When President Obama announces his choice to replace retiring Justice David Souter, Sen. Jeff Sessions will also be in the spotlight.

Sessions, R-Ala., who became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Arlen Specter, D-Pa., switched parties, has made clear that Republicans will be prepared to quiz the nominee to make sure that he or she will not be an "activist" on the bench. Such activist judges are "a threat to the rule of law" because they would allow their personal views to trump their commitment to the law, Sessions said.

Sessions spoke with National Journal's Kirk Victor in his office Wednesday on the confirmation process, the Roberts court and what goes into his vote. Edited excerpts follow. A condensed version appears in the May 23 National Journal.

NJ: The Judiciary Committee is the most rancorous, partisan panel in the Senate. Do you figure that it will remain that way for the foreseeable future?

Sessions: Well, it has some very skilled attorneys with strong views who are not shrinking violets. That's for sure. And nobody's a potted plant. I am hoping, though, that we could raise the level of confirmation discussion, questioning, and debate. I don't know why that can't be done.

NJ: Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., opposed your nomination for a District Court seat in 1986. How has that affected your relationship with him?

Sessions: It doesn't affect me at all. I just resolved not to worry about that when I came here. And I haven't. I have said over the years, though, that whether dealing with a Democratic nominee or Republican, they deserve a fair shake. Most people believe that, although sometimes they have forgotten it.

NJ: Conservatives hope that you'll give their views a bigger voice on the committee. Are their hopes well-founded?

Sessions: I think that our small group, Republicans, are pretty united now in our beliefs about how the Constitution should be interpreted. We believe that those beliefs are far more popular with the American people than the [judicial] activists' philosophy. We consider activism as a threat to the rule of law. I use [Utah GOP Sen. Orrin] Hatch's definition of activism: a judge who allows their personal views to override their commitment to the law.

NJ: Some say that Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court has been activist, having overturned numerous cases on 5-4 decisions. But during Roberts' nomination hearings, he said his jurisprudence would be characterized by "modesty and humility." Is that what he has done?

Sessions: Activism is not overruling a bad law or unwise precedent. Activism is constructing opinions designed more to promote an agenda than to adjudicate between the litigants. There is this postmodern philosophy that one person's view is as good as another, that you can make words say whatever you want to. That will be part of this debate. I don't believe that. If you believe that, we don't have any law. That has been a charge from the Left that if anything changes, that's activism. That is certainly not my definition of what activism is.

NJ: When Specter was a Republican, he was so concerned about what he saw as Roberts' activism that he considered reviewing his testimony and that of Justice Samuel Alito to see if their decisions on the Supreme Court are consistent with what they said in their hearings. Is that appropriate?

Sessions: That could be appropriate. I didn't agree with his conclusion, but yeah, it's fine. Judges sometimes complain that, well, their independence is threatened. I believe in judicial independence. And I support, at this time, lifetime appointments.

NJ: You said "at this time" -- you might change your mind?

Sessions: Yeah, you never know. I think it has served us well. But to criticize the court or to have a hearing to analyze their opinions does not threaten their independence. It might hurt their little feelings. But it doesn't threaten their independence. We can't even dock their pay. They are as independent as anybody can get in this world.

NJ: Could you imagine opposing a nominee based on his or her personal views?

Sessions: In the American rule of law, a judge puts on a robe and takes an oath to, in essence, not allow personal views to infect their decision-making. So a liberal advocate, a strong Democratic Party politician, who has a reputation of integrity and has proven over the years that they treat everybody fairly is fine to me [as a nominee]. But the problem is, there has been an intellectual defense of judges utilizing opinions to advance agendas.

NJ: What part does ideology play as you conduct hearings over the next nominee?

Sessions: I don't know what ideology means. If it means that I am a big-government liberal or I am a small-government conservative, then that is not disqualifying for a nominee. If ideology means that I am so committed to my personal, my religious, my political and cultural views that I am going to use my power to advance that agenda even if it is not legitimate to do so, then that is disqualifying. Activism can be on the right or the left, that is true. However... conservatives, intellectually, have criticized activism, and, by any fair analysis, are less activist than the liberals, many of whom, intellectually, defend this [activist] agenda.

NJ: During the 2005 Senate dispute over filibustering judicial nominees, the bipartisan "Gang of 14" preserved that right in extraordinary circumstances. You made the case for the "constitutional option," meaning that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote. Does that mean you could not support filibustering any judicial nominee?

Sessions: I think sometimes debates shouldn't be brought to a close. There is a legitimate need for a more extended discussion of an issue or a nominee. But I raised the question, as did Senator Hatch, what does the Constitution mean when it says you will advise and consent? Does it mean by a supermajority, or by a simple majority? It is not absolutely clear in the Constitution, but I think as a practical matter, the Senate has basically gone with a majority vote until the Gang of 14.

Democrats were filibustering successfully quite a number of [President Bush's] nominees, and the issue became joined. So, when the Gang of 14 comes along and says, "You shouldn't filibuster much, but if you do, it should only be for extraordinary circumstances," that sort of stopped it. A lot of people think that sets a new standard for the future, although I don't know that it is a concrete standard.

I haven't reached a firm moral conviction about the issue. I do think, based on our recent history, an argument could be made that a filibuster, if you think this is an extraordinary circumstance, is legitimate. I will not say I would forever oppose it at this point.

NJ: President Obama has said he would like a Supreme Court justice with "empathy," and he looks to the late Chief Justice Earl Warren as a role model. Does that give you heartburn?

Sessions: Well, yes. As a prosecutor, I think some of the criminal-law issues that I had been dealing with during the Warren Court years were not wise.

NJ: Should the Senate probe a nominee's religious beliefs?

Sessions: Well, you can never have a religious test for a judge, and that's the fundamental principle that will stand the test of time. If a nominee has religious views and a senator wants to ask whether or not those views would override their commitment to the law, I think that is legitimate. Just like it would be legitimate to say, "You oppose pornography laws, but will you enforce them?" Or, "You oppose the death penalty, but will you enforce it?" That is the kind of thing that is legitimate. The test is, are your religious beliefs such that you won't enforce the law?

NJ: You have said that you could support a nominee who supports Roe v. Wade. Do you see a basis in the Constitution for Roe v. Wade?

Sessions: It really is hard to justify, constitutionally. History has shown it probably would have been better to have just allowed this to play out with the public in the legislatures, where these kinds of policy questions should be settled. I am more forgiving of a person who might disagree with me on the ultimate question of whether abortion should be legitimate; I am more troubled by someone who wants to achieve that end and uses dubious constitutional logic to get there.

It's pretty firmly embedded now, and certainly I would assume that the Democratic nominee will be pro-abortion and pro-Roe v. Wade. Any [Supreme Court] nominee and probably 90 percent of their lower-court nominees will share that same view, or a big majority [will]. Some of them, if you got them very privately, might express doubts about Roe v. Wade, but not publicly. It has become such a part of the legal system now it is just not disqualifying.

NJ: How important is a judge's respect for precedent?

Sessions: Precedent is very important, but a judge is not required to continue to follow a legal decision if it is wrong and it has perverse consequences. Scholars have written how a good judge should go about overruling a precedent. If a judge is going to overrule a precedent, they should go through a rigorous analysis of a series of factors and do so based on objective criteria rather than their personal political views.

NJ: Interest groups on both sides are very powerful and often drive this debate. Do they have too much power?

Sessions: A senator needs to know absolutely that they don't represent an interest group. They [senators] are the ones who took the oath to decide this question and should give them [the groups] only the attention they deserve. It is a free country -- you can speak out.

NJ: When Hatch was the Judiciary Committee chairman, he accused you of "playing politics with judges" for holding up President Clinton's nominees. What do you think about that charge?

Sessions: Orrin doesn't make many mistakes, but that was one. He is a great lawyer and a great member of the committee. Well, first of all I opposed Berzon and Paez [Clinton nominated Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2000]. Those two had the biggest record of activism, not adhering to the law. Subsequently, after they have been on the bench, Senator Hatch has indicated to me that I may have been right. But I voted for 95 percent of the Clinton nominees.

NJ: You were critical of fellow Senate Republicans for not being more aggressive in taking on Clinton's nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Tell me about that and how Senate debate on Supreme Court nominees has changed.

Sessions: Led primarily by the Democrats, there has been an erosion of what, at one time, had been a pretty strong feeling that the president deserved deference in his nominees. It does seem now that senators are exercising their constitutional power to vote for or against a nominee for most any reason they choose.

NJ: Is that a good thing?

Sessions: I am not sure. President Obama was the apex of that -- voting against both Alito and Roberts and filibustering Alito. He basically said, "That's not who I would have appointed" or whatever, or they are "not empathetic enough." Republicans will give some deference to the president, but there has been a trend for some time and that [deference] becomes less and less. So Breyer and Ginsburg came up during a time when the Republicans were giving deference, pretty high deference, to the president.

NJ: What's the biggest challenge in your new role?

Sessions: We should have a good process that the American people can appreciate and that hopefully even the senators can enjoy. Unfortunately, there is a responsibility to deal with any kind of allegation of impropriety or ethical shortcomings, but any nominee should be given a fair chance to explain that. I think there should be a good bit of discussion about how this person sees their role on the court, what kind of history they have that would demonstrate how they might behave once given judicial independence, a lifetime appointment, and no further accountability to the public in any shape, form or fashion except impeachment. So I think this is a very serious matter.

NJ: You don't see a problem of meeting the deadline of a nominee being on the court by the first Monday in October?

Sessions: No. We should be able to meet that. Justice Souter gave us plenty of time to do that.