[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Page 25488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NOMINATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, thank you.
  I rise today to voice my support for the nominee who is before this 
body. There was debate on this nomination last night by many Members on 
our side of the aisle who are concerned about the treatment of this 
qualified individual for the circuit court, Attorney General Bill Pryor 
of Alabama.
  I wish to make three points with respect to Attorney General Pryor.
  No. 1, his qualifications.
  As we heard last night and have heard repeatedly both in the 
Judiciary Committee and here, there is no question as to the man's 
qualification, his skills, his experience, his record of 
accomplishment, his educational background. They are all exemplary, 
extraordinary. This man, without question, is qualified for this 
position. I daresay that most, even those who oppose him, have not 
questioned his innate qualifications for the job.
  We set aside the issue of qualifications and take it as a given that 
he is surely qualified for this position.
  The question that has been raised is whether General Pryor would 
follow the law. That is a question that Members on both sides of the 
aisle ask of judicial nominees from both parties: Will you follow the 
law? Will you exercise your own judgment and be creative on the bench?
  I daresay if you look at the history--certainly recent history--of 
the courts, many who have come through this Chamber who said they would 
follow the law have not done so. I argue that the vast preponderance of 
those have been nominees of Democratic Presidents who have taken an 
activist approach on the bench, as well as, unfortunately, some 
Republican nominees who have taken an activist approach on the bench, 
an activist approach in the direction that would be contrary to where I 
would like to see the judiciary go. We have not seen that evidence as 
much by nominees taking a more conservative approach as opposed to the 
liberal court approach we have seen in the courts over the years.
  Nevertheless, it is a legitimate question for Members on the other 
side of the aisle to ask if a conservative would adopt their own 
agenda--probably given the experience of so many liberals adopting 
their agenda, and they want to make sure, while they are comfortable 
with that, they would be uncomfortable with conservatives doing the 
same thing.
  In the case of Attorney General Pryor, we have someone who has shown 
at least on two high profile occasions, most recently just a few months 
ago, that he would strictly adhere to the law even when he disagrees 
with the rulings of the court.
  In the most famous case of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in 
Alabama, Supreme Court Justice Moore wanted a display of the Ten 
Commandments in the middle of the courthouse, and Attorney General 
Pryor complied with the removal order even though it is fairly clear he 
had no problem with this display. Nevertheless, he showed his integrity 
and followed the law.
  In previous cases, in an abortion-related partial-birth abortion 
decision--we just had a vote on the issue--he followed the law. The 
Alabama courts, the Supreme Court, issued a ruling and he followed that 
ruling. This is a man who has integrity and has a record of following 
the law.
  What is the third issue? The third issue has to do with ``deeply held 
beliefs.'' This was a question asked by several members on the 
Democratic side at the hearing about his deeply held beliefs. Attorney 
General Pryor happens to be Catholic. His deeply held religious beliefs 
dictate to him a position on issues which happen to be antithetical to 
some on the Democratic side on the Judiciary Committee. I frankly took 
offense to the question being asked about his deeply held religious 
beliefs as somehow a disqualifier; somehow if you hold beliefs deeply 
you are no longer eligible to hold a position of public trust in the 
judiciary.
  I argue this country was founded on religious pluralism; that is, 
people with shallowly held religious beliefs, deeply held religious 
beliefs, no religious beliefs, all are eligible and welcome to serve in 
this country in positions of importance, whether it is in the 
judiciary, whether in the legislature, or in the Executive Office.
  We are finding a litmus test that should be very disturbing to people 
of faith, to people of no faith. It has no place in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from the great State of 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Republican leader and Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Bennett as well for their courtesy this morning.

                          ____________________