Second Hearing on Controversial Nominee Focuses on Civil Rights
Feature Story by Suzanne Lee - 2/8/2002
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 7th-- Today, hundreds of people descended on the Hart Senate Office building to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee's second confirmation hearing for the nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr., to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pickering's nomination is highly controversial due to his extreme views on civil rights, women's rights, and constitutional issues.
After examining Pickering's record - from law student to state legislator to judge -many ordinary Americans attended the hearing because they were concerned about the effect his nomination would have on their lives. Many believe that Judge Pickering's record has demonstrated insensitivity and even hostility toward a vast array of important rights, and indifference toward the problems caused by laws and institutions that have perpetuated discrimination in the state of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit and the United States.
Pickering did have his share of supporters on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) frequently praised the U.S. District Court Judge. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) applauded Pickering for his record of moral courage in testifying against KKK Grand Wizard Sam Bowers in 1967, despite threats against himself and his family.
Opponents, however, cited Pickering's extreme record on civil rights, which began early in his long career on and off the bench. In 1959, as a law student, Pickering wrote a law review article advising how Mississippi's statute imposing criminal penalties for interracial marriages could be strengthened to make it fully enforceable. Within months of publication of the article, the state legislature adopted the changes recommend by Pickering. Decades later, in 1994, as a Mississippi district court judge, he presided over a criminal trial of three young men accused of burning a cross on the property of an interracial couple. In that particular trial Judge Pickering seemingly went to great lengths to get the defendant a lesser sentence, claiming that it was just a "drunken prank."
In addition, Pickering has criticized the "one-person, one-vote" principle recognized by the Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, and has sought to limit important remedies provided by the Voting Rights Act. In 1975, as a state senator Pickering co-sponsored a Senate resolution calling for Congress to either repeal the Voting Rights Act or extend its application to all states.
During his tenure in the Mississippi Senate, Pickering voted to appropriate money to fund the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a notorious agency created by the state in 1956 to resist desegregation. At his 1990 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pickering testified that he had never had any contact with the Sovereignty Commission. However, a 1972 Sovereignty Commission memo indicates that "Senator Charles Pickering" was "very interested" in a Commission investigation into union activity that had resulted in a strike against a large employer in Pickering's home town. Pickering later admitted to an encounter with the Sovereignty Commission in 1972, but claimed it was simply a very casual conversation.
Senate Democrats on the Committee expressed concern about Pickering's hostility toward the right to reproductive choice, demonstrated by his advocacy as a Mississippi State Senator for a state constitutional amendment to ban abortion. In addition, in 1976, he supported a constitutional amendment that would limit a woman's right to an abortion, justified, in part, by the concern that a woman's husband may play a role in her decision.
Judge Pickering was questioned extensively by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over his handling of a 1994 cross-burning case. Files turned over by the Department of Justice showed that Pickering was upset about what he perceived to be a harsh sentence given to Daniel Swan, one of the defendants. The sentence was the mandatory minimum for an adult convicted of the crime.
Pickering attempted to justify the lighter sentence he supported for Mr. Swan by claiming that he was not the most culpable of those that committed the crime, and that in fact another defendant committed the most heinous acts. However, under questioning by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Pickering admitted that it was in fact the Daniel Swan who drove the truck to the scene of the crime and provided the wood for the cross- burning.
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) also made inquiries questioning the ethics of Pickering's actions in the Swan case. Senator Edwards alleged that, in a private meeting with the lawyers involved in the case, Pickering had ordered a new trial on his own motion. When asked on what basis for the motion during that meeting, he replied, "Whatever you want it to be." Pickering offered no recollection of that comment.
Sen. Edwards further alleged that Judge Pickering engaged in an ex parte communication while the case was still pending, violating the judicial code of conduct. (Ex parte communications refer to situations in which only one party appears before a judge. Such meetings are often forbidden.) However, near the close of the hearing Pickering denied that the conversation was ex parte but merely him venting his frustrations to someone who was not assigned to the case and it did not benefit the government in anyway.
When questioned about his personal views on issues such as abortion, privacy, and euthanasia, Pickering often declined to comment, claiming that he would follow the rule of law and the Supreme Court no matter what his personal beliefs. "I know the difference between a personal opinion or view and a political opinion or view," declared Pickering. On several occasions, he called his personal views "immaterial and irrelevant" to his standing as a federal judge. However, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) pointed out that, he had been overturned as a District Judge 26 times by the conservative Fifth Circuit. Senator Leahy questioned whether this trend was due to Judge Pickering not following the rule of law.
