[Pages S12185-S12188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTING JUDICIAL NOMINEES
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Constitution provides that the
President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint * * * Judges of the Supreme Court, and all
other Officers of the United States * * *'' Thus, the President has the
power to nominate persons to serve as federal judges and the Senate has
the power to render advice and consent on these nominations. And the
Constitution requires that the President's power to nominate be
exercised ``with'' the Senate's power to advise and consent in order
for a final appointment to be made. To the extent such cooperation
occurs, the appointment process will be fair, orderly, and timely. To
the extent such cooperation does not occur, the appointment process
will break down.
When I assumed the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, I inherited a
process rocked by public strife and private in-fighting. I was
determined to lower the temperatures on both sides of the Committee and
to preside over a process that did not allow personal attacks on a
nominee's character. To accomplish this I turned to the Constitution
itself and its requirement that the President and the Senate work
``with'' each other in the appointment process and the Constitution's
limits on the power of federal judges.
And it has worked. When the President has consulted with the
Committee and with home-state Senators, a nominee has moved through the
process smoothly. Under my Chairmanship, the Committee has focused its
review on each nominee's, integrity, temperament, competence, and
respect for the rule of law. To date Republicans have confirmed 325 of
President Clinton's nominees to the federal bench.
When there have been problems with a nominee, or a potential nominee,
the President's consultation with the Committee has enabled us to
address those problems privately. For example, a senator on the
Committee recently asked me to examine a potential nominee, and when
there were problems with that nominee, that Senator and I were able to
deal with the problem privately and I expect another candidate will be
forthcoming soon. Thus, the process has worked without damaging a
candidate's reputation or his family.
When the President works with the Senate the process will adequately
staff the federal Judiciary. Indeed, after last year's extraordinary
number of confirmations, the vacancy rate in the federal Judiciary was
reduced to a very low 5.9%. The Chief Justice in his most recent report
on the state of the federal Judiciary congratulated the President and
the Senate, stating ``I am pleased to report on the progress
[[Page S12186]]
made in 1998 by the Senate and the President in the appointment and
confirmation of judges to the federal bench ....''
As of today, the Judiciary Committee has held 5 hearings for judicial
nominees and have reported 30 nominees to the floor of the Senate.
There are currently just 62 vacancies, yielding a vacancy rate of only
7.4%. This is 1 vacancy less than existed at the end of the 103rd
Congress when Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Further,
should the Senate confirm the 8 nominees that are currently on the
floor and the 4 nominees for which we held a hearing today, the number
of vacancies will fall to 51, yielding a vacancy rate of just 6%. This
will be the lowest vacancy rate for any first session of Congress since
the expansion of the judiciary in 1990. Moreover, it is virtually
equivalent to the vacancy rate at the end of the last Congress, which
was the lowest vacancy rate for any session of Congress since the
expansion of the judiciary in 1990. When the President works with us
and respects the constitutional advice and consent duties of the
Senate, the process has, in fact, worked smoothly.
When the President fails to work with the Senate, however, the
process does not work smoothly. This was the unfortunate case with
Judge Ronnie White. The record shows that Judge White is a fine man.
However, he has written some questionable opinions on death penalty
cases. The record resulted in both Missouri Senators opposing his
nomination on the floor. This record resulted in local and national law
enforcement agencies opposing his nomination as well. Here are just
some of the letters expressing concern or opposition to Judge White's
nomination:
The Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs oppose the nomination; the
National Sheriff's Association opposed the nomination; the Mercer
County, Missouri prosecutor opposed the nomination; the Missouri
Sheriffs' Association expressed deep concern over one of Judge White's
dissents in a death penalty case involving the murder of one sheriff,
two deputies, and the wife of another sheriff, and asked the Senate to
consider that dissent in voting on Judge White's nomination. Indeed, 77
of 114 of Missouri's sheriffs asked for serious consideration of Judge
White's record. The sheriff of Moniteau County, Missouri, whose wife
was murdered by the criminal for whom Judge White would have reversed
the death sentence wrote in opposition to the nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Sheriffs' Association,
Alexandria, VA, October 4, 1999.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: I am writing to ask you to join the
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) in opposing the
nomination of Mr. Ronnie White to the Federal Judiciary. NSA
strongly urges the United States to defeat this appointment.
As you know, Judge White is a controversial judge in
Missouri while serving in the Missouri Supreme Court. He
issued many opinions that are offensive to law enforcement;
one on drug interdiction and several involving the death
penalty. Judge White feels that drug interdiction by law
enforcement is too intimidating. He is more concerned with
his personal view of drug interdiction practices than with
the legitimate law enforcement effort to prevent the
trafficking of illegal drugs. Drug interdiction is a
cornerstone in the fight against crime, and this reckless
opinion undermines the rule of law.
Additionally, judge White wrote an outrageous dissenting
opinion in a death penalty case. In 1991 Pam Jones, the wife
of Sheriff Kenny Jones of Miniteau, Missouri, was gunned down
with three other law enforcement officials while hosting a
church service at home. The assailant, who was targeting the
Sheriff, was tried and convicted of murder in the first
degree. He was subsequently sentenced to death for the four
murders. During the appeals process, the case came before the
Missouri Supreme Court where six of the seven judges affirmed
the conviction and the sentence. Judge White was the court's
lone dissenter urging a lower legal standard to allow this
brutal cop killer a second chance at acquittal. In our view,
this opinion alone disqualifies Judge White from service in
the Federal courts. He is irresponsible in his thinking, and
his views against law enforcement are dangerous. Please read
Judge White's dissenting opinion in this case.
We urge you in the strongest possible terms to actively
oppose the nomination of Judge White. He is clearly an
opponent of law enforcement and does not deserve an
appointment to the Federal Judiciary. His views and opinions
are highly insulting to law enforcement, and we look forward
to working with you to defeat this nomination.
Respectfully,
Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.,
Sheriff, Chairman, Congressional Affairs Committee and
Member, Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, NSA.
____
Sheriff's Department,
Moniteau County,
California, MO, August 11, 1999.
Dear Fellow Sheriff: I am writing to you about Judge Ronnie
White of the Missouri Supreme Court, who has been nominated
to be a federal district judge. As Sheriffs' we go to work
for the people of Missouri every day. Our lives are on the
line. Every law enforcement, and every law-abiding citizen,
needs judges who will enforce the law without fear or favor.
As law enforcement officers, we need judges who will back us
up, and not go looking for outrageous technicalities so a
criminal can get off. We don't need a judge like Ronnie White
on the federal court bench.
In addition to being Sheriff of Moniteau County, I am a
victim of violent crime. So are my children. In December
1991, James Johnson murdered my wife, Pam, the mother of my
children. He shot Pam by ambush, firing through the window of
our home during a church function she was hosting. Johnson
also killed Sheriff Charles Smith of Cooper County. Deputy
Les Roark of Moniteau County and Deputy Sandra Wilson of
Miller County. He was convicted and sentenced to death. When
the case was appealed and reached the Missouri Supreme Court,
Judge White voted to overturn the death sentence of this man
who murdered my wife and three good law officers. He was the
only judge to vote this way.
Please read Judge White's opinion. It is a slap in the face
to crime victims and law enforcement officers. If he cared
about protecting crime victims and enforcing the law, he
wouldn't have voted to let Johnson off death row.
The Johnson case isn't the only anti-death penalty ruling
by Judge White. He has voted against capital punishment more
than any other judge on the court. I believe there is a
pattern here.
To me, Ronnie White is clearly the wrong person to entrust
with the tremendous power of a federal judge who serves for
life. Please write to our U.S. Senators, Christopher S. Bond
and John Ashcroft, and ask them to oppose the White
nomination. Ask them to persuade other Senators to do
likewise. Effective law enforcement saves lives. The
deterrent value of capital punishment saves lives. As a
federal judge, Ronnie White would hurt law enforcement and he
would oppose effective death penalty enforcement.
You can write to Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft at U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Please speak up before it's too
late.
Sincerely,
Kenny Jones,
Moniteau County Sheriff.
____
Missouri Federation of
Police Chiefs,
St. Louis, MO, September 2, 1999.
Senators John Ashcroft, and Christopher Bond,
Kansas City, MO.
Dear Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond: We have just
learned of the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to be a
federal district judge.
After reading Sheriff Kenny Jones' letter and seeing Judge
White's record, we were absolutely shocked that someone like
this would even be nominated to such an important position.
We want to go on record with your offices as being opposed
to his nomination and hope you will vote against him. A copy
of Sheriff Jones' letter is attached.
Sincerely,
Bryan Kunze,
Vice President, MFPC.
____
Missouri Sheriffs' Association,
Jefferson City, MO, September 27, 1999.
Sen. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: Attached please find a copy of the
dissenting opinion rendered by Missouri Supreme Court Judge
Ronnie White in the case State of Missouri, Respondent, v.
James R. Johnson, Appellant.
Also, please find attached a copy of a petition signed by
92 law enforcement officers in Missouri, including 77
Missouri sheriffs.
In December 1991, James Johnson murdered Pam Jones, wife of
Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. He shot Pam by ambush,
firing through the window of her home during a church
function she was hosting. Johnson also killed Sheriff Charles
Smith of Cooper County, Deputy Les Roark of Moniteau County
and Deputy Sandra Wilson of Miller County. He was convicted
and sentenced to death. When the case was appealed and
reached the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge White voted to
overturn the death sentence of this man who murdered Mrs.
Jones and three good law officers.
As per attached, the Missouri sheriffs strongly encourage
you to consider this dissenting opinion in the nomination of
Judge
[[Page S12187]]
Ronnie White to be a U.S. District Court Judge.
Sincerely,
James L. Vermeersch,
Executive Director.
____
We, the undersigned, understand that Judge Ronnie White of
the Missouri Supreme Court, has been nominated to be a United
States District Court Judge.
We need judges who can balance the duty of the law
enforcement officer to enforce the law with the preservation
of the Constitutional rights of the accused.
In 1993, one James Johnson was convicted and sentenced to
death for the ambush and murder of Pam Jones, the wife of the
Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones and three other law
enforcement officers. Judge White rendered the only
dissenting opinion to reverse this conviction.
We respectfully request that consideration be given to this
dissenting opinion as a factor in the appointment to fill
this position of U.S. District Judge.
Position Agency:
Sheriff, Mississippi County; Sheriff, Pulaski County; Dade
County Sheriff; Sheriff of Vernon County.; Barry County
Sheriff; Barry County Deputy Sheriff; Franklin County
Sheriff; Sheriff, Mercer County.
____
Mercer County
Prosecuting Attorney,
Princeton, MO, September 3, 1999.
Hon. John D. Ashcroft,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Ashcroft: As Missouri Prosecutors, we work to
enforce the laws of our cities, counties, and the state of
Missouri on a daily basis. We are aware of significant
concern among law enforcement officials regarding the
nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White to
the federal bench. We share this concern.
Judge White's record is unmistakably anti-law enforcement,
and we believe his nomination should be defeated. His rulings
and dissenting opinions on capital cases and on Fourth
Amendment issues should be disqualifying factors when
considering his nomination.
Judge White has evidenced clear bias against the death
penalty from his seat on the Missouri Supreme Court. He has
voted against the death penalty more than any other judge
has. In capital cases, he has dissented more than any other
judge. Further, he has filed more lone dissents in capital
cases than any other judge. Without question Judge White has
displayed an anti-capital punishment bias that is second to
none on the Missouri Supreme Court.
One of the most terrible examples of this bias came in
State v. Johnson, when Judge White filed a lone dissent,
supporting reversal of the capital sentence imposed on Jim
Johnson. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murders of
Cooper County Sheriff Charles Smith, Moniteau County Deputy
Les Roark, Miller County Deputy Sandra Wilson, and Pam Jones,
the wife of Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. Except for
Judge White's dissent, the ruling against this brutal cop
killer was unanimous. Judge White was the lone member of the
Court to vote to give Johnson a new trial and a second chance
to go free.
In State v. Damask, and State v. Alvarez, the Supreme
Court ruled 6-1 that drug checkpoints on main highways in
Franklin and Texas Counties were constitutional. Judge White,
again, disagreed alone. Judge White voted to throw out
evidence against accused drug traffickers who were arrested
at checkpoints on Interstate 44 and U.S. 60.
Another troubling concern, while not in itself sufficient
reason to disqualify, is Judge White's lack of significant
experience in trial courts. Certainly the nomination would be
less flawed if he had significant experience as either a
criminal litigator or trial judge. He has neither.
On the Missouri Supreme Court, the other six members of the
Court routinely override Judge White's outlandish dissenting
opinions. In Missouri, we are fortunate to have a Supreme
Court that is sympathetic to law enforcement, and prone to
interpreting the law as it is written. However, if Judge
White is placed on the federal bench, he will be a one-person
majority. His flawed opinions will be the only ones that
count, and barring an appeal to higher courts, he will be
accountable to no one.
People in the law enforcement community are rightly
concerned by Judge White's votes in cases like Johnson and
Damask. We urge you to show your support for the hard work of
Sheriffs, police officers, prosecutors, and other law
enforcement officials, and help defeat the nomination of
Judge White to the federal bench.
Jay Hemenway,
Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney.
____
Texas County Prosecuting Attorney,
Houston, MO, October 4, 1999.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Senator Ashcroft, It is my understanding that the
nomination of Ronnie White to the United States Federal Court
is coming up for a vote soon in the United States Senate. I
have serious concerns about this nomination.
Judge White's voting record has given law enforcement
officials cause for alarm. While on the Supreme Court he has
consistently voted against use of the death penalty, even in
the most brutal and clear-cut cases. In fact, White has voted
against use of the death penalty more than any other judge on
the Court.
White's was also the lone dissenting vote on the case
allowing drug checkpoints of major highways in our state.
There are other causes of concern, but I think it is best
summed up as follows: The Judiciary exists to interpret the
law, not make it. Judge White's opinions as a member of the
Missouri Supreme Court have caused me to fear more judicial
activism and pro-criminal jurisprudence that would run
contrary to the will of our founding fathers and to the good
of our country.
Please examine Judge White's record closely, Senator. This
is an enormously important decision with the most serious of
implications. Thank you for taking the time and making the
effort to cast a wise vote on the nomination.
Most sincerely,
Doug Gaston.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, had the White House worked with these home-
State Senators and with other Senators to achieve broad support for the
nominee, perhaps Judge White would not have been defeated. I don't
know. I might add, had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge
White in committee, Judge White would never have come to the floor
under our rules. I have to say, that would be true whether they are
Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way
the Judiciary Committee has operated. Had the President diligently
worked with Senators to determine that there would not be broad support
for the candidate, he could have found an alternative, consensus
candidate. But the President did not. Thus, Judge White's nomination
failed on the floor of the Senate.
To compound the problem, the President and some of my colleagues in
this body made the grave error of suggesting that race was the reason
that Senate Republicans voted against Judge White. This transparently
political accusation has, as the administration is well aware, no basis
in fact. The Judiciary Committee, under my chairmanship, has not kept
formal statistics on the race of any of these nominees, nor would we
have informed Democrat or Republican members that Judge White is an
African American. Many of my Republican colleagues were literally
unaware of Judge White's race, and that is the way it has been. We just
haven't made notice of anybody's race as we have confirmed these 325
judges that President Clinton has nominated.
Instead, they were aware of his record in death penalty cases. I
admit that that awareness happened at a relatively late time in this
matter. It caught me by surprise as well--the opposition at least. They
were aware of the opposition of State and national law enforcement
communities that arose after his committee hearing. They were aware of
the opposition of both home-State Senators that was announced after his
hearing. Indeed, I even had a Democratic Senator inform me that had
that Senator known of the recent law enforcement opposition to Judge
White's nomination, that Senator would have opposed the nomination as
well. Senator Bond did support this judge at the hearing but later
changed his position on this as he became more and more aware of the
opposition by law enforcement. It was not race that defeated Judge
White; it was his record and the opposition of the elected leaders of
his State.
These same Republican Senators who opposed Judge White overwhelmingly
supported the nomination of Charles Wilson, an African American, to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida. While Senate Republicans
were mostly unaware of Judge Wilson's race, Members were informed of
his outstanding record as a Federal Magistrate and U.S. Attorney, the
strong Florida support for Mr. Wilson, and the support of both home-
State Senators--1 Republican and 1 Democrat--for Mr. Wilson. Most
members were not informed of his race. But these home-State Senators
were for Mr. Wilson. And there was broad support in the Senate for Mr.
Wilson's candidacy. It was not race that confirmed Mr. Wilson; it was
his record and the support of the elected leaders of his State.
The same is true for other minority nominations. To mention a few,
Victor Marrero, Carlos Murguia, Adalberto Jordan--nominees whose
records show they were qualified and respected the rule of law, who had
the support of home-State Senators, and who had broad support in the
Senate. Thus, the suggestion that the Republicans in this
[[Page S12188]]
body voted against Judge White on the basis of race is no more true
than a parallel accusation that my Democratic colleagues voted against
Clarence Thomas because of his race. I don't think any of us have made
that suggestion.
I am also deeply disappointed by the patently false suggestions from
the administration, and some in this body, that Republicans
intentionally delay the processing of minority and women nominees based
on their race and gender. This would be a surprise to Charles Wilson,
who was nominated on May 27, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the
floor of the Senate on July 22, and confirmed on July 30. This would
also be a surprise to Marryanne Trump Barry, who was nominated on June
17, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate on
July 29, and confirmed on September 13. Both of these nominees had
outstanding records reflecting respect for the law, strong home-State
support, the support of both home-State Senators, and broad support in
the Senate. Mr. Wilson, Judge Barry, and most of these other nominees
proceeded smoothly through the confirmation process because the
President worked with the Senate, not against the Senate.
The administration is very proud of its record of placing women and
minorities on the bench, and it makes a point of informing the public
of its work in this regard. In an address to the American Bar
Association this summer, President Clinton called the collection of
judges he has nominated to the Federal bench ``the most diverse group
in American history.'' Nearly half are women and minorities, he said.
But each of these judges was confirmed by the Senate, and all were
confirmed with Republican support. How can it be that a Senate which
has directly participated in this record of accomplishment can become
an institution of bias simply by opposing one nominee--a nominee
opposed by both home-State Senators and by an overwhelming number of
State and national law enforcement leaders? It cannot be. It simply
cannot be. The record and the Department of Justice's own numbers speak
for themselves.
According to the Clinton administration's own data, the Senate--
whether it was under Democratic or Republican control--has done its
duty and confirmed qualified women and minorities. For example, in
1998, based on Department of Justice data, approximately 32 percent of
judicial nominees were women, and 21.5 percent were minorities. Even
though the committee does not keep formal statistics, I had my staff
manually compute the proportion of women and minorities reported to the
Senate floor. So far this year, over 45 percent of the judicial
nominees reported to the Senate floor are women or have been
minorities.
Yes, some nominees take longer than others--but it is not because of
their race or gender. My colleagues, I believe, know that. I believe
the President and his people at the White House know that. Indeed,
several of the nominees of the past that took longer to confirm had my
strong support. These included Anne Aiken, Margaret Murrow, and Susan
Mollway. I have been condemned for that by certain people on the far
right almost on a daily basis ever since.
In the end, those who make these troubling accusations either, one,
believe them to be true or, two, know they are not true, but want to
politicize the issue. Either motivation is evidence of a serious
problem within our noble institution, which I hope we, as leaders, can
work to rectify. That is one reason I am taking this time today. Using
race as a political tactic to advance controversial nominees is
especially troubling. I care too much about the Senate and the Federal
judiciary to see these institutions become the victims of base, cheap,
wedge politics.
I would urge my colleagues and the President to reconsider this
destructive and dangerous ploy. Instead, they should put aside this
destructive rhetoric and work with us to do what is best for the
Judiciary, the Senate, and the American people.
The Ronnie White nomination is an unfortunate example of what I
believe is an increasing pattern on the part of the Clinton White
House. I am referring to what appears to be a fire-sale strategy of
knowingly sending up nominees who lack home-State support. Some time
ago, I sent the White House Counsel a letter stating clearly that
consultation was an essential prerequisite to a smoothly functioning
confirmations process. But over the past several months, a number of
nominees have been forwarded to the Senate over the objection--both
private and public--of home-State Senators. Is this a pattern the aim
of which is to get nominees confirmed, or is this a strategy, the
object of which, is to create a political show down with the Senate. My
concern is with the latter.
To find the answer to the current political crisis, I turn once again
to the Constitution and its requirement that the President and the
Senate work ``with'' each other in the nomination and advice and
consent process. To enable us to return to working together instead of
against each other, I propose that we take time for both sides to cool
off. The President and the Senate should take a step back, cool off,
and then return to working with each other in the nomination and
confirmation process as the Constitution so plainly requires.
Mr. President, we have worked well with this President up to now. I
have certainly taken my share of criticism for being as fair to this
administration as I can possibly be. But this administration knows the
rules up here--that when two home State Senators oppose a district
court nominee, that district court nominee is not going to make it.
That is the way it is. There is nothing I can do to change that because
it is the correct rule. It is important that we work together and work
with home State Senators in order to resolve this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for that statement. I have just a word or two to
say about the same subject.
The White House made a comment--Mr. Lockhart--that I was one of three
Republican Senators who voted for Judge White in committee and then
voted against him on the floor. It is inaccurate to say I voted for him
in committee because I did not. What happened was, the Judiciary
Committee had a very abbreviated session off the floor and I went there
to see if there was a quorum. When there was a quorum, Justice White
was voted out of committee on a voice vote, but I was not present for
that voice vote.
I was especially sensitive to Judge White because Judge Massiah-
Jackson came before the Senate last year and withdrew her nomination in
the face of very considerable opposition by the State District
Attorneys Association.
So I took a close look at the letters, and even had a brief
conversation with the ranking Democrat before casting my vote, which I
did at the tail end of the vote on Justice White.
But contrary to what Mr. Lockhart of the White House said, and
contrary to what has appeared in a number of press accounts, I did not
vote for Justice White in the committee.
____________________