Q&A Session on Judicial Nominees

STAKEOUT WITH SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY) AND FORMER GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON
RE: JUDICIAL NOMINEES

SEN. MCCONNELL: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

SEN. MCCONNELL: As we move toward decision time on confirmation of judges here in the Senate, I want to make a couple of observations and then present our former colleague Pete Wilson, who is very familiar with one of the nominees that the Democrats have made controversial, Janice Rogers Brown, who is the -- a member of the California Supreme Court.

Let me just remind everyone that in the latter part of the Clinton years, there were two Democratic nominees for the 9th Circuit, in which California is located, that many Republicans considered, quote, "outside the mainstream" -- Berzon and Paez. There were 20 or 25 Republicans who wanted to defeat Berzon and Paez with a filibuster. Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott teamed up with Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, cloture was filed, and many of us voted to invoke cloture on Berzon and Paez, even though we thought they were clearly outside the mainstream, because we believed that all judges who had majority support in the Senate were entitled to an up-or-down vote. I think that's instructive as we consider the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, who is called by the Democrats "outside the mainstream."

This so-called outside-the-mainstream Supreme Court justice in California was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson. And under their system, once you're appointed, you stand to be approved or disapproved periodically. And Janice Rogers Brown, demonized by the Democrats as, quote, "outside the mainstream," end quote, was approved by 76 percent of the voters of California. And I think we can stipulate that California is not Alabama or Texas. Many would argue California is either the most liberal state in the nation or one of the most liberal states in the nation. Clearly, the voters of California in this very liberal state did not consider Justice Janice Rogers Brown in any way outside the mainstream.

I thought it would be appropriate today to give you an opportunity to learn a lot about Janice Rogers Brown that has not been said during the course of this demonization of her that's gone on seemingly nonstop over the last two years. And an appropriate person to fill you in on her background would be the man who appointed her to the Supreme Court of California, our former colleague Pete Wilson and also former governor of California.

So with that, let me call on Pete....

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Q Senator McConnell, some of the Republicans -- a couple of Republicans, Linc Chafee and John McCain come to mind, had said straightaway that they are not going to support the constitutional option. There is some grumbling among some Republicans that Republican leadership has been willing to sort of give them a little bit -- a little too much leeway for certain senators.

Is that a concern of yours, and is that going to undermine your efforts to get the votes that you need?

SEN. MCCONNELL: I'm not quite sure what your question is. There have been a number of conversations between Senator Reid and Senator Frist; a number of conversations between Senator Reid and myself about possible ways to reach some kind of agreement.

Unfortunately, to this point, any suggested agreement by the other side involves a kind of random slaying of good people. In other words, a sort of spin-the-bottle approach under which somebody, just through random selection, is denied an up-or-down vote. I think it does tend to illustrate that the objection here must not be along qualification lines, because they have offered us -- both publicly and privately -- an agreement under which we would get to pick one of these allegedly unqualified judges for an up-or-down vote.

This kind of sort of random selection of people to be denied an up-or-down vote, it seems to all of us, is not an appropriate way to end the controversy. And we really would be doing the institution a favor to be getting back to the way we operated for 214 years, during which every nominee who had majority support got an up-or-down vote. And I think that's where we need to get.

Let me finally say, I think this is incredibly short-sighted on the part of the Democrats. They're going to have the White House again someday, in spite of the best efforts of people like Pete Wilson and myself. And where this is all leading is to the following place: where 41 members of the Senate can dictate to the president of the United States -- whoever that is -- who is going to be on the Supreme Court. That is a complete perversion of the Constitution, and certainly not where we ought to end up.

Q But as whip, what are you doing to get people like Linc Chafee and John McCain on board if you had to go to the constitutional option?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah. Well -- for those of you with whom I've had discussions in the past, I never really discuss whip counts and conversations I have with senators. Various senators have spoken with you, so you're free to interpret their words to you in any way you like. But I'm not going to discuss any conversations I've had with members.

Paul?

Q (Inaudible) -- will have the votes?

SEN. MCCONNELL: It's been my continuous prediction that we will have the votes when this step is taken if it has to be taken.

I'm going to take one more, if there is one.

Q Senator, you have mentioned before that you thought it might be short-sighted on the part of the Democrats. Is there a flip side to that argument? Would the Democrats be able to reasonably say that this argument on changing the rules, if it were, would be short- sighted on the part of Republicans because some day perhaps the Republicans might be the minority party?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, I mean I think we need to live with the situation that served us well for 214 years. Presidents -- you know, as recently as Robert Bork and as recently as Clarence Thomas, both situations in which the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, were given an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.

We would not be doing -- they are the ones who implemented the change. They are the ones who implemented the change. It was filibustering judges that have a majority support in the Senate. It began in the last Congress. What we are simply trying to do is to restore the norms and traditions that we had in the Senate, that served the country well, served both parties well for 214 years.

Thanks a lot.

Q Can I just ask one quick follow-up question?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Just one --

(The question and response are off-mike as the senator walks away from the microphones.)

http://www.lexis.com