[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15444-15445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF JEROME A. HOLMES TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
                           THE TENTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session to 
consider Calendar No. 764, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jerome A. 
Holmes, of Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
hours for debate equally divided between the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Specter, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, 
is pleased to report the nomination of Mr. Jerome A. Holmes to be a 
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Holmes 
comes to this position with an excellent academic and professional 
background. He was nominated to be a judge on the court on May 4 of 
this year, received a hearing on June 15 of this year, and was reported 
out of the Judiciary Committee on July 13 on a voice vote.
  The unique situation with Mr. Holmes is that he would be the first 
African American to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit. I am about to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who obviously has great familiarity with that 
circuit, being from the State of Oklahoma. Before moving to 
Pennsylvania to go to the University of Pennsylvania some years ago, I 
began my own academic career at the University of Oklahoma, having been 
a lifelong resident up to that point of the State of Kansas. The Tenth 
Circuit is near and dear to my heart. I can testify firsthand about the 
desirability and, in fact, the need for diversity on the Court of 
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. There ought to be diversity to the 
extent practical and possible on all of our courts. It gives the 
constituency, the litigants, and the people who practice before the 
court, the sense that there are judges from every walk of life. The 
broader the background a court possesses, the more understanding it has 
of the problems we all face in a very diverse society, which is the 
melting pot of the world, the better.
  That does not mean in any way, shape, or form that qualifications 
ought to be subordinated, that we should pursue diversity for 
diversity's sake, regardless of other considerations. But when someone 
has the qualifications that Mr. Holmes presents to the Senate and in 
addition would bring diversity to the court to which he has been 
nominated, that is something to be considered. Certainly the 
desirability of having diversity on the Supreme Court of the United 
States is evident and highly visible. Thurgood Marshall was the first 
Justice on the Supreme Court to be African American. Now we have 
Justice Clarence Thomas, again, the only African-American judge. It 
took a long time for women to find a place on the Supreme Court, with 
the nomination and confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. 
That was the first year of my service in the Senate, after being 
elected in 1980. It was a great day when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 
took her place on the Supreme Court of the United States. We now have, 
in addition, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is important to have that 
diversity.
  While there is not a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, we have Alberto 
Gonzales who is the Attorney General of the United States. There is no 
doubt these individuals are role models. They demonstrate that an 
Hispanic can come to the highest levels of the Government, as can an 
African American, as can a woman. It took a long time for women's 
suffrage, for women to have the right to vote, and to move into the 
upper echelons of all facets of American life. There is, realistically 
viewed, still a glass ceiling which imposes some limitation.
  Now on to Mr. Holmes and his very excellent qualifications. He 
graduated from Wake Forest University cum laude in 1983 and the 
Georgetown University Law Center in 1988. At Georgetown, he served as 
editor in chief of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. In the year 
2000, he earned a master's in public administration from Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government. Between college and law school, he worked 
as a social services assistant in the D.C. Department of Corrections. 
Following law school he clerked for Judge Wayne Alley of the U.S. 
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and then Tenth 
Circuit Judge William J. Holloway. Following the clerkship, he spent 3 
years in private practice as an associate with the well-regarded law 
firm of Steptoe & Johnson.
  In 1994, Mr. Holmes began a distinguished career as a Federal 
prosecutor serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western 
District of Oklahoma. Among other duties, he prosecuted public 
corruption, Federal criminal civil rights violations, and was the 
office's antiterrorism coordinator. He also worked on the prosecuting 
team that built a case against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City 
bombing. Since 2005, he has been a director of the private Oklahoma law 
firm Crowe & Dunlevy, where he has focused on white collar criminal 
defense and complex litigation. He also chairs the firm's diversity 
committee.
  Mr. Holmes has given back to the people of Oklahoma by taking 
leadership roles in a wide variety of civic organizations, including 
service as a director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 
trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation, director of 
the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, chairman of the City Rescue 
Mission, and vice president of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The 
American Bar Association has unanimously found Mr. Holmes to be 
qualified to serve on the Tenth Circuit.
  Before yielding the floor and turning over the management of the 
nomination to my distinguished colleague on the Judiciary Committee, I 
wish to make a few comments about a release of the American Bar 
Association today on so-called signing statements. I have discussed 
with Senator Coburn that I will take a few more minutes at this time. 
May the record show he is nodding in the affirmative. I shall not take 
too long.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business''.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at this point, I yield to my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Coburn, who did an excellent job as 
Mr. Holmes's principal advocate before the Judiciary Committee, as my 
designee to handle the proceedings in the Senate this afternoon and 
tomorrow on the confirmation of Mr. Holmes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be on the committee 
with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and it is a privilege to represent 
Jerome Holmes during his debate and consideration for the Tenth Circuit 
Court position.
  A lot of discussions have occurred in this body in the last couple of 
years on judges. One of the things which was prominent in my election 
to the Senate was the issue of judges. It really comes back down to 
what the American people would like to see in those people who sit on 
the highest courts of our land and what are the qualities and 
characteristics we would like them to have and do they go through a 
process where those are fairly vetted and taken out of the political 
arena to see what those qualities are.
  Thinking about Jerome Holmes, Senator Specter very well outlined his 
history. So there is no question that he has impeccable credentials and 
that he is considered well qualified by the American Bar Association. 
But what he does have is two things. One is a constitutionally correct 
and appropriate opinion as to the position of judges in our society. 
Their job is to

[[Page 15445]]

take the Constitution, take our statutes and our treaties, and, in the 
light of Supreme Court precedent, rule only on those things--not to 
create new law, not to invent a cause they want to make. They are to be 
very limited in their role. Jerome Holmes understands that.
  The second characteristic he has is that of integrity. We hear that 
word bantered around a lot, and we hear modifiers placed on it. You 
cannot modify integrity. You either have it or you don't. Your life 
either represents it or it does not. What people see you do and how you 
do it is either of integrity or not.
  This is an African-American male who was raised in this city, who 
struggled to accomplish the highest levels of his profession. He 
excelled every step of the way. Not only did he apply his efforts in 
terms of his profession, but he spent a great deal of his time applying 
his skills, knowledge, and intellect to help other people outside of 
the field of law.
  He is a man committed to our country, who has full recognition of 
what his responsibilities will be as an appellate court judge in the 
Tenth Circuit in this country. He also fully well knows that his role 
is to follow the precedent set by the highest Court in this land and to 
do that in a way which gives everyone before him a truly blind cause of 
justice for their benefit. We cannot ask more than that of our judges--
that in fact they have not only integrity and intellect, but the last 
thing we can ask is, Do they have heart? Do they have compassion? Have 
they experienced the real problems of life personally, so that they can 
see into the lives of others and how they deal with those things in the 
predicaments and situations which we face and whether they follow a 
response that is one of integrity. I have no question in my mind that 
Jerome Holmes has the qualities and characteristics which will make him 
an excellent appellate judge.
  We are going to hear some opposition to him. The opposition is 
basically because he believes in a colorblind society. He has written 
commentaries based on what he believes personally. He has been 
critical--and rightly so, as many in this body have been, and others--
of decisions the Supreme Court has made. But to be critical doesn't 
mean one will not follow what is called stare decisis, the precedent 
set down by the Supreme Court.
  It takes great courage for an African-American male to look at 
affirmative action in a light that says that in the long run, it hurts 
race relations rather than helps them. Those are my words, not his. 
But, in fact, what he has done is said this goes against what he 
believes to be fair and honorable, as we approach the problems within 
our society. What he really believes is that everybody should be judged 
on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin.
  So we will hear a lot over the next 4 hours--2 hours today and 2 
hours tomorrow--from those people who would question his position. It 
is OK to question it, but it is not OK to oppose him on the basis of 
what his personal beliefs are. If we do that, there is not a judge who 
can qualify. Not one judge could qualify for any court in this land if 
we take all their personal opinions and put them out in the open and 
say: This goes against something I believe.
  So I am honored that I have the privilege to stand on the Senate 
floor and defend the criticisms that will come before him. I also know 
he has heart, he has intellect, and he has integrity. That is what we 
want. It doesn't matter whether he is Black or White or whether he is 
Republican or Democrat, we want those qualities in our judges. That is 
how we assure our freedom--we take the political arena away and out of 
the courts, and we let the Constitution and our statutes and our 
treaties reign supreme. That is the best equality for all that we can 
give to the next generation.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum 
call time we have on the Holmes nomination be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________