|
Positions and Views on Other Issues where Information is Available: |
|
|
| Courts, Laws & Justice |
Positions and Views |
| Courts, a General Statement |
Lott: No Response |
| Criminal Justice System, a General Statement |
Lott: No Response |
| Justice Department |
Lott: No Response |
| Criminals Serving Their Full Terms |
Lott: No Response |
| Three Strikes Criminal Sentencing Standard |
Lott: No Response |
| Videotaping Criminal Interrogations |
Lott: No Response |
| Mandatory Minimum Sentencing |
Lott: No Response |
| Jena Six Arrests and Prosecutions |
Lott: No Response |
| Crack-Powder Sentencing Disparity |
Lott: No Response |
| Death Penalty |
Lott: No Response |
| Judicial Discretion and Alternative Sentencing |
Lott: No Response |
| Voting Rights for X-Felons |
Lott: No Response |
| Property Rights and Eminent Domain |
Lott: No Response |
| Privacy Rights |
Lott: No Response |
| Obscenity Laws |
Lott: No Response |
| Activist Judges Legislating from the Bench |
Lott: No Response |
| Judicial Appointments |
Lott: No Response |
| Supreme Court Appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito |
Lott: With President Bush’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the widely-respected Judge John G. Roberts, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Senate has an opportunity to show dignity and to move away from the shrill partisanship we’ve had surrounding recent judicial nominations. Americans want a Senate that works for their best interests, not for special interest groups on the right or the left.
Given the acrimony over the President’s lower court nominations, many have expected the President’s first Supreme Court nomination to be the battle royale of all judicial confirmation battles. But Judge Roberts’ nomination shows that it doesn’t have to be that way. He is a conservative who will interpret the Constitution as written, rather than making or formulating law according to his personal world view. That will surely lead to criticism from the far left. On the other hand, Judge Roberts has acknowledged that Roe v.Wade, the case which legalized abortion in the early 1970s, is the law. In keeping with his core conservative philosophy of interpreting the law as written, he is bound by it. That will surely lead to criticism from some on the right.
However, Judge Roberts is very reflective of mainstream America and of President Bush’s views. He’s well qualified by experience and demeanor, serving as counsel during the Reagan and first Bush administrations and clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. When nominated for the federal appeals court two years ago, he received a unanimous confirmation vote by the full Senate. Most Democrats found Judge Roberts an acceptable nominee back then, as they should today. In fact, 146 members of the District of Columbia Bar Association – hardly a den of conservative thought – including Clinton Administration officials, signed a letter urging his confirmation to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Many hope this confirmation process will meet the "Ginsburg standard." As you may recall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the last ju [Response was truncated to maximum response length of 2000 characters.]
Source: Candidate Website Date: 10/07/2006 |
| Conservative / Liberal Balance on Supreme Court |
Lott: No Response |
| Federal Judges Confirmation Procedures |
Lott: Mississippians have sent me to Washington to get results, not to make statements. That’s why I want to change Senate rules so that we can put federal judges on the bench. Senate rules are stymieing results for the American people – creating scores of judicial vacancies and keeping good men, women and minority judges off the bench. It’s time for change.
Within the Senate, a body of just 100 people often referred to as the world’s most exclusive club, it would be easy for me to talk about Senate "traditions," often considered sacred and beyond change. It’s true that the Senate, as the Founding Fathers designed it, is a more calm, cordial and consensus-oriented body. Yet, even with its longstanding traditions, the Senate always has had Constitutionally-provided power over its rules, and the Senate has indeed changed its rules periodically to protect them from abuse.
Right now, a few Senators are absolutely abusing the rules, employing the filibuster provision to keep judicial nominees from even being brought to the Senate floor for a fair up-or-down vote. Though they depict any rule change as drastic – a "nuclear" option – it is this minority of Senators who already have gone "nuclear," drastically altering Senate tradition.
That’s because for 200 years of Senate history the filibuster rule, which is a stalling tactic, was not applied to judicial nominees who had majority support. Judicial nominees generally were considered on merit, without partisan considerations, but no more.
The problems started more than 15 years ago and culminated recently with the shameless sack of lies thrown at Mississippi’s own Judge Charles Pickering, simply because he was a conservative Christian. The attacks against him, though discredited, devolved the confirmation process to new lows. Today, dozens of distinguished men, women and minorities are being filibustered by liberals because they might make conservative rulings against abortion, same-sex marriage or assisted suicide [Response was truncated to maximum response length of 2000 characters.]
Source: Candidate Website Date: 10/07/2006 |
| Legal Reform, a General Statement |
Lott: Public outcry against out-of-control lawsuits have forced state and federal governments to enact tort reforms designed to protect jobs. Now before the Senate is a proposal to end the many outstanding asbestos lawsuits by consolidating them into one award pool. Both employers and injured workers have agreed to this concept. Yet, there still are some who clearly have sued without merit, actions unfair to workers suffering real injury or to employers trying to stay afloat. We must pass an asbestos bill equally designed to help injured workers and protect jobs.
Source: Candidate Website Date: 10/07/2006 |
| Tort Reform and Frivolous Suits |
Lott: No Response |
| Alternative Dispute Resolution |
Lott: No Response |
| Product Liability Reform |
Lott: No Response |
| Caps on Punitive Damages |
Lott: No Response |
| Class Action Reform |
Lott: No Response |
| Bankruptcy Reform |
Lott: No Response |
| Bankruptcy Means-Testing & Restrictions |
Lott: No Response |