By Ralph G. Neas
President, People For the American Way

Republican leaders, who now hold a 10-9 advantage on the Senate Judiciary Committee, are returning to the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr. to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Pickering’s nomination has been opposed by every chapter of the NAACP in Mississippi, the national NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and a wide coalition of public interest organizations due to his disturbing record on the federal bench and as a state senator on civil rights and other issues.

It is crucial to take into consideration a nominee’s judicial philosophy and how it influences his decision-making. The Senate Judiciary Committee did just that last year when it rejected Pickering’s nomination after two hearings.

Democrats and Republicans alike must again carefully examine Pickering’s record of insensitivity and hostility toward key principles protecting the civil and constitutional rights of minorities, women, and all Americans. Because federal judicial appointments are for life and significantly affect the rights of all Americans, and because of the Senate’s co-equal role with the president in the confirmation process, nominees must demonstrate that they meet such criteria as an outstanding record in the law and a commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans.

Pickering’s record, as examined by senators at his confirmation hearings and by People For the American Way and other organizations in carefully documented reports, proves that he does not meet the necessary criteria. Instead, Pickering embraces an extremist judicial philosophy that would turn back the clock on civil and reproductive rights and much more.

Over the last decade as a federal judge, Pickering has criticized the “one-person, one-vote” principle recognized by the Supreme Court, denounced or sought to limit important remedies provided by the Voting Rights Act, and suggested that large deviations from equality in drawing legislative district lines were “relatively minor.” In addition, he has continually demonstrated a propensity to frustrate the efforts of people to obtain access to justice, especially less powerful litigants, such as people raising civil rights or liberties claims. When ruling on employment discrimination claims, Pickering has repeatedly included severe criticisms of civil rights plaintiffs and the practice of using civil rights laws to address discrimination.

As a state senator, Pickering supported “open primary” legislation that was blocked by the Justice Department over concerns about discrimination against black voters. He also co-sponsored a Mississippi Senate resolution calling on Congress to repeal section five of the Voting Rights Act (which provides federal oversight over jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting) or to apply it to all states regardless of their discrimination history. This move was widely seen as an effort to gut the Act. In addition, he strongly opposed Roe v. Wade, helping lead the Republican Party to put an anti-choice plank in its platform.

Pickering has also been severely criticized for the steps he took to obtain a more lenient sentence for a defendant in a cross-burning case. Unhappy with what he called sentencing disparities between two defendants who agreed to plea bargains and one who was convicted at trial, Pickering effectively ordered prosecutors to raise the issue with the U.S. attorney general and called a Justice Department official to complain. Independent ethics experts confirmed the impropriety of such conduct and have concluded that Pickering violated both the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Senators have also questioned Pickering about the fact that he asked lawyers, some of whom come before his court, for letters of support for his nomination. He asked that those letters be sent to him and he reviewed “most of them” before forwarding them to the Justice Department. At his last hearing, Pickering failed to recognize the potential for coercion in that kind of request, which legal ethics experts have concluded also violated ethical standards. In addition, Pickering has a troubling record of reversals by the very court of appeals to which he has been nominated.

The facts speak for themselves. Senate Judiciary Committee members should again reject Pickering’s nomination and not send it to the Senate floor. President Bush must consult with senators from both parties and seek out nominees who demonstrate a commitment to civil and constitutional rights. The courts of appeal play a critical role in our federal judicial system, second in importance only to the Supreme Court. It is essential that nominees be carefully examined to determine their dedication to upholding the rights of all Americans. Charles Pickering clearly has not demonstrated that commitment.

Ralph G. Neas is President of People For the American Way, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group dedicated to protecting American values and institutions that are currently under attack by the radical right and its political allies. For more information, visit the group's website at www.pfaw.org.