[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLINTON JUDGES

  Mr. DOLE. Last week, Vice President Gore stated that Republican 
criticism of Clinton-appointed judges was misguided--A ``smoke 
screen,'' as he put it, ``to hide our own poor record on crime.''
  While the Vice President is off-base with his smoke screen comments, 
he is absolutely right to suggest that it is important to look at the 
record.
  The record is that the number of prosecutions initiated by the 
Clinton Justice Department for crimes involving guns and drugs has 
dropped significantly since the Bush administration.
  The record is that the Clinton Justice Department has virtually 
ignored the enforcement of the Federal death penalty, established by 
the 1994 crime bill.
  The record is that the Clinton administration's top lawyer has 
actually argued in favor of narrowly interpreting and weakening the 
Federal child pornography laws.
  The record is that President Clinton has vetoed legislation that 
would help stop the thousands of frivolous lawsuits filed every year by 
convicted criminals that serve only to clog the courts and waste 
millions of taxpayer dollars.
  Of course, there is the Clinton record on drugs. Drug enforcement is 
down. Drug interdiction is down. And the antidrug bully pulpit has been 
all but abandoned. Just say no has become just say nothing. Not 
surprisingly, teenage drug use has nearly doubled since President 
Clinton first took office.
  Yes, Vice President Gore is right: It is important to look at the 
record.
  Then there's the issue of Federal judges. With all due respect to the 
Vice President, I suggest that he take a close look at the decisions of 
Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, a former member of the Tennessee Supreme 
Court and a Clinton appointee to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  In an important search and seizure case, Judge Daughtrey ruled that 
the police acted improperly when they searched the trunk of a car that 
they had pulled over early one morning after the car made a left turn 
without signaling. At the time of the stop, the police suspected that 
the driver might have been driving under the influence of alcohol. 
During the search, the police frisked the car's passenger for weapons 
and found a cellular phone, a pocket beeper, and $2,100 in cash. The 
police then asked the car's driver and passenger whether they could 
search the trunk. The driver and the passenger consented--consented--
and the police found a shopping bag containing a baggie with a large 
amount of crack cocaine.
  Yet, Judge Daughtrey ruled that the police acted unreasonably and she 
voted to suppress the crack cocaine evidence. Judge Ryan, a Reagan 
appointee, dissented on the grounds that the police acted 
appropriately.
  In another fourth amendment case, Judge Daughtrey dissented from a 
decision upholding a police search that led to the discovery of a large 
stash of vicious child pornography. The two Republican-appointed judges 
upheld the constitutionality of the search, saying that it was fully 
consistent with fourth amendment precedent.
  Unfortunately, Judge Daughtrey is not an aberration. Last year, in an 
important case before the D.C. Court of Appeals, two Clinton-appointed 
judges dissented from the court's majority opinion upholding the FCC's 
regulations prohibiting the transmission of indecency on television and 
radio during certain hours of the day. The purpose of these regulations 
is, obviously, to protect our children from images that would be 
harmful to their moral and psychological development. Yet, the two 
Clinton judges on the court joined with the two Carter appointees in 
arguing that these regulations somehow violate the first amendment.
  So while President Clinton touts the V-chip and holds high-profile 
White House conferences with television executives, his judges are 
attempting to strip the very protections that he supposedly supports. 
President Clinton may talk a moderate game, but his appointees to the 
Federal bench are attempting to stamp their own brand of stealth 
liberalism on America.
  And that is my point: Selecting who sits on the Federal bench is one 
of the most critical responsibilities of any President. Long after a 
President has left office, the judges he appoints will leave their mark 
on American society. While the Vice President may say that the Clinton 
administration appoints judges on the basis of excellence, not 
ideology, the facts--regrettably--tell a much different story.

                          ____________________