Nomination of J. Leon Holmes, to be United States District Judge

NOMINATION OF J. LEON HOLMES, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE-CONTINUED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Leon Holmes to be a district court judge for the U.S. District Court of Arkansas.

The "advice and consent" role given to the Senate in the U.S. Constitution is one of the Senate's most solemn duties, and one to which I give the utmost care. Since Federal judges serve for lifetime terms, I carefully review every nominee to ensure that he or she is well-qualified and possesses the proper professional competence and integrity. Although, naturally, I apply no litmus test with respect to a nominee's personal beliefs, a commitment to following the law and applying it soundly is critical.

Perhaps the most important factor in evaluating a nominee is whether the person has the proper "judicial temperament." There are two elements that must be considered when making this determination. The first involves what we would commonly understand the characteristics of good temperament to entail: would the nominee show courtesy and respect toward the practitioners and parties in his courtroom, while at the same time remaining confident and firm. From all I have heard about Mr. Holmes, he has a fine reputation for being both civil and professional, and I have no concerns about his nomination in this regard.

The second element of judicial temperament is more troubling in this case. It involves the deliberative mindset that is so valued in our jurists-the ability to separate emotion and personal views while applying the laws in a neutral and impartial manner. A judge must be able to transcend personal views in ruling on the matters before the court. It is for this reason that I am concerned about whether Mr. Holmes has the proper judicial temperament to receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

After a careful review of the Judiciary Committee proceedings and Mr. Holmes' record, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Holmes has not demonstrated the requisite ability to put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Over many years, Mr. Holmes has made a number of public statements, many in letters to the editor or in published articles, that raise serious questions about his ability to set aside his deeply held beliefs in order to impartially apply laws with which he disagrees. In fact, Mr. Holmes himself has characterized some of his previous comments as "strident and harsh rhetoric." These statements were not made in the midst of casual conversation; they were largely written pieces that reflected the thoughts of Mr. Holmes on these matters.

In one extremely troubling instance, Mr. Holmes wrote that "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." This appalling statement was not a chance comment, instantly regretted. Rather, Mr. Holmes included this statement in a letter he submitted for publication in The Daily Dispatch. In addition to the insensitivity and inaccuracy demonstrated by this comment, I believe it demonstrates that Mr. Holmes lacks the measured approach that is critical for sound judicial decision-making and the ability to set aside his personal views to apply settled principles of law.

In an April 11, 2004 letter to Senator Lincoln, Mr. Holmes stated, "I do not propose to defend that sentence, and I would not expect you or anyone else to do so." While in this same letter Mr. Holmes went on to apologize for this remark, he also acknowledged that his comment "reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse." I agree with Mr. Holmes that there is no excuse for this statement, and his belated apology came only after he was nominated for the Federal bench.

Unfortunately, this type of comment is not an isolated one, but one in a series of unsettling statements Mr. Holmes has made in his writings over many years. For example, Mr. Holmes authored an article in 1997 in which he wrote that "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband," and "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man." In 1982, Mr. Holmes authored another letter for the Arkansas Gazette, entitled "The Scary New Argument for Abortion," in which he compared certain arguments justifying abortion to arguments used to justify the actions of Nazi Regime. In 2001, he authored a comment for another publication in which he criticized both Roe and Casey as "constitutionaliz[ing] the theory of moral relativism."

Mr. President, let me be clear that I respect Mr. Holmes' personal views on abortion rights and am not opposing his nomination on those grounds. In fact, I have voted for many judicial nominees whose personal views were different from mine on the right to choose, among other issues. Nor do I believe that a nominee should be required to indicate how he would decide issues of substantive law that may arise in future cases. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Mr. Holmes can put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Unfortunately, his strident statements about a woman's right to choose raise doubts about his commitment to following settled law, including Roe v. Wade.

I note that the Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Holmes' nomination "without recommendation." It is extremely rare for a nominee to be passed from the Judiciary Committee in this manner. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, a district court nominee has never been reported out of Committee to the floor without recommendation. It is my belief that the Judiciary Committee's unusual action in this regard represents more than an historical quirk. In fact, it underscores the concerns about this nomination.

Because of the concerns raised by the many writings and comments of Mr. Holmes, of which I have cited only a few examples, I am unable to support his nomination. Our legal system depends on having judges who put an allegiance to following settled law above any personal beliefs. Mr. Holmes' history of inflammatory statements could cause the parties before him to question whether his strong personal beliefs would allow him to follow settled law and apply it in a fair and unbiased way. Mr. President, in light of these concerns, I will oppose this nomination.