Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Executive Session

Location: Washington, DC

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - June 09, 2005)



Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that.

Mr. President, last month 80 American service men and women died in Iraq, along with more than 700 Iraqis. This week, there are reports that the Army National Guard and the Marines are not meeting their recruitment goals, in spite of the bonuses and benefits being offered. The price of gasoline, prescription drugs, health care, and so many essentials for American working families are rising a lot faster than their wages. This week, the Washington Times reported that the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index doubled in the last year. This week, we have learned that General Motors has planned to lay off another 25,000 workers and that other companies are not expanding or are, even worse, downsizing. The report of only 78,000 jobs created last month puts us back to the dismal levels that have characterized so many months during this administration. A loss of our manufacturing jobs continues at a steady drip. Millions are suffering and dying in Africa. The British Prime Minister visited to urge greater efforts to help.

But, of course, we debated none of these issues in the Senate. The Republican leadership continued to force us to expend our precious days debating something else. And what is that? The Senate's time has been focused not on these things that touch the pocketbooks of Americans but almost exclusively on this administration's divisive and contentious judicial nominees.

Over the last several months, and for many days and weeks over the last few years, the work of the Senate has been laid aside by the Republican leadership to force debate after debate on divisive nominations, on people who are going to be paid almost $200,000 a year in lifetime jobs. Those who are barely able to make their week's rent or their month's mortgage ask what we are doing in the Senate.

Among the matters the Senate has neglected this week in order to devote its attention to these nominations are many issues that concern the American people. One matter is the consideration and passage of the NOPEC bill. It is bipartisan legislation. It affects all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. Senator DeWine, a Republican of Ohio, Senator Kohl, a Democrat of Wisconsin, are key sponsors. The sponsors of the bill include Senator Grassley, Senator Specter, Senator Coburn, and Senator Snowe.

With an increase in gasoline prices of almost 50 percent during the four years of the Bush Presidency, with Americans having to pay so much more to drive to work, to get their kids to school, just to get around to conduct the daily business of their lives, the Republican leadership of the Senate is ignoring this substantial burden on American working families.

This week, the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.12. When the President took office, it was $1.46. We just heard reports that in Vermont and New Hampshire home heating oil prices will be up another 30 percent this fall and winter.

The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, and it is especially tough on our hard-working Vermont farmers. Rising energy expenses can add thousands of dollars a year to the costs of operating a 100-head dairy operation, a price that could mean the difference between keeping the family business alive for another generation or shutting it down.

With summer coming, many families are going to find that OPEC has put an expensive crimp in their vacation plans. Some are likely to stay home; others will pay more to drive or to fly so that they can visit their families or take their well-deserved vacations.

Americans deserve better. If the White House is not going to intervene, then Congress has to act. It is past time--it is past the time--for holding hands and exchanging kisses with Saudi princes, princes who have artificially inflated the price of gasoline. The President's jawboning with his close friends in Saudi Arabia has proven unsuccessful.

It is time to act, but the Senate, under Republican leadership, is choosing instead to revisit another extreme judicial nomination, one that has already been considered.

The production quota set by OPEC continues to take a debilitating toll on our economy, our families, our businesses, industry, and farmers. Last year and again earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee voted to report favorably to the full Senate the bipartisan NOPEC bill, which is short for No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. Our legislation would apply America's antitrust laws to OPEC's anti-competitive cartel. It would prohibit foreign states from working together to limit production and set prices, restrain the trading of petroleum and natural gas, when such actions affect the United States. It would give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission authority to enforce the law through antitrust actions in Federal courts.

Why not give the Justice Department clear authority to use our antitrust laws against the anti-competitive, anti-consumer conduct in which the OPEC cartel is engaged here in the United States?

This bipartisan bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee more than a year ago, in April of last year. It was reintroduced this year and reported, again, in April of this year. It has been stalled on the Senate Business Calendar for too long. It is a bipartisan initiative that could help in the fight to reduce gasoline prices now and heating oil prices in the fall and winter. It deserves a vote. Why not have an up or down vote on this measure without further delay by the Republican leadership? Why can't we do that when we have seen gasoline go from $1.46 to $2.12 in this President's administration? No, instead we spend weeks and months, not passing legislation that would win the support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats, but talking about a handful of people who are going to get lifetime, well-paid jobs.

Another consequence of the Republican leadership's fixation on carrying out this President's attempt to pack the Federal courts with activist jurists may be much-needed asbestos compensation reform. For more than 3 years, I have been working on asbestos reform to provide compensation to asbestos victims in a fair and more expedited fashion. Chairman Specter and I have worked closely on S. 852, the FAIR Act. It, too, is pending on the Senate Business Calendar, even though it was voted out in a bipartisan effort last month.

Chairman Specter deserves enormous credit for this achievement, even though we were slowed significantly by the extensive debate on contentious nominees and the nuclear option the past few months. We have been working in good faith to achieve a bipartisan legislative process on this issue. We have done so, despite criticism from the left and the right. In fact, after the bill was successfully reported by the committee, Senator Hatch called it the most important measure the Senate would consider this year for the American economy. Are we debating it on the floor? No. We are debating a handful of right-wing activist judges for lifetime, highly paid jobs.

There are many items that need prompt attention. The Armed Services Committee completed its work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. But we are seeing the Republican leadership delay action on the Defense authorization bill at a time when we have so many of our men and women under arms overseas. I don't know why they are doing it, unless it is to allow more activist judges to come through. At a time when we have young men and women serving their country around the world, and we are talking about the recently recommended base closings, I would have thought the Defense authorization would be more of a priority than three or four activist judges.

The Senate Energy Committee successfully completed its consideration of an Energy bill, and it was reported to the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. Despite its balance and a bipartisan vote, the Senate Republican leadership said, no, we can't talk about it. We have to talk about a couple more right-wing activist judges.

Another matter that deserves timely attention is the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which was just passed by the House of Representatives. It is another bipartisan effort that deserves our attention. It had 200 House sponsors, led by Congressman Castle and Congresswoman DeGette. It passed with 238 votes. It is critically important. It authorizes work on embryonic stem cells which otherwise would be discarded, work which holds great promise and hope for those families suffering from debilitating disease and injury. More effective treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, for spinal cord injuries, for many other diseases are all possibilities. Why are we not debating that? We have three or four more activist right-wing judgeships for lifetime, highly paid positions. That is far more important than stem cell research.

While the administration continues to talk about its efforts to weaken Social Security, there is bipartisan legislation we should be considering, the Social Security Fairness Act. Are we going to talk about that? No. Will we talk about the fact that the administration is raiding the Social Security fund to pay for their war in Iraq? That is something they don't want to talk about. They want to talk about Social Security failing, but they don't talk about the fact that they have to take the money out of the Social Security fund to pay for the war in Iraq. We can't talk about the Social Security Fairness Act here on the floor because we have to take the time for three or four more right-wing activist judges.

The bill I talked about is a bill that Republican

and Democratic Senators have cosponsored over the years to protect the Social Security retirement of police officers. Those on the front lines protecting all of us from crime and violence should not see their Social Security benefits reduced. That needs fixing. We could have done that easily this week. But, no, we can't protect our police officers. Instead, we will make sure that a handful of right-wing activist judges get highly paid lifetime jobs.

These are merely examples of some of the business matters the Republican majority of the Senate has cast aside to force more debate on more contentious nominees. The Senate could be making significant legislative progress on an agenda that would result in much-needed and tangible relief to the American people on a number of important fronts. We could be acting to lower gas prices, authorize actions against illegal cartels, make asbestos compensation efficient and effective, authorize vital scientific research, provide fairness to police officers and to make health care more affordable, create new and better jobs and give our veterans and their families the support they need and deserve. Instead, the Republican leadership of the Senate continues its narrow focus on helping this Administration pack the federal courts with extreme nominees.

For more than four years, we have seen the Republican congressional leadership and the administration ignore the problems of Americans with a single-minded effort to pack and control the Federal courts. Unemployment, gas prices, the number of uninsured, the Nation's budget, the trade deficit were all lower when President Bush assumed office. Through Republican Senate obstruction of more than 60 of President Clinton's moderate and qualified judicial nominees, more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees who were subjected to a pocket filibuster by Republicans, judicial vacancies went up. But let's take a look.

Since President Bush came in, what are the things that have gone up? Unemployment has gone up 21 percent. Since President Bush came in, what has gone up? The budget deficit has gone up. It has gone from a $236 billion surplus under President Clinton to a $427 billion deficit under President Bush--$663 billion down the rat hole. What else has gone up? The price of gas has gone from $1.42 to $2.10. That is not helping the average American. Let's take a look at the trade deficit. It has gone up from $36 billion to $55 billion. How about the percentage of the uninsured? That has gone up another 10 percent.

But the full-time, highly paid positions of judgeships is the one thing that has come down. Judicial vacancies have come down 49 percent.

It seems that is far more important than seeing projected trillions of dollars in surpluses go to trillions of dollars in projected deficits, far more important than the problem we create when we allow the Saudis, the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese, and others to pay our bills but then be able to manipulate our economy. It seems wrong.

We helped the President confirm a record number of his judges, but we Democrats would like to see us talk about the people who are out of work, the price of gasoline, the huge deficits that have been created by this presidency.

We know that yesterday the Senate confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, despite the fact she is a divisive and controversial nominee. She was opposed by both her home State Senators because she had a record so extreme it marked her as one of the most activist judicial nominees ever chosen by any President.

In the past, when both Senators from a nominee's State opposed them, the person, even if highly qualified, would be turned down. In this case, we have somebody who is not qualified, an activist judge opposed by both of her State's Senators, who still passed. I mention that because I remember Justice Ronnie White, now the first African American to serve as Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court. When the two Senators from his home State, Republican Senators, said they were opposed to him, what happened? In 1999, every Republican Senator came on to the floor and voted down Justice Ronnie White, even though he had been voted out of the Judiciary Committee with heavy support. They said: Whoops, he may be this distinguished African-American jurist from Missouri. But we have two Senators from his State who oppose him so we will vote him down. And they did.

But yesterday, what a difference. What a difference if you have a Republican in the White House. Those same Republican Senators, joined by new Republican Senators, the same Republican Senators who told me, ``We know that Justice Ronnie White is well qualified, but, after all, we have to follow the fact that the two Senators from his State say they don't want him, so we have to vote him down,'' those same Senators come up here and meekly come in, in lockstep, and vote for Judge Brown, even though the two home-state Senators, for very good reasons, opposed her.

Last week, all but one Republican Senator voted to confirm Priscilla Owen.

Yesterday's vote on the Brown nomination apparently indicates Republican Party discipline has been restored. For all the talk about profiles in courage and Senators voting their conscience, the Republican majority has reduced the Senate to a rubberstamp of this President's extreme and activist nominees. Even though Senators will tell you privately they would vote against this person if it was secret ballot, the White House tells them what to do.

William Pryor has argued that Federal courts should cut back on the protections of important and well-supported Federal laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act. That should be enough to vote against him, but it won't be, not with this rubberstamp. He has repudiated decades of legal precedents that permitted individuals to sue States to prevent violations of Federal civil rights regulations. Is that going to cause us to vote him down? Heck no.

His aggressive involvement in the Federalist revolution shows he is a goals-oriented activist who has used his official position to advance his cause. While his advocacy is a sign to most people of the extremism, he trumpets his involvement. He is unabashedly proud of his repeated work to limit congressional authority to promote the health, safety, and welfare of all Americans.

His passion is not some obscure legal theory but a legal crusade that has driven his actions since he was a student and something that guides his actions as a lawyer. His speeches and his testimony before Congress demonstrate just how rooted his views are, how much he wants to effect a fundamental change in this country.

Just remember this: These judicial nominees are being confirmed for life. They do not leave or get reconsidered after the congressional elections next year or after this administration ends. They serve as lifetime appointments to the Federal court.

It is one thing for us to ignore all the things we should be doing for the American people, but I urge all Senators, on both sides of the aisle, to end this up-or-down rubberstamp, fulfill the Senate's constitutionally mandated duty to evaluate with clear eyes the fitness of judicial nominees, even President Bush's nominees, when they are for lifetime appointments. Stop telling me privately how you would vote if it was a secret ballot. Have the courage to vote in an open ballot the same way.

In the last Congress, following one of the most divisive debates I have seen on the floor of the Senate, I explained why I felt strongly about voting against the nomination of William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit--in committee and in two unsuccessful cloture attempts. The President disregarded the advice given to him by the Senators opposing this nomination, and he installed Mr. Pryor as a recess-appointed judge on the Eleventh Circuit where he will serve until the end of this year. Today, because the President continues to insist on pushing his most divisive nominees in a group that he renominated to the Senate, we are here voting yet one more time on this nomination.

I expect some will try to point to the few cases he has worked on during his time ``auditioning'' on the circuit court as evidence that he should be confirmed. But nothing Judge Pryor has done in the intervening period has changed my view that based on his entire career and record, if he were to receive life tenure on the Federal bench, he would put ideology above the law. I cannot support him.

In the course of their march toward the ``nuclear option''--a development thankfully averted--the President and the Republican leadership escalated the rhetoric surrounding this issue in alarming ways. The majority leader last month participated in a telecast smearing opponents of the most extreme judicial nominees as ``against people of faith.'' Arrayed behind the podium at that gathering were photos of the filibustered nominees, and speaker after speaker accused Democrats of opposing nominees such as Judge Pryor because of his faith. These are baseless and despicable accusations, and it is time the Republican leadership and other Republicans in and out of the Senate disavow them.

Senate Democrats do not oppose William Pryor because of his faith. We oppose the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit because of his extreme--some, with good reason, use the word ``radical''--ideas about what the Constitution says about federalism, criminal justice and the death penalty, violence against women, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Government's ability to protect the environment on behalf of the American people. Of course, those substantive concerns will not do much to advance Republicans' political ambitions and the agendas of polarizing interest groups. So some Republican partisans are putting the truth to one side. They dismiss the views of Democratic Senators doing their duty under the Constitution to examine the fitness of every nominee to a lifetime position on the Federal bench and choose, instead, to use smears and accusations.

The last time Judge Pryor came before this committee and the Senate, slanderous accusations were made by Republican Senators, and scurrilous newspaper advertisements were run by a group headed by the President's father's former White House counsel and a group whose funding includes money raised by Republican Senators and even by the President's family. Other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and of the Senate stood mute in the face of these McCarthyite charges, or, worse, fed the flames. Now, the same type of rhetoric--identifying opponents as against faith--has again reared its ugly head.

This kind of religious smear campaign hurts the whole country. It hurts Christians and non-Christians. It hurts all of us, because the Constitution requires judges to apply the law, not their personal views. Remember that all of us, no matter what our faith--and I am proud of mine--are able to practice our religion as we choose or not to practice a religion. That is a fundamental guarantee of our Constitution. The Constitution's prohibition against a ``religious test'' in Article VI is consistent with that fundamental freedom. I hope that Republican Senators will debate this nomination absent the scurrilous charges that marked it the past and the discourse during the ``nuclear option'' last month.

Instead, the Senate's debate should center on the nominee's qualifications for this lifetime post in the Federal judiciary. There is an abundance of substantive and compelling reasons why William Pryor should not be a judge on the Eleventh Circuit. Opposition to Judge Pryor's nomination is shared by a wide spectrum of objective observers. Judge Pryor's record is so out of the mainstream that a vast number of editorial boards and others have weighed in with significant opposition.

Even The Washington Post, which has been exceedingly generous to the Administration's efforts to pack the courts, has termed Judge Pryor ``unfit'' and consistently opposed his nomination. In Alabama, both the Tuscaloosa News and the Hunstville Times wrote against the nomination. Other editorial boards across the country have spoken out, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New York Times, the Charleston Gazette, the Arizona Daily Star, and The Los Angeles Times.

We have also heard from a large number of organizations and individuals concerned about justice before the federal courts. The Log Cabin Republicans, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the AFL-CIO, the National Partnership for Women and Families and many others have provided the Committee with their concerns and the basis for their opposition. We have received letters of opposition from organizations that rarely take positions on nominations but feel so strongly about this one that they are compelled to publicly oppose it, including the National Senior Citizens' Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the Sierra Club.

The ABA's evaluation also indicates concern about this nomination. Their Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Mr. Pryor a partial rating of ``not qualified'' to sit on the Federal bench. Of course this is not the first ``not qualified'' rating or partial ``not qualified'' rating that this administration's judicial nominees have received. More than two dozen of President Bush's nominees have received indications of concerns about their qualifications from the ABA's peer reviews, which have been less exacting and much more accommodating to this administration than to previous ones. I would note that this softer treatment follows the changes in the process imposed by the Bush administration.

Judge Pryor has long been a leader of the federalist movement, promoting State power over the Federal Government. A leading proponent of what he refers to as the ``federalism revolution,'' Judge Pryor seeks to revitalize state power at the expense of Federal protections, seeking opportunities to attack Federal laws and programs designed to guarantee civil rights protections. He has urged that Federal laws on behalf of the disabled, the aged, women, minorities, and the environment all be limited. Not long ago, in a New York Times Magazine article about the so-called ``Constitution-in-Exile'' movement, Michael Greve, was quoted as saying, ``Bill Pryor is the key to this puzzle; there's nobody like him. I think he's sensational. He gets almost all of it.'' That is precisely why he should not be confirmed.

William Pryor has argued that the Federal courts should cut back on the protections of important and well-supported Federal laws including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has repudiated decades of legal precedents that permitted individuals to sue states to prevent violations of Federal civil rights regulations. His aggressive involvement in this ``federalist revolution'' shows that he is a goal-oriented, activist conservative who has used his official position to advance his ``cause.'' Alabama was the only state to file an amicus brief arguing that Congress lacked authority to enforce the Clean Water Act. He argued that the Constitution's commerce clause does not grant the Federal Government authority to prevent destruction of waters and wetlands that serve as a critical habitat for migratory birds. The Supreme Court did not adopt his narrow view of the commerce clause powers of Congress. While his advocacy in this case is a sign to most people of the extremism, he trumpets his involvement in this case. He is unabashedly proud of his repeated work to limit congressional authority to promote the health, safety and welfare of all Americans.

His passion is not some obscure legal theory but a legal crusade that has driven his actions since he was a student and something that guides his actions as a lawyer. His speeches and testimony before Congress demonstrate just how rooted his views are, how much he seeks to effect a fundamental change in the country, and how far outside the mainstream he is.

Judge Pryor is candid about the fact that his view of federalism is different from the current operation of the Federal Government--and that he is on a mission to change the government to fit his vision. His goal is to continue to limit Congress's authority to enact laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and the commerce clause--laws that protect women, ethnic and racial minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and the environment--in the name of sovereign immunity. Is there any question that he will pursue his agenda as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversing equal rights progress and affecting the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come?

Judge Pryor's comments have revealed insensitivity to the barriers that disadvantaged persons and members of minority groups and women continue to face in the criminal justice system. This is what is at stake for Americans, the consumers of our justice system. This is the type of judge this President and this Republican leadership are intent on permanently installing in our justice system.

In testimony before Congress, William Pryor has urged repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark statute--because, he says, it ``is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' That testimony demonstrates that Judge Pryor is more concerned with preventing an ``affront'' to the States' dignity than with guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote. It also reflects a long-discredited view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has rejected the claim that Section 5 is an ``affront'' to our system of federalism. Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential to our democracy not a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.''

His strong views against providing counsel and fair procedures for death row inmates have led William Pryor to doomsday predictions about the modest reforms in the Innocence Protection Act that would create a system to ensure competent counsel in death penalty cases. When the United States Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Alabama's method of execution in 2000, William Pryor lashed out at the Supreme Court, saying: ``[T]his issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Aside from the obvious disrespect this comment shows for the Nation's highest court, it shows again how results-oriented Judge Pryor is in his approach to the law and to the Constitution. Of course an issue about cruel and unusual punishment ought to be decided by the Supreme Court. It is addressed in the Eighth Amendment, and whether or not we agree on the ruling, it is an elementary principle of constitutional law that it be decided by the Supreme Court, no matter how old its members.

Judge Pryor has also vigorously opposed an exemption for persons with mental retardation from receiving the death penalty, exhibiting more certainty than understanding or sober reflection. He authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court should not declare that executing mentally retarded persons violated the Eighth Amendment. After losing on that issue, Judge Pryor made an unsuccessful argument to the Eleventh Circuit that an Alabama death-row defendant is not mentally retarded.

Judge Pryor has spoken harshly about the moratorium imposed by former Illinois Governor George Ryan, calling it a ``spectacle.'' Can someone so dismissive of evidence that challenges his views be expected to hear these cases fairly? Over the last few years, many prominent Americans have begun raising concerns about the death penalty including current and former supporters of capital punishment. For example, Justice O'Connor recently said there were ``serious questions'' about whether the death penalty is fairly administered in the United States, and added: ``[T]he system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' In response to this uncertainty, Judge Pryor offers us nothing but his obstinate view that there is no problem with the application of the death penalty. This is a position that is not likely to afford a fair hearing to a defendant on death row.

Judge Pryor's troubling views on the criminal justice system are not limited to capital punishment. He has advocated that counsel need not be provided to indigent defendants charged with an offense that carries a sentence of imprisonment if the offense is classified as a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment to impose a sentence that included a possibility of imprisonment if indigent persons were not afforded counsel.

Judge Pryor is overwhelmingly hostile to a woman's right to choose. There is every indication from his record and statements that he is committed to reversing Roe v. Wade. Judge Pryor describes the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade as the creation ``out of thin air [of] a constitutional right,'' and opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

Judge Pryor does not believe Roe is sound law, neither does he give credence to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He has said that ``Roe is not constitutional law,'' and that in Casey, ``the court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.'' When Judge Pryor appeared before the Committee, he repeated the mantra suggested by White House coaches that he would ``follow the law.'' But his willingness to circumvent established Supreme Court precedent that protects fundamental privacy rights seems much more likely.

Judge Pryor has expressed his opposition to fair treatment of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. The positions he took in a brief he filed in the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas were entirely repudiated by the Supreme Court majority two years ago when it declared that: ``The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private conduct a crime.'' Judge Pryor's view is the opposite. He would deny certain Americans the equal protection of the laws, and would subject the most private of their behaviors to public regulation.

Capping Judge Pryor's record of extreme activism were sworn statements made by former Alabama Governor Fob James and his son, both Republicans, explaining that Judge Pryor was only chosen by James to be the State's Attorney General after promising that he would defy court orders, up through and including orders of the Supreme Court of the United States. In sworn affidavits, Governor James and his son recount how Pryor persuaded them he was right for the job by showing them research papers he had supervised in law school about ``nonacquiesence'' to court orders. Indeed, under penalty of perjury, the former Republican Governor and his son say that Judge Pryor's position on defying court orders changed only when he decided he wanted to be a Federal judge.

If true, this information, consistent with the activism and extremism present elsewhere in Judge Pryor's record, is revealing. To think that this man would come before the Senate after having made a promise like that--to undermine the very basis of our legal system--and ask to be confirmed to a lifetime position on the Federal bench, is beyond belief.

Indeed, William Pryor's activism has often transcended judicial philosophy and entered the realm of pure partisan politics to the point where it appeared political concerns openly affected his legal views. As Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor was one of the founders of the Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, an organization which raised money from corporations for Republican candidates for state Attorney General positions. Before RAGA was founded, Attorney General candidates usually shied away from corporate fundraising because of the potential for conflicts of interest with an Attorney General's duty to go after any corporate wrongdoing.

But William Pryor not only ignored the tradition of keeping Attorney General's races above politics, he embraced with both hands the mixing of law and politics. He spoke out, vocally and often, against state attorneys general bringing aggressive cases against the tobacco industry, the gun industry, and other corporate interests. And then RAGA, Pryor's organization, raised money for attorney general campaigns from these very industries and others like them that hoped to avoid lawsuits and prosecution. Pryor's philosophy of opposing mainstream government regulation of corporations advanced his politics and his organization's fundraising, and his political interests in turn informed his pro-corporation legal philosophy. Curiously, when asked about RAGA at his hearing, Mr. Pryor could remember very little about the organization or his role in it.

His partisan, political worldview colors the way he thinks about the role of the courts as well. He ended one speech with the prayer, ``Please God, no more Souters!''--a slap at a Supreme Court Justice seen by some as insufficiently conservative. And he said he was pleased the Court's vote in Bush v. Gore was a 5-4 split because that vote would give President Bush ``a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection;'' in other words, it would show the president that he needed to appoint partisan conservatives to the bench. These are the sentiments of an activist and a politician. They are not the considered deliberations that all of us, as Republican or Democrat would expect from an impartial judge.

On a full slate of issues--the environment, voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, federalism, and more--William Pryor's record of activism and advocacy is clear. That is his right as an American citizen, but it does not make him qualified to be a judge. As a judge, it is his duty impartially to hear and weigh the evidence and to impart just and fair decisions to all who come before the court. In their hands, we entrust to the judges in our independent Federal judiciary the rights that all of us are entitled to enjoy through our birthright as Americans.

Judge Pryor's time on the Eleventh Circuit brings out the very problem with recess appointments of controversial judges. The Constitution sets out that Article III judges receive lifetime appointments precisely so that they can be independent. Judge Pryor, in contrast, cannot be independent during the pendency of his recess appointment because he is dependent on the Senate for confirmation to a lifetime position. He is, in essence, trying out for the job. Accordingly, the opinions he writes while temporarily on the court are not much of a predictor for what he would do if he did receive a lifetime appointment and became truly independent.

What is a good predictor for what he would do as a permanent Eleventh Circuit judge? Quite simply, his actions and statements in the many years of his professional life before he was appointed provide the best insight. And these actions and statements paint a clear and consistent picture of a judicial activist whose extreme views place him far outside the mainstream. A year of self-serving restraint does little to alter this picture.

The President has said he is against what he calls ``judicial activism.'' How ironic, then, that he has chosen several of the most committed and opinionated judicial activists ever to be nominated to our courts.

The question posed by this controversial nomination is not whether Judge Pryor is a skilled and capable politician and advocate. He certainly is. The question is whether--not for a two-year term but for a lifetime--he would be a fair and impartial judge. Could every person whose rights or whose life, liberty or livelihood were at issue before his court, have faith in being fairly heard? Could every person rightly have faith in receiving a just verdict, a verdict not swayed by or yoked to the legal philosophy of a self-described legal crusader? To see Judge Pryor's record and his extreme views about the law is to see the stark answer to that question.

I oppose giving Judge Pryor a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit where he can impose his radical activist vision on the many people whose lives and disputes come before him. I believe the President owes them a nominee who can unite the American people.


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Back to top