[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S9581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SIXTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to object to 
the majority leader's attempt to file a discharge petition on four of 
President Bush's judicial nominees to the Sixth Circuit. I want to 
clarify the basis of my objection because my comment was taken out of 
context by the majority leader and Senator McConnell yesterday on the 
Senate floor.
  I said last week that the four nominees should not be moved out of 
the committee because they haven't yet had a hearing. That is indeed 
one basis for our objection. I am not aware of any judicial nominee who 
has been voted on without having a hearing--that is just not the way 
the judicial confirmation process works.
  But I also said that I was objecting on behalf of Senators Levin and 
Stabenow, who have not returned the blue slips on these four nominees 
because they believe that President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth 
Circuit were unfairly denied hearings and votes. The Michigan Senators 
do not wish to proceed with President Bush's nominees until a fair and 
just resolution has been reached.
  I think this is a valid argument. In the 1990s, the Republicans 
blocked 65 of President Clinton's judicial nominees many by home-State 
Senators who refused to return blue slips. I believe that this blockage 
was a coordinated attempt by Republicans to stall out the clock so that 
a Republican President might have the chance to fill those vacancies 
with right-wing ideologues after the 2000 election.
  President Clinton nominated three people to the Sixth Circuit who 
were never given a hearing or a vote, including two people from 
Michigan. One of President Clinton's Michigan nominees, Helene White, 
waited 4 years and never received a hearing or vote. The other Michigan 
nominee, Kathleen McCree Lewis, waited 2 years and never received a 
hearing or a vote.
  Why didn't these two highly qualified women ever receive a hearing or 
a vote? Because then-Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham didn't return 
their blue slips. Now the Bush White House is trying to reap the 
benefits of Senator Abraham's delay tactics.
  The Republicans are ignoring the blue slip process today, but they 
honored the Blue Slip policy in the 1990s as if it were the gospel. Not 
once did a Clinton judicial nominee get confirmed if their blue slips 
were not returned. Here is what the Judiciary Committee Chair, Senator 
Hatch, said on the Senate Floor in October 1999:

       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. . . . Thus, there has developed a general custom and 
     practice of my giving weight to the Senators from a nominee's 
     home State. . . . 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 a nominee on the floor of 
     the Senate, it is almost impossible to vote for the 
     confirmation of that nominee.

  Senator Hatch summed it all up in an interview he gave with NPR in 
1997. He said: ``The policy is that if a Senator returns a negative 
blue slip, that person's gonna be dead.''
  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans have backed 
away from the blue slip policy because they have a higher mission: 
packing the courts with right-wing ideologues.
  Not since President Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937 has this 
country seen a President who has played politics with the courts the 
way President Bush has. Over the past 2 years, he has nominated some of 
the most ideologically driven people in the Nation to important 
judgeships.
  They advocate extreme positions that would turn back the clock on 
women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, consumer protection, and 
environmental protection.
  Maybe President Bush has selected these people because he wants to 
pacify the far right wing of his party. Or maybe he truly shares their 
extreme beliefs.
  The bottom line is this: the Republicans are changing the rules for 
their own partisan gain. They are violating two longstanding principles 
with the Michigan nominees: 1. not honoring the blue slip process that 
they so zealously honored when the shoe was on the other foot, and 2. 
not honoring the Judiciary Committee confirmation process by attempting 
to confirm these nominees without giving them hearings or a committee 
vote.
  There is an easy resolution to the problem that the Republicans have 
created. As Senator Stabenow said earlier today on the Senate floor, 
she and Senator Levin have made numerous proposals--including the 
creation of a bipartisan selection commission like Wisconsin's--to 
select Michigan's judicial nominees. Unfortunately, the White House has 
rejected these very reasonable proposals.
  I hope that the Bush White House will reconsider its position and 
work with the Michigan Senators to ensure justice and fairness for the 
people of Michigan.
  In the meantime, it is not appropriate to have hearings on the 
Michigan nominees.
  One final note: The debate over the Michigan nominees should not 
overshadow the fact that the Senate has confirmed the vast majority of 
President Bush's nominees. To date, we have confirmed 139 of his 
judicial appointments 134 to Article III courts, and 5 to the Article I 
Court of Federal Claims. We have held up just two nominees.
  So the score is 139 to 2.
  Democrats are accused of being obstructionist, yet we have confirmed 
so many of President Bush's judges that we now have the lowest judicial 
vacancy rate in 13 years.

                          ____________________