[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise truly disappointed at the 
decision of my colleagues in the other body to negotiate this lose-lose 
situation for minority and civil rights.
  While I appreciate and understand my Senate colleagues and their 
desire to preserve the Senate tradition and to avoid the nuclear option 
which their leadership unfortunately threatened to use, I join with 
Senator Feingold, Chairman Watt and members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus in saying tonight that the deal that was brokered was a bad one 
for the American people. In the words of the Congressional Black Caucus 
today, we said that, one, we strongly oppose the deal that trades 
judges who oppose our civil rights for a temporary filibuster cease-
fire.
  This deal is more of a capitulation than a compromise. In fact, one 
of our Republican friends in the other body stated that she thinks that 
this deal really does help advance the goal of their majority leader.
  This deal allows the right to filibuster only in extraordinary 
circumstances. There is no question in my mind that the judicial 
extremism of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor 
constitute extraordinary circumstances. Nonetheless, the right to 
filibuster their nominations has been given away. I know that when it 
comes time to vote on their confirmation, Americans are going to be 
looking to Senators in both parties to reject them based on their 
extremist views.
  The question I have about this deal is, who will really define what 
constitutes ``extraordinary circum-
stances''? I believe this deal weakens the filibuster and the 
principles of dissent and minority rights that it was designed to 
safeguard. As a minority, as a woman, as a Californian and as an 
American, the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is nothing short of an 
extraordinary circumstance.
  The American public needs to understand that we are not bickering 
here about peanuts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court 
in America, second only to the United States Supreme Court. The court 
is a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court. The D.C. 
Circuit has produced more justices to the Supreme Court than any other 
circuit court. For the rest of their lives, these judges have the 
potential to implement policies that affect all of us, not 52 percent 
or 48 percent, but 100 percent of the American public.
  Let us look for a minute at Judge Brown's record. First, she authored 
an opinion that effectively ended meaningful affirmative action in 
California. Her opinion was severely criticized both on and off the 
court for its harsh rhetoric and its suggestion that affirmative action 
resembled racist and segregationist laws that predated landmark civil 
rights laws.
  She has praised turn-of-the-century U.S. Supreme Court cases 
declaring maximum hour laws to be unconstitutional and called the 
decision reversing course and protecting workers the ``triumph of our 
own socialist revolution.'' I could go on and on about her judicial 
record, and I hope people take a good look at her record. If this does 
not constitute extraordinary circumstances, I do not know what will.
  Let us look at Justice Pryor's record for just a minute whose 
nomination was given away in terms of the right to filibuster. Alabama 
Attorney General William Pryor, nominated for the 11th Circuit, has 
sought repeal of a critical section of the Voting Rights Act that has 
proved highly successful in overcoming the historical denial of the 
right to vote for African Americans.

                              {time}  2215

  He also believes that some rights now protected by the Constitution 
should be regarded as ``social disputes'' that would reduce rights that 
protect minority views to majority votes in the States. As an African 
American, again, I believe that his nomination constitutes an extreme 
circumstance, an extraordinarily extreme circumstance; yet there can be 
no filibuster based upon this deal that was negotiated. His view that 
the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment 
does not bar certain inhumane treatment of prison inmates, and this was 
repudiated by the United States Supreme Court. Again, I believe this is 
an extraordinary circumstance which again was negotiated away.
  The same thing, I hope people look at Justice Owen once again. She 
was nominated for the fifth circuit. She is known for her dissents 
opposing women's rights and reproductive rights and favoring corporate 
interests against consumers and workers.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about nominees with a record of 
impartiality and informed reflection when making decisions. These are 
administration choices who were nominated, nominated under the threat 
of a filibuster. Heaven knows whom the administration will nominate now 
that that threat is gone.
  The American public needs to understand that this entire process, the 
entire process, just threatening the nuclear option, is an abuse of 
power. It was designed to water down our constitutional systems of 
checks and balances and to turn the Congress into a rubber stamp for 
the President.
  So I appeal to my colleagues in the other body to uphold our 
constitutional system of checks and balances and to at least vote 
against these extreme nominees that are coming forward. Extraordinary 
circumstance, I ask the Members, what constitutes an extraordinary 
circumstance when we look at nominees who affect the decisions that 
affect our daily lives, our children's lives?

                          ____________________