[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13535-S13556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF CHARLES W. PICKERING, SR., OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 400, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Charles W. Pickering,
Sr., of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60
minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, with
the final 10 minutes divided, with the first 5 minutes under the
control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 5
minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination
Charles W. Pickering, Sr. to be a Circuit Judge on the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that the Majority
Leader has brought this nomination to the floor, as it has been nearly
2\1/2\ years since Judge Pickering was first nominated to this
position. Since then, his record has been carefully considered. He
appeared before the Judiciary Committee in not one, but two lengthy
hearings. So there has been plenty of opportunity to consider the
qualifications of Judge Pickering.
We have received hundreds of letters of support for Judge Pickering
from the public, members of the bar, as well as political, academic,
and religious
[[Page S13536]]
leaders. The overwhelming support for Judge Pickering's nomination from
his home state of Mississippi speaks volumes, especially since that
support comes from across the political spectrum and from various
racial and ethnic groups.
Last month, the Governor of Mississippi and the other Democratic
elected statewide officials of Mississippi sent a letter endorsing
Judge Pickering stating they believe he should be confirmed. In that
letter they noted that Judge Pickering has worked for racial
reconciliation and ``helped unify our communities.'' They go on to
state, ``Judge Pickering's record demonstrates his commitment to equal
protection, equal rights and fairness for all. His values demand he
respect the law and constitutional precedents and rule accordingly. He
does. . . . As a judge, he is consistent in his fairness to everyone,
and deemed well qualified by those who independently review his
rulings, temperament, and work.''
Unfortunately, there has also been an unjustified campaign against
Judge Pickering, driven largely by Washington special interest groups
who do not know Judge Pickering and who have an ideological axe to
grind. Make no mistake about it--these groups' political agenda is to
paint President Bush's fair and qualified nominees as extremists in
order to keep them off the federal bench. It has been reported that a
member of this body has accused the President of ``loading up the
judiciary with right-wingers who want to turn the clock back to the
1890s,'' stating that America is under attack from ``the hard right,
the mean people.'' That news report also quoted that same Senator as
having said, ``They have this sort of little patina of philosophy but
underneath it all is meanness, selfishness and narrow-mindedness.''
Now, I am disappointed that this is the level of discourse that
Members of this body lower themselves to in their attempt to score
political points or pander to their supporters. That is their right, if
they choose to do so, but it is unfortunate that the opponents of Judge
Pickering have attempted to vilify and destroy his good character and
exemplary record with distortions and disparaging remarks. For example,
at a recent press event in Arkansas opponents continued their smear
campaign, with one group describing Judge Pickering as a ``racist,'' a
``bigot'' and a ``woman-hater.'' Such remarks reveal which side is
based on meanness.
So today I must stand and defend the character and record of Judge
Pickering and put these falsehoods, distortions and mean-spirited
remarks in the trash bin where they belong.
I was pleased that, despite this intimidation campaign, President
Bush in January of this year renominated Judge Pickering for the Fifth
Circuit. The propaganda easily gets in the way, so let me remind my
colleagues that after fully evaluating Judge Pickering's integrity,
competence, and temperament, the American Bar Association gave him its
highest rating of ``Well Qualified'' not once, but twice--both when he
was first nominated in May 2001 and again at the outset of the current
Congress.
Now I expect we will hear complaints from the other side that this
nomination should not be before the Senate. There are those who say the
President should not have renominated Judge Pickering, since the
Judiciary Committee had already acted on the nomination. That position,
of course, ignores the President's constitutional authority to nominate
judges. And the extraordinary action taken by the Judiciary Committee
in the last Congress denied the full Senate its constitutional right to
advise and consent. Going forward with this nomination today is fair to
Judge Pickering, fair to the Senate, and fair to President Bush.
In addition to these procedural complaints, we have heard and will
likely continue to hear a recycling of the tired arguments and well-
worn parade of horribles--which are horrible in large part because of
their gross distortion of Judge Pickering's upstanding reputation and
record. It is my fervent hope that opponents of this nomination do not
resort to attacks on Judge Pickering based on his personal convictions
in an effort to justify their opposition to his nomination. However, I
am not optimistic that my hopes will be realized, if the unfortunate
attack by the extremist abortion group, NARAL, the National Abortion
Rights Action League, is any indication. That group, which represents
what this debate is truly about, states ``Charles Pickering of
Mississippi was a founding father of the anti-choice movement, and a
clear risk to substitute far-right ideology for common-sense
interpretation of the law.''
I reject that characterization, but in any event Judge Pickering's
private views on abortion, like any judicial nominee's personal views
on political issues, are irrelevant to the confirmation decision. Judge
Pickering has publicly affirmed in his confirmation hearings that he
will follow established law and Supreme Court precedents--even those
with which he disagrees. His record as a jurist demonstrates his
commitment to the rule of law and that he understands that all lower
courts, including the 5th Circuit, are bound by Roe and by the more
recent Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
For the record, in 1976, then-political advocate Charles Pickering
joined a long line of famous Democrats and liberals who believed that
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Some who shared his view include Byron
White, President Kennedy's appointee to the Supreme Court, Archibald
Cox, the special prosecutor who investigated President Nixon, and
Professor William Van Allstyne, a former board member of the ACLU. But
I repeat--Judge Pickering's political views are less important than his
expressed commitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, even precedents
with which he may not agree.
It is outrageous that Judge Pickering, who has three daughters and
nine granddaughters, has been smeared as a ``woman-hater'' or ``anti-
woman.'' Indeed, numerous women who know and have worked with Judge
Pickering have endorsed his nomination, including civil rights attorney
Deborah Gambrell, and Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube.
Unlike some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have
steadfastly resisted efforts to inject personal ideology into the
confirmation process. We have all seen the destructive effects of such
tactics on this institution, on the judicial nominations process, and
on the nominees themselves. So as we debate the qualifications of Judge
Pickering, and as his record is fairly evaluated on the merits, there
can be little doubt that he deserves the support of every Member of the
Senate.
Let me step back from the politics of this nomination for a minute
and talk about the person. Too often, I fear, we Senators get engaged
in the issues to such an extent that the personal side of individual
nominees might be forgotten. By many opponents, Charles Pickering is
portrayed as the stereotype of the Southern white male, locked in the
thought, culture and traditions of his upbringing in the deep South of
yesteryear. This is the caricature they attack, but it is not the
reality of who Judge Pickering is. Though born and raised in the rural
South, and although he has remained geographically near his childhood
home, Judge Pickering has traveled far in his personal and professional
life. And while the society of his youth has changed dramatically, in
Charles Pickering we have a nominee with a lifetime record of civic and
community service in improving racial relations and enforcing laws
protecting civil and constitutional rights.
Judge Pickering's life story includes an outstanding academic record,
an exceptional legal career and a life committed to serving others. He
graduated first in his law school class at the University of
Mississippi in 1961. While in law school, he was on the Law Journal and
served as Chairman of the Moot Court Board. Upon graduating, he became
a partner in a law firm in Mississippi.
In the 1960s, when racial tensions were prevalent throughout
Mississippi, Judge Pickering served as City Prosecuting Attorney of
Laurel and was elected and served four years as County Prosecuting
Attorney of Jones County. He condemned racially motivated violence and
encouraged citizens to help the government prosecute those guilty of
such violence. As County Attorney from 1964 to 1968, he assisted the
FBI in investigating and prosecuting the Klan's attacks on African
Americans and civil rights workers.
During his time as County Attorney, the KKK infiltrated the
Woodworkers
[[Page S13537]]
Union at the Masonite pulpwood plant in Jones County. Klan members beat
people, shot into houses, fire bombed homes, and even committed a
murder at the Masonite plant. Judge Pickering signed the affidavit
supporting the murder indictment of reputed Klansman Dubie Lee for the
murder at the Masonite plant. He also testified against the Imperial
Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, at a trial for the firebombing death of
a civil rights activist, indisputably putting himself and his family at
risk.
Now some may downplay Judge Pickering's actions during this era, but
I want to emphasize the moral courage that he consistently displayed.
Let me remind my colleagues of a statement by the chairman of the
Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus, state Rep. Philip West, who is a
supporter of Judge Pickering and has defended the judge's civil right's
record. Representative West observed, ``For him to say one word against
the Klan was risking his life.'' Mr. President, to hear Judge Pickering
now described as a racist or bigot is simply despicable, and I will
challenge anybody who does that on this floor.
Throughout his career Judge Pickering has shown a commitment to his
community in both a professional and personal capacity. His numerous
civic contributions include serving as the head of the March of Dimes
campaign in Jones County; as the chairman of the Jones County Chapter
of the American National Red Cross; and as the chairman of the Jones
County Heart Fund. In 1963 he was recognized as one of the three
Outstanding Young Men in Mississippi. Judge Pickering is active in his
church and has served many years as a Sunday school teacher, as
chairman of the deacons, Sunday school superintendent, and church
treasurer.
He has worked with organizations to advance issues that promote equal
opportunity for all individuals in his community, church, political
party and State. His work with the race relations committee for Jones
County and the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of
Mississippi are just two examples of his leadership for equal rights in
this area. That is why we find such a broad outpouring of support for
Judge Pickering across all groups and political parties. Allow me to
share some of these editorials, articles, and letters with my
colleagues.
I have already mentioned the letter of support from the current
Governor of Mississippi and other Democratic statewide officials.
Another letter came from William Winter, the former Democratic Governor
of Mississippi, who writes, ``I have known Judge Pickering personally
and professionally for all his adult life. I am convinced that he
possesses the intellect, the integrity and the temperament to serve
with distinction on that [Fifth Circuit] court. He is wise,
compassionate and fair, and he is precisely the kind of judge that I
would want to decide matters that would personally affect me or my
family. While Judge Pickering and I are members of different political
parties and do not hold to the same view on many public issues, I have
always respected his fairness, objectivity, and decency.''
Many Senators are familiar with the name Jorge Rangel, who was
nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Clinton. In his letter
supporting Judge Pickering's nomination, Mr. Rangel explains, ``I first
met Judge Pickering in 1990 in my capacity as a member of the ABA's
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As the Fifth Circuit's
representative on the Committee, I conducted the primary investigation
into his professional qualifications when he was nominated to a federal
district judgeship in Mississippi. The Charles W. Pickering that I have
read about in press reports during the pendency of his current
nomination does not comport with the Charles W. Pickering that I have
come to know in the last thirteen years. Competent, compassionate,
sensitive and free from bias are terms that aptly describe him.
Attempts to demonize him are both unfair and out of place in a judicial
confirmation proceeding.'' Mr. Rangel notes that Judge Pickering called
him during the pendency of his own nomination with words of
encouragement, and concludes, ``The current impasse in the confirmation
proceedings is an unfortunate one, because it continues to ensnare many
nominees of goodwill who have answered the call to serve. For their
sake and for the ongoing vitality of our federal judiciary, I would
hope that you and your colleagues can find common ground. A good
starting point would be the confirmation of Judge Pickering.''
Yet another letter of support came from renowned Las Vegas criminal
defense lawyer David Chesnoff, a registered Democrat who serves on the
Board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr.
Chesnoff, who tried a case before Judge Pickering, writes, ``At no time
during my experience before Judge Pickering . . . did I ever note even
a scintilla of evidence that Judge Pickering did not treat every
citizen of our great country with equal fairness and consideration.
Based on my experience with Judge Pickering, I am offended that people
are attacking his sterling character. I felt it important to register
my position on his behalf and believe he would make an outstanding
addition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. .
. .''
I.A. Rosenbaum also wrote to voice his support for Judge Pickering. I
will read his letter in its entirety: ``I was the Democratic Mayor of
Meridian [Mississippi] from 1977 to 1985 and a past President of
Congregation Beth Israel. Injustice and character assassination galls
me. Charles Pickering is no racist. He stood tall when our Temple was
bombed and made very effort to prosecute Sam Bowers who planned the
bombing. Sincerely, I.A. Rosenbaum.''
All of these letters, of course, were generated in response to the
gross smear campaign waged against Judge Pickering that centered
largely on his actions in the Swan case. I expect that we will hear a
great deal about that case during the course of this debate. But let me
make something perfectly clear to everyone here. Judge Pickering's
actions in the Swan case had absolutely nothing to do with racial
insensitivity. His lifetime of striving to promote racial
reconciliation and fighting prejudice provides irrefutable evidence of
that. Rather, Judge Pickering's actions in the Swan case had everything
to do with his penchant for going easy on first-time criminal
defendants.
Judge Pickering's record is replete with examples where he has seen
the rehabilitative potential of first-time offenders and accordingly
sentenced them to lighter sentences. Take, for example, the case of a
20-year-old African-American drug defendant who faced a 5-year
mandatory minimum. Judge Pickering reduced that to 30 months and
recommended the defendant be allowed to participate in an intensive
confinement program, further reducing his sentence.
Another young African-American drug defendant with no previous felony
convictions faced a 40-month sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Judge Pickering continued his case for a year, placed him under strict
supervised home release for 1 year, and then used his good conduct
during home release to establish the basis for a downward departure.
Judge Pickering ultimately sentenced him to 6 months of home
confinement, 5 years probation and no prison time.
A third 20-year-old African-American male faced between 70 and 87
months under the guidelines for a drug crime. Judge Pickering downward
departed to 48 months and recommended that he participate in intensive
confinement, which further reduced his sentence. The defendant's lawyer
called Judge Pickering's compassionate sentence a ``life changing
experience'' for this defendant.
In another case, an African-American woman faced a minimum sentence
of 188 months. The government made a motion for a downward departure,
and Judge Pickering continued the case six times over a period of 2\1/
2\ years to allow the prosecution to develop a basis for a further
downward departure. In the end, Judge Pickering reduced her sentence by
more than half, sentencing her to 63 months.
The last case I want to discuss is the Barnett case. The Barnetts, an
interracial couple, were both before Judge Pickering, charged with drug
crimes. Both were facing sentences between 120 to 150 months but plea
bargained with the government for a maximum 5-year sentence. Judge
Pickering sentenced Mr. Barnett to the 5 years but with
[[Page S13538]]
Mrs. Barnett, who had Crohn's disease and was taking care of one of her
sick children, he departed downward 22 levels and sentenced her to 12
months of home confinement. At a later time, the government made a
motion for a downward departure for Mr. Barnett and Judge Pickering
reduced his sentence as well. Mrs. Barnett later wrote a letter, as she
said, out of gratitude for all Judge Pickering did for her and her
family. She stated she had learned a valuable lesson, that her family
had been brought closer together, and that her husband had changed in
many positive ways. She concluded, ``I want to thank you for your part
in all of this, and I can assure you that your thoughtfulness and just
consideration is greatly appreciated and will never be forgotten.''
Thirteen years ago Judge Pickering began his service as a U.S.
District Judge. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which
included a good number of members who are still serving in the Senate
today, including 25 members of the Democratic caucus. That affirmative
vote was well deserved given Judge Pickering's excellent academic
record, his distinguished legal career, his outstanding character, and
his superb record of public and community service. That record has only
been enhanced by his service on the bench.
Judge Pickering deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor. So I
urge my colleagues to use proper standards, consider the entire record,
and use a fair process for considering Judge Pickering's nomination.
Those who know him best, Democrats and Republicans, representing a
broad cross section of citizens, endorse his nomination. An unbiased
consideration of Judge Pickering's character and experience will lead
every fair-minded person that Judge Pickering's record fully justifies
his confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As the President said recently, ``The United States Senate must step
up to serious constitutional responsibilities. I've nominated many
distinguished and highly-qualified Americans to fill vacancies on the
federal, district and circuit courts. Because a small group of Senators
is willfully obstructing the process, some of these nominees have been
denied up or down votes for months, even years. More than one-third of
my nominees for the circuit courts are still awaiting a vote. The
needless delays in the system are harming the administration of justice
and they are deeply unfair to the nominees, themselves. The Senate
Judiciary Committee should give a prompt and fair hearing to every
single nominee, and send every nomination to the Senate floor for an up
or down vote.''
I agree with President Bush that this obstruction is unfair and
harmful. I have taken to the Senate floor on numerous occasions to
condemn the tactic of forcing judicial nominees through cloture votes.
My position has been the same regardless of whether the nominee was
appointed by a Democratic president or a Republican president. I am
proud to say that during my nearly 30 years in the Senate, I have never
voted against cloture for a judicial nominee, even on the rare occasion
that I opposed a judicial nomination and ultimately voted against it.
Yet, once again, some Senate Democrats are filibustering another
``Well Qualified'' nominee--preventing an up-or-down vote on this judge
who is supported by a majority of the Senate. This is tyranny of the
minority and it is unfair. Senator Kennedy has asked ``What's the point
of pushing yet again for a nominee who probably cannot get enough
support to be confirmed because he doesn't deserve to be confirmed?''
With all due respect, I must disagree with the premise of his question.
Judge Pickering does deserve to be confirmed, and, if an up-or-down
vote were allowed, does have enough support to be confirmed.
As I have stated before, requiring a supermajority vote on this or
any judicial nominee thwarts the Senate from exercising its
constitutional duty of advise and consent. The Constitution is clear on
this matter; it contemplates that a vote by a simple majority of the
Senate will determine the fate of a judicial nominee. There is nothing
in the Constitution that gives that power to a minority of 41 Senators.
Furthermore, a supermajority requirement for judicial nominees
needlessly injects even more politics into the already over-politicized
confirmation process. I believe that there are certain areas that
should be designated as off-limits from political activity. The
Senate's role in confirming lifetime-appointed Article III judges--and
the underlying principle that the Senate perform that role through the
majority vote of its members--is one such issue. Nothing less depends
on the recognition of these principles than the continued, untarnished
respect in which we hold our third branch of Government--the one branch
of Government intended to be above political influence.
Over the past 2 years I have been accused of changing or breaking
committee rules and of pushing ideological nominees. The record will
show that these charges are without foundation. In fact, it is Senate
Democrats that have pushed the notion of injecting ideology into the
confirmation process and have taken unprecedented steps to oppose
judicial nominees.
Opponents are using a variety of tactics to obstruct President Bush's
judicial nominees. Supported by the extremist liberal interest groups,
who themselves use even more shameful tactics to defeat these nominees,
we have seen opponents distort the record, make unreasonable demands
for privileged information, and force multiple cloture votes. This is
all part of the strategy of changing the ground rules on judicial
nominations that Senate Democrats have implemented.
I am not the only one who is concerned about the dangerous precedents
that some Democrats have established. Before Miguel Estrada, the
filibuster was never used to defeat a circuit court nominee. The
Washington Post--hardly a bastion of conservatism--warned in a February
5, 2003, editorial that staging a filibuster against a judicial nominee
would be ``a dramatic escalation of the judicial nomination wars.'' The
Post urged Democrats to ``stand down'' on any attempt to deny a vote on
the particular judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The editorial went on
to warn that ``a world in which filibusters serve as an active
instrument of nomination politics is not one either party should
want.'' Unfortunately, this advice was rejected and the Senate was
forced to endure an unprecedented seven cloture votes before Mr.
Estrada requested his nomination be withdrawn. That was a sad day for
the Senate--one I hope is never repeated.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal, on February 6, 2003 stated
``Filibusters against judges are almost unheard of. . . . If
Republicans let Democrats get away with this abuse of the system now,
it will happen again and again.'' Unfortunately, that prediction came
true, as the Senate is now blocked from acting on numerous judicial
nominees because of filibusters.
But it is not just editorial pages which have denounced the use of
the filibuster. In fact, some of my Democratic colleagues have
expressed similar views. For example, Senator Daschle, the Democratic
Leader stated: ``As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate
is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but
after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him
down.' An up or down vote, that is all we ask. . . .''
Similarly, Senator Leahy, my friend, colleague, and ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee said ``. . . I, too, do not want to see the
Senate go down a path where a minority of the Senate is determining a
judge's fate on votes of 41.'' And Senator Kennedy, the senior member
on the Judiciary Committee stated, ``Nominees deserve a vote. If our
Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't
just sit on them--that's obstruction of justice.''
I hope that Judge Pickering's nomination is not another example of a
double standard or a strategy of some of my Democratic colleagues to
change the ground rules on judicial nominees. I hope that my Democratic
colleagues will exercise the same independence that I did when I joined
them to invoke cloture on the nominations of Clinton judicial nominees.
Judge Pickering deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves to be
confirmed.
Mr. President, there are so many other things I could say, but I want
to leave enough time for our Mississippi Senators.
Let me just say this. I know Judge Pickering. I have gotten to know
him
[[Page S13539]]
better through this ordeal he has gone through over the last 2\1/2\
years than I ever thought I would. He is a fine man. His family is a
fine family. He sent his kids to integrated schools--the first
integrated schools in Mississippi they could go to. One of them now
sits in the Congress, Chip Pickering, who is one of the fine Congress
people here, and everybody who knows him knows it.
What they have done to him is awful. It is awful. I think it is time
for the Democrats to break free from these rotten outside groups that
just play politics on everything and bring everything down to the issue
of abortion.
I ask unanimous consent relevant material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Watkins Ludlam Winter
& Stennis, P.A.,
Jackson, MS, May 14, 2003.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I take this opportunity to express my
support of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi for service
on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have known Judge Pickering personally and professionally
for all of his adult life. I am convinced that he possesses
the intellect, the integrity and the temperament to serve
with distinction on that court. He is wise, compassionate and
fair, and he is precisely the kind of judge that I would want
to decide matters that would personally affect me or my
family.
While Judge Pickering and I are members of different
political parties and do not hold to the same view of many
public issues, I have always respected his fairness,
objectivity and decency.
He was a member of the Mississippi State Senate when, as
Lieutenant Governor, I presided over that body. I found him
to be one of the most diligent, hardest working and most
respected legislators with whom I served.
I would single out for special commendation his sensitivity
and concern in the area of race relations. I had the
privilege of serving as a member of President Clinton's
National Advisory Board Race several years ago. One of the
impressive initiatives that resulted from the work of that
Board was the establishment of the Institute for Racial
Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi.
Becasue of his long-standing commitment to the cause of
racial equity and racial reconciliation, Judge Pickering was
a leader in the formation of the Institute and served as a
founding member of its Advisory Board.
As a member of the Mississippi Bar for over fifty years and
a former Governor of Mississippi, I am pleased to vouch for
Judge Pickering as being most worthy of confirmation as a
judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sincerely,
William F. Winter.
____
Watkins Ludlam Winter
& Stennis, P.A.,
Jackson, MS, October 25, 2001.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Please permit me to express to you my
support for the confirmation of the Honorable Charles
Pickering of Mississippi for a position on the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
As a former Democratic Governor of Mississippi and as a
long-time colleague of Judge Pickering in the legal
profession and in the public service, I can vouch for him as
one of our state's most respected leaders.
While he and I have not always been in agreement on certain
public issues, I know that he is a man of reason and sound
judgment. He is certainly no right-wing ideologue. He will
bring a fair, open and perceptive mind to the consideration
of all issues before the court.
I have been particularly impressed with his commitment to
racial justice and equity. He and I have worked together for
a number of years in the advancement of racial
reconciliation, and we serve together on the board of the
Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of
Mississippi. He has been one of this state's most dedicated
and effective voices for breaking down racial barriers.
Judge Pickering has demonstrated in every position of
leadership which he has held a firm commitment to the
maintenance of a just society. I believe that he will reflect
those values as a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and I commend him to you as one who in my opinion
will be a worthy addition to that body.
Sincerely,
William F. Winter.
____
The Rangel Law Firm, P.C.,
Corpus Christi, TX, April 1, 2003.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hart
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Hatch and Leahy: I write this letter to urge
approval of Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr.'s nomination to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
I first met Judge Pickering in 1990 in my capacity as a
member of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary. As the Fifth Circuit's representative on the
Committee, I conducted the primary investigation into his
professional qualifications when he was nominated to a
federal district judgeship in Mississippi. I spent many hours
discussing his qualifications with judges, lawyers and lay
people throughout the state. I also interviewed Judge
Pickering, during which we touched on matters relevant to his
qualifications to serve as a federal judge.
The Charles W. Pickering that I have read about in press
reports during the pendency of his current nomination does
not comport with the Charles W. Pickering that I have come to
know in the last thirteen years. Competent, compassionate,
sensitive and free from bias are terms that aptly describe
him. Throughout his professional career as a lawyer and as a
judge, Judge Pickering has tried to do what he thought was
right, consistent with his oaths as an officer of the court
and as a judge. Attempts to demonize him are both unfair and
out of place in a judicial confirmation proceeding.
On a more personal note, I still remember the words of
encouragement I received from Judge Pickering while my own
nomination to the Fifth Circuit was pending before the
Judiciary Committee. On one occasion, Judge Pickering called
me and graciously offered to contact Senator Lott's office to
see if anything could be done to secure a hearing for my
nomination. The word came back that Senator Lott was willing
to help, but the process could not go forward until my home
state senators returned their blue slips. That never
happened. To this day, I very much appreciate the fact that
Judge Pickering reached out to me and offered to help at a
time when my pleas for a hearing had fallen on deaf ears.
The current impasse in the confirmation proceedings is an
unfortunate one, because it continues to ensure many nominees
of goodwill who have answered the call to serve. For their
sake and for the ongoing vitality of our federal judiciary, I
would hope that you and your colleagues can find common
ground. A good starting point would be the confirmation of
Judge Pickering.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Jorge C. Rangel.
____
Goodman & Chesnoff,
Las Vegas, NV, January 16, 2003.
Re the Honorable Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr.'s nomination
to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit.
Chairman Orrin Hatch,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: I had the pleasure of meeting with you
when my partner Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar B. Goodman and I
represented former United States District Court Judge Harry
Chaiborne, in his impeachment proceeding in the United States
Senate. I remember your open-mindedness and fairness in
considering our case.
I am presently on the Board of the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers and a registered Democrat. I have
been a financial supporter for the election of President
William Jefferson Clinton and a contributor to the campaign
of Vice-President Albert Gore, when he ran for President. I
have been an aggressive advocate on the part of citizens
accused of crimes and have appeared in criminal proceedings
in thirty of our fifty states.
I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Judge Pickering
several years ago when I was hired by the former mayor of
Biloxi, Mississippi, Peter J. Halet to represent him in a
very complex and high profile federal trial assigned to Judge
Pickering in the United States District Court in Hattiesburg,
Mississippi.
The case was quite celebrated and the allegations were of
the most serious nature. There were complicated legal
questions and difficult human dynamics. Needless to say, the
emotions ran high in the local community as well as among the
participants. Having arrived in Judge Pickering's courtroom
from across the country, I did not know what to expect in
terms of my reception.
Sufficed to say, from day-one Judge Pickering treated all
of the lawyers I brought with me to assist in the process, my
jury expert and myself with courtesy and patience.
Certain tactics and techniques that we utilized may not
have been used by other lawyers appearing before Judge
Pickering in earlier cases, but he kept an open mind,
listened to our position and gave me as fair a trial as I
have received in any United States District Court, anytime.
Judge Pickering had a grasp of the difficult legal issues
and addressed the case with objectivity and fairness. At no
time during my experience before Judge Pickering, including
the jury selection process, did I ever note even a scintilla
of evidence that Judge Pickering did not treat every citizen
of our great country with equal fairness and consideration.
Based on my experience with Judge Pickering, I am offended
that people are attacking his sterling character. I felt it
important to register my position on his behalf and believe
he would make an outstanding addition to the United States
Court
[[Page S13540]]
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, of which I am admitted and
have appeared.
Very truly yours,
David Z. Chesnoff, ESQ.
____
Tenth Chancery Court
District of Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, MS.
Re the Appointment of Charles Pickering.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: I write in support of the appointment of United
States Judge Charles W. Pickering, III to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Charles Pickering is an able, outstanding
and fair minded judge. I could not conceive that he would
exhibit gender bias toward women inside or outside a court of
law.
As an African American I have personal knowledge and
experience of his efforts to heal the wounds of racial
prejudice, and to resolve conflicts between the races in our
state. As someone who experiences racial prejudice, both open
and subtle, I can only say that my admiration for Judge
Pickering is immense.
I sincerely appreciate all the efforts made by you and your
committee in order to insure fairness in our federal
judiciary. I urge you and your fellow committee members to
recognize diverse opinions of persons, such as myself, who
function and work at ground level in our local communities.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Johnny L. Williams.
____
Deborah Jones Gambrell
& Associates,
Hattiesburg, MS, October 25, 2001.
Re Judge Charles Pickering; Nominee: Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: A few days ago I ran into Judge
Pickering at lunch and congratulated him on his being
selected for an appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. I thereafter learned of opposition to his
appointment and felt compelled to write this letter.
As an African American attorney who practices in the
federal courts of the Southern District of Mississippi, where
Judge Pickering has sat for the past eleven (11) years, I am
concerned that he has come under scrutiny. I have appeared
before Judge Pickering on numerous occasions during the past
eleven (11) years, most often than not, in cases involving
violations of civil rights and employment discrimination
matters. I have found Judge Pickering not only to be a fair
jurist, but one who is concerned with the integrity of the
entire judicial process and assures every participant of a
``level playing field'' and a judge who will apply the law
without regard for the sensitive nature of cases of this
sort, which may have caused him personal discomfort.
I have personally seen him go overboard in working to bring
reconciliation in matters wherein parties, because of lack of
understanding of the law or actual ill will, may have
committed violations because of lack of knowledge, etc. I
have even been appointed by Judge Pickering to represent
indigents who have legitimate claims but not the expertise or
money to litigate the same, when he could have selected
attorneys who might not bring the passion and true concern to
bear to insure that the litigants rights are protected. Even
when I don't prevail, my clients know that they have had
their ``day in court'' before a judge who is open-minded,
fair and just and will follow the law without regard to
color, economic status or political persuasion.
I have known Judge Pickering prior to his taking the bench
and have seen him advocate the rights of the poor and those
disenfranchised by the system. Over the past 11 years, I have
seen him bring the same passion for fairness and equity to
the federal bench.
Though I personally hate to see him leave the Southern
District, I am proud to say that his honesty, integrity and
sense of fair play would make him an excellent candidate for
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sincerely,
Deborah Jones Gambrell.
____
Hattiesburg, MS,
October 25, 2001.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to urge you to confirm
Judge Charles Pickering as a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge. I have had the privilege of working in Judge
Pickering's courtroom for the past two years as a Deputy
United States Marshal.
Judge Pickering brings honor and compassion to the bench.
His courtroom is truly a center of justice and fairness for
men and women of every race and religion. As a Deputy U.S.
Marshal, I have been present for most of his courtroom
sessions. I am always impressed by Judge Pickering's rulings
and opinions. He puts his heart and soul into preparing each
case.
I am overwhelmed at the compassion that Judge Pickering
shows each and every defendant. He truly cares for the
welfare of these defendants and their families. I believe it
grieves him to see mothers and fathers separated from their
loved ones. As a man of great conviction, I know that Judge
Pickering would make a positive impact on the Fifth Circuit.
As a Deputy U.S. Marshal, I am proud to serve under a man
who personifies justice. As a citizen of the United States, I
am glad to know that in times like these, we have Judge
Charles Pickering in the position to maintain dignity and
responsibility in our courtroom. As a woman, I am pleased at
the thought that we will have Judge Pickering looking out for
the rights of women and children from the beach of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sincerely,
Melanie Rube.
____
Holcomb Dunbar,
Oxford, MS, October 25, 2001.
Re U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: This letter is to submit for your
consideration my unqualified endorsement of U.S. District
Judge Charles Pickering for confirmation of his appointment
by the President to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
I have practiced law in the State of Mississippi for more
than 40 years. I am a past president of the Mississippi Bar
Association, and a past member of the Board of Governors of
the American Bar Association. I am a fellow of the American
College of Trial Lawyers and have known Judge Pickering
personally and by judicial reputation for many years.
I am a Democrat and would not want you to confirm any
person to the federal courts of this nation who I felt was
gender or racially biased. I have never known Judge Pickering
to be a person or judge that was anything other than fair and
impartial in his conduct toward women or minorities.
I do not think anyone questions his judicial
qualifications. The American Bar Association has deemed him
``well qualified.''
For these reasons, I strongly endorse his confirmation to
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Respectfully,
Jack F. Dunbar.
____
The Riley Foundation,
Meridian, MS, May 22, 2003.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I was the Democratic Mayor of Meridian
from 1977 to 1985 and a past President of Congregation Beth
Israel.
Injustice and character assassination galls me. Charles
Pickering is no racist. He stood tall when our Temple was
bombed and made every effort to prosecute Sam Bowers who
planned the bombing.
Sincerely,
I. A. Rosenbaum.
____
William Harold Jones,
Petal, MS, October 25, 2001.
Re Charles Pickering, United States District Court of Appeals
Nominee.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I have known Charles Pickering for
probably 20 years or more. He served as a Senator from a
nearby county in the Mississippi Legislature, and I served in
the House of Representatives myself for 13 years. I have
practiced in his Court on many occasions throughout the last
12 or 13 years and I can only say this is the most fair Judge
before whom I have ever appeared. Not only is he fair, he
wants to be fair to all parties. I have never known of any
indifference or prejudice that he has shown against blacks or
women and in my own humble opinion, it is regrettable that he
has been accused of such.
I presently serve as Chairman of the Forrest County
Democratic Executive Committee and although Charles was prior
to his judicial service, a Republican, I do not hesitate to
signify to any person that he is fair and impartial, and has
been so even to myself, a Democrat.
Very sincerely yours,
William H. Jones.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I am
happy to yield whatever time the distinguished senior Senator from
Mississippi desires.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Hatch.
It is a pleasure to serve with my distinguished colleague from
Mississippi who will be speaking later today.
I say to Senator Hatch, thank you for your leadership, your
sensitivity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and for your
specific help in the confirmation process of Judge Charles Pickering to
be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I also want to express appreciation to Senator Frist, the leader, for
giving us time in a very busy schedule to take up
[[Page S13541]]
this nomination. But it is time we go forward with a vote on the
nomination of this good and honest and very capable Federal judge,
Charles Pickering.
Mr. President, as I say, I rise today in strong support of Judge
Charles Pickering's nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that this day has finally
come, and that after almost 2\1/2\ years of waiting, we are finally
moving forward with the consideration of Judge Pickering's nomination
here on the floor of the Senate. I am grateful to Senator Hatch for his
hard work in leading the Judiciary Committee to its recent approval of
Judge Pickering's nomination to the Fifth Circuit, and this important
vote has led to our being able to begin debate on this outstanding
nominee.
As many Senators will recall, Judge Pickering was unanimously
approved by the Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1990 to be a United
States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi.
He was then unanimously confirmed by the full Senate. He has served
honorably in this position for 13 years, and I am happy that the
President has re-nominated Judge Pickering for a promotion to the Fifth
Circuit after his nomination was blocked from consideration by the full
Senate during the 107th Congress.
Charles Pickering and I have known each other for over 40 years,
which doesn't seem possible, and I can personally attest that there is
no other person in the State of Mississippi who is more eminently
qualified to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. President, Charles Pickering graduated first in his class from
the University of Mississippi Law School in 1961, and received his B.A.
degree from Ole Miss with honors in 1959. He practiced law for almost
30 years in Jones County, Mississippi, and during this time served
stints as the prosecuting attorney for Jones County and the City of
Laurel during the 1960's. From 1972 to 1980, Charles served in the
Mississippi State Senate. This was a part-time position, with full-time
demands I might add, that allowed him to continue his law practice
during this period.
Judge Pickering has had an impeccable reputation on the bench in
Mississippi, and he is respected by all sectors of the Mississippi and
national legal community. Scores of attorneys, community leaders, and
other Mississippians from all walks of life have applauded his
nomination to the Fifth Circuit. What a compliment to Judge Pickering,
Mr. President, for him to have the support of those who know him best--
the people he works with in his professional life and spends time with
in his personal endeavors. It is no surprise that the ABA's Standing
Committee on the Federal Judiciary found him ``Well-Qualified'' for
appointment as a Fifth Circuit judge.
Furthermore, he is highly respected within the federal judiciary. He
served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association from
1997 until 2001, and was a member of the Executive Committee for the
final 2 years of his term. He recently completed a term of service on
the Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States.
Judge Pickering has been involved in numerous community and public
service endeavors. He has headed the March of Dimes campaign in Jones
County, Mississippi, and served as Chairman of the Jones County Chapter
of the American National Red Cross. He was also a major participant in
the formation of the Jones County Economic Development Authority,
serving as its first chairman.
Charles Pickering has been a leader in his community and in the state
on race relations, and in standing up for what is right. In 1967, at
the risk of harm to himself and his family, he testified against the
Imperial Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, for the fire-bombing death of
civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer. He was active in his community's
efforts to integrate their public schools, sending all four of his
children to the integrated schools. In 1981, Charles Pickering
represented an African American man falsely accused of robbing a white
teen-aged girl. Although his decision to provide this legal
representation was not supported by some in his community, he
aggressively represented his client, who was found not guilty. He was a
motivating force behind and currently serves on the Board of Directors
of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the
University of Mississippi, our mutual alma mater.
He has also volunteered for the Jones County Heart Fund, the Jones
County Drug Education Council, and the Economic Development Authority
of Jones County. He has always been very active in his church, serving
as a Sunday school teacher, Chairman of the Deacons, Sunday school
superintendent, and church treasurer. From 1983-85, he was the
President of the Mississippi Baptist Convention.
In addition to his many professional and civic activities, Charles
Pickering has also been a good farmer. He was the first president of
the National Catfish Farmers Association and was a leader in catfish
farming during its early days. Most importantly, though, is the fact
that Charles has always put his family first, even with the commitments
I have just described. He has a wonderful wife and four grown children
with spouses and families of their own, including his son, Congressman
Chip Pickering, who is a former member of my staff. Representative
Pickering's integrity is a further testament to the caliber of Judge
Charles Pickering's character.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this
important nomination today, because the Senate needs to act now to
confirm Judge Pickering. He is exceptionally well-qualified for
elevation to the Fifth Circuit, and I strongly endorse his nomination.
He has been waiting far, far too long for a debate and vote on his
nomination. I urge my colleagues to support moving forward with an up-
or-down vote on this important nomination. I know that Judge
Pickering's elevation to the Fifth Circuit is supported by a majority
of Senators, and it is time for this majority to be heard.
As I said, he has been waiting 2\1/2\ years in this process.
Unfortunately, last year he was defeated on a party-line vote and
prevented from being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. But this
year he was reported to the floor. He deserves to have his story told,
and even a vote to occur on his nomination.
I have known this man and his family and his neighbors, the people in
his church, the school officials, the minority leaders in his community
for over 40 years.
I think there used to be a time when a Senator vouched for a person,
a nominee from his State, and it carried real weight. I am here to tell
you, this is one of the finest men, one of the finest family men, one
of the smartest individuals, one of the best judges I have known in my
life. There is no question that he has the educational background, the
qualifications, the experience, the judicial demeanor, and also the
leadership to bring about unity, not division.
That has been the story of his life. He has always been a unifier. He
has always been willing to step up and take on the tough battles in his
home county and in our State of Mississippi.
Senator Hatch made reference to the fact that when he was county
attorney, years ago, in the late 1960s he had the courage to actually
work with the FBI and to testify against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan, something not very healthy for your political career or even
your life at the time. But he took a stand and was defeated for
reelection, to a large degree because of that.
He continued to work in his community and provide leadership. He
practiced law for 30 years. If you want to look at his qualifications,
here they are listed. He was not just an average student. He graduated
first in his class from law school. He graduated from undergraduate
school with honors. He has the highest rating by Martindale Hubbell. In
1990, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be a district
judge. He has been very good in his rulings. In fact, of those that
were appealed, the reversal rate is only 7.9 percent, which is
extraordinarily good. He received from the American Bar Association--
not once but twice--their highest rating of well qualified. They looked
into allegations that were made against him after his first
consideration by the committee and came back and said: He is still well
qualified--not a group known for dismissing allegations or charges that
were made against him.
[[Page S13542]]
He certainly has the qualifications and the experience. In his
community, he is endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, elected
officials of both parties, the head of the local NAACP. The people who
know him best, who know his family, who see him every day, say this is
a good man, qualified to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
He has served on the Federal bench for 13 years. He is highly
respected within the Federal judiciary. In fact, he has served in a
leadership capacity there. He has been on the board of directors of the
Federal Judges Association from 1997 to 2001, and he was on the
executive committee for the final 2 years of his term. He recently
completed a term of service on the Judicial Branch Committee of the
Judicial Conference. He is respected by his fellow judges.
I know some of the Senators on both sides of the aisle have had
Federal judges in their States also vouch for this good man to be on
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
He has had letters of endorsement from a wide span of community
leaders and State leaders in our State, including all five statewide
elected Democrats.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Mississippi,
Office of the Governor,
Jackson, MI, September 24, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: The nomination of Federal
District Judge Charles Pickering to the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals is once again coming before the U.S. Senate
in Washington for consideration. We are the Democratic
statewide officials of Mississippi.
We know Charles Pickering personally and have known him for
many years. We believe Judge Pickering should be confirmed
for this appointment and serve on that court.
Judge Pickering chose to take stands during his career
that were difficult and often courageous. He has worked for
racial reconciliation and helped unify our communities.
Toward that objective, he formed a biracial commission in his
home county to address community issues and led an effort to
start a program for at-risk youth. Furthermore, Judge
Pickering helped establish and serves on the board of the
Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of
Mississippi.
We are all active Democrats. Charles Pickering was, before
rising to the Federal Bench, an active Republican. It is our
hope that Party labels can be transcended in this fight over
his nomination. We should cast a blind eye to partisanship
when working to build a fair and impartial judiciary.
The U.S. Senate has a chance to demonstrate a commitment
to fairness. Judge Pickering's record demonstrates his
commitment to equal protection, equal rights and fairness for
all. His values demand he respect the law and constitutional
precedents and rule accordingly. He does.
He has never been reversed on any substantive issue in a
voting rights or employment discrimination case that has come
before him. His rulings reflect his support for the principle
of one man one vote. Judge Pickering ruled the 1991
Mississippi legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional
for failing to conform to one man one vote standards and
ordered a new election as the remedy.
In 1963, at the age of 26, Judge Pickering was elected
Prosecuting Attorney of Jones County. While holding this
office he confronted the effects of racial hatred and saw
firsthand its result in the form of extensive Ku Klux Klan
violence. It was a horrible time in Mississippi. Judge
Pickering took a public stand against the Klan violence and
terrorism. He worked with the FBI to prosecute and stop the
Klan. Charles Pickering testified against the Klan leader Sam
Bowers in the murder of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer.
In the 1960's Charles Pickering stood up for the voting
rights of African Americans, and for the equal protection of
all. In the 1970's and 1980's he led his community, his
children's school, his political party and his church in
integration and inclusion. Today, he is a voice for racial
reconciliation across our state. As a judge, he is consistent
in his fairness to everyone, and deemed well qualified by
those who independently review his rulings, temperament and
work.
Mississippi has made tremendous progress in race relations
since the 1960s and Charles Pickering has been part of that
progress. We ask the United States Senate to stand up to
those that malign the character of Charles Pickering, and
give him an up or down vote on the Senate Floor.
Very truly yours,
Ronnie Musgrove,
Governor of Mississippi.
Eric Clark,
Secretary of State.
Mike Moore,
Attorney General.
Lester Spell,
Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce.
George Dale,
Commissioner of Insurance.
Mr. LOTT. I have other letters of endorsement and articles supporting
Judge Charles Pickering, and I ask unanimous consent that they be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
From: Representative Phillip West, Chairman.
Date: April 25, 2003.
Re: Judge Charles Pickering.
position statement on judge charles pickering
After having listened to Judge Charles Pickering during his
meeting with the Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus,
reviewed materials concerning Judge Pickering's record as a
Jones County attorney, and spoken with some of the members of
the Institute of Racial Reconciliation, I have decided to
reverse my position regarding Judge Pickering's nomination to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When I originally signed the petition against his
nomination I was not aware of the information that has
subsequently come to my attention. I labored under the
impression that opponents had a clear and convincing
argument. Now I am not certain that the ammunition on him is
as powerful and as convincing as I was led to believe. I
certainly do not believe Judge Pickering is presently a
``racist''.
Judge Pickering's record of working with both races and
working for racial reconciliation in past and present years
is beyond what many whites we have supported and continue to
support in positions of leadership have done in our state.
While I do not condemn and judge all white men and women to
be ``staunch racist'', I do believe many have racist
tendencies and beliefs as evidenced by the racism instilled
in our many institutions. At least Judge Pickering has shown
a willingness to work for racial reconciliation prior to his
consideration for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
position.
I hope and pray understanding of the need for racial
reconciliation by Judge Pickering will help strengthen the
Fifth Circuit's fortitude in resolving racial issues and
concerns in a spirit that God directs.
I recognize different people can review the same facts and
reach different conclusions. I respect their right, for
``Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.''
It would also be ``Politically Correct'' for me to remain
silent. However, I cannot support a position that may be
``Politically Correct'' but I feel is ``Morally Wrong''. I
truly believe we all should embrace truth, justice, and
fairness whether we are black or white, rich or poor,
democrat or republican. Our state needs it. Our children
deserve it.
____
American Bar Association,
Houston, TX, February 10, 2003.
Re Charles W. Pickering, Sr., United States Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: The purpose of this letter is to
confirm the recommendation of this Committee previously given
as to the nomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr. for
appointment as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
A substantial majority of our Committee is of the opinion
that Charles W. Pickering, Sr. is Well Qualified and a
minority of the Committee is of the opinion that Charles W.
Pickering, Sr. is Qualified for this appointment.
A copy of this letter has been sent to Charles W.
Pickering, Sr. for his information.
Yours very truly,
Carol E. Dinkins,
Chair.
____
[From the Clarion-Ledger, Mar. 9, 2003]
Judge Pickering--Senate Should Confirm Nomination
As outlined on the front of The Clarion-Ledger's
Perspective section today, the almost two-year-old circus
that has become the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles
Pickering Sr. to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has
been based allegations that Judge Pickering is a racist.
This is not true and is very unfair to Pickering.
A throng of special interest groups--including very
reputable ones--has opposed President Bush's nomination of
Pickering on the basis of that charge of longstanding career
racism by the Laurel jurist.
Trouble is, those groups and the political faces in the
Senate that depend upon the support of them, have failed to
make a credible case against Pickering on the racism charge.
Pickering is a what conservative Republican judge who is a
devout Christian and a
[[Page S13543]]
practicing Southern Baptist. As has been made clear to those
following the Capitol Hill controversy, the hue and cry is
about racism but the undercurrent of opposition isn't about
race at all--it's about the thorny issue of abortion rights.
As in the case of fellow Bush federal appellate court
nominee Miguel Estrada, the opposition to Pickering among
Senate Democrats isn't about the judge's qualifications. It's
about the judge's politics.
And while Senate Republicans played the same political game
with the judicial nominees of former President Bill Clinton,
the politics of personal destruction in the case of Pickering
has reached a new low.
By any reasonable standard, Charles Pickering Sr. has lived
the life and done the work of a man with his heart in the
right place on race in a state where such a life and work
wasn't always easy or appreciated.
Pickering isn't a Johnny-Come-Lately to the concept of
meaningful racial reconciliation. He's been part of the
solution to Mississippi's vexing racial conundrum for
decades. He has been an able jurist, a contributing citizen
and a responsible politician and jurist.
Those who seek to oppose Judge Pickering on the grounds of
his political philosophy or religious views should do so
openly and in aboveboard fashion--not hiding behind the
political skirts of dubious charges of racism.
Racism is a serious evil. Mississippians know better than
most in America the severity of racism and the vile
manifestations it can assume. Mississippi has borne witness
to unspeakable acts of cruelty and mayhem in the name of race
literally since statehood.
In Mississippi's fragile racial environment--one in which
people of good will and good intentions have sought to build
bridges--crying ``wolf'' on false charges of racism is a
particularly onerous political and social crime.
On a broader scale, the politics of judicial confirmation
threatens to subvert the partisan political give and take of
the presidency in judicial nominations to provide
philosophical balance to the courts.
Confirmation hearings should be about the qualifications
and character of the judicial nominee, not the next
presidential election.
The Senate Judiciary Committee owes Judge Pickering a fair
hearing based on an examination of his record--his entire
record--as a judge, as a public figure and as a man.
Based on what we have known of that record, a fair hearing
by the committee will produce no impediment to confirmation.
____
Constance Iona Slaughter Harvey,
Forest, MS, October 23, 2001.
Hon. Charles W. Pickering, Sr.,
U.S. District Court Judge,
Hattiesburg, MS.
Dear judge Pickering: Thank you for reminding me of the
upcoming Institute for Racial Reconciliation Board Retreat to
be held Friday, November 9 through Saturday, November 10,
2001. Unfortunately, my heavy schedule will prevent me from
attending. On those dates, I will also be required to
participate in the Annual State Convention of Mississippi
Action for Progress Head Start and facilitate a session at
the Metro Black Women Lawyers' retreat. Both of these events
require my personal involvement.
While I will not be in attendance, I am assured, because of
your integrity, that you will continue to provide the quality
of leadership you have provided in the past. You have served
Mississippi and her people well even to the extent of taking
positions that were unpopular. This sometimes meant great
personal sacrifice and loss of political gain for you.
Thank you for being a human being and for caring what
happens to other human beings. I am especially mindful of
your commitment to racial reconciliation over the past twenty
years. Because of this commitment, our future looks better.
I'll contact you regarding the developments at the Retreat
around the 15th of November. My best to you.
Sincerely yours,
Constance Slaughter-Harvey.
____
[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 9, 2003]
Trials of a Southern Judge
evidence doesn't support charges of racism against charles pickering
(By Janita Poe and Tom Baxter)
When court is not in session, Deborah Gambrell and U.S.
District Judge Charles W. Pickering often hole up with other
lawyers in a courthouse anteroom--and debate the law.
They're there to schedule trials or sentencings. But
Gambrell, a liberal African-American lawyer, and Pickering, a
conservative white judge, invariably fall into spirited
exchanges on legal issues and philosophies.
``We've had debates over everything from Clarence Thomas to
the details of some case,'' Gambrell said. ``Judge Pickering
is a conservative, but he wants to hear your opinion. And
he's amenable to having his mind changed, too.''
Gambrell sees no racial bias in the judge. On the contrary,
she said, he appoints motivated lawyers such as her to
represent workers--many of them black--who claim they were
wronged by employers. ``He loves the law and wants you to
represent your client well,'' Gambrell said, ``and I don't
think that's discriminatory.''
Strange as it sounds, Gambrell is talking about the same
Charles Pickering who made headlines last year as a reputed
old-line Southern bigot. The liberal lobbying group People
for the American Way, for example, claims Pickering is
``hostile to civil rights.'' NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says
Pickering uses ``a racial lens to look at America.''
Pickering drew the criticism after President Bush nominated
him for a job on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court. A Senate
committee controlled by Democrats, heeding complaints about
the judge's racial views, rejected him.
With the Senate now in Republican hands, Bush has
renominated Pickering, prompting new Democratic charges that
Republicans, even after the Trent Lott fiasco, are catering
to racist Southern whites.
In Mississippi, however, many describe a different man than
the one feared and vilified by critics inside the Beltway.
Rather, their up-close description of Pickering is that he
is a relative progressive on race, a man who in the 1960s,
when much of Mississippi was still fighting efforts to kill
Jim Crow, testified against a murderous Ku Klux Klansman. He
is a parent who, despite a poisonous racial atmosphere around
Laurel, bucked white flight to send his four children to
newly integrated public schools.
Pickering has been excoriated for seeking a lighter
sentence for a white man convicted in a cross burning (see
related story). But he also sought reduced sentences for many
black first offenders. He has pushed to establish a racial
reconciliation center at the University of Mississippi, his
alma mater. And, both on the bench and off, he has pressed
white prison officials to ensure the rights of black inmates.
The judge's record is not spotless on race. In the infamous
cross-burning case, he worried aloud how a tough sentence
would play in the community--apparently the white community.
And as a law student in 1959, he published a paper laying
out a strategy for maintaining a ban on mixed-race marriages
in Mississippi.
Yet these are two exceptions, the second more than four
decades old, in an otherwise surprisingly upstanding history
on race.
Pickering will not comment publicly, pending Senate action
on his nomination, which is expected this month or next.
roots: religion and race
Pickering, the son of a Laurel dairy farmer, has always
stayed close to his south-central Mississippi roots. The New
Orleans-based appeals court job would be his first post
outside Mississippi.
A land of bayous and pine trees, the region around Laurel
and Hattiesburg is a place where people take their religion
seriously. Methodist and Baptist churches line the main
streets; even today, when much of the Bible Belt has
succumbed to secularism, day care centers are named ``River
of Life'' and ``Alpha Christian.''
Pickering is a 42-year member at First Baptist Church of
Laurel, where he has been a deacon, a Sunday school teacher
and church treasurer. In the mid-'80s, he was president of
the Southern Baptists in Mississippi and was allied with the
``inerrantists,'' who maintain the Bible is the word of God
and its accounts are factual.
Racism once had as strong grip on the region as religion,
and Pickering was reared during a period of open,
unquestioned apartheid. That upbringing has lent some
credibility to critics' charges.
Marilyn Huff, a white 65-year-old who lived next to the
Pickering farm, recalls playing hopscotch and marbles with
Pickering and several children of black sharecroppers who
lived nearby. But the black kids attended a different school.
``We got on our bus and went to our school, and they got on
their bus and went to theirs,'' she said. ``I think the South
accepted those things when other areas of the country did
not.''
Pickering's 1959 paper on ``miscegenation,'' or mixed-race
marriage, reflects that acceptance. In the article, which was
based on a case of that era, Pickering suggests that
Mississippi lawmakers could strengthen the state's anti-
miscegenation law against legal challenges by reviewing
similar laws in 23 other states. Pickering published the
article in the Mississippi Law Journal, where he was a staff
writer.
The judge's son, U.S. Rep. ``Chip'' Pickering, 39, explains
the article as nothing more than an assigned ``exercise'' in
which students ``assessed laws on interracial marriage and
told why the Mississippi law was struck down.''
The congressman's account, however, does not fully convey
the tone of the brief. The article did not simply analyze
problems with the law, but suggested how it could better
withstand court challenges. As People for the American Way
points out, Pickering ``expressed no moral outrage over laws
prohibiting and criminalizing interracial marriage'' but
instead calmly offered a strategy for maintaining a ban--as
if the law were as ethically neutral as, say, restrictions on
double-parking.
Elsewhere, by the 1950s, people inside and outside the
state were beginning to question Mississippi's adherence to
Jim Crow strictures. In 1955, Pickering's junior college near
Laurel achieved a breakthrough of sorts when its all-white
football team, in a quest for a national championship,
decided to play an integrated squad from California despite
[[Page S13544]]
protests from the state's racist establishment.
In 1962, as Pickering started his law practice, the Federal
government forced the University of Mississippi to admit
James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran. Students and
locals responded by staging a riot that killed two people and
injured hundreds.
And that was in relatively genteel Oxford. Laurel, a
rougher place to begin with, became a flash point of racial
and class tensions, with leftist union and reactionary Ku
Klux Klan organizers alike recruiting members from the 4,000
workers at the town's big Masonite plant. The toxic
atmosphere soon presented Pickering with a chance to depart
Mississippi's well-worn racial path.
Laurel was home to a man who combined ferver for both
Christianity and apartheid to produce a vicious, ragtag holy
war in defense of the status quo. In 1966, Sam Bowers, the
Scripture-quoting imperial wizard of the White Knights of the
Ku Klux Klan, led a gang of Klansmen to firebomb the home of
Hattiesburg NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer, killing him.
Pickering, then serving as Jones County prosecutor, could
have avoided the trial, as the slaying took place in a
neighboring county. But Jim Dukes, the prosecutor, who
presented the case against Bowers, asked his colleague to
testify to Bowers' violent character, and Pickering agreed--
despite the risk of Klan reprisals.
``He was putting himself at risk of bodily harm, social
ostracism and economic destruction,'' Dukes said. ``These
were turbulent times, and testifying against the Klan was not
a popular thing to do.''
Pickering lost a race for a state House seat later that
year. Bowers--whose trial ended in a hung jury and who was
not convicted until 1998--took credit for beating him.
republican politics
Like many Mississippians of his generation, Pickering began
political life as a Democrat and switched to the GOP. He did
so, however, before the party had become a haven for Southern
whites disaffected with the national Democrats' liberal
racial policies.
Pickering changed parties in 1964, a time when
Mississippi's Democratic leadership stood for continued
segregation. Most notoriously, Democratic Gov. Ross Barnettt
had personally turned Meredith away from Ole Miss and helped
provoke the later rioting. The Mississippi Democratic
establishment, in the thrall of Jim Crow, sent an all-white
delegation to the 1964 national convention and was denied
seating.
The small but growing Mississippi GOP leaned to the right
on many issues, as it still does, reflecting a pro-business
bent. But compared with the Democratic leadership, many
Republicans were moderate or even progressive on
desegregation and on compliance with federal court orders.
The state GOP ``was characterized by some very powerful
business types who could afford to be more moderate in their
political views,'' said Marty Wiseman, director of the John
Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State
University.
Laurel's powerful state senator, E.K. Collins, led the all-
white delegation to the Democratic convention. In 1971,
Pickering took Collins on and beat him. ``It was considered
nervy for a young upstart to run against an established
longtime Dixiecrat like E.K.,'' recalled former Rep. Tucker
Buchanan, a Democrat who became friends with Pickering in the
Legislature.
In the Senate, Pickering developed a reputation for being
able to talk with all sides and occasionally broker a deal--
even though, as one of only two Republicans, he was excluded
from Senate leadership.
``He was right down the middle. He was a moderate,'' said
former Gov. William Winter, a progressive Democrat who was
lieutenant governor when Pickering arrived at the
Legislature.
The new governor, Democrat William Waller, was the first in
many years who had not made race the focus of his campaign,
and as a prosecutor had heroically but unsuccessfully mounted
two cases against white supremacist Byron de la Beckwith for
the murder of the NAACP's Medgar Evers. ``Charles was of that
stripe,'' Winter said.
Robert G. Clark Jr., who is today the House speaker pro
tem, in 1968 became the first African-American elected to the
Legislature. He did not receive a warm welcome. ``It was
pretty lonely back then,'' Clark said.
But Pickering was cordial. ``He was one who didn't mind
coming up to me to shake my hand and say, `How are you doing
today, Rep. Clark?' ''
Pickering was elected state GOP chairman in 1976, serving
with then-Executive Director Haley Barbour, who went on to
become Republican national chairman, a powerful Washington
lobbyist and--this year--a candidate for governor.
Pickering won credit as a party peacemaker after a bruising
fight between supporters of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan at
the 1976 GOP convention. But he lost his one bid for federal
office in 1978, when Thad Cochran defeated him in the U.S.
Senate primary. He lost again in a run for state attorney
general a year later, ending his career in elective politics.
the sovereignty commission
Pickering's terms as a state senator coincided with the
final years of the infamous Mississippi Sovereignty
Commission. Created in 1956 in reaction to the U.S. Supreme
Court's school desegration decision, the agency was supposed
to protect Mississippi and her ``sister states'' from federal
encroachment, by ``any and all acts and things deemed
necessary and proper.''
The commission used its charge to spy on, intimidate and
harass those considered to be racial troublemakers or outside
``agitators.'' It helped fund the reactionary white Citizens
Councils and kept up a system of informants who reported to
the commission on the activities of the FBI as well as civil
rights groups.
As a state senator Pickering voted twice, in 1972 and 1973,
along with the majority, to continue funding for the
commission--votes his critics have highlighted during the
confirmation hearings. By the early '70s, however,
Mississippi had generally dismantled legal segregation, and
the agency was trying to retool itself as a general
investigative organization.
Waller vetoed the funding in 1973, and the commission was
officially dissolved in 1977, its files sealed. In the end,
Pickering voted with the majority to end the commission and
seal the records.
In 1990, during hearings on his nomination as district
judge, Pickering said he ``never had any contact'' with the
commission and that he knew ``very little about what is in
those records.'' His opponents point out, however, that when
the Sovereignty Commission's files were subsequently opened,
an investigator's memo was found naming him.
The document suggested Pickering and two other legislators
had communicated with the commission on its investigation of
labor union activity in Laurel. The three lawmakers were
``very interested'' and ``requested to be advised of
developments,'' according to the memo.
Pickering's son, the congressman, says the agency had
approached his father, not the other way around. ``His only
contact came in 1972, when a Sovereignty Commission employee
approached him and said he had information about a radical
group infiltrating a union in Jones County. My father's only
response was, `Keep me informed.' ''
Again, this may be too easy a dismissal. The nature of the
supposed union infiltration is in dispute. The commission
memo says the agency was focusing on a pro-civil rights
group, but in Pickering's confirmation hearing last year, the
judge said he was concerned about Klan activity.
Any alleged connection to the racism of the Sovereignty
Commission sharply contrasts with Pickering's public and
personal actions in support of integration in the same
decade.
at home in laurel
Even though they lived in racially polarized Jones County,
Pickering and his wife, Margaret Ann, sent their four
children to newly integrated public schools in the '70s.
Allison Montgomery, the judge's second-youngest child,
recalls thinking her father had to set an example for other
families by supporting integration. She was bused to the
formerly all-black Oak Park High the year it debuted as an
integrated elementary school.
``It was never discussed in our home, but my sense was that
because Daddy had a reputation as being one who supported
what was right, that it was what we were expected to do,''
said Montgomery, 35, a homemaker who lives in Shreveport, La.
``Even though it meant we would end up in a minority
situation, I think the powers that be in our community knew
he would still support the public school system.''
Montgomery has fond memories of learning new games and
chants with her black schoolmates, but she remembers several
white parents moving their children out of her hometown
because the teacher was black. Some families enrolled their
children in private schools. ``Suddenly people were sending
their kids to a little small academy called Heidelburg
Academy,'' she said. ``It was in Jasper County, and they
probably had a 20- or 30-minute drive, at least.
Black people in the Laurel area took note of Pickering's
stance on racial issues.
When Larry Thomas was a child, he watched his father, a
local civil rights leader, work out the logistics of
demonstrations with Pickering. Later, he dealt directly with
Pickering as a fellow economic-development board member.
Thomas, 49, a pharmacist, is a black Democrat.
Over the years, Pickering disregarded white criticism to
make alliances with black people, Thomas said.
``When things were changing in the '60s and '70s, he always
tried to reach a compromise. He was always trying to
understand the thinking and concerns of the black
community,'' Thomas said. ``To me, that's the most I expect
of a white man. The rest is our responsibility.''
Melvin Mack, 53, a black county supervisor, grew up about
four miles from Pickering's family and, over the years, has
seen him at dozens of black gatherings. Pickering may have
been reared in an era when discrimination was the rule, he
said, but he has always been friendly with blacks.
``You will see him at black family reunions,'' Mack said.
``You will see him at funerals when a black family's loved
one has died.''
In the '90s, Pickering was an early, prominent supporter
for establishing what became the William Winter Institute for
Racial Reconciliation at Ole Miss. Among its other functions,
the institute promotes programs to combat racial prejudice.
Pickering has also responded to complaints about the abuse
of black State prison inmates. Sometimes he has ordered
changes
[[Page S13545]]
from the bench and other times, when evidence did not fully
substantiate the abuse, worked informally. Pickering ``will
call me afterward and ask that we look into what is going
on,'' said Leonard Vincent, general counsel for the State
Corrections Department.
In one case, such informal intervention led to the firing
of at least two guards.
``Judge Pickering was the only white leader we could get to
stand up against the guards and the penal system,'' said a
local civic activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
``I mean, he called them on the carpet and cleaned them up.''
Pickering, the activist said, did not seek to publicize his
behind-the-scenes effort. ``I'm not saying Judge Pickering is
a saint,'' he said. ``He is a conservative man. But he's not
afraid to stand up for what is right.''
The case against pickering
Such sentiments do not sway opponents.
``Judge Pickering's record isn't erased just because he has
African-American friends in his community,'' said NAACP
Chairman Bond, a former Georgia legislator. ``This is a
question of what kind of Federal judiciary are we going to
have. Are we going to have one occupied by women and men who
support justice and fairness, or who oppose it?''
Many Pickering opponents object to his nomination on
grounds unrelated to his racial attitudes. The predominantly
black Magnolia Bar Association of Mississippi is one such
opponent.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, whose population is 45
percent nonwhite. But of 14 judges' seats that are filled,
only two are Hispanic and only one is black. The Magnolia Bar
has sought more diversity and more liberal voices on the
court for years, President Melvin Cooper said, so Pickering--
a conservative white--is the wrong choice.
``We're looking at . . . the decisions he would make on the
bench,'' Cooper said.
Abortion-rights groups have joined the fight against
Pickering, also because of his conservative personal views.
As a State legislator in the mid-1970s, Pickering led an
effort to make the national Republican platform anti-
abortion, specifically opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's
``intrusion'' into the issue with Roe v. Wade.
``We're concerned that would color the attitude he would
take to the appellate bench,'' said Judy Appelbaum, a vice
president of the National Women's Law Center.
When asked about abortion at his confirmation hearing last
year, the judge sounded less militant. ``My personal views
are immaterial and irrelevant,'' the judge responded. ``I
will tell you that I will follow the constitution, and I will
apply the Supreme court precedent.''
Pickering has yet to rule on an abortion matter. But the
5th U.S. Circuit may well consider the constitutionality of
state statutes designed to make abortions more difficult to
obtain. In Mississippi, for example, legislation is pending
that would restrict the time when an abortion is legal and
require abortion providers to be board-certified in
obstetrics and gynecology.
Yet allegations of bigotry have hurt the judge's chances--
and damaged his reputation--more than concerns about his
general conservatism. His son says Pickering is willing to
undergo another round of intense scrutiny and heated attacks
to restore his good name.
``The stereotype of what Mississippi is can easily be used
against someone like my father, who is a Southern Baptist and
from an older generation of white Mississippians,'' he said.
``But my father is not at all the man they try to say he is.
We hope in this second go-round the truth catches up with the
false accusations.''
The law-review article on mixed-race marriage laws casts a
cloud on that record. But the evidence suggests that the
judge has moved on since he wrote it.
``That was 1959,'' said Angela Barnett. ``Back in the day,
everyone was taught to think that way.''
Barnett, who is white, went before Pickering on drug
charges in 1997--with her black husband, Harrell. The couple,
who now live in Houston, say the judge helped them get their
lives together with lenient sentences and advice.
``If he was racist, he wouldn't even be thinking about
helping us,'' Barnett said. ``He would have said `Heck, no,
she's married to a black man, I'm not going to help them.'''
When the Senate debates Pickering's nomination, his
conservative views--on abortion, federalism, the role of the
judiciary and other matters--will be fair game. The judge is
quite conservative by most measures, and many people would
prefer more moderate or liberal nominees.
But in Mississippi, the notion that Pickering is a racial
throwback and a friend to cross-burners doesn't sell.
Pascagoula attorney Richard ``Dickie'' Scruggs, for
example, is a believer in Pickering.
Scruggs is a ``mass tort'' trial lawyer--the sort who signs
up thousands of plaintiffs to join in class-action lawsuits--
who was lead litigator in Mississippi's multibillion-dollar
tobacco suit.
``Judge Pickering has been in the camp that was considered
liberal to moderate in the 1960s,'' said Scruggs, a Democrat
who is also Trent Lott's brother-in-law. ``He's a bright
jurist and has a moral compass that gives him a real sense of
fairness. . . .
``I think he would be a great [appeals court] judge. I just
don't know why he would want to go through this process
again.''
Mr. LOTT. One of the criticisms was, well, the Judge was the
intermediary in sending some of the letters of support. I am not going
to belabor the point, but as a matter of fact, I have the list of who
these people were. They were people he had known for 30 years, former
college friends, law school friends, people he practiced law with. It
was in the aftermath of the anthrax attack here on the Capitol. The
only way he could make sure the letters got to the Judiciary Committee
in a timely way was to send them himself. The allegation that there was
something inappropriate about that is totally baseless, and it is just
the type of thing that has been used against him.
Another allegation is that when he was a State senator he had some
relationship with what was then known as the Sovereignty Commission.
When he went into the Senate, I think when he was first sworn in,
representatives from that organization said they had some concerns
about Klan activity with regard to labor unions down in his home
county.
He said: Keep me posted.
Seldom do they note the fact that he subsequently voted to abolish
the Sovereignty Commission; again, a very frivolous charge. To have
your name mentioned 30 years later in a report, that they had some
happenstance contact with him, certainly should not be disqualifying.
From all walks of life in Mississippi, people are very much in
support of this nomination. He hasn't just been a lawyer and a judge
and family man. He has been involved. He helped bring his hometown
school through integration. His kids went to the public schools. The
first time I saw his son--now a Congressman--Chip Pickering, he was
playing linebacker for the football team for the Laurel Tornadoes, R.
H. Watkins Laurel High School. He was a great athlete on a team that
was probably 80 percent African American. They have always been willing
to take a stand.
He was head of the local March of Dimes. He headed the local Red
Cross. He has been involved in economic development. He has been
involved in the Heart Fund, the Drug Education Council, Sunday school
teacher, chairman of the deacons, church treasurer, president of the
Mississippi Baptist Convention. Some people look at that almost like it
is an indictment. It is a great honor for the people of your faith to
honor you to head their organization statewide.
He has even been a farmer and was the first president of the National
Catfish Farmers Association. I had contact with him then.
President Reagan once wrote in a note where there was a picture of a
mother and her son: The apple never falls too far from the tree. The
point was, if the child is really an outstanding person, he probably
came from a very strong and good tree. True. In this case, there is not
a finer young man I know of than Congressman Chip Pickering who has
labored valiantly to tell the truth about his dad. If you want to get
emotional, watch a son work for his father. I think the kind of man
Chip Pickering is tells you a lot about the father who brought him into
the world, along with his mother.
This certainly is an outstanding individual. He had his reputation
besmirched a couple of years ago. He has been willing to continue to
stand and fight to have the record corrected and to see this through to
a conclusion. I hope the Senate will not filibuster this judge. At
least give him a direct vote. Or if we have to have a vote on cloture,
vote to invoke cloture, and let's move this nomination forward.
There is a real fester developing here in this institution,
institutionally and individually. We have to lance it or it is going to
demean us as individuals and the institution. We have to stop it. This
is the place to do it. This man should be confirmed for the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 11 minutes 9 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
[[Page S13546]]
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a good and
brave man from the State of Mississippi, Judge Charles Pickering. I
also rise today to talk about a judicial nominating process that is
badly broken and out of control. Judge Charles Pickering has been
victimized by inaccurate race baiting and political trash talk of the
news media, Members of Congress, and Washington's liberal elite. Judge
Pickering's critics continue to unfairly label him a racist and
segregationist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Judge Pickering has worked courageously in difficult times--difficult
times many in this body could not hope to understand--to eliminate
racial disparities in Mississippi and the South. My good friend, former
Governor William Winter of Mississippi, a Democrat and one of the
South's most respected progressives, came to Washington to support
Judge Pickering's nomination. Sadly, Governor Winter's praise and
firsthand account of Pickering's true record fell on deaf ears by most
Capitol Hill Democrats.
Charles Pickering deserves an up-or-down vote on his nomination, as
does another fine nominee who has been treated in the same shameful
manner, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of California. On both of these
nominees, I fear we are about to cave in once again to the left-leaning
special interest groups. These special interest groups, like termites,
have come out of the woodwork to denounce Justice Brown simply because
she is an African American who also happens to be conservative. Never
mind that Justice Brown is intelligent, articulate, chock-full of
common sense, and highly qualified to serve on the Federal appeals
court bench. Never mind that in 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted
to retain Justice Brown. That is a job approval rating most of us could
only dream of.
The special interest groups don't care about any of that. They don't
want to hear how qualified Justice Brown and Judge Pickering are, or
how much the voters like the job they have done.
No, their only mission is to assassinate these good people's
character and to take them down one way or another because they fear
they won't cater to their liberal agenda. They are right; they won't.
These fine nominees are much too independent and much too intelligent
to be held hostage to anyone's extreme agenda. Or as Thomas Sowell
wrote of Justice Brown in a column headlined ``A Lynch Mob Takes Aim at
Judicial Pick'':
What really scares the left about Brown is that she has
guts as well as brains. She won't weaken or waver.
So they can publish all the racist cartoons they want and they can
demonize Judge Pickering and brutally and callously reduce Justice
Brown to tears at her committee meeting. They can sneeringly accuse
them both of being outside the mainstream. But President Bush knows and
the voters of California and Mississippi know, and the majority of this
Senate knows, Charles Pickering and Janice Rogers Brown are not the
ones who are outside the mainstream. The ones who are completely out of
touch are the special interest groups that have taken this nominating
process hostage and those in this body who have aided and abetted their
doing so.
Speaking of lynch mobs, my all-time favorite movie is ``To Kill a
Mockingbird.'' In the movie's key scene, you may remember, Atticus
Finch, a lawyer who is raising two small children, is defending a black
man unjustly accused of rape. That lynch mob also tries to take justice
into its own hands. Atticus confronts them at the jailhouse door. His
daughter Scout joins him and sees that the leader of the mob is someone
she knows. She calls to him by name: Hey, Mr. Cunningham. Remember me?
You are Walter's daddy. Walter is a good boy. Tell him I said hello.
After a dramatic pause, Mr. Cunningham turns away and says to the
mob: Let's go home, boys.
This group, bent on injustice, was turned aside by a small girl who
appealed to them as individuals.
My friends in this Chamber, I know you, and I appeal to each of you
as individuals, as fathers, mothers, colleagues and friends. Most of
you were taught in Sunday school to do unto others as you would have
them do unto you. This is not treating someone as you would want to be
treated yourself. This extreme partisanship and deliberately planned
obstructionism has gone on long enough in this body. I wish we could do
away with the 60-vote rule that lets a small minority rule this Chamber
and defeat the majority, reversing the rule of free government
everywhere; everywhere, that is, except in the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MILLER. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote--just an up-or-down
vote, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 10
minutes equally divided with, of course, the same understanding that
Senator Cochran will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shan't because I have
already spoken about this with the distinguished senior Senator from
Utah, but my understanding is this is 10 minutes equally divided on top
of whatever time is remaining?
Mr. HATCH. That is right, with the understanding that Senator Cochran
will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the current order--I was off the
floor when the order was entered last night--what is the current order
on who speaks last?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The final 5 minutes is to the majority
leader or his designee, and the previous 5 minutes is to the minority
leader or his designee.
Mr. LEAHY. It is perfectly all right. I think the Senator from Utah
has proposed a very fair proposal. I have no objection.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair understands
the request is to add 5 minutes to each side.
Mr. HATCH. Right.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the control of--
Mr. LEAHY. The same way.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The same persons controlling the time.
Mr. HATCH. With the understanding that Senator Cochran will be given
the leader's 5 minutes at the very end of the debate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Does the distinguished Senator care to go ahead?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 35 minutes on the Democratic
side and 10 minutes on the Republican side.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Chair repeat that, please? I didn't hear what the
Chair said.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 35 minutes to the Democratic
side and 10 minutes to the Republican side, 5 minutes added to each
side. The Chair reminds the Senators that the last 5 minutes on each
side is under the control of the leaders or their designees.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's strong
leadership on this issue. I rise in the strong support of the
nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I want to say, first, that I appreciate the honesty, the integrity,
and the forthrightness of my colleague from Georgia on every issue, but
particularly on this issue. He has been very much out front, and this
Senator greatly appreciates his attitude and his dedication to ensuring
that quality judges are confirmed to every circuit of the United States
and every district of the Federal bench.
I rise with some special appreciation for Judge Pickering's
nomination because he is nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
In 1969, when this Senator became a member of the Georgia bar,
Georgia was a member of the Fifth Circuit. So I have been a member of
the Fifth Circuit bar since my early days. The Eleventh Circuit was
created in 1980. We split off at that time, so I no longer argue cases
on a regular basis in the Fifth Circuit.
[[Page S13547]]
The Fifth Circuit has been very blessed with a number of great
judges. Look at the judges who came from difficult times, such as my
very good friend Judge Griffin Bell who, after serving as a member of
the Fifth Circuit, came to be Attorney General; Elbert Tuttle, Judge
Frank Johnson--any number of judges such as these judges at the
district court level--Judge W.A. Bootle. These individuals came through
very difficult times and distinguished themselves as judges.
Judge Charles Pickering came through that same very difficult time in
the South, a time in the South when race was a very critical and the
most forthright issue. Charles Pickering looked the racial issue in the
eye and provided the kind of leadership of which every American would
be very proud.
As we now consider his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, I could not be prouder of any individual than I am of the
nomination of Charles Pickering. I am going to have a lot more to say
about this, but today we have the opportunity to bring this nomination
to an up-or-down vote.
I encourage all of my colleagues to give him a vote on the floor of
the Senate. Let's put this good man, this good judge on the Fifth
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 3 minutes
remaining--2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come at this differently than the
Senator from Mississippi. I don't know Charles Pickering. I have met
him briefly only twice. But I care about the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Bridget Lipscomb and I have studied his record diligently.
Nearly 40 years ago, I was a law clerk on the Fifth Circuit for the
great Judge John Minor Wisdom. I have been trying to think of something
to say to the Members on the other side to help them change their minds
on this nomination.
Judge Wisdom was a member of the Federal court that ordered the
University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith to Ole Miss. The
Fifth Circuit played a crucial role in desegregating the South. Judges
Tuttle, Rives, Brown, and Wisdom were real heroes at that time. Crosses
were burned in front of their homes. I will have more to say about
this, but Judge Pickering is a worthy successor to the court of Judges
Wisdom, Tuttle, Rives, and Brown.
While those judges were ordering the desegregation of Deep South
schools, while crosses were being burned in front of their homes, Judge
Pickering was enrolling his children in those same newly desegregated
schools, and Judge Pickering in his hometown was testifying in court
against Sam Bowers, the man the Baton Rouge Advocate called the ``most
violent living racist,'' at a time when people were killing people
based on race.
Many of my generation have changed their minds about race in the
South over the last 40 years. That is why the opposition to Judge
Pickering to me seems so blatantly unfair. He hasn't changed his mind.
There is nothing to forgive him for. There is nothing to condemn. There
is nothing to excuse. He was not a product of his times. He led his
times. He spoke out for racial justice. He testified against the most
dangerous of the cross burners. He did it in his own hometown, with his
own neighbors, at a time in our Nation's history when it was hardest to
do. He stuck his neck out for civil rights.
Mr. President, will our message to the world be: Stick out your neck
for civil rights for Mississippi in the 1960s and then we will cut your
neck off in the Senate in 2003, all in the name of civil rights? I
certainly hope not.
Charles Pickering earned this nomination. He is a worthy successor to
the court of Judge Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the time has been used. I know
the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee are much more
lengthy. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote,
he be given time to finish his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. What was the request?
Mr. HATCH. That immediately following the vote on Judge Pickering,
the distinguished Senator from Tennessee be given time to finish his
remarks because he has prepared extensively.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator like to ask for time to finish the
remarks now, with the same amount of time given to this side? If my
friend from Tennessee wants to finish his speech now, I will ask
consent that he be given that amount of time with an equal amount of
time added to this side.
Mr. HATCH. That will be fine with me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that is very generous. How much time do
I have to finish the speech?
Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. ALEXANDER. May I ask for 10 minutes?
Mr. HATCH. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. That is with an equal amount of time to our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this will be pushing the time of the vote
back to about 10:20, 10:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be approximately 55 minutes from now.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and
the Senator from Utah for their generosity.
Let me remake my first point. I care about this case because I care
about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Many of the Senators know or
knew Judge John Minor Wisdom. They knew what a great judge he was.
They knew what the times were like in the Deep South during the 1960s
and 1970s. I remember Judge Wisdom once telling me the Ku Klux Klan had
burned a cross in the intersection between his home and that of
Congressman Hale Boggs. Judge Wisdom said: They were getting both of us
with one cross burning.
So I set out some time ago, with my staff, to look through the record
of Judge Pickering to see what he has done. All the evidence is that
Judge Pickering, like Judge Wisdom, like Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and
Judge Brown, stuck his neck out for civil rights at a time when it was
hardest to do. Mississippians know that.
William Winter, with whom I served, a leading former Democrat
Governor, a leader for racial justice, strongly supports Judge
Pickering. Frank Hunger, who served on that court with me as a law
clerk back in the 1960s, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General,
Al Gore's brother-in-law, strongly supports Judge Pickering. I have
lived in the South for a long time, about the same amount of time as
Judge Pickering. I have learned to tell those who are racists, those
who stood silently by, and those who stuck their necks out.
Let me invite my colleagues to go back with me to Mississippi, to the
late 1960s. James Meredith had become the only Black to graduate from
the undergraduate school at Ole Miss. Reuben Anderson, who has endorsed
Judge Pickering, had become the first Black graduate of the Ole Miss
Law School.
In Nashville, where I went to school at Vanderbilt, the first
integrated class had just graduated from Vanderbilt University. Robert
Clark became the first black elected to the Mississippi Legislature
since the Reconstruction.
It was not until 1968, that the first blacks were permitted to
participate in intercollegiate athletics at the University of Florida
and Georgia and Tennessee and other Southeastern Conference schools.
The law had changed but there were still plenty of ``colored only''
signs on restroom doors in plenty old southern cities during the late
1960s. Martin Luther King was murdered in Memphis during 1968. Alabama
Governor George Wallace won the Democrat primary for president in 1976
in Mississippi, and in Boston, Massachusetts.
[[Page S13548]]
Perhaps my colleagues saw the movie, ``Mississippi Burning.'' That
was about events during 1967 in Mississippi. Civil rights workers
Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered. They were picked up by
three carloads of Klansmen, shot and their bodies were buried in a 15-
foot earthen dam. In 1967, seven men were convicted of federal
conspiracy charges, eight were acquitted and three received mistrials.
At the time, the state of Mississippi refused to file murder charges.
To this day, no one has ever been tried for those murders.
Wes Pruden, a young reporter at the time, told me he went to a
Mississippi courtroom and everybody in the courtroom except the judge
had a button on that said ``Never.'' That was the environment in which
Charles Pickering was living in Laurel, Mississippi in Jones County in
the late 1960s.
Blacks were just beginning to serve on juries. A few Blacks voted.
Schools were being desegregated one grade at a time starting with the
lower grades so that older children would have less opportunity to
interact socially. Race was not a theoretical issue in Laurel in the
late sixties, or even a political issue. People were killing people
based on race in the late 1960s in Jones County, MS.
The White Citizens Council, a group of white collar, non-violent
segregationists was the country club version of resistance to
integration in Laurel. Klan members were known at that time in Laurel
for putting on their white robes, opening up their bibles, building a
bonfire in a pasture, crossing a sword and a gun over a bible, and
proceeding to burn down the home of a black person. The KKK in Laurel
shot into homes and beat blacks over the head with baseball bats. One
did not speak out lightly against the Klan because its members could
very well be your neighbor or your co-worker.
The Klan infiltrated law enforcement departments and juries. The Klan
put out fliers instructing residents not to cooperate with the FBI on
cases.
Laurel was Klan territory. It was the home of Sam Bowers. Bowers had
created the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan because he believed that
the regular KKK was not violent enough. The Klan was out to resist
integration, but that was not enough for Sam Bowers. The White Knights
set out to oppose racial integration ``by any means necessary.''
Since 9/11 we have heard a lot of talk about terrorists. This is not
the first time we have seen terrorists in America. We had terrorists
then. Sam Bowers and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Laurel,
MS, were the terrorists of the 1960s. The FBI said the White Knights
were responsible for at least 10 killings then. The Times of London
said Bowers himself was suspected of the orchestration of 300 bombings.
According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, Sam Bowers was ``America's
most violent living racist.''
Charles Pickering made public statements condemning Klan violence. He
worked with the FBI to prosecute and stop Klan violence. In the late
1960s, Bowers came up for trial for the murder of the slain civil
rights worker, Vernon Dahmer, and Judge Pickering testified publicly
against Bowers.
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two documents. The
first is a Klan newsletter from 1967 criticizing Pickering for
cooperating with the FBI. The second is Bowers' own Motion for Recusal
filed in Federal court, asking Pickering to remove himself from hearing
a case involving Bowers because of Pickering's previous testimony
against Bowers and taking credit for defeating Judge Pickering in a
statewide race for attorney general.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Citizen-Patriot]
A Newsletter Dedicated to Truth and the Christian Civilization
``Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.--2
Corinthians 3:17.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for
the Truth to be told concerning massive animal corruption in
Public Office, it is the Duty of the Public Press to inform
the Citizens. Unfortunately for the citizens of Jones County,
J.W. West, the Chief-Communist Propagandist, not only refuses
to tell the Truth, but actually takes a leading part in the
direction of the evil public corruption which is strangling
liberty in America. The Responsibility to Truth must there be
filled by the Citizens themselves. These are the Publishers
and Distributors of the Citizen-Patriot.
Public Office is a Public Trust
Its successful administration requires from its Officials a
Fear of God, rather than a fear of men, and those Officials
who serve justly must be ambitious for the Glory of the
Heavenly Father rather than ambitious for their own personal
advancement or the advancement of some device to which they
have a vested attachment. Our Father has promised and amply
demonstrated that He will prosper a Nation whose Officers
serve Him. And, conversely, He will wreak vengeance and
punishment upon a Nation whose officers are self-serving men
pleasures. All citizens owe a high Duty to law and
government, but all men owe a higher duty to our Heavenly
Father, the Author of Truth and Liberty.
Let FACTS be submitted to a candid population
The Base of the Political Corruption which is sweeping our
Beloved Land of America lies in the Establishment of a
National Police Bureau, which brings pressure to bear upon
local officials. By a calculated means of Fear and Lust for
Reward, this Beast of Satan directs its pressure in such a
way that the local government is, in fact, woed against the
local citizens and their local interests.
The honest citizens of Jones County have recently been
defrauded by certain officials in an outstanding and clear-
cut example of the above, whereby the Spirit of the Law was
frustrated under the Color of the form and letter of legality
by the clever manipulations of Chet Dillard and Charles
Pickering. Fortunately, this pair were not completely
successful in their attempt to pervert justice in the Circuit
Court. By the cunning use of their official positions for
personal benefit they were able to operate their evil ____
before the Honorable Grand Jury; but the Honorable Trial
Jurors in the Roy Strickland case saw through their scheme,
and struck a blow in favor of Justice by returning a verdict
of ``Not Guilty.''
Praise be the Blessed Name of the Heavenly Father, The
Guardian of our Liberty Whose Holy Word is the only Truth and
Anchor in a stormy world ruled by evil men operating under
color of Law
The honest facts regarding the Roy Strickland Case are as
follows:
In the late summer of 1965 a series of wholesale arrests
were made in Jones County with regard to a car theft ring.
These arrests were made by local officials at the urging of
FBI Special Agent Bob Lee of Laurel, Miss. Lee, following
standard FBI practice, misrepresented the amount of evidence
which he had regarding the car thefts, and deceived the local
officials in order to get them to make a larger number of
arrests than his evidence would warrant. Bob Lee's motive in
this was not so much to convict anyone with regard to the car
thefts, but rather to bring additional underworld characters
under FBI control where they could be used for criminal
action and as stool pigeons. Roy Strickland was Bob Lee's
chief target in this regard. After being arrested in the late
summer of 1963, Strickland was allowed and easy bond and
released. Strickland was eventually arrested and indicted
(and released without bond in two instances) on five separate
counts of car theft which alleged to have occurred during
August and September of 1965. The arrests and indictments for
these offenses spanned a period form September 1963 through
March 1966. At no time prior to April of 1967, however, did
Dillard or Pickering make an attempt to prosecute Roy
Strickland on any of these cases. They were all continued
from time to time and from term to term in the Circuit Court
of Jones County at the request of the prosectution.
Strickland was allowed to walk out of the courtroom without
even making bond on two of the indictments until early in
1967. Then, on short notice, the oldest of the five cases was
quickly called up for trial on April 22, 1967.
Why? the sudden change of attitude on the part of Messers.
Dillard and Pickering from that of a relaxed indulgence for a
year and a half to that of a sudden, vicious persecution of
Roy Strickland on charges that were nothing more than frame-
ups in the first place? Let's look into the Hidden Truth
which the Communist, J.W. West is trying to conceal from the
citizens of Mississippi.
____ was out on bond doing work on oil rigs in Louisiana in
January of 1966 when he was contacted by Ford O'Neil. O'Neil
advanced a proposition to Strickland asking him to help the
State Investigators and the FBI in some work to kidnap and
torture a confession out to Lawrence Byrd on the Dahmer case.
Ford O'Neil promised Ray Strickland that in exchange for this
work, the FBI and State Investigators would pressure Chet
Dillard not to prosecute Strickland on the car thefts.
Strickland agreed to assist in the Lawrence Byrd kidnap and
torture, and brought in Jack Watkins, another ex-convict, who
at that time was wanted for burglary and armed robbery in the
Coast area. Jack Watkins was also promised immunity from his
crimes by the State Investigators and FBI agents. Later, Roy
Strickland, Jack Watkins, Ford O'Neil, MHSP, Steve Henderson,
NHSP, Roy K. Moore, Chief Special agent, FBI, and Bill Dukes,
Gulfport Special agent, FBI, got together to make final plans
and arrangements for the actual kidnapping and torture of
Lawrence Byrd. To show ``good faith'' Roy Moore gave Ford
O'Neil a hundred dollars, and Ford passed it over to Roy
Strickland to bind the deal. Several days later Strickland,
Watkins and several others did carryout the actual kidnap
[[Page S13549]]
and torture of Lawrence Byrd. The FBI men stood in the bushes
out of sight and directed Byrd's statements while Watkins
tortured Byrd. This was the confession which resulted in the
arrest of a dozen or so innocent white men in the Dahmer
case.
At first, it seemed that the evil plot of the FBI would
succeed. J.W. West was giving them massive doses of
propaganda in order to convince the men before the ever
entered the courtroom and to the general public they were
looking like ``Lynden's Little Angels.'' But there was a
cloud on the horizon. The plot started coming to pieces
when Strickland was arrested on a drunk charge early in
1967 in Jones County. FBI Chieftan, Roy K. Moore, was
getting worried about Strickland, as was Ford O'Neil. They
wanted him to stay out of Jones County until after the
Dahmer case was tried. Strickland was worrying them by
coming back to Jones County at frequent intervals and
going on drinking sprees. All during 1966 rumors had been
circulating in Laurel that Strickland knew something about
the Lawrence Byrd kidnap-torture, and there was an ever-
present danger that Strickland might reveal the whole
thing to the wrong person during one of his binges. Roy K.
Moore could not rest easy as long as Roy Strickland was in
Jones County, whether in or out of jail, but it was
finally agreed that it was better to leave Strickland in
jail, and try to ease him off to Parchman, even if it
meant double crossing him.
However, Strickland began to realize that the FBI was
trying to use everybody against everybody, and then betray
everybody for the sole benefit and advancement of the FBI.
Strickland then decided to tell the truth and take his
chances in open court. He contacted the defense attorneys in
the Dahmer case and gave them the full facts about the FBI-
engineered kidnap and torture of Lawrence Byrd. This, and
much other supporting evidence was turned over to Chet
Dillard in order to obtain a just indictment for kidnapping
against Roy K. Moore, Bill Duke, Ford O'Neil, Steve
Hendrickson and Jack Watkins. When first given the evidence,
Dillard appeared to be interested in enforcing the law
without fear or favor, but when the proper FBI pressure was
applied to him he caved in like a ripe watermelon, and
defended the FBI men before the Grand Jury, and worked
against the indictment, using trickery, lies and deceit to
hobble the work of the Honest Jurors. (The District Attorney
is permitted to lie to the jurors because he is not under
oath, all witnesses must testify under the oath.)
The FBI is desperately trying to suppress the truth in this
case (just as they did in the Kennedy assassination) and
Dillard and Pickering are Helping the FBI to conceal its
crime against the people of Jones county. Roy K. Moore, Chief
special Agent of the National Police Bureaucracy in
Mississippi is a highly trained, brilliant, self-serving
savage. The American Government means nothing to him, beyond
its mechanical ability to collect taxes from honest working
people, and then pay money back to him in the form of a
large, comfortable, unearned salary, and present him the
power and prestige of an official ruler over mankind. Roy K.
Moore is a criminal who was smart enough to acquire an
education and an official position BEFORE he began to prey
upon the honest and productive members of the community. Now,
he will, like any other criminal, threaten, beat, rob,
torture, persecute and kill anyone who interferes with the
advancement of his personal career, which, to him, is the
``whole of the law.'' Truly, it may be said that these highly
trained criminals of the National Police Bureaucracy are the
most dangerous animals upon the face of the earth.
Understandably, weaklings such as Dillard and Pickering are
afraid of the FBI, but they should realize that Public
Service in America requires a Personal Sacrifice on the part
of the officeholder, and that the purpose of Law in America,
is Equal Justice, rather than the protection of official
Bureaucratic Criminals.
Whatever his past, Roy Strickland was working on an honest
job when the FBI enticed him to kidnap Lawrence Byrd. Whether
or no he stole the car? He is charged with, there is little
or no real evidence against him in any of them to establish
his guilt. But the Supreme Injustice of the whole business
is that he is being persecuted by Chet Dillard not for car
theft, or contempt, or perjury, but because he told the
Truth about the FBI kidnapping and torturing a
``confession'' out of Lawrence Byrd. Thanks to the
Infinite Mercy of the Heavenly Father, the people of Jones
County understand the purpose of the Law better than their
Public Officials. We respectfully invite the loyal
citizens of Jones County to return to the polls on Aug. 8,
1967, and have Then and There this WRIT.
____
[From the Citizen Patriot]
In times past, this publication has repeatedly alerted the
citizens of Jones County to the danger to Life, Liberty and
Property, which is posed by the continued operation of a
communist newspaper under the director of the evil J.W. West.
Violence and anarchy always follow in the wake of atheists
and materialistic economic claptrap which communists preach,
and Laurel is no exception.
Freedom of the Press is predicated upon the press telling
the truth. But, of course, West is interested in centralized
power and control of the population, so he is not going to
print the truth about what is going on in the Circuit Court
of Jones County.
District Attorney Chet Dillard and Charles Pickering have
been furnished with positive proof concerning the kidnap and
beating of Lawrence Byrd in January of 1966 in Laurel, but
they will not bring these facts before the Grand Jury. The
facts show the following:
1. Lawrence Byrd was kidnapped under the direction of the
F.B.I., with collaboration by Mississippi State Highway
Patrol investigators and assistance of ex-convicts and wanted
felons. The convict felons were hired and paid by the F.B.I.
and promised immunity by the state investigators in order to
get them to kidnap and torture Byrd.
2. The motive for the kidnap was to beat and torture
Lawrence Byrd into confessing to the Dahmer incident and
force him into implicating a large number of other men who
are politically opposed to dictatorship. This was to enhance
the prestige of the F.B.I. as an investigative organization,
and to frighten the citizens of Jones County and Mississippi
into submitting to dictatorship.
3. The men who arranged and conducted the Byrd kidnap were:
Roy Moore, F.B.I.; Bill Dukes, F.B.I.; Steven Henderson,
M.H.P.; Ford O'Neil, M.H.P.; Jack Watkins, convict felon, Roy
Strickland, convict felon, and others. Dillard and Pickering
have sworn affidavits in their possession, but they refuse to
do their duty and present the whole body of evidence to the
Jones County Grand Jury. They offer as their lame excuse that
``too many important persons are involved.''
Since when has the LAW been a respecter of persons?
It is high time that we found out the real truth about the
American Gestapo, the F.B.I. If some ``important persons''
get hurt by truth that is just too bad. They are a disgrace
to law enforcement.
How about 15 innocent men being thrown into Federal Prison
just because they have been a political embarrassment to the
police dictators and J.W. West?
How about a Laurel citizen and businessman being kidnapped
and tortured into confession something he had not done?
Are you going to enforce the law without fear or favor,
Messrs Dillard and Pickering, or are you going to crawl and
whine at the feet of the unconstitutional national police
bureaucracy? Are you going to do your duty and arrest Jack
Watkins or are you going to continue to try and confuse,
mislead and manipulate the Grand Jury?
Why were Dillard and Pickering so anxious to persecute old
Buck, who only stole a few hundred dollars, yet so reluctant
to indict the F.B.I. criminals who are stealing the life and
liberty of the whole country. Which way is the money moving
now?
____
In the United States District Court For the Southern District of
Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Sam Bowers, Katie Perrone, Michelle O'Hara, Jeff Rexroad,
and Shawn O'Hara (Plaintiffs), vs. Mike Moore and the State
of Mississippi (Defendants).
motion for recusal
Comes now Shawn Richard O'Hara, on his behalf, and on the
behalf of Sam Bowers, Michelle O'Hara, and Jeff Rexroad,
asking that both Judge Charles Pickering and the honorable
magistrate who is handling this civil action to remove
themself as a result of some or all of the reasons listed
below.
1. Both men live in Mississippi and cannot fairly hear this
case, since said plaintiffs claim Mississippi has no legal
state constitution, thus meaning that if either of the said
judge or magistrate was licensed to practice law in said
state, since there is, and was no legal state constitution,
said judge and/or magistrate may not be legally licensed to
practice law.
2. Specifically Judge Pickering has personally prejudiced
himself against Sam Bowers by testifying against him in one
of Mr. Bowers state hearing, saying Sam Bowers was an
``undesirable individual.''
3. Specifically Judge Pickering has prejudiced himself
against Shawn O'Hara, by tainting this court document, and
cannot prove Shawn O'Hara has ever filed four frivolous
federal lawsuits. Therefore, the said judge has openly,
intentionally, and unfairly lied against Shawn O'Hara, even
though the Bible says ``thou shall not lie.'' (See Exhibit
A.)
4. In conclusion, since both Judge Charles Pickering and
the honorable magistrate both live in Mississippi (a state in
which its state constitution is asserted to be illegal), and
because both men work together, and because Shawn O'Hara is
asserting Judge Charles Pickering has been an unfair judge
handling this matter, and that the said judge will never be a
fair judge in a case which Sam Bowers and/or Shawn O'Hara is
a part of such a case, both Judge Pickering and the federal
court's magistrate are asked to remove themself from said
case.
conclusion
It is prayfully requested of this court, that a new federal
court judge and magistrate be appointed from a northern
state, or from a western state, since a southern judge will
not fairly hear the issue that the State of Mississippi is
operating under an illegal constitution of 1890, which all
state officials are asked to swear to it, and uphold it, even
though it was never ratified, voted on by the people of the
State of Mississippi.
Respectfully submitted by: on behalf of Shawn Richard
O'Hara, Sam Bowers, Michelle O'Hara, and Jeff Rexroad.
V. It is a well-known fact, Charles Pickering was defeated
in his personal race for federal office against Thad Cockran,
because
[[Page S13550]]
Sam Bowers and his thousands of supporters throughout
Mississippi worked very hard to defeat Pickering in that
political race.
VII. It is a well-known fact that Sam Bowers' friends
helped defeat Charles Pickering, Sr. when he ran against Bill
Alian for Attorney General of the State of Mississippi.
____
[From Byron York, NR White House Correspondent, Jan. 9, 2003]
The Cross Burning Case: What Really Happened
In their renewed attacks on Bush appeals-court nominee
Charles Pickering, Democrats have focused on Pickering's
rulings in a 1994 cross-burning case. Accusing Pickering of
``glaring racial insensitivity,'' they charge that he abused
his powers as a U.S. District Court judge in Mississippi to
give a light sentence to a man convicted of the crime. ``Why
anyone would go the whole nine yards and then some to get a
lighter sentence for a convicted cross burner is beyond me,''
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said Wednesday.
``Why anyone would do that--in 1994 and in a state with
Mississippi's history--is simply mind-boggling.''
But a close look at the facts of the case suggests that
Pickering's actions were not only not mind-boggling but were
in fact a reasonable way of handling a difficult case. Here
is what happened:
The crime took place on January 9, 1994. Three men--20-
year-old Daniel Swan, 25-year-old Mickey Herbert Thomas, and
a 17-year-old whose name was not released because he was a
juvenile--were drinking together when one of them came up
with the idea that they should construct a cross and burn it
in front of a house in which a white man and his black wife
lived in rural Walthall County in southern Mississippi. While
it is not clear who originally suggested the plan, it is
known that the 17-year-old appeared to harbor some sort of
hostility toward the couple; on an earlier occasion, he had
fired a gun into the house (no one was hit). Neither Swan nor
Thomas was involved in the shooting incident.
The men got into Swan's pickup truck, went to his barn, and
gathered wood to build an eight-foot cross. They then drove
to the couple's house, put up the cross, doused it with
gasoline, and set it on fire.
Because the case involved a cross burning covered under the
federal hate-crimes statute, local authorities immediately
brought in investigators from the Clinton Justice
Department's Office of Civil Rights. After the three suspects
were arrested in late February, 1994, lawyers for the civil-
rights office made the major decision in prosecuting the
case.
In a move that baffled and later angered Judge Pickering,
Civil Rights Division prosecutors early on decided to make a
plea bargain with two of the three suspects. The first,
Mickey Thomas, had an unusually low IQ, and prosecutors
decided to reduce charges against him based on that fact. The
second bargain was with the 17-year-old. Civil Rights
Division lawyers allowed both men to plead guilty to
misdemeanors in the cross-burning case (the juvenile also
pleaded guilty to felony charges in the shooting incident).
The Civil Rights Division recommended no jail time for both
men.
The situation was different for the third defendant, Daniel
Swan, who, like the others, faced charges under the hate-
crime statute. Unlike the others, however, Swan pleaded not
guilty. The law requires that the government prove the
accused acted out of racial animus, and Swan, whose defense
consisted mainly of the contention that he was drunk on the
night of the cross burning, maintained that he simply did not
have the racial animus necessary to be guilty of a hate crime
under federal law.
The case went to trial in Pickering's courtroom. During the
course of testimony, Pickering came to suspected the Civil
Rights Division had made a plea bargain with the wrong
defendant. No one questioned the Justice Department's
decision to go easy on the low-IQ Thomas, but the 17-year-
old was a different case. ``It was established to the
satisfaction of this court that although the juvenile was
younger than the defendant Daniel Swan, that nevertheless
the juvenile was the ring leader in the burning of the
cross involved in this crime,'' Pickering wrote in a
memorandum after the verdict. ``It was clearly established
that the juvenile had racial animus. . . . The court
expressed both to the government and to counsel for the
juvenile serious reservations about not imposing time in
the Bureau of Prisons for the juvenile defendant.''
In addition to the 17-year-old's role as leader, there was
significant evidence, including the fact that he had once
fired a shot into the mixed-race couple's home, suggesting
that he had a history of violent hostility to blacks that far
outweighed any racial animosity felt by Daniel Swan. Swan had
no criminal record, and seven witnesses testified that they
were not aware of any racial animus he might have held
against black people. On the other hand, one witness
testified that he believed Swan did not like blacks, and Swan
admitted under questioning that he had used the ``N'' word in
the past. In the end, Swan was found guilty--there was no
doubt that he had taken an active role in the cross burning--
and the Justice Department recommended that he be sentenced
to seven and a half years in jail.
At that point, the Justice Department had already made a
no-jail deal with the 17-year-old. When it came time to
sentence Swan, Pickering questioned whether it made sense
that the most-guilty defendant got off with a misdemeanor and
no jail time, while a less-guilty defendant would be
sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. ``The
recommendation of the government in this instance is clearly
the most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing
recommended by the government in any case pending before this
court,'' Pickering wrote. ``The defendant [Swan] clearly had
less racial animosity than the juvenile.''
Compounding Pickering's concern was a conflict between two
federal appeals-court rulings over the applicability of a
statutory mandatory minimum sentence to the case. The Justice
Department insisted that Swan be sentenced to a minimum of
five years under one statute and two and a half years under a
separate law. Pickering doubted whether both were applicable
to the case and asked Civil Rights Division lawyers whether
the same sentencing standards were used in cases in other
federal circuits. The prosecutors said they would check with
Washington for an answer.
Pickering set a sentencing date of January 3, 1995. As the
date approached, he waited for an answer from the Justice
Department. He asked in November, 1994 and received no
response. He asked again in December and received no
response. He asked again on January 2, the day before the
sentencing, and still received no response. He delayed
sentencing, and on January 4 wrote a strongly-worded order to
prosecutors demanding not only that they respond to his
questions but that they take the issue up personally with
Attorney General Janet Reno and report back within ten days.
Shortly after issuing the order, Pickering called assistant
attorney general Frank Hunger, a Mississippian and friend of
Pickering's who headed the Justice Department's Civil
Division at the time (Hunger was also well known as the
brother-in-law of vice president Al Gore). Pickering says he
called Hunger to express ``my frustration with the gross
disparity in sentence recommended by the government, and my
inability to get a response from the Justice Department in
Washington.'' Hunger told Pickering that the case wasn't
within his area of responsibility. It appears that Hunger
took no action as a result of the call. (Hunger later
supported Pickering's nomination to the federal appeals
courts.)
Finally, Pickering got word from Civil Rights Division
prosecutors, who said they had decided to drop the demand
that Swan be given the five-year minimum portion of the
recommended sentence. Pickering then sentenced Swan to 27
months in jail. At the sentencing hearing, Pickering told
Swan, ``You're going to the penitentiary because of what you
did. And it's an area that we've got to stamp out; that we've
got to learn to live, races among each other. And the type of
conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated .
. . . You did that which does hinder good race relations and
was a despicable act . . . . I would suggest to you that
during the time you're in the prison that you do some reading
on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how
that can be done.''
So Swan went to jail, for a bit more than two years rather
than seven. Every lawyer in the case--the defense attorneys,
the prosecutors, and the judge--faced the difficulty of
dealing with an ugly situation and determining the
appropriate punishment for a bad guy and a somewhat less-bad
guy. Pickering, who believed the Civil Rights Division went
too easy on the 17-year-old bad guy, worked out what he
believed was the best sentence for Daniel Swan. It was a
real-world solution to the kind of real-world problem that
the justice system deals with every day. And it was the end
of the cross-burning case until Pickering was nominated by
President Bush to a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
____
[From Byron York, NR White House Correspondent, Jan. 13, 2003]
The Cross-Burning Case: What Really Happened, Part II
After the publication last Thursday of ``The Cross Burning
Case: What Really Happened,'' readers have asked follow-up
questions about the 1994 trial that Democrats cite to accuse
federal-appeals-court-nominee Charles Pickering of ``racial
insensitivity.'' New York Sen. Charles Schumer and others
charge that Pickering, a U.S. District Court judge in
Mississippi who has been nominated for a place on the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, abused his powers to win a light
sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross in the front
yard of a mixed-race couple. Here are some of the questions
that have been asked about the case, along with answers based
on the best available information:
Why did the Clinton Justice Department give a no-jail
misdemeanor plea bargain to the 17-year-old defendant--who
was the ringleader in the crime, who appeared to be motivated
by racial hatred, and who had on an earlier occasion fired a
shot into the home of the mixed-race couple--while demanding
that the other defendant, Daniel Swan--who was not the
ringleader, who apparently did not share the 17-year-old's
racial animus, and who had no role in the shooting incident--
be sent to jail for seven and a half years?
The answer is not entirely clear; the Justice Department's
prosecution memos and other internal deliberation documents
are
[[Page S13551]]
confidential, and no one who was involved in the prosecution
has publicly explained the department's motives. but there is
enough publicly available evidence to suggest a few
conclusions. First, and most obviously, the 17-year-old
agreed to plead guilty, which often helps a defendant receive
a reduced sentence. (It's not clear why the Justice
Department dealt with the 17-year-old as a juvenile; given
the seriousness of the crime, he could have been treated as
an adult.) Swan did not agree to plead guilty. While he never
denied that he took part in the cross burning, he did deny
that he acted out of racial animus, which is required for a
heavy sentence under the federal hate crimes statute. He
chose to take his chances at trial, and was convicted. At
that point, there was no question he would go to prison.
Pickering felt strongly that Swan should serve time, but he
believed that seven-and-a-half years was too long, in light
of the leniency given to the 17-year-old and the other
circumstances of the case (discussed below).
Another possible explanation for the easy treatment given
to the 17-year-old is that the no-jail plea offer was made by
the United States Attorney's Office in Mississippi (and
accepted by the defendant) before all the facts of the case
were known. The government's insistence on a mandatory
minimum seven-and-a-half year sentence for Swan came later,
after lawyers from the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Division became involved. While they wanted a stiff sentence
for Swan, it appears that the Civil Rights Division lawyers
also realized that letting the 17-year-old off with no jail
had been a mistake. In a February 12, 2002 letter to
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, Pickering cited the transcript
of an open court session in which he told Civil Rights
Division lawyer Brad Berry that he felt the Swan case was an
example of disparate sentencing. Berry answered, according to
the transcript cited by Pickering, that, ``Perhaps the
lesson--the lesson that I take from that, your Honor, is that
perhaps the government should have been more tough--should
have asked for a more stringent or stronger or longer
sentence for the other defendants in this case.''
There are also some indications that at least one Justice
Department lawyer involved in the case agreed with Pickering
that the department's sentencing demand for Swan was too
severe. In a January 5, 1995 memo to Linda Davis, who was
head of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division,
federal prosecutor Jack Lacy recounted several sessions with
Pickering on the Swan issue (memo was made public as part of
Pickering's confirmation hearings.) ``The impulse to the
conversation is always the same,'' Lacy wrote. ``He thinks
the sentence facing Swan is draconian, and he wants a way
out. He has been careful to phrase his concern in such terms
as, `I wish you could suggest some way that this harsh
sentence could be avoided.''' Later in the letter, Lacy wrote
that he ``personally agreed with the judge that the sentence
is draconian,'' but said he also reminded Pickering that Swan
could have pleaded guilty but instead, ``the defendant
repeatedly chucked our offers in our teeth.''
Finally, as the last few words of that passage suggest, it
is possible that Swam--and the whole vexing case--simply made
prosecutors mad. They could not undo the damage they had done
by letting the 17-year-old off with no jail time, but they
could compensate by meting out heavy punishment to Swan.
How did Pickering know that the 17-year-old harbored the
racial animus required for a severe sentence under the hate
crime statute, while Swan did not?
The first and clearest reason is the earlier incident in
which the 17-year-old had fired a shot into the home of the
mixed-race couple in whose yard he and Swan would later burn
the cross. (The Justice Department allowed the 17-year-old to
plead guilty to a felony in that incident, all as part of the
no-jail plea bargain.) Swan had nothing to do with that
shooting, and had no criminal record. The other evidence of
racial animus came out during the sentencing phase of the
trial--well after the government had agreed to the juvenile's
guilty plea. This is how Pickering explained it in his
February 12, 2002 letter to Hatch:
``At sentencing. . . . courts must also take into account
evidence of the defendant's history. This is where the
breadth of disparity in racial animus between the 17 year-old
and Swan became clear. While the 17 year-old and Swan had
both used the ``N-word'' previously, the 17 year-old's own
grandmother stated that he did not like ``blacks'' and his
own mother stated that he ``hated N - - - - s.'' (Emphasis
added.) In contrast, seven witnesses and Swan's mother stated
that he had no racial animus; only one witness stated that
Swan did not like African Americans, and this was disputed.
Further, the 17 year-old had acted on his ``hate'' by
fighting with African Americans at school, resulting in his
suspension. Swan had neither fought with African Americans
nor been suspended for any racial incident. Moreover, the 17
year-old had shot a firearm into the home of the mixed-race
couple in whose yard the cross was later burned and bragged
about ``shooting at some N - - - - s.'' Swan had never shot
at or into the home of African Americans, or anyone else. In
short, even though both participated in the heinous crime,
the 17 year-old defendant also had a history of escalating
violence motivated by the racial hatred that culminated in
his participation in the cross burning, while Swan did not.''
Was Pickering's communication with the Justice Department
improper?
At Pickering's second confirmation hearing, North Carolina
Democratic Sen. John Edwards accused him of violating the
Code of Judicial Conduct by calling top Justice Department
official (and fellow Mississippian) Frank Hunger to discuss
the Swan case. In that call, Pickering expressed his
frustration with the Justice Department's position; Hunger
told Pickering the case wasn't within his area of
responsibility, and the two men ended the conversation.
The section of the Code to which Edwards referred is a rule
intended to prevent judges from making secret deals with one
side or another in a case. It says: ``A judge should . . .
neither initiate nor consider exparte communications on the
merits, or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or
impending proceeding.'' Pickering explained to the Judiciary
Committee that he had previously discussed his concerns at
length with both sides in the Swan case and that the call to
Hunger was a ``follow-up'' to see if the Justice Department
was going to respond to his questions about the sentencing.
None of that, he explained, touched on the merits of the
case, and thus the call was not improper.
In addition, last February, Hunger, a lifelong Democrat who
also happens to be Al Gore's brother-in-law, wrote a letter
to the Judiciary Committee saying, ``I think it appropriate
that it be known that I have little or no recollection of the
call. The significance of this to me is that had I felt at
the time that there was anything inappropriate or improper
about Judge Pickering's call I would most assuredly remember
it today.'' Continuing, Hunger told the committee, ``I have
known Judge Pickering for nearly thirty years and have the
utmost respect for him as a fair-minded judge who would never
knowingly do anything improper or unethical.;;
Had Pickering ever shown similar concerns about heavy
sentencing of other defendants, particularly African
Americans, in cases that had nothing to do with race?
On March 14, 2002, at the Judiciary Committee meeting in
which Democrats killed the Pickering nomination, Sen. Edward
Kennedy suggested that Pickering practiced a selective form
of leniency--that he went easy on a racist cross burner and
tough on everybody else, including blacks convicted of crimes
in his court. One week later, on March 21, Pickering sent
Hatch a letter in which he said,``I have consistently sought
to keep from imposing unduly harsh penalties on young people
whom I did not feel were hardened criminals.'' (Swan was a
first-time offender.) Pickering went on to describe several
cases in which ``departed downward,' that is, reduced the
sentences of first-time offenders from the mandatory minimums
required by law.
``One case involved a 20-year-old African American male who
faced a mandatory minimum five year sentence,'' Pickering
wrote. ``I departed downward to 30 months. I also recommended
that he be allowed to participate in the intensive
confinement program which further reduced his sentence.''
Pickering also described the case of a 58-year-old black man
who faced a five-year mandatory sentence, plus a minimum of
46 months for a separate drug charge. Pickering again
sentenced the man to 30 months. In two other cases, he threw
out any jail time for men who faced prison terms of 18 and 40
months, respectively. Both defendants were black. ``I have
departed downward in far more cases involving African
Americans than I have in cases involving white defendants,''
Pickering wrote.
Pickering sent Hatch the names of the cases, the case
numbers, letters from the defense lawyers involved, and the
phone numbers of people to call to check his account of his
sentencing practices. Of course, by that time, Democrats on
the committee had already killed his nomination on a straight
party-line vote.
____
[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 9, 2003]
The Cross-Burning Trial, Judge's Handling of One Case Gave His Critics
Ammunition
(By Bill Rankin)
Charles Pickering has heard hundreds of legal arguments and
handed down thousands of rulings, but his judicial reputation
hangs almost entirely on one explosive case.
In 1994, the federal judge put extraordinary pressure on
federal prosecutors to slash the sentence of Daniel Swan, a
man who had burned a cross outside an interracial couple's
home in rural Mississippi. Democrats and liberal interest
groups have hammered Pickering with the case, branding him as
racially insensitive and unfit to serve on a federal appeals
court.
``Why anyone would go the whole 9 yards, and then some, to
get a lighter sentence for a convicted cross-burner is beyond
me,'' Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said during a hearing on
Pickering's first appeals court nomination last year. ``Why
anyone would do that in 1994, and in a state with
Mississippi's sad history of race relations, is simply mind-
boggling.''
But a review of the case by The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, part of the newspaper's broad look at
Pickering's record on the bench, finds that the judge
apparently acted out of a concern for fairness. Two cross-
burning co-defendants, including the purported ringleader,
had received far lighter sentences than Swan, and Pickering
saw that as unjust.
[[Page S13552]]
Prosecutors would have no reason to sympathize with the
judge, as it was the stiff sentence they sought that the
judge was attacking. Yet an internal Justice Department
account of a closed-door meeting held by Pickering shows the
judge deeply troubled by the sentencing disparity.
At the same time, the Justice Department memo, written by a
lawyer in the case, lends at least some support to the
charges of Pickering's opponents. It depicts the judge
worrying about how a harsh sentence on Swan would play in the
community--presumably the white community--a factor that
should be irrelevant to the pursuit of justice.
In the case, two men and a 17-year-old boy were out
drinking on the night of Jan. 9, 1994. They set fire to an 8-
foot-tall cross outside the Improve, Miss., home of a white
man and his African-American wife.
Two defendants--Mickey Herbert Thomas and the juvenile--
pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges. Following
recommendations from prosecutors, Pickering sentenced both to
probation with home confinement. As it turned out, the 17-
year-old was likely the instigator, who would later admit to
firing a shot through the interracial couple's window.
The final defendant, Swan, 20, went to trial. He admitted
being at the scene but said he was not there out of racial
animosity. The jury found otherwise, convicting him on three
counts. Federal prosecutors then asked Pickering to sentence
Swan to 7\1/2\ years in prison.
Pickering strongly criticized the sentencing disparity. He
persuaded prosecutors to drop one count in order to void one
conviction that required a five-year mandatory sentence.
Pickering eventually sentenced Swan to two years and three
months in prison.
faith in justice ``destroyed''
That move troubled Brenda Polkey, one of the victims of the
cross-burning incident. Last year, she wrote to the Senate
Judiciary Committee in opposition to Pickering's appeals
court nomination, fueling the Democrats' attack.
Polkey, who had lost a family member to a racial killing,
said she had ``experienced incredible feelings of relief and
faith in the justice system'' when a predominantly white jury
convicted Swan.
``My faith in the justice system was destroyed, however,
when I learned about Judge Pickering's efforts to reduce the
sentence of Mr. Swan,'' she wrote. ``I am astonished that the
judge would have gone to such lengths to thwart the judgment
of the jury and to reduce the sentence of a person who caused
so much harm to me and my family.''
The AJC review of the judge's rulings, however, shows that
Pickering--like many other federal judges who face rigid U.S.
sentencing rules--has gone out of his way many times to
reduce prison sentences in cases where he thought the result
would be unreasonable. And many of the defendants who
benefited are black.
William Moody, an African-American drug defendant, was
arrested in 2000, seven years after his indictment.
Authorities could not find him because he was living in New
York, holding a steady job and supporting his family. Upon
learning about Moody's apparent turnaround, Pickering delayed
his sentencing a year, allowing his continued good behavior
to be used as a basis for punishment with no prison time.
Five years earlier, in a large-scale cocaine case,
Pickering learned months after sentencing black defendant
Richard Evans to 12\1/2\ years in prison that prosecutors
were recommending he sentence a more culpable co-defendant
also an African-American, to no more than nine years.
Pickering quickly vacated Evans' sentence and later sent him
to prison for 10 years--five months less than what the co-
defendant received.
``He has tried to treat people fairly,'' said Lloyd Miller,
a U.S. probation officer who prepared sentencing reports in
Pickering's courtroom for more than a decade. ``It didn't
matter whether you were black or white, whether you were a
pauper or if you had money.''
Pickering, who would not comment for this article pending a
vote on his renomination, has said that in almost all the
criminal cases that came before him involving nonviolent
first offenders, he has tried to lessen their sentences.
``I have consistently sought to keep from imposing unduly
harsh penalties on young people whom I did not feel were
hardened criminals,'' Pickering wrote in a letter to Senate
Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) following his
combative confirmation hearings last year.
Pickering has not addressed his reported worry about a
white backlash in the cross-burning case because the Justice
Department memo has not been publicized until now. But there
is substantial evidence, both from his civic life and
judicial record, to believe that he does not cater to white
people's particular interests.
In a 1999 essay on race relations in the Jackson Clarion-
Ledger, Pickering addressed racial bias in the courts,
empathizing with black, not white, concerns. He counseled
whites who were angry about the recent acquittal of a black
murder suspect to look at the justice system from a black
perspective.
White Mississippians may not realize that African-Americans
are treated differently by the system, he wrote, but ``it is
the truth and a most disturbing one if you are black.''
As a judge, Pickering has thrown out only two jury
verdicts, both times because he felt the verdicts were biased
against minority plaintiffs.
In one of the cases, in 1993, an African-American woman was
injured at a restaurant. The jury awarded the woman only what
the restaurant argued she should receive. Pickering ordered a
new trial, and the second jury awarded the woman a larger
judgment.
other issues
Interest groups opposing the judge maintain the cross-
burning case is just part of a pattern of the judge's
racially questionable rulings.
Opponents point to the Pickering's ruling involving the
Voting Rights Act, an important civil rights law that
mandates federal oversight of Southern elections to keep
white authorities from suppressing the black vote. The law
has allowed black-majority voting districts to be created in
some cases, boosting the number of minorities elected to
political office.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the American Civil Liberties
Union's Southern regional office in Atlanta, acknowledged
that Pickering had enforced the Voting Rights Act to the
satisfaction of minority plaintiffs in some cases.
``But what is disturbing is the philosophy that seems to
pervade his decisions,'' he said. ``He has an obvious
hostility to the federal courts getting involved in this
issue.''
In several cases reviewed by the AJC, Pickering did
question how far the federal courts should go to resolve
certain voting-rights issues. The judge wrote from the
perspective of a former legislator who once had to draw lines
for voting districts himself--and who still respects
lawmakers' prerogatives.
In a 1993 decision, Pickering wrote at length about the
history of the one-person, one-vote principle, suggesting
courts may have applied it too rigidly sometimes.
The courts ``should be cautions in their obtrusion into
what otherwise would be a legislative manner,'' he wrote in
denying a challenge to election districts in Forrest County,
Miss.
Legislative bodies, when drawing voting districts, must
consider the convenience of new districts to voters and their
costs, Pickering wrote. Court rulings that ordered some
districts be redrawn have shown, Pickering added, ``that very
few of those responsible for handing down these decisions
ever had the responsibility themselves of carrying out these
decisions or trying to comply with them.'' Pickering's
application of judicial restraint is in line with that of
many federal judges. Like many other jurists put on the bench
by Republican presidents, Pickering appears disinclined to
tinker at the margins of social dilemmas as would a more
activist judge.
As such, Pickering would find himself at home at the 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered one of the
more conservative appellate courts in the country.
A will to get his way
Liberal critics have complained about the judge's general
conservatism. But it is questionable how much those
complaints would resonate without the cross-burning case
against Swan and his two co-defendants.
The case shows Pickering exerting his will and the power of
the federal bench to get his way from the Justice
Department's civil rights lawyers in Washington.
At trial, Swan was convicted of three counts: violating the
interracial couple's civil rights, interfering with their
federally protected housing rights and using fire when he
committed a crime, which prosecutors said carried a
mandatory, consecutive five-year sentence.
Pickering not only thought the 7\1/2\-year sentence sought
by prosecutors for Swan was unfair, but he also questioned
whether a five-year mandatory sentence for one of the counts
applied to the cross-burning case, as prosecutors contended.
Pickering noted there was a split in the federal appeals
courts on that very issue.
Pickering repeatedly asked Civil Rights Division lawyers to
explain to him whether the same sentencing standards were
being used in other cases across the country. After receiving
no answers, Pickering demanded the issue be addressed to
then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Pickering even called
Vice President Al Gore's brother-in-law, Frank Hunger, a
longtime friend who headed the Justice department's Civil
Division, to express his frustration.
Pickering summed up his thoughts about the sentencing
disparities in the cross-burning case clearly when Swan was
to be sentenced on Nov. 15, 1994.
``He committed a reprehensible crime, and a jury's found
that,'' Pickering said from the bench. ``And he's going to
pay a price for it. But I have never, since I've been on this
bench, seen a more contradictory, inconsistent position by
the government than they're taking in this case.''
Bradford Berry, a civil rights prosecutor from Washington,
responded by saying perhaps the Justice Department should
have asked for harsher punishment against Swan's two co-
defendants.
``You're the one working for the Justice Department, not
me,'' Pickering shot back. ``I didn't take that position. The
Justice Department took that position.''
Pickering postponed the sentencing another two months. He
also called all the lawyers involved back to his chambers,
without a court reporter to transcribe the discussion.
[[Page S13553]]
In a memo written after the meeting, Berry gave an
extraordinary account of what transpired.
Pickering told the lawyers about his civil rights
background, saying that while not at the forefront of the
movement, he was a supporter, according to Berry's memo.
Pickering said he'd testified against a Ku Klux Klan leader,
had twice thrown out jury verdicts in trials when he thought
the results were tainted with racism and had encouraged his
son to make certain his fraternity at the University of
Mississippi was not discriminating against a black student
who wanted to join.
``Pickering said he has carefully examined his conscience
in this case an is confident that his discomfort with the
sentence is not the product of racism,'' berry wrote.
But Pickering also gave another reason the case disturbed
him, Berry noted. The judge said that ``in the current racial
climate in that part of the state, such a harsh sentence
would serve only to divide the community.''
Pickering then asked prosecutors to consider agreeing to
dismiss the count against Swan that mandated a five-year
sentence. By the time prosecutors returned for Swan's
sentencing two months later, they had capitulated, agreeing
to drop it.
Don Samuel, former president of the Georgia Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, who studied Berry's memo, said
Pickering's aggressive posture in the cross-burning case is
not uncommon among the federal judiciary.
``There are judges who want a just result and try to
convince the parties to find a way that enables them to do so
under the federal sentencing guidelines, which can be very
harsh and rigid,'' Samuel said. ``These things happen. Often
it's very well-intentioned to get around a harsh result.''
But Samuel said he found troubling Berry's account of
Pickering's concern about a harsh sentence dividing the
community. ``That doesn't seem like a very good basis and it
shouldn't be,'' the defense lawyer said.
University of Georgia criminal law professor Ron Carlson
said the only part of the community that would be divided by
such a sentence would ``probably be rural white people.''
But Carlson said it is unfortunate that Pickering has been
condemned for his action in the cross-burnings case. ``That's
because this is certainly not a racist judge overseeing the
cross-burning case,'' he said. ``Quite the opposite. He's
very fulsome in his condemnation.''
When the sentence was finally imposed on Jan. 23, 1995,
Pickering told Swan he had committed ``a despicable act.''
``The type of conduct you exhibited cannot and will not be
tolerated,'' the judge said. He suggested to Swan that
``during the time that you're in prison . . . do some reading
on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how
that can be done.''
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will not dwell on the lifelong record
of Mr. Pickering. But his testimony against Sam Bowers was not an
isolated instance. I will not dwell on the charge some have made about
a 1994 case. Senator Hatch dealt with that, although I ask unanimous
consent to include two articles, one from the National Review Online
and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explaining what really happened.
In short, the Justice Department botched the case and the ringleader in
the cross burning was turned loose. Pickering then properly reduced a
juvenile accomplice's sentence from seven and one half years to 27
months, severely criticizing him.
In terms of the struggle for equality and freedom, I have seen the
South and our Nation change for the better during my lifetime. I have
tried to help bring about that change. When I look back now, it seems
embarrassingly slow and amazing that it was so hard. I remember as a
student at Vanderbilt in 1962, when we raised the issue of integrating
the student body, the student body voted no. I remember in 1980 I
appointed the first Black Tennessee supreme court justice, and he was
defeated in the next election. I remember it was 1985 before we had the
Martin Luther King Holiday, and the legislature nearly voted it down. I
appointed the first two African American vice presidents of the
University of Tennessee, but that did not happen until 1989.
Our country, from its beginning, has truly been a work in progress.
And on this issue, racial justice, we have had an especially hard time
making progress. We have had a hard time changing our minds. The truth
is, most members of my own generation have had one view about race in
the 1960's and another view today. Many of the men and women who are
judges, who are mayors, who are legislators, who are Senators today,
opposed integration in the 1950s, opposed the Voting Rights Act in the
1960s. They were against the Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s,
and we welcome them to society today. We have confirmed some of them to
the Federal bench, some of them Democrats, some of them Republicans.
What is especially ironic about this incident is that Judge Pickering
was not one of those people whose ideas we have to excuse. He led his
times. He spoke out. He would have, I am certain, joined Judge Wisdom,
Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown in ordering Ole Miss to
admit James Meredith to the University of Mississippi 40 years ago.
Why would we not now recognize this man, who lived in the Deep South,
who did what we all hope we would have had the courage to do, but might
not have done in the late 1960s? Why would we not now honor and
recognize that service by confirming his nomination to this appellate
court?
I care about the court. I care about these issues. I have studied the
record as carefully as I could. All of the evidence supports the fact
that Charles Pickering is a worthy successor on the Fifth Circuit to
the court of Judge John Minor Wisdom, Judge Elbert Tuttle, Judge
Richard Rives, and Judge John R. Brown.
Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words concerning the
nomination of Judge Charles Pickering.
Throughout the entire history of the Senate, no judicial nominee has
ever been defeated by a filibuster. Yet in this session alone, four
nominations have been blocked by this unconstitutional obstruction.
Soon, there will be five, six, and likely even more nominees facing
partisan filibusters. this obstruction flies in the face of more than
200 years of Senate tradition, the constitutional role of the Congress,
and the consent of the governed.
While all of these filibusters are wrong, it seems to me that the
tactics employed against certain nominees is particularly disgraceful.
First, we witnessed the hostile attitude towards Leon Holmes, a
nominee for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Despite having earned the
support of each of his home state Senators--both members of the
minority--Mr. Holmes was sharply criticized--not for his legal work,
but for his personal writings about his religious views.
Then we witnessed the strident animus directed toward Alabama
Attorney General, Bill Pryor--who was repeatedly challenged over
whether his ``philosophy'' and ``deeply held views,'' particularly
those arising from his religious beliefs, precluded him from becoming a
judge.
And now, today, we are witnessing the terrible treatment of Judge
Charles Pickering. This is an issue that is of particular importance to
my state, because Judge Pickering has been nominated to a long-standing
vacancy on the Fifth Circuit--which covers Texas and Louisiana in
addition to Mississippi.
Like the other nominees, Judge Pickering is a deeply religious man.
He is also a man from the South. And I believe he is clearly qualified
to serve on the federal bench, as he has been serving for over a
decade. Yet Judge Pickering has, like others, become the target of a
venomous special interest group campaign, one directed against
Southerners and against those who take their faith seriously. A
representative of one of these groups recently called Judge Pickering a
``racist,'' a ``bigot,'' and ``a woman-hater.''
It is sad to see this shameful caricature of a well-qualified,
respected man. And it is sadder still to see these special interests
dominate the other side of the aisle. I hoped such tactics would never
gain apologists among any members of this body, but hearing this debate
today, I fear that my hope was all for naught.
This Nation, both North and South, has for too long suffered from the
scourge of racism. We have made a great deal of progress so far, and
there is more to go. but even as we condemn racism with all our might,
we must also condemn false charges of racism. Every false charge of
racism weakens a true charge of racism, and ultimately, that hurts us
all.
Judge Pickering has been praised and supported by those who know him
best--by those who have worked by his side, and seen him fight racism
in his home state of Mississippi.
My fellow Southerners who have reviewed the record carefully agree.
All six Mississippi statewide officeholders, including five Democrats,
have stated that Judge Pickering's ``record demonstrates his commitment
to equal
[[Page S13554]]
protection, equal rights and fairness for all.'' The senior Senator
from Louisiana has applauded Pickering's lifelong campaign against
racism, characterizing them as ``acts of courage.'' And the Senators
from Georgia have written that, ``Pickering's critics have and will
continue to unfairly label him a racist and segregationist,'' and that
``nothing could be further from the truth.''
But perhaps the most compelling views on this subject have been
expressed by Mr. Charles Evers. He is the brother of the slain civil
rights leader Medgar Evers, and he has personally known Judge Pickering
for over 30 years. He is intimately familiar with Judge Pickering's
numerous actions throughout his career to fight racism, often with deep
sacrifice and personal cost.
Mr. Evers wrote in the Wall Street Journal in support of Judge
Pickering, saying,
As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for
equal treatment of African-Americans, I can tell you with
certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on
civil rights issues. He has taken tough stands at tough times
in the past, and the treatment he and his record are
receiving at the hands of certain interest groups is shameful
. . . Those in Washington and New York who criticize Judge
Pickering are the same people who have always looked down on
Mississippi and its people, and have done very little for our
state's residents.
I hope that today the Senate will take a stand against the despicable
tactics of radical special interest groups. We must not allow the
special interests' exploitation of religious views, stereotypes, or
false caricatures--concerning Southerners or any other people--to
decide a vote on any nominee. Such reprehensible practices have no
place in this debate. And it is a dark day for the Senate and for
America's independent judiciary when we allow special interests to
dictate the basis for disqualification.
I ask my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Pickering, to
reject the inhuman caricature that has been drawn by special interest
groups intent on vilifying, demonizing, and marginalizing an admirable
nominee. I hope that my colleagues will give all these qualified
nominees what they deserve, and allow them to have an up or down vote.
For the sake of the Senate, the Nation, and our independent
judiciary, I hope that these days of obstruction finally end.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Judge Charles
Pickering and his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district
judge in 1990, where he has served honorably ever since. He graduated
first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi while
serving on the Law Journal and Moot Court. In addition to practicing in
a law firm, Judge Pickering was both a city and county prosecutor and a
municipal court judge. Judge Pickering continued his public service in
the Mississippi State Senate. He also has served his fellow man by
helping others through organizations like the Red Cross and the March
of Dimes. Judge Pickering has also devoted his life to Christ, serving
at the First Baptist Church in Laurel, MS, as a Sunday school teacher
and a deacon.
Those things tell us much about the man that Charles Pickering is.
But there is much more. You see, Judge Pickering has spent his career
as a leader in race relations in Mississippi. What is truly telling,
however, is he spent his whole career tearing down barriers for
minorities in the South, including during the 1960s and 1970s. Those
actions did not make him a popular man among many in Mississippi at the
time.
I remember the 1960s and 1970s. I regularly traveled around the
country during those years and I remember what race relations were like
in the South and throughout America. I remember what it was like as
professional baseball gradually accepted then embraced minorities. It
was a tumultuous time in our country and many brave men and women
willingly staked their careers, their reputations, and even their lives
on doing what was just and right. Charles Pickering was one of those
men.
The stories of how Judge Pickering stepped above the fray and reached
out to bring racial equality to Mississippi have been told many times.
In recent years Judge Pickering has served on race relations committees
in Mississippi including the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the
University of Mississippi. He has spent time working with at-risk
minority children.
Those actions are laudable in and of themselves, but the actions that
tell the true story of who Charles Pickering really is come from the
1960s and 1970s, those years when racial tensions were at their highest
and the South was so volatile. In 1967 Judge Pickering was Prosecuting
Attorney Pickering in Jones County, MS. Knowing it was to his own
personal detriment, Charles Pickering took the witness stand to testify
against the ``Imperial Wizard'' of the Ku Klux Klan in a trial for
killing a black civil rights activist in a fire-bombing attack. By
standing up for equality and justice, Prosecuting Attorney Pickering
put himself and his family in danger and lost his reelection.
You can never really judge the strength of a man's convictions until
standing up for those beliefs costs him something. Judge Pickering's
willingness to stand up against racial violence cost him his job as a
prosecutor. But that did not dissuade him from continuing to fight for
racial justice. Possibly the most contentious race issue in the 1960s
and 1970s was the integration of the public schools. Integration came
to Laurel, MS, in 1973. Integration has been fought for years and
creating a plan was not an easy task. The black and white communities
in Laurel were split and Charles Pickering worked to bring them
together and create a plan to integrate the schools. In the end many
white families still moved their children to private schools to avoid
integration and Judge Pickering easily could have done the same with
his kids. Instead, he believed in integration and kept his children in
the public schools.
Unfortunately, the reason Charles Pickering has been singled out by
the radical left has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications.
It has everything to do with ideology and the remaining adherents of a
failed liberal orthodoxy holding on to their last vestiges of power in
this Nation--the courts.
A radical liberal minority in this country is scared of Judge
Pickering. They do not think he will do a bad job because he is
unqualified. After all, the American Bar Association rated Judge
Pickering ``well qualified.'' Last I had heard, the liberal minority
obstructing Judge Pickering's nomination called that rating their gold
standard for judicial nominees.
The reason the liberal special interests are scared of Judge
Pickering is that he is a judge who knows his role, who follows the
law, and has a stellar civil rights record. These special interests
have lost out in the public opinion and mainstream politics. They
cannot successfully achieve their goals in the normal course of
governance so they turn to the court system, which they have
successfully used to roll back traditional values, traditional roles of
Government, and individual rights. A judge with a proven record of
following the law and understanding the difference between the
legislature and the judiciary is a roadblock in their path of
legislating through the judiciary.
I really believe Judge Pickering was singled out because of his
stellar record on civil rights. It seems to me the liberal special
interest groups that seem to be dictating the moves of the minority
party in the Senate needed a test case to see if they could stop
President Bush's nominees at will. They researched all his nominees and
picked one who would be impossible to defeat on the merits and decided
to distort his record and assassinate his character. They needed to see
if they could get away with it. So last year they gave it a shot. And
it worked. These special interests found willing accomplices in the
Senate and in the media. Facts became irrelevant as lies flew and
Charles Pickering was demagogued. But that was only a preview of what
was to come.
While the filibustering by a minority of the Senate of Judge
Pickering is an abdication of constitutional responsibility of the
Senate, the wholesale assault on President Bush's nominees is truly
egregious. Judge Pickering is not alone. The minority has taken aim at
Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice
[[Page S13555]]
Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Henry Saad. Each nominee
has a fantastic story and a stellar record. Each has been singled out
for his or her adherence to the law and the traditional roles of
government.
Radical liberals have long fancied themselves as the champions of
women and minorities in this country, and I have no doubt that many on
the left do strive for equality for all Americans. But the radical left
has achieved its power through the politics of division. A conservative
Hispanic or conservative woman or conservative Arab or conservative
black woman or conservative religious man is anathema to their
dominance of these issues. Rather than celebrating the achievements of
these gifted human beings ascending to the job for which he or she was
selected by the President of the United States, these ultra liberals
would rather defame their characters and demagogue their beliefs.
There seems to be no end in sight to these tactics and political
showdowns. But I hope and pray that day will soon come.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today we will vote on whether the
Senate shall be allowed simply to consider the nomination of Charles
Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From my review of
Judge Pickering's record, I have been struck by one resounding virtue--
moral courage.
As the tide of racial equality swept America in the 1950s and 1960s,
it unfortunately met with fierce resistance in certain areas. Laurel,
MS was one. Unlike New England, integration was not popular in Jones
County. Unlike New York, the press was not friendly to integration in
Jones County. Unlike large Southern cities such as Atlanta and
Birmingham, there was no substantial segment of the community that had
an enlightened view on race relations. Indeed, the town of Laurel, in
Jones County, MS, with a small population was the home territory of the
Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Sam Bowers.
In the 1960s, Klan-incited violence escalated in Jones County, MS.
The Klan would drive by homes in the middle of the night and shoot into
them. The Klan would firebomb the homes of African Americans and those
who helped them. The Klan would murder its enemies who stood for civil
rights.
Because these shootings, bombings, and murders violated the law, the
victims looked for justice. They found it in Jones County Attorney
Charles Pickering.
On the one hand, Charles Pickering had his duty to enforce the law.
On the other hand, he had public opinion, the press, and most state law
enforcement personnel against vigorously prosecuting Klan violence. A
27-year-old Charles Pickering stared in the face his political future,
many in his community, and the press and chose to do his duty of
enforcing the law against the men who committed such violence. In the
1960s in Mississippi, this took courage.
Soon County Attorney Charles Pickering found that he had to choose
against between those in law enforcement who would only go through the
motions of investigating the Klan and those who sought to vigorously
prosecute and imprison Klansmen. He chose to work with the FBI to
investigate, prosecute, and imprison Klansmen. In the mid-1960s in
Mississippi, this took courage.
Then came the threats. The Klan threatened to have County Attorney
Pickering whipped. With the Klan already firebombing and murdering
other whites whom it viewed as helping black citizens, the Pickering
family could have easily been next.
At night, County Attorney Charles Pickering would come back to his
small home and look into the eyes of his young wife Margaret. He would
look into the eyes of his four small children who believed daddy could
do anything and who did not understand hate and murder. One can only
imagine how his wife Margaret would lie awake in fear, hoping that she
would hear her husband's footsteps coming home.
Charles Pickering had no money to protect his family. He had no press
to stand up for him and his family. He had no covering of popular
opinion to hide behind. And in this time of hate, bombings and murder,
Charles Pickering reached down deep in his soul, embraced the only
thing he did have, his religious faith.
He then testified against Sam Bowers, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan in the firebombing trial of civil rights activist Vernon
Dahmer in 1967. And Charles Pickering signed the affidavit supporting
the murder indictment of Klansman Dubie Lee for a murder committed at
the Masonite Corporation's pulpwood plant in Jones County. The took
courage.
While it is easy in Washington, DC, in 2003, to make a speech or sign
a bill in favor of civil rights after decades have changed racial
attitudes in schools, in society, and in the press, who among us would
have had the courage of Charles Pickering in Laurel, MS in 1967? Who
among us would have had the courage of his wife Margaret to stand with
him?
There are those who would say ``We are pleased that Pickering was one
of the few prosecutors who actually prosecuted crimes committed by the
KKK in the 1960s, but he should have also gone further by calling for
immediate integration of schools and the workplace.''
That argument is tantamount to saying, ``We are pleased that Harry
Truman integrated the federal armed forces in 1948, but he should have
gone further and called for the integration of the state national
guards as well.'' Or to say, ``We are pleased that Lyndon Johnson
signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, after opposing civil rights, but
he should have gone further and demanded that all businesses adopt an
affirmative action hiring plan.''
To judge the words and actions of these Civil Rights Champions in the
1940s, 50s, and 60s, by a 2003 standard, would leave them wanting. We
must remember that in Mississippi and other Southern States in the
1960s, most elected prosecutors sat on their hands when the
Klan committed acts of violence. Young Charles Pickering had to deal
with white citizens and politicans who resisted integration and civil
rights. He had to deal with these people in language that would not
incite further violence and with requests for action that he had a
chance of getting people to take. He did so with moral courage.
And because he acted with courage at such a young age, Charles
Pickering was able to continue with more progressive actions decade
after decade. In 1976, he hired the first African American field
representative for the Mississippi Republican Party. In 1981, he
defended a young black man who had been falsely accused of the armed
robbery of a teenage white girl. In 1999, he joined the University of
Mississippi's Racial Reconciliation Commission. And in 2000 he helped
establish a program for at-risk kids, most of whom were African
Americans, in Laurel, MS--where 35 years earlier he had backed his
principles with his and his family's lives. This is a record of
courage. It is a record to be commended.
In the years since the 1960s, attitudes in Mississippi and elsewhere
have dramatically improved. Schools are integrated. The Klan is no
longer a powerful force capable of intimidating whole communities. And
the support from Mississippians--black and white, men and women--who
have known Charles Pickering for decades has been overwhelming. This
support no doubt results from the moral courage of Charles Pickering.
In 1990, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination
of Charles Pickering, and the Senate unanimously confirmed him to the
district court bench. In his 12 years on the bench, he had handled
4,500 cases. In approximately 99.5 percent of these cases, his rulings
have stood. The American Bar Association rated Judge Pickering ``well
qualified'' for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--once upon a time,
the vaunted ``gold standard'' of my Democrat colleagues.
I was present at Judge Pickering's confirmation hearing. I listened
to the testimony and reviewed the record. I have measured the
allegations and those who made them, against the entire record and the
courage of Judge Pickering. I have found the allegations to be
unfounded and the special interest group accusers lacking in the moral
courage that Judge Pickering possesses.
The Senate now has a chance to show the courage that Charles
Pickering has consistently demonstrated. Unfortunately, I fear it will
shrink from this
[[Page S13556]]
moment. And for that I apologize, in advance, to Judge Pickering and
his family. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was going to speak first, but I
understand the senior Senator from New York, as happens with so many of
us, is supposed to be in two places at once. While he is capable of
many good things, that is one thing he has not figured out how to do
yet.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York. Once he has finished,
I will then speak and answer some of the things that have been said on
the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. President, this is a difficult decision in a very certain sense.
I listened to the sincere words of my colleague from Tennessee. I think
they were heartfelt and well spoken. I have tremendous respect for my
two colleagues from Mississippi, and I know particularly to my friend
Senator Lott how much this means. He has worked very hard and
diligently on behalf of Judge Pickering's nomination.
I must rise to oppose it, and let me explain both to my colleagues
and to everybody, I guess, why. I am a patriot. I love America. My
family came to this country 5, 3, and 2 generations ago, poor as church
mice, discriminated against in Europe. My dad could not graduate from
college, and I am a United States Senator. God bless America. What a
great country.
I study the history of America. One of the things I try to study is
what are our faults, what are our strengths, how do we make sure what
happened to the Roman Empire and the British Empire does not happen to
this country. One of the most profound scholars who studied America was
Alexis de Tocqueville. He came to America in 1832 or so, traveled
across the country, including upstate New York, and he wrote a couple
of things. First, he wrote then when we were a small nation, not mighty
like the great European nations of Britain, France, or Russia. He wrote
that we would become the greatest country in the world. That was pretty
omniscient. But he also wrote that there was one thing that could do
America in, and that was the poison of race.
We have made great progress. We all know it and everybody knows it.
Much of the progress was made--all of it just about--in the last 40
years. We did not make much progress from 1865 to, say, 1960 or 1955.
I guess Brown v. Board started the whole wellspring. Frankly, for the
first time in my life I am optimistic about racial relations in
America. I think, over time, things will heal. I didn't used to think
that, even 5 years ago.
But we still have a lot of healing to do, despite the progress. I
have to say I don't think the nomination of Judge Pickering--I know he
is people's friend; I know lots of fine people think he is a fine man--
helps that healing. I think it hurts it. I base my decision not only on
his record, which--I would have to disagree, in all due respect, with
my friend from Tennessee--on race issues is, at best, mixed. The cross-
burning case bothers me greatly because if you are sensitive to race,
even if you think a case was wrongly decided, you don't go through the
extra legal means, on a cross-burning case, to do what you have to do.
Does that mean a person should be put in jail or excoriated? No. Does
it mean if he runs for public office that he is going to lose? No.
But on the Fifth Circuit, the circuit that has had the great names at
healing race and racial divisions that my colleague from Tennessee
mentioned, should not we be extra careful about trying to bring a
unifying figure to that bench, particularly when it represents more
minorities than any other?
The bottom line is, while we can find individual names, to me it is
overwhelmingly clear that the Black community in Mississippi--which
ought to have pretty good judgment about who did what, when, and how
far we have come--is quite overwhelmingly against Judge Pickering.
You can say it is politics. But when we hear the head of the NAACP
say, as he told us yesterday, that every single chapter--I don't
remember how many there were, like 140--were against Judge Pickering,
that means something. When you hear that all but a handful of the Black
elected officials in Mississippi are against Judge Pickering, that
means something.
Frankly, in this body we don't have an African American to give voice
to their view, the African American view, diverse as it is, about
whether Judge Pickering is a healing figure and deserves to be on this
exalted circuit. We are not demoting him. We are not excoriating him.
We are debating whether he should be promoted to this important bench,
particularly when it comes to race and civil rights. And the
overwhelming voice is no.
I ask unanimous consent from my colleague to be given an additional 3
minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield another 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. So the overwhelming voice is no. The elected Black
officials of Mississippi--I don't know the percentage, but I think it
is against him. The only Black Member of Congress speaks strongly
against him. He doesn't just say, well, I wouldn't vote for him, but it
is an either/or situation, and that has to influence us. It is not
dispositive. People can say ``these groups.'' Well, the NAACP is not
just a group. It has been the leading organization. It is a mainstream
African-American organization.
There are groups on the other side lobbying for Judge Pickering.
There are groups on this side against. I don't know why my colleagues,
some on the other side, say the groups that lobby against what they
want are evil, and the groups that lobby for are doing American
justice. That is what groups do, and we listen to them sometimes.
I, from New York, don't know that much about this. I try to study
history, but I haven't lived there. I haven't gone through the history
that my colleagues from Mississippi or Tennessee have. But I have to
rely on other voices as well.
So the fork in the road we come to here is this: On this nomination
in this important circuit which has, indeed, done so much to move us
forward--and I do believe we will continue to move forward as a
country; even as Alexis de Toqueville said, on the poison of race--do
we appoint a man who, on racial issues, has a record that at best is
mixed, and who recently, at a very minimum, has shown insensitivity on
the cross-burning case? Sure, there was a disparity of sentence. One
thing I know quite well, in criminal law there are always disparities
of sentence when there is a plea bargain, and prosecutors always go to
someone in the case and say: If you plea bargain, you will get fewer
years than if you don't. So that is not a great injustice. It happens
every day in every court in this land. On this particular case, that is
where Judge Pickering's heart was, to take it to a higher level. It is
bothersome, particularly when it comes to nominating someone, not just
to be a district court judge--which he is now--but nominated to the
exalted Fifth Circuit, the racial healer in America for so long.
So in my view--no aspersions to my colleagues from Mississippi who
feel so strongly about this; no aspersions to my colleague from
Tennessee who was eloquent, in my opinion; and no aspersions to Judge
Pickering as well--but we can do better, particularly on the Fifth
Circuit, when it comes to the issue of race, which has plagued the
regions of the Fifth Circuit and plagued my region as well. We can do
better.
I urge this nomination be defeated.
____________________