Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Nomination Of Janice Rogers Brown
Judiciary Committee Hearing
October 22, 2003
Today we are here to consider the nomination of
Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit. I think it will come as no surprise to anyone here
today that this nomination is one that will be closely scrutinized
by many Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Justice Brown has a
lengthy record both on the bench and off, and her record raises a
variety of concerns about her judicial philosophy and fitness for a
lifetime appointment to the D.C. Circuit. It is for just this
purpose that the Constitution entrusted the appointment and
confirmation of lifetime positions on the federal courts to not just
one but to two branches of the government, and I know that this
Committee takes its responsibility seriously.
Those of us who have exercised our
constitutional duty to examine the records of judicial nominees have
been barraged by some partisans with shrill and unfounded
name-calling because of it. Let us hope that today we will see the
end of that ugly game. When we opposed Charles Pickering, we were
called anti-Southern. Of course our critics overlooked the fact
that 38 percent of the judges we have confirmed are from the South,
while Southern states make up about 25 percent of the nation’s
population. When we opposed Miguel Estrada, we were called
anti-Hispanic, even though the record of Democrats supporting
Latinos for the federal bench is unmatched in American history.
When we opposed Priscilla Owen, they were reduced to branding us as
being anti-woman. And, in an especially despicable ploy that had
not been seen in the Senate in modern times, when we opposed William
Pryor, they stooped to religious McCarthyism, which has no place in
the United States Senate, or anywhere else in America.
Today, let us focus on the qualifications and
the record of the nominees before us. Let the consideration of
nominees not stoop to name-calling. When Senators of good
conscience and true purpose ask serious, substantive questions of
this nominee, let us stick to the substance and not sink to slurs
that they are being anti-African American. Let the right-wing
tactic of smears and name-calling subside and disappear. Let us not
see the race card dealt from the shameful deck of unfounded charges
that some stalwarts of this President’s most extreme nominees have
come more and more to rely upon as they further inject partisanship
and politics into the appointment and consideration of judges to sit
on the independent federal judiciary. No matter what position any
Senator takes on this nomination, whether it is in support or
opposition, I know that it will not be taken because of race. I
expect that those who ultimately support Justice Brown, even though
they oppose affirmative action, will do so because they believe she
would be even-tempered and even-handed. Those who may ultimately
oppose her will do so because they retain serious doubts about her
nomination, see her as an ideologue or a judicial activist, or for
principled reasons without regard to her race.
Because of her record, several organizations
oppose Justice Brown’s confirmation, including the nation’s premier
African-American bar association, the National Bar Association; its
State counterpart, the California Association of Black Lawyers; the
foremost national civil rights organization, the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights; and the entire membership of the
Congressional Black Caucus, including the Delegate from the District
of Columbia, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton. Are these groups
and individuals going to be accused of being anti-African American
in the way Hispanic organizations and leaders were maligned during
the debate on the Estrada nomination? Let us hope for better.
And let us hope that during the questioning and
the debate over this nomination we can focus on substance, because
there is much to discuss. Justice Brown’s outspoken judicial
philosophy is unique. It raises many concerns. But that is what
the hearing process is for -- to give Justice Brown an opportunity
to explain her views on respect for precedent, on judicial activism,
on statutory interpretation, free speech, civil liberties,
limitation of damages, deference to jury verdicts, and the standards
of review that apply to infringement of constitutional rights. She
has written opinions or has spoken on all of these topics and more,
and I find some of her views difficult to reconcile with one
another.
The
court to which she is nominated, 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, and Congress has chosen to vest the
D.C. Circuit with exclusive or special jurisdiction over cases
involving many environmental, civil rights, consumer protection, and
workplace statutes.
Scores of President Clinton’s nominees were not
treated fairly, including Elena Kagan and Allen Snyder. Each was
nominated unsuccessfully to vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. Elena
Kagan and Allen Snyder were never allowed a Committee vote or Senate
consideration. Dean Kagan, who now heads the Harvard Law School,
never even received a Committee hearing.
That is not how this President’s nominees have
been treated. Both of his previous nominees received hearings and
extensive consideration by the Senate. Justice Brown’s is this
President’s third nomination to the D.C. Circuit, and all three will
have received hearings. Indeed, with the confirmation of John
Roberts to the D.C. Circuit earlier this year, the Senate has
already confirmed more of President Bush’s nominees to the D.C.
Circuit than the Republican majority was willing to consider and
vote on in the entire last three years of President Clinton’s
Administration.
I look forward to a hearing that will be
constructive and that will help this Committee and the Senate better
understand the nominee’s record and fitness for this high office.
# # #
# #