Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. As the Senator will recall, right in the middle of a couple of very controversial nominees, Judge Paez, now Judge Berzon, there were some on our side who legitimately felt they should filibuster both of those----

Mr. HATCH. Maybe I can bring it down here. Maybe it will work better here. I have it too close to my mouth. I am glad the Senator corrected that. Judge Paez had been an activist judge in the eyes of many of our colleagues on the district courts out there in California. Marsha Berzon was one of the leading labor lawyers in the country. We had some who wanted to filibuster them. I stood up in caucus and said that is not going to happen. To his credit, the then majority leader Trent Lott stood up and said that is not going to happen. We are both leading conservatives, but we knew that was a disastrous thing to do in this body because it would lead to animosities you could never quite--that would remain. It would lead to partisanship. It would violate the Constitution, it would violate the very advice and consent clause, the great power we have been given by the Founding Fathers. Frankly, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, I stood up and said that is not going to happen and it did not. Did we have some cloture votes? Yes. But the cloture votes were to get to the nominee so we could vote. Every Clinton nominee who came to the floor, who was brought to the floor, got a vote up or down. Only one was defeated and that was Ronnie White, on a straight vote up or down. But every other one, all 377 of them, the second highest total in history, passed. Did I agree with all those judges? You bet your life I didn't. But they were qualified. The fact I didn't agree with them ideologically was irrelevant. What is relevant is, Are they qualified? I certainly would not take away the opportunity of serving in the Federal Government for an otherwise qualified person just because I disagreed with that person on abortion or on any other issue, for that matter.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, I yield.

Mr. HATCH. Virtually every Democrat said it, took the position a filibuster should never take place. All they asked for was an up-or- down vote. That is all they wanted, if we would just be decent enough to give them an up-or-down vote. We did. We were decent enough. What does that imply about what is going on on the other side? I will let the public draw their own conclusions. But we were decent. We did what was right. We gave them up-or-down votes. Frankly, what is going on here is just appalling.

Mr. HATCH. No, it has not, because a filibuster is inappropriate when it comes to judicial or even executive nominees, especially judicial nominees. Our ability to give advice and consent means if you don't like the nominee, vote against him or her. If you do, vote for them. But, above all, don't obstruct, which is exactly what they are doing here, obstruction, from the Spanish word, ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking. Just one more objection. Now we have six more objections, as of tomorrow--actually they require cloture votes to be filed on Janice Brown, and of course Carolyn Kuhl, so we now have six. I could name up to 17 they have threatened to filibuster and probably will. To keep bringing that phony chart up here is an insult to everybody on this floor. It is an insult to everybody watching. It just shows they are void of any real arguments. To now try to change the nature of the debate to jobs, when they have obstructed all year long, is an insult.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. It has not changed. But their positions have changed.

Mr. HATCH. No question. They were very forthright and very strong that there should never be filibusters of judicial nominees. Now all of a sudden when it is to their advantage, they think--I think it is to their great disadvantage. They lost the 2000 election in part because of the way they are treating judgeship nominees. I think they are going to lose a lot of standing in this country. The way they are treating southern nominees is abysmal, like Bill Pryor. Like Charles Pickering. It doesn't take any brains at all to realize they just don't think these two able people are worthy of being on the bench when in fact they are more worthy than many of the nominees we approved for them in the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. She was born a sharecropper's daughter. This woman had it rough all the days of her life. She put herself through college and law school as a single mother. She has worked in State government now for I think it is 26 years. And they are trying to say she is against government? My gosh, she has worked there and been supportive for I think 26 years. She is one of the best nominees I have ever seen. If we had done to three woman nominees what they are doing to these three--Priscilla Owen, who broke through the glass ceiling, getting women a right to be partners in law firms; Carolyn Kuhl has the support of 100 of her fellow judges out there, Democrats and Republicans; Janice Rogers Brown, sharecropper's daughter, has risen to the top of the heap, who has fought her way all her life--if we had done this to any of their nominees they would be screaming about it right up to today. It is unbelievable they are trying to do this on these three women nominees. They want a regimented liberal approach to everything, and if it is not there, then they are out of the mainstream, according to them. I think most people in this country are in the middle and, I think, the middle or moderate conservative. But, be that as it may, these are competent, qualified, well-qualified women, and they are treating them like dirt. I don't understand it, myself.

Mr. HATCH. I will be delighted to.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, the distinguished Senator makes a good point. She was elected by 76 percent of the vote. I would have to say, she wrote a majority of the majority opinions, and joined in some 73, if I recall correctly, unanimous opinions. In other words, she is not only in the mainstream, she is one of the best justices, State justices in the country. They are treating her like dirt. I don't understand that kind of treatment.

Mr. HATCH. Well, of course, she is subject to the same advice-and- consent rule of article II, section 2 of the Constitution, as are all of these Federal judges. But she deserves the dignity of an up-or-down vote. The senior Senator has brought out she is an African-American woman who has come from nowhere, in a sense, a sharecropper's daughter, to being a justice on the California Supreme Court.

Mr. HATCH. That is right.

Mr. HATCH. Absolutely true. By the way, one of the arguments that the side across the aisle from us is out of the mainstream again is over parental consent, a dissent that she had written, upholding the finder of fact in the lower court. The majority just ignored those facts and overruled the right of parents to consult with their daughter before the daughter had an abortion. She is not out of the mainstream. Guess who is out of the mainstream? I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my dear colleague. But we will find out tomorrow that the other side is going to vote against cloture. They are filibustering this terrific African-American woman justice who has made it on her own throughout life, who wrote most of the majority opinions in the California State Supreme Court while joining unanimously with others in over seven cases just last year. They have tried to paint her as though she is out of the mainstream. I would like to suggest who is out of the mainstream. It is a high percentage of those on the other side of the aisle who think that only the left has any ideas in this country. Because she is a conservative black woman and she is not monolithically in step with what they think black people ought to be, they are against her. If we did that to one of their nominees, the whole world would come down on us.

Mr. HATCH. I do, too. I hope the Senator is right. But from what I have seen here, she is going to be filibustered right along with the rest of them. I recognize the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and then I will come to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. That is my understanding.

Mr. HATCH. Well, the Senator raises a good point. But not according to that side. It is out of the mainstream. Just think about it. The Senator is correct. Eighty-two percent of the people are for parental notification laws. Challenging the reasonableness of parental notification statutes lies somewhere between hard and impossible. That is why an overwhelming majority of Americans support those laws, including the parents of Holly Patterson. Holly was a young girl who died 7 days after taking RU-486, the abortion drug. Her father learned about her abortion just hours before her tragic death. If there was a parental notification statute, Holly might still be alive today. Parents do have some rights here. Most people acknowledge that. But that is one of the big reasons why our friends on the other side are against all three of these women nominees, I suppose. If there had been a parental notification statute, young Holly would be alive today. It is ridiculous to criticize these two fine nominees for their opinions upholding parental notification statutes. Justice Brown's opinion on the parental consent statute is well within the legal mainstream. The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely found notification statutes constitutional. So the Senator has raised a very important point. But that is considered out of the mainstream by our colleagues. Again, we know who is out of the mainstream. It certainly isn't Janice Rogers Brown. I will just point to the side that is out of the mainstream. Yet they are trying to make everybody march in unison, in accordance with their liberal plan for America. That is not right. I turn to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. I would be delighted.

Mr. HATCH. Victor Schwartz is one of the law professors who wrote the book on torts. He is one of the most distinguished legal thinkers in the country. In fact, Professor Schwartz wrote: Any characterization of Justice Owens as pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant is untrue. But we are getting used to that. The reason they are all talking about jobs, it is a political reason, of course. They are trying to get people to not pay attention to this debate. But the reason they are talking about jobs is because they don't have a good argument against Priscilla Owen, nor do they have one against Janice Rogers Brown, nor do they have a good argument against Carolyn Kuhl. And three outstanding women who, if we treated three of their women justices like that or nominees like that, all hell would break loose. In all honesty, Professor Schwartz said that just isn't true.

Mr. HATCH. Not yet, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HATCH. The distinguished Senator from Texas knows that is true. That is not easy in the State of Texas. There are some very liberal newspapers down there that scrutinized every aspect of her life.

Mr. HATCH. No question about it. She is a terrific person.

Mr. HATCH. That is true. In fact, all three of them do.