|
Opening Statement Of
Senator Patrick Leahy
Debate On The Nomination
Of Miguel Estrada
To The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals
Senate Floor
Feb. 5, 2003
In the wake of
the tragic events of this weekend, all Americans are grieving with the
families of the crew of the space shuttle
Columbia
and with the entire NASA community. The President acknowledged that
loss with a prayerful statement Saturday afternoon and with his
presence in Houston
yesterday, along with a number of Senators.
Our nation also
mourns the loss of another crew, the crew of the Blackhawk helicopter
that went down just east of Bagram,
Afghanistan,
last Thursday. Both flights were connected to important national
missions – one the scientific quest into space and the other a part of
the continuing struggle to secure Afghanistan from those who made it a
haven for international terrorism. These accidents remind us all of
the courage and sacrifice of those who serve the nation in our armed
services and on the frontiers of space. This week the nation mourns,
and much of the world grieves with us.
This morning
Secretary of State Powell spoke to the Security Council of the United
Nations on the situation in Iraq. The Administration moves forward
with preparations for war. We know how precious to each family is
each of the members of our reserves and armed forces who may be about
to take assignments in harm’s way.
In light of all
these events, this week is a poor time for the Republican leadership
of the Senate and the Administration to force the Senate into an
extended debate on their controversial and divisive plan to pack the
federal courts with activists. I had hoped that the Administration
and the Republican leadership would have reconsidered that plan and
the timing of this debate.
I know that the
Democratic leader raised the matter with the Republican leadership. I
thank Senator Daschle for having done so. The Senate was right to
begin the week with unanimous Senate action on S. Res. 41
commemorating with deep sorrow and regret the fate of the
Columbia
space shuttle mission. Memorials are taking place around the country
this week in home towns and small towns as well as in Houston, here at
the National Cathedral in Washington and at Cape Canaveral in
Florida.
This is not the
time I would have chosen for this debate. The Senate should be
finding matters of consensus on which we can all work together in
unity in these difficult days of grieving. Under Democratic Senate
leadership in the difficult days following the terrorists attacks on
9/11, that is what we did. We joined together. We made sure we
joined together.
We also worked
hard to put aside divisive issues and focus exclusively on what
America needed most in the aftermath of the attacks. I recall how
hard some of us devoted ourselves to what became the USA PATRIOT Act
-- the hours, days and weeks we spent trying to forge consensus.
In the new 108th
Congress, as we begin this first judicial nominations debate on the
Senate floor, we see an emboldened Executive Branch wielding its
rising influence over both Houses of Congress and ever more determined
to pack the federal courts with activist allies. The fundamental
checks and balances of our federal system are at risk of being
sacrificed to one-party rule with the co-equal branches of our
government collapsing into one.
The Senate should
not abandon its critical role. It now falls to the minority party in
the Senate to seek to have this great institution fulfill that
function on behalf of the American people, and we must do our best to
carry out that responsibility. Defending and upholding the
Constitution is what we as Senators are sworn to do. I take that oath
seriously. I take this Administration’s efforts to pack the federal
courts with activists seriously. I take this debate seriously.
Unfortunately,
this debate will be contentious and may be split largely along party
lines. Already Republicans have charged those who have spoken or
voted against the nomination as motivated by racism. The Associated
Press reports that Republicans last Thursday charged those who oppose
this nomination as doing so “because of his ethnicity” and with
wanting “to smear anyone who would be a positive role model for
Hispanics.” Those who made such statements should begin this debate
by withdrawing those statements and disavowing that divisive
rhetoric. They should apologize to the Democratic Senators on the
Judiciary Committee who voted against this nomination and to the
Hispanic leaders who showed the courage to examine this nomination
and, having examined it, decided to oppose it.
Just as
Republicans have yet to apologize for the outrageous and slanderous
charge that religious bigotry motivated votes on other controversial
judicial nominees last year, this year begins with similar venomous
language.
I had hoped that
the Administration and the Republican leadership in the Senate would
reconsider their plan to force the Senate to debate the controversial
and divisive efforts of this Administration to pack the federal
courts. This is not the time for such a contentious matter.
Just as the
President has chosen to divide rather than unite by sending
controversial judicial nominations in an effort to pack the courts,
the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen this time to force
that controversy forward. I have made efforts over the last two years
to try to work with the White House to confirm and appoint judges to
the judicial vacancies, including many judicial vacancies that
Republicans prevented from being filled by moderate nominees of
President Clinton.
During the last
17 months of the last Congress, under Democratic leadership the Senate
confirmed 100 of President Bush’s judicial nominees. We worked at a
rate almost twice that averaged during the preceding years when a
Republican-led Senate was considering the nominees of a Democratic
President. Consensus nominees were considered first and relatively
quickly. Controversial nominees took more time but we considered many
of them, as well.
The last judicial
nominee considered by the Senate last December was Judge Dennis Shedd
of South Carolina. Judge Shedd’s nomination was chiefly supported by
Senator Strom Thurmond. Despite his record in civil rights cases and
his record on the bench, we proceeded. His record raised serious
concerns among many, especially among African Americans living in the
Fourth Circuit and across the country. The Senate vote was 55 to 44
to confirm Judge Shedd.
Shortly
thereafter, the nation and the Senate were confronted by the
controversy over remarks made by the former Republican leader of the
Senate that recalled a divisive presidential campaign and the policies
of racial segregation. People openly speculated whether the President
would renominate Judge Charles Pickering, whose record on the bench
raised serious concerns among many and whose nomination was defeated
by a majority vote in this Committee. Anonymous White House officials
indicated that the President would not make this renomination.
I do not know of
any precedent for a President renominating a judicial nominee voted
upon and rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Yet this President has
chosen to renominate both Judge Pickering and Justice Priscilla Owen,
who both were voted on by the Judiciary Committee and whose
nominations were rejected last year.
Although the
campaign rhetoric of the Administration as it continued to politicize
the selection of federal judges was in large measure about Judge
Pickering and Justice Owen, and although the President has followed
through on his threat to renominate them, the Republican agenda turns
out not to include either of them. Perhaps this is a sign that the
Republicans in the Senate at least recognize the unprecedented nature
of the President’s renominations and the divisiveness they engender.
Republican
leaders have indicated that they intend to hold additional hearings on
the Pickering nomination, even though the previous hearings held on
this nomination are widely regarded as having been fair and
extensive. It is ironic that while Republicans have unilaterally
decided that the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi
requires additional time and additional hearings, while they insist
that the Senate expedite its consideration of the nomination to the
D.C. Circuit of Miguel Estrada. Republicans have shown no interest in
compiling a more complete record on the Estrada nomination.
This is and has
been a difficult nomination for the Senate. As I have said for some
time, the Senate and the American people deserve to have an adequate
record and strong confidence about the type of judge Mr. Estrada would
be in order to support a favorable vote on this nomination. Such is
not the case of the sparse record before the Senate on this nomination
to the second- highest court in the land, and as a Senator I do not
have sufficient confidence to be able to support this nomination. I
remain concerned that he will be an activist on the important D.C.
Circuit, given what we have learned about him and given the
insufficient record we have. Throughout our earlier proceedings I
have repeatedly urged Mr. Estrada and the Administration to be more
forthcoming. Neither the nominee nor the Administration have shown
any interest in doing so.
Accordingly, we
have before us for consideration a nominee with no judicial experience
and little relevant practical experience related to the jurisdiction
of this court. While he counts Justice Scalia, Ken Starr and Ted
Olson among his friends and mentors, any information about his
decision-making, values and judgment have been denied the Senate. His
selection for this nomination has generated tremendous controversy. I
think that is, in part, because he appears to have been groomed to be
an activist appellate judge by well-connected, ideologically driven
legal activists.
Last week the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus
restated their concerns and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF), and the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP)
reiterated their concerns. Similarly, a large number of this
country’s most respected Latino Labor leaders, including Maria Elena
Durazo of HERE, Arturo S. Rodriquez of the UFW, Miguel Contreras of
L.A. County Fed., Cristina Vazquez of UNITE and Eliseo Medina of SEIU,
have indicated their strong opposition to this nomination.
I quote briefly
from the MALDEF and SVREP letter from Antonia Hernandez and Antonio
Gonzalez:
“As a community, we recognize the
importance of the judiciary, as it is the branch to which we have
turned to seek protection when, because of our limited political
power, we are not able to secure and protect our rights through the
legislative process or with the executive branch. This has become
perhaps even more true in light of some of the actions Congress and
the executive branch have taken after 9/11, particularly as these
actions affect immigrants.
“After an extensive review of the
public record that was available to us, the testimony that Mr. Estrada
provided before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the written
responses he provided to the Committee, we have concluded at this time
that Mr. Estrada would not fairly review issues that would come before
him if he were to be confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As such, we oppose his nomination and urge you to do the same.”
They go on to
analyze an array of issues that affect not only the Latino community
but all Americans on which they find this nomination wanting. Of
course, MALDEF had outlined its concerns in advance of the hearing
last fall in a memorandum to the White House. As their recent letter
notes:
“[T]he Judiciary Committee gave Mr.
Estrada ample opportunity to address [their concerns]. Ultimately, Mr.
Estrada had the affirmative obligation to show that he would be fair
and impartial to all who would appear before him. After reviewing the
public record, the transcript and the hearing, and all written
responses submitted by Mr. Estrada, we conclude that he failed to meet
this obligation. He chose one of two paths consistently at his hearing
and in his written responses: either his responses confirmed our
concerns, or he chose not to reveal his current views or positions.”
My view of the
record is in accord with theirs and is shared by the respected Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Senator Schumer
chaired a fair hearing for Mr. Estrada last September. I was hoping
that the hearing would allay concerns that have been raised about this
nomination, but I was left with more questions than answers after all
of the steps Mr. Estrada took to avoid answering questions.
The recent
statement from Latino Labor leaders makes the following point: “Mr.
Estrada is a ‘stealth candidate’ whose views and qualifications have
been hidden from the American people and from the U.S. Senate. Since
his nomination, Mr. Estrada has consistently refused to answer
important questions about his views and his judicial philosophy.”
They go on to note that it would be “simply irresponsible for the
Senate to put him on the bench.”
After a thorough
review, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund concluded
that Mr. Estrada was not sufficiently qualified for a lifetime seat on
the nation’s second highest court and “that his reportedly extreme
views should be disqualifying; that he has not had a demonstrated
interest in or any involvement with the organized Hispanic community
or Hispanic activities of any kind; and that he lacks the maturity and
judicial temperament necessary to be a circuit judge.”
I remain
concerned about several of the issues raised by PRLDEF based on their
review. They noted that “a number of his colleagues have said
unequivocally that Mr. Estrada has expressed extreme views that they
believe to be outside the mainstream of legal and political thought.”
According to PRLDEF, Estrada has “made strong statements that have
been interpreted as hostile to criminal defendants’ rights,
affirmative action and women’s rights.” They also expressed serious
concerns about his temperament. People they interviewed about Mr.
Estrada described him as “arrogant and elitist” and that he
“‘harangues his colleagues’ and ‘doesn’t listen to other people.’” In
their view, Mr. Estrada was not even-tempered and was “contentious,
confrontational, aggressive and even offensive in his verbal
exchanges” with them.
As I have already
noted, there have been some on the other side of the aisle who have
made the outrageous attack that any opposition to Mr. Estrada’s
confirmation is racist or anti-Hispanic. Such claims are offensive
and absurd. Well-respected leaders of the Hispanic community have
raised very serious objections and concerns about this nomination.
No one has worked
harder to increase Hispanic representation on our courts than PRLDEF,
MALDEF and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. They did not begin
their review of Mr. Estrada’s record with the expectation of opposing
his nomination, but with their strong record of support for achieving
more diversity on the federal bench. In spite of their strong desire
to support Hispanic nominees, they express serious concerns and
opposition.
Despite this
Administration’s rhetoric about diversity, Mr. Estrada is the only
Latino nominated by President Bush to any of 42 vacancies that have
existed on the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals during his tenure.
Hispanics have
not been nominated for any of the four vacancies in the Tenth Circuit,
which includes New Mexico and Colorado; the three vacancies in the
Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas; the six vacancies in the Ninth
Circuit, which includes California and Arizona; the three vacancies in
the Second Circuit, which includes New York and Puerto Rico; or any of
the three vacancies in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. This, despite the outstanding Hispanic lawyers and
judges in each of these Circuits.
I have noted how
few Latino nominees this President has sent to the Senate and detailed
how quickly we have proceeded to consider and confirm Judge Christina
Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez and Randy Crane of Texas,
Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, and Jose
Linares of New Jersey to the district courts under Democratic Senate
leadership. I also have no doubt we will soon also confirm Judge
James Otero of California. I would have held his confirmation hearing
last year if his ABA peer rating had been received in time.
Of the 10 Latino
appellate judges currently seated in the federal courts, eight (or 80
percent) were appointed by President Clinton. Some of these Clinton
nominees were denied Senate consideration for years during the period
of Republican control of the Senate. For example, the confirmation of
Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit took more than 1,500 days,
even though he had the full support of his home-state Senators. It
was delayed by Republicans for almost five years, and 39 Republicans
voted against him.
I recall how the
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit was stalled
from Senate consideration for months by anonymous holds because
Republicans were concerned that she might be nominated to the Supreme
Court. Although she had received a unanimous Well Qualified rating
from the ABA
and had first been named to the federal bench by the first President
Bush, 29 Republicans voted against her confirmation.
Other circuit
court nominees of President Clinton never received hearings or votes,
such as Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno of Texas, who were both
nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Christine
Arguello of Colorado, who was nominated to the Tenth Circuit. Scores
of the last President’s judicial nominees were never given hearings or
votes and many of them were qualified Hispanic, African-American or
female nominees.
Democrats worked
hard during the last Congress to restore fairness to the judicial
confirmation process. We endeavored responsibly to address the
vacancies we inherited as a result of the delay and obstruction of
judicial nominations by Republicans, particularly circuit court
nominations, during the prior six and one-half years of Republican
control of the Senate.
Diversity is one
of the great strengths of our nation and that diversity of background
should be reflected in our federal courts. Race or ethnicity and
gender are, of course, no substitutes for the wisdom, experience,
fairness, and impartiality that qualify someone to be a federal judge
entrusted with a lifetime appointment.
No potential
candidate for a lifetime appointment to the federal courts should get
a presumption of competence or entitlement. All nominees should be
treated fairly. The burden of proof of suitability for lifetime
appointment rests on the nominee and on the Administration. We must
carefully examine the records of all nominees to high offices, but we
know the benefits of diversity and how it contributes to achieving and
improving justice in America.
As Antonia
Hernandez wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The
fact that a nominee is Latino should not be a shield from full
inquiry, particularly when a nominee’s record is sparse, as in Mr.
Estrada’s case.” She continued: “It is vital to know more about a
nominee’s philosophies for interpreting and applying the Constitution
and the laws.”
It was in
connection with the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd, a white male and
former staffer to Senator Thurmond, that Republicans made a
“diversity” argument. They argued that Judge Shedd would bring
“diversity” to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth
Circuit was the federal circuit court that had the longest history
without an African American judge. It was not until President
Clinton’s recess appointment of Judge Roger Gregory that the Fourth
Circuit was finally desegregated. The Republican Senate majority
allowed Republican Senators to use their blue slips and secret
objections to block the integration of that court for years during the
Clinton Administration as a Democratic President nominated one
qualified African American after another. None was accorded a
hearing.
Yet in connection
with Judge Shedd’s nomination, Republicans extolled the “diversity”
Judge Shedd would bring to that court based on his experience as a
trial judge.
The D.C. Circuit
is an especially important court in our nation’s judicial system. It
is the most prestigious and powerful appellate court below the Supreme
Court. Congress has vested the D.C. Circuit with special jurisdiction
over cases involving many environmental, civil rights, consumer
protection, and workplace statutes.
During the 1960s
and 1970s, Congress passed a number of important laws to protect
American workers and the environmental rights of all Americans. On
the whole, those serving on the D.C. Circuit understood the important
legal principles of deference to the policy decisions of the
Legislative Branch and to the regulations promulgated by agencies to
fulfill their statutory responsibilities. That court interpreted the
rules for access to courts to allow citizens significant opportunities
to have standing to challenge agency actions affecting their health
and the environment.
When President
Reagan came to Washington, there was a concerted effort to pack the
bench with conservative judges with the hope of moving the law toward
the extreme right in terms of limiting opportunities to challenge
federal regulations and limiting the power of Congress to enforce
constitutional and statutory rights. President Reagan, with the help
of a Republican Senate, put Robert Bork on the D.C. Circuit. Like Mr.
Estrada, Judge Bork was one of the first judges nominated by the
President.
Shortly after
winning Mr. Bork’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in 1982, President
Reagan pushed through Antonin Scalia’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit,
and then Kenneth Starr the following year. He named another five
conservative candidates after that for a total of eight appointments
to the D.C. Circuit by President Reagan alone.
President George
H.W. Bush also took a special interest in the D.C. Circuit, and he
chose Clarence Thomas as one of his first dozen nominees. President
Bush succeeded in getting two other judges confirmed to the D.C.
Circuit.
Thus, in 12 prior
years of Republican administrations, those presidents appointed 11
judges to this 12-member court. Five of these judges were later
nominated to the Supreme Court by Republican Presidents, and three
were confirmed.
Of course, now
the Supreme Court has become quite activist, in part through the
decisions and views of these former D.C. Circuit appointees. Overall,
the D.C. Circuit has produced more Justices on the Supreme Court than
any other court in recent history.
Three of the
current members of the Supreme Court previously served on the D.C.
Circuit, including Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. I am reminded
that, as with the case of Justice Scalia, the fact that a nominee has
a relatively modest paper trail, or none at all, does not mean that he
or she does not have fixed or entrenched views. Similarly, the fact
that a nominee insists that he has no views, as Justice Thomas
asserted during his hearing, does not mean that he will not begin
asserting hard-held views immediately upon confirmation.
I recall, for
example, that Clarence Thomas refused to comment on the reasoning of
Roe v. Wade and disavowed that he had any views that would
prevent him from keeping an open mind and yet he voted to overrule
that precedent within a year of his confirmation and he has
steadfastly voted that way over the past decade.
During the period
of Republican domination of the D.C. Circuit when Judge Scalia and
then Judge Thomas served there, the court began to limit opportunities
for individuals and organizations to have standing to challenge
government actions. The
court’s decisions became increasingly less deferential to agency
regulations intended in the areas of labor, environmental and consumer
protections. These decisions were praised by Republicans and
conservative activists.
When President
Clinton took office with a Democratic-led Senate, he was able to win
the confirmation of two moderate judges to the D.C. Circuit, Judge
Rogers and Tatel. Once Republicans took control of the Senate in
1995, Republicans took pains to block D.C. Circuit vacancies from
being filled by President Clinton.
During the six
and one-half years of Republican control, three of President Clinton’s
nominees to the D.C. Circuit alone (along with 76 other Clinton
nominees) did not get confirmed in the first Congress they were
nominated. The last judge confirmed to the D.C. Circuit after a
2-year battle was Merrick Garland in 1997.
After that, the
Republican Senate locked the gates and neither Allen Snyder nor Elena
Kagan was allowed a Committee vote. For almost the entire second term
of the Clinton Administration, Republicans blocked any and all
nominees to the D.C. Circuit.
Had President
Clinton’s nominees, Mr. Snyder and Professor Kagen, been confirmed,
the D.C. Circuit would have only two current vacancies rather than
four. And Republican Members of the Committee have insisted that the
D.C. Circuit did not need an 11th or 12th judge
on that D.C. Circuit when there was a Democrat in the White House, due
to a declining caseload on this court. Yet this Administration has
refused to take any steps to address our concerns about the need to
maintain balance on the D.C. Circuit.
Given the
importance of the D.C. Circuit and the effect of their decisions on
the rights of all Americans, we must take special care in evaluating
nominees to this court. It is noteworthy that it does not appear that
Mr. Estrada has had any experience as a practicing attorney since 1989
handling cases within the special jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit,
such as cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Americans with Disability Act, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Election Commission,
the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (such
as the following environmental statutes: the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6976; Superfund, 42 U.S.C. § 9613; the Clean
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j; and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607) or
the cases involving alien terrorists or challenges to the 1996
amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The bulk of Mr.
Estrada’s experience, including his Supreme Court arguments, involves
criminal appeals, but criminal appeals constitute only about 5 percent
of the work of the D.C. Circuit. Similarly, Mr. Estrada’s experience
in banking and HMO law also constitute a statistically insignificant
percent of the work of this court. While it is true that not everyone
appointed to this circuit has prior judicial experience, others have
had more legal experience or legal writings than Mr. Estrada has had.
I appreciated the
hearing chaired by Senator Schumer last year on the importance of
balance on the D.C. Circuit. I commend to everyone here the testimony
that was given at that hearing. Beyond the unique significance of the
D.C. Circuit, with the Supreme Court hearing fewer than 100 cases per
year, it is the circuit courts that are really the courts of last
resort for nearly 30,000 cases each year. These cases affect issues
of constitutional interpretation as well as of statutes intended by
Congress to protect the rights of all Americans, such as the right to
equal protection of the laws and the right to privacy, as well as the
best opportunity to have clean air and clean water ourselves and in
future generations.
These courts are
where federal regulations will be upheld or overturned, where
reproductive rights will either be retained or lost and where
intrusive government action will be allowed or curtailed. They are
the courts where thousands of individuals will have their final appeal
in matters that affect their financial future, their health, their
lives and their liberty.
The burden of proof for entrusting
someone, for life, with these weighty responsibilities over the lives
of millions of Americans and non-citizens rests on the nominee. Our
freedoms are the fruit of too much sacrifice to fail to assure
ourselves that the judges we vote to confirm have a commitment to
upholding the Constitution, following precedent, and listening to
claims without fear or favor. When a President is nominating
individuals to tip the balance, stack the deck, or to pack the courts
with a narrow ideology, the Senate would be abdicating its
responsibilities to ignore the very criteria that led to selection of
such a nominee.
Under our
Founders’ design, the political branches share the power of
appointment: The President has the power to nominate or propose
judges, but the Senate has a corresponding power to confirm or reject
those nominations. That is one of the ingenious checks and balances
of our federal system. If a nominee’s record, or lack of a record,
raises doubts, these are matters for thorough scrutiny by the Members
of the Judiciary Committee who are entrusted to review all of the
information and materials relevant to a nominee’s record relating to
fairness, impartiality, bias, experience, or other matters.
When there is no
judicial experience to look to, it is all the more crucial that the
Committee inquire fully into a nominee’s experience, record, views and
understanding of our fundamental rights. Chairman
Hatch argued for such inquiry when the President was a Democrat. In
1997, he told the Utah Chapter of the Federalist Society:
“[T]he Senate can and should do what
it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to
the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely
to be judicial activists. Determining who will become activists is not
easy since many of President Clinton’s nominees tend to have limited
paper trails . . . . Determining which of President Clinton’s nominees
will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to
be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees’
jurisprudential views.”
In the case of
Mr. Estrada, however, the nominee has refused to provide us many
answers at all about the types of jurisprudential views referenced by
Chairman Hatch.
Most Americans
want nominees who will be fair and impartial judges. An independent
judiciary is the people’s bulwark against a loss of their freedoms and
rights. The rights of the American people that are at stake are
simply too important to roll the dice on a lifetime appointment to
this high court, to make a decision we cannot reverse. What little
record we have calls into question his sensitivity, his fairness, and
whether he would be a neutral referee or an advocate and activist from
the bench.
# # # # # |
