Executive Session - Nomination of William H. Pryor to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit

EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOMINATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, OF ALABAMA, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me thank our colleague from Vermont for his heartfelt leadership on this issue.
Every one of us knows how much he cares about these issues and how these charges—"charges" is too dignified a word—these scurrilous attacks have gotten to him and moved him. We very much appreciate his integrity and courage and strength on these issues.

I rise in strong opposition to the Pryor nomination. This is a nomination where there are three strikes and you are out; three strikes against Mr. Pryor and he is out.

First, he is the most extreme nominee we have been asked to support. Second, there are questions about his credibility before the committee. And, third, the committee rules were violated to bring Mr. Pryor to the floor. So three strikes and Mr. Pryor is out.

Let me talk about each of the three briefly. First on extremism. This man is not a mainstream conservative. On issue after issue, he is in the most militant, hard, out-of-the-mainstream position, more than any judge. His views are an unfortunate stitching together of the worst parts of the most troubling nominees we have seen thus far.

He is not just out of the mainstream and extreme on one subject, he is extreme on almost everything. In a sense, he is the Frankenstein nominee, a stitching together of the worst parts of the worst nominees the President has sent us.

I will leave the issue of choice aside, other than to say that of the 120 judges I have voted for, the overwhelming majority were pro-life. So anyone on the other side who accuses anyone on this side of having a litmus test is just flying in the face of truth and honor and decency.

But what about other issues? He was the only attorney general who filed a brief to overturn parts of the Violence Against Women Act, a brief that went too far even for Justice Scalia—1 of 50. He was the only attorney general who ever supported Federal intervention in the States in Bush v. Gore.

He has voted to undermine the Clean Water Act. He has voted on issue after issue to turn the clock way back. On criminal justice issues, where I tend to side with my Republican colleagues at least as often as I side with my friends on the Democratic side, even here, he is way off the deep end.

He defended his State's practice of handcuffing prisoners to hitching posts in the hot Alabama sun for 7 hours without even giving them a drop of water to drink. And then, when the Supreme Court held this violated the 8th amendment, he criticized that decision.

His language is intemperate. He said he prayed to God that there would be no more Souters. This is not somebody we should elevate to this important part of the bench. He is way off the deep end. He is extreme in the extreme.

On this investigation, someone came forward after the nominee was questioned by my colleagues from Massachusetts and Wisconsin on the issue of this organization that raised money.

I don't like the system by which we raise money. But we should not hold Mr. Pryor to a different standard than seems to be all around the country. It isn't the raising of the money that bothers me. But when asked questions about it, there are eight statements he made that are highly suspect that are contradicted by documents sent to the committee. That doesn't mean he lied, but it means we ought to look into it because there is a possibility he did. We have not been able to complete that investigation.

To send this nominee to the bench whose credibility is in some suspicion—not proven certainly; he may be exonerated—is wrong and unfair. And it is a rush to judgment. I pled with my colleagues: Why can't we wait until this investigation is over and get the true facts? Maybe they are afraid of the answers because there has been a rush to judgment here. There is no danger to the Republic if we wait until September. Let the investigation finish, and then proceed with Mr. Pryor's
nomination.

That is the second strike.

First, extreme; second, may not have been truthful with the committee; and then, the third—despite the promises of my good friend on the Judiciary Committee—we have violated rule 4 again.

This side of the aisle will not allow the rules of this body to be tampered with, and if for no other reason we will not proceed with Mr. Pryor's nomination today, and we will get overwhelming support on our side because the rules of the committee have been steamrolled at the whim of my good friend, the chairman. That is wrong.

That is the third strike. He is out.

One final point I would like to make. I am sorry my time is limited.

The argument about Mr. Pryor's religious background and discrimination—I am not going to get into Catholic doctrine. I
will leave that to far better judges.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator may proceed.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the ranking member and the Chair.

I am not going to get into Catholic doctrine. That is not my bailiwick, that is for sure. But let me say to my colleagues in a heartfelt way that you are good people. But the arguments you are using are the last refuge of scoundrels. You are not scoundrels. But the arguments you are using are debasing of our society and this Chamber. They are hits below the belt.
You ought to be ashamed of using arguments like that.

When we had Mr. Estrada, we were accused of being anti-Hispanic. When we had Mr. Pickering, we were accused of being anti-Baptist. When we had Priscilla Owen, we are accused of being anti-women. And now, of course, anti-Catholic with Mr. Pryor.

These arguments are the last refuge of scoundrels.

Again, my colleagues are not scoundrels, but the arguments they are using are, and they ought to look into their hearts before they use such arguments again. They are cheap. As my colleague said, they represent religious McCarthyism. And one comes to think on this side—and I think most Americans think—they cannot win on the merits, and so they do below-the-belt shots.

Every single nominee who comes up—it is not debating whether that nominee deserves to be on the bench but, rather, someone is attacking him or her because of their religion, because of their gender, or because of their ethnicity. We have gone further than that in this wonderful country of ours. Argue on the merits, not in these cheap and vulgar arguments which demean people who use them and won't prevail.

I will tell my colleagues this. Those arguments—I will tell this to Mr. Boyden Gray, and all the others as well whom my colleague from Illinois did such a good job with on television last night—those arguments strengthen resolve. They make us certain that we were right because we say to ourselves: They can't win on the merits; try below-the-belt shots.