[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 174 (Tuesday, November 25, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2464-E2465]
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

                       Tuesday, November 25, 2003

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, over the last three days I have commented on 
Democratic

[[Page E2465]]

Congressional staff memos that show how left-wing special interest 
groups are trying to hijack the appointment of federal judges. Today, I 
am introducing four more such memos. Besides confirming the fact that 
these groups are demanding, and apparently receiving, the power to 
delay or even block President Bush's nominees, they expose the double 
standard these groups apply to women and minority nominees who don't 
share their extreme political views. One memo shows that these groups 
identified Miguel Estrada, a nominee who received the American Bar 
Association's highest rating, as ``especially dangerous'' because, 
among other things, ``he is Latino.'' Another memo reports that liberal 
lobbyists and their supporters in Congress proposed ``a strategy for 
dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees.'' That memo 
also reveals that these lobbyists were using their contacts in the 
``Latino media'' to undermine Mr. Estrada and others like him. Nominees 
Caroline Kuhl and Priscilla Owen were also singled out for opposition.
  It is both ironic and tragic that these groups, which so loudly 
proclaim their support for the ``civil rights'' of women and 
minorities, would deny a judicial appointment to any minority or woman 
candidate who exercises his or her civil right to hold different 
opinions. It is time for these groups to stop blocking nominees who 
don't conform to their ideological stereotypes.

                               Memorandum

     To: [Member of Congress]
     Date: November 6, 2001
     Re: Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders, Tuesday, November 6, 
         at 5 p.m. [Congressional Office Building]

       Following up on a meeting in mid-October, 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 likely include: Ralph Ncas (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), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). The 
     meeting will take place in [Congressional Office Building] 
     with [2 Members of Congress] also present.
       Today's meeting is likely to touch on a number of related 
     issues. The primary focus will be on identifying the most 
     controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups 
     would like to postpone action on these nominees until next 
     year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of 
     partisan dissent. They would also like to develop a strategy 
     for moving these nominees. Among their priorities: (1) they 
     want to ensure that they receive adequate notice before 
     controversial nominees are scheduled for hearings; (2) they 
     think [Member of Congress] should use controversial nominees 
     as bargaining chips, just as the Republicans did; and (3) 
     they are opposed to holding hearings during recess. Although 
     [Member of Congress] has resisted these moves so far, they 
     are reasonable requests in our estimation.
       There will likely be a discussion about how to respond 
     effectively to recent Republican charges that the pace of 
     judicial nominations is too slow. The Republicans have 
     continued to hold-up the appropriations bills. As of Friday, 
     it was their intention to launch a new campaign this week, 
     charging the Democrats with hindering the war effort by not 
     confirming judges who are needed to approve wire taps and 
     search warrants. This claim is deeply flawed, because the 
     Committee has been especially quick to move along district 
     court judges and the White House has not nominated people to 
     fill more than half of the current vacancies.
       Under separate cover, I will provide a table that evaluates 
     the current Court of Appeals nominees who are pending, as 
     well as a few noteworthy district court nominees. N.B.: These 
     are my designations, and they are preliminary. The groups may 
     feel somewhat differently.
                                  ____


                               Memorandum

     To: [Member of Congress]
     Date: November 7, 2001
     Re: Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders Yesterday to Discuss 
         Judges
       Due to the floor activity last night, you missed a meeting 
     with [Member of Congress] and representatives of various 
     civil rights groups. This was intended to follow-up a meeting 
     in [Member of Congress's] office in mid-October, when the 
     groups expressed serious concern with the quick hearing for 
     Charles Pickering and the pace of judicial nominations 
     generally.
       Yesterday's meeting accomplished two objectives. First, the 
     groups advocated for some procedural ground rules. These 
     include: (1) only one hearing per month (2) no more than 
     three judges per hearing; (3) giving Committee Democrats and 
     the public more advance notice of scheduled nominees; (4) no 
     recess hearings; and (5) a commitment that nominees voted 
     down in Committee will not get a floor vote. Earlier 
     yesterday. [Member of Congress's] staff committed to the 
     third item in principle.
       Second, yesterday's meeting focused on identifying the most 
     controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a 
     strategy for targeting them. The groups singled out three--
     Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); 
     and Caroline Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a 
     contentious hearing early next year, with a eye to voting him 
     or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada 
     (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a 
     minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems 
     to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want 
     to hold Estrada off as long as possible.
       Attached is a table that I compiled, evaluating the 19 
     Court of Appeals nominees and a few of the controversial 
     district court nominees.
       Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate 
     nominees in the categories below.
       Asterisks indicate that a [Member of Congress] has placed a 
     hold on the nominee.


                                  good

     Clifton (9th Cir.)*
     Melloy (8th Cir.)
     O'Brien (10th Cir.)
     Howard (1st Cir.)
     B. Smith (3rd Cir.)


                                  Bad

     Shedd (4th Cir.)
     Roberts (D.C. Cir.)
     L. Smith (8th Cir.)
     Pickenng (5th Cir.)
     Tymkovich (10th Cir.)
     Gibbons (6th Cir.)
     Steel (11th Cir.)


                                  Ugly

     Boyle (4th Cir.)*
     Owen (5th Cir.)
     Sutton (6th Cir.)*
     Cook (6th Cir.)*
     McConnell (10th Cir.)
     Estrada (D.C. Cir.)
     Kuhl (9th Cir.)*
                                  ____


                               Memorandum

     To: [Member of Congress]
     Subject: Judges and the Latino Community
     Date: February 28, 2002

       Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with 
     Andy Stern of SEU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move 
     forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino 
     media outlets--Univision and others. Ralph told Andy that you 
     are anxious to develop a strategy for the Supreme Court and a 
     strategy for dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court 
     nominees that are hostile to constitutional and civil rights. 
     Ralph and Andy discussed the possibility of a relatively 
     small meeting to discuss media strategy, and Andy believes 
     there are several Latino media leaders who share our concerns 
     and would like to meet with you. Ralph proposes that you meet 
     with key Latino media leaders, Raul, Antonia, Wade, and 
     Ralph, and I think this is a very good idea.
       Would you like to have such a meeting to discuss media 
     strategy and the Latino community? If so, Ralph and Andy will 
     take the lead in getting everyone to DC.
     Decision:

     Yes, I want to meet with them ___
     No, I don't want to meet ___
                                  ____


                               Memorandum

     To: [Member of Congress]
     Date: June 3, 2002
     Re: Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders to Discuss Judicial 
         Nominations Strategy
       [Member of Congress] has invited invited you and [Member of 
     Congress] to attend a meeting with civil rights leaders to 
     discuss their priorities as the Judiciary Committee considers 
     judicial nominees in the coming months. For example, they 
     believe that the Committee's current pace for nominations 
     hearings (every two weeks) is too quick; and they need more 
     time to consider the record of Judge Dennis Shedd, a 
     controversial 4th Circuit nominee whom [Member of Congress] 
     is backing.
       This meeting is intended to follow-up your meetings in 
     [Member of Congress's] office last fall. The guest list will 
     be the same: Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for 
     Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights), Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Nancy 
     Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia 
     Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman 
     (National Partnership). The meeting has been tentatively 
     scheduled for late Wednesday morning.
       Assuming your schedule permits, do you want to accept 
     [Member of Congress's] invitation and attend the meeting?