[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 170 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2370-E2371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE IMPACT OF LEFT-WING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ON THE JUDICIAL 
                           NOMINATION PROCESS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MARK E. SOUDER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 20, 2003

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce into the Record 
two more memos--written by Democratic congressional staff--that 
illustrate the extent to which liberal special interest groups are 
controlling the judicial nomination process. These groups have been 
allowed a virtual veto power over any nominee they dislike. For 
example, groups like the so-called People for the American Way have 
apparently been able to delay or block the approval of judges who do 
not share their antilaw enforcement views, while groups like the 
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) have been given a 
similar veto power over anyone who doesn't agree that parents shouldn't 
even be notified that their child is considering an abortion. One 
nominee, according to the memos, had to be cleared with ``the gay 
rights groups'' before he would even be considered. These memos show 
just how far the process has deteriorated--and are a wake-up call to 
anyone who wants to see fairness and objectivity restored to our 
Federal judiciary.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Senator Kennedy.
     Subject: Judges--Schedule for the Year & Chairing A Hearing.


        I. schedule for the year and the shedd and cook problems

       As you know, during your meeting with the groups, you and 
     Schumer discussed approaching Leahy regarding the Shedd 
     hearing. You proposed telling him that because of the number 
     of unpublished opinions and the divisiveness of the 
     nomination (angering the African American community prior to 
     the election), you think we should refrain from having a 
     hearing on Shedd in June. Based on the groups recommendation, 
     you were also going to propose an end-of-June hearing on 
     another nominee. The following has happened in the interim:
       Lott approached Daschle with an unreasonable request for 
     nominations hearings before the July 4th recess. Daschle told 
     him ``no'' but approached Leahy to discuss a more aggressive 
     hearing schedule. The proposed schedule is as follows:

     June 13th Rogers--(6th Circuit)
     June 27th Shedd--(4th Circuit)
     July 18th Owen--(5th Circuit)
     August 1st Cook--(6th Circuit)
     September 5th Raggi--(2nd Circuit)
     September 19th Estrada--(DC Circuit)
     October 3rd McConnell--(10th Circuit)

       The August 1st Cook hearing is a surprise to us, and it 
     will be a huge problem for the judges coalition. For many, 
     many months they have told us that Cook is highly 
     problematic--particularly for labor. Cook is consistently bad 
     on labor/workplace injury cases, right to jury trial issues, 
     civil rights and rights of criminal defendants cases. Her 
     frequent dissents (from the moderate majority) show a pattern 
     at least as egregious as Pickering. We must press Leahy not 
     to schedule Cook (Cook is strongly supported by DeWine, but 
     how many times did Hatch disregard your request to move DC 
     Circuit nominee Alan Snyder?).
       Regarding Shedd, Wade Henderson spoke with Mark Childress, 
     Daschle's Chief Counsel and Childress is going to speak with 
     Hollings' staff director. But, because we feel Leahy will not 
     cancel the Shedd hearing unless Hollings backs off (and 
     because several of the outside groups believe the same), we 
     don't think you should expend a great deal of effort trying 
     to change Leahy's mind about the Shedd hearing.
       Instead, you should speak with Schumer, and the two of you 
     should bring Durbin up to speed (since he couldn't attend the 
     meeting in your hideaway). The three of you should 
     approach Leahy as soon as possible and tell Leahy that:
       You are very concerned about Shedd because he has numerous 
     unpublished opinions and because his nomination will 
     infuriate the African-American community before the SC 
     election, but you understand the Hollings problem. If 
     Hollings can be moved, you propose postponing the Shedd 
     hearing.
       You understand he is contemplating a more aggressive 
     hearing schedule that includes a hearing for Debbie Cook for 
     the 6th Circuit; and you believe she should not get a hearing 
     this year. For months, labor and other groups have told us 
     that she is highly problematic, and we should send her 
     nomination back to the White House. We won't suffer 
     publically if we don't have a nomination hearing for her.
       Ultimately, if Leahy insists on having an August hearing, 
     it appears that the groups are willing to let Tymkovich go 
     through (the core of the coalition made that decision last 
     night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups).

[[Page E2371]]

       Given this information, do you want to talk to Schumer--and 
     Durbin--about having this conversation with Leahy and then 
     speak with Leahy? We strongly recommend that you have these 
     conversations, and we believe Leahy must be approached 
     quickly.
       Decision:
       Yes, I will talk to Schumer and Durbin; the three of us 
     will go to Leahy ___.
        No, I will not speak with Schumer and Durbin or Leahy ___.


                         II. chairing a hearing

       As you know, Senator Leahy asked that you chair the last 
     nominations hearing, but given your schedule, you could not. 
     His staff is now asking us to choose the hearing you would 
     like to chair (see the schedule above).
       I propose that you chair the Owen hearing on July 18th. As 
     you know, Owen will probably be our next big fight. The 
     grassroots organizations are organized in Texas, and the 
     national groups are prepared, as well. In addition, Judiciary 
     Democrats expect to fight her, hearing attendance should be 
     good, and the issues are clear--Enron/pro-business and 
     choice.
       You should know, the Leahy staff (and the Schumer staff) 
     propose that you chair the Estrada hearing and I disagree. 
     Although other staffers see Estrada as a civil rights 
     problem, because he has no record, there isn't civil rights 
     ammunition. We don't believe Estrada is ``your kind of 
     fight.'' We think Durbin or Schumer might be better for the 
     Estrada hearing (and, at least on the staff level, there's 
     interest from the Schumer office).
       Decision: I will chair a hearing on:
       Shedd (6/27) ___.
       Owen (7/18) ___.
       Cook (8/1) ___ (we want this to go away).
       Raggi (9/5) ___.
       Estrada (9/19) ___.
       McConnelI (10/3) ___.
                                  ____


                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Senator Durbin.
     Date: October 15, 2001.
     Re: Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders, Tuesday, October 16, 
         2001 at 5:30 p.m.

       You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil 
     rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with 
     the judicial nomination process. The leaders will include: 
     Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman 
     (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson 
     (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP 
     Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American 
     Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger 
     (National Women's Law Center), Judy Lichtman (National 
     Partnership), and a representative from the AFL-CIO. The 
     meeting will take place in 317 Russell, with Senators Kennedy 
     and (possibly) Schumer also present.
       The immediate catalyst for Tuesday's meeting was the 
     announcement last Thursday that the Judiciary Committee would 
     hold a hearing in one week on district court judge Charles W. 
     Pickering, Sr., a highly controversial nominee for the Fifth 
     Circuit. The interest groups have two objections; (1) in 
     light of the terrorist attacks, it was their understanding 
     that no controversial. judicial nominees would be moved this 
     fall; and (2) they were given assurances that they would 
     receive plenty of notice to prepare for any controversial 
     nominee.
       Judge Pickering, you will recall, has a checkered past: he 
     wrote a law review student note recommending that the 
     Mississippi legislature restore its miscegenation law; as a 
     state legislator, he opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and 
     voted to seal the records of the infamous sovereignty 
     commission; and as a Republican activist; he promoted an 
     anti-abortion plank to the national party platform. He has 
     written some controversial opinions while serving on the 
     district court, criticizing prisoner access to the courts and 
     the ``one person-one vote'' principle. The interest groups 
     believe that a high percentage of Pickering's opinions are 
     unpublished, one reason why they object to the lack of time 
     to prepare for his hearing.
       Recognizing that Thursday's hearing is likely to go 
     forward, the groups are asking that the Committee hold a 
     second hearing on Pickering in a few weeks, when they will 
     have had adequate time to research him fully. The decision to 
     schedule Pickering's hearing was made by Senator Leahy 
     himself, not his staff, so the groups are likely to ask you 
     to intercede personally. They will also seek assurances that 
     they will receive adequate warning of future controversial 
     nominees.

                          ____________________