[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Page 10137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I unfortunately had to miss the vote 
yesterday on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to serve on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but I would like to explain 
why, had I been here, I would have voted against the nomination.
  I take very seriously the Senate's constitutional duty to review 
Presidential nominees, especially those to the Federal bench. Once 
confirmed by the Senate, judges have lifetime tenure, meaning that 
there is no real opportunity to correct poor choices for judicial 
positions. Given the nature of a judge's job--they hold power not only 
over the liberty, but in many cases, the lives of those before them--
Members of the Senate must be convinced that the nominee is right for 
the job before offering our consent to their nominations.
  This does not mean that we should confirm only those whose views 
comport precisely or even largely with their own; indeed, the President 
must be given broad leeway to nominate those who he believes are right 
for the job, which is why I have supported most of this President's 
nominees, to the bench or otherwise, regardless of whether I would 
consider them the best candidates for the job. But the Senate has a 
constitutional obligation to review, and, when necessary, serve as a 
check on the President's choices, and when a nominee's views and 
positions lie far from the mainstream or are so at odds with what I 
consider to be needed for the job, I must respectfully withhold my 
consent from their nomination, especially when the stakes are as high 
as they are for the bench.
  After reviewing Mr. Sutton's record, I have concluded that I cannot 
support his nomination. Although his professional credentials are 
impressive and I have little doubt that he is a good lawyer, I believe 
that his legal views lie far out of the mainstream and that his 
presence on the Federal bench could do serious harm to the values about 
which our Nation cares deeply, particularly when it comes to our 
national desire to fight discrimination and protect individual rights. 
Mr. Sutton has devoted a significant part of his legal career to 
advancing an extreme vision of federalism that restricts both the power 
of Congress to pass civil rights laws and the ability of individuals 
who have been harmed by discriminatory acts of State governments to 
seek redress. He has used that vision of federalism to convince 
activist judges to restrict congressional enactments. He has argued 
against the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act and the Violence Against Women Act. These were laws with 
strong, mainstream support, and the records justifying them were 
strong. I have deep concern that when future civil rights and similar 
laws come before him, he will argue against them on federalism grounds 
as well. I cannot in good conscience support putting him in a position 
where he will be able to further restrict these good laws.

                          ____________________