpose in the Government?

Mr. Chair,

I move that the hearing be extended to five days after Mr. Cross delivers his opening statement. It has already been three, and we have yet to hear from him. Should he choose to speak to the committee now, it limits the time for questions by the members.

I yield.

Mr. Chair,

I second the motion.

I yield.

Barring objections, motion carried.

Mr. Chair,
I object to this.

AGS RULE VI.1.C says:

c. The Committee of the Judiciary and Government Affairs shall begin hearings on Court nominees no less than seven (7) days after their nomination, and shall vote no less than twenty-one (21) days after their nominations.

James Cross was nominated on Nov. 11, 2004. According to the AGS rules, we must move to a vote by December 2. We have little less than a week remaining. In that week, we must accomplish both debate and hearing.

I yield.

This post has been edited by Rep. Schmidt on Nov 26 2004, 06:17 PM

Wow, I had NO idea this was open. Thank you for delivering notice, Mr. Chairman. I highly appreicate it.

I'll make a short opening statement within 24 hours, and will then answer questions for however long I can. I do apologize to the committee.

Regards,

Mr. Chair,

I respectfully request that the gentleman from California withdraw his objection. Is it only fair to give Mr. Cross the same time we give Mr. Williams?

I yield.

MR. Chair,

I'll withdraw my objection.

I yield.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I'm not big on opening statements, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

I want to thank the Chairman of this honorable committee for presiding over this hearing; I am honored and humbled to sit before this body. When President Yoshida nominated me to the Supreme Court, he didn't nominate me soley because of my political beliefs, but because the President understands our great nation cannot survive without a fair, independent and nonpartisan Judiciary. While many associate myself with hardcore conservatism and partianship, I too, am a man of the law. My job isn't to force my political beliefs upon each and every citizen of the United States, but to interpit laws approved by congress and their constitutionality.

With that Mr. Chairman, I am available for questioning.

Mr. Cross,

Thank you for joining us and for serving the country. I have but one question:

Why do you believe the President nominated you?

What is your overall philosophy of the Justice System and its purpose in the Government?

Mr. Chairman:

First I would like to thank the Gentleman from Tennessee's fifth district for his question.

As I said in my opening statement, both President Yoshida and I believe that our judiciary must remain fair, independent and nonpartian at all times; for if the Judiciary were to become plagued by partisan politics, our nation would crumble before our eyes. Laws passed by a Conservative congress would be nullified by Liberal justices, the same as Liberal Laws would be nullified by conservative judges. If America is to survive, this cannot happen.

Whether or not a law is liberal or conservative is irrelevant. In the eyes of a justice, both liberal and conservative laws must meet one requirement: Constitutionality. It's my opinion President Yoshida nominated me for that very reason: I am capable of seperating my personal and political views from whether or not something is legal.

In sum: I was nominated to uphold the law and that is what I will do.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by Lakfakalle on Nov 28 2004, 09:24 PM

Mr. Cross,

If I may, what do you feel is the single most important decision the Supreme Court has ever made?

Mr. Cross,

The GOP added the following to their rules recently:

This contradicts Article VI, Section 2a of the AGS Rules:

You've publicly lauded this defiance of our by-laws. My question: How do you reconcile this contradiction?