CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
July 6, 2004
NOMINATION OF J. LEON HOLMES, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE-CONTINUED
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of J. Leon Holmes. There is a reason this nomination has been sitting on the calendar for over a year. There is a reason the Republican Senators are breaking ranks to vote against this nominee because, frankly, the nomination of J. Leon Holmes really speaks volumes about the message being sent by this White House to the American people.
Is this the kind of person they want to give a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench? The things he said-his own words-condemn him. He has written that "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man and ipso facto place herself under his authority."
He wrote that abortion should not be available for rape victims "because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami." Does that sound like the kind of statement you want to hear from a man who is going to stand in judgment of cases brought before him, cases that involve the rights of women, the rights of victims of rape?
Words count in life and in law. The words of a judge determine the outcome of a trial and the rights of the parties in the courtroom. The words of J. Leon Holmes convict him of insensitivity to some of the most basic issues in modern America.
I know Mr. Holmes and I disagree on some critical issues, but that is not the basis for my opposition. We have already confirmed 197 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench. Trust me, the majority of them disagree with my positions on many issues, and I voted overwhelmingly because the President has his right to choose his nominees. But of all of the attorneys in Arkansas, and of all of the Republican attorneys in the State of Arkansas, of all of the conservative Republican attorneys in the State of Arkansas, is this the best the White House can do? A man who cannot really distinguish the role of women in a modern society? A man who so cavalierly dismisses the plight of a rape victim? This is a man who needs a lifetime appointment to stand in judgment of others?
I asked him in a written question about whether he would recuse himself in cases as a Federal district court judge if any of the anti-abortion organizations that he has represented or founded came into his court. He said no; he was going to stand in judgment of the same organizations that he founded and those that paid him. He would not recuse himself.
I also asked him a basic question that we ask of all nominees. I asked:
MR. HOLMES, NAME 3 SUPREME COURT CASES WITH WHICH YOU DISAGREE.
He said:
AS A CITIZEN, I AM TROUBLED BY THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD, BUCK V. BELL, AND ROE V. WADE, BECAUSE IN MY VIEW EACH OF THOSE DECISIONS FAILED TO RESPECT THE DIGNITY AND WORTH OF THE HUMAN PERSON.
How could a person make that statement in response to that question and say he will uphold the decision in Roe v. Wade, which is a basic right of privacy for women in America? That is what Mr. Holmes said. In fairness to Mr. Holmes, though, he has apologized for his statement about rape victims that "conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami." When I asked about his statement, he wrote back and said:
REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, THE ARTICULATION IN THAT SENTENCE REFLECTS AN INSENSITIVITY FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EXCUSE AND FOR WHICH I APOLOGIZE.
I think it is important that that apology is on the record. Where is the apology for his statement about the subordination of women to men? No statement of explanation or apology was forthcoming. Some have come to the floor on the other side and said: Listen, these happen to be his religious views. If you say you will not support him because of that, then you are discriminating against his religion.
That is an upside down view of the world. Whether Mr. Holmes' views are based on religious beliefs, personal beliefs, cultural upbringing, or his life experiences, that is irrelevant. The basis for his beliefs is not important. What is relevant is whether his beliefs and his reasoning will guide his decisions as a Federal judge, his values that influence his judicial philosophy. The real question is, Are those beliefs reasonable, mainstream, commonsense beliefs?
How can you read what this man has said about the issues of race and gender and say that these are mainstream views and he should have a lifetime appointment to instill those views into the decisions of the United States of America through its judicial system?
Those on the other side say this is all about religion. It is not. It is about a candidate, a nominee for a judicial lifetime appointment. Our Constitution only refers to religion in a few particular areas: First, it says there will be no religious test to qualify to any office of public trust in the United States. Of course, in the first amendment it says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Holmes is entitled to his religious beliefs, as I am, as Senator Hatch is, as every Member of the Senate is. But when his religious beliefs reach a point where they call into question whether he will be fair and balanced in his judicial capacity, that is an important public policy issue. We must face it. To say that his beliefs, whether generated by religion or otherwise, are inconsistent with mainstream thinking in America is not antireligious. He is entitled to his religious beliefs. It is a statement that we do not want to perpetuate those beliefs in the findings of a judge with a lifetime appointment. Mr. Holmes' statements, I am afraid, give us fair warning of what he will do as a judge.
Of all of the conservative Republican attorneys in Arkansas, why did it come down to this man? I don't think it is an accident. I think it is a test. This White House is testing this Senate to see how far we can go, how far they can push us to put someone on the bench who is clearly out of the mainstream of American thinking.
I yield the floor.