Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Senate Judiciary Committee
Judicial Nominations Hearing
November 12, 2003
Today the Committee will hear from three more
judicial nominees and another Executive Branch nominee. For the
record, this hearing is the 22nd judicial nominations hearing held
so far this year. This pace stands in sharp contrast to the way
President Clinton’s nominees were treated then by the Republican
majority.
Republicans never held 22 judicial nominations
hearings in any comparable time period during their six years in the
Senate majority from 1995 through 2000 during the Clinton
Administration. In fact, they never held as many as 14 hearings in
any comparable time. In most of those years, there were far fewer
hearings and far fewer nominees. For example, I recall that during
the entire year of 1996, when the vacancy rate was far higher
and rising, the Committee held a mere six hearings all year. During
that 1996 session, not a single judge was confirmed to the Circuit
Courts -- not one, in contrast to 12 circuit court confirmations
this year.
In fact, Republicans have now held more
hearings for President Bush’s judicial nominees in just nine months
than they held in all 24 months of 1999 and 2000 -- combined -- for
President Clinton’s judicial nominees. During the entire year of
2000, only eight judicial nominations hearings were held. In 1999,
the Committee did not have a hearing to consider a single judicial
nominee until June 16th, and during the rest of 1999, it
held only seven hearings to consider judicial nominees. That was
the third year of President Clinton’s second term. Like 1999, this
year, 2003, is the third year of this President’s term, and
Republicans have held more than twice as many hearings for President
Bush’s judicial nominees as for President Clinton’s that year. The
Republican double standard is prominently on display.
The number of nominees who have been considered
so far this year is at a record high for this Republican leadership,
as well. With the three judicial nominees on the hearing today, we
will now have held hearings for 81 Article III judicial nominees
this year. That is two dozen more than the high of 57 nominees
considered during any one year of the Clinton Administration — 24
more.
With a Republican in the White House, the
Senate Republican majority has gone from first gear -- the
restrained pace it had said was required for Clinton nominees -- to
overdrive for President Bush’s judicial nominees.
This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee
will hear from three judicial nominees supported by their home-state
Senators, who happen to include Democratic Senators. Each one of
these nominees seems to be an example of what can and should be
accomplished with every nomination. Each one is a talented
attorney, well-known and respected in his or her legal community for
legal skills and integrity. Unlike the most controversial of the
President’s nominees, none of these candidates is known for their
partisanship or their ideological agenda. Each of them is a
lawyer’s lawyer, and is likely to be confirmed with a strong
bipartisan majority.
When I see nominees like these, chosen by
consensus for their skills and reputations, I am even more
disappointed that this White House refuses to use this selection
process for more of its nominees.
A handful of the Administration’s most divisive
and extreme nominees have been denied approval by the Senate. While
168 judges have been confirmed in less than three years, a handful
of those chosen for ideological and political reasons have not. In
a few hours, the Senate will become hostage to a transparent
political ploy by the majority. We will see Republican Senators
take to the floor to criticize the Senate for confirming 98 percent
of the President’s judicial nominees instead of 100 percent. We
will hear Republican Senators excoriate others for executing their
constitutional duty of advice and consent, and we may even here the
incendiary accusations of obstructionism or bigotry. Democrats have
helped confirm 13 Latinos nominated by President Bush to the federal
bench and blocked one. We have helped confirm 13 African Americans
to the federal bench. We have helped confirm 33 women nominees and
blocked one. We can hope that they will not resort that that sort
of name calling, but given the smears and the false accusations
about nominees being opposed because of their religion, it seems
that some will say anything however untrue and harmful to the
process.
Today we will hear from three judicial
nominees. First, Judith Herrera of New Mexico, has had a
distinguished legal career of 24 years, which has included both
public service and private practice and criminal and civil cases.
Next, Dennis Saylor of Massachusetts, has also had an illustrious
career. He has spent more than 16 years in private practice at the
well-known firm of Goodwin Procter, and six years in service at the
federal level as an Assistant United States Attorney as well as a
Special Counsel and Chief of Staff to the head of the Criminal
Division, who was then Robert Mueller, the current FBI Director, at
Main Justice here in Washington. His career has included both
criminal and civil experience, and his record shows he knows his way
around a courtroom. Finally, we will hear from Justice Sandra
Townes, currently serving as an Associate Justice of the New York
State Supreme Court. Before the beginning of her state judicial
career, Justice Townes spent 10 years as a prosecutor, handling a
wide range of cases. Since then she has gained invaluable
experience and outstanding reviews on the state bench.
Ms. Herrera is a Latina American and Justice
Townes is an African American. Both are women. In fact, this is
the first nominations hearing I can recall during this
Administration where there are more women on the panel than men. I
mention this because these nominees are walking proof that the
President can find judges of diverse backgrounds and distinguished
legal reputations if he tries. Democrats have long supported
diversity on the federal bench.
In addition to the judicial nominees, we will
also consider the nomination of Domingo S. Herraiz to the Director
of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is a component of the
Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. The Bureau=s
mission is to provide leadership and assistance in support of local
criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities. I look
forward to learning more about Mr. Herraiz’s experiences working in
criminal justice and crime prevention policy, and about his plans
for the Bureau.
# # # # #
