Judge Leon Holmes Confirmed

I am not asking that she vote against her conscience. I just wondered if it was against her conscience to vote for a pro-lifer. By all means, I have less respect for her if she is voting for something she think is wrong.

But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me love death." Proverbs 8:36

What I want to know is why are so many of Bush's appointments not appointed yet?

Kay Bailey's floor statement on Holmes:

Congressional Record
Pages S7550 - S7551, 7/6/04

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Leon Holmes' nomination to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution imposes profound responsibility on the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on appointments of individuals to lifetime positions.
I rarely voted against a judicial nominee or even opposed one under President Clinton. I have never opposed one under President Bush. On the rare occasion when I did oppose a judicial candidate, it was because a nominee had failed to show proper judicial temperament, or if questions about judicial philosophy arose, and there was no judicial record on which to base a vote of confidence.

I take very seriously the responsibility of confirming an individual for a lifetime appointment. These Federal judges do not answer to anyone after they take office. So when someone's views raise a question or concern and there is no record as a judge to show he or she can set personal views aside, I believe caution is warranted. For my vote, such is the case with Leon Holmes .

Dr. Holmes is a gifted man and a capable attorney. He has had a strong career and demonstrated commitment to his community. His rich spiritual conviction and work ethic are traits for which he is commended. I have listened to Dr. Holmes' supporters. I read statements in support of his candidacy presented by the Department of Justice. I know his distinguished career. I have read carefully his writings and public statements, including those for which he has subsequently clarified or apologized. I met Dr. Holmes to talk about his nomination.

Mr. President, we have made mistakes like this in the past. Last month a judge on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a judge who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 1994 with my vote, made a disturbing public speech. In it, he compared President Bush's election in 2000 to the rise of power of Mussolini. The judge has, of course, apologized. We have all made remarks we wish we had not made. But in this case, coming from a judge, the blatant partisanship and political bias revealed by this remark, reduced the value of the subsequent apology. Now, it is a fair question, if a Republican-oriented litigant comes to the Second Circuit, can he or she be assured of an impartial justice by that judge?

In 1980, Leon Holmes wrote:

The concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.

I differ with him absolutely on this issue.

If one rape victim is pregnant, she deserves protections and rights. She is a victim our society must acknowledge. What of the 14-year-old pregnant girl--a victim of incest from her father? Should she be cast aside as inconsequential? If you talk to any person who has served on a grand jury, in any urban area of our country, they have seen such a case. It happens. Thousands of rape victims in our country become pregnant every year. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimates 25,000 rape-related pregnancies occur annually. Are these victims to be ignored by our laws and society?

To his credit, Dr. Holmes has acknowledged that these comments were insensitive, but in conjunction with his other writings, that isn't enough for a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship.

My vote will not be in any way related to his views on abortion or his personal religious beliefs. It is based on his body of statements over a 25-year period that lead me to conclude he does not have a fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society.

I have supported all of President Bush's previous nominees. In each instance, if there has been a controversy, I have tried to make an independent judgment without employing a litmus

[Page: S7551] GPO's PDF
test, and without employing my own discrimination based on the nominee's personal practices or ideologies. In each case, I felt the candidate met the requirements. But I have a constitutional role that I must, in good conscience, uphold as I see it. I believe in the overwhelming majority of cases, the President should be granted his appointments to the bench. The role given to the Senate was to allow all possible information about a nominee to come forward to assure that a person is fit. Personally, I doubt that the writings of this nominee were known to the Administration when the appointment was made. But since his statements have come to the attention of the Senate, we must use our judgment about the overall ability of this nominee to give impartial justice in all cases.

I conclude that I cannot provide my consent for Leon Holmes .

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

Judicial confirmation statistics:

Nominations Submitted 225
Nominations Confirmed 198
% of Nominees Confirmed 88%
Circuit Court Nominations Submitted 51
Circuit Court Nominations Confirmed 35
% of Circuit Court Nominees Confirmed 69%
District Court Nominees Submitted 174
District Court Nominees Confirmed 163
% District Court of Nominees Confirmed 94%

Pending in Senate Judiciary Committee without Hearing

Circuit
1. Terry Boyle (4th Cir.)
2. Susan Neilson (6thCir.)
3. Thomas Griffith (DC)

District
1. Thomas Ludington (ED MI)
2. Dan Ryan (ED MI)
3. Peter Sheridan (NJ)
4. Jim Dever (ED NC)
5. Robert Conrad (WD NC)
6. Micaela Alvarez (SD TX)
7. Keith Starrett (SD MS)

Pending in Senate Judiciary Committee with Hearing

Circuit
1. Claude Allen (4th Cir.)
2. Brett Kavanaugh (DC)
3. Richard Griffin (6thCir.)
4. David McKeague (6th Cir.)

District
1. Virginia Covington (MD FL)
2. Michael Watson (SD OH)
3. Michael Schneider (ED TX)

Pending on the Senate Floor

Circuit
1. Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.)
2. Carolyn Kuhl (9th Cir.)
3. William Pryor (11th Cir.)
4. Charles Pickering (5th Cir.)
5. Janice Rogers Brown (DC Cir.)
6. Jim Haynes (4th Circuit)
7. Bill Myers (9thCir.)
8. Henry Saad (6th Cir.)

District

N/A

The article that gave Kay Bailey Hutchison and others so much heartburn -- written by Leon Holmes and his wife, Susan:

Gender Neutral Language
by Leon and Susan Holmes

Our whole life as husband and wife, as father and mother to our children, and as Catholic Christians, is based the historic Catholic teaching regarding the relation between male and female, so when that teaching is rejected, the rejection pierces the heart of who we are as persons, as family, and as Catholic Christians. Nothing causes us greater grief than the fact that the historic and scriptural teaching on the relationship between male and female is widely unpopular in the Church today. We have studied these teachings, prayed about them, and struggled to live them for the largest part of the almost twenty-five years we have been married; and we ask your indulgence and patience as we attempt to share the fruits of our reflection and struggle with you.
The historic teachings of the Catholic Church are grand, elegant, and beautiful. When they are unpopular among Catholics, it us usually because they are not understood; and so it is, we think, with respect to the teaching of the Church regarding the relationship between male and female. The passages of Scripture that call Christians "sons of God" and "brothers" are offensive only if they are misunderstood. The teaching that only males can be ordained to the priesthood and the diaconate is offensive only if it is misunderstood. Far from being offensive, these teachings are elegant and beautiful; and true for this age, as for every age, because truth is eternal.
Catholic theology is essentially sacramental, which is to say that it's teaching is permeated by and flows from the notion that there is an unseen reality that is symbolized by visible, external signs. We believe, for instance, that Christ was incarnate as a male because His masculinity is the most fitting sign of the unseen reality of His place in the Holy Trinity, who is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our relationship to God is a part of this unseen reality, and it is two-fold. In one aspect, we are related to God as individuals; in another aspect, we are related to God as a community. Individually, we are adopted into the same relationship to the God the Father as Christ enjoys, which is to say, we are all sons of God the Father and brothers of Christ. All of us, male and female, are equally sons of God and therefore brothers of one another. The equality of our relationship is destroyed when some of us are called sons but others are called daughters, some are called brothers but others are called sisters. Daughters have not the same relationship to their father as sons have. Daughters cannot be like their father to the same extent as can sons. Sisters have not the same relationship to brothers as brothers have to one another. Sisters cannot be like brothers to same extent as brothers can be like one another. Hence, Scripture refers to all Christians--Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free--as sons of God (Gal. 3:26) and brothers of one another to signify the equality, the sameness of our spiritual relationship in its unseen reality to God.
As a community, as Church, we also have a relationship to God as the bride of Christ. This relationship is an unseen reality that is signified in the visible world by the relationship between male and female and especially by the relationship between husband and wife. Hence, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church; and as the Church subordinates herself to Christ, in that manner the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband. The verb used in Ephesians 5:24 is hupotassetai, which means to place one's self under. The Church is to place herself under the protection of Christ and ipso facto place herself under His authority. Likewise, the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man and ipso facto place herself under his authority. Both the man and the woman are to live so that their relationship is a visible sign of an unseen reality, the relationship between Christ and the Church. Distorting the relationship between male and female is as sacrilegious as profaning any of the other sacraments that by which God symbolizes a divine, unseen reality through tangible symbols.
The use of male and female to symbolize the relationship between Christ and the Church is pervasive in Scripture. In Leviticus, for instance, whenever a sacrificial animal was to stand for Christ, a priest, or a leader, the animal was required to be male; whereas, whenever a sacrificial animal was to stand for the common man or for the community, the animal was required to be a female. In the Gospels, Christ always forgave and never condemned women, though he sometimes condemned men. Women were always forgiven because the Church will always be forgiven. Men could be condemned for their sins because Christ was condemned for our sins.
If we were to use "gender neutral" language to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church, we would destroy an essential element of our faith. To be true to the reality of the relationship, we must recognize Christ as the groom and the Church as the bride. Christ cannot be the bride; the Church cannot be the groom; nor can Christ and the Church both be groom or both be bride.
This unseen reality is signified once again by an outward sign within the Church, which ordains only males to those positions in the Church that represent Christ among us, the priesthood and the diaconate. Ignoring the distinction between male and female in ordination is like ignoring the distinction between male and female in marriage. It has nothing to do with the dignity or worth of male compared to female. When a woman chooses to marry a man, it is not because she thinks men have more dignity or value than women. The suggestion that male-only ordination implies a devaluation of women is as silly as the suggestion that a woman devalues women when she looks exclusively among men for a husband. The assertion that males and females both should be ordained without regard to their sex is akin to the assertion that same-sex relationships should be regarded as having equal legitimacy with heterosexual marriage.
The demand of some women to be ordained is pre-figured in the Old Testament when Korah and two hundred fifty "well-known men" claimed the right to offer sacrifice equally with Moses and Aaron because "all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them." Numbers 16:3. It is true that all the congregation are holy and the Lord is among them; but it does not follow that all are entitled to offer sacrifice. By the same token, it is true that men and women are equal in their dignity and value; but it does not follow that all are entitled to be ordained. Ordination does not signify the intrinsic worth or holiness of the one ordained; it signifies that the one ordained is to be another Christ to the Church, which is to say another groom to the bride. A woman cannot be ordained, not because she is inferior in dignity to a man, but because she cannot be a husband to the Church, which is the bride of Christ.
In a way that we cannot understand, the relationship between the unseen reality and the visible signs is reciprocal. St. Paul says he was made a minister "to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places." Eph. 3:10. He also says the apostles have been made a spectacle "to the world, to angels and to men." I Cor. 4:9. In the same vein, he says a woman should have a veil on her head [as a sign of authority] "because of the angels." It is an awesome thought that what we do somehow signifies the reality of the unseen world; but it is even a more awesome thought that God calls us to make known the reality of the unseen world to the unseen world.
In the biological sphere, life depends on the relationship between male and female. In this respect, the biological sphere is a visible sign of the unseen reality of the spiritual realm in which life depends on the relationship of Christ and the Church. Sexuality is a "great mystery . . . in reference to Christ and the Church." Ephesians 5:32.
All of this is why denominations whose theology is not essentially sacramental have been quick to endorse artificial contraception, divorce, and the ordination of women; and it is why they are much more open to the legitimation of homosexual relationships. Churches whose theology is essentially sacramental, which is to say the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, cannot accommodate the spirit of the age with respect to these matters no matter how overwhelming the social pressure because to do so would be to repudiate the essence (in the strictest Thomistic sense of the word) of our whole theology. Apart from sacramental theology, sexuality is just another physical function, and the distinction between the sexes is no more significant than the distinction between right-handed persons and left-handed ones. When we treat the distinction between the sexes as of no consequence, we are parting from sacramental theology, which is to say we are parting from Catholicism, which is to say we are parting from Christianity.
It is not coincidental that this culture of death in which we live is a culture that seeks to eliminate the distinctions between male and female. It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liasons soon to follow. The project of eliminating the distinction between the sexes is inimical to the transmission of life, which is the raison d'etre of that distinction in both the biological and spiritual realms. No matter how often we condemn abortion, to the extent we adopt the feminist principle that the distinction between the sexes is of no consequence and should be disregarded in the organization of society and the Church, we are contributing to the culture of death.
As Church, we are the bride of Christ. We are to submit to Him. This means in part that we are to take on the mind of Christ rather than adopt whatever paradigm prevails in the age in which we live. As you said in January when talking about abortion, "I do not want a Church that is right when the world is right. I want a Church that is right when the whole world is wrong."
We write in a spirit of friendship, not of animosity. When we express concern about the use of "gender neutral" language in place of what the Word of the Lord actually says, or about the abandonment of a 4000 year old tradition that only males may serve at the altar, or about the other ways in which the practice of the Church seems more consistent with feminism than with Catholic tradition, we do so because we believe that a great deal is at stake; and we want our shepherds and fellow Catholics to appreciate our concerns. We have brought all five of our children into the Catholic Church. It is no exaggeration to say we have bet their eternal lives on the Church. At the same time, we have built our whole family life on the traditional and now unpopular teachings about the relationship between male and female. What are we to do when we see these two pillars of our life start to separate and pull apart? How do we stand on both? How can we stand on only one?

Hutchinson of TX stated her reason for voting against him was because she was unsure of his commitment to women having an equal place in society. Apparently he had written some article saying that in marriage the woman should be subordinate to the man in some way.

Kind of a silly excuse to vote against the guy. Tells me that Hutchinson's staff ran over her on this one and that she is an empty suit. Or dress.

Excellent article! A Catholic makes it through the judicial nomination process.

Unless I missed sarcasm in your post, as I understood it the views in question were those of the historical position of the Catholic churh, not necessarily his own.

But that would never stop the left from running with it.

Hmmm... I thought it was just the opposite.

She is fairly consistent in her anti-Catholic voting pattern. So this was no surprise to see her vote against yet another Catholic.

Hello I'm new but watch the judiciary confirmations very closely.

I believe there are 5 nominees left of the 25 non controversial ones left.

I found a liberal site ( be warned!), but a good one for facts straight up on the judicary and the makeup of the Circuit Courts by who appointed them. www.independantjudicary.com

I also see look at Dept of Justice Ooffice of Legal Process and Yale Law School has a good site, but hasn't been updated since May (Summer vacation I guess!)

NEED to reelect President Bush as Stevens is 84 and Ginsburg is sickly on SCT, along with Rehnquista dn O'Conner need to be replaced. Plus all the circuit and district court nominations. A VERY IMPORTANT election if you care about the judiciary.