Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Wait a minute, I feel I have been unfairly attacked by the Senator, by someone who knows the process and I think ought to be fair and I think normally is.

Mr. HATCH. Not any. In fact, even the Democrats who have known him have been praising him and have supported him. I might add that I don't think you would get better support than Ron Klain. There should not be a Democrat on that side who doesn't believe he is an honest lawyer. There should not be a Democrat on that side who doesn't accept Seth Waxman as a great lawyer, or one who doesn't believe Walter Dellinger is an exceedingly fine law professor, lawyer, and practicing attorney. There should not be a Democrat who should disagree with the former African-American Solicitor General of the United States. I want to say this. I don't see any comparison with Rosemary Barkett at all. This man is not a judge. In accordance with the double standard, it has been said he should not be a judge because he has no judicial experience. We just have proven there are all kinds of Clinton judges who had no prior judicial experience. Yet we put them through and they are serving well, as have literally hundreds of judges who never had a day of judicial experience. It is just unfair, plain unfair.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I am still answering the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HATCH. I will tell you again. How many times do I have to repeat it for somebody who has been on the Judiciary Committee and ought to know? If there was not consultation, you would be the first to say: I am not going to let that person go. Or you would be the first to criticize the administration.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Of course, he is not a judge. Rosemary Barkett was a judge and had written a number of legal opinions. Some of them I thought were whacko and, frankly, were.

Mr. HATCH. Based upon the past history of this body, he deserves a vote. He is not getting it right now because of a filibuster for the first time in history. I have to say I decry that. That is not fair. It is a double standard. It is not right.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Well, in essence, because he was basically accused of not being Hispanic enough. I believe he was accused of being Hispanic in name only. They even said he didn't give back enough to the community, even though this man worked his guts out to get to where he is as a Hispanic lawyer in this country and deserves credit for it, and he is an idol and will be an idol to a lot of young people who want to do the same.

Mr. HATCH. There is no legitimate reason. It is a double standard. It is unfair. It is unfair to him and to our President, and he should be given at least a vote up or down. If my colleagues want to vote against him, that is their privilege. I would find no fault with that, even though I would disagree. It is unfair to the process and to the Senate. What is going on here is that for the first time in history, a true filibuster is being waged against a nominee. It happens to be the first Hispanic ever nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. No. Nor am I characterizing yours that way. I have characterized it as anti-conservative Hispanic Republican, which is different.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. You asked me why this is different from--wait, let me just finish.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield in just a second. Let me finish.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to have the question from my dear colleague from New York. No. 1, I didn't know she was Hispanic. That is irrelevant to me anyway. I didn't know that. And if she is, I didn't know it until today. No. 2, I did read her judicial records. She was an activist. I did vote against her. But there is a difference here: I voted. I allowed you to have a vote. We had a vote, and she is now sitting on the court.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just finish here. You asked me why should this be any different from Miguel Estrada. There is nobody who can say that Miguel Estrada would legislate from the bench. There is nobody who has one ounce of information that would indicate he would be an activist judge. He isn't a judge. In fact, your side has argued that because he doesn't have judicial experience, he should not go on this position-- some have argued. I hope it hasn't been the distinguished Senator from New York with his great knowledge of the law. But there was a complete difference. The bottom line is this: Yes, I still think I was right on that particular vote. I may have been wrong, but I believed I was right. I did it sincerely. But she did have a vote. And she did pass, as I recall. She is now sitting as a judge. And I didn't hold her up, nor did I filibuster her, nor did I stand on this floor and say she should not have a chance for a vote, which is what your side--I should say, the Democrat side in this Chamber--is doing. I think there is a lot of difference, a world of difference, between my vote which was cast sincerely. I have hardly voted against any judges since I have been here. I have been one of the strongest supporters of the Federal judiciary, if not the strongest supporter in this Chamber, ever since I have been here. I can say this: I still believe my vote was right. If it was wrong, I apologize, but I didn't hold her up. I didn't filibuster her. I made sure she had a vote. And she got one, and she sits on the court today. I can't ask a question, I guess, of the Senator, but I will just ask him to think it through. There is really a difference between Rosemary Barkett's handling and Mr. Estrada's. He is not even getting a chance for a vote. She did get her chance for a vote. I was one who helped her to get it.

Mr. HATCH. You should have heard the LULAC press conference this week. It was truly remarkable. He was accused by his opponents of being very unfair. LULAC happens to be the oldest Hispanic organization in the country. I believe, if I am right, the head of LULAC is a Democrat. I may be wrong. He is outraged, by the way. With this double standard that is going forth against Miguel Estrada, he is right to be outraged.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Well, for a Federal circuit court nominee, it would be honesty, integrity, temperament, physical capacity--or ability to work--but, in addition, an FBI report that is favorable, and an ABA rating, that isn't necessarily followed but, nonetheless, is helpful if it is favorable. And in this case it is not only favorable, but it is the highest rating they could possibly give. And there are other legitimate considerations, but all of them he has passed.