    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book II)]
    [July 7, 2004]
    [Pages 1243-1245]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks Following a Meeting With Judicial Nominees and an Exchange With
    Reporters in Raleigh, North Carolina
    July 7, 2004

        The President. Good morning. It's good to be in the great State of
    North Carolina. I just met with three judicial nominees from this State,
    Judge Terry Boyle, Bob Conrad, Jim Dever. These
    are men with broad experience, good character. They've been rated by the
    ABA as qualified to serve on the bench. They represent mainstream
    values. They will strictly and faithfully interpret the law. They won't
    use the bench from which to legislate.
        Their nominations are being held up, and it's not right, and it's
    not fair. The people of North Carolina deserve better. These judges
    deserve better treatment in the United States Senate. A minority of
    Senators apparently don't want judges who strictly interpret and apply
    the law. Evidently, they want activist judges who will rewrite the law
    from the bench. I disagree. Legislation should come from the legislative
    branch, not from the judiciary.
        Judge Boyle--Judge Terry Boyle of
    North Carolina has waited for a vote since May of 2001, and there's no
    reason why this good man should have been kept waiting for so long. He's
    an exceptional candidate for the appeals court. He was appointed to the
    district court in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and has spent the last
    7 years as Chief Judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina. He'd
    make a superb addition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and he is
    vitally needed on that court.
        The seat I nominated him to fill has
    been designated a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the
    United States, because when they name something a judicial emergency, it
    means there's a shortage of judges. I put this good man up, and he can't
    get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. He is--he, along with
    Bob Conrad, have waited too long.
        Bob Conrad I named for one of the
    district courts here in North Carolina. He served as a Federal
    prosecutor for 15 years, including 3 years as the U.S. attorney in
    Charlotte. He did a really good job in that capacity. He's waited for
    more than 14 months for a vote.
        Jim Dever is the magistrate judge.
    He has had strong bipartisan support. He's waited for more than 2 years
    for a vote. The post to which I have nominated Judge Dever has also been
    declared a judicial

    [[Page 1244]]

    emergency. This is a disservice to the State. I repeat, there's a
    minority of Senators blocking the process. They're playing politics with
    something as important as the judiciary. You might remember, I had named
    six nominees to appellate benches. They had enough votes to be
    confirmed, and they--their nominations were filibustered on the floor of
    the United States Senate. These are not the three I've discussed. These
    are other judges.
        Now, we recently got 25 nominees through, and I appreciate that. But
    there's an issue in North Carolina that needs to be solved, and the only
    people who can solve it are the United States Senators, who are holding
    these nominations up.
        I laid out earlier in the year some proposals that would make the
    process go better. Judges would provide one year advance notice of
    retirement or departure. Presidents would select a nominee within 180
    days of receiving notice of an upcoming vacancy, and then the Senate
    would hold both a hearing and an up-or-down vote within 180 days. That's
    fair. That ought to apply to both Republican as well as Democrats. This
    is the kind of reform that is necessary to make the system work better.
        The--when we see vacancies where people are declaring judicial
    emergencies, it seems like to me the Senate ought to pay attention to
    them and give these good nominees an up-or-down vote and a confirmation
    hearing in some cases. The Senate ought to let them go in front of the
    Judiciary Committee and get them to the floor. It's not right, and it's
    not fair.
        I told these three men that I'm standing with them. And I've said,
    ``I am sorry that you're having to wait so long. I'm sorry that you're
    being hung out by a handful of United States Senators.'' I appreciate
    their service. I'm honored that they would be willing to serve our
    country by going on the bench. It's time for them to get--to at least
    get an up-or-down vote.
        Let me answer some questions for you. Deb [Deb Riechmann, Associated
    Press]. Yes, I stiffed you the other day. I'm glad to call you this
    time.

    2004 Election

        Q. Mr. President, Kerry, during the primaries, often said that John
    Edwards was not ready to be President. Do you believe that he is ready
    to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office?
        The President. Well, that will be up to the voters to decide, but I
    tell you what I think about North Carolina. I did well here in 2000
    because the North Carolinian voter understood we shared values. I'm
    going to do well again in 2004. They know we share those values. People
    in North Carolina remember I came to this State and said we'll make sure
    our troops are well-paid and well-housed and taken care of, and we've
    done that. I told them we'd cut their taxes, and we've done that. The
    economy is strong here in North Carolina. I also know that when they go
    to the polls to vote for President that they'll understand that the
    Senator from Massachusetts doesn't share their
    values.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, speak up. I'm getting a little----
        Q. If I could try another Edwards question--he's being described
    today as charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist, and even
    sexy. How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?
        The President. Dick Cheney can be President.
        Next.
        Q. Mr. President, does this John Edwards selection force you to
    spend more time in the South and change your strategy in the Southern
    States now?
        The President. I'm going to carry the South because the people
    understand that they share--we share values that they understand. They
    know me well. And I am--I believe that I did well in the South last
    time; I'll do well in the South this time, because the Senator from
    Massachusetts

    [[Page 1245]]

    doesn't share their values. And that's the difference in the campaign.
        Yes.
        Q. Will you have to spend more time, strategy-wise?
        The President. Well, talk to--talk to the schedulers. I'm not the
    scheduler. I'm just the simple candidate. [Laughter]
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, candidate----
        The President. Welcome. No, ``Mr. President,'' thank you.

    Judicial Nominations

        Q. The judiciary you hope to create with these nominees, could you--
    --
        The President. Those aren't the nominees.
        Q. Well, they're----
        The President. That's Senator Burr--to be.
        Q. Could you offer thoughts as to how that judiciary is different
    from the one that might exist under a Democratic Kerry-Edwards
    administration, and perhaps with particular reference to issues of civil
    damage suits and abortion?
        The President. Well, look, I've--first of all, on issues like
    abortion, I don't have a litmus test. In other words, when the nominees
    come before people in my administration, we don't say, ``What is your
    specific position on that issue or another issue?'' What we say to the
    person is, ``What is your judicial temperament? Will you be willing to
    faithfully interpret the law, or will you view your position on the
    bench to rewrite law?'' And that is the difference of judicial
    philosophies. I've been consistent in naming people to the bench that
    will faithfully interpret the law. I suspect that's one of the reasons
    why a minority of Senators are blocking my nominees and creating a
    judicial emergency.
        And after I leave here, I'm going to Michigan to bring up the same
    point. There are six judges that are being withheld because of their
    judicial temperament, not because of a specific issue but because of
    their temperament. And I don't believe in litmus tests. I do believe in
    making sure that we share a philosophy. As I said before, I want the
    legislators legislating. I don't want the judges legislating.
        Look, you look awfully hot, and I think it's time for us to go to
    the next event. Thank you.
        Q. [Inaudible]--difference from a Kerry-Edwards administration--
    could you see how they might----
        The President. Of course. They're
    the ones blocking the nominees in the first
    place. They're the types of Senators who are blocking the advance of
    these nominees.
        Take for example here in North Carolina. Senator Edwards will not allow two of the nominees to whom I referred to
    even get to the committee for a hearing.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:27 a.m. at Raleigh Durham International
    Airport. In his remarks, he referred to Representative Richard Burr of
    North Carolina, senatorial candidate in North Carolina.