Skip to comments.COMMENTS BY SEN CLINTON, 25 FEB 2003, OPPOSING MIGUEL ESTRADA
Posted on 02/26/2003 8:29:43 AM PST by PhiKapMom
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I have been, as I said, listening with great interest to the debate on this issue. It is a very significant and important debate. As I often do when I come to the Chamber, I imagine, instead of being a Senator with the great honor of representing the State of New York and speaking in this Chamber, that I am just another citizen, as I have been most of my life, watching the debate on C-SPAN or one of the other television networks that might cover parts of it, and I would be asking myself: What is this all about? Why has so much time been consumed in the Senate over this one nominee?
The bottom line answer is that this side of the aisle has a very deep concern about any candidate seeking a lifetime position who refuses to answer the most basic questions about his judicial philosophy. And that, in fact, to permit such a candidate to be confirmed without being required to answer those questions is, in our view, a fundamental denial and repudiation of our basic responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.
Earlier this afternoon, as I was waiting for my opportunity to speak, I heard the Senator from Idaho admit that he had, based on philosophy, voted against certain nominees who had been sent to the Senate by President Clinton. I happen to think that is a totally [Page: S2668] legitimate reason to vote for or against a nominee. I happened to agree with the Senator from Idaho when he said he voted against nominees by President Clinton based on philosophy. That is an integral part of the advise and consent obligation.
The problem that we have on this side of the aisle is we cannot exercise the advise and consent obligation because we do not get any answers to make a determination for or against this nominee based on philosophy. I could not have done a better job than the Senator from Idaho did in summing up what the problem is. I thank the Senator from Idaho for being candid, for saying he voted against President Clinton's nominees based on philosophy.
>B? We could resolve this very easily if the nominee would actually answer some questions, legitimate questions that would permit those of us who have to make this important decision and are not just saluting and following orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, by being able to look into the philosophy and then deciding: Are we for this nominee or are we against this nominee?
This nomination would also be expedited if the President and his legal counsel would respond to the letter of February 11 sent to the President by the minority leader and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee asking for additional information on which to make a decision concerning this nominee, and, in fact, both Senators Daschle and Leahy are very explicit about what information is required. I will reiterate the request. Specifically, they asked the President to instruct the Department of Justice to accommodate the request for documents immediately so that the hearing process can be completed and the Senate can have a more complete record on which to consider this nomination and, second, that Mr. Estrada answer the questions he refused to answer during the Judiciary Committee hearing to allow for a credible review of his judicial philosophy and legal views.
I would argue, we are not changing the rules. In fact, we are following the rules and the Constitution, and we are certainly doing what the Senator from Idaho said very candidly he did with respect to President Clinton's nominees. We are trying to determine the judicial philosophy of this nominee in order to exercise our advise and consent obligation.
I have also been interested in my friends on the other side of the aisle talking and reading from newspapers and asserting that we are somehow requesting more information from this nominee than from other nominees and that, in fact, it is honorable not to answer relevant questions from Judiciary Committee members. It may be honorable by someone's definition of honor, but it is not constitutional. It is fundamentally against the Constitution to refuse to answer the questions posed by a Judiciary Committee member.
If there were any doubt about this standard, all doubt was removed last year. How was it removed? It was removed in a Supreme Court opinion rendered by Justice Scalia arising out of a case brought by the Republican Party concerning the views of judges.
For the record, I think it is important we understand this because perhaps some of my colleagues have not been informed or guided by the latest Supreme Court decisions on this issue, but I think they are not only relevant, they are controlling, to a certain extent, when we consider how we are supposed to judge judges. > Republicans focus on the ABA model code that judicial candidates should not make pledges on how they will rule or make statements that appear to commit them on controversies or issues before the court. They are, understandably, using this as some kind of new threshold set by Mr. Estrada who refused to answer even the most basic questions about judicial philosophy or his view of legal decisions.
Some judicial candidates, it is true, go through with very little inquiry. They come before the Judiciary Committee. They are considered mainstream, noncontroversial judges. Frankly, the Senators do not have much to ask them. They go through the committee. They come to the floor. That is as it should be. Were it possible, that is the kind of judge that should be nominated--people whose credentials, background, experience, temperament, and philosophy is right smack in the center of where Americans are and where the Constitution is when it comes to important issues. When someone does not answer questions or when they are evasive, it takes longer and you keep asking and you ask again and again. That was, unfortunately, the case with this particular nominee.
The Republican Party sued the State of Minnesota to ensure their candidates for judicial office could give their views on legal issues without violating judicial ethics. Republicans took that case all the way to the Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the ethics code did not prevent candidates for judicial office from expressing their views on cases or legal issues. In fact, Justice Scalia said anyone coming to a judgeship is bound to have opinions about legal issues and the law, and there is nothing improper about expressing them.
Of course, we do not and should not expect a candidate to pledge that he is always going to rule a certain way. We would not expect a candidate, even if he agreed that the death penalty was constitutional, to say: I will always uphold it, no matter what. That would be an abuse of the judicial function and discretion. Specifically, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the Supreme Court overruled ABA model restrictions against candidates for elective judicial office from indicating their views. I think the reasoning is applicable to those who are nominated and confirmed by this body for important judicial positions within the Federal judiciary.
Justice Scalia explained in the majority opinion, even if it were possible to select judges who do not have preconceived views on legal issues it would hardly be desirable to do so.
I want my friends on the other side to hear the words of one of the two favorite Justices of the current President, Justice Scalia: Even if it were possible, it would not be desirable.
Why? Because, clearly, we need to know what the judicial philosophy is. Judges owe that to the electorate, if they are elected; to the Senate if they are appointed.
Justice Scalia goes on: Proof that a justice's mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias. And since avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve the appearance of that type of impartiality can hardly be a compelling State interest, either. In fact, that is Justice Scalia quoting Justice Rehnquist.
Before this decision, some judicial candidates may have thought--and some of my colleagues may have thought--that judicial candidates could not share their views on legal issues, and I think that might have been a fair assessment of the state of the law at that time. But that is no longer a fair assessment.
A judicial candidate cannot be compelled to share his views, but Justice Scalia tells us that a judicial candidate who does not share his views refuses to do so at his own peril, and that is exactly what this nominee has done. At his own peril, he has gotten his marching orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, from all those who advise judicial nominees, from the Federalist Society and all the rest of those organizations, not to answer any questions, to dodge all of the issues, to pretend not to have an opinion about any Supreme Court case going back to Marbury v. Madison.
Well, he does so, in Justice Scalia's words, at his peril. That is what has brought this nomination to this floor for all these days, because this nominee wants to be a stealth nominee. He wants to be a nominee who is not held accountable for his views so that we who are charged under the Constitution to make this important judgment cannot do so based on his judicial philosophy.
Justice Scalia has a lot to say to my friends on the other side. If it were possible to become a Federal judge, with lifetime tenure, on the second highest court of the land, without ever saying
anything about your judicial philosophy, I think that would be astonishing. It would be troubling. It would run counter to the Constitution and to this opinion written by one of the most conservative members of the current Court.
Mr. Estrada basically has come before this Senate and claimed he cannot give his view of any Supreme Court case without reading the briefs, listening to the oral argument, conferring with colleagues, doing independent legal research, and on and on. That is just a dressed up way of saying: I am not going to tell you my views, under any circumstances.
One has to ask himself--and I do not want to be of a suspicious mindset--why will this nominee not share his views? Are they so radical, are they so outside the mainstream of American judicial thought, that if he were to share his views, even my friends on the other side would say wait a minute, that is a bridge too far; we cannot confirm someone who believes that?
How can I go home and tell my constituents that I voted for somebody who actually said what he said? I cannot think of any other explanation. Why would a person, who clearly is intelligent--we have heard that constantly from the other side--who has practiced law, not be familiar with the procedures of the Judiciary Committee, of the constitutional obligation of advise and consent or even of Justice Scalia and Justice Rehnquist's opinions about the importance of answering such questions?
So I have to ask myself: What is it the White House knows about this nominee they do not want us to know? And if they do not want us to know, they do not want the American people to know. I find that very troubling.
I do not agree with the judicial philosophy of many of the nominees sent up by this White House. I voted against a couple of them. I voted for the vast majority of them, somewhere up in the 90 percentile. At least I felt I could fulfill my obligation so when I went back to New York and saw my constituents and they asked why did I vote for X, I could say to them it was based on the record. He may not be my cup of judicial tea, but he seems like a pretty straightforward person. Here is what he said and that is why I voted for him. Or to the contrary, I could not vote for this nominee because of the record that was presented.
I cannot do that with this particular nominee. And you know what. The other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that is calling the shots on this nomination does not want me to have that information.
I think that is a denial of the basic bargain that exists under the Constitution when it comes to nominating and confirming judges to the Federal courts. > It could have been different. The Founders could have said let's put all of this into the jurisdiction of the Executive; let him name whoever he wants. Or they could have said: No, let's put it in the jurisdiction of the legislature; let them name whoever they want. Instead, as is the genius of our Founders and of our Constitution, there was a tremendous bargain that was struck, rooted in the balance of power that has kept this Nation going through all of our trials and tribulations, all of our progress, that balance of power which said we do not want this power to rest in any one branch of Government; we want it shared. We want people to respect each other across the executive and legislative lines when it comes to the third branch of Government.
So, OK, Mr. President, you nominate. OK, Senators, you advise and consent. That is what this is about.
Sometimes I wonder, as my friends on the other side talk about it, how they can so cavalierly give up that constitutional obligation. The unfortunate aspect of this is we could resolve this very easily. All the White House has to do is send up the information. Let Mr. Estrada answer the questions. He may still have a majority of Senators who would vote to put him on the DC Circuit. I do not know how it would turn out because I do not have the information.
While we are in this stalemate caused by the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, which for reasons that escape me have dug in their heels and said, no, they will not tell us anything about this person, there is a lot of other business that is not being done, business about the economy, the environment, education and health care, business that really does affect the lives of a lot of Americans.
On that list of business that I consider important is what is happening in our foster care system. Tomorrow evening, I will have the great privilege of hosting the showing of a tremendous movie about the foster care system, along with Congressman TOM DELAY. I invite all of my colleagues from both Houses of Congress to come and see this movie that vividly illustrates what happens in our foster care system.
I have worked in the past with Congressman DELAY to try to improve the foster care system. I look forward to doing that in the future. He has a great commitment to the foster care system and the foster children who are trapped within it. I use that word with great meaning because, indeed, that is often what happens to them. And the stories of abuse and neglect that first lead children to go into the foster care system are compounded by the stories of abuse and neglect once they are in that system.
Mr. Fisher will be joining Congressman DELAY and me at the Motion Picture Association screening room for this important movie. This is a screening just for Members of Congress. I think it will illustrate better than certainly my words could why it is so important we join hands and work on this issue along with many others who affect the lives of children as well as men and women across America.
Occasionally, a movie comes to the screen that brings to life the stories that have become routine in the newspapers and that we too often ignore--the stories of children living with abuse and neglect, shuffled in and out of our foster care system, often with little guidance from or connection to any one adult. Too often these stories end in the most tragic way possible:
7-year-old Faheem Williams in Newark, NJ was recently found dead in a basement with his two brothers where they were chained for weeks at a time.
6-year-old Alma Manjarrez in Chicago was beaten by her mother's boyfriend and left to die outside in the snow and cold of the winter.
And despite 27 visits by law enforcement to investigate violence, 7-year-old Ray Ferguson from Los Angeles was recently killed in the crossfire of a gun battle in his neighborhood.
Antwone Fisher's story is different. > Mr. Fisher overcame tremendous odds: He was born in prison, handed over to the State, and lived to tell his story of heartbreaking abuse. At the age of 18, he left foster care for the streets. With nowhere to turn, he found the support, education, and structure in the U.S. Navy. In the Navy, Fisher received a mentor and professional counselor, which helped him turn his life around.
Mr. Fisher survived his childhood and has lived to inspire us all and send us a stern reminder that it is our duty to reform the foster care system so that no child languishes in the system, left to find his own survival or to die. Antwone's success story should be the rule not the exception.
Tomorrow night, House Majority Leader TOM DELAY and I will be cohosting a screening of the movie ``Antwone Fisher'' for Members of Congress. We decided to host this together because we both feel that it is imperative that we raise national awareness about foster care--through one child's own experience--and encourage our colleagues to tackle this tough issue with us.
Congressman DELAY and I had received an award together in the year 2000 from the Orphan Foundation of America for the work that we both have done in this area. Earlier this year, I asked my staff to reach out to his staff to find ways we might work together to focus on this issue. This movie was a natural fit for both of us and I look forward to continuing to work with Representative DELAY as we take a hard look at reforming our foster care system. Congressman DELAY and his wife, Christine, are strong advocates for foster children and are foster parents themselves.
I hope that many of my colleagues in the Senate will take us up on the invitation and join us for this important movie.
But, for those who can't join us, I wanted to share a little bit about Antwone's story in his own words from his book, ``Finding Fish''--
The first recorded mention of me and my life was [from the Ohio State child welfare records]: Ward No. 13544.
Acceptance: Acceptance for the temporary care of Baby boy Fisher was signed by Dr. Nesi of the Ohio Revised Code.
Cause: Referred by division of Child Welfare on 8-3-59. Child is illegitimate; paternity not established. The mother, a minor is unable to plan for the child. The report when on to detail the otherwise uneventful matter of my birth in a prison hospital facility and my first week of life in a Cleveland orphanage before my placement in the foster care home of Mrs. Nellie Strange.
According to the careful notes made by the second of what would be a total of thirteen caseworkers to document my childhood, the board rate for my feeding and care cost the state $2.20 per day. >
Antwone went on to document that the child welfare caseworker felt that his first foster mother had become ``too attached'' to him and insisted that he be given up to another foster home. The caseworker documents this change:
Foster mother's friend brought Antwone in from their car. Also her little adopted son came into the agency lobby with Antwone...... . They arrived at the door to the lobby and the friend and the older child quickly slipped back out the door. When Antwone realized that he was alone with the caseworker, he let out a lust yell and attempted to follow them.
Caseworker picked him up and brought him in. Child cried until completely exhausted and finally leaned back against caseworkers, because he was completely unable to cry anymore.
Later he describes when the caseworker brought him to his next foster home--she too slipped out the door when he was not looking. He says, ``All through my case files, everybody always seemed to be slipping away in one sense or another.''
When Antwone arrived at the next foster home and as he grew, at first he was not told of his troubled entry into the world:
But for all that I didn't know and wasn't told about who I was, a feeling of being unwanted and not belonging had been planted in me from a time that came before my memory.
And it wasn't long before I came to the absolute conclusion that I was an uninvited quest. It was my hardest, earliest truth that to be legitimate, you had to be invited to be on this earth by two people--a man and a woman who loved each other. Each had to agree to invite you. A mother and a father.
Antwone Fisher never knew a permanent home--never knew a loving mother and father. Instead, he was left to fend for himself when he was expelled from foster care at 18--a time when the state cuts off payments to foster parents. Antwone found himself on the streets and homeless.
Thanks to the work of many on both sides of the aisle in Congress we have begun important work to make sure that Antwone's story is not repeated. No child should have to grow up in foster care from birth and never be adopted and no child should ever have to leave the system at 18, with absolutely no support.
There are approximately 542,000 children in our Nation's foster care system--16,000 of these young people leave the system every year having never been adopted. They enter adulthood the way they lived their lives, alone.
In 1999, when I was First Lady, I advocated for and Congress took an important step to help these young adults by passing the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act. This program provides states with funds to give young people assistance with housing, health care, and education. It is funded at $410 million annually, and should be increased. But it was an important start to addressing the population of children who ``age-out'' of our foster care system.
This bill came after the important bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. As First Lady, it was an honor to work on what's considered to be one of the most sweeping changes in federal child welfare law since 1980.
It ensured that a child's safety is paramount in all decisions about a child's placements. For those children who cannot return home to their parents, they may be adopted or placed into another permanent home quickly. Since the passage of this law, foster child adoptions have increased by 78 percent.
The next major hurdle that I believe we need to tackle in reforming our child welfare system is the financing system.
Currently, we spend approximately $7 billion annually to protect children from abuse and neglect, to place children in foster care, and to provide adoption assistance. The bulk of this funding, which was approximately $5 billion in fiscal year 2001, flows to States as reimbursements for low-income children taken into foster care when there is a judicial finding that continuation in their home is not safe. >
This funding provides for payments to foster families to care for foster children, as well as training and administrative costs.
This funding provides a critical safety net for children, who through difficult and tragic circumstances end up in the care of the state. It ensures that children are placed in foster care only when it is necessary for their safety, it ensures that efforts are made to reunify children with their families as soon as it safe, it works to make sure that the foster care placement is close to their own home and school, and it requires that a permanency plan is put in place. All of these safeguards are critical.
The financing, however, is focused on the time the child is in foster care and it continues to provide funding for States the longer and longer a child is in the system. The funding is not flexible enough to allow for prevention or to help children as they exit the system--critical times when children fall through the cracks.
President Bush has put a proposal on the table to change the way foster care is financed in order to provide greater flexibility so that states can do more to prevent children form entering foster care, to shorten the time spent in care, and to provide more assistance to children and their families after leaving.
While I absolutely do not support block granting our child welfare system--I do think that it is important that President Bush has come to the table with an alternative financing system and I believe that it provides us with an opportunity to carefully consider how to restructure our child welfare system.
We must ask critical questions:
Will States be required to maintain child safety protection that we passed as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act?
Will States be required to target funds to prevention and post-foster care services?
What happens if there is a crisis and more foster care children enter the system? Will States receive additional funds?
While I believe all of these questions deserve answers, I applaud President Bush and Representative DELAY for being willing to tackle this hard problem. I look forward to working with them to find solutions so that we do not allow any child to fall through the cracks.
This is just one of the many issues that are basically left on the back burner while we engage in this constitutional debate that could be resolved if information were provided.
As I said, I have to question the reasons why that information is not forthcoming. It gives me pause. This administration is compiling quite a record on secrecy. That bothers me. It concerns me. I think the American people are smart enough and mature enough to take whatever information there is about whatever is happening in the world--whether it is threats we may face or the judicial philosophy of a nominee. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. If we lose our openness, if we turn over our rights to have information, we are on a slippery slope to lose our democracy. Now, of course, in times of national crisis and threat like we face now, there are some things you cannot share with everyone. But you certainly can and should share them with the people's elected representatives. That is why we are here. I err on the side of trying to make sure we share as much information as possible.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the White House will not share information about this nominee. Until it does, until Mr. Estrada is willing to answer these questions, I have to stand with my colleague from Idaho--I cannot cast a vote until I know a little bit more about the judicial philosophy. This is not a Republican or Democratic request. This is a senatorial request.
This is what the Senate is supposed to be doing.
I urge our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, do whatever you can to persuade the White House and the Justice Department to level with the Senate, to level with the American people, to provide the information that will enable us to make an informed decision and fulfill our constitutional responsibility.
It seems to me to be the very minimum we can ask. It certainly is what has been provided and asked for in the past. I hope it will be forthcoming, that the letter sent by Senators DASCHLE and LEAHY will get a favorable response, we will be able to get the information the Judiciary Committee has requested, that many Members feel we need, and we can move on. We can tend to the people's business, including the need to reform our foster care system to try to save the lives of so many children who would otherwise be left behind and left out of the great promise of America.
Four more years and she will be back on the streets looking for work.
What a disgusting hypocrite!
I just wanted to say that President Bush addressed a group this morning--I'm sorry, I don't know who it was--and he was EXTREMELY STRONG on the issue of Miguel Estrada. He said he would stand by him and said the dems were upholding the vote for purely political reasons. (Of course, but my point was how directly he phrased it and how forceful he was.)
Miguel Estrada is so above these socialist senators in all respects!
Call the GOP Senators and demand a REAL filibuster for Hillary-led anti-Hispanic left!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.