|
Letters From
Senator Patrick Leahy
To President Bush
About Potential Supreme Court Vacancies
[Below
are the texts of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s two letters to President Bush
about potential Supreme Court (SCOTUS) vacancies, asking the President
to avoid the national division that would come from selection of
polarizing candidates to fill any SCOTUS vacancies, and urging White
House consultation with Senate Democrats, as well as with Senate
Republicans, on candidates who are considered. Leahy (D-Vt.),
the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, notes that
President Clinton similarly consulted with the panel’s then-ranking
member, Sen. Orrin Hatch, on Clinton’s Supreme
Court choices.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++
June 11, 2003
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
This letter follows my previous letter
of May 14, in which I offered to work with you should a vacancy on the
Supreme Court arise, to avoid a divisive confirmation fight. Having
not received acknowledgment of my first letter, I nonetheless remain
hopeful about the possibility of meaningful bipartisan cooperation
should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court in the coming
weeks.
This month, as the Supreme Court
approaches the end of its current term, speculation is accelerating
about the potential retirement of current Supreme Court justices. In
advance of any such vacancies, should they occur, I write to urge you
to follow the constructive and successful examples set by previous
Presidents of both parties who engaged in meaningful consultation with
Members of the Senate, including those in the other party, before
deciding on nominees. The Supreme Court often serves as the final
arbiter and protector of our individual rights and freedoms. This
decision is too important to all Americans to be unnecessarily
embroiled in partisan politics, and we should pay attention to the
procedures used successfully by our predecessors.
I stand ready to work with you to help
select a nominee or nominees to the Supreme Court behind which all
Americans, and all Senators, can unite, and I believe you will find
this same willingness throughout the Senate. Some Presidents,
including most recently President Clinton, found consultation with the
Senate in advance of nomination most beneficial in helping pave the
way for successful nominations. President Reagan, on the other hand,
disregarded the advice offered by Senate Democratic leaders and chose
a controversial, divisive nominee who was ultimately rejected by the
full Senate.
In his recent book, “Square Peg,”
Senator Hatch tells how in 1993, as the Ranking Member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, he advised President Clinton about possible
Supreme Court nominees. In his book, Senator Hatch recounts that he
warned President Clinton away from a nominee whose confirmation he
believed “would not be easy” and explained “that although he
[President Clinton] might prevail in the end, he should consider
whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment
to the Court.” Senator Hatch goes on to describe how he suggested the
names of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, both of whom were eventually nominated and confirmed “with
relative ease.” Indeed, 96 Senators voted in favor of Justice
Ginsburg’s confirmation, and only three Senators voted against;
Justice Breyer received 87 affirmative
votes, and only nine Senators voted against him.
Thorough bipartisan consultation on
the wide range of highly qualified candidates eligible for such a post
not only would make your choice a better one,
it would also reassure the Senate and the American people that the
process of selecting a Supreme Court justice has not become
politicized. A process in which we work together to fill a vacancy
will reassure the American people.
I would be glad to help convene a
meeting of Senate leaders from both parties so that we can begin a
bipartisan process of consultation. We should be able easily to adopt
a framework for action to include consultation, an opportunity for
thorough review of a nomination, and preparation for a confirmation
hearing.
Mr. President, though the landscape
ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention over
vacancies that may arise on the Court, contention is avoidable, and
consensus should be our goal. I would hope your objective will not be
to send the Senate nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are
eked out in narrow margins. This would come at a steep and gratuitous
price that the entire nation would have to pay in needless division.
It would serve the country better to choose qualified candidates who
can be broadly supported by the public and by the Senate.
Mr. President, the process begins with
you, and you are the only participant in the process who can nominate
candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies. If and when there are
vacancies, the decisions made in the White House will determine
whether nominees will be chosen who will unite the nation, or who will
divide the nation. There will be no shortage of highly qualified
potential candidates for any vacancy. If consensus is a goal,
bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. That is what the
American people want, and that is what they deserve. Only you can
ensure that this happens.
Over the last several years I have
stressed the need for consultation and moderation as two guiding
principles for selecting judicial nominees. I have been largely
disappointed up to this time, but if there is a vacancy on the Supreme
Court of the
United States, I hope that you will
work with me and with others Senators of both parties to identify
consensus nominees who will unite us instead of divide us. There is
no need to pit Republicans against Democrats or to divide the American
people; none of us wishes for that. I am confident that a smooth
nomination and confirmation process can be developed on a bipartisan
basis if we work together. The Supreme Court and the American people
we all represent and serve are entitled to no less.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Ranking Member
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 14, 2003
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Ever since you assumed the office of the
Presidency, I have stressed the need for consultation and moderation
as two guiding principles for selecting judicial nominees. Nowhere is
this more important than if a vacancy were to arise on the
United States Supreme Court. The Senate has already confirmed
124 of your judicial nominees, and that the federal court vacancy rate
is down to 5.45%, the lowest it has been in 13 years.
Should a Supreme Court vacancy arise in
the coming months, I believe you should use the two most recent
confirmations – those of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer -- as models for your own selection
process. We saw a President reach out to leaders in the Republican
Party in an attempt to find consensus nominees who would not pit
Republicans against Democrats and, far more importantly, would not
divide the American people.
The spectacle of a divisive nomination
and confrontational confirmation process is not something any of us
desire. I am confident that a favorable consensus and a rapid
confirmation process could be developed on a bipartisan basis if we
work together. The country and the Supreme Court would be best served
by better consultation and closer coordination between the White House
and the Senate with regard to judicial nominations.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator
# # # # # |
