Nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to be United States Circuit Judge

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say a few words about the nomination of Bill Pryor to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I come to this debate with some personal knowledge of the nominee, having served as attorney general of Texas for 4 years during the time Bill Pryor served as attorney general of Alabama.

Before I get to the specific comments about this outstanding nominee and distinguished law enforcement official, I want to say a little bit about the process.

The process of confirming judicial nominees in the Senate is broken, and it cries out for reform and a fresh start. Since I have been in the Senate, I have heard those who have attempted to justify the poor treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees based upon alleged poor treatment of President Clinton's judicial nominees. We have somehow gotten involved in this game of tit for tat, of recrimination, that does not serve the best interests of the American people. We have gotten into unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominees by filibuster, which has never in the history of this great Nation happened until recently, and it is a tragedy.

As some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle observed, if a minority of Democrats are successful in blocking a bipartisan majority in the Senate from an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee, when the roles are reversed, which at some time in the future they may be, and a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans are going to want to use the same tactic on nominees of a Democratic President-something I believe would be wrong, but my views do not necessarily control what happens in this body.

The point is, we are on a downward spiral of destruction not only of this great institution, but damaging in the process the fine reputations of these individuals who have come forward to offer to serve the American people. We are treating them as common criminals. We are mischaracterizing their resumes, their reputations in the process, and I believe doing great harm in the process.

I want to say our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who claim to be-in the words of Thomas Jefferson, supposedly, when he was asking Washington about the role of the Senate in our form of Government, he called the Senate the cooling saucer. But the truth is, rather than a cooling saucer when it comes to judicial confirmation, the Senate has become a stone wall, not a cooling saucer, particularly as it pertains to these nominees the minority Democrat leadership has decided to obstruct and prevent from an up-or-down vote.

I realize they are grasping at straws, but somehow they have grasped on to this notion that since they have not blocked 168 of President Bush's nominees, they should be congratulated for blocking only 4. Well, we learned this morning in the Judiciary Committee that that four may soon become five, and then possibly six.

My point is they simply cannot be congratulated for an unconstitutional, unprecedented filibuster and preventing up-or-down votes, which is democracy in action.

There is another thing. For example, the Senator from New York, who just spoke a few moments ago, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, said something which I think bears some scrutiny. This morning he repeated an allegation he and others have made that somehow President Bush has hijacked the judiciary by nominating a narrow band of people who he claims are ideologically driven to overturn the law and run roughshod once they get on the courts.

They really need to make a decision what they believe. They either believe President Bush's nominees are all ideologically driven and determined to reach a particular result regardless of what the Congress says, regardless of their oath of office, where they put their hand on the Bible and agreed to serve as a judge and interpret the law, not make law, or this argument about being congratulated for somehow confirming 168 of these people, which simply does not stand up.

They have to make a choice. The truth is, they want it both ways. They really can't have it both ways.

Bill Pryor is simply an outstanding human being and a great attorney general. I believe he will be an outstanding judge. He is a deeply religious man. Some have criticized him for his deeply held beliefs. Unfortunately, sometimes in this debate, I worry that by criticizing somebody for their deeply held beliefs, which happen to be founded in their religious beliefs, we are setting a bar or perhaps building a wall against the opportunity for these people to participate in our government, particularly on the bench. That should not be the case. Our Constitution bars religious tests from service in public office.

General Pryor has demonstrated his ability to enforce the law as written, which is what he would do on the bench, interpret the law as written and not elevate his personal agenda or his personal beliefs above what the law says. Time and time again, he has done so.

I worry about two things in this process. One is obstruction, preventing a bipartisan majority from voting, and destruction of good human beings and their reputations they have worked a lifetime to achieve. They come here, honored to receive the nomination of our President to serve in these positions of great honor, and then they are placed in the dock where they become an accused and are expected to defend themselves against unwarranted and unjustified charges.

I wish we could see a fresh start to a process that does not serve either the nominees or this body or the American people well. I do not believe anyone should be congratulated for an unconstitutional obstruction of the democratic process going forward, when a bipartisan majority is ready to confirm these outstanding nominees, such as Bill Pryor. But that is what we have seen, obstruction and destruction of these fine individuals.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.