Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Judicial Nominees Spark Political Controversy
Aired April 29, 2003 - 15:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: With Congress back at work here in Washington, new political battles are set to resume over the White House nominees to the federal bench.
Republicans complain the president's picks are getting a raw deal in the Senate. Democrats see things differently.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN: I have seen more and more of a vindictive approach against President Bush's judgeship nominees than I have ever seen in my 27 years in the United States Senate.
WOODRUFF (voice-over): The debate over the president's judicial nominees is further testing the already strained relationship between the White House and the Senate. Today, however, a breakthrough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The yeas are 52, the nays are 41, and the nomination is confirmed.
WOODRUFF: The Senate greenlighted the nomination of Ohio lawyer Jeffrey Sutton to the federal court of appeals, but it was not without controversy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't outrun the opposition.
WOODRUFF: Advocates for the disabled protested Sutton's record as the Ohio's solicitor general.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you come in today and you vote for Jeffrey Sutton, everything you have done in the past is moot because anything you do as a senator in legislation, when it comes before Jeffrey Sutton and the states do not like it, it will not happen.
WOODRUFF: The Sutton confirmation sets the stage for a larger battle over the president's judicial picks. This week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is expected to force confirmation votes on two highly controversial nominees, Judge Priscilla Owen of Texas and Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada.
Democrats are, so far, determined to sustain a filibuster of the Estrada nomination, citing Estrada's refusal to release memos from his tenure as a lawyer in the Justice Department.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We did it because we were so appalled by the arrogance -- the arrogance of the nominating process that said you could just ignore the advise and consent process and say, "I can't answer this because I may have to judge it on a future case."
WOODRUFF: Republicans accuse Democrats of orchestrating a witchhunt to spike the president's choices for the federal bench. Democrats counter their handling of the Bush nominees pales compared to the grilling that Bill Clinton's court picks underwent at the hands of Republicans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And just within the last hour, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle said that Democrats plan to filibuster the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen.
Also Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch tells CNN that he plans to hold a new hearing on the Charles Pickering nomination next week. Pickering is another Bush nominee who has been opposed by Democrats.
With me now from Capitol Hill to talk more about all this, two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Senator Sessions, to you first. What about the Democrats' argument that what is going on right now is nothing compared to what the Republicans tried to do to Bill Clinton's picks for the court?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Well, I strongly disagree with that. They've definitely ratcheted up the process. We've never, in the history of this country, ever had a filibuster of a circuit or district judge.
We never voted down committee -- judges in committee -- on a party line vote as they did when they were in the majority. There have been some other changes that ratchet up the difficulty of the confirmation process that have really been contrary to history. So there definitely has been a raising of the bar, so to speak.
WOODRUFF: Senator Durbin, what about that -- the point that Senator Sessions is making, that this is of a larger magnitude than anything the Republicans did in the last administration, and also aren't you and other Democrats really requiring a super majority, needing 60 votes for any judicial nominee to pass?
DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Sometimes I think the white marble in thsese buildings causes political amnesia.
Some of my friends on the Republican side have forgotten that when President Clinton wanted to nominate people to fill the vacancies on the very same court that Jeffrey Sutton is going to, that Orrin Hatch, as Republican chairman for four years, refused to even have a hearing for any of these nominees.
So to say that they didn't filibuster him, they did us one better. They just never brought them up for consideration. And let's put this in perspective. Let's go to the numbers. So far, we have approved 120 judges for President Bush and rejected exactly two. 120 to 2. And you would think from all of the screaming on the other side that the numbers were the other way around.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sessions, let me turn that back to you. You know, when you hear these numbers, is it really worth it to you and other members of the Senate, Republicans in the Senate, to keep coming back at these nominees like Miguel Estrada, when the Democrats have made it plain what their views are?
SESSIONS: Well, we've got to do that. I would just say this. In the eight years President Clinton was in office, he had one nominee voted down. We are now seeing the finest nominees being blocked.
Miguel Estrada was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. So was Priscilla Owens. They are both facing filibusters unprecedented in the history of this Senate.
Why, I don't know, other than perhaps both of them are highly qualified for the Supreme Court. So I don't know why they would do that. It's just beyond my comprehension.
WOODRUFF: Bob Novak reporting last week that a number of your Republican colleagues feeling like they are wasting their time, getting tired of having these names come back again and again.
SESSIONS: Well, we do have to bring it to the American people's attention. They need to be reminded that we have these highly qualified people who believe in law, believe in the rule of law, who are not active as judges, who share the deep convictions of President Bush about a objective legal system, and the are being blocked, and I think the people need to know that.
WOODRUFF: Senator Durbin, today a number of Democrats did not stand in the way of the confirmation of Jeffrey Sutton, who had been very vigorously opposed by disability rights groups. Why is his nomination acceptable when some of these others aren't?
DURBIN: It wasn't acceptable to me. I voted no. But three Democrats voted yes. Frankly, I take a look at Jeffrey Sutton, and he is part of the problem.
When the White House sends us nominees who have consistently in their law practice tried to stop individuals who are victims of discrimination because of disabilities, illness, religious belief, racial background, and they send us these people and say we want to give them a lifetime appointment to the bench so they can continue to say no to people who come asking for help under the federal law, that's an example, I think, of extremism, and it shouldn't be rewarded.
WOODRUFF: But you didn't mount a filibuster over it.
DURBIN: I can just tell you that tactics have to be used based on the number of votes available. And many of us felt that Jeffrey Sutton was not acceptable for this position and voted no.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sessions, one other thing here. If these other nominations fall short, whether it's Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada, would you urge the president to make these so-called recess appointments, where he can do this when Congress is not in session?
SESSIONS: I think the president will have to consider his option. President Clinton did that on one occasion.
Jeff Sutton finished number one in his class at Ohio State, was unanimously rated the highest possible bar rating, and has the highest integrity, volunteered to take a case of a disabled person pro bono for the Ohio Supreme Court. He simply defended the legal right of the state in a small part of the ADA, and he shouldn't be held account for that.
WOODRUFF: Well, I hear you. Appreciate both of you talking with us. Senator Jeff Sessions and Senator Dick Durbin, it's good to see both of you -- members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We'll be watching the committee's action in the days and weeks to come. Thank you both.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired April 29, 2003 - 15:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: With Congress back at work here in Washington, new political battles are set to resume over the White House nominees to the federal bench.
Republicans complain the president's picks are getting a raw deal in the Senate. Democrats see things differently.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN: I have seen more and more of a vindictive approach against President Bush's judgeship nominees than I have ever seen in my 27 years in the United States Senate.
WOODRUFF (voice-over): The debate over the president's judicial nominees is further testing the already strained relationship between the White House and the Senate. Today, however, a breakthrough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The yeas are 52, the nays are 41, and the nomination is confirmed.
WOODRUFF: The Senate greenlighted the nomination of Ohio lawyer Jeffrey Sutton to the federal court of appeals, but it was not without controversy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't outrun the opposition.
WOODRUFF: Advocates for the disabled protested Sutton's record as the Ohio's solicitor general.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you come in today and you vote for Jeffrey Sutton, everything you have done in the past is moot because anything you do as a senator in legislation, when it comes before Jeffrey Sutton and the states do not like it, it will not happen.
WOODRUFF: The Sutton confirmation sets the stage for a larger battle over the president's judicial picks. This week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is expected to force confirmation votes on two highly controversial nominees, Judge Priscilla Owen of Texas and Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada.
Democrats are, so far, determined to sustain a filibuster of the Estrada nomination, citing Estrada's refusal to release memos from his tenure as a lawyer in the Justice Department.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We did it because we were so appalled by the arrogance -- the arrogance of the nominating process that said you could just ignore the advise and consent process and say, "I can't answer this because I may have to judge it on a future case."
WOODRUFF: Republicans accuse Democrats of orchestrating a witchhunt to spike the president's choices for the federal bench. Democrats counter their handling of the Bush nominees pales compared to the grilling that Bill Clinton's court picks underwent at the hands of Republicans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And just within the last hour, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle said that Democrats plan to filibuster the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen.
Also Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch tells CNN that he plans to hold a new hearing on the Charles Pickering nomination next week. Pickering is another Bush nominee who has been opposed by Democrats.
With me now from Capitol Hill to talk more about all this, two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Senator Sessions, to you first. What about the Democrats' argument that what is going on right now is nothing compared to what the Republicans tried to do to Bill Clinton's picks for the court?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Well, I strongly disagree with that. They've definitely ratcheted up the process. We've never, in the history of this country, ever had a filibuster of a circuit or district judge.
We never voted down committee -- judges in committee -- on a party line vote as they did when they were in the majority. There have been some other changes that ratchet up the difficulty of the confirmation process that have really been contrary to history. So there definitely has been a raising of the bar, so to speak.
WOODRUFF: Senator Durbin, what about that -- the point that Senator Sessions is making, that this is of a larger magnitude than anything the Republicans did in the last administration, and also aren't you and other Democrats really requiring a super majority, needing 60 votes for any judicial nominee to pass?
DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Sometimes I think the white marble in thsese buildings causes political amnesia.
Some of my friends on the Republican side have forgotten that when President Clinton wanted to nominate people to fill the vacancies on the very same court that Jeffrey Sutton is going to, that Orrin Hatch, as Republican chairman for four years, refused to even have a hearing for any of these nominees.
So to say that they didn't filibuster him, they did us one better. They just never brought them up for consideration. And let's put this in perspective. Let's go to the numbers. So far, we have approved 120 judges for President Bush and rejected exactly two. 120 to 2. And you would think from all of the screaming on the other side that the numbers were the other way around.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sessions, let me turn that back to you. You know, when you hear these numbers, is it really worth it to you and other members of the Senate, Republicans in the Senate, to keep coming back at these nominees like Miguel Estrada, when the Democrats have made it plain what their views are?
SESSIONS: Well, we've got to do that. I would just say this. In the eight years President Clinton was in office, he had one nominee voted down. We are now seeing the finest nominees being blocked.
Miguel Estrada was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. So was Priscilla Owens. They are both facing filibusters unprecedented in the history of this Senate.
Why, I don't know, other than perhaps both of them are highly qualified for the Supreme Court. So I don't know why they would do that. It's just beyond my comprehension.
WOODRUFF: Bob Novak reporting last week that a number of your Republican colleagues feeling like they are wasting their time, getting tired of having these names come back again and again.
SESSIONS: Well, we do have to bring it to the American people's attention. They need to be reminded that we have these highly qualified people who believe in law, believe in the rule of law, who are not active as judges, who share the deep convictions of President Bush about a objective legal system, and the are being blocked, and I think the people need to know that.
WOODRUFF: Senator Durbin, today a number of Democrats did not stand in the way of the confirmation of Jeffrey Sutton, who had been very vigorously opposed by disability rights groups. Why is his nomination acceptable when some of these others aren't?
DURBIN: It wasn't acceptable to me. I voted no. But three Democrats voted yes. Frankly, I take a look at Jeffrey Sutton, and he is part of the problem.
When the White House sends us nominees who have consistently in their law practice tried to stop individuals who are victims of discrimination because of disabilities, illness, religious belief, racial background, and they send us these people and say we want to give them a lifetime appointment to the bench so they can continue to say no to people who come asking for help under the federal law, that's an example, I think, of extremism, and it shouldn't be rewarded.
WOODRUFF: But you didn't mount a filibuster over it.
DURBIN: I can just tell you that tactics have to be used based on the number of votes available. And many of us felt that Jeffrey Sutton was not acceptable for this position and voted no.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sessions, one other thing here. If these other nominations fall short, whether it's Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada, would you urge the president to make these so-called recess appointments, where he can do this when Congress is not in session?
SESSIONS: I think the president will have to consider his option. President Clinton did that on one occasion.
Jeff Sutton finished number one in his class at Ohio State, was unanimously rated the highest possible bar rating, and has the highest integrity, volunteered to take a case of a disabled person pro bono for the Ohio Supreme Court. He simply defended the legal right of the state in a small part of the ADA, and he shouldn't be held account for that.
WOODRUFF: Well, I hear you. Appreciate both of you talking with us. Senator Jeff Sessions and Senator Dick Durbin, it's good to see both of you -- members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We'll be watching the committee's action in the days and weeks to come. Thank you both.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
