University of Virginia Library

Election '72

Reason Personified

In an article in the Texas
Law Review the noted
biographer John P. Frank
wrote that Senator William B.
Spong, Jr. "is reason
personified." This is high praise
indeed. When the credibility of
politicians seems automatically
suspect and political
opportunism predominates, it
is unusual for a neutral
observer to contend that a
senator "represents the force
of reason in public life." But
this is Senator Spong.

Sen. Spong's votes on the
various U.S. Supreme Court
nominees offer an example of
his careful, conscientious, and
methodical approach toward
the legislative process. His
training at the University of
Virginia School of Law,
graduate legal work at the
University of Edinburgh, and
experience as president-elect of
the Virginia, State Bar
Association provided ample
background for his
examination of these
nominees.

He wrote concerning his
criteria for deciding: "I have
taken the position that judicial
philosophy and partisan
politics have no place in the
Senate's consideration of
nominees to the nation's
highest judicial tribunal.
Nothing in my judgment would
more seriously undermine the
independence of the Court and
public faith in its decisions
than to subject nominees to
party or ideological tests. It is
also an uncertain basis upon
which to predict how one will
perform as a Supreme Court
Justice. History has
demonstrated that.

"I believe the examination
of a nominee should be limited
to his qualifications,
background, experience,
integrity, and temperament.
This is the approach I have
used in voting for:" Chief
Justice Burger and Justices
Marshall, Haynsworth,
Blackmun, Powell and
Rehnquist and against Justice
Fortas and Judge Carswell."

Although his decisions
concerning the nominations of
Fortas, Haynsworth, and
Carswell were particularly
difficult to make, Sen. Spong
stuck by his criteria. On Fortas
be concluded "that this man of
brilliance and unquestioned
ability has demonstrated a lack
of discretion and judgment
essential to the high post...for
which he has been nominated."

On the Haynsworth
nomination he found that no
ethical question was involved
and declared, "I believe Judge
Haynsworth is an honest
man...I shall vote for
confirmation."

In the Carswell case, as with
all the other votes, Spong
personally examined the
available records and decisions.
He concluded regretfully "that
Judge Carswell does not
measure up to the standards I
believe are required at this time
of a Supreme Court Justice."

At the time of this vote
some political observers
indicated that if everyone who
disagreed with Sen. Spong
about his Haynsworth-Carswell
positions were to vote against
him, he couldn't be elected
dogcatcher. As has happened
so many times this year, I
think those political observers
were wrong. These votes
exemplify why Bill Spong does
not need to rely on rhetoric or
coattails in his re-election
campaign.