[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25584-25585]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        JUDICIARY OBSTRUCTIONISM

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I have taken the floor to talk about 
obstructionism of the other side of the aisle with respect to judges. 
That has been a main point of contention on my part, that it is 
something that is doing damage to our judiciary and to the Senate.
  Today I want to talk about another aspect of that obstructionism. 
That is the tone and substance of the debate occurring on judges that 
are being put up, particularly for the circuit court.
  Yesterday we experienced something in the Judiciary Committee that I 
find beneath the dignity of the Senate and raises serious concerns 
about how we are going to attract good people to put their names before 
the Senate for confirmation to judicial office. I have behind me a copy 
from a Web site that displayed this cartoon that was the topic of 
discussion at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing on the supreme 
court justice of California, Janice Rogers Brown.
  She had a hearing yesterday before the committee and was greeted with 
this cartoon that was displayed on a Web site. The Web site of 
blackcommentator.com. The cartoon has President Bush and Justice Rogers 
Brown walking into a room and the President is saying:

       Welcome to the Federal bench, Ms. Clarence--I mean Ms. 
     Rogers Brown, you'll fit right in.


[[Page 25585]]


  And then in the background are Justice Thomas, Colin Powell, and 
Condoleeza Rice. The bottom says:

       News item: Bush nominates Clarence-like conservative to the 
     bench.

  On the Web site, it says:

       This cartoon can be found in the following commentary: A 
     female Clarence Thomas for the DC Federal Court? A statement 
     by People for the American Way and the NAACP.

  I don't know from this Web site and I don't know from any other 
commentary I have seen what the relationship between this cartoon is 
and the People for the American Way and the NAACP, but I think it 
behooves both of those organizations to clarify their position on this 
cartoon which can be found in the following commentary by these two 
organizations.
  The stereotyping that goes on in this cartoon and the blatant racism 
that is displayed is overwhelming. To look at the depiction of Justice 
Brown, the picture speaks for itself.
  Let me show you a picture of what Justice Brown looks like. I would 
suggest the cartoon does not at all comport with what Justice Brown 
looks like. It is a purely slanderous depiction, stereotyping at its 
worst. That is the tone and substance of the debate we have now 
degraded ourselves into as a result of the obstructionism that is 
occurring for extreme political purposes in the Senate.
  Justice Brown was asked about this at her hearing yesterday. I quote 
what she said:

       The first thing that happened was I talked to my judicial 
     assistant yesterday. Her voice sounded very strange, and I 
     said to her, ``What's wrong? What's happening?''
       And I realized she sounded strange, because she was choking 
     back tears. When I asked her what was wrong, she really 
     started to cry. She's a very composed, very calm woman. And 
     she started to cry.
       And she said, ``Oh judge, these horrible things--you 
     haven't seen what they've done.''
       I, of course, was not there to comfort her. I've been here 
     meeting with anybody who would meet with me.
       But while I've been having those meetings, people have said 
     to me: ``Well, you know, it's not personal, it's just 
     politics, it's not personal.''
       And I just want to say to you that it is personal, it's 
     very personal--to the nominees, and to the people who care 
     about them.

  She speaks not only for herself but she speaks to the hatchet job 
being done on Attorney General Pryor, being done to Judge Pickering, 
that was done to Miguel Estrada, is in the process of being done to 
Carolyn Kuhl and God knows how many more nominees who are being 
slandered and dragged through the mud, people of stellar reputations, a 
supreme court justice in California, reelected with 76 percent of the 
vote, a stellar educational record, and she is being treated in such a 
demeaning and degrading fashion.
  We had the attorney general of the State of Alabama who was 
questioned on his deeply held beliefs because he happens to be a 
conservative Catholic. Where are we going, folks? What are we turning 
this process into, that we will demean and degrade and tear down people 
for some extreme ideological agenda who have served this country, 
served their States, served their communities?
  This is wrong. We should stop this.
  If we don't stop it, it will go on and it will expand and grow like a 
cancer. That side is doing it now. If they keep it up, one day we may 
be doing it to them because, of course, we have to get them back for 
what they did to us. This is wrong. It has never been done before.
  Stop this insanity of degrading people, of coarsening the debate, of 
creating a chilling effect on those who would like to be Federal 
judges. It is wrong and it must stop now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my understanding is that on the Democratic 
side we have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I 
don't understand what he is talking about, ``the degradation.'' That 
may be something I am not aware of relative to judicial nominees.
  I don't know the exact count, but I do know that during this 
President's tenure of office we have approved 174 judges or thereabout. 
We have only had problems with three of them. It seems to me that is a 
pretty good record.
  We have worked hard to approve the President's judges. They have not 
all been people we would have selected if we had a Democratic 
President. But we have a Republican President; we have recognized that 
he has the ability to choose those nominees he believes are 
appropriate. As a result of that, we have given him nearly carte 
blanche to send us judges. Three have not been approved.
  So the record of 173 sounds like a pretty good record. I hope we will 
let the certainty of the process go forward. It seems to me it is a 
pretty good process that has worked for more than 200 years. President 
Bush is getting virtually every one of his nominees. I don't think it 
would be a good system if we simply said you can have whoever you want. 
We have a duty to advise and consent the President on his nominations.
  I yield the time left under the Democrat control to the Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

                          ____________________