Executive Session - Nomination of Priscilla Richman Owen to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit - Resumed

EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA RICHMAN OWEN, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT—RESUMED

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has done yeoman's work in shepherding President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees through the Judiciary Committee and to the floor of the Senate.

Chairman Hatch has mentioned a number of people on both sides of the aisle who support the nomination of this good woman to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have a few comments—first, to echo those comments in terms of the consensus of opinion in my State of Texas as to the good work that Priscilla Owen has done as a justice in the Texas Supreme Court. But I also bring a personal perspective to this debate because I served with Priscilla Owen for 3 years on the Texas Supreme Court. Frankly, I do not recognize the caricature that has been painted of this good judge in the debate before the Senate.

In May of this year, I spoke on the floor regarding the 2-year anniversary of Justice Owen's nomination. That dismal anniversary showed us just how far our confirmation process had gone awry. And now it has gotten even worse.

Today's vote is just the first in a series this week. Over the next 4 days, we will see just how far the minority in this body is willing to go to block well qualified nominees and parrot the talking points provided by special interest groups who oppose this and other highly qualified judicial nominees. It is my hope that the Senate will do the right thing and provide an up-or-down vote for this judicial nominee.

As I said, Justice Owen and I served for 3 years together on the Texas Supreme Court—from the time she came in January 1995 until the time I left in October of 1997. During those 3 years, I had a chance to observe Justice Owen's work habits and her basic judicial philosophy at work, how she approaches her job, how she thinks about the law, and how she acts given that position of public trust that judges hold.

I can tell you from my personal experience that Justice Owen is an exceptional judge who understands her profound duty to follow the law and enforce the will of the legislature.

That is, of course, one reason the American Bar Association has given her a unanimous well qualified rating, and that is why she has such strong bipartisan backing. That is why she enjoys the enthusiastic support of the people of Texas, where she
got 84 percent in the last election from the people who know her the best.

Not once during my tenure with Justice Owen did I ever see her attempt to pursue some political or other agenda at the expense of the law as she understood it. I can tell you that Justice Owen believes very strongly, as I do and Americans do across this land, that judges are called upon not to act as another legislative branch, or as a politician, but as judges—to faithfully read statutes and to follow the law as written by the legislature and the precedents established by higher courts in
earlier times.

Some of my colleagues have, unbelievably, taken the position that Justice Owen is to be criticized for disagreeing with other members of the Texas Supreme Court in some of her opinions. Some of my colleagues act shocked that appellate judges, particularly on the highest court in my State, will disagree with one another and have spirited debates in the form of opinions they write. But I firmly believe that is exactly the job that is expected of a judge and that Justice Owen has fulfilled that position well.

There are those who apparently believe a judge is not supposed to have a real debate about their interpretation of the law and is just supposed to assert his or her own will, regardless of what the law actually says. Perhaps these advocates believe a judge is supposed to follow the practice of what author James Lileks has called "teasing penumbras from the emanations of the glow of the spark of the reflection of the echo of the intent of the Framers."

I fundamentally disagree with that idea. If we did not have judges disagree with one another, it would mean somebody was not doing their job.

By the time cases get to the top echelons of our judicial system, they are the hardest cases. They are the cases that cannot be solved by lower levels of the judiciary or indeed by settlement between the parties. These are important issues and must be decided, through study and debate.

A judge, unlike a Member of this body, cannot choose to simply walk away and ignore a thorny legal issue. Judges are not supposed to make law. They are supposed to interpret and enforce the law written by the legislature.

In Texas, Justice Owen followed this duty to the letter. From experience and from observation, I know that Justice Owen believes strongly that judges are called upon to faithfully read the statutes on the books, read the precedents in the case, and then apply them to the case before the court.

Justice Owen did this job, and she did it well. She is a brilliant legal scholar and a warm and engaging person. To see the kind of disrespect the nomination of such a great Texas judge—and a great Texas woman—has received in this body is more than just disappointing. It is an insult to Justice Owen. It is an offense against the great State of Texas. And it is beneath the dignity of this institution.

It is clear who is calling the tune repeated by the minority opposition here on this floor. The beltway special interest groups are not interested in trying to understand or evaluate Justice Owen by her real record because, if they were, they would see it as a sterling record of intelligence, accomplishment, and bipartisan support. The special interest groups are not interested in the confirmation of nominees who merely interpret the law and render judgment responsibly. They are only interested in confirming people who they believe are advocates of their interests, something that is totally at odds with the role a judge is supposed to perform.

Sadly, it is clear that these same special interest groups are interested in obstructing as many of President Bush's judicial nominees as they possibly can. Those who oppose Justice Owen's confirmation appear to have really no stomach for debate and talking about the facts. They choose instead to filibuster and engage in the worst kind of mean-spirited and destructive political attacks.

I can only hope that my colleagues will realize the truth of what is going on, and reject this special interest influence on the judicial confirmation process. I can only hope that ultimately we will all strive for a process that is fair and consistent with our constitutional duty.

And I can only hope my colleagues realize that by blocking a vote on Priscilla Owen, they make themselves allies to these groups, groups that rejoice at the prospect of a Senate in constant gridlock over these qualified nominees.

My colleagues should not think the American people do not know what is going on here. They see when a nominee's well-recognized abilities are ignored in favor of scare tactics and revisionist history, and they see some ignore the interests of the States from which they were elected, and instead kowtow to special interest groups.

I am confident that Members of the Senate are wise enough to reject this inhuman caricature that has been drawn of Justice Priscilla Owen by special interest groups intent on vilifying, demonizing, and marginalizing an admirable nominee. And I know that if we were allowed to hold a vote, a bipartisan majority of this body stands ready to confirm Justice Priscilla
Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The question is whether that vote will ever happen.

I hope that my colleagues will give these qualified nominees what they deserve, and allow them to have an up or down vote, today, tomorrow, and every day this week. For the sake of the Senate, the Nation, and our independent judiciary, I hope that we will not have 4 days of filibusters.

I hope my colleagues will vote to allow this fine judge an up-or-down vote.

I yield the floor.