[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11917-S11918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S11917]]
                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:48 p.m., recessed until 2:16 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Inhofe).
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Judge 
Ronnie Lee White, of Missouri, to the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Missouri. We have heard thorough discussions of 
the nominee by the distinguished Senators from Vermont and from 
Missouri. In coming to my decision on this nominee, I have considered 
the fairness of the process under which Judge White has been reviewed, 
the deference due to the President, and the deference due to the 
Senators from the nominee's home State. This is a very difficult case.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have conducted thorough 
hearings and reviewed nominees in a fair and even-handed manner. As a 
result, we have seen a hearings process that does not include personal 
attacks on nominees and that maintains the institutional integrity of 
the Senate. On numerous occasions, even when several of my Republican 
colleagues voted against nominees, I maintained a fair process free 
from personal attacks on nominees. This was the case with Judge White. 
The committee held a fair and objective hearing on Judge White and 
thoroughly reviewed his record.
  In considering any nomination, I believe that the President, in whom 
the Constitution vests the nominations power, is due a large degree of 
deference. Even though there are a large number of the President's 
nominees that I would not have nominated had I been President, I have 
supported these nominees in obtaining a floor vote because in my view, 
the Constitution requires substantial deference to the President.
  Of course, the more controversial a nominee is, the longer it takes 
to garner the consensus necessary to move such a nominee out of 
committee. Such is the case with Judge White. I supported Judge White 
coming to the floor on two occasions. In the last vote in committee, no 
fewer than six of my Republican colleagues voted against reporting 
Judge White to the floor. At that point, however, I gave the President 
the deference of allowing a vote on his nominee and voted to report 
Judge White.
  I must say that I am deeply disappointed by the unjust accusations 
from some that this body intentionally delays nominees, such as Judge 
White, based on their race. As the administration is well aware, it is 
not a nominee's race or gender that slows the process down, but rather 
the controversial nature of a nominee based on his or her record.
  Indeed, nominees such as Charles Wilson, Victor Marrero, and Carlos 
Murguia, minority nominees, and Marryanne Trump Barry, Marsha Pechman, 
and Karen Schrier, female nominees, had broad support and moved quickly 
through the committee and were confirmed easily on the floor. And, 
although the committee does not keep race and gender statistics, a 
brief review of the committee's record so far this session shows that a 
large proportion of the nominees reported to the floor and confirmed 
consists of minorities and women. I categorically reject the allegation 
that race or gender, as opposed to substantive controversy, has ever 
played any role whatsoever in slowing down any nominee during my tenure 
as chairman.
  After a fair and thorough review in committee and after paying the 
deference to the President to obtain a vote on the floor, I consider 
the position of a nominee's home State Senators. These Senators are in 
a unique position to evaluate whether a nominee instills the confidence 
in the people of a State necessary to be a successful Federal judge in 
that State. This is especially true for a district judge nominee whose 
jurisdiction, if confirmed, would be wholly limited to that particular 
State. Thus, there has developed a general custom and practice of my 
giving weight to the Senators from a nominee's home State.
  There have been several instances where--notwithstanding some serious 
reservations on my part--I voted to confirm district court nominees 
because the Senators from the nominees home State showed strong, and in 
some cases, bipartisan support. The nominations of Keith Ellison, Allen 
Pepper, Anne Aiken, Susan Mollway, and Margaret Morrow are examples of 
where I supported contested district court nominees and relied on the 
view of the home-State Senators in reaching my decision.

  While I have harbored great concerns on the White nomination, I 
withheld my final decision until I had the benefit of the view of my 
colleagues from Missouri. I was under the impression that one of my 
colleagues might actually support the nomination, so I felt that the 
process should move forward--and it did.
  Since the committee reported Judge White to the floor of the Senate, 
however, both of the Senators from Missouri have announced their 
opposition to confirming Judge White. Also, since the committee 
reported this nominee to the floor, the law enforcement community of 
Missouri has indicated serious concerns, and in some cases, open 
opposition to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. And indeed, I have 
been informed that the National Sheriffs Association opposes this 
nomination. Opposition is mounting and it would perhaps be preferable 
to hold another hearing on the nomination. But if we must move forward 
today, it is clear to me that Judge White lacks the home-State support 
that I feel is necessary for a candidate to the Federal district court 
in that State.
  For me, this case has been a struggle. On the one hand, Judge White 
is a fine man and the President is due a fair amount of deference. On 
the other hand, we are faced with the extremely unusual case in which 
both home State Senators, after having reviewed the record, are 
opposing this nomination on the floor.
  Of course, had the President worked more closely with the two 
Senators from Missouri and then nominated a less problematic candidate, 
we would not be in this predicament. But the President did not.
  When a nominee has a record of supporting controversial legal 
positions that call into question his, or her, respect for the rule of 
law, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. When the President has not adequately consulted with the 
Senate, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. And when both home State Senators of a nominee oppose as 
nominee on the floor of the Senate, it is almost impossible to vote for 
the confirmation of that nominee.
  Regretfully, such is the case with Judge White. Judge White has 
written some controversial opinions, especially on death penalty cases 
that have caused some to question his commitment to upholding the rule 
of law. The President has not garnered broad support for Judge White. 
And both Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond oppose this nomination. It 
would have been better for all parties concerned--the President, the 
Senate, the people of Missouri, and Judge White, had we been able to 
reach this decision earlier. But I cannot rewrite the past.
  After a painstaking review of the record and thorough consultation 
with the nominee's home State Senators, I deeply regret that I must 
vote against the nomination of Judge White. This is in no way a 
reflection of Judge White personally. He is a fine man. Instead, my 
decision is based on the very unusual circumstances in which the 
President has placed this body. I must defer to my colleagues from 
Missouri with respect to a nominee whose jurisdiction, if confirmed, 
would be wholly limited to that State.
  I call on the President to nominate another candidate for the Eastern 
District of Missouri. He should do so, however, only after properly 
consulting with both Missouri Senators and thus respecting the 
constitutional advice and consent duties that this body performs in 
confirming a nominee who will serve as a Federal judge for life.
  Mr. BOND. After discussing this difficult decision with Missouri 
constituents, the Missouri legal community, and the Missouri law 
enforcement community, I have determined that Ronnie White is not the 
appropriate candidate to serve in a lifetime capacity as a U.S. 
district judge for eastern Missouri.

[[Page S11918]]

  The Missouri law enforcement community, whose views I deeply respect, 
has expressed grave reservations about Judge White's nomination to the 
Federal bench. They have indicated to me their concern that Judge White 
might use the power of the bench to compromise the strength of law 
enforcement efforts in Missouri.
  Given the concerns raised by those in Missouri's law enforcement 
community, who put their lives on the line on a daily basis, and those 
in Missouri's legal community, who are charged with protecting our 
system of jurisprudence, I am compelled to vote against Judge White's 
confirmation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am opposed to the 
nominations of Raymond Fisher to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit and Ronnie White to the Eastern District of Missouri.
  Our judicial system is supposed to protect the innocent and ensure 
justice, which is what it has done for the most part for over 200 
years. However, there have been glaring exceptions: the Dred Scott 
decision, which ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights 
which anyone was bound to respect, and Roe versus Wade, which similarly 
ruled that an entire class of people, the unborn, are not human beings 
and therefore are undeserving of any legal protection.
  Both decisions, made by our Nation's highest court, violated two key 
constitutional provisions for huge segments of the population. Dred 
Scott, which legally legitimized slavery, deprived nearly the entire 
black population of the right to liberty, while Roe has taken away the 
right to life of 35 million unborn children since 1973. Both created 
rights, the right to own slaves and the right to an abortion, that were 
not in the Constitution. Of course, both are morally and legally wrong. 
Sadly, only Dred has been overturned, by the 13th and 14th amendments. 
Congress and the courts have yet to reverse Roe.
  The only requirement, the only standard that I have for any judicial 
nominees is that they not view ``justice'' as the majorities did in 
Dred Scott and Roe, and that they uphold the standards and timeless 
principles so clearly stated in our Constitution.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that Mr. White and Mr. Fisher meet 
those critical standards. During the committee hearings, Mr. Fisher 
fully indicated to me that he would uphold the constitutional and moral 
travesties of Roe and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Mr. White has 
also given answers which strongly suggest that he believes Roe was 
correctly decided by the Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. White's 
dubious actions as chairman of a Missouri House committee when a pro-
life bill was before it further proves that he would enthusiastically 
enforce the pro-abortion judicial decree of Roe versus Wade.
  The Framers of our Constitution believed we are endowed by our 
Creator with certain unalienable rights. Roe not only violates the 5th 
and 14th amendments, it violates the first and most fundamental right 
that we have as human beings and no court, liberal or conservative, can 
take away that right.
  As a U.S. Senator, I recognize the awesome responsibility that we 
have to confirm, or deny, judicial nominees. I recognize the solemn 
obligation that we have to make sure that our Federal courts are filled 
only with judges who uphold and abide by the transcendent ideals 
explicitly stated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 
judges we confirm or deny will be among the greatest and far-reaching 
of our legacies, and I for one do not ever want my legacy to be that I 
confirmed pro-abortion judges to our Nation's courts.
  This is why I will not support the nominations of Mr. White and Mr. 
Fisher. I will not support any judges who deny the undeniable 
connection that must exist, in a free and just civilization, between 
humanity and personhood. Our judges should be the very embodiment of 
justice. How can we then approve of those who will deny justice to most 
defenseless and innocent of us all?
  But, further, I would add that these nominees propose a more general 
concern in that they are liberal activists. In the case of Justice 
White, who now serves on the Supreme Court in Missouri, he has 
demonstrated that he is an activist, and has a political slant to his 
opinions in favor of criminal defendants and against prosecutors. It is 
my belief that judges should interpret the law, and not impose their 
own political viewpoints.
  He is strongly opposed by the law enforcement community in Missouri, 
and was directly opposed by the Missouri Association of Police Chiefs 
due to his activist record.
  Senator Ashcroft spoke in more detail about Justice White's activist 
record. Coming from the same State, Senator Ashcroft is in an even 
better position to comment on Justice White's record. But, he laid out 
a very disturbing record of judicial activism in Justice White's 
career, particularly on law and order matters, and I simply do not 
think that this is the kind of person we need on the U.S. District 
Court.
  With regard to Mr. Fisher, this is a critical slot because of the 
nature of the Ninth Circuit. This circuit has gained such a bad 
reputation for its liberal opinions that it has been referred to as a 
``rogue'' circuit. It is controlled by an extreme liberal element and 
it is important that our appointments to this circuit be people who can 
restore at least some level of constitutional scrutiny.
  In the case of Mr. Fisher, this clearly will not be the case. He is 
not a judge, and therefore, there is not the kind of judicial paper 
trail that we have with Justice White. However, he has a long record of 
liberal political activism for causes that run contrary to the 
Constitution. If he is willing to thwart the Constitution in his 
political activism, what makes us think he will uphold it in his 
judicial opinions. He took an active role in supporting the passage of 
proposition 15 in California regarding registration of handguns. This 
kind of hostility to the second amendment will not make matters any 
better on the Ninth Circuit. He very actively supported employment 
benefits for homosexual partners, and I found him to be very evasive in 
his responses to questions during the Committee hearings. Given the 
importance of this circuit and its demonstrated bias toward the left, 
this nominee, who himself is a liberal activist, is not the right 
person to help restore some constitutionality to this circuit.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to vote against these two judges. We 
have sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution. This is never 
more critical than when we exercise our advise and consent role for 
judicial nominees.

                          ____________________