[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 39 (Thursday, April 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3351-S3352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one of my first responsibilities when I 
arrived in the Senate was to recommend to the first President Bush a 
nominee for a district court seat. But while I was a relatively new 
Senator, this was in some respects a fairly easy task.
  My predecessor in the Senate, Bob Stafford, had established a sound 
and fair process with Senator Leahy for choosing candidates for the 
judiciary, which we have continued to this day with the participation 
of Governor Douglas, a Republican.
  Vermont is a small State, but it is one with an outsized capacity for 
public service. Our best lawyers have been willing to accept the 
financial sacrifice that accompanies serving on the bench. And as a 
small State, I think it is fairly easy to agree on who the best 
candidates might be, even though you invariably pass over many very 
qualified individuals.
  Finally, I guess I should say that I was born to it. My father, Olin 
Jeffords, was a judge the entire time I was growing up. In fact, he was 
chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. He was widely respected, 
not just by his son, but by our community locally and by the legal 
community throughout the State. That respect was entirely unremarkable. 
It reflected the appreciation of the importance of an independent 
judiciary stocked with able and committed individuals.
  My first job following the Navy and law school was as a clerk for 
Judge Ernest Gibson, Jr., of Vermont. Judge Gibson, a Republican, had 
resigned as Governor of the State of Vermont in order to accept Harry 
Truman's offer of nomination to the Federal bench. Judge Gibson could 
have followed any path in life he wanted. He returned from service in 
the South Pacific during World War II a hero, and with some fame 
stemming from having played a role in the rescue of Lieutenant John F. 
Kennedy and the other survivors of PT-109.
  As a young boy, I idolized him and the other heroes returning from 
the Pacific. To work for him years later was an incredible honor.
  So having been around the judiciary all of my life, it was not 
especially daunting when it came time early in my Senate career to 
nominate an individual to the Federal district court. The late Fred I. 
Parker was not only the best candidate for the job, he was also a man I 
had hired to work with me when I served as attorney general and who had 
become a close friend over the years. To know Fred was to love him. 
Years later, when a vacancy on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
opened up, President Clinton nominated Fred to the position to which he 
was confirmed and served with distinction until his passing.
  These three men--a father, a mentor, and a friend--would probably be 
the first to admit that they were more typical than exceptional of the 
caliber of individuals that comprise the judiciary. Fred worked hard to 
pay his way through school, often in the plumbing trade with his 
father. He was forever mindful of his father's advice that whenever he 
started becoming convinced of his own importance, he should stick his 
fist in a bucket of water to see the kind of impression he would leave.
  So I take it very personally when politicians seek to score points by 
attacking the judiciary. These men had and have families, just like 
today's judges in Florida and Georgia and Illinois. The only thing we 
should be 
doing is condemning violence directed against the judiciary, not 
rationalizing it or implicitly encouraging it.
  Of course, my colleagues will not agree with every decision made by 
the judiciary. My good friend Fred Parker struck down part of the Brady 
law that I had supported. I might have disagreed with him, but I never 
would have questioned his motives or integrity.
  The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports 
is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the 
wrong call. If our children can understand this, why can't our 
political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades.
  Vermonters are proud of their long history of smart, independent, 
forward-thinking judges. These men and women have shown the true spirit 
of the judiciary and upheld the law and Constitution, even if it was 
against what was the popular will at the time. This is what the 
judiciary was designed to be, a check and balance against the executive 
and legislative branches.
  Our Founding Fathers were concerned that the legislative and 
executive branches of our Government could be too swayed by public 
opinion and not uphold the rights of Americans because of political 
pressure. The judiciary was designed to be independent and make sure 
that the law and the Constitution were followed even if it went against 
public opinion.
  I am also concerned with the threat of the majority to take what is 
the so-

[[Page S3352]]

called nuclear option. Our form of government is founded on a system of 
checks and balances, which serves to protect the rights of all 
individuals. The right in the Senate to unlimited debate is an 
important part of our system of checks and balances and ensures that on 
important, critical issues a bipartisan consensus is reached of more 
than a bare minimum majority of Senators.
  I sincerely hope that cooler heads will begin to prevail and my 
colleagues will tone down the rhetoric they have been using to smear 
the integrity of the judiciary, and the Republican leadership will 
reject the divisive and unprecedented so-called nuclear option.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________