Federal News Service Transcript - Nomination of William Pryor Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit

Federal News Service

June 11, 2003 Wednesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: NOMINATION OF WILLIAM PRYOR JR. TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT
 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)
 
LOCATION: G-50 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Microphone's not on -- (taps microphone) -- there it is.

SEN. HATCH: You'd better get closer to the microphone.

SEN. CORNYN: Get a little closer to it.

SEN. HATCH: Yeah.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, General Pryor, I want to welcome you here for this hearing. I guess you know you're in for a rough ride. But one of the things that I admire about you is that I believe you're a man of courage and a person of character, and someone who's not afraid to run away—or, who's not willing to run away from strongly-held beliefs. I also believe that you're a person who cannot be pressured or intimidated. And I believe your record as attorney general has demonstrated that.

I also believe—happen to believe, in contrast to some of the suggestions made by Senator Schumer that your record is inconsistent with someone who is able to show that same courage and demonstrate that same character and refuse to be pressured or intimidated in your new role as a member of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Can you describe briefly how you see yourself making that transition, and perhaps answer for those who have never had to change a constitutional role because of their service in a different branch of government how you can reconcile that?

ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Well, it's a transition that I would relish and welcome. I can think of no higher calling for an American than to serve as a federal judge in the American system of government than to have the responsibility of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. I would leave behind an active public service of a different kind, where I have been a politician, I have been an elected official and run for office and had to share my values with the people of Alabama and to defend their laws and institutions in our state government, to do it without fear or favor, and to do it to the best of my ability.

Now, sometimes what that means is, as I'm sure you recall -- (laughs) -- from your service as a state attorney general, Senator, that you have to make arguments that you think are reasonable in the defense of your state, but not necessarily the one that ought to prevail in the end in resolving a controversy, that it's probably not going to be the prevailing argument, but that you owe it to your client, the state government, to make that argument and to let the court decide. I wouldn't have that role any more. I would have the role of making that tough final decision of resolving the controversy in accordance with the law to the best of my ability, honestly and diligently, quietly, and listening to all sides, reading the briefs, becoming familiar with the facts of any case, reading all the applicable case law, and hearing from my colleagues and arriving at a decision.

SEN. CORNYN: I know Senator Schumer, when he was asking questions, said that it is almost irrefutable that judges will demonstrate an ideology on the bench, and so we ought to just face that and try to achieve some sort of ideological balance on any given court. He also said it's not enough to say "I'll follow the law," which I fundamentally disagree with, having been in a position of being an attorney general and having been a judge before, knowing that you change when you put your hand on the Bible and you take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and our respective states in that capacity. But I do believe that more than just your statement that you would follow the law, that your record of enforcing the law, even though you might not agree with it, demonstrates the seriousness with which you approach your oath and recognize your duty.

I think one of the things that you and I probably see eye to eye on is that judges who substitute their view, their personal view, whether it be a personal or a political or any other agenda for what the law is, become law-makers, and thereby become law-breakers. Could you perhaps state your own view in that regard?

ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I couldn't agree more than with that statement, Senator. That goes to the absolute core of my beliefs about the legal system and the role of the judiciary.

The judiciary has a profound but—and humble but vitally important role in interpreting the law and following the law and putting aside personal beliefs and ensuring that the law is faithfully executed according to the real lawmaker, which is the legislature or, in the event of an interpretation of our highest law, the Constitution, by virtue of the people themselves.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I appreciate that statement. I believe that the character and courage, really, you've shown and the willingness to resist intimidation—and perhaps those who have expressed displeasure at your enforcement activities as attorney general can derive some confidence that you will show the same character and commitment to the law and refuse to be intimidated or pressured in discharging your responsibilities as a member of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I know we've had some comment throughout my short service on the Judiciary Committee and the debate we're currently engaged in about the use of a filibuster to prevent a up-or-down vote by a bipartisan majority of the Senate on at least two judicial nominees. And I need to say that while some tout the fact that 128 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, the fact remains that two are the targets of, in my opinion, an unconstitutional use of the filibuster. And I don't see how anybody can be particularly proud of that, because the Constitution being violated two times is, in my opinion, two times too many.

And of course, we're engaged within the Senate, as I think we should be, to try to resolve those differences now. And I'm hopeful that the rule change that Senator Frist has offered and which I have cosponsored, along with a bipartisan group of senators, gets a favorable decision in the Rules Committee and then on the floor. But frankly, it's going to be a little bit uphill. But it strikes me as very odd, when you look at the charts that are sometime displayed about how many of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, to hear out of the same mouth somebody who claims that President Bush is intent on appointing hard-line—those who have a hard-line ideological agenda. And so to me, those are inconsistent. And I believe it's our obligation as senators and under the Constitution to give an up-or-down vote to any nominee who comes before the committee or before the Senate.

And I hope that is the case in your instance. Obviously, each senator's entitled under their oath and according to the dictates of their conscience to vote as they see fit, but I am hopeful that you will have the opportunity to have the merits of your nomination debated not only in this committee but on the floor of the Senate, and that you receive the confirmation you confirm (sic). I believe what your—your testimony here today and that you view the role as an advocate, your current job as attorney general, far differently from that as a federal judge, and that when you do put your hand on the Bible and take that oath, that you will hang up your boxing gloves, your instruments as an advocate, and you will accept and embrace your new responsibility as a judge and follow the law.

Thank you very much.

ATTY GEN. PRYOR: Thank you.