[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4270-S4271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLINTON JUDGES UPDATE

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as the American people know all too well, 
Federal judges can play an enormous role in our daily lives. Through 
their rulings, Federal judges help determine whether criminals walk the 
streets or stay behind bars; whether racial quotas or merit govern in 
hiring decisions; whether businesses can function, prosper, and create 
jobs without being subject to baseless litigation; and whether parents 
can control the content of their children's education.
  Today, Federal judges micromanage schools, hospitals, fire and police 
departments, even prisons. According to one estimate, a staggering 
three-fourths of all State prisons and one-third of the 500 largest 
jails are under some form of Federal court supervision.
  One notorious example of judge-acting-as-legislator is Carl Muecke, 
appointed to the Federal bench by President Johnson. Judge Muecke has 
become the de facto administrator of the Arizona State Prison System.
  In a textbook example of judicial activism run amok, Judge Muecke has 
declared that Arizona prison libraries must be open at least 50 hours 
each week, that the State of Arizona must grant each of its 22,000 
prisoners the opportunity to make at least three 20-minute phone calls 
every week to an attorney; that Arizona must provide lengthy legal 
research classes to inmates; and that Arizona prison officials must 
give each indigent inmate 1 pen and 1 pencil, 10 sheets of typing 
paper, 1 legal pad, and 4 envelopes upon request.
  Not surprisingly, Arizona's attorney general, Grant Woods, has 
challenged the judge's misguided rulings, appealing all the way up to 
the Supreme Court. Unbelievably, Attorney General Woods has found 
himself at odds with a powerful adversary: the Clinton administration. 
In a friend of the court brief filed with the Supreme Court, the 
Clinton administration's top lawyer--Solicitor General Drew Days--sided 
not with Attorney General Woods and the taxpayers of Arizona but with 
Judge Muecke and the State's litigious inmates.
  Let's put this in perspective: while the Justice Department should be 
working overtime to save the taxpayers money by reducing the number of 
frivolous inmate lawsuits, the Clinton administration--through its 
lawyers--is actually contributing to the litigation explosion.
  In other cases, the Solicitor General has shown that being tough on 
crime is apparently not part of his justice department portfolio. In 
the now-famous Knox case, the Solicitor General's office actually 
argued for a weakening of our Federal laws against child pornography. 
And in another case--United States versus Hamrick--the Solicitor 
General's office decided not to seek a rehearing of a fourth circuit 
ruling overturning the conviction of someone who mailed a defective 
letter bomb to a U.S. attorney. Since the letter bomb failed to 
detonate--although it scorched the packaging in which it had been 
mailed--a fourth circuit panel

[[Page S4271]]

reasoned that the bomb could not be a dangerous weapon or a destructive 
device under the relevant Federal statute. Of course, had it detonated, 
I think probably they might have had a different indication.
  The Solicitor General would normally intervene in such a case, 
particularly since the recipient of the letter bomb was a U.S. 
attorney. Yet Solicitor General Drew Days declined to do so. As Prof. 
Paul Cassel of the University of Utah has explained:

       The . . . decision [by the Solicitor General's office] is 
     truly hard to fathom. A ruling that otherwise dangerous bombs 
     with defective igniters are not ``dangerous weapons'' could 
     be expected to have serious effects on the Government's 
     ability to prosecute a number of serious criminals under the 
     relevant Federal statutes.

  Fortunately, the Reagan-Bush judges on the entire fourth circuit 
stepped in, and on their own initiative, reversed the crazy panel 
decision. And yes, President Clinton's appointment to the fourth 
circuit, Judge Blaine Michael, joined a dissent insisting that the 
letter bomb was nonoperational.

  In yet another case--United States versus Cheely--a panel of Carter-
appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 
Federal death penalty statute. Despite the Clinton administration's 
professed support for the Federal death penalty, Solicitor General Days 
declined to appeal the ninth circuit panel decision.
  Unfortunately, the Solicitor General's actions in the Knox, Hamrick, 
and Cheely cases appear to be part of a pattern. As Senator Hatch 
explained last week, and I quote:

       The Clinton administration's Solicitor General generally 
     has ceased the efforts of the Reagan and Bush administrations 
     to vigorously defend the death penalty and tough criminal 
     laws.

  So, what is the lesson here? The lesson is this: Talk is cheap. The 
President may talk a good game on crime, but the real-life actions of 
Clinton judges and Clinton lawyers often don't match the President's 
tough-on-crime rhetoric.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my leader's time. I yield 
the floor.

                          ____________________