His Words Convict Him

In two days of testimony earlier this month, Judge Charles Pickering made clearer than ever why the Senate Judiciary Committee should block his elevation to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. One question remains. After poring over Pickering’s record and grilling him during the hearing, will the senators who pronounced themselves “troubled” match their rhetoric with the “no” votes this nomination deserves?

Responding to sometimes testy questions from committee members, Pickering tried but failed to justify two glaring ethical lapses: Why, as a judge, did he have a forbidden conversation with prosecutors in 1994 to get a reduced sentence for a convicted cross burner, and why, in recent months, did he lean on lawyers who have appeared before him to write letters supporting his nomination?

Senators also took Pickering back over now-familiar ground: his court decisions that reveal his predisposition to disbelieve claims of racial discrimination, sexual harassment and voting rights violations, and his outspoken and unrelenting opposition as a Mississippi state senator to abortion, except to save the pregnant woman’s life.

Pickering’s answers didn’t help his case, and since the hearing some Democratic committee members have announced their intention to vote against his nomination, probably next month. Democrats hold a 10-9 majority on the committee. But as opposition to Pickering mounts, so does the ire of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, who has vowed that his friend and fellow Mississippian will be confirmed “or else.”

Lott insists that this confirmation fight is about churlish Democrats who, by imposing litmus tests on judicial nominees, seek to deny a Republican president his prerogative to make appointments. It’s not. It’s about a nominee whose past actions and judicial record amply show him to be at odds with the principles of fairness, independence and equal opportunity that guide our courts and our nation.

If Democrats sink Pickering’s nomination in committee, Lott is reportedly considering asking the full Senate for a “motion to discharge” the nomination from the Judiciary Committee, clearing the way for a vote on the floor that he is likely to win. The use of such a motion would be unprecedented in a judicial nomination fight, not to mention a baldfaced affront to the integrity of the Senate’s committee structure.

If Republicans mean what they say about wanting to avoid a polarizing contest, President Bush should withdraw Pickering’s nomination. If Lott’s pigheadedness pushes the matter to a final battle on the floor, responsible senators must vote no.

It shouldn’t come to that. The Constitution’s drafters meant the Senate to be a check on the president, and the confirmation process a way to ensure that federal judgeship nominations are more than just payback for political favors. That means when a nominee isn’t up to the job--and Pickering isn’t--senators on the Judiciary Committee must reject him or her no matter the arm-twisting, no matter the menacing threats of retribution.