Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Very few people even argue one case.

Mr. HATCH. It shows the lengths they would go to on that side--at least the leaders on that side--to screw up a nomination of a very good person. Take Janice Rogers Brown. She is a terrific African-American justice on the California Supreme Court. She wrote the majority of the majority opinions on that court last year, and yet they come here and say she is outside the mainstream. They are outside the mainstream when they make arguments such as that. There is only one reason they are against Janice Rogers Brown and filibuster her: because she is an African-American woman who is conservative and pro-life. For these inside-the-beltway groups, that is their single issue. I had friends on the other side tell me, when I asked, ``Why are you doing this,'' say, ``Well, the groups will score this as a vote, and then they will come against whoever votes that way in the next election.'' These guys don't have the guts to take on the groups.

Mr. HATCH. That is right.

Mr. HATCH. Better than that. She got 76 percent of the vote. She was the top vote-getter among four supreme court nominees.

Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator makes a very good point.

Mr. HATCH. It certainly is. I went to one of my friends on the other side--and I won't mention the name because I don't think that would be proper--and I said: What did you think of Janice Rogers Brown? His answer was: She's terrific--which she was in front of the committee. Yet every Democrat went against her in committee and I think cited horrendously bad arguments to do it. They can point to 8 or 10 cases with which they didn't agree, but with which a lot of people do agree, and then they say she is outside the mainstream when she has tried hundreds of cases and decided, as a majority opinion writer, the most majority opinions in that court last year and I think in prior years as well. It is really unseemly, and that is why we are so upset here. Let me tell you, if we continue down this course, we are going to severely harm the Federal judiciary and get only people who really are not only outside the mainstream, but are Milquetoast, who can't make a decision to save their lives. Once you get to the Federal bench, you have to be able to make tough decisions.

Mr. HATCH. That is a frequent argument. I think the best illustration of that happens to be Bill Pryor.

Mr. HATCH. They criticized him for cases he won before the Supreme Court, saying he is outside the mainstream because they disagreed with the cases. In fact, they think Rehnquist is out of the mainstream. They think Scalia is out of the mainstream. They certainly think Clarence Thomas is out of the mainstream because they want a single approach, a minority approach to everything that has to be liberal, and if you are not liberal, you are outside the mainstream, even though some of the greatest judges ever to sit on the Federal courts and Supreme Court were conservatives. Some of the great ones were liberals, too, but understood the role of judges.

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. Bill Pryor is getting savaged by the rightwing because he basically sued to have the chief justice removed for not following the rule of law.

Mr. HATCH. That is absolutely correct. Just fast forward to this week. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported this week, Bill Pryor filed a pretrial brief asking the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to remove Judge Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court because of Moore's defiance of the Federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments display. Bill Pryor's brief stated, quoting from the Atlanta Journal Constitution article: Moore should be removed because ``he intentionally engaged in misconduct and because he remains unrepentant for his behavior.'' I could go on about Bill Pryor. During his hearing--a lengthy hearing--he was asked over and over by virtually every Democrat who showed up about his deeply held personal beliefs. He answered every question the way a judicial nominee should. Even though he had deeply held beliefs, he would obey the law.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for his excellent questions.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed the stirring remarks of my colleague. However, I think he completely ignores the fact that the filibuster rule did not even begin until 1917, and it did not come into fruition until the 1940s. Nevertheless, we have changed the rules in this body many times. But we are not asking for a change of the rules. We are asking for a recognition. There is a difference between the Executive Calendar, where the precise meaning of the Constitution is advise and consent under section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, and the legislative calendar where we do have a right to filibuster. So that distinction needs to be made. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and then I will be happy to take questions on this side.

Mr. HATCH. I yield without losing my right to the floor a question of the Senator from----

Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Colorado without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I have laryngitis. What a time to have laryngitis. But that is the way it is. I apologize for my voice.

Mr. HATCH. I sure do. The paper got it just right. I have seen three major editorials from the Chieftain and from the Rocky Mountain News calling the Democratic filibuster an irresponsible escalation of the judicial nominating war. I agree with both. The Denver Post said ``a change in Senate procedure is long overdue.'' ``[T]here is no good reason to oppose a supermajority of the Senate that was not contemplated in the Constitution.'' They got it just right.

Mr. HATCH. That is a good question because it seems as if our friends on the other side forget when they were in the majority and they had the Presidency and they all wanted votes up and down and all of a sudden they do not. The Senator is right in pointing out these disparities. All of a sudden when the worm is turned, they do not want to live up to their own words. I am not sure that Senator Levin does not want to live up to his own words, but if he does want to live up to his own words, then he should not be voting with the Democrats. He should be voting for cloture.

Mr. HATCH. Zero. Until this.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for a question and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. The Senator will have his half hour in about 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly do. That is what is behind this. I think the Senator points it out very well. So did George Will.

Mr. HATCH. Not on my time.

Mr. HATCH. About what? I did not hear the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. I am not going to yield at this time to the distinguished Senator. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.