[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Page 15886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




THE NOMINATION OF JUSTICE PRISCILLA OWEN OF TEXAS TO THE U.S. COURT OF 
                     APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to make some brief remarks 
about the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas who has been 
scheduled for a vote in the Judiciary Committee as early as this 
Thursday. I cannot say strongly enough how important this vote is for 
the future of the Judiciary and this Senate.
  With the attempt by some to introduce ideology and base politics into 
the confirmations process, today a sword of Damocles hangs over the 
future of nominations and our constitutional role and no vote will hint 
the future more than this upcoming vote on Justice Owen.
  Justice Owen has been attacked with orchestrated deceptions, 
distortions and demagoguery, yet she has the American Bar Association's 
unanimous rating of well qualified.''
  In preparing for Justice Owen's vote, I again commend to my 
colleagues the words of Senator Biden when he said some years ago that:

       [Judicial confirmation] is not about pro-life or pro-
     choice, conservative or liberal, it is not about Democrat or 
     Republican. It is about intellectual and professional 
     competence to serve as a member of the third co-equal branch 
     of the Government.

  Allow me to make just some brief remarks on the allegations made 
against Justice Owen which she clarified both in the hearing and in 
answers to written questions since then.
  First, and most outrageously, it was said that she delayed in issuing 
an opinion in a car accident case involving a boy who subsequently died 
and that he died while waiting for her decision. And that she raised an 
issue, court venue, not previously raised by the lawyers.
  The truth is that Justice Owen wrote an opinion for the majority in 
that case just 5 days after the majority reached a decision. The boy 
died 3 years later. And venue is automatically at issue when the 
petition is for a new trial and it was both briefed and argued by the 
lawyers, as was the case. That's the truth.
  There is no use in holding hearings and asking written questions if 
we ignore the answers.
  Second, she has been accused of being a `` judicial activist'' who 
pursues an outcome-based result.
  The truth is that she is a judicious judge who never digresses from 
the rules of precedent and legal construction. She always grounds her 
decision in binding authority or judicial rules of decision. The charge 
that she is a judicial activist is a cynical trick of words from 
Washington lobbyists who have made their careers defending court 
decisions of real judicial activists who never let the words of the 
Constitution stand between them and their social engineering.
  Another falsehood is that she is anti-abortion and is out to defeat 
abortion rights.
  The truth is that Owen has never stated her personal views and has 
ruled in one case for Planned Parenthood and against Operation Rescue 
pro-life protestors. In the parental involvement cases, Owen repeatedly 
applied Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court cases and used them to 
interpret the legislature's choice of words in the statute.
  It is said that in her parental notice cases, Owen sought to limit 
abortion rights.
  The truth is that no abortion right is affected by giving mere notice 
to parents. And over 600 bypasses of notice have been granted by the 
courts under the standards Owen and her court established. The Texas 
Supreme Court merely debated the guidelines for lower courts to apply 
on a brand new law. The Court sought to effect the legislature's 
intent: to protect parental involvement rights, the right of parents to 
guide their children and protect them from harm was at stake, not 
abortion.
  Justice Owen has been called an ideologue who is out of the 
mainstream.
  The truth is that Owen was twice elected in Texas, the last time with 
83 percent of the vote. She is a quiet, modest person, who leads her 
Church choir, and had to be convinced to leave a lucrative law practice 
to become a judge. She was unanimously rated well-qualified, the 
highest rating of the ABA, despite the ABA's pro-abortion stance.
  It was noted that Justice Owen dissents too often and rules in favor 
of corporations and big money.
  The truth is that she has dissented fewer than 10 percent of the 
time, that's half the average for any current U.S. Supreme Court 
justice. She is an umpire who calls the balls and the strikes as they 
are. It is silly to suggest that she is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter 
or pro-pitcher.
  Let's speak truth to power.
  The main reason Justice Owen is being opposed, is not that personal 
views are being falsely ascribed to her, they are, but rather because 
she is a woman in public life who is believed to have personal views 
that some maintain are unacceptable for a woman in public life to have.
  Such penalization is a matter of the greatest concern to me because 
it represents a new glass ceiling for women jurists just as they 
approach the tables of our high courts after long-struggling careers. 
Such treatment will have a chilling effect on women jurists that will 
keep them from weighing in on exactly the sorts of cases that most 
invite their participation and their perspectives as women.
  On abortion, the truth is that, rather than being an activist foe of 
Roe, Justice Owen repeatedly cites and follows Roe and its progeny as 
authority.
  Moreover, her opponents portray her as a pro-life activist, when all 
she has ever done is rule on a parental involvement law, popular with 
over 80 percent of the American people. The bottom line is that they 
are blinded to anyone who will not abide by abortion on demand even for 
little girls, without parents ever knowing.
  I hope my colleagues will treat Justice Owen fairly when the vote 
comes. As they say back home in Utah, I hope they will choose the 
right.
  But I warn them, the American people will hear of the result, and I 
warn them also, a sword of Damocles will hang over the Senate and the 
future of the Judiciary Committee when that vote comes.

                          ____________________