[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 40, Number 28 (Monday, July 12, 2004)]
[Pages 1209-1211]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 
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

[[Page 1210]]

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 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 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.

[[Page 1211]]

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, candidate for U.S. Senate.