Panel I of a Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee
HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: NOMINATION OF WILLIAM PRYOR JR. TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)
WITNESSES: ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM PRYOR JR. (R-AL)
BODY:
SEN. HATCH: Thanks so much.
General Pryor, if we could have you step forward. Please stand to be sworn.
(Witness is sworn.)
Thank you.
Senator Schumer and I will make our opening statements at this time, and then we'll turn to you. Why don't you sit in the middle, if you could, by the clock there. Thank you.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Senator Hatch was saying get away from the right side there and move to the middle of the -- (laughter) --
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: (Chuckles.) Happy to do so, Senator!
SEN. HATCH: This side over here takes real offense at things like that, I have to tell you.
I'm pleased to welcome to the Judiciary Committee this morning the attorney general of Alabama, William Pryor, whom President Bush has nominated to fill a judicial emergency on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Now, in his last election, General Pryor garnered more than 59 percent of the vote, and if the letters of support for his nomination are any indication, the majority of Alabama people supporting him were not all Republicans. Let me share with you some of the letters that prominent Democrats have written about General Pryor.
Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, which is the state party's African-American caucus, writes that General Pryor, quote, "Will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe all races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come before him. I am a member of the Democratic National Committee and, of course, General Pryor is a Republican, but these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in General Pryor's eyes, justice has only one label -- justice."
Judge Sue Bell Cobb, who sits on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, stated, quote, "I write not only as the only state-wide Democrat to be elected in 2000, not only as a member of the court which reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor's work, but also as a child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder with General Pryor in the political arena on behalf of Alabama's children. It is for these reasons, and more, that I am indeed honored to recommend General Pryor for nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals." Unquote.
And Congressman Artur Davis encouraged President Bush to nominate General Pryor, declaring his belief that, quote, "Alabama will be proud of his service." Unquote.
Now, I will submit copies of these letters for the record, along with copies of the other many letters from Democrats and Republicans, men and women, and members of the African-American, Jewish and Christian communities who support Bill Pryor's nomination.
Now, it is fundamental that a state attorney general has the obligation to represent and defend the laws and interests of the state. General Pryor has fulfilled this responsibility I think admirably by repeatedly defending the public and the laws and policies enacted by the Alabama legislature. But one of the reasons for the broad spectrum of support for General Pryor is his demonstrated ability to set aside his personal views and follow the law.
As you will undoubtedly hear during the course of this hearing, General Pryor is no shrinking violet. He has been open and honest about his personal beliefs, which is what voters expect from the persons whom they elect to represent them. Yet General Pryor has shown again and again that when the law conflicts with his personal and political beliefs, he follows the law.
For example, in 1997, the Alabama legislature enacted a ban on partial-birth abortion that could have been interpreted to prohibit abortions before viability. General Pryor is avowedly pro-life and has strongly criticized Roe versus Wade, so one might very well have expected General Pryor to vigorously enforce the statute. Instead, he instructed law enforcement officials to enforce the law, only insofar as it was consistent with the Supreme Court precedents of Casey, and Stenberg versus Carhart, despite pressure from many Republicans to enforce broader language in the act.
Here's another example -- and I'm sure that we will hear today about General Pryor's call for modification or repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Department of Justice pre- clearance. By the way, General Pryor is not alone in his opinion of Section 5. The Democratic attorney general of Georgia, Thurbert Baker, has called Section 5, an, quote, "extraordinary transgression of the normal prerogatives of the states." Unquote. Now, despite his opinion that Section 5 is flawed, General Pryor successfully defended before the Supreme Court several majority/minority voting districts approved under Section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. He also issued an opinion that the use of stickers to replace one candidate's name with another on a ballot required pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Yet another example involved General Pryor's interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In an effort to defeat challenges to school prayer and the display of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, both the governor and the chief justice urged General Pryor to argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. General Pryor refused, despite his own deeply held Catholic faith and personal support for both of these issues.
And here's my final example -- and there are many others, but I'll limit it to this. General Pryor supported the right of teachers to serve as state legislators, despite intense pressure from his own party, because he believed that the Alabama Constitution allowed them to do so.
Now, these examples amply illustrate why General Pryor's nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support from persons like the former Democratic attorney general, Bill Baxley. He observed of General Pryor, quote, "In every difficult decision he has made, his actions were supported by his interpretation of the law, without race, gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or any other competing interest affecting judgment." Unquote. Mr. Baxley continued, quote, "I often disagree politically with Bill Pryor. This does not prevent me from making this recommendation because we need fair-minded, intelligent, industrious men and women possessed of impeccable integrity on the 11th Circuit. Bill Pryor has these qualities in abundance. There is no better choice for this vacancy." Unquote.
During the course of this hearing, we will hear many things about Bill Pryor; we'll hear many one-sided half truths perpetrated by the usual liberal interest groups, who will stop at nothing, it seems to me, to defeat President Bush's judicial nominees. Now, I want to make sure that this hearing is about fairness and about telling the full story of Bill Pryor's record and service.
Now, we will hear that General Pryor is a devout, pro-life Catholic who has criticized Roe versus Wade. But the rest of the story is that many prominent Democrats, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and former Stanford Dean John Hart Ely, who are pro-choice, have also criticized Roe without anyone questioning their recognition of it as the binding Supreme Court precedent.
We will hear claims that General Pryor is against the disabled and elderly. But the real story is that General Pryor has done his duty as attorney general to defend his state's budget from costly lawsuits. Other state attorneys general, including respected Democrats like Bob Butterworth of Florida and now-Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, have taken the same positions as General Pryor in defending their states. And while the Supreme Court agreed with the attorney general in these cases that the 11th Amendment protects states from monetary damages in federal court, these rulings did not affect, and General Pryor did not seek to weaken, other important methods of redressing discrimination, like actions for monetary damages under state law, injunctive relief or back pay.
We will hear claims that General Pryor's criticisms of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act indicate a lack of commitment to civil rights. But the real story is that General Pryor has a solid record of commitment to civil rights, which includes defending minority -- majority/minority voting districts, leading the battle to abolish the Alabama Constitution's prohibition on interracial marriage and working with the Clinton Administration's Justice Department to prosecute the former Ku Klux Klansmen who perpetrated the bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church, which resulted in the death of four little girls in 1963.
We will no doubt hear other claims during the course of this hearing distorting General Pryor's record or presenting only partial truths. And I want to urge my colleagues, and really everyone here, to listen closely so that the real story is heard. I think those who listen with an open mind may be surprised and even impressed. And I look forward to hearing General Pryor's testimony.
Having said all that, you had an excellent record in law school; you've had an excellent record since law school. You have a record of honor and integrity. You have a record of speaking your mind, sometimes irritating everybody concerned, or a lot of people, but standing up for what you believe the law really says and what the law really is. And I think you've won a lot of cases that some people might tend to criticize, who don't realize that you won them in the end.
I just want to say that knowing you and having spent some time with you, some extensive time with you, I'm very impressed with you as a human being, as a person who is trying to do what's right, and as an attorney general in this country who I think has stood up against a lot of special interest groups to do what's right and do what the law says should be done. And I hope my colleagues will feel the same at the end of this discussion. If they listen, I believe that they will.
So, with that, we'll have the statement of Senator Schumer, who's representing the minority here today. And then we'll go with your statement and then questions.
...
SEN. HATCH: Thank you, Senator.
Well, as you can see -- (audience member apparently begins applauding) -- we'll have no disturbances in here; I'll have you removed. It's just that simple. We're going to run a very decent hearing, and we're just not going to have any more of that. So anybody who does that, I'm directing the sergeant-at-arms to remove them from this room -- on either side of this issue.
This is an important hearing for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just one correction: We hear this, "Well, we Democrats have voted for 128, and we've only rejected two." That isn't quite the story, and I think people need to know this.
Yesterday I was interested because former senator Bob Griffin corrected me in one -- in our caucus meeting. He -- when I indicated that there's only been one filibuster in the history of the country of a federal judge, and that was Justice Fortas. He said that was not a filibuster. He said literally we had more votes, up and down, against Fortas than -- that would have defeated him and that nobody -- and he gave me a letter with his comments, making it very clear that there was no desire on anybody's part to filibuster, but to fully debate that at that particular time.
Now in this particular case, over the last couple of years of this president's -- actually, two --
SEN./MR. : Yeah --
SEN. HATCH: -- two and a half years of this president's tenure, we've have years of delay from (sic) a number of circuit court nominees. Yes, we've been able to get through a lot of district court nominees, but when it comes to circuit nominees, it's been a -- very, very much of an ordeal. Miguel Estrada's just one. Priscilla Owen is another. We've had an indication they're going to filibuster Judge Pickering, going to filibuster Judge Boyle, who's now been sitting here for better than two years.
By the way, Roberts, who just got through, and Boyle -- been sitting here for 12 years, nominated three times by two different presidents. Couldn't even get a hearing in the two years when the Democrats controlled the committee.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl -- there's been some indication there's going to be a filibuster there. The nominee J. Leon Holmes -- some indication of a filibuster there.
There are four nominees from Michigan that are being held up for no reason other than that two senators are irritated because they didn't get their two judges during the Clinton years. I feel badly about that, but the fact of the matter is, they shouldn't be holding up 6th Circuit court nominees, four of them, who are, they admit, I think -- have admitted that they're qualified people.
There have been large negative votes against a significant number of circuit court nominees by our friends on the other side, sending a message: "Don't sent a conservative to the Supreme Court."
You know, we've -- when you stop and think about it, it isn't quite just 128 versus two. So I just wanted to correct the record on that, so that we all understand that we're in a crisis here in the United States Senate.
I also want people to understand -- Mr. Pryor, I guess I might as well say this to you -- you are an active person. I hope you'll be given an opportunity by our colleagues on both sides to explain some of the statements you've made and why you have upheld the law, because you have. You know, you don't get people like Senator Shelby coming here and praising you like he did, or Senator Sessions praising you like he did, unless you have upheld the law, even against your own viewpoints a number of times.
You're a person of deep religious conviction. Now, you believe very strongly in the Catholic faith. And you've said so publicly. And some of these criticisms come from your expressions of your own personal faith, which you have never, to my knowledge, allowed to interfere with what the law is.
Now, we'll see. I mean, personally, having chatted with you about a great number of these issues, you have not only reasonable explanations, but I think very good explanations for every criticism that could be brought your way.
Now, having said all that, let's give you an opportunity to make your statement. I hope you'll introduce your family to us. And then, we'll turn to questions.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With me today are my family: my spouse, Kris; my daughters, Caroline and Victoria, who are seated behind me. Thank you for their warm welcome.
I have only something very brief that I would like to say. First, I want to thank the president of the United States for giving me the honor of being nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. I want to thank the people of Alabama for giving me the privilege to serve as their attorney general for the last six and a half years. I want to thank Senator Sessions for the opportunities he afforded me, particularly while he was attorney general. And finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of this committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today and to answer your questions.
Thank you.
SEN. HATCH: Well, thank you so much.
Now, we've had a number of issues raised. Let's just hit a few of them. And I'm sure we'll have an opportunity on both sides, because I want this to be a lively debate; I want senators on both sides to be able to ask any questions they want to. And I believe you can answer all of them, between you and me. And we spent hours together discussing some of these things.
So, let me just say, you have openly criticized Roe versus Wade. Now, some will find that just awful. And you did use language -- you called it the worst abomination in constitutional law and history. And as Senator Schumer brought up, your statement: "I will never forget January 22nd, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution." But you also -- well, let me just ask you: Tell us about that. Tell us about why we should have you as a judge when you have criticized one of the hallmark opinions, in the eyes of some -- certainly not me -- that has come forth in the last 40 years.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to answer that question.
I have a record as attorney general that is separate from my personal beliefs, and I have demonstrated as attorney general that I am able to set aside my personal beliefs and follow the law, even when I strongly disagree with the law.
In the context of the issue that you raised, abortion, a couple of years ago -- actually, several years ago, in my first year as attorney general, our legislature had passed a partial birth abortion law. And as you mentioned earlier, it was -- there were at least a couple of different ways that that law could have been interpreted. It could have been broadly interpreted. I knew that when a lawsuit was filed in a federal court challenging the application of that law, that it was going to be a formidable challenge to defend the law in the light of the precedents of the Supreme Court in Roe and in Casey. I had an obligation as attorney general, though, before Stenberg, to make whatever reasonable argument I could in defense of that law, so long as it was consistent with those precedents.
And so, looking at that law and looking at those precedents, I required -- (chuckles) -- I ordered the district attorneys of Alabama to apply that law in the narrowest construction available; that is, only to post-viability fetuses, because that was my reading of the case law.
It was an interpretation that disagreed with the position of the governor who appointed me, who was a party to the law suit. It was criticized by some pro-life activists in Alabama. But it was my best judgment of what the law required.
SEN. HATCH: Even though you believed otherwise?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Even though I believed strongly otherwise. I believe that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. I believe that abortion is morally wrong. I've never wavered from that. And in representing the people of Alabama, I've been a candid, engaged attorney general who's been involved in the public --
SEN. HATCH: So what does that mean with regard to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? If you get on that court, how are you going to treat Roe versus Wade?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Well, my record as attorney general shows that I am able to put aside my personal beliefs and follow the law, even when I strongly disagree with it; to look carefully at precedents and to do my duty. That's the same duty that I would have as a judge.
Now, as an advocate for the state of Alabama, of course, I have an obligation to make a reasonable argument in defense of the law. But as a judge, I would have to do my best to determine from the precedents what the law actually, at the end of the day, requires. My record demonstrates that I can do that.
SEN. HATCH: So even though you disagree with Roe versus Wade, you would -- you would act in accordance with Roe versus Wade on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Even though I strongly disagree with Roe versus Wade, I have acted in accordance with it as attorney general, and would continue to do so as a Court of Appeals judge.
SEN. HATCH: Can we rely on that?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: You can take it to the bank, senator -- Mr. Chairman. (Chuckles.)
SEN. HATCH: Let me just -- let me just -- you have had some criticism -- let me just bring up just a couple of them because my time's going. And I'm going to hold everybody to 10 minutes, and we'll do various rounds so everybody will have a chance to ask whatever questions they want.
But, you know, I am one of the -- it was the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act in the Senate. I take very strong -- I took a very strong position on that bill. Took a lot of criticism for it because there were two different points of view with regard to that bill and how it was written.
Now, you've been criticized because of litigation regarding the Violence Against Women Act, as though your position on that bill was improper. Now, tell me about that.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Well, my position, Mr. Chairman, was the position adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Morrison case.
SEN. HATCH: In other words, you followed not only the law, but you won in the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: The argument I presented was the position adopted by the court, that's right.
SEN. HATCH: So if anybody's out of the mainstream here, it has to be the Supreme Court, I guess?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Well, I would suggest that the court is within the mainstream.
SEN. HATCH: (Laughing) I think so too! That's the point I'm trying to make. The fact is, is that yes, you can be criticized because you criticized a portion of the Violence Against Women Act, believing that you were right, and you were proven right in the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, just as much as Roe versus Wade, right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: So anybody who suggests that you weren't following the law and that you were outside the mainstream, happens to be wrong.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I believe so.
SEN. HATCH: Well, I think the Supreme Court believes so, too. Now, I disagreed with the Supreme Court on that issue, but it is the law, and I accept it.
So we've tried to go back to the legislative table and rework it. And we'll try and do that.
Let me just give you a couple of others that are important. Your record on race is commendable. And I quoted Alvin Holmes, and so did others here today, including the two senators from Alabama and the congressman, the black representative for the Alabama House of Representatives for 28 years. He said, "During my time of service, I have led most of the fights for civil rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays and other minorities," unquote. Then he -- Representative Holmes in his letter to us lists a number of your accomplishments on race that I'd just like to ask you about in my remaining three minutes -- three and a half minutes.
In addition to your defense of majority minority districts, which we've already discussed, or at least I've discussed it, you worked with Doug Jones, who was President Clinton's U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, to convict two former Klansmen for the bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963; is that correct?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That's correct. I actually appointed him as a deputy attorney general to do that prosecution.
SEN. HATCH: Four little girls were killed in that particular despicable act of terror; am I right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That's right.
SEN. HATCH: You personally argued to uphold the conviction of one of the murderers on May 20th of this year, just a few weeks ago, before the Alabama Supreme -- Court of Criminal Appeals. Am I right on that?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Okay. Now, you were instrumental in creating the Alabama Sentencing Commission, which Representative Holmes applauded for its purpose of ending racial disparities in criminal punishments. Am I right on that?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That's right.
SEN. HATCH: In the year 2000, Representative Holmes, this great black leader in Alabama, introduced a bill in the Alabama legislature to amend the state constitution to repeal Alabama's prohibition of interracial marriages. He writes, quote: "Every prominent white political leader in Alabama, both Republican and Democrat, opposed my bill or remained silent, except Bill Pryor, who openly and publicly asked the white and black citizens of Alabama to vote and repeal such racist law. It was passed with a slim majority among the voters, and Bill Pryor later successfully defended that repeal when the leader of a racist group called the Confederate Heritage sued the state to challenge it," unquote. Was he right on that?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: Now General Pryor, you were committed to ending Alabama's ban on interracial marriage from the moment you took office, weren't you?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I was.
SEN. HATCH: In fact, I understand that you discussed in your first inaugural address, I think you stated -- let me give you the actual quote: "Any provision of the Constitution of Alabama or, for that matter, the Code of Alabama, that classifies our citizens or any persons on the color of their skin, their race, should be stricken," unquote. Is that correct?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That's what I said.
SEN. HATCH: In addition, you started Mentor Alabama. Could you please explain that for a minute?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely. Mentor Alabama is a program designed to recruit positive adult role models for thousands of at- risk children in our state. We've recruited more than 3,700 mentors for at-risk children in every county of Alabama. I work as a reading tutor in the Montgomery County Public Schools -- I have for the last three years -- as part of that initiative, as I encourage others to do the same.
SEN. HATCH: Let me just say finally, Representative Holmes notes that a bill he sponsored to establish cross burning as a felony passed the State House on May 15th of this year. Is that right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Now he observes, quote, "That bill was written by Bill Pryor, and he was the only white leader in Alabama that openly and publicly supported it."
Did you write that bill, General Pryor?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I did. I did.
SEN. HATCH: Now, General Pryor, I think you can take some of your statements out of context and make a big fuss about them. But I think we've got to look at the record on what you've stood for and what you've done. I think if people will do that and do that fairly, they'll realize that you're a person who can set aside your personal -- your very heartfelt personal views and go from there.
Now, my time is up. Now, I'm going to interrupt everybody at 10 minutes. But we'll have enough rounds so everybody will have an opportunity to ask the questions they want.
Senator Schumer.
...
SEN. HATCH: Thank you, Senator Leahy. And let me just -- we're just about through for this morning, now afternoon's hearing. But let me just clarify a few things, if I can, before we finally wind up.
Isn't it true that although you are clearly pro-life, and you've made that clear, you directed prosecutors to enforce --
SEN. LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, could -- I just want to correct one thing.
I moved Paul Cassell through while I was chairman, but I did vote against him on the floor.
SEN. HATCH: Right.
SEN. LEAHY: I had that error. I didn't want to -- I forgot. I knew that I resisted the urging of many to hold him, bottle him up in committee. I brought him out on the floor so he could have a vote --
SEN. HATCH: You did, and we appreciated that.
Now, let me go back again to this question, because I think we need to clarify a few things before we break for your lunch. It is true that you are strongly pro-life. That's apparent. So am I. You directed prosecutors to enforce the state partial birth abortion ban only to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court. Is that right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That -- that was what I was trying to do.
SEN. HATCH: Even though you had people -- even though you had people pushing you to go farther --
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: -- to try and expand that law beyond what the Supreme Court had said.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: So you went along with the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land --
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: -- even though you might have believed otherwise --
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: -- and though you did believe otherwise. Isn't it true that even though you've been critical of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act you defended majority/minority voting districts created under the act all the way to the Supreme Court, which sided with you? Isn't that right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely, Senator.
SEN. HATCH: In other words, even though you disagreed with it, you defended them, you defended the rulings that you disagreed with all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court found you were right.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Isn't it true that although you filed a brief in Lawrence v. Texas, you relied on the language of Justice White of the United States Supreme Court in Bowers versus Hardwick? Right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: So you were following the law of the land.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: The law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Isn't it also true that although you defended the display of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court and student-led prayer, you did so only to the extent permitted by precedent and on much narrower grounds than that suggested by the governor who appointed you?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: And you were right.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: You were found to be correct by the courts.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Wasn't it true also that although you filed briefs in the Garrett and the Kimball cases as well as the Morrison case, the cases involving the Americans With Disabilities Act, et cetera, those briefs challenged only small portions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADEA and the Violence Against Women Act? And you filed briefs in those cases, but who did the Supreme Court agree with?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: They agreed with our arguments every time.
SEN. HATCH: They agreed with you. So all these criticisms that we -- the seem-to-be criticisms and arguments against you are arguments against decisions by the Supreme Court. I wonder who's outside the mainstream? It certainly isn't you. But that's a shibboleth that's used around here far too often.
Now, let me just -- let me just go a little bit further here. On the death penalty, isn't it true that you strongly support increasing payments for appointed counsel up to $15,000 in capital cases?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I do. In the first case -- in the first stage of appeals, and I've been unsuccessful in that urging. But it is something I still urge.
SEN. HATCH: But it's something you think would be a step in the right direction.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Okay. Now, just for the record, what is your religious affiliation?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I'm a Roman Catholic.
SEN. HATCH: Are you active in your church?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I am.
SEN. HATCH: You're a practicing Roman Catholic?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I am.
SEN. HATCH: You believe in your religion?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I do.
SEN. HATCH: Okay. I commend you for that.
But I'd like to ask you just a few questions to follow up on Senator Durbin's concerns that your strong statements about Christianity indicate some sort of insensitivity towards religious minorities. I'd like to say something very important that debunks that allegation. As attorney general, you've been a tireless defender of religious liberties and freedoms for people of all faiths, haven't you?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: Now as you mentioned in response to Senator Durbin, you worked tirelessly to promote the passage of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the Alabama Constitution, which requires the government to show, quote, "a compelling interest," unquote -- in other words, a higher standard -- before it imposes religious restrictions, and the restriction has to be, quote, "the least burdensome," unquote, possible. And that applies to people of all faiths, doesn't it?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: It does, Senator -- Chairman.
SEN. HATCH: And you were advocating for that.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: As a committed Catholic.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Yes.
SEN. HATCH: For everybody, regardless of religious belief.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: Okay. Now I'd like to submit for the record a letter written by an active member of the Birmingham Jewish community, Herc Levine, who writes that Attorney General Pryor, quote -- that Attorney General Pryor has -- and I've got the quote right -- who writes that you -- your -- that you have his support, quote -- and here's what he says -- "and the support of many in the Alabama Jewish community, because of his personal integrity and commitment to ensure that all of our citizens are treated fairly and receive equal justice under the law. He has been a true friend to the Alabama Jewish community on many important issues," unquote.
Are you aware of that letter?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I am.
SEN. HATCH: Okay. Now I want to say something else that's equally important. You've been honored for protecting the religious liberties of incarcerated prisoners, haven't you?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I have.
SEN. HATCH: Many states have considered exempting prisoners from religious freedom protection, but not you.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: No, I demanded otherwise.
SEN. HATCH: Yeah. You successfully prevented the Alabama Religious Freedom Act from including a prison exemption. Isn't that correct?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Absolutely.
SEN. HATCH: You fought for that.
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I did.
SEN. HATCH: Now in recognition of your efforts, if I've got it correctly, you were honored with the 1999 Guardian of Religious Freedom Award by the Prison Fellowship Ministries, the Justice Fellowship and the Neighbors Who Care. Right?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HATCH: I think -- you know, it's easy to take somebody who's been in politics as long as you have and pick statements out of literally thousands of paragraphs and writings and records and briefs that maybe you haven't even written, as has been indicated here, and pick out isolated paragraphs with which you think you can disagree or you could make a fuss over, and then try to undermine a person's credibility.
Here we have a religious person, who's very upfront about his religious beliefs and his personal views, but who, in every case that I can see -- and I've really gone through this with, I think, pretty much of a fine-toothed comb -- has followed the law regardless of his personal, deeply felt, strongly felt religious beliefs.
And in virtually every case, except a few that you lost, you won. The court sustained your positions. And yet, almost every point that's been made, or at least attempted to be made, against you here today has been a point made in areas where you've won, where your point of view was agreed to.
And I've seen what they've tried to do to you when your nomination came up here. I'm not talking about people on this committee, I'm talking about the outside groups who don't seem to care how outrageous their smears are. I thought Senator Kyl did a very good job of showing how really ridiculous it gets around here. And I think it's also ridiculous to make such a fuss against people just because you disagree with them, to try and point them as outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence, especially somebody like you, who wins all his cases and whose point of view has been sustained by the Supreme Court time after time after time. Now, we may not like that from time to time, but who are we? It seems to me we're outside the mainstream if we start trying to make a fuss about some of the things that the Supreme Court has done.
Now, we can differ with them, just like you have. You've differed with Justice Souter in a number of ways. That doesn't mean that you hate the guy or that you don't think he has a redeeming quality or that you don't think he should be sitting on the Supreme Court. And maybe you used some language that you wish in retrospect, sitting there, you hadn't used. You've said that in that one quote, that it was a, quote, "feeble attempt, if I recall it correctly," unquote, to be humorous. Did the people laugh who were there?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: In that mixed audience, mostly conservative, yes, there were a fair number of laughs.
SEN. HATCH: Well, I just would suggest from here on in, as we make you a judge, you should probably be very careful about criticizing Justice Souter. How's that? (Laughter.) Or any other Supreme Court justice, for that matter. Although it's very legitimate for lawyers, and especially attorneys general, and especially lawyers on this committee, to find fault with Supreme Court decisions and to wish that they were otherwise.
Now, you have wished that Roe versus Wade were otherwise, but you have sustained Roe versus Wade in your job as an attorney general, which is a much more political job than being a Circuit Court of Appeals judge. Yeah, you've done what's right regardless of your personal views that are deeply held.
Look, I wish we could find more people like you to be on the federal bench. We'd be a lot better off in this country. And I have to say, I think we're finding a lot of good people, just like you or similar to you, or similar to great Democrats and Republicans of the past who -- who have distinguished themselves once they became judges. And I can name great Democrat judges and I can name great Republican judges, and I can name lousy Democrat judges and lousy Republican judges, who really haven't distinguished themselves. One thing we do as lawyers, we do criticize each other. And that's not unhealthy; it's a good thing.
But I wanted to get some of those things across that some of the things that some have criticized you for were the mainstream.
Now --
SEN. LEAHY: Mr. Chairman?
SEN. HATCH: Yes?
SEN. LEAHY: Before we go to the next person, I just want to make, if I could, a couple of very quick points --
SEN. HATCH: I didn't see you.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): Mr. Chairman, I'd very much like to go to the next person.
SEN. LEAHY: I would like, Mr. Chairman --
SEN. HATCH: I'll go to the senator.
SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I --
SEN. SPECTER: Mr. Chairman, are we rotating here?
SEN. HATCH: Yes. But we're going to go to Senator Leahy for whatever comment he wants to make.
SEN. LEAHY: He's come from a Republican to a Democrat now, you see. It's rotation. But the --
SEN. HATCH: Then we'll go to you.
SEN. LEAHY: I'm not going to ask a question, but just to note two things.
One, you were asked about your religion. In 29 years in the Senate, and thousands of nomination hearings and all the different committees I sit on, I've never asked a nominee what his or her religion was because I think that is irrelevant to our consideration. And I would hope, I would hope that that is not going to suddenly become a question that nominees are going to be asked, because we should be -- just as we're supposed to be colorblind, we should be religious-blind as far as that's somebody's personal choice, that has nothing to do with their qualifications. And I would hope that that would not become a question.
And so that there'd be no -- also, in looking over the transcript, so there can be no question in your mind, when I spoke about Bush versus Gore, obviously I was speaking about the final decision, the decisive one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HATCH: Well, let me just make it clear, I don't usually ask that question either. But I -- lately we've been finding situations where some of the questions that come up clearly go to that issue.
SEN. LEAHY: I'm not aware of any --
SEN. HATCH: And I just wanted to make it very clear that he's a very strong Catholic who believes in what he's doing, but yet has abided by the law. And that's a very important point because some of the criticisms have been hitting below the belt, frankly.
Senator Specter.
...
SEN. HATCH: Thank you, Senator Specter.
Here's what we're going to do. We're going to recess until 3:00. The reason is, some of the senators have some additional questions of you. And at 3:00 we're going to -- (pauses) -- let me just see here. At 3:00 we're going to give you a little extra time here. We're going to proceed with Diane Stuart, which shouldn't take a long time. Diane has sat here all day, and she is, of course, to be the director of the Violence Against Women -- Women's Office. So -- and that's at the Department of Justice. So what we'll do is we'll proceed with her, and I think you should be back here somewhere shortly after 3:00. And then we'll resume with you, hopefully for not too long a time after that, and go through these questions.
Now one reason -- I want to make to make this clear, because I'm really upset with some of the things that have gone on in this committee over the ensuing months. But it is not the committee's usual proceeding to ask a nominee about his or her religious beliefs. And I agree with that position, and with both Senator Leahy and Senator Specter.
But perhaps Senator Leahy and Specter were not here when you were asked whether, in light of your statements about Christianity, you could be fair to religious minorities. You've also been asked extensively about your personal beliefs with regard to Roe versus Wade, which almost everybody for a circuit court judgeship is asked -- in fact, everybody is, because that seems to be the be-all, end-all issue to some people on this committee.
But of course being asked those questions, as I understand it, that stems from your pro-life beliefs, which in turn are rooted in your religious beliefs.
SEN. LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, one more time --
SEN. HATCH: Let me just finish --
SEN. LEAHY: -- I must object if we're going to go into people's religious beliefs. I don't think --
SEN. HATCH: Let me just finish with my remarks. Then you'd say whatever you want to. But I'm right about that. So though it's unusual to ask about a nominee's religion, I think it is in this case, because -- and it perhaps should have been raised in some prior cases as well, with what's gone on in this committee.
In this case, General Pryor's religious beliefs have been put squarely at issue, and if not directly, indirectly, but I think directly. So, that's the reason why I raised it. I don't intend to raise it again. But the fact of the matter is that I just wanted to make sure that that's clear why I did that. And I don't intend to do it in the future, but I sure hope we can get off some of this -- some of the approaches that the outside groups are encouraging us to do up here. And we can be more fair to people who do have deeply-held religious beliefs, regardless of religion.
And the point I'm making with you is that your whole career has been spent making sure that there's religious freedom and respect for religious beliefs throughout your career. And I just wanted to make that point. Would you disagree with that?
ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I appreciate the senator's perspective very much. Thank you.
SEN. HATCH: Thank you.
With that, we'll recess --
SEN. LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, you said I could respond --
SEN. HATCH: Sure. Go ahead.
SEN. LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with you, and you are my friend. I think that we are going into -- I think it is inappropriate if we start raising what a candidate's religion is. Going into their philosophy, beliefs; that's fine. But to somehow jump from there to what their religion is, and thus, what their philosophy is, I think is very, very dangerous.
SEN. HATCH: I agree.
SEN. LEAHY: I think if we start down that track, we're going to all regret it. Now, sometimes in the political arena, a person's religion has been attacked in elected office. I know when that of the chairman, my good friend's religion was attacked, I took to the Senate floor to defend him. I have had -- in the political context, I have had my religion attacked by some members on the other side of the aisle, and I assume some day, one of them will defend me. But I do not think -- I do not think it is an appropriate question to ask a nominee.
I admire people who hold deeply religious views, whatever they might be. But I really, strongly believe in the 1st Amendment, and feel that that should be their belief or their family's belief. I admire them for it, but I don't think it should be part of the questions that we ask. I really don't. I think that we could run into a very difficult thing if we start doing that. I think it would be a terrible, terrible precedent to start.
SEN. HATCH: Then let's get the outside groups to stop doing that. I --
SEN. LEAHY: I --
We'll recess until 3:00. (Strikes gavel.)
SEN. LEAHY: It's not the outside group that asked the question up here.