[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF JEFFREY SUTTON TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
                           THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 30, 2003

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the 
President's nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. According to a recent editorial in the 
New York Times, Mr. Sutton has pursued an extremist agenda against the 
employment rights of women with breast cancer as well as victims of 
domestic violence.
  Here is what the New York Times reported on April 28th.

       ``Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in 
     the Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama 
     state hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because 
     she had breast cancer, violating the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the Act did not 
     protect state employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights 
     argument narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions 
     of state workers of legal protection. He also invoked 
     federalism to urge the court to strike down the Violence 
     Against Women Act. It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal 
     protection for sexual assault victims.''

  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a moderate and independent Member of 
this House. I don't believe that extremism on either end of the 
spectrum can solve the challenges facing our nation. But I am concerned 
about a pattern of judicial nominations by the Administration which 
would fill our benches with the most ideologically driven nominees at 
the most extreme right of the conservative movement. Nominating an 
individual who has sought to dismantle federal protections against 
victims of domestic violence and who has advocated denying a woman with 
breast cancer legal protection is deeply disturbing.
  I insert ``Another Ideologue for the Courts'' in today's Record, and 
urge my colleagues to consider it:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 28, 2003]

                    Another Ideologue for the Courts

       It seems likely that Jeffrey Sutton, a nominee to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 
     Cincinnati, will be confirmed by the Senate this week. But it 
     is important to recognize why he was selected, and how he 
     fits the Bush administration's plan for an ideological 
     takeover of the courts. Whichever way the Senate votes on 
     him, it must insist that the administration start selecting 
     judges who do not come with a far-right agenda.
       There is no shortage of worthy judicial nominees. Federal 
     courts are filled with district court judges, Republicans and 
     Democrats, who have shown evenhandedness and professionalism, 
     and many would make fine appeals court judges. State courts 
     are overflowing with judges and lawyers known for their 
     excellence, not their politics.
       The Bush administration, however, has sought nominees whose 
     main qualification is a commitment to far-right ideology. Mr. 
     Sutton is the latest example. He is an activist for 
     ``federalism,'' a euphemism for a rigid states'-rights legal 
     philosophy. Although federalism commands a narrow majority on 
     the Supreme Court, advocates like Mr. Sutton are taking the 
     law in a disturbing direction, depriving minorities, women 
     and the disabled of important rights.
       Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in the 
     Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama state 
     hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because she 
     had breast cancer, violating the Americans With Disabilities 
     Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the act did not protect state 
     employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights argument 
     narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions of state 
     workers of legal protection. He also invoked federalism to 
     urge the court to strike down the Violence Against Women Act. 
     It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal protection for sexual 
     assault victims. Mr. Sutton has said that he was only doing 
     his job, and that his concern was building a law practice, 
     not choosing sides. But throughout his career, he has taken 
     on major cases that advance the conservative agenda. He has 
     left little doubt in his public statements that he supports 
     these rulings.
       At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sutton faced protesters 
     with guide dogs and wheelchairs, who were upset about his 
     role in rolling back disability law. Naturally, they urged 
     the Senate to reject him. But the senators' duty to advise 
     and consent goes beyond their vote on any particular nominee. 
     They must make it clear that in a nation brimming with legal 
     talent, it is unacceptable to focus the search for federal 
     judges on a narrow group of ideologues.

                          ____________________