[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 28 (Monday, March 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1983-S1984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NOMINATION OF JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the issue 
that was going to be voted on tomorrow, the nomination of Judge 
Massiah-Jackson to the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. As you 
know, she withdrew her name today from consideration for that position. 
She did so, I believe, in light of the information that has come 
forward, the controversy surrounding her nomination, and what looked to 
be very little hope for that nomination to succeed here on the Senate 
floor. In fact, it has come to my attention that there would have been 
very strong bipartisan opposition to her nomination and the chances of 
it succeeding were not very good. So I think, under those 
circumstances, she decided to withdraw her name.
  For her sake, I think she did the right thing. I think she has 
acquitted herself, as an individual, very well and was very restrained 
under this rather arduous process she has gone through. I know it has 
been a very difficult time for her and her family. For that she has my 
empathy and my sympathy, for

[[Page S1984]]

the difficult time that she had in what turned out to be a very 
prolonged process that somehow looked more like a Supreme Court 
nomination as opposed to an eastern district court nomination. That 
being said, I think it was the right thing for her to withdraw. As I 
said publicly last week, I was not going to be supportive of her 
nomination.
  All in all, what I tried to accomplish from the very beginning of 
this process was to give Judge Massiah-Jackson--as I would any person 
nominated from my State by President Clinton--the benefit of the doubt, 
No. 1, and, No. 2, a fair process--that she would have a fair process, 
or anybody would have a fair process, when it comes to the commission 
that I set up with Senator Specter to review judicial nominees or 
potential judicial nominees from all across Pennsylvania for the 
district courts. We have what I believe is a stellar commission that is 
made of terrific people who work very hard to review those nominees. 
They are, in fact, hamstrung, however, by the limited amount of 
information that they have.
  In the case of Judge Massiah-Jackson and others, they are given 
information, frankly, provided by the candidate--by the person who is 
interviewing for the position. There is--at least has been--very little 
done in the way of background checks beyond what the candidate provides 
or references given. If I can be self-critical here of that process, 
our process, I would say that probably has to change in the future, 
that we have to do a little better job of delving deeper into the 
background of some of the potential nominees for the court. So, in that 
sense, the process maybe didn't work as well as it should have.
  The second step in the process was the process of nomination by the 
President. Again, I suggest the President's process probably did not 
work as well as it should have, because a lot of information continues 
to come out. Even today more cases have come forward.

  The commission, in part, can take blame, but, in part, the White 
House has to take a little of the blame for not doing a thorough check 
of the record and finding these problems so these issues would not be 
coming up so late in the game, that we would have had all these issues 
before us when we were making the initial decision. In fact, it wasn't 
done, or, if it was done, it certainly was kept from me and other 
Members of the Senate until a very late date. So, again, the process, 
in a sense, failed.
  Having said all that, we had a nominee in the committee. The 
committee, I believe, gave Judge Massiah-Jackson a fair hearing at the 
time given the information that they had. Again, more information 
continued to come to light, some because, I suspect, it was difficult 
to ascertain; others, I don't know why. But information continued to 
come to light and information that, frankly, we had to look at. That 
was statistical evidence as to the judge's abilities in office, or 
potential abilities in office.
  Again, what I was striving for, for this nominee, as I do for all, is 
to give her a fair hearing, a fair process. That is why Senator Specter 
and I fought and persuaded the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as 
well as the majority leader, to withhold any vote on the Senate floor, 
to allow Judge Massiah-Jackson to go back to committee after these more 
recent allegations came forward, to be able to respond--in a sense, 
almost redoing the process again and, in a sense, starting de novo from 
the second hearing to begin to set the record straight, if you will.
  In that regard, I thank Senator Lott for his willingness to stand by 
both Senator Specter and me in support of that second hearing. I think 
it has to be said that Senator Lott had the right--and, frankly, any 
other Member in this Chamber had the right--to come forward and ask to 
table her nomination. When the nomination was before the Senate, anyone 
could have come out here on the day when it was before the Senate and 
could have asked for that nomination to be tabled. We would have had a 
vote, and I think it would have been unfortunate and untimely at that 
point because she would not have been given an opportunity to respond, 
as many Members were passionate in opposition to her and felt there was 
no way by what she said or did at that hearing that she could redeem 
herself in their eyes. But they were willing to defer to both Senator 
Specter and myself and to the leader, and to Senator Hatch, to give her 
an opportunity to respond to her critics.
  In the end, she did not do so adequately. There were many issues 
brought up, and, to some, she was able to shed some light on some of 
the disconcerting information. In the end, at that hearing, she 
decidedly did not address the grave concerns that had been brought 
forward on a variety of different subjects, on a variety of different 
cases, a variety of extrajudicial activities that she was involved with 
in her courtroom.
  At that point, I think my sense was, while this process took longer 
than it should, and certainly the way in which this information came 
out and all the other oddities with respect to this nomination, I 
think, in the end, she was given the opportunity to address those 
issues. I do not believe she did so to the satisfaction--certainly she 
didn't to my satisfaction, and I don't think she did to a very strong 
bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate to overcome the opposition of so 
many in my State.
  I received over 500 letters, the vast majority of which were in 
opposition to her nomination. I received letters from a variety of law 
enforcement agencies, as well as prosecutors and others in opposition, 
which I take very seriously. These are officers of the court who do not 
normally speak out on such issues. I have to take that kind of 
correspondence and that kind of communication very seriously. I thought 
they brought out some very relevant and cogent issues with respect to 
her nomination. I considered those. I wanted to give Judge Massiah-
Jackson an opportunity to shed some light on those and perhaps change 
my perception of those issues. She did not do so in that hearing, in 
the final analysis. So, as a result, I announced late last week that I 
would end up opposing her nomination. I did so.
  It was a very difficult decision. It was very difficult for me to 
arrive at that decision, as I said earlier in my remarks. I wanted to 
give, as I do with all nominees of the President--they are not my 
nominees; they are not people I would have selected. I understand he is 
the President, opposite party, opposite philosophy. I don't expect him 
to appoint people I would appoint. So I provide a lot of latitude to 
his nominees, but within certain range, within certain bounds.
  In this case, while I tried to give the benefit of the doubt 
throughout the process, in the end, she was outside the bounds of what 
I believe to be reasonable conduct and temperament. As a result, I 
thought it better to oppose her nomination to be promoted to the 
Federal bench.
  I will say in closing, I wish Judge Massiah-Jackson well. I, again, 
have great sympathy for what she went through in the process. Even 
though Senator Specter and I tried to make it a fair process, it was, 
nonetheless, a difficult process, one that became somewhat national in 
scope. Certainly in the city of Philadelphia, it was a very contentious 
and, unfortunately, overpoliticized atmosphere surrounding this 
nomination. I understand the difficult time she went through. She, 
again, has my sympathy.
  In the end, the withdrawal of her nomination was probably the best 
thing for all concerned.
  Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________