Drug Quality and Security Act-- Motion to Proceed-- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, an esteemed lawyer and prosecutor herself, for her service on the Judiciary Committee and dedication to the quality of our courts and for her bringing us together this afternoon to focus on a topic I think perhaps is not uppermost on the minds of most Americans, not something they worry about when they are bringing their kids to school or fixing dinner at night, but that shapes the quality of our society. It assures the rule of law, and it guarantees the courts of our country look like the people of our country.

We are here because there are too few women as judges on our Federal courts. They have been denied that opportunity, and for so long they were denied the opportunity even to practice law. We are here because this situation is unacceptable. The Senate cannot and should not continue to obstruct the appointment of qualified nominees--in this instance women. Nina Pillard, like Patty Millett, is eminently qualified--indeed, distinguished, a candidate who fits the ideal profile. If you were designing and writing in the abstract the resume of a circuit court judge for the United States of America, it would be Nina Pillard.

One of the tragic results of the obstruction that we see in the appointment of judges nominated by the President is that the Senate is blocking women appointees to this court. The Senate has only confirmed one woman to the DC Court in the last 19 years. During this same time period, five men have been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In the court's entire history, only five women have been confirmed. These facts speak for themselves.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and Chairman Leahy, the Judiciary Committee has been approving qualified women to take the ``men only'' sign off the door at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But those women have been blocked by a minority of this body.

There ought to be common ground for Senators to have a good reason to block an appointment to the judiciary made by the President of the United States, which is his constitutional responsibility just as it is ours to advise and consent, and not simply, blindly block a woman appointee.

In 2005, the bipartisan gang of 14 came together and they agreed that a Senator should vote against a nominee only in ``exceptional circumstances, extraordinary circumstances.'' The history of that agreement is pretty well known here even though only a handful of Senators who joined in the agreement are still here. Its spirit and intent ought to guide us. Even if it is not binding in letter, its intent and purpose are as real now as they were then. It was to avoid the kind of nuclear approach--it is called, I suppose, the nuclear option for that reason--because it would be so organically threatening to the civility and collegiality of this body if it is invoked. The approach should be, as a Republican member of that gang of 14 said, that judges should be denied confirmation only in the event of ``a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of a person, not an ideological bent.'' If Senators agree that only exceptional circumstances justify blocking a nominee, then clearly the three female nominees that have been nominated by the President ought to be confirmed by the Senate. Our Country, and the legal profession specifically, has an unfortunate history when it comes to women.

As I mentioned earlier, for generations women were not even allowed to practice law. Only recently have they been afforded the opportunity to serve on the Federal bench--despite their serving with extraordinary distinction when they were in fact appointed. They are still woefully underrepresented.

When women are denied an equal chance to serve on our courts, we are left with judicial bodies that fail to reflect the American people, fail to reflect their values and backgrounds, their aspirations and dreams, and in fact their talent and insight. An exclusionary Federal judiciary makes a mockery of our Nation's claim to equal justice under law.

The excuse for blocking appointees is that the DC Circuit Court does not need more judges. I find this claim unpersuasive, based on the workload of the court. We can debate, in fact, the numbers, but statistics in this instance fail to reflect the complexity and difficulty of the cases that come before this court. The same Senators who say the caseload fails to justify appointments now gladly voted to approve John Roberts to the ninth seat on the court when the court had just 111 pending appeals per judge. It now has 182 appeals per active judge.

The history here is that the Senate approved appointees nominated by George Bush to fill the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the DC Circuit, the three seats that are vacant today. But this issue should not be about partisan politics. It should not be about which President made the appointments. It ought to be about the principle; that is, if the workload is insufficient, the number of seats on the court should be reduced by legislation. The Congress should not refuse to fill vacancies when they exist lawfully and in fact when there is strong evidence that the workload justifies filling those vacancies.

Nina Pillard is a civil rights icon. She is a public servant of extraordinary distinction. Ms. Pillard led the integration of women into the Virginia Military Institute. Her work led the Supreme Court to uphold Congress' ability to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act. Her academic work continues to identify common ground between liberals and conservatives that can allow for the protection of important rights.

Some have said that she is a feminist. The fact is, Professor Pillard believes that a woman's right to choose is protected by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, she believes in a judicial decision, written by Justice Blackmun--for whom I clerked--which has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court over four decades. It is embedded in our constitutional law, as fundamental as the right to privacy is fundamental to our Constitution. I think the merits more than justify her confirmation. There is no question that she has the talent and temperament, the intellect and integrity, the experience and the sensitivity to serve as one of our great judges on this court of appeals.

I urge my colleagues to put aside the extraneous and irrelevant considerations that may lead them to oppose confirmation and, very simply, to give their approval to a woman who will be a mentor and a model to so many other women now in law school or beginning their careers or even beginning their judgeships, and who one day will aspire to this kind of position. They will see her example and ours in approving her as an inspiration to them in their careers.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source