The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Debate in the committee was delayed because of a need to produce and examine hundreds of unpublished opinions that Pickering had reached as a district judge. Controversy had swirled around the Mississippi district court judge since President Bush announced his nomination in June. Several civil rights groups expressed concerns regarding his conservative civil rights record. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, and dozens of other national organizations expressed concerns about the impact of his influence on the Fifth Circuit Court of the United States, which has the largest percentage of minorities of any circuit. The U.S. circuit courts are one step away from the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the federal judicial system.

Following Pickering's second Senate confirmation hearing in February, the dispute over the nomination spread beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee. The nomination sharply divided the entire Senate along party lines, causing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S. D., to pronounce that he would not allow the nomination to reach the Senate floor without the committee's approval.

The opposition to Pickering, which was intense, was expressed in national newspapers almost daily for the preceding several weeks and on nationally syndicated radio shows. Letters to the committee poured in from the Fifth Circuit, urging the rejection of Pickering. Civil rights advocates and community leaders voiced concern regarding a number of extreme views expressed by Pickering on important civil rights, women's rights and constitutional issues, including:

• In the 1970s, State Sen. Pickering twice voted for a reapportionment plan that would increase the number of senators per district and thereby dilute voting strength of people of color.

• In the 1970s, State Sen. Pickering twice voted for a reapportionment plan that would increase the number of senators per district and thereby dilute voting strength of people of color.

• In 1993, Judge Pickering published an opinion questioning the 'one-person-one vote' doctrine as 'obtrusive.' Criticizing court-ordered redistricting, the expense to taxpayers, and the disruption of customs such as voting along county or municipal lines, Pickering wondered 'if we are not giving the people more government than they want and more than is required in defining one-man, one-vote too precisely.' (Fairley v. Forrest Count, 814 F. Supp. 1327 (S.D. Miss. 1993).

• As a district court judge, Charles Pickering has often made extraneous statements showing his disdain for plaintiffs in race discrimination suits. For example, in cases such as Seeley v. City of Hattiesburg, No. 2:96-CV-327PG, and Johnson v. South Mississippi Home Health, No. 2:95-CV-367PG, he used identical language in both opinions describing these cases as having 'all the hallmarks of a case that is filled simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority.'

Most disturbing to Pickering's detractors was his handling of a 1994 case involving three men convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple, where he attempted to reduce the sentence of one of the defendants.

On the other side, Pickering's supporters defended him until the end. Just before the vote during the March 14, 2002 executive meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of his staunchest supporters, criticized the opposition to Pickering as purely ideological. Hatch, the ranking Republican member of the committee, delayed the vote a week in an attempt to muster more support for the nomination.   The day before the vote, President Bush defended his choice for the Fifth Circuit Court and urged a full vote on the Senate floor.

The President accused Democratic members of the Senate committee of trying to block conservative nominees: "The Senate has an obligation to provide fair hearings and prompt votes to all nominees, no matter who controls the Senate or who controls the White House. By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a few senators are standing in the way of justice."

The Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee cited Pickering's far-right nature as the reason behind his defeat. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned against having judges who are too far to the left or right and called for moderate nominees. He criticized Bush for following through on his promise to nominate judges "in the same mold as [Supreme Court Justices] Scalia and Thomas."

LCCR echoed Schumer's sentiments. Executive Director Wade Henderson responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote against Pickering: "LCCR strongly believes that the composition of the federal judiciary is a civil rights issue of profound importance to all Americans, because the individuals charged with dispensing justice in our society have a direct impact on civil rights protections for us all. As such, the federal judiciary must be perceived by the public as an instrument of justice, and the individuals who are selected for this branch of government must be the embodiment of fairness and impartiality. This nation requires jurists who will have a moderating influence on the Court. The Leadership Conference stands ready to work with President Bush to confirm such nominees."

The narrow decision demonstrated the Senate committee's deep division on the matter of the federal courts. The first significant battle over the Administration's appointees to the federal courts was likely just the beginning. There were 21 circuit court nominations pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and it was speculated three Supreme Court justices might be considering retirement from the highest court in the United States.