[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 9 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S583-S584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF MARGARET MORROW

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that tomorrow we 
are going to be voting on the confirmation of Mrs. Margaret Morrow, 
Judge Margaret Morrow, who has been nominated for the position of U.S. 
District Judge for the Central District of California. While I will be 
opposing her nomination, it is not because of her academic 
qualifications, nor her credentials, but her philosophy that she has 
expressed in the past from the bench.
  Lately a lot of people have said that the state of our judiciary is 
somewhat deplorable, and I think it is, although I do not think it is 
because of the lack of judges being confirmed. I do not think that is 
the problem. I think it is the philosophy, the dangerous philosophy of 
elitism which pervades the judicial branch of the Federal Government. 
This elitism is dangerous and undercuts our belief in courts throughout 
America. Regrettably, Mrs. Morrow is representative of that elitism.
  I am most concerned more than anything else with statements she has 
made about direct democracy. It seems to be her position that we in 
America are not able to rule for ourselves, not able to make 
intelligent decisions, but those decisions would have to be made in 
some protected ivory tower. She condemns direct democracy. She says, 
``Ballot initiatives,'' and this is a quote, ``render ephemeral any 
real hope of intelligent voting of the majority.''
  What she is saying here is that the people are not capable of making 
these decisions. And, of course, they do have problems out there in the 
ninth circuit, and the position she is seeking to gain would put her in 
a position to actually promote some of those things that have been 
taking place there.
  Recently, in Bates v. Jones, a three-judge panel--Reinhardt, Sneed, 
and Fletcher--affirmed a decision by Judge Wilkins to throw out 
California's ballot initiative, Proposition 140--that's the term limits 
for State officials--declaring them unconstitutional.
  There have been other efforts such as proposition 209. Last year 
Judge Henderson struck down the voter-approved referendum ending State 
affirmative action programs, and fortunately for the 20 million 
California voters Henderson's original ruling has been struck down, 
restoring their faith in the voting process.
  Proposition 187. Judge Richard Pfaelzer declared a State law denying 
benefits to illegal aliens unconstitutional because it conflicted with 
the 1996 welfare reform law. That was overturned.
  Proposition 208. Judge Carlton has recently blocked enforcement of 
the popular initiative that has imposed limits on campaign 
contributions at the State level.
  During her confirmation, Mrs. Morrow claimed never to have publicly 
opposed a ballot initiative in the past decade with one exception and 
that was proposition 209. In fact, in 1988, Morrow wrote an article 
urging lawyers to support or oppose various ballot initiatives. She 
denounces three others later that year and spoke publicly against two 
others. So I think it is fairly evident that Margaret Morrow, in 
addition to these problems, has a problem with the truth. And I 
certainly think if there is anything we do not need in our judiciary it 
is someone of that philosophy.
  I like the way Senator Ashcroft said it the other day. He said, 
``Morrow's writings make it clear that she believes people cannot be 
trusted with

[[Page S584]]

the fundamental powers of self-government.''

                          ____________________