[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7532-S7541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S7532]]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF J. LEON HOLMES, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 165. The clerk
will state the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of J. Leon Holmes, of
Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 6 hours of debate equally
divided.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we find ourselves today considering the
nomination of Leon Holmes for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I have
known Mr. Holmes for a number of years. In fact, I used to practice law
with him. Even though I count him as a friend, I have to go back to the
criteria that I use when I consider any nomination for the Federal
bench.
Basically, I have a four-part test that I apply. One: Is the nominee
qualified? Two: Does the nominee have the necessary experience for the
post? Three: Will the nominee, once he or she is on the bench, be fair
and impartial? And the fourth criteria is more of a catchall: Are there
other circumstances--maybe his or her temperament or maybe he or she
has an agenda--is there something in their background that might
prevent this person from serving?
Clearly, Leon Holmes is a qualified nominee. There is no doubt about
that. Also, clearly he has the necessary experience to serve as a
district judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Rightly so, people
can ask and should ask: Can he be fair and impartial?
There is no question about the fact that Leon Holmes has been a
strong advocate when it comes to the issue of life and choice. He is
strongly on the pro-life side. He has been very clear about that point.
For over two decades now, there is no question, there is no doubt about
where Mr. Holmes stands on that important issue facing our Nation
today.
Let's look at that issue and let's look at some statements he made
and some things we have learned about Mr. Holmes during this nomination
process.
First, let me say, I was attorney general in Arkansas for 4 years
before I came to the Senate. As such, I can think, in 4 years of
practice, of only one case of which I am aware that either my office or
anybody else in the State of Arkansas handled relating to abortion and
that was directly on point. The fact that he would be a judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas--we have two districts--probably would
mean, given the number of Federal judges we have, given his age, it
would be very unlikely for him to ever have an abortion case.
Second, even if he did have an abortion case, Mr. Holmes has
represented every pro-life group in the State of Arkansas--I cannot
speak to all of his clients, but he has represented them and has been
very involved with them. So undoubtedly he would have a conflict if any
of those cases ever came before him as a judge.
Mr. Holmes has a very deep conviction and a genuine passion about the
issue of when life begins and whether this country should allow women
the right to choose under any circumstance. It is a position that is
based on much thought and much reason and even much prayer.
I can say this: After reviewing his record very thoroughly in the
last year--by the way, this nomination has been pending in the Senate
for over a year--he has made a number of inflammatory statements, and I
thought what I would do is read through a few of those very briefly so
my colleagues will understand what the controversy with Mr. Holmes is
all about.
At one point, he wrote:
Concern for rape victims is a red herring because
conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as
snow in Miami.
I could go through a series of statements he made. Let me read a
couple more. He, in effect, compared the pro-choice movement to some
things that were going on in Nazi Germany. I think that is a fair
statement without trying to get into the long background and quote on
that point.
Another item which has been controversial is that he wrote a piece
for a Catholic newspaper in Arkansas. He also cowrote it with his wife.
In this piece it says that a wife has the obligation to ``subordinate
herself to her husband'' and ``to place herself under the authority of
the man.'' Here, again, this is a reflection of Catholic doctrine. It
is a teaching that is found in the New Testament. It is something in
which Mr. Holmes and his wife both participate. When we hear statements
such as that, naturally questions are raised and people ask: Is this
the kind of person we want on the Federal bench?
If we look at most of the statements he has made about abortion and
other subjects, not every single one, but most are at least 15 years
old. He has apologized during the course of this nomination process,
and, for all I know, he has already apologized for this, but he has
apologized on many occasions for some of the statements he has written
and said.
In fact, if I can read some excerpts of the responses from his
questionnaire he answered before the Judiciary Committee. I am not
going to try to read all this because there are way too many of them
and way too long. Let me take selected excerpts.
At one point he said:
The sentence about rape victims--
Which I just quoted--
which was made in a letter to the editor in 1980 is
particularly troublesome to me from the distance of 23 years.
Regardless of the merits of the issue, the articulation in
that sentence reflects an insensitivity for which there is no
excuse and for which I apologize.
He goes on to say in another paragraph:
Let me be clear that Roe v. Wade, as affirmed by Casey, is
the law of the land. As a district judge, I would be bound to
follow it and would do so.
In another response about when it comes time for him to consider
whether he should recuse in cases, he said:
I would follow 28 U.S.C. 455 and the Code of Conduct for
United States Judges when making recusal decisions.
He goes on to say in another paragraph:
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. As a judge, I would be
bound by oath to follow that law. I do not see how a judge
could follow the law but restrict the rights established by
the law.
In other words, he is committing over and over he is going to follow
the law of the land.
Again, in answer to another question:
I recognize the binding force of the court's holding in
Griswold and Eizenstat recognizing the right to privacy.
Once again, people can have a legitimate, genuine concern and can ask
questions about this point, but time and again he answers his critics.
He says later:
Roe v. Wade establishes that the constitutional right to
privacy includes a woman's right to have an abortion.
In another section he says:
I do not understand that the Court in Roe v. Wade contended
that the decision there was mandated by strict construction
as the term is defined above.
He is talking about this phrase in the question.
I recognize these decisions are, once again, the law of the
land. They are binding precedent on all courts. If I am
confirmed, I will do my utmost to follow these and all other
precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Then the last couple of excerpts I would like to read are these. Here
again he is talking about Roe v. Wade:
As a judge, I would follow every decision of the Supreme
Court that has not been subsequently overruled.
How many times does he have to say that? How many times does he have
to say he is going to follow the law?
I know Leon personally. Lawyers in Arkansas have worked with him, and
they know him personally. We have a high degree of confidence that he
will follow the law.
Something that comes through over and over with Mr. Holmes is he has
an incredibly strong reputation for high ethical standards.
In fact, as a demonstration of this, at one point during the process
he met with Senator Lincoln and they talked about a number of issues.
If we know Senator Lincoln, we know she asked a
[[Page S7533]]
lot of hard questions and she expected clear and definitive answers,
which she got.
At some point during the process, other things came to light he had
not told Senator Lincoln about or that he felt, in fairness to her and
out of respect for her, she should know about.
So on his own volition, without being prompted by anyone or anything,
on April 11, 2003--this was over a year ago because this has been
pending over a year--he voluntarily wrote Senator Lincoln a letter
talking about some of these statements that had come out. He says in
the 1980s he wrote letters to the editors in newspaper columns
regarding the abortion issue using strident and harsh rhetoric. He goes
on to say almost all of these are over 15 years old. He says, in a
later paragraph:
As I stated in response to written questions from Senator
Durbin, I am especially troubled by the sentence about rape
victims in a 1980 letter to the editor regarding the proposed
Human Life Amendment; and as I said there, regardless of the
merits of the issue, the articulation of that sentence
reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and
for which I apologize. . . .
Here again, he is talking about something he had written over 24
years ago. If we were to apply that same standard to us, if we could
think back 24 years before we ever were in office or even 24 years ago
for any of us, we would probably look back on some of our statements
and not be real pleased with some of the things we said.
He goes on when he talks about a 1987 effort, when he was president
of Arkansas Right to Life, and he says he asked a rhetorical question
in the context of some columns and things that had been written and he
mentioned Nazi Germany. One thing he says to Senator Leahy is: ``I did
not intend to say that supporters of abortion rights should be equated
with Nazis,'' and he spends a whole paragraph talking about this,
trying to clarify and give the context for what he had said.
He also in his letter to Senator Lincoln wrote about this article he
had written in his church newspaper. He says that ``the marital
relationship symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the
church.'' He stated:
. . . My wife and I believe that this teaching ennobles and
dignifies marriage and both partners in it. We do not believe
that this teaching demeans either the husband or the wife but
that it elevates both. It involves a mutual self-giving and
self-forgetting, a reciprocal gift of self. This teaching is
not inconsistent with the equality of all persons, male and
female . . .
Then he goes on to talk about that. So when we look back at these
statements he made 17 years ago, 23 years ago, 24 years ago in one
case, Leon Holmes, by his own words, comes to this conclusion in the
last paragraph of his letter. He says:
Some of the criticisms directed at things I wrote years ago
are just; some of them are not. I hope that my legal career
as a whole, spanning the years 1982 through 2003, evidences
that I am now ready to assume the responsibility of a United
States District Court Judge. I certainly was not ready in
1980, nor for many years thereafter, and I do not claim that I was. . .
.
In other words, he is admitting he had maybe crossed a line and there
are some things he wished he had not said or wished he had said
differently.
I will tell my colleagues about Leon Holmes. He is a very fine
person. He is a very serious and very sincere Christian man. He is a
husband, he is a father, and he is a lawyer. He is a man of very deep
faith. In fact, his faith permeates every aspect of his life. I say
that very sincerely because I know Leon. Some people might hear those
words and say, listen, that means he has this rightwing agenda that
when he gets on the bench he is going to do certain things and hold
certain ways.
Well, Leon is much deeper than that. His agenda is justice. The
hallmark that really distinguishes Leon from so many other people is
integrity. He is a great example of integrity.
I have 23 letters. I promise I am not going to read them all. There
are dozens more I could have brought with me. There is a saying in the
Bible that if we do not testify about it the stones will cry out. Well,
what we found in Arkansas is a swelling where the stones are crying
out, except in this case they are not stones, they are people who have
practiced with Leon and people who have practiced against Leon.
I have personally talked with dozens and dozens of lawyers in the
State of Arkansas. I have asked them: Would Leon Holmes make a good
Federal judge? In almost every single conversation, there is an
unequivocal yes, he would be an outstanding Federal judge.
I will read some of these excerpts. Then I would like to turn this
over to my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One
excerpt is from a Federal district judge, Bill Wilson. I actually asked
him to write this letter because I asked him about whether he thought
Leon Holmes could be fair and impartial. As part of the explanation,
Judge Wilson says before Leon was nominated and chosen for the bench,
he was ``a New Deal, new frontier, great society Democrat, and
unabashedly so.'' He goes on to talk about how Leon Holmes will have a
detached objectivity, that he will set a standard all judges would be
proud of. He concludes by saying:
I have seen Leon Holmes in action on several other
occasions, and he is a top-flight lawyer with the nicest
sense of personal honor. I believe this to be his reputation
with almost all the legal profession in Arkansas.
That is my impression as well.
Here is a letter from Philip Anderson. Philip Anderson may not be a
household name, but Philip Anderson is the former president of the
American Bar Association. He writes this paragraph:
I practiced law with Mr. Holmes for many years until he
withdrew from our firm two years ago. I believe that he is
superbly qualified for the position for which he has been
nominated. He is a scholar first, and he has had broad
experience in Federal court. He is a person of rock-solid
integrity and sterling character. He is compassionate and
even-handed. He has an innate sense of fairness. He is
temperamentally suited for the bench. He works with dispatch.
In short, he has all of the qualities that one would hope to
find in a Federal judge, and seldom are they found in a
person so amiable and with his degree of genuine humility.
In fact, I know Philip Anderson is a Democrat and was his law partner
for a number of years.
Here is another one. This one is from Kristine Baker of Little Rock.
She is a lawyer. She goes out of her way to point out she is a
Democrat. She says: I do not always see eye to eye but I respect him
and trust his judgment. Above all, he is fair.
She talks about his respect and his dignity, his intellect, his
demeanor, his temperament, and his ability.
Here we have another letter. This one is actually from Tulsa, OK. It
is from a lawyer named Dana Baldwin who used to practice in Little
Rock. She is a native Arkansan. She said:
Despite occasional differences in my and Mr. Holmes' views
on social and political issues, I can speak highly of his
integrity and compassion for the law. . . .
She talks about his impartiality. She talks about his commitment to
follow the law.
This letter is from Robin Carroll, who is a lawyer down in El Dorado,
AR.
Robin happens to be the legal counsel for the Democratic Party of
Arkansas. He calls Mr. Holmes:
. . . a brilliant and ethical lawyer.
He would be a fair and impartial judge. He would be fair and
impartial on every issue.
Bear in mind, Mr. Carroll and Mr. Holmes have done battle in the
courtroom before on election issues, and other party-type issues.
Here is another one, Nate Coulter. Nate is a very fine lawyer from
Little Rock. He has been on the statewide ballot twice as a Democrat.
He says:
. . . I am writing to endorse enthusiastically Mr. Holmes'
nomination to the federal district court.
He says his political views and party affiliations differ, but those:
. . . do not affect my very high regard for his character and
professionalism.
He says they have been opposite each other in at least six lawsuits.
Mr. Coulter talks about Mr. Holmes' intellectual fitness and integrity
and once again, Nate has done battle with him in the courtroom.
Also now we have a letter from Beth Deere. She again goes out of her
way to talk about how she is a Democrat and how they do disagree on a
number of issues. But she talks about his bright legal mind. Once
again, she mentions the word ``integrity.'' That comes through over and
over and over in these letters.
Margaret Dobson says:
I have met no man who respects women more.
[[Page S7534]]
She talks about the respect she has for Leon and Leon has for others.
She says he is the partner who had most supported her career growth and
her rise to the level of partner.
Here again she talks about Leon's political views and hers. They may
disagree, but he is:
. . . fair and honest and diligent.
He has a commitment to follow the law. He has:
. . . impeccable morals, unquestionable ethics, and supreme
intelligence.
She talks about how respected he is in the legal community in
Arkansas.
Here is one from Stephen Engstrom, who is a lawyer in Little Rock. He
says:
He is an outstanding lawyer and a man of excellent
character.
Once again, he says:
Leon Holmes and I differ on political and personal issues
such as pro-choice/anti-abortion. [In fact he says] I am a
past board member of our local Planned Parenthood chapter. .
. .
But he goes on to say:
. . . I am confident that Leon Holmes will do his duty as the
law and facts of any given case require.
Here again, I am only reading short excerpts from a few of the
letters we have received on Mr. Holmes.
Here is one from David Grace, who is a lawyer in Little Rock and
practices in downtown. He has a very fine reputation. He says that he
and I have had several cases. Some of these have been with him and some
against him.
. . . Leon has a powerful mind and excellent judgment. He is
able to be honestly objective. . . .
He goes on to say:
. . . he is among the very best and most respected lawyers in
Arkansas.
Once again, he goes out of his way to say he disagrees strongly with
some of Leon's political or social views, but they have not:
. . . affected his analysis of a legal problem or his
performance as an attorney.
We have a law professor from the University of Arkansas Law School,
where Leon was a student. This is Howard Brill. In fact, he was one of
my law professors. He says:
I have no doubt that he is scrupulously fair and will be so
on the bench--fair to all individuals, to all groups, to all
political persuasions, to all viewpoints on the issues that
divide Americans. In his judicial role and temperament, he is
not a partisan.
Here is a letter from a lawyer, Field K. Wassen, Jr., who was
Governor Bill Clinton's legal counsel. He says Leon Holmes has
``unquestioned integrity.''
Here is another one from a plaintiff's lawyer in the State. Her name
is Eileen Woods Harrison. Her father was a Federal judge and she is a
lifelong Democrat. In fact, at one point she was on the State Workers
Compensation Commission and she was released from that post because she
was considered to be too liberal on some of the issues. And lo and
behold, who was hired to represent the State against her when she sued
the State? Leon Holmes. She goes on in this letter to say, even though
he was ``on the other side,'' he:
. . . conducted himself in the most professional and ethical
manner throughout my case. I gained a great respect for him
throughout the course of the litigation.
This isn't a lawyer who is on the other side, this is a litigant.
This is a party and he is the lawyer for the other side. In fact, she
closes with a Bible verse and says:
``Let Justice run down like waters, and righteousness like
a mighty stream.'' It is my firm belief that Mr. Holmes is a
just and righteous man who deserves the appointment to the
Federal Bench.
Here is one from Bradley Jesson, from Fort Smith, a very fine lawyer
who was for a short time Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court
and a Democrat. He says:
My opinion is this is one of the best judicial selections
that President Bush has made.
He says he has been with Leon in a number of cases.
In some we are on the same side. In others we are on
opposing sides. . . . [He's] one of the best prepared lawyers
around and most courteous and most professional. . . . His
legal work is among the very best I observed. . . . Leon and
I frankly disagree about some issues . . .
But Brad Jesson is convinced Leon will follow the law.
Here is one from Jack Lavey. He is a great lawyer in the State of
Arkansas. In fact, he is one of the founding members of the State
chapter of the ACLU. He calls himself, in this letter, a liberal
Democrat. He talks about Leon Holmes and he says:
. . . his professional reputation is outstanding. He is very
bright . . . and he's a very ethical lawyer. He is very
honest. . . . he has always been very professional and very
ethical.
He says he is honest and fair. He says also he will follow the law.
He says:
If a Roe v. Wade issue comes before Mr. Holmes, if he is
appointed as a federal district court judge, he will follow
the Supreme Court's decision in that case. If I thought
otherwise, I would not be writing this letter to you.
He goes on to talk about him and uses words like ``fairly,''
``honestly,'' ``ethically,'' ``in accordance with established law.''
He says:
To conclude, I consider it a privilege to highly recommend
to the United States Senate the appointment of Mr. Holmes as
a federal district judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
Here is one from Sandy McMath. He uses words like ``integrity,''
``compassion,'' ``scholarship.'' He says:
. . . he's an honorable and upright lawyer.
He goes on to say they have opposed each other vigorously in a case
involving ERISA, but he was at all times compassionate toward the other
side's client. He treated the other client with tremendous respect.
Once again, Sandy McMath, like most of these others, talks about how
they are on opposite sides of the political fence, but he is confident
Leon Holmes will make a good judge.
Also, here is one from Elizabeth Murray. She is with the largest law
firm in Arkansas, does a lot of defense work, probably insurance
defense work mostly, and corporate law work. She talks about his
intelligence, his integrity, and his respect for the law. She says she
does not share his opinions on a variety of issues, but nonetheless she
thinks he would be a good Federal judge.
Jeff Rosenzweig offers his ``wholehearted support.'' He is a criminal
defense lawyer. He calls himself a libertarian Democrat. I am not even
sure exactly what that is, but that probably does sum up his political
views. But he says:
He's a person of the highest character, intelligence and
judgment. He's been an outstanding advocate and if confirmed
will be an outstanding judge. If there is any person in the
world who will apply the law without regard to what his
personal beliefs might be, that person is Leon Holmes.
Time and time and time again we see that. Here is a letter from
Charles Schlumberger, a great lawyer in Little Rock and a good friend
of mine. He says:
I am a Democrat, I am pro-choice, and I support gender
equality.
He goes on to say:
If ever there was an individual fully qualified to serve on
the federal bench, it is Mr. Holmes.
He goes on to say:
I am confident that Mr. Holmes will uphold his duty as
jurist to follow the rule of law, without bias or deference
to his personal convictions.
We hear from a lawyer who now lives in Naples, FL, but used to
practice in Little Rock, Jeanne Seewald. She gives her wholehearted
endorsement. She talks about how respectful, courteous, and supportive
he was of her personally at their old law firm when they practiced
together. She says Leon is a gentleman and a scholar.
He has been a faithful mentor over the years. His ethics
are beyond reproach.
She talks about his thoughtful and brilliant analysis of issues.
I could read a couple of paragraphs out of that letter because she
says so many glowing things about him.
Here is one from Steven Shults who is, again, a lawyer in Little
Rock--a very fine lawyer with a great reputation. He talks about how
they have been on opposite sides of many lawsuits, but ``Mr. Holmes is
one of the finest lawyers in Arkansas and a premier appellate
advocate.''
He talks about his integrity. There is that word again,
``integrity.'' It comes through time and time again.
He talks about his ``integrity, judgment, courage, compassion,
intellect, dedication, patience, and intellectual honesty.''
Here again, Steven Shults is on the other side of some of these
issues, but, nonetheless, he thinks he would be a very good judge.
[[Page S7535]]
Here is one from Luther Sutter, who is a civil rights lawyer in
Arkansas. In fact, he may have the largest civil rights practice in the
State. I am not sure, but he is definitely among the largest. He talks
about Leon Holmes being the consummate professional. He says:
I assure you that in my eight years of practice, I have
learned to identify ideologues who are also lawyers. Such
lawyers routinely put their personal and philosophical
interests ahead of what I consider to be their clients' best
interests. Mr. Holmes never did that.
He goes on to say:
I recommend Leon Holmes to the Federal bench, with a full
understanding of his politics. Personally, I do not agree
with some of his political views.
He goes on to talk about how he heartily recommends Leon Holmes.
This is the last letter I will read. I promise because I know I am
trying the patience of everyone in the Chamber right now. But this is a
letter that the majority leader referred to a few moments ago from Kent
Rubens who is a very good lawyer from West Memphis, AK, which is right
across the Mississippi River from Memphis, TN. Kent Rubens has been a
pillar of that legal community in this part of the State for a long,
long time. He says:
I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified legally or
ethically to so serve.
He uses a funny phrase that I have heard in Arkansas a few times. He
says, ``I will shoot dice with him over the telephone.''
He talks about his honesty and how much integrity he has.
Let me give one little bit of background. He goes on in this letter
to say:
I was privileged to represent a litigant who struck down
the abortion statutes here in Arkansas after Roe and Doe were
decided. There is no one who will argue that my views are
anything other than pro-choice.
This is the lawyer who actually litigated the cases in Arkansas right
after Roe v. Wade and decided to strike down Arkansas' laws on
abortion. He is unabashedly pro-choice, and he is unabashedly in
support of Leon Holmes for this position.
He says in conclusion:
As someone who has represented the pro-choice view and
holds the pro-choice view, I ask that you urge your Members
to support his confirmation.
I have read these letters and I think I have tried everyone's
patience. But I will tell you this: From the people who know him best,
from the people who practice with him and practice against him, from
the people who have seen him up close and know him and have had
personal contacts and personal interactions and years of affiliation
with him in one way or another, they wholeheartedly endorse him to be
on the Federal bench.
Going back to my criteria, is he qualified? Yes. There is no doubt
about it. Does he have the necessary experience? Yes, no question. You
can look at his resume. It is not even close. He easily has the
experience you want to see. Will he be fair and impartial? Is there
anything else in his background that might raise questions such as his
temperament? Does he have an agenda? Clearly, from his contemporaries
and from his peers, the answer is yes to those questions.
He has the attitude of being fair and impartial, and there is nothing
in his background--no circumstance, even though he has been a staunch
advocate on the pro-life side, he still has the respect and the
veneration of his peers in Arkansas and even around the country from
other States.
I ask all of my colleagues to give him strong consideration, to wade
through some of the rhetoric and look back on this with the perspective
that most of these inflammatory things were written at least 10 years
ago, and some as long ago as 24 years ago.
I appreciate his conviction on the issue of abortion. I appreciate
his compassion and his moral certitude on that question.
In many cases, people do not always agree with Leon but they have a
lot of respect for him. They think he would be a good judge in
Arkansas. They would be proud to have him on the Federal bench.
With that, I yield the floor and turn this over to my wonderful
colleague from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the
extensive and good remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas,
Mr. Pryor regarding the nomination of J. Leon Holmes to be a United
States District Court judge. Mr. Pryor comes from the State. He knows
the man. He practiced law with him. He has read newspaper editorials in
support of this man. He has read a number of letters--a wide variety of
letters--from Democrats as well as Republicans in the State who say
this man would make an excellent judge.
Having known Mr. Holmes personally, he vouched for his integrity and
his qualifications, and I think we should pay attention to the
distinguished Senator.
Of course, Senator Lincoln as well is strongly in favor of Leon
Holmes for this Federal district judgeship.
In addition, this man has the highest rating by the American Bar
Association that you can have--a ``well-qualified'' rating--which means
he is placed among the higher echelon of great lawyers in this country.
I think we should heed Senator Pryor's views.
Of course, I think Senator Pryor makes an overwhelming case that this
man deserves to sit on the Federal district court bench. So I rise
today to express my support for the confirmation of J. Leon Holmes of
Arkansas who has been nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
Mr. Holmes is widely respected for his intelligence, his legal
skills, and his commitment to the rule of law. Leon Holmes knows the
value of hard work. He came from humble roots and is the only one among
his seven siblings to attend college. He worked his way through college
and finished law school at night while working a full-time day job in
order to support his family.
Anyone would know how difficult that is to do.
Leon Holmes is an accomplished scholar and has displayed a wide-
ranging academic interest. He is a distinguished graduate of Duke
University, where he received a doctorate in political science, and the
University of Arkansas law school. Mr. Holmes finished law school at
the top of his class, was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa while a doctoral
student at Duke University, and was named Outstanding Political Science
Student upon graduation from college.
He has pretty terrific credentials.
Mr. Holmes is currently a partner with the Little Rock firm of
Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow, specializing in complex business
litigation, torts, and appellate practice. He has practiced commercial
litigation at the trial and appellate level in State and Federal court
for many years, and has acquired significant courtroom experience. Leon
Holmes is well respected by the Arkansas Bar and is one of the finest
appellate lawyers in Arkansas. In 2001, the Arkansas Bar Association
bestowed its Writing Excellence award on Mr. Holmes.
In addition, Leon Holmes has been an active participant in the
Arkansas Bar. He has taught continuing legal education courses to the
bar on numerous occasions. He has been awarded the State bar's Best CLE
award four times. He sits on the Board of Advisors to the Arkansas Bar
Association's magazine and has chaired the editorial board for the
bar's publication of Handling Appeals in Arkansas.
Mr. Holmes sits on the judicial nominations committee for the
Arkansas State courts, which recommends attorneys to the Governor for
judicial appointment in Supreme Court cases where one or more justices
must recuse themselves. On two occasions, he himself has been appointed
to serve as a special judge of the Arkansas Supreme Court. This is a
great honor for a practicing attorney, and the justices praised Mr.
Holmes for his service in those cases.
As a person who took advantage of the opportunities presented to him,
Mr. Holmes believes in giving back to the community. He is committed to
providing legal services to all, and has given approximately 200 hours
of pro bono services during each of the last 3 or 4 years.
Among other cases, he has represented, on a pro bono basis, a
terminally ill Laotian immigrant woman denied Medicaid coverage for a
liver
[[Page S7536]]
transplant; an indigent man with a history of drug felony convictions;
and a woman who lost custody of her children to her ex-husband.
He represented Ricky Rector, a mentally retarded Arkansas man whose
execution then-Governor Bill Clinton refused to commute in 1992. He
represents Clay Ford, who has been sentenced to life in prison for
shooting at pointblank range and killing a police officer in 1981. He
defended on appeal the largest jury verdict in Arkansas history, which
involves a nursing home resident who allegedly died from neglect. Her
family won a $78 million judgment.
Leon Holmes has given back to his community in areas outside the law
as well. He was a houseparent for the Elon Home for Children while a
graduate student in North Carolina. He also served as the director of
the Florence Crittenton Home of Little Rock in 1986 and 1987, helping
young women cope with teen pregnancy.
Those who work with and personally know Leon Holmes strongly support
his nomination, as we have already heard from Senator Pryor, the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and expect to hear from Senator
Lincoln before the day is out. I certainly appreciate their
endorsements of Mr. Holmes in his nomination hearing last year.
Let me address some of the arguments that are being put forward by
Mr. Holmes' opponents: that he is extreme in his views on abortion,
that he is anti-woman, and that he is insensitive on matters of race.
Those are the major arguments that have been brought forth, and I
believe based upon all of nothing. A full reading of Mr. Holmes'
writings and, more importantly, a review of his actions in these
matters, I think, will set the record straight.
There is no question that Mr. Holmes has been a pro-life activist. He
served as president of Arkansas Right to Life. He was president from
1986 to 1987. He also served as secretary of the Arkansas Unborn Child
Amendment Committee in 1984. Some of the statements he has made in the
course of his activism he admits have been insensitive, and he has
expressed regret for such remarks, but in almost every case they are
decades ago when he was a much younger man.
For example, in a 1980 letter--think about that; it was 24 years
ago--to the editor, Mr. Holmes criticized the argument that abortion
should be available to rape victims as a red herring because
``conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as
snowfall in Miami.'' Mr. Holmes has clearly apologized for this remark,
which he made almost 24 years ago.
In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, he wrote:
I have to acknowledge that my own rhetoric, particularly
when I first became involved in the issue [of abortion] in
1980 and perhaps some years thereafter, sometimes has been
unduly strident and inflammatory. The sentence about rape
victims which was made in a letter to an editor in 1980 is
particularly troublesome to me from a distance of 23 years
later. Regardless of the merits of the issue, the
articulation in that sentence reflects an insensitivity for
which there is no excuse and for which I apologize.
I believe all of us have made statements in the past that we wish we
could apologize for. Many of us have apologized for statements we have
made in earnest and extreme ways. He is no different. He made some
mistakes and says that he was insensitive at the time, but he
apologizes for them. You have to look at his overall career and realize
this man has a great reputation in that State and among his people and
among his peers. If he is like the rest of us, and apparently on
occasion has been, he is going to make some statements for which he has
to apologize. We all have to do that from time to time. There may be
some perfect in this body who do not have to, but I, for one, have had
to apologize from time to time myself.
In a different editorial, Mr. Holmes compared abortion to the
Holocaust. On another occasion, he wrote:
The abortion issue is the simplest issue this country has
faced since slavery was made unconstitutional, and it
deserves the same response.
In an April 11, 2003, letter to Senator Lincoln, Mr. Holmes
explained:
In the 1980's--
Twenty-four years ago; at least two decades ago--
I wrote letters to the editor and newspaper columns regarding
the abortion issue using strident and harsh rhetoric. I am a
good bit older now and, I hope, more mature than I was at the
time. As the years passed, I came to realize that one cannot
convey a message about the dignity of the human person, which
is the message I intended to convey, using that kind of
rhetoric in public discussion.
Again, referring to his 1980 ``snow in Miami'' remark, Mr. Holmes
wrote:
I do not propose to defend that sentence, and I would not
expect you or anyone else to do so.
Based upon this letter, Senator Lincoln reaffirmed her belief that
Mr. Holmes would be a fair judge.
The fact is, regardless of any personal views, Mr. Holmes will abide
by the rule of law. He understands that principle, and he is committed
to it. He understands that his personal views play no role in his duty
as a judge to honor stare decisis, or prior precedents, and to
faithfully follow the precedents of the Supreme Court and the Eighth
Circuit, within which he lives and practices.
Pro-choice attorneys and others in Arkansas who work with him have
written to the committee in support of Mr. Holmes' nomination. Those
who know him well strongly believe that, despite his personal views,
Mr. Holmes will fairly adjudicate any abortion cases that may come
before him. His supporters include Robin J. Carroll, legal counsel to
the Democratic Party of Arkansas; Philip S. Anderson, a former
president of the American Bar Association and a leading Arkansas trial
attorney; and Stephen Engstrom, former Little Rock Planned Parenthood
chapter board member.
Mr. Engstrom wrote:
I heartily commend Mr. Holmes to you. He is an outstanding
lawyer and a man of excellent character. Leon Holmes and I
differ on political and personal issues such as pro-choice/
anti-abortion. I am a past board member of our local Planned
Parenthood chapter and have been a trial lawyer in Arkansas
for over twenty-five years. Regardless of our personal
differences on some issue[s], I am confident that Leon Holmes
will do his duty as the law and facts of any given case
require.
Trial attorney Kent J. Rubens, a pro-choice attorney who successfully
brought a lawsuit to strike down Arkansas' abortion statutes after Roe
v. Wade was decided wrote: Q02
I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified to serve.
. . . As someone who has represented the pro-choice view, I
ask that you urge your members to support his confirmation.
Eileen Woods Harrison sent this letter to the committee:
I am a female attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am a
lifelong Democrat and am also pro-choice . . . I commend Mr.
Holmes to you. He is a brilliant man, a great lawyer and a
fine person.
Another letter, this one from Cathleen V. Compton, states:
I heartily recommend Mr. Holmes to you. He is an
outstanding lawyer and a fine person. While he and I differ
dramatically on the pro-choice/pro-life issue, I am fully
confident he will do his duty as the law and facts of a given
case require.
Beth M. Deere wrote the following:
I am proud to be a Democrat. I am also proud to recommend
Leon Holmes as a federal district judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, even though he and I disagree on
issues, including a woman's right to choose whether to
bear a child. . . . I support Leon Holmes because he is
not only a bright legal mind, but also because he is a
good person who believes that our nation will be judged by
the care it affords to the least and the littlest in our
society. I am not troubled that he is personally opposed
to abortion. Mr. Holmes is shot through with integrity. He
will, I believe, uphold and apply the law with the utmost
care and diligence.
Another issue which opponents have distorted is that of gender
equality. Mr. Holmes cowrote an article with his wife entitled ``Gender
Neutral Language.'' Let's get it straight: he wrote this article with
his wife. It was for a Catholic newspaper. This article, which appeared
in a religious newspaper of his faith, stated: ``The wife is to
subordinate herself to her husband'' and, ``The woman is to place
herself under the authority of the man.'' Mr. Holmes' opponents believe
these statements indicate he will not be fair to women appearing before
him.
However, let me point out those statements are derived from the New
Testament in Ephesians, the 5th chapter, verses 22 through 25, and
represent the orthodox teachings of his religion. Although I do not
have the same
[[Page S7537]]
version of the Bible, I believe it would read very much the same. But
if you turn to Ephesians, the 5th chapter, it is interesting because
starting with verse 21 it says--well, let's start with verse 20
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Husband and wife. Then it says:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
But then Saint Paul goes on to say:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it. . . .
I do not think anybody can read this without understanding that the
husbands have tremendously positive and important obligations in order
to have the respect of the wives.
I don't think you could read it without understanding that Paul is
comparing the husband to the head of the family, even as Christ is head
of the church, more on the priesthood level than anything else. And the
article seems to say that.
It says:
Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the word;
That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He
that loveth his wife loveth himself.
It gets pretty bad around here when people misconstrue what somebody
quotes in an article written for a church publication of the person's
own faith, where the person and his wife quote St. Paul. You might
disagree with St. Paul, but there are hundreds of millions of people
who agree with St. Paul and who understand that he was trying to make
the analogy between the church and Christ and between a husband and
wife to show how important and sanctified the relationship of marriage
is.
This article contains other statements, as I have said, supporting
the equality of men and women such as:
All of us, male and female, are equally sons of God and,
therefore, brothers of one another.
The distinction between male and female in ordination has
nothing to do with the dignity or worth of male compared to
female.
Men and women are equal in their dignity and value.
These are quotes within the article. The article, to me, was clearly
trying to state why the men in the Catholic Church have the priesthood,
but the women have the family. And you might have written it
differently, but the fact is, they quoted St. Paul, and St. Paul
deserves the dignity of respect by this great body whether you believe
in the New Testament of the Bible or not. I firmly believe in the New
Testament. What Leon Holmes and his wife were doing was writing about
traditional Catholic values and beliefs with which I think millions of
people will agree. It hardly places him outside the mainstream and
certainly places him in the mainstream as a religious believer and as
somebody who loves his faith and his church and his wife, by the way.
Mr. Holmes' wife wrote to the committee to explain that the article
in question was specifically written for the readership of members of
their faith, persons who would be familiar with the New Testament
passages being referenced with regard to the relationship between
husband and wife. It is just terrible to distort their writings as
husband and wife. If you read the whole article, you can hardly think
Mr. Holmes is anti-woman. Furthermore, Mr. Holmes' actions support the
truth he fully believes that men and women are equals.
He has supported women in the legal profession and represented women
as clients. Mr. Holmes' past and present female colleagues in Arkansas
support his nomination to this position.
Jeanne Seewald wrote this letter to the committee:
Leon was a strong proponent of my election to the
partnership and, subsequently, encouraged and supported my
career advancement, as well as the advancement of other women
within the firm. . . . As a colleague, Leon treated me in an
equitable and respectful manner. I always have found him
supportive of my career and believe he is very supportive of
women in general. Leon and I have different political views;
however, I know him to be a fair and just person and have
complete trust in his ability to put aside any personal
political views and apply the law in a thoughtful and
equitable manner.
Another co-worker, Kristine Baker, wrote the following:
Leon has trained me in the practice of law and now, as my
partner, works with me on several matters. His office has
been next to mine at the firm for approximately two years.
During that time, I worked with Leon as an expectant mother
and now work with him as a new mother. Leon's daughters
babysit my eleven-month-old son. I value Leon's input, not
only on work-related matters but also on personal matters. I
have sought him out for advice on a number of issues.
Although Leon and I do not always see eye-to-eye, I respect
him and trust his judgment. Above all, he is fair. While
working with Leon, I have observed him interact with various
people. He treats all people, regardless of gender, station
in life or circumstance, with the same respect and dignity.
He has always been supportive of me in my law practice, as
well as supportive of the other women in our firm. Gender has
never been an issue in any decision in the firm.
Lastly, with regard to issues of race, Mr. Holmes has been criticized
for defending and endorsing Booker T. Washington's view that slavery
was a consequence of divine providence designed to teach white people
how to be more Christ-like. Some have alleged--but I hope we don't hear
this misinformed view repeated during this debate--that Holmes has said
that ``the Almighty said that slavery was a good thing or that he
believes slavery is a good institution.'' In fact, nowhere has Mr.
Holmes said he endorses slavery or that he believes slavery was a good
institution.
The article at issue, written for a Christian audience, was an
expression of his belief, shared by Washington, that God could bring
good out of evil. So while Washington certainly condemned slavery as
evil, having experienced it first-hand, he held a belief that ultimate
good could come out of it. Mr. Holmes's article similarly expressed the
view that good can come out of evil and that we are called upon to love
all men and women.
Mr. Holmes also wrote his doctoral dissertation on the political
philosophies of three major African-American thinkers and activists,
W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, and Martin Luther King, Jr. He
argued that King attempted a synthesis of militant nonviolence,
ultimately unsuccessful, of DuBois's advocacy of political agitation
and Washington's advocacy of a Christian persuasion as means to achieve
equality for black Americans.
However, Mr. Holmes left no doubt that he admired Dr. King's
achievements in helping to integrate buses, schools, parks,
playgrounds, lunch counters, and marriages. He noted the progress made
in terms of the expansion of rights and opportunities for all
Americans, stating:
Considering both the extent of the privileged status of
Southern whites that has been relinquished and the amount of
hate and prejudice that confronted desegregation twenty-five
years ago, the accomplishment [of social change] is
incredible.
Although Dr. King's vision has not been completely realized, Holmes
wrote, ``in light of the unexpected changes in the past ten years, who
can say that King's dreams will not all come true and `justice will
roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream?' '' Mr.
Holmes concluded by urging the reader not to dismiss Dr. King's vision
of a promised land, quoting the last words of King's final speech
before he was assassinated.
Those who know Leon Holmes know he will be an outstanding jurist. The
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Mr. Holmes' hometown paper that knows his
record best, strongly supports his candidacy. The paper, writing while
his candidacy was being considered, indicated that Holmes was a well
qualified, mainstream nominee:
What distinguishes Mr. Holmes is the rare blend of
qualities he brings to the law--intellect, scholarship,
conviction, and detachment. A reverence not just for the law
but for ideas, for the life of the mind. All of that would
shine through the clutter of argument that awaits any judge.
. . . He would not only bring distinction to the bench but
promise. . . . In choosing Leon Holmes, [the President] could
bequeath a promise of greatness.
That is a pretty good editorial from the local Democrat Gazette.
[[Page S7538]]
Considering the total record of Mr. Holmes, a record of distinction
in academics, of excellence in practice, and of distinction in his
community, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association gave
Mr. Holmes their highest rating, a ``well-qualified'' rating. Almost
everyone around here has called that the gold standard, but especially
our colleagues on the other side of the Senate floor. If you get a
``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, you are
qualified. Yet we have had some who have misconstrued his writings and
have indicated they will vote against him.
I hope they will listen to what we have had to say and look at the
real record. There is no way that anybody who really understands that
record would vote against this man.
My colleagues should know--and most of them will agree--that Mr.
Holmes is a well-qualified nominee and will make a fine jurist. I urge
the Senate to join me, as well as both Democratic home State Senators,
Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, who strongly support Leon Holmes'
nomination, to confirm this outstanding candidate for the Federal
bench.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 152 minutes remaining.
The other side has 144 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Arkansas, I
am proud to come to the floor and join my colleague Senator Mark Pryor
today to introduce Leon Holmes to my colleagues here in the Senate and
express my support for his nomination.
Mr. Holmes is a native of Hazen, AR, in Prairie County, which is not
too far from my hometown of Helena. He is the fourth of seven children
and the first in his family to go to college. He has been married to
his wife Susan Holmes for 32 years, and he is the proud father of five
children and has seven grandchildren.
Most of us having been home not only working during the Fourth of
July recess but hopefully spending some time with our families
understand how important our families and our children and future
generations are to all of us. I know Mr. Holmes has certainly expressed
that to me.
After high school, Leon graduated with special distinction from
Arkansas State University in 1973. He continued his education by
earning a law degree from the University of Arkansas where he graduated
first in his class.
Mr. Holmes later received a master's degree in political philosophy
from Northern Illinois University and a doctorate in political science
from Duke University where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.
Leon's professional career is equally impressive. In addition to
being named a partner in the law firm of Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull, and
Burrow in Little Rock, Mr. Holmes has held a variety of positions,
including law clerk for Justice Frank Holt on the Arkansas Supreme
Court, assistant professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL, and
adjunct faculty member of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock
School of Law.
As an attorney in private practice, Leon has had a wide-ranging legal
practice, representing large corporations, small businesses, and
individual litigants, and although I am not a part of the legal
community in my home State of Arkansas as a lawyer like my colleague
Senator Pryor is, I have heard from a number of practicing lawyers,
judges, and others throughout our State who have worked with Leon and
have the utmost confidence in his ability to administer the rule of
law.
But Leon has not spent his whole life in the library or at a law
firm. As you well know, Mr. President, that certainly is something that
is important to me. You may be interested to know that in his youth,
Leon actually chopped and picked cotton over in our part of the State
in eastern Arkansas. He worked as a farm laborer in the fields of
Prairie County and served as a carpenter's helper. While pursuing his
education, he worked as a door-to-door salesman and as a newspaper
carrier to help make ends meet.
In short, during his academic and professional career, Leon has
distinguished himself as a scholar and an accomplished lawyer. In the
process, he has earned the trust, admiration, and respect of his
friends and colleagues with whom he has lived and worked.
As a farmer's daughter from eastern Arkansas, I believe the fact that
Mr. Holmes knows the value of an honest day's work both as a lawyer and
a laborer is a good indication that he has the life experience required
to administer the law in a very fair and impartial manner, regardless
of who the litigants are before him.
If that were the only part of the record before us, the debate we are
having today would be a very short one. As some of my colleagues have
said or will say during the consideration of this nomination, Leon is
also a devoutly religious man who has written articles and made
statements that are a reflection of his faith, but they are also
somewhat controversial. We all know that for many of us our faith is
very important. It is important for us to have an opportunity to
express our faith, to talk about it, to speak about it, to live it in a
way that is very important to us and reflective of our own ministry.
There is no doubt I have been troubled by some of the statements
attributed to Mr. Holmes, particularly one regarding the role of a
woman in a marital relationship. As a mother and a wife, I can assure
you, I consider myself equal in every way to my husband. Our marriage
is based on mutual love and respect, which sustains our union as a man
and a wife.
I think it is so important in this day and age as we talk about
marriage and its importance to our family, to our children, to the
stability of the fabric of this great country, that we understand
marriage does not just happen; it has to be those two individuals who
come together, a man and a woman, working equally as hard at making
sure that union is strong and that it is working.
However, I fully respect the right of Mr. Holmes to practice and
express his religious beliefs freely, even those with which I may not
agree, just as I expect others to respect my right to do the same.
Mr. Holmes also made a comment 20-plus years ago about how women who
were raped do not get pregnant, which I think most would agree was
inappropriate and offensive. But Mr. Holmes has apologized for that
comment. He has acknowledged it was wrong and said he regrets saying
it. We have all said things we should not and wished we had not said in
our lives and I, for one, accept his apology. I do believe it is very
critical we understand the complications, the emotions, and everything
else that are wrapped up in the circumstances when women find
themselves in those circumstances of rape or incest or being abused.
Again, I do accept Mr. Holmes' apology.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Leon Holmes
to me apologizing for this remark and responding to the criticism of
other statements be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Quattlebaum, Grooms,
Tull & Burrow,
Little Rock, AR, April 11, 2003.
Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: Certain issues have surfaced about my
nomination since we met, and because they have arisen since
we met, you and I have not had the opportunity to discuss
them personally. Out of respect for you personally, and out
of respect for the important constitutional role of the
Senate in the appointment process for federal
[[Page S7539]]
judges, I wanted to write to you this letter to address some
of these issues.
In the 1980's I wrote letters to the editor and newspaper
columns regarding the abortion issue using strident and harsh
rhetoric. I am a good bit older now and, I hope more mature
than I was at that time. As the years passed, I came to
realize that one cannot convey a message about the dignity of
the human person, which is the message I intended to convey,
using that kind of rhetoric in public discussion. While I
cannot speak for those who raise these issues, my impression
is that my statements about the abortion issue that they
criticize are all more than fifteen years old.
As I stated in response to written questions from Senator
Durbin, I am especially troubled by the sentence about rape
victims in a 1980 letter to the editor regarding the proposed
Human Life Amendment; and, as I said there, regardless of the
merits of the issue, the articulation of that sentence
reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and
for which I apologize. I do not propose to defend that
sentence, and I would not expect you or anyone else to do so.
My impression is that, in fulfilling your responsibilities in
this matter, you have spoken with or heard from many
Arkansans, male and female, who know me well. I hope, and I
believe, that their comments have and will give your
assurance that this 23 year old sentence is not indicative of
how I have conducted myself in the past several years and not
indicative of how I would conduct myself as a judge.
In 1987, when I was President of Arkansas Right to Life,
that organization was attacked in a guest column in a
newspaper on the ground that its members allegedly defined
life too narrowly and were, as I read the column, hypocrites.
That same column stated that abortion involves a taking of
human life. In response, I wrote that, if the author believed
that abortion takes a human life, he should start his own
pro-life organization but should not use our defects as a
reason not to act on his beliefs. In that context, I asked
rhetorical question, what if someone had advanced such a
basis as a reason not save lives during the holocaust? I did
not intend to say that supporters of abortion rights should
be equated with Nazis. I have never intended anything that I
said to give that impression, and I do not think my comments,
which now are criticized, were taken to mean that when they
were written. From 1983 through 1988, when I was active in
pro-life activity and was writing most of the columns that
are now criticized, I was an associate at a large law firm,
and I worked for and with many lawyers who are pro-choice.
Since then, most of my partners have been pro-choice. I have
had many cases with and against lawyers who are pro-choice.
No one raised this concern at that time nor at any time prior
to the past two weeks. I believe that no one raised this
concern because everyone who knows me recognizes that I did
not intend such a thing. The letters written on my behalf by
pro-choice colleagues are strong testimony of their
confidence in me.
While I expected that my past activities relating to the
abortion issue would draw scrutiny, and properly so, I did
not expect that my religious beliefs would draw similar
scrutiny, but they have. I am aware that some concern has
been expressed about a 1997 column co-authored by my wife and
me for our local Catholic newspaper or historic teachings of
the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith is pervaded with the
view that the visible things symbolize aspects of the
spiritual realm. This pervasive element of the faith is
manifest in the teaching that the marital relationship
symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. My
wife and I believe that this teaching ennobles and dignifies
marriage and both partners in it. We do not believe that this
teaching demeans either the husband or the wife but that it
elevates both. It involves a mutual self-giving and self-
forgetting, a reciprocal gift of self. This teaching is not
inconsistent with the equality of all persons, male and
female, and, in fact, in that column we say, ``[a]ll of us,
male and female, are equally sons of God and therefore
brothers of one another.'' This aspect of my faith--the
teaching that male and female have equal dignity and are
equal in the sight of God--has been manifest, I believe, in
my dealings with my female colleagues in our firm and in the
profession as a whole. While I am not at all ashamed of my
faith, or any part of it, I do not believe that the historic
Catholic teaching that the martial relationship symbolizes
Christ and the Church is or has been relevant to my conduct
in my professional life, nor would it affect my conduct as a
judge, should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed.
Another aspect of my faith is that God brings good out of
evil. I wrote about this belief, as taught by Booker T.
Washington, in the context of a 1981 article in a religious
magazine. Washington taught that God could and would bring
good out of evil. Washington, who was born in slavery,
recognized it as evil, not only in theory but as part of his
earliest experience. Yet, his faith was so great that he
believed that God could bring good from that evil; and his
love was so great that he hoped that those of his race would
become a beacon of God's love to their oppressors. My article
combines his view of providence--that God brings good out of
evil--with his view that we all are called to love one
another. This teaching can be criticized only if it is
misunderstood.
Some of the criticisms directed at things I wrote years ago
are just; some of them are not. I hope that my legal career
as a whole, spanning the years 1982 through 2003, evidences
that I am now ready to assume the responsibility of a United
States District Court Judge. I certainly was not ready in
1980, nor for many years thereafter, and I do not claim that
I was. My impression is that my colleagues in the Arkansas
bar--those who know me well and who represent clients in
federal court--believe that my legal career as a whole
manifests a readiness to assume the responsibilities of a
district court judge, and I hope that you believe so as well.
With best wishes and warmest regards, I am
Very truly yours,
J. Leon Holmes.
Mrs. LINCOLN. In making my decision to support Mr. Holmes'
nomination, I have considered many factors. There is no question he has
the necessary legal skills and intellect to perform the duties of the
position. More importantly, I have been impressed with the overwhelming
support Leon has received from his friends, coworkers, and colleagues
in Arkansas' legal community who have firsthand knowledge of his
temperament, his character, and abilities as a lawyer. I have received
countless letters, e-mails, and phone calls from all over the State
expressing strong support for Leon's nomination. Many of these contacts
are from people I know personally and several, if not most, are from
very active, self-described, very strong Democrats.
Those from Arkansas who have contacted me and the Judiciary Committee
in support of this nomination include a past president of the American
Bar Association, a former president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers
Association, a founder of the Arkansas affiliate of the ACLU, sitting
Federal judges who are familiar with Leon's work, female attorneys who
have argued cases with and against Leon, and many others.
One letter from a self-described liberal Democrat who is also
decidedly pro-choice summed up how Mr. Holmes is viewed in Arkansas'
legal community when he wrote that after litigating ``with and against
Leon for a number of years'' he had so much faith and trust in him that
he would ``shoot dice with him over the telephone.'' Now that might not
sound too common to folks up here, but in Arkansas it is a pretty good
saying, and it certainly indicates a great deal of trust on that
gentleman's part of the gentleman with whom he was dealing, and that
was Mr. Leon Holmes.
In conclusion, I do not determine my support or opposition to a
nominee based solely on whether we share the same philosophy, ideology,
or beliefs. Fundamentally, I am interested in knowing a judicial
nominee can fulfill his or her responsibility under the Constitution to
apply the law fairly without political favor or personal bias.
I am satisfied Mr. Leon Holmes has met that standard based on the
strong support he has received from those who know him the best and his
assurances to me when we met personally. He assured me personally he is
willing and able to set aside his personal beliefs to fulfill his
duties as a Federal district court judge.
Senator Pryor and I are here to support Leon Holmes. He has done a
good job in Arkansas.
He is a good man, a good friend, and a well-trusted lawyer among his
colleagues. We encourage our colleagues in the Senate to look at the
evidence we have presented and certainly judge this man on the basis of
all of these incredible character witnesses, as well as his own
testimony, in being sure that we can all have the confidence that Mr.
Holmes will, without a doubt, implement the law, the rule of law,
according to the rule of law, and not based on his own personal views.
I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me first congratulate both Senators
from Arkansas for their eloquent statements and their strong defense of
Mr. Holmes. It speaks volumes of the qualifications and credibility of
this nominee that these two Senators would step forward and speak as
straightforwardly as they have and to reflect the values of the people
in Arkansas who know him best. This is a man who has strong support
from across the ideological spectrum in Arkansas, again, from the
people who know him.
I have had the privilege of standing before the Senate in the last 3
years to
[[Page S7540]]
speak on behalf of 20 nominees from Pennsylvania who we have moved
through here and into confirmation. I have seen many of these men and
women come under assault through this judicial process. It has become
increasingly contentious, personal, and is reaching a point where we
almost have a situation where people are now unwilling to step forward
and enter into this arena of judicial nominations because of this
attitude that has crept up in the Senate over the last few years.
I have seen really good people, who obviously otherwise would not be
nominated for the Federal bench, come under assault for things they
have said years and years ago, things they may have done years and
years ago. I have pored through FBI records, as many members of the
Judiciary Committee have, and seen blemishes, indiscretions of youth
that have disqualified people from this office that heretofore would
never have disqualified some of them.
This is a pretty tough place to put your name in nomination these
days. One person who has gone through probably as much as anyone over
the past year has been Leon Holmes. His nomination has been out there
for well over a year. He is someone who has had a lot of challenges
made about things he has said and positions he has held. He has stood
firm in defense of statements that were defensible and apologized for
those that were not. That sounds to me like a pretty balanced way of
approaching things. When you believe you were right in saying what you
were saying, you stand by the feelings you articulated, and when you
believe you made a mistake and were in error, you have the courage to
stand up and say you were wrong. I don't think we could ask for any
more out of someone.
In the case of Leon Holmes, specifically where he said he was wrong,
as referred to by the Senator from Arkansas a minute ago, was his
comments about rape and pregnancy. He was in error. He made a mistake.
I would argue that he has paid dearly over the past year for that
statement. However, that is not what he believes and he has not
believed that for quite a long time. The statement was made over 20
years ago.
Again, I remind the Senate how we need to look at the whole person,
not a statement made 20-plus years ago for which the person has
subsequently apologized, not just to this body but has said over the
years that that was a statement in error. We want to look at the whole
person, as the Senators from Arkansas, Senator Hatch, our leader, has
described, the whole person, with whom I had a chance to meet a few
months ago, someone who is a very impressive man, a man who is
obviously very gifted as a lawyer, a man who is a strong family person,
believes in the centrality of the family, the importance of his role as
a husband and father.
He understands his role in the community. He is someone who gives to
the community and is an active person in the community as well as in
the bar, in his profession, and has earned the respect of people
throughout his community for the tremendous effort he gives and the
equanimity with which he deals with difficult situations.
The one thing that struck me when meeting him was--everyone has
visions of when you meet someone what they are going to look like and
what they will sound like. He was just a very gentle, kind,
knowledgeable, professional lawyer, someone with whom I would have felt
comfortable representing me because I don't share necessarily all those
qualities. He would be a nice complement to someone representing me in
the courtroom. This was someone I thought: If I had to appear before a
judge, I sort of would like to appear with someone who had these kinds
of qualities and temperament. So he fits in very nicely with what has
been described by the Senators from Arkansas, at least from my personal
meeting.
So what is the problem? You have the two home State Senators of the
opposite party in support of him. You have the Arkansas Bar and all of
his colleagues who have come out and been supportive. People who are
liberal Democrats have said some of the most flattering things I have
ever heard about people on the floor of the Senate. So what is the
problem? Is it a statement he made 20-plus years ago? Do you think that
could cause the defeat of a man who has a record and a distinguished
career and service to his community and faithfulness to his family and
a good father? Does that one statement 24 years ago disqualify him from
being a judge?
I don't think that is it. What else is out there? There are only two
issues I have heard of that are out there. The second was an article he
wrote, an article he wrote with his wife for his diocese, for his
church, the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas. It was an article about
a particular passage in one of Paul's letters discussing marriage and
the role of husbands and wives. He simply went through with his wife
and described what you would see described in reading any text
describing and explaining those verses from the Bible. You would see it
described in any Vatican text, any text that is in line with the
teaching of the Catholic Church that would use the same arguments and
say the same things that Leon Holmes and his wife said in this article.
What he gave was the orthodox Catholic interpretation of those sections
of the Bible.
It is what I have heard in many a Sunday sermon. When that section of
the Bible has been read and the priest would get up and talk about it,
he would give almost chapter and verse the explanation that Leon Holmes
and his wife gave in that dissertation. So was Leon Holmes expressing
his opinion? Yes. In some respects he was. But as a believing Catholic,
he was expressing the opinion of the church. As a believing Catholic,
he was merely reflecting the teachings that he has been taught over the
years from the church.
Now, if this were a writing by an individual who took this passage of
Scripture and took it off in a different direction--something alien to
the church--then you might be able to say you can criticize him for not
being a faithful Catholic. You could say, look, this is a man who has
his own ideas; he wants to reinterpret Scripture to mean something that
is potentially degrading to men, or women, or both. But that is not
what he did. What he did--and I didn't ask him this, but I suspect that
he did what I would have done, which is, as a Catholic, if I am going
to look at interpreting Scripture, I am going to look at what the
church says about these writings in the Bible, because the Catholic
Church has a very rich history of interpreting the Bible. So what I
would do is go back and look and see what the church has said about
this and how it interprets these passages and then reflect that in what
I was going to write, because to me that is what the role of a Catholic
is.
Again, that is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what I
believe. That is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what Leon
Holmes believes.
Now, what he is being criticized for is for holding these beliefs--
beliefs shared by a billion people. You can say that may be out of the
mainstream. I don't know. But it is shared by a billion people. It is
an interpretation that has been around for a couple thousand years. If
you say, because you hold these beliefs that are central to the faith,
that you are disqualified for writing an article for your church--not
writing a political article, not writing a judicial opinion, not
writing in a secular magazine, but writing an article about Scriptural
interpretation for your church, that if you do that and it is not
politically correct, it is not seen as being within the mainstream of
political dialog today, you cannot be a Federal judge. I find that to
be rather chilling.
There was an article in the Washington Times. I have the quote:
I will tell you, as a person with a Catholic background,
that these are troubling statements for him to make.
This is regarding the statements I talked about on the role of women
and men in marriage.
Mr. Holmes' statements reflect a narrow view of Catholic
theology and do not embody contemporary standards that would
be followed by any Federal judge in any State.
Think about that. Because of his Catholic faith, because he holds
these beliefs that the Catholic Church teaches, he cannot be a Federal
judge. Is that what freedom of religion means in our Constitution? Is
that what the term ``free exercise of religion'' means in our
Constitution--that we are going to eliminate anybody who is nominated
for a Federal judgeship who actually
[[Page S7541]]
exercises their religious beliefs and states them for his own church,
and that now disqualifies them? Let's start to take sandpaper out and
scratch out ``in God we trust'' over there; let's start sanitizing this
place of any faith that is not politically correct or of contemporary
standards. Isn't that what faith is about, contemporary standards? It
changes. If your faith doesn't change, you are out. If your faith
doesn't adapt to the contemporary mores of today in America, you are
disqualified.
Mr. President, that is what is being said here today. If you hold a
traditional religion and stand by it, live it, practice it, espouse it,
you need not apply, because your religion hasn't adapted to
contemporary standards and, therefore, you cannot be a judge.
Imagine what our Founders would be doing right now. Imagine. Free
exercise of religion. What does ``exercise'' mean? Does it mean sitting
here like this? Is that exercise? How about going to church on Sunday,
sitting in the pew, or staying at home and reading your Bible; is that
exercise? We all know what exercise means. It means to get out and do
it. They used an active word here. What was Leon Holmes doing? He was
simply exercising his fundamental constitutional right to express his
beliefs--not as a member of the legal community, not as a citizen of
the State of Arkansas, but as a faithful Catholic to other Catholics in
his Catholic community. And for that we say he cannot be a judge?
Some in this body today will vote against this man because he had the
audacity to practice his faith. So we now understand the religious
litmus test. If you belong to a religion that has not ``adapted,'' has
not stayed with the times, if you are one of these old-fashioned
religions who believes the truth was actually laid out and the truth
doesn't change, and we actually have people who believe--incredibly, to
some in this body--that God laid out certain truths, communicated them,
and they have not changed because God has not changed. But if you feel
that way, you are out. You are out because the narrow views that do not
embody contemporary standards--God's ``narrow view''--at least some
believe that, and I argue they have the right to believe in these
``narrow views'' that have been around for a couple thousand years, but
they are narrow views. That is right, the path is narrow. Maybe now it
is too narrow to get you through the Senate. Imagine. Imagine that here
in a country that professes, as one of its highest ideals, the freedom
of religion, in a country that, as we try to build a republic and a
democracy in Iraq, that we had letters signed by people on both sides
of the aisle in large numbers encouraging religious pluralism in Iraq,
that we now say religious pluralism doesn't necessarily apply here
anymore in the Senate.
This is a dangerous moment for us in the Senate. It is a dangerous
moment, where a man may not become a judge simply because he holds
religious tenets that have not kept up with contemporary mores.
Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 109\1/2\ minutes on the majority
side, and 110 minutes on the minority side, with time expiring for the
noon recess.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I conclude by saying this is an important vote. This
is not just a vote to confirm a district judge in Arkansas. I know that
does not sound like a big deal to people who are hearing my voice. It
is a district court, a small court, Arkansas. It is not Washington, DC,
or New York City. It is not a glamourous place to serve, just like
western Pennsylvania and central Pennsylvania are not glamourous places
to serve. But we do justice in these communities because we get good
people who are from the community, who are good, decent, moral people,
who live their faith as they are allowed to do by our Constitution.
If we send a message out today that living your faith, espousing your
faith, exercising your religion is now cause for defeat on the floor of
the Senate, if we send the word out today that unless your religious
beliefs are contemporary or have been contemporized, unless you have
adapted the popular culture into your faith, you are no longer suitable
to hold that office, then I think we make a dangerous statement, not
just to people in this country, but to the world.
This is a big vote. Anybody who thinks this is not a big vote, let me
assure them, I will remind people here for quite some time how big a
vote this was. This is a vote about religious freedom. This is a vote
about the free exercise of religion, and this is a vote about
tolerance.
We hear so much from the other side about tolerance--tolerance,
tolerance, tolerance. Where is the tolerance of people who want to
believe what has been taught for 2,000 years as truth. You have a right
to disagree with that teaching. You have a right to adapt your
contemporary mores to that teaching. But where is the tolerance of
people who choose to keep that faith?
We will have a vote on Judge Leon Holmes, but it will be a bigger
vote than just on that judge. It will be a vote on the soul of the free
exercise of religion clause and of tolerance to religion.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________