U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–200 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–264

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS

OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR. TO BE CIRCUIT

JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND

DIANE M. STUART TO BE DIRECTOR, VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 11, 2003

Serial No. J–108–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 79

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 7

prepared statement on William H. Pryor, June 11, 2003 ............................. 318

prepared statement on William H. Pryor, July 25, 2003 .............................. 321

prepared statement on Diane Stuart, June 11, 2003 .................................... 326

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 307

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 345

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 10

PRESENTERS 

Bonner, Hon. Jo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama 

presenting William H. Pryor, Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the 

Eleventh Circuit ................................................................................................... 2

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama presenting 

William H. Pryor, Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ......................................................................................................................... 4

Shelby, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama presenting 

William H. Pryor, Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit ......................................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Pryor, William H., Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit .. 17

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 18

Stuart, Diane M., Nominee to be Director, Violence Against Women Office, 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 115

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 125

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Biden .. 149

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Durbin 157

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Edwards ..................................................................................................................... 173

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ........................................................................................................................ 180

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .. 189

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy ....................................................................................................................... 204

Responses of William H. Pryor, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Schumer ........................................................................................................................ 225

Responses of Diane Stuart to questions submitted by Senator Biden ................ 231

Responses of Diane Stuart to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ........... 242

Responses of Diane Stuart to questions submitted by Senator Daschle ............. 246

Responses of Diane Stuart to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ................ 264

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alabama Association of Chiefs of Police, Arthur K. Bourne, President, Marion, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 269

Page

IV

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 

May 6, 2003, Quin Hillyer, article .................................................................. 271

December 11, 1997, editorial ........................................................................... 273

Baker, Thurbert E., Attorney General, Department of Law, State of Georgia, 

Atlanta, Georgia, letter ........................................................................................ 275

Baxley, William J., Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin and McKnight, Attorneys at 

Law, Birmingham, Alabama, letter .................................................................... 277

Beasley, Jere L., Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., 

Attorneys at Law, Montgomery, Alabama, letter .............................................. 278

Billingslea, Stephanie C., Assistant Attorney General, Montgomery, Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 279

Birmingham News, June 11, 2003, editorial ......................................................... 281

Birmingham Post-Herald, April 12, 2003, articles ................................................ 282

Brown, Sammie, Jr., Chief of Police, Prichard, Police Department, Prichard, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 283

Butts, Terry L., Cervera, Ralph and Butts, Attorneys at Law, Troy, Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 284

Cobb, Sue Bell, Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, State of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ...................................................................................... 287

Cochran, Samuel M., Chief of Police, Mobile Police Department, Mobile, Alabama, letter .......................................................................................................... 289

Colson, Charles W., Prison Fellowship Ministries, Washington, D.C., letter ..... 290

Cooper, Patrick C., Maynard, Cooper and Gale, P.C., Attorneys at Law, Birmingham, Alabama, letter ................................................................................... 291

cw.ua.edu., Our View, April 18, 2003, article ........................................................ 293

Crist, Charlie, Attorney General, State of Florida, letter .................................... 294

Cunningham, Robert R., Jr., Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder and 

Brown, L.L.C., Mobile, Alabama, letter ............................................................. 295

Davis, Hon. Artur, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 297

Drake, Russell Jackson, Whatley Drake, Birmingham, Alabama, letter ............ 298

Earley, Mark L., President, Prison Fellowship Ministries, Washington, D.C. 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 299

Fancher, Eric M., District Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Bessemer, Alabama, letter ........................................................................................ 300

Flanagan, Newman, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ......................................................................... 301

Franklin, Bill, Sheriff, Elmore County Sheriff’s Department, Wetumpka, Alabama, letter .......................................................................................................... 302

Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand 

Lodge, Washington, D.C., letter .......................................................................... 303

Gamache, Denise, Associate Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Minnesota Program Development, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota, letter ........................ 304

Grant, Gerrilyn V., Assistant Attorney General, State of Alabama, Office 

of the Attorney General, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ................................... 306

Griffin, Gregory O., Sr., Chief Counsel, State of Alabama Board of Pardons 

and Paroles, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ....................................................... 316

Griffin, Greg, Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery, Alabama, letter to the 

editor ..................................................................................................................... 317

Hayes, James, Etowah County Sheriff, Gadsden, Alabama, letter ..................... 327

Hillman, Randall I., Executive Director, Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ..................................................................... 328

Hinton, Jack B., Jr., Gidiere, Hinton & Herndon, Attorneys at Law, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ...................................................................................... 330

Holmes, Hon. Alvin, State of Alabama House of Representatives, Montgomery, Alabama, letter and attachments ......................................................... 332

Ivey, Wyndall A., Capell and Howard, P.C., Attorneys at Law, Montgomery, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 337

Johnson, James W. ‘‘Herbie’’, Sheriff, Autauga County, Prattville, Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 338

Joint letter of Dominica Hyde, RSM, Alice Lovett, RSM, Suzanne Gwynn, 

RSM, Cecilia Street, and Magdala Thompson, RSM, Mobile, Alabama .......... 339

Jones, G. Douglas, Whatley Drake, Birmingham, Alabama, letter ..................... 340

Joseph, Anthony A., Johnston Barton Proctor and Powell, L.L.P., Law Office, 

Birmingham, Alabama, letter ............................................................................. 342

Krebs, Thomas L., Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 344

Page

V

Levine, Herc, Birmingham, Alabama, letter and attachment ............................. 351

Lieberman, Bruce M., Montgomery, Alabama, letter, May 23, 2003 .................. 353

Manuel, Jeff, Public Safety Director, Police Department, Demopolis, Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 354

McNair, Chris, Chris McNair Studios, Birmingham, Alabama, letter ................ 355

Mixon, Bryant, Sheriff, Dale County, Ozark, Alabama, letter ............................ 357

Mobile Register, May 21, 2003, editorial ............................................................... 358

Montgomery Advertiser, June 11, 2003, editorial ................................................. 359

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Hon. Leonard P. 

Edwards, President, Reno, Nevada, letter ......................................................... 361

Nolan, Pat, President, Justice Fellowship, Washington, D.C., letter .................. 362

Penelope House Family Violence Center, Board of Directors, Kathryn 

Coumanis, Executive Director, Mobile, Alabama, letter ................................... 363

Reed, Joe L., Chairman, Alabama Democratic Conference, Montgomery, Alabama, letter .......................................................................................................... 364

Rediker, J.Michael, Haskell Slaughter Young and Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 365

Sadie, Edna, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ........................................................... 367

Seroyer, Jesse, Jr., Marshal, Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, letter .......................................................................................................... 368

Shehane, Miriam, Executive Director, Victims of Crime and Leniency, Montgomery, Alabama, letter ...................................................................................... 369

Shelby, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 370

Singleton, Rick L., Chief of Police, Florence Police Department, Florence, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 371

Smith, Grover W., Sheriff, Escambia County, Brewton, Alabama, letter ........... 372

Smoot, Shelia, Commissioner, Jefferson County Commission, Birmingham, 

Alabama, letter ..................................................................................................... 373

Tarver, Courtney W., Montgomery, Alabama, letter ............................................ 374

Taylor, Bill, U.S. Marshal, Southern District of Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 376

Taylor, ‘‘Bill’’ William, Jackson, Alabama, letter .................................................. 377

Tuscaloosa News, Tommy Stevenson, April 13, 2003, article .............................. 378

Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council, Ned Searle, Chair, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, letter ........................................................................................................... 380

Wade, D. Allan, Chief of Police, Pelham, Alabama, letter ................................... 381

Wall Street Journal, Douglas W. Kmiec, June 10, 2003, article ......................... 382

Walls, J. Scott, Chief of Police, Guntersville, Alabama, letter ............................ 384

Wilson, John H., Chief of Police, Montgomery, Alabama, letter .......................... 385

Women’s Fund of Greater Birmingham, Dianne Mooney, Allocations Chair, 

Birmingham, Alabama, letter ............................................................................. 386

(1)

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR. TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND DIANE M. STUART TO BE DIRECTOR, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Specter, Kyl, Sessions, Chambliss, 

Cornyn, Leahy, Kennedy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, and Edwards. 

Chairman HATCH. We are happy to begin today. We have two 

stellar nominees on the agenda today: Bill Pryor, who has been 

nominated for the Eleventh Circuit, and Diane Stuart, who has 

been nominated to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. 

We also have several gentlemen who are here to introduce Mr. 

Pryor, and I understand that one of them, Congressman Jo Bonner, 

has to leave for another appointment. So if Senator Schumer 

agrees, I would like for us to postpone our opening statements until 

after the first panel of witnesses testifies. 

Senator SCHUMER. Perfectly fine with me, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. I knew it would be. 

In addition, I will postpone my own introduction of Ms. Stuart, 

whom I am proud to call a fellow Utahn, just before her testimony. 

So we will begin with you, Senator Shelby, and then we will go 

to Congressman Bonner. 

PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. 

RICHARD SHELBY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

ALABAMA 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much for holding this hearing. I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee today to introduce 

Bill Pryor, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama and the 

2

President’s nominee for the United States Court of Appeals, Mr. 

Chairman, for the Eleventh Circuit, as you just mentioned. 

I have known Bill Pryor for many years, and I have the highest 

regard for his intellect and, more than that, his integrity. He is an 

extraordinarily skilled attorney with a prestigious record of trying 

civil and criminal cases in both the State and Federal courts. He 

has also argued several cases before the United States Supreme 

Court and the Supreme Court of our own State of Alabama. 

As the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Bill Pryor has 

established a reputation as a principled and effective legal advocate 

for the State of Alabama and has distinguished himself as a leader 

on many important State and Federal issues. 

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, Bill is a man of the law. 

Whether as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, or the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, he understands and respects the constitutional role of the judiciary and specifically the role of the Federal courts in our legal system. Indeed, I have no doubt that he will 

make an exceptional Federal judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals because of the humility and the gravity that he would 

bring to the bench. 

I am also confident that he would serve honorably and apply the 

law with impartiality and fairness, which I believe is required of 

a judge. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank 

you for holding today’s hearing on Bill Pryor’s nomination. I am 

hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will favorably report this 

nomination to the full Senate in the near future, and I support this 

nomination without any reservation. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much. 

Senator SHELBY. And I ask that my complete statement be made 

part of the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, it will be, and we are grateful you took time out of your busy schedule to be here. Your recommendation means a lot to this Committee. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Shelby appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. We are going to turn to Senator Sessions. I 

didn’t see Senator Sessions there, and we will take your statement, 

Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if 

Congressman Bonner, who may have to leave, could go next. 

Chairman HATCH. That is very nice of you. 

We will turn to you, Congressman Bonner. 

PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. JO 

BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

Representative BONNER. Chairman Hatch, Senator Schumer, and 

distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is indeed a privilege for me to appear before you today for the sole purpose of introducing a man I believe to be one of the finest judicial 

3

nominees in recent history: Alabama’s Attorney General William H. 

Pryor. 

It is without reservation that I fully support Attorney General 

Pryor’s nomination and ask that he receive bipartisan support from 

this Committee and that his nomination be granted a vote by the 

full Senate. 

Mr. Chairman, I could not be more pleased with President Bush’s 

choice for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill Pryor is not 

only a good man, he is also an outstanding judicial nominee whose 

diverse legal experience and extensive qualifications illustrate his 

ability and his desire to serve from the bench. 

Bill and I are both from Mobile, Alabama, and I have the honor 

of serving as his Congressman from the 1st District, just as he 

serves as my State Attorney General. 

When Bill Pryor took office on January 2, 1997, he was the 

youngest Attorney General in the United States at the time. During his most recent campaign for re-election, the people of Alabama 

resoundingly indicated their approval of Bill’s work, as he garnered 

59 percent of the vote, the highest percentage of any statewide official on the ballot. 

Throughout the years, I have followed Bill’s career in the Attorney General’s office with pride, and I am especially pleased to note 

his efforts to reform Alabama’s Sentencing Guidelines and to step 

up the prosecution of white-collar crime. 

Bill Pryor believes that white-collar criminals should be apprehended and prosecuted to the same extent as all other criminals, 

and he firmly believes that racial disparity in sentencing is unacceptable. Equal crimes should receive equal punishment. 

Bill Pryor has led the fight on civil rights issues in Alabama. As 

Alabama’s Attorney General, Bill worked with the U.S. Attorney’s 

office to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan murderers Thomas Blanton 

and Bobby Frank Cherry for the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street 

Baptist Church that tragically killed four little girls. Moreover, Bill 

personally argued before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals 

to uphold the Blanton conviction. 

He authored the Alabama legislation that established cross burning as a felony, and he led the fight to abolish the Alabama Constitution’s antiquated ban on interracial marriages. 

Bill Pryor has gone above and beyond the duties of his office to 

improve the State of Alabama. As Attorney General, he started 

Mentor Alabama, a program to recruit positive adult role models 

for thousands of at-risk youth, 99 percent of which are African 

Americans. Throughout that program, Bill Pryor has served every 

week as a reading tutor for the children in the Montgomery, Alabama, public schools. 

I could elaborate for hours on Bill’s considerable record, but instead I believe it is more appropriate to defer to some of the people 

in our State that know Bill Pryor, that have worked with Bill 

Pryor, and that respect Bill Pryor. 

Mr. Chairman, I have with me today a letter written by State 

Representative Alvin Holmes, one of Alabama’s most distinguished 

civil rights leaders. Mr. Holmes has served in the Alabama House 

of Representatives for 28 years and has led the civil rights battle 

4

for African Americans, women, homosexuals, and other minorities. 

Here is what he has to say about Bill Pryor’s nomination: 

‘‘As one of the key civil rights leaders in Alabama who has participated in basically every major civil rights demonstration in 

America, who has been arrested for civil rights causes on many occasions, as one who was a field staff member for Dr. Martin Luther 

King’s SCLC, as one who has been brutally beaten by vicious police 

officers for participating in civil rights marches and demonstrations, as one who has had crosses burned in his front yard by the 

KKK and other hate groups, as one who has lived under constant 

threats day in and day out because of his stand fighting for the 

rights of blacks and other minorities, I request your swift confirmation of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit because of his constant 

efforts to help the causes of blacks in Alabama.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, it is the people of Alabama, the people that have 

served with him and have worked with him that know Bill Pryor 

the best, the same people I am privileged to be representing here 

today. They know his ability, his integrity, and his commitment to 

do the right thing, regardless of the pressures that some political 

groups—even members of his own political party—have tried to use 

on him. 

Bill Pryor is a friend and champion of the rights of all people, 

a principled man who has used his position as Alabama’s Attorney 

General to provide equality in sentencing, protect the common 

man, serve justice, and work for fairness and equality in the law. 

That is why I stand beside the people of my district who are so 

proud of their native son, and beside men like Representative Alvin 

Holmes and so many others, in recommending to this Committee 

that the nomination of William H. Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals be supported from both sides of the aisle. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Congressman Bonner. That is a 

very impressive and powerful statement on behalf of General 

Pryor. We are grateful to have you here and grateful that you took 

the time to come over. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. So we will let you go at this time. I know that 

you have a very tough schedule. So thank you. 

We will turn to you, Senator Sessions. 

PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. 

JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

Senator Shelby and Congressman Bonner and would note for the 

record that Representative Alvin Holmes, who is one of the most 

outspoken advocates for civil rights in the Alabama Legislature, 

wanted to be here and would have been here today, but the Legislature is in session today, as I understand it. 

Let me deal with— 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Shelby, if you need to go, too, we— 

Senator SHELBY. I am going to wait on the statement out of respect for my colleague. 

5

Chairman HATCH. Okay. That is fine. 

Senator SHELBY. And also Bill Pryor. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, a lot of things have been said 

here. We know that some advocacy groups have picked another target. They have picked Bill Pryor to be a nominee that they want 

to complain about. Some have suggested that he is an activist. I 

would say he is an active Attorney General, constantly and vigorously working to promote the legitimate and just interests of the 

State of Alabama and her people. But he is absolutely not an activist in the way that his opponents have defined that term and the 

way, Mr. Chairman, that this Senate has defined it in evaluating 

judicial nominees. 

As Attorney General, he must be an advocate. He has proven to 

be a great one. But even as Attorney General and even as an advocate, he has consistently followed the laws courageously, even when 

doing so brings him personal or political complaints from his 

friends or others. 

If members of this Committee would listen carefully to his testimony and would evaluate his real record—not the trumped-up 

charges that have been put out by out-of-the-mainstream groups 

that have taken his positions out of context—I think they would 

see something different. 

Why would the leading African-American Democrats—like 

Alabam Congressman Artur Davis, himself a Harvard graduate 

and a lawyer and a former Assistant United States Attorney, like 

Representative Joe Reed, Chairman of the Alabama Democratic 

Conference, a member of the National Democratic Committee, one 

of the most powerful political figures in the State for the last 30 

years, an individual who has taken the Federal judiciary extremely 

seriously, who has always watched judicial nominations and like 

Representative Alvin Holmes, whom I just mentioned—why would 

they support Pryor? They support him because he has not been as 

people have caricatured him. He has been a champion for liberty 

and civil rights. 

Much has changed in Alabama. We have more African-American 

office holders today than any other State. Today, I understand, 

marks the 40th anniversary of a sad day in which Governor George 

Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door. But you must note that Bill 

Pryor was not a part of that. First, he is just 41. Secondly, his parents were John F. Kennedy Democrats. And when he gave his inaugural speech after winning election as Attorney General with 59 

percent of the vote, he opened with these words. This is very telling 

to me. This is what he led with: ‘‘Equal under law today, equal 

under law tomorrow, equal under law forever.’’ 

Those words were a fitting conclusion to a period begun 40 years 

ago by a promise of segregation today, tomorrow, and forever. 

Bill is one of the good guys. He does the right thing. He has frequently refused pleas from his Republican friends when he thought 

the law did not support their position. For example, they rightly 

believed that the legislative district lines hurt their chances to 

have fair representation in the State legislature. They filed a voting rights suit, arguing against the majority-minority legislative 

districts. 

6

Bill not only would not take their side, he courageously led the 

case for the African-American position, losing at some steps along 

the way, even with the U.S. Court of Appeals, but eventually winning in the United States Supreme Court. That is why Alvin 

Holmes and Joe Reed respect Bill Pryor. 

Moreover, he has publicly and in legal briefs rejected the position 

of the Governor of the State of Alabama—the Governor who appointed him—on church-and-state issues. This is courageous action 

under difficult political circumstances. 

As to Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme 

Court, the fact is that Bill has defended his action of placing a 

monument of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court, but 

he would not agree to the way the Chief Justice wanted to argue 

that case. He had a more restrictive and limited argument he preferred to make, and eventually the Chief Justice had his own lawyers to argue the case and gone forward in that way. 

In fact, Bill Pryor did not support Chief Justice Moore in the last 

election. Instead, he supported Justice Harold See in a bruising Republican primary for the Chief Justice spot in Alabama. It is clearly false to suggest he is some unthinking tool of Chief Justice 

Moore or the Christian Right. 

So far as I can see, the only legal position he has taken as Attorney General on abortion, a practice that he abhors, has been to direct the Alabama district attorneys to give a very restrictive interpretation of Alabama’s partial-birth abortion law and to make clear 

he would vigorously prosecute anyone who committed terrorist acts 

against abortion clinics. 

While the controversy over school prayer was emotional and the 

people of Alabama became confused as a result of the Governor’s 

stated positions, the Governor felt like coaches ought to be able to 

lead their ball team in prayer. That was the way he saw it. But 

Attorney General Pryor, as the State’s chief law enforcement officer, objected. He sent all schools carefully drafted guidelines on 

what they could and could not do based on the holdings of the 

United States Supreme Court. His positions were far less expansive than the Governor’s. These were clear, practical guidelines and 

were praised by many, including the Atlanta Journal Constitution. 

Indeed, the Clinton Administration’s Department of Education 

later adopted guidelines almost identical to those written by Attorney General Pryor. 

There is no extremism here. He led the fight to win a statewide 

vote to eliminate an old constitutional amendment that prohibited 

interracial marriage. Not one single other politician, certainly not 

a white politician in Alabama, Republican or Democrat, was active 

in that struggle. He led that fight, and the people of Alabama removed that stain on our legal system. 

The caricature that the attack groups have created of Bill Pryor 

is just not true. It is false. He is a breath of fresh air. He is a leader of the future, not the past. Everyone in Alabama knows it. If my 

friends on this Committee will just listen and review the evidence 

carefully, you will come to this conclusion too. And he will be confirmed as he should be. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership. Senator Schumer, 

we look forward to the hearing. 

7

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate both of 

you Senators. That is high praise indeed to have you both here for 

General Pryor, and I am sure he is very grateful to you, as are we. 

So we appreciate the time you have taken out of your busy schedules to be here. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thanks so much. 

Chairman HATCH. General Pryor, if we could have you step forward? Please stand to be sworn. Do you affirm that the testimony 

you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Schumer and I will make our opening 

statements at this time, and then we will turn to you. Why don’t 

you sit in the middle if you could by the clock there. Thank you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Senator Hatch was saying get away from the 

right side there and move to the middle of the— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PRYOR. I am happy to do so, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. This side over here takes real offense at 

things like that, I have to tell you. 

I am pleased to welcome to the Judiciary Committee this morning the Attorney General of Alabama, William Pryor, whom President Bush has nominated to fill a judicial emergency on the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

Now, in his last election, General Pryor garnered more than 59 

percent of the vote, and if the letters of support for his nomination 

are any indication, the majority of Alabama people supporting him 

were not all Republicans. Let me share with you some of the letters 

that prominent Democrats have written about General Pryor. 

Joe Reed, Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, 

which is the State party’s African-American caucus, writes that 

General Pryor ‘‘will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe 

all races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come before him...I am a member of the Democratic National Committee 

and, of course, General Pryor is a Republican, but these are only 

party labels. I am persuaded that in General Pryor’s eyes, Justice 

has only one label—Justice!’’ 

Judge Sue Bell Cobb, who sits on the Alabama Court of Criminal 

Appeals, stated, ‘‘I write, not only as the only statewide Democrat 

to be elected in 2000, not only as a member of the Court which reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor’s work, but also as a 

child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder with General 

Pryor in the political arena on behalf of Alabama’s children. It is 

for these reasons and more that I am indeed honored to recommend General Pryor for nomination to the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals.’’ 

And Congressman Artur Davis encouraged President Bush to 

nominate General Pryor, declaring his belief that Alabama will be 

proud of his service. 

8

Now, I will submit copies of these letters for the record, along 

with copies of the other many letters from Democrats and Republicans, men and women, and members of the African-American, 

Jewish, and Christian communities who support Bill Pryor’s nomination. 

Now, it is fundamental that a State Attorney General has the obligation to represent and defend the laws and interests of the 

State. General Pryor has fulfilled this responsibility I think admirably by repeatedly defending the public fisc and the laws and policies enacted by the Alabama Legislature. But one of the reasons for 

the broad spectrum of support for General Pryor is his demonstrated ability to set aside his personal views and follow the law. 

As you will undoubtedly hear during the course of this hearing, 

General Pryor is no shrinking violet. He has been open and honest 

about his personal beliefs, which is what voters expect from the 

people whom they elect to represent them. Yet General Pryor has 

shown again and again that when the law conflicts with his personal and political beliefs, he follows the law. 

For example, in 1997, the Alabama Legislature enacted a ban on 

partial-birth abortion that could have been interpreted to prohibit 

abortions before viability. General Pryor is avowedly pro-life and 

has strongly criticized Roe v. Wade, so one might very well have 

expected General Pryor to vigorously enforce the statute. Instead, 

he instructed law enforcement officials to enforce the law only insofar as it was consistent with the Supreme Court’s precedents of 

Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, despite pressure from many Republicans to enforce broader language in the act. 

Here is another example: I am sure that we will hear today 

about General Pryor’s call for modification or repeal of Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act, which requires Department of Justice 

preclearance. By the way, General Pryor is not alone in his opinion 

of Section 5; the Democratic Attorney General of Georgia, Thurbert 

Baker, has called Section 5 an ‘‘extraordinary transgression of the 

normal prerogatives of the States.’’ Now, despite his opinion that 

Section 5 is flawed, General Pryor successfully defended before the 

Supreme Court several majority-minority voting districts approved 

under Section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. He also issued an opinion that the use of stickers to replace 

one candidate’s name with another on a ballot required 

preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Yet another example involves General Pryor’s interpretation of 

the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In an effort to defeat 

challenges to school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, both the Governor and the 

Chief Justice urged General Pryor to argue that the Bill of Rights 

does not apply to the States. General Pryor refused, despite his 

own deeply held Catholic faith and personal support for both of 

these issues. 

And here is my final example, and there are many others, but 

I will limit it to this: General Pryor supported the right of teachers 

to serve as State legislators, despite intense pressure from his own 

party, because he believed that the Alabama Constitution allowed 

them to do so. 

9

Now, these examples aptly illustrate why General Pryor’s nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support from persons like former 

Democratic Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley. He observed of 

General Pryor, ‘‘In every difficult decision he has made, his actions 

were supported by his interpretation of the law, without race, gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or any other 

competing interest affecting judgment.’’ Mr. Baxley continued, ‘‘I 

often disagree, politically, with Bill Pryor. this does not prevent me 

from making this recommendation because we need fair minded, 

intelligent, industrious men and women, possessed of impeccable 

integrity on the Eleventh Circuit. Bill Pryor has these qualities in 

abundance... There is no better choice for this vacancy.’’ 

During the course of this hearing, we will hear many things 

about Bill Pryor. We will hear many one-sided half-truths perpetuated by the usual liberal interest groups who will stop at nothing, 

it seems to me, to defeat President Bush’s judicial nominees. Now, 

I want to make sure that this hearing is about fairness and about 

telling the full story of Bill Pryor’s record and service. 

We will hear that General Pryor is a devout pro-life Catholic who 

has criticized Roe v. Wade, but the rest of the story is that many 

prominent Democrats, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 

former Stanford Dean John Hart Ely, who are pro-choice, have also 

criticized Roe without anyone questioning their recognition of it as 

a binding Supreme Court precedent. 

We will hear claims that General Pryor is against the disabled 

and elderly, but the real story is that General Pryor has done his 

duty as Attorney General to defend his State’s budget from costly 

lawsuits. Other State Attorneys General, including respected 

Democrats like Bob Butterworth of Florida and now Senator Mark 

Pryor of Arkansas, have taken the same positions as General Pryor 

in defending their States. And while the Supreme Court agreed 

with the Attorneys General in these cases that the Eleventh 

Amendment protects States from monetary damages in Federal 

court, these rulings did not affect—and General Pryor did not seek 

to weaken—other important methods of redressing discrimination, 

like actions for monetary damages under State law, injunctive relief, or back pay. 

We will hear claims that General Pryor’s criticisms of Section 5 

of the Voting Rights Act indicate a lack of commitment to civil 

rights. But the real story is that General Pryor has a solid record 

of commitment to civil rights, which includes defending majorityminority voting districts, leading the battle to abolish the Alabama 

Constitution’s prohibition on interracial marriage, and working 

with the Clinton administration’s Justice Department to prosecute 

the former Ku Klux Klansmen who perpetrated the bombing of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church, which resulted in the 

deaths of four little girls in 1963. 

We will no doubt hear other claims during the course of this 

hearing distorting General Pryor’s record or presenting only partial 

truths. And I want to urge my colleagues, and really everyone here, 

to listen closely so that the real story is heard. I think those who 

listen with an open mind may be surprised, and even impressed. 

And I look forward to hearing General Pryor’s testimony. 

10

Having said all that, you had an excellent record in law school. 

You have had an excellent record since law school. You have a 

record of honor and integrity. You have a record of speaking your 

mind, sometimes irritating everybody concerned or a lot of people, 

but standing up for what you believe the law really says and what 

the law really is. And I think you have won a lot of cases that some 

people might tend to criticize who don’t realize that you won them 

in the end. 

I just want to say that, knowing you and having spent some time 

with you, some extensive time with you, I am very impressed with 

you as a human being, as a person who is trying to do what is 

right, and as an Attorney General in this country who I think has 

stood up against a lot of special interest groups to do what is right 

and do what the law says should be done. And I hope my colleagues will feel the same at the end of this discussion. If they listen, I believe that they will. 

So, with that, we will have the statement of Senator Schumer, 

who is representing the minority here today, and then we will go 

with your statement and then questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first let me 

thank you for bringing the hearing down to this room, G50, accommodating some of those who are disabled, who very much wanted 

to be here. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Shelby and 

Sessions. They are both very well respected by people on both sides 

of the aisle, and their endorsement will certainly be weighed and 

weighed carefully. 

And finally, I just want to say something to the family of you, 

General Pryor. I see your two beautiful girls there, and I have two 

girls who are a little older now. 

There are going to be some tough questions asked here. That is 

our responsibility. But we want to tell you that our respect for your 

dad as a public servant and as a father and as a husband, this has 

no bearing on our view of him as a person. This is how we do it 

here, because many of us believe the views are more important or 

just as important or certainly very important, do not even have to 

say, speaking for all my colleagues, where they stand, and we have 

to elicit those views. So I just wanted the family to understand, 

and welcome them here as well. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, before I get into some of my concerns about 

General Pryor’s nomination, I want to note that earlier this week 

the Senate confirmed Michael Chertoff to the Third Circuit Court 

of Appeals. He is the 128th judge confirmed by the Senate since 

President Bush took office. That is 128 confirmed of 130 who have 

come to the floor. That is a 99 percent success rate. Again, to call 

the minority obstructionist because they have approved only 128 

over 130 leads to the almost absurd conclusion that the only way 

not to be obstructionist is to approve every single one of the President’s nominees. And hopefully later today we are going to confirm 

Richard Wesley from New York, from my State, to the Second Circuit. I know a little bit about Judge Wesley. He is a model nominee. He is conservative, no doubt about it, and based on the votes 

11

he took as a State legislator, it is a fair bet to say he is pro-life, 

but he is well within the mainstream. His personal views are sufficiently moderate that they do not get in the way of being a fair jurist. I start by nothing Wesley and Michael Chertoff and the remarkable success President Bush has had in getting his nominees 

confirmed by the Senate. Because of the hue and cry we hear from 

the White House and from across the aisle, you would think those 

numbers would be reversed and 99 percent of the nominees were 

stalled. Again, that is 128 confirmed against 2 we are opposing on 

the floor. 

I note all of this, not only to make sure the record is clear on 

this point, but again to state the obvious. When the President 

sends us nominees who are legally excellent, diverse and within 

the ideological mainstream, even though we may not agree with 

them on most issues, and those who will respect to the Senate’s 

constitutionally mandated coequal role in the process, the nominees 

pass through the Senate like a hot knife through butter. 

In reviewing the record of the nominee before us here today, I 

am disappointed to say, at least on reading the record—and I look 

forward to hearing the questions. I am disappointed to say that the 

nominee looks more like the 9 nominees I have personally voted 

against than the 119 that I have voted for, and I want to say to 

my colleagues, both my good friend from Utah and my good friend 

from Alabama, as well as the Congressman who was here, these 

views are not based on any interest groups. We all know that there 

are groups on the left and groups on the right who pressure. That 

is the American way. But my view, my worries about General Pryor’s record are based on statements he made, not based on that of 

any group. Looking at the record, it seems that it is almost unfair 

to say that he is like the 9 that I have opposed, because really in 

many ways, Attorney General Pryor looks like an amalgam of several of them. 

On States’ rights and women’s rights he looks a lot like Jeffrey 

Sutton and D. Brook Smith. On choice and privacy he looks a lot 

like Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. On gay rights he looks a lot 

like Timothy Tymkovich. On separation of church and State, he 

looks a lot like J. Leon Holmes and Michael McConnell. The list 

goes on. In a way, unfortunately, General Pryor’s views seem to be 

an unfortunate stitching together of the worst parts of the most 

troubling judges we have seen thus far. I would say this, the one 

nominee he does not seem to resemble is Miguel Estrada. That is 

because while we know very little about Mr. Estrada’s views, we 

know a lot about Mr. Pryor’s, and we respect his candor. Candor 

is necessary, but not sufficient, at least in my view, in terms of approving a nominee. And I know that, and I have an expectation, 

that you will answer our questions about those views. 

But I will say this, and I would caution my colleagues, it is just 

not enough to say, ‘‘I will follow the law.’’ Every nominee says that. 

And then we find when they get to the bench they have many different ways of following the law. And what I worry about, I do not 

like nominees too far left or too far right, because idealogues tend 

to want to make law, not do what the Founding Fathers said 

judges should do, interpret the law. And in General Pryor’s case his 

beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to 

12

believe, very hard to believe that they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, ‘‘I will follow the law,’’ and 

that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held 

views. 

We all know that judging is not a rote process. If it were, we 

would have computers on the bench instead of men and women in 

black robes. I would refer my colleagues to an article on the op-ed 

page of today’s New York Times, which shows that when those 

nominated by Democratic Presidents follow the law on cases of 

women’s rights, environmental rights, et. al, they seem to follow 

the law in completely different ways or many different ways than 

the way nominees of Republican Presidents follow the law. We all 

know that. So a person’s views matter. There is a degree of subjectivity, especially in close cases and controversies on hot-button 

issues, and it is hard to believe that the incredibly strong ideology 

of this nominee will not impact how he rules if confirmed. 

We will get into much of this when we have an opportunity to 

question the nominee, but I do want to take a moment to review 

some of the remarks that seem more disturbing that Attorney General Pryor has made and some of the more worrisome positions he 

has taken. As my colleagues know here, I have no litmus test when 

it comes to these nominees. My guess is that most, certainly many 

of the President’s judicial nominees have been pro-life, but I have 

voted for almost all of them because I have been persuaded they 

are committed to upholding the rule of law, and committed to upholding Roe v. Wade in particular. I for one believe that a judge 

can be pro-life, yet be fair, balanced, and uphold a woman’s right 

to choose, but for a judge to set aside his or her personal views, 

the commitment to the rule of law must clearly supersede his or 

her personal agenda. That is something some can pull off, but not 

everybody can. Judge Wesley, our Second Circuit nominee, has 

proven he can do it. 

But based on the comments Attorney General Pryor has made on 

this subject, I have got some real concerns that he cannot, because 

he feels these views so deeply and so passionately. Mr. Pryor has 

described the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade as, the creation—quote—this is not some liberal interest group quote; this is 

from General Pryor. He said it. Quote: ‘‘Roe v. Wade is a creation,’’ 

quote, ‘‘out of thin air of a constitutional right to murder an unborn 

child.’’ He has said that he, quote, ‘‘will never forget January 22nd, 

1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped up the 

Constitution.’’ Mr. Pryor has said he opposes abortion even in the 

cases of rape or incest, and would limit the right to choose to narrow circumstances where a woman’s life is at stake. He has described Roe as, quote, ‘‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’’ Worse than Plessy v. Ferguson, worse than Dred 

Scott, worse than Korematsu. It is a remarkable comment to make, 

and I have to say, I do respect you, Mr. Attorney General, for 

speaking your mind. 

But I am deeply concerned that any woman who comes before 

you, seeking to vindicate her rights, her constitutional rights as defined by the Supreme Court, will have a tough time finding objectivity with Bill Pryor. 

13

But my concerns about this nomination hardly begin and end 

with the choice issue. On gay rights the Attorney General believes 

it is constitutional to lock up gays and lesbians for having intimate 

relations in the privacy of their own homes. And he has equated 

gay sex with prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest and pedophilia. 

On criminal justice issues, whereas my colleagues know I tend 

to agree with the Republican side just about as often as I agree 

with the Democratic side, Attorney General Pryor defended his 

State’s practice of handcuffing prisoners to hitching posts in the 

hot Alabama sun for seven hours without giving them even a drop 

of water to drink. And then when this Supreme Court held the 

practice violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, he accused the Supreme Court Justices of, 

quote, ‘‘applying their own subjective views on appropriate methods 

of prison discipline.’’ 

Now, I am all for being tough on crime. I wrote on the House 

side the Capital Punishment Law, and the Three Strikes and 

You’re Out Law, but to say that seven hours handcuffed to a hitching post in the Alabama summer sun without a drink of water is 

cruel and unusual, is not unreasonable at all. To accuse this not 

so liberal Supreme Court of imposing subjective views in a case 

that extreme, well, let me just say that goes a bit far, at least as 

far as I am concerned. 

When it comes to separation of church and State, we have to be 

concerned as well. Again, I agree that some cases, in some cases 

courts have gone too far. I think the Ninth Circuit went off the 

deep end in the Pledge of Allegiance case. I personally am a deeply 

religious man. I believe that if we all behaved more in accord with 

traditional religious teachings, we would have a better, healthier 

and safer country. But the comments the Attorney General has 

made, coming from someone who if confirmed will be sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect the rights of all 

Americans regardless of their religious beliefs, they are troubling 

as well. 

When it comes to States’ rights, the record gets even more disturbing. Attorney General Pryor has been one of the staunchest advocates of the Rehnquist Court’s efforts to roll back the clock, not 

just to the 1930’s, but even to the 1880’s. He is an ardent supporter 

of an activist Supreme Court agenda, cutting back Congress’s 

power and the Federal Government’s power to protect women, 

workers, consumers, the environment and civil rights. For instance, 

on States’ rights, as Alabama’s Attorney General Mr. Pryor filed 

the only amicus brief from among the 50 states, urging the court 

to undo significant portions of the Violence Against Women Act. In 

commenting on that law, Attorney General Pryor said, quote, ‘‘One 

wonders why VAWA enjoys such political support, especially in 

Congress.’’ Well, I am one of the supporters of VAWA, and I am 

perplexed by that comment. One wonders why VAWA enjoys such 

political support? The millions of American women who have been 

beaten by their spouses? How can one wonder why we would want 

to protect women from violence, particularly when this issue had 

been swept under the rug for generations? It is another shocking 

statement that I find difficult to understand. 

14

Attorney General Pryor’s ardent support of States’ rights extends 

even to the realm of child welfare. At the same time he was conceding that Alabama had failed to fulfill the requirements of a Federal consent decree regarding the operation of the State’s child welfare system, he was demanding that the State be let out of the 

deal. It is not so much the position he took as the comments made 

afterward. Attorney General Pryor said, quote, ‘‘My job is to make 

sure the State of Alabama isn’t run by the Federal Courts. My job 

isn’t to come here and help children,’’ unquote. When a State fails 

to satisfy the requirements of Federal laws regarding the safety 

and welfare of children, I would say the Attorney General’s job is 

to first ensure the protection of those children, not to fight the involvement in Federal Court. I do not see that as a controversial 

proposition, but at least by these statements, General Pryor, not 

some interest group, apparently believes otherwise. 

The environment, same concerns. Bill Pryor was the lone State 

Attorney General to file an amicus brief arguing that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate 

intrastate waters that serve as a habitat for migratory birds. The 

Attorney General took this position despite decades of Supreme 

Court precedent and the Federal Clean Water Act standing for the 

contrary proposition. 

So you might think that Attorney General Pryor’s State right advocacy knows no bounds, but there is a limit. Bill Pryor was the 

only State Attorney General to file an amicus brief supporting the 

Supreme Court’s intervention in Florida’s election dispute during 

Bush v. Gore. It appears that when the Attorney General likes the 

outcome, he is on the States’ rights side, but in this important case, 

where the Supreme Court overruled the States’ position, there he 

was with Federal intervention. 

Contrast the approach in Bush v. Gore to what happened when 

it came to the push for the Supreme Court to limit the application 

of the Americans With Disabilities Act to the States. Mr. Pryor was 

the driving force behind the Garret case in which a nurse contracted breast cancer, took time off to deal with her illness, and 

when she returned found that in violation of the ADA she had been 

demoted. Attorney General Pryor believed the State university hospital where she worked had every right to demote Ms. Garret and 

managed to convince five Justices on the Supreme Court to agree 

with him. 

Mr. Pryor’s antipathy for the ADA is obvious from the many 

extra-judicial comments he has made on the subject. At one point 

he claimed that, quote, ‘‘When Congress passed the ADA in 1990 

all 50 States had laws on the books protecting the rights of the disabled. Congress passed the ADA as a ‘’me-too‘‘ approach, not as a 

way of protecting persons.’’ Sorry, the quotes are within his statement. ‘‘Congress passed the ADA approach, not as a way of persons 

who were ignored or left behind,’’ unquote. 

I have to say again as a Congressman, I was on the House side, 

who worked hard to get the ADA passed in the House, I find that 

comment somewhat offensive. I can only imagine what Senator 

Harkin, our leader on the ADA, would have to say to the nominee 

if he were asking questions here today. 

15

Bill Pryor has praised every one of the Court’s major States’ 

rights and federalism decisions over the past decade, literally 

cheering as law after law protecting millions of Americans has been 

peeled off the books. As he said 2 years ago in an address to the 

Federalist Society, that federalism is a, quote, ‘‘subject that is near 

and dear to my heart and to the heart of all members of the society,’’ unquote. Just a year earlier in another speech to the Federalist Society Mr. Pryor made these remarks, quote, ‘‘We are one 

vote away from the demise of federalism, and in this term the 

Rehnquist Court issued two awful rulings that preserved the worst 

examples of judicial activism, Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. Perhaps that means that our last real hope for federalism is the 

election of Governor George W. Bush as the President of the United 

States, since he has said his favorite Justices are Antonin Scalia 

and Clarence Thomas. I will end with my prayer for the next administration. Please, God, no more Souters.’’ 

I think that tells us a fair amount about where Mr. Pryor is coming from. If Bill Pryor becomes a judge, it seems hard to believe 

he will be a moderate. He will style himself, it would appear from 

his previous record and comments, after the most extreme and activist judges on the Federal bench. 

Now, a few years ago several of my colleagues on this Committee, including my good friend Orrin Hatch from Utah, opposed 

the nomination of another nominee to the Eleventh Circuit on the 

ground that she, quote, ‘‘would be an activist who would legislate 

from the bench,’’ unquote. I do not know how you can look at Bill 

Pryor’s record and not come to the same conclusion. I do not know 

if that is why he received a partial ‘‘not qualified’’ rating from the 

ABA or whether the ABA found something else to be concerned 

about. But for me, Attorney General Pryor’s record screams passionate advocate, and doesn’t so much whisper judge. 

Bill Pryor is a proud and distinguished ideological warrior. I respect that. That is part of America. But I do not believe the ideological warriors, whether from the left or the right, should predominate on the bench. They tend to make law, not interpret law, and 

that is not what any of us should want from our judges. 

Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to hearing Mr. Pryor address these issues. I mentioned to him I would ask some tough 

questions and raise some tough concerns. I would close by just saying that this appears to be another nomination that will divide us, 

not unite us. More than any administration in history, this White 

House is choosing judges through an ideological prism. I am disappointed we have to continue fighting these nominees who are 

chosen more for their allegiance to a hard-line ideological agenda 

than any other factor. 

If we have a Supreme Court nomination later this summer, I 

really hope we see a nominee who looks a lot more like Richard 

Wesley, a nominee all 100 Senators could support, and a lot less 

like someone straight out of the right-wing wheel house. As everyone knows, I believe in balance. If Mr. Pryor were nominated to a 

court with a heavy liberal tilt, maybe I would view this nomination 

differently. If there were eight Harlans on the court, I would love 

to see a Scalia on the court to provide some balance, and that 

maybe was the way it was 30 years ago. But as everyone knows, 

16

the Fifth Circuit is already one of the most conservative courts in 

the country, and at least given his previous record, Attorney General Pryor may be more conservative than the most conservative 

judges already serving on this imbalanced court. 

So in my view, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pryor has a tough row to hoe 

here. He will get a chance to make his case, but to me at least, on 

first inspection, this is one of the most troubling records we have 

seen thus far, and Mr. Pryor, at least to this one member, has to 

go a long way before he will convince me, and I think many of us, 

that he will be a fair, down-the-middle dispassionate judge for all 

Americans. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman HATCH. We will have no disturbances in here or I will 

have you removed. It is just that simple. We are going to run a 

very decent hearing, and we are just not going to have any more 

of that. So anybody who does that, I am directing the Sergeant of 

Arms to remove them from this room, on either side of this issue. 

This is an important hearing. It is for the Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals. 

Just one correction. We hear this, well, we Democrats have voted 

for 128 and we have only rejected 2. That is not quite the story, 

and I think people need to know this. Yesterday I was interested 

because former Senator Bob Griffin corrected me in our caucus 

meeting when I indicated that there has only been one filibuster 

in the history of the country of a Federal judge and that was Justice Fortas. He said that was not a filibuster. He said, literally, we 

had more votes up and down against Fortas that would have defeated it, and that nobody—and he gave me a letter with his comments, making it very clear that there was no desire on anybody’s 

part to filibuster, but to fully debate that at that particular time. 

In this particular case, over the last couple of years of this, actually 2–1/2 years of this President’s tenure, we have had years of 

delay for a number of Circuit Court nominees. Yes, we have been 

able to get through a lot of District Court nominees, but when it 

comes to circuit nominees, it has been very, very much of an ordeal. Miguel Estrada is just one. Priscilla Owen is another. We 

have had an indication they are going to filibuster Judge Pickering, 

going to filibuster Judge Boyle, who has now been sitting here for 

better than 2 years. By the way, Roberts, who just got through, and 

Boyle, have been sitting here for 12 years, nominated three times 

by two different Presidents. They could not even get a hearing in 

the 2 years when the Democrats controlled the Committee. Judge 

Carolyn Kuhl, there has been some indication there is going to be 

a filibuster there. The nominee, J. Leon Holmes, some indication 

of a filibuster there. There are four nominees from Michigan that 

are being held up for no reason other than that two Senators are 

irritated because they did not get their two judges during the Clinton years. I feel badly about that, but the fact of the matter is, they 

should not be holding up six Circuit Court nominees, four of them 

who they admit, I think, have admitted that they are qualified people. There have been large negative votes against a significant 

number of Circuit Court nominees by our friends on the other side, 

17

sending a message, do not send a conservative to the Supreme 

Court. 

You know, when you stop and think about it, it is not quite just 

128 versus 2. So I just wanted to correct the record on that so that 

we all understand that we are in a crisis here in the United States 

Senate. 

I also want people to understand, Mr. Pryor, I guess I might as 

well say this to you, you are an active person. I hope you will be 

given an opportunity by our colleagues on both sides to explain 

some of the statements you have made and why you have upheld 

the law, because you have. You do not get people like Senator Shelby coming here and praising you like he did, or Senator Sessions 

praising you like he did, unless you have upheld the law, even 

against your own viewpoints a number of times. You are a person 

of deep religious conviction. You believe very strongly in the Catholic faith, and you have said so publicly, and some of these criticisms 

come from your expressions of your own personal faith, which you 

have never, to my knowledge, allowed to interfere with what the 

law is. 

Now, we will see. Personally having chatted with you about a 

great number of these issues, you have not only reasonable explanations, but I think very good explanations for every criticism that 

could be brought your way. 

Now, having said all that, let us give you an opportunity to make 

your statement. I hope you will introduce your family to us, and 

then we will turn to questions. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today are my 

family, my spouse Kris, my daughters Caroline and Victoria, who 

are seated behind me. Thank you for the warm welcome. 

I have only something very brief that I would like to say. First, 

I want to thank the President of the United States for giving me 

the honor of being nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit. 

I want to thank the people of Alabama for giving me the privilege to serve as their Attorney General for the last 6–1/2 years. I 

want to thank Senator Sessions for the opportunities he afforded 

me, particularly while he was Attorney General. 

And finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the 

members of this Committee for giving me the opportunity to appear 

before you today and to answer your questions. Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Pryor follows:]

18


91200.001
19


91200.002
20


91200.003
21


91200.004
22


91200.005
23


91200.006
24


91200.007
25


91200.008
26


91200.009
27


91200.010
28


91200.011
29


91200.012
30


91200.013
31


91200.014
32


91200.015
33


91200.016
34


91200.017
35


91200.018
36


91200.019
37


91200.020
38


91200.021
39


91200.022
40


91200.023
41


91200.024
42


91200.025
43


91200.026
44


91200.027
45


91200.028
46


91200.029
47


91200.030
48


91200.031
49


91200.032
50


91200.033
51


91200.034
52


91200.035
53


91200.036
54


91200.037
55


91200.038
56


91200.039
57


91200.040
58


91200.041
59


91200.042
60


91200.043
61


91200.044
62


91200.045
63


91200.046
64


91200.047
65


91200.048
66


91200.049
67

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much. 

We have had a number of issues raised. Let us just hit a few of 

them, and I am sure we will have an opportunity on both sides, because I want this to be a lively debate. I want Senators on both 

sides to be able to ask any questions they want to, and I believe 

you can answer all of them between you and me, and we have 

spent hours together discussing some of these things. 

So let me just say you have openly criticized Roe v. Wade. Some 

will find that just awful. And you did use language, called it ‘‘the 

worst abomination in constitutional law in history,’’ and Senator 

Schumer brought up your statement, ‘‘I will never forget January 

22nd, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the 

Constitution.’’ But you also—well, let me just ask you, tell us about 

that. Tell us about why we should have you as a judge when you 

have criticized one of the hallmark opinions in the eyes of some, 

certainly not me, that has come forth in the last 40 years. 

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to 

answer that question. I have a record as Attorney General that is 

separate from my personal beliefs, and I have demonstrated as Attorney General that I am able to set aside my personal beliefs and 

follow the law, evenly when I strongly disagree with the law. 

In the context of the issue that you raised, abortion, a couple of 

years ago, actually several years ago in my first year as Attorney 

General, our legislature had passed a partial birth abortion law, 

and you mentioned earlier, there were at least a couple of different 

ways that that law could have been interpreted; it could have been 

broadly interpreted. I knew that when a lawsuit was filed in a Federal Court challenging the application of that law, that it was going 

to be a formidable challenge to defend the law in the light of the 

precedents of the Supreme Court in Roe and in Casey. I had an obligation as Attorney General, though before Stenberg, to make 

whatever reasonable argument I could in defense of that law, so 

long as it was consistent with those precedents. So looking at that 

law and looking at those precedents, I required, I ordered the district attorneys of Alabama to apply that law in the narrowest construction available, that is, only to post-viability fetuses, because 

that was my reading of the case law. It was an interpretation that 

disagreed with the position of the Governor, who appointed me, 

who was a party to the lawsuit. It was criticized by some pro-life 

activists in Alabama, but it was my best judgment of what the law 

required. 

Chairman HATCH. Even though you believe otherwise? 

Mr. PRYOR. Even though I believe strongly otherwise. I believe 

that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. I believe that 

abortion is morally wrong. I’ve never wavered from that, and in 

representing the people of Alabama, I have been a candid, engaged 

Attorney General, who has been involved in the type of— 

Chairman HATCH. What does that mean with regard to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals? If you get on that court, how are 

you going to treat Roe v. Wade? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, my record as Attorney General shows that I am 

able to put aside my personal beliefs and follow the law, even when 

I strongly disagree with it, to look carefully at precedents and to 

do my duty. That is the same duty that I would have as a judge. 

68

Now, as an advocate for the State of Alabama of course I have an 

obligation to make a reasonable argument in defense of the law, 

but as a judge I would have to do my best to determine from the 

precedents what the law actually at the end of the day requires. 

My record demonstrates that I can do that. 

Chairman HATCH. So even though you disagree with Roe v. Wade

you would act in accordance with Roe v. Wade on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals? 

Mr. PRYOR. Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade I 

have acted in accordance with it as Attorney General and would 

continue to do so as a Court of Appeals Judge. 

Chairman HATCH. Can we rely on that? 

Mr. PRYOR. You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just—you have had some criticism. Let 

me just bring up just a couple of them, because my time is going, 

and I am going to hold everybody to 10 minutes, and we will do 

various rounds so everybody will have a chance to ask whatever 

questions they want. 

I am one of the—it was Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women 

Act in the Senate. I took a very strong position on that bill, took 

a lot of criticism for it, because there were two different points of 

view with regard to that bill and how it was written. Now, you 

have been criticized because of litigation regarding the Violence 

Against Women’s Act, as though your position on that bill was improper. Now, tell me about that. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, my position, Mr. Chairman, was the position 

adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Morrison case. 

Chairman HATCH. In other words you followed not only the law, 

but you won in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 

Mr. PRYOR. The argument I presented was the position adopted 

by the Court, that’s right. 

Chairman HATCH. So if anybody is out of the mainstream here, 

it has to be the Supreme Court I guess. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I would suggest that the Court is within the 

mainstream. 

Chairman HATCH. I think so too. That is the point I am trying 

to make. The fact is, is that, yes, you can be criticized because you 

criticized a portion of the Violence Against Women’s Act, believing 

that you were right and you were proven right in the Supreme 

Court, which is the law of the land, just as much as Roe v. Wade, right? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. So anybody that suggests that you were not 

following the law and that you went outside the mainstream happens to be wrong. 

Mr. PRYOR. I believe so. 

Chairman HATCH. I think the Supreme Court believes so too. 

Now, I disagreed with the Supreme Court on that issue, but it is 

the law, and I accept it. So we have tried to go back to the legislative table and rework it, and we will try and do that. 

Let me just give you a couple of others that are important. Your 

record on race is commendable, and I quoted Alvin Holmes, and so 

did others here today including the two Senators from Alabama 

69

and the Congressman, the black representative for Alabama House 

of Representatives for 20 years. He said, ‘‘During my time of service I have led most of the fights for civil rights of blacks, women, 

lesbians and gays and other minorities,’’ unquote. Representative 

Holmes, in his letter to us, lists a number of your accomplishments 

on race that I would just like to ask you about in my remaining 

three minutes, three-and-a-half minutes. In addition to your defense of majority/minority districts, which we have already discussed, or at least I have discussed it, you worked with Doug Jones 

who was President Clinton’s U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama to convict two former Klansmen for the bombing 

of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963; is that correct? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s correct. I actually appointed him as a deputy 

Attorney General to do that prosecution. 

Chairman HATCH. Four little girls were killed in that particular 

despicable act of terror, am I right? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s right. 

Chairman HATCH. You personally argued to uphold the conviction of one of the murderers on May 20th of this year, just a few 

weeks ago before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals; am I 

right on that? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, you were instrumental in creating the 

Alabama Sentencing Commission, which Representative Holmes 

applauded for its purpose of ending racial disparities and criminal 

punishments. Am I right on that? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s right. 

Chairman HATCH. In the year 2000 Representative Holmes, this 

great black leader in Alabama, introduced a bill in the Alabama 

legislature to amend the State Constitution to repeal Alabama’s 

prohibition of interracial marriages. He writes, quote, ‘‘Every 

prominent white political leader in Alabama, both Republican and 

Democrat, opposed my bill or remained silent except Bill Pryor, 

who openly and publicly asked the white and black citizens of Alabama to vote and repeal such racist law. It was passed with a slim 

majority among the voters, and Bill Pryor later successfully defended that repeal when the leader of a racist group called the 

Confederate Heritage sued the State to challenge it,’’ unquote. Is 

he right on that? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, General Pryor, you were committed to 

ending Alabama’s ban on interracial marriage from the moment 

you took office, were you not? 

Mr. PRYOR. I was. 

Chairman HATCH. In fact, I understand that you discussed in 

your first inaugural address, I think you stated—let me get an actual quote. ‘‘Any provision of the Constitution of Alabama or for 

that matter the Code of Alabama, that classifies our citizens or any 

persons on the color of their skin, their race, should be stricken,’’ 

unquote. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s what I said. 

Chairman HATCH. In addition you started Mentor Alabama. 

Could you please explain that for a minute? 

70

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. Mentor Alabama is a program designed 

to recruit positive adult role models for thousands of at-risk children in our State. We’ve recruited more than 3,700 mentors for atrisk children in every county of Alabama. And I work as a reading 

tutor in the Montgomery County Public Schools. I have for the last 

3 years as part of that initiative, as I encourage others to do the 

same. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just say finally, Representative 

Holmes notes that a bill he sponsored to establish cross burning as 

a felony passed the State House in May 15th of this year; is that 

right? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, he observes, quote, ‘‘That bill was written by Bill Pryor, and he was the only white leader in Alabama 

that openly and publicly supported it.’’ Did you write that bill, General Pryor? 

Mr. PRYOR. I did. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, General Pryor, I think you can take 

some of your statements out of context and make a big fuss about 

them, and I think we have to look at the record and what you have 

stood for and what you have done. I think if people will do that and 

do that fairly, they will realize that you are a person who can set 

aside your personal, your very heartfelt personal views and go from 

there. 

Now, my time is up. 

I am going to interrupt everybody at 10 minutes, but we will 

have enough rounds so everybody will have an opportunity to ask 

the questions they want. 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you for having this hearing, where we can fully question witnesses, 

and we are having just one witness here, and this is how it ought 

to be done, and we very much appreciate that. 

Chairman HATCH. I appreciate you. 

Senator SCHUMER. My first question is, I want to go back to that 

speech you gave, Attorney General, to the Federalist Society in 

2000, where you said, ‘‘We are one vote away from the demise federalism, and in this term the Rehnquist Court issued two awful 

rulings that preserved the worst examples of judicial activism, Miranda and Roe. Perhaps that means that our real last hope for federalism is the election of Governor George W. Bush as President 

of the United States, since he has said his favorite Justices are 

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. I will end with my prayer for 

the next administration. Please, God, no more Souters,’’ unquote. 

And one other comment you made to a journalist in 2000. Just 

after Bush v. Gore was decided, you said, ‘‘I’m probably the only 

one who wanted it 5 to 4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full 

appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection, so we can have 

no more appointments like Justice Souter,’’ unquote. 

I take it from these comments and others that you have made 

in the past few years, you believe that a judge’s ideology does at 

least in some circumstances drive how he rules on cases. I appreciate your candor in this regard, and the evidence supporting that 

position is more or less irrefutable now. The new case study by ProVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
71

fessor Sunstein, excerpted in today’s New York Times, provides empirical evidence for what I think you and I and pretty much everyone else in the room knows to be true, that ideology all too often 

drives how judges rule in particular cases. To my eye Justice 

Souter is a paragon of moderation. He was appointed by of course 

a Republican President. He appears to be a judge who does not 

have a strong personal ideology that drives his decision making. 

You disagree. Why? What’s wrong with Justice Souter? Are you 

hostile to Justice Souter because he has not hewed the party line? 

Do you believe Justice Souter is trying to implement a personal 

ideological agenda from the bench? 

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Senator. In the context of the first remark that you quoted, which was an accurate quotation and in 

which I said, ‘‘Please, God, no more Souters,’’ that was my perhaps 

feeble attempt at humor at the very last comment in a speech in 

which I had earlier criticized a dissenting opinion of Justice Souter 

in a case in which I had been involved. 

I have on several occasions disagreed with Justice Souter’s interpretations of the law, particularly in cases in which I have been involved. And my comments are meant only in that light. It’s certainly not meant as any personal animus toward Justice Souter 

who’s had a— 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you think he is too liberal? Do you think 

ideology motivates him in how he rules, or is he just following the 

law? 

Mr. PRYOR. The only thing I can say is that on several different 

occasions I have disagreed with his interpretations of the law. 

Senator SCHUMER. So you think that—I mean you are saying you 

will follow the law. I am sure he says he is following the law. Is 

not ideology a motivating factor here? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know what is motivating Justice Souter. 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you think he is out of the mainstream? 

Mr. PRYOR. I wouldn’t use those terms. I would say that his interpretations in several cases in which I have personally been involved are different from mine, and I have disagreed with them. 

And the—I am an active, engaged Attorney General. I criticize rulings of the Supreme Court. I praise rulings. I share those views 

and my values with the people of Alabama who elect me. And I 

think that’s part of our role as lawyers and advocates in the legal 

system, and in making it better. And in that context there have 

been several occasions where I have disagreed with Justice Souter’s 

opinions. 

Senator SCHUMER. Why Souter more than—I don’t think Souter 

is regarded as any more liberal than the other three Justices who 

are regarded as sort of on the more liberal side, Ginsburg, Breyer 

and Stevens. Why have you always sort of singled out Souter in 

your comments? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, in the context of the speech that you mentioned, where I said, ‘‘Please, God, no more Souters,’’ I had specifically criticized his dissenting opinion in Morrison, which has already been discussed today, was the case involving one part of the 

Violence Against Women Act. 

Senator SCHUMER. But the comments seem to go beyond just one 

case. 

72

Mr. PRYOR. It’s only— 

Senator SCHUMER. Especially the one on the other one, ‘‘We 

should have no more appointments like Souter so everyone can appreciate’’—you are sort of saying how bad he is. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, there have been two—those were two cases 

that I was in specific reference to, one in which he had written an 

opinion and the other in which he had written an opinion, and I 

disagreed with those opinions. 

Senator SCHUMER. But why did you pick Souter? On all those 

cases he had— 

Mr. PRYOR. Not everyone wrote an opinion in those cases. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. But Justice Breyer did write one in the 

Violence Against Women Act. 

Mr. PRYOR. Okay. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. But again, you think Souter is within 

the mainstream? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know if I’m the evaluator of who is in the 

mainstream or not. 

Senator SCHUMER. I know, but what is your opinion? We are just 

asking you your opinion. 

Mr. PRYOR. I think he’s had a distinguished career as a jurist, 

and, and you know, I think there’s a pretty broad definition of 

what constitutes the mainstream, and he would certainly be included in it. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Let me ask you this one. Again, you 

have fervent personal beliefs on Roe v. Wade. Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Senator SCHUMER. And I respect those. I mean I am friends with 

the Bishop in our community who says the rosary outside an abortion clinic, and I respect his right to do it. But please, what can 

you say? I mean you feel this so passionately and you have said 

repeatedly abortion is murder. What can you say today that will 

give comfort to a woman who might come before you trying to control the destiny of her body, trying to exercise her fundamental 

rights? Would it not be logical that she would be concerned that 

you would be looking for a way, quote, ‘‘within the confines of the 

law’’—because everyone looks that way, no judge will admit they 

are going outside the law—to deny her that right to choose? I mean 

how do you square feeling so vehemently. Many people believe 

abortion is wrong, but when you believe it is murder, how can you 

square that with—or how can you give comfort to women throughout America, the majority of whom believe in the right to choose, 

that you can be fair and dispassionate? I do not think it is enough, 

as I mentioned earlier, for us to simply hear you say, ‘‘I will follow 

the law.’’ What can you say directly to that woman, not in a legal 

way, but in a personal way, that might reassure her? 

Mr. PRYOR. I would say that that woman should be comforted by 

looking at my record as Attorney General, by looking at the fact 

that though I have vehemently disagreed with Roe v. Wade on the 

one hand, as Attorney General, where I’ve had a constitutional 

duty to uphold and enforce the law on the other hand, I have done 

my duty. And in the context specifically of when the Alabama partial birth abortion law was challenged, that law could have been interpreted in at least a couple of different ways, I looked at the 

73

precedents of the Supreme Court in Roe and in Casey, and gave the 

narrowest construction available to that law, and ordered the district attorneys of Alabama to enforce it only in that narrowest construction. 

Senator SCHUMER. Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is quote, ‘‘the worst abomination in the 

history of constitutional law.’’ A) Do you believe that as of right 

now? 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Senator SCHUMER. I appreciate your candor, I really do. And second, would you endorse the Court’s reversing Roe v. Wade at the 

first opportunity, just as you argued for the Court to constrict the 

Violence Against Women Act and you got five Justices to agree 

with you? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, obviously, if I had the opportunity to be a 

Court of Appeals Judge, I wouldn’t be in the position to do that, 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. But right now as a person would you endorse 

the Court’s reversing Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity? 

Mr. PRYOR. Senator, I don’t know what that opportunity would 

be, and that is a hard thing to speculate about unless I know more 

about what the case involves. I would say— 

Senator SCHUMER. Let’s say this case is pretty much a rehearing 

of Roe. It comes up to the Court. They accept it. Would you endorse 

the Court reversing Roe? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I’ll tell you this, in the context of the Stenberg 

case, when it was presented to the Supreme Court of the United 

States, the Attorney General of Nebraska at the time was a very 

dear friend of mine named Don Stenberg, and he presented two 

questions before the Supreme Court, and one of the questions he 

presented was an invitation for the Court to overrule Roe. I called 

him up and urged him not to include that question in his petition. 

So I would say that in that instance, I did not do that. 

Senator SCHUMER. Just one quick. ‘‘If you believe—this is what 

we have a hard time squaring, myself, I think some others—if you 

believe that Roe is the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law, it would seem to me to directly follow that you would 

want the Court to reverse Roe. It is a contradiction. You just said 

a minute ago that you believe that is still the case, and now you 

are saying you would not endorse the Court reversing it. It does 

not add up. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, Senator, all I can tell you is that the last time 

the Court had that opportunity, I urged my colleague not to 

present that question to the Court. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. You had better get closer to the mike. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, General Pryor, I want to welcome you 

here for this hearing. I guess you know you are in for a rough ride. 

But one of the things that I admire about you is that I believe you 

are a man of courage and a person of character, and someone who 

is not afraid to run away, or who is not willing to run away from 

74

strongly-held beliefs. I also believe that you are a person who cannot be pressured or intimidated, and I believe your record as Attorney General has demonstrated that. 

I also believe or happen to believe, in contrast to some of the suggestions made by Senator Schumer, that your record is inconsistent 

with someone who is able to show that same courage and demonstrate that same character, and refuse to be pressured or intimidated in your new role as a member of the Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals. Can you describe briefly how you see yourself making 

that transition, and perhaps answer for those who have never had 

to change a constitutional role because of their service in a different branch of government, how you can reconcile that? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, it’s a transition that I would relish and welcome. I can think of no higher calling for an American than to 

serve as a Federal Judge in the American system of government 

and to have the responsibility of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. I would leave behind an active public service of a different kind, where I have been a politician, I have 

been an elected official and run for office and had to share my values with the people of Alabama and to defend their laws and institutions in our State Government, to do it without fear of favor, and 

to do it to the best of my ability. 

Now, sometimes that means, as I’m sure you recall from your 

service as a State Attorney General, Senator, that you have to 

make arguments that you think are reasonable in the defense of 

your State, but not necessarily the one that ought to prevail in the 

end in resolving a controversy, and that it is probably not going to 

be the prevailing argument, but that you owe it to your client, the 

State Government, to make that argument and to let the Court decided. I wouldn’t have that role any more. 

I would have the role of making that tough final decision of resolving the controversy in accordance with the law to the best of 

my ability, honestly and diligently, quietly, and listening to all 

sides, reading the briefs, becoming familiar with the facts of any 

case, reading all the applicable case law, and hearing from my colleagues in arriving at a decision. 

Senator CORNYN. I know Senator Schumer, when he was asking 

questions, said that it is almost irrefutable that judges will demonstrate an ideology on the bench, and so we ought to just face that 

and try to achieve some sort of ideological balance on any given 

court. He also said it is not enough to say, ‘‘I will follow the law,’’ 

which I fundamentally disagree with, having been in a position of 

being an Attorney General and having been a judge before, knowing that you change when you put your hand on the Bible and you 

take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 

States and our respective States in that capacity. But I do believe 

that more than just your statement that you would follow the law, 

that your record of enforcing the law, even though you might not 

agree with it, demonstrates the seriousness with which you approach your oath and recognize your duty. I think one of the things 

that you and I probably see eye-to-eye on is that judges who substitute their view, their personal view, whether it be a personal or 

political or any other agenda for what the law is, become lawVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
75

makers and thereby become law breakers. Could you perhaps state 

your own view in that regard? 

Mr. PRYOR. I couldn’t agree more with that statement, Senator. 

That goes to the absolute core of my beliefs about the legal system 

and the role of the judiciary. The judiciary has a profound and 

humble, but vitally important role in interpreting the law and following the law, and putting aside personal beliefs and ensuring 

that the law has been faithfully executed, according to the real lawmaker, which is the legislature, or in the event of an interpretation 

of our highest law, the Constitution, by virtue of the people themselves. 

Senator CORNYN. I appreciate that statement. I believe that the 

character and courage really you have shown and the willingness 

to resist intimidation, and perhaps those who have expressed displeasure at your enforcement activities as Attorney General can derive some confidence that you will show the same character and 

commitment to the law, and refuse to be intimidated or pressured 

in discharging your responsibilities as a member of the Eleventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals. 

I know the—we have had some comment throughout my short 

service on the Judiciary Committee, and the debate we are currently engaged in about the use of a filibuster to prevent a up or 

down vote by a bipartisan majority of the Senate on at least two 

judicial nominees, and I just—I need to say that while some tout 

the fact that 128 of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been 

confirmed, the fact remains that 2 are the targets of, in my opinion, 

an unconstitutional use of the filibuster. I do not see how anybody 

can be particularly proud of that because the Constitution being 

violated two times is, in my opinion, two times too many. And of 

course we are engaged within the Senate, as I think we should be, 

to try to resolve those differences now, and I am hopeful that the 

rule change that Senator Frist has offered and which I have cosponsored along with a bipartisan group of Senators, gets a favorable decision in the Rules Committee and then on the floor, but 

frankly, it is going to be a little bit uphill. 

But it strikes me as very odd, when you look at the charts that 

are sometimes displayed about how many of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been confirmed, to hear out of the same mouth 

somebody who claims that President Bush is intent on appointing 

hard liners—those who have a hard-line ideological agenda, and so 

to me those are inconsistent, and I believe it is our obligation as 

Senators and under the Constitution to give an up or down vote to 

any nominee who comes before the Committee or before the Senate, 

and I hope that is the case in your instance. Obviously, each Senator is entitled under their oath, and according to the dictates of 

their conscience to vote as they see fit, but I am hopeful that you 

will have the opportunity to have the merits of your nomination debated not only in this Committee but on the floor of the Senate and 

that you receive the confirmation you deserve. 

I believe your testimony here today and that you view the role 

as an advocate, your current job as Attorney General, far differently from that of a Federal Judge, and when you do put your 

hand on the Bible and take that oath, that you will hang up your 

76

boxing gloves, your instruments as an advocate, and you will accept 

and embrace your new responsibility as a judge and follow the law. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Attorney General. 

I am one that believes that an individual can be an advocate, can 

be counsel, and can relinquish those views and be a good, fair, impartial judge. However, I must say this, in this case my theory is 

really put to a test, and I want to let you know why and ask a couple of questions. 

Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong views 

which continue and come out in a number of different ways. Your 

comments about Roe make one believe, could he really, suddenly, 

move away from those comments and be a judge? Your comments 

on voting rights, on church/State, Miranda, your comment about 

Justice Souter, your comments about Federal involvement, that the 

Federal Government should not be involved in education or street 

crime are just some example. So let me begin with a couple of questions. Let me do the first one on church and State. 

One of the greatest ideals of our country is religious freedom and 

the religious pluralism that it fosters, and in a graduation speech 

to McGill-Toolen Catholic High School in 1997, I want to quote 

something you said. And I quote: ‘‘The American experiment is not 

a theocracy and does not establish an official religion, but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States 

are rooted in a Christian perspective of the nature of government 

and the nature of man. The challenge of the next millennium will 

be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its christian 

perspective.’’ 

What are others to think of that statement, as to how you would 

maintain something that is important to this plural society, and 

that is an absolute separation of church and State? 

Mr. PRYOR. I would invite anyone to look at my record as Attorney General, Senator, and see how I have faithfully applied the law 

in the area of the First Amendment. 

I do believe that we derive our rights from God as stated in the 

Declaration, and that’s what I was referring to in that speech. But 

in my first 2 years as Attorney General, we had a long-running 

battle about religious expression in the public schools of Alabama. 

The Governor who appointed me took the position that the First 

Amendment didn’t apply to the States, that the Federal courts had 

no jurisdiction in this matter. On the other hand, a Federal district 

court ruled that not only could we not have teacher-led or schoolsponsored religious expression or religious activity, but the school 

officials actually had a responsibility of censoring student-initiated 

religious expression at school-sponsored events. 

I chartered an appeal from that ruling that rejected the arguments of both sides and adopted the argument—the position, the 

precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States. And that 

was that school-sponsored religious expression and religious activity was improper, was a violation of the First Amendment, as interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
77

preted by the Supreme Court, but that the First Amendment also 

protected genuinely student-initiated religious expression. 

That’s the argument that I made in the Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with 

it. It was then taken to the Supreme Court of the United States 

by the plaintiffs who were represented by the ACLU, and after the 

Doe case, the high school football game prayer case by the Supreme 

Court, they asked the Eleventh Circuit to take another look at that 

decision, which they did. And I advocated the position that I did 

before, which was there could be no school-sponsored, governmentsponsored religious activity, but that private religious expression, 

genuinely student-initiated religious expression, was fully protected 

by the First Amendment. 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed again for the second time with that argument and reinstated its opinion. The plaintiffs then brought the case back to the Supreme Court of the 

United States, which then denied certiorari. 

That’s my record as Attorney General, Senator, and that’s what 

I would invite people to look at. I understand my obligation to follow the law, and I have a record of doing it. You don’t just have 

to take my word that I will follow the law. You can look at my 

record as Attorney General and see where I have done it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then why would you make a comment like 

that in a speech? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, in part, one of my concerns at the time was 

that in the very case that I mentioned, where the Federal district 

court injunction required school officials to censor the religious expression of the students, but then—at many school-sponsored 

events, but then would allow religious expression in other more 

limited circumstances, it was my perspective that it was as if the 

government was picking and choosing when we had, as individual 

citizens, as private citizens, the right of religious freedom. And I 

thought that was topsy-turvy. I thought that was exactly the opposite of the view of the Constitution. 

So it’s that kind of perspective that I disagreed with. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. That is just not what you 

said. Let’s go on to voting rights. 

In 1997, you testified before this Committee on the subject of judicial activism, and in your opening statement at that time, you 

specifically mentioned Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the centerpiece of the legislation, as a source for the abuse of Federal 

power. And you encouraged its repeal or amendment because you 

said it is ‘‘an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that 

has far outlived its usefulness.’’ 

However, since the enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has disagreed with your 

view of Section 5. Time and again the Court has recognized that 

guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential 

to our democracy. Even as recently as in 1999, in the case of Lopez

v. Monterey County, the Court squarely held that any intrusion on 

State sovereignty under Section 5 is fully justified by the imperative to enforce the 15th Amendment’s prohibition of race discrimination in voting. 

78

Can you please explain why you believe that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unnecessary and a burden that has outlived its 

usefulness? 

Mr. PRYOR. My comments, of course, were not directed to any 

court but to Congress itself, which has to make the final decisions 

on reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As Attorney General, my record has been consistently to enforce Section 5 

of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act is, in my judgment, 

one of the most important and necessary laws in the history of the 

United States, and I support it. And I support the absolute fact 

that Section 5 was a necessary provision nearly 40 years ago when 

Congress was faced with the massive racial discrimination in election systems, particularly in my State and other parts of the Deep 

South. 

Having said that, we have come a long way nearly 40 years from 

then, and now if we want to move a polling place from a school on 

one side of a street to a firehouse on another side of the street, we 

have to get permission from the Department of Justice to do so. It’s 

routinely granted, but I have watched in my own capacity as Attorney General as members of my own political party and white voters, who I don’t think were designed by Congress to be protected 

by this law, have used Section 5 as a sword in litigation for their 

own political opportunity. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you believe it is an affront to federalism 

and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, I believe that it has outlived its usefulness. I 

have, nevertheless, as Attorney General actively enforced that law 

and would continue to do so if I had the privilege of serving as a 

judge. I have done that. I have a record of doing that. And I think 

Congress should look at Section 5. But that does not lessen in any 

way my commitment to the core of the Voting Rights Act, which 

is Section 2, which, of course, prohibits dilution of minority voting 

strength, and I fully support Section 2 and believe it remains a 

necessary law in our country. But this law that requires us to get 

permission for even minor changes in our election system I think 

could use some careful inspection by Congress. But my record is in 

enforcing that provision as Attorney General, and it would be my 

record if I had the opportunity to be a judge. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Now, one last question quickly. You 

made a statement about the New Deal, the Great Society, and the 

growing Federal bureaucracy, saying that we have strayed too far 

in expansion of Federal Government at the expense of both individual liberty and free enterprise. And then you say, ‘‘Congress, for 

example, should not be in the business of public education, nor the 

control of street crime.’’ 

What do you mean by that? 

Mr. PRYOR. I believe that the primary and overwhelming responsibility for public education and the curtailment of ordinary criminal activity ought to be at the State and local level, and it is— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it is. And it is. 

Mr. PRYOR. And it is at the State and local level. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then why would you feel that Congress, for 

example, shouldn’t pass a title of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act that provides money for poor children in the schools 

79

of America or why we shouldn’t pass a crime bill that would put 

cops on the streets of our cities? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I didn’t oppose those specific pieces of legislation, Senator— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No— 

Mr. PRYOR. —and I do think that one of the things that Congress 

must do in being very careful about respecting the good work that 

can be done at the State and local level is that it not become overcentralized in the work in those areas, that it be supportive of the 

States but it not take over the work of the States. There has been 

more and more legislation in that area, and in my judgment, Congress needs to be careful about balancing that. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, your time is up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Chambliss? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, normally I don’t make statements when we have 

nominees under consideration, but Attorney General Pryor happens 

to be a neighbor to my State and is very well thought of, very well 

respected by my Attorney General, who I have great respect for; 

and this nomination also is to the circuit that serves my State of 

Georgia. So there are certain things that I would like to put in the 

record. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a very impressive nominee, so I do appreciate the opportunity to voice my strong support for the nomination 

of Alabama’s distinguished Attorney General, Bill Pryor, to the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. His legal intellect is unmatched, 

and he has a zeal for the law that is unquestioned, as we have already seen by the questions that have been asked of him today. 

After graduating at the top of his class at Tulane Law School 

where he served as editor-in-chief of the Law Review, he practiced 

a number of years at two of Alabama’s most prestigious law firms, 

specializing in commercial and employment litigation. He then 

served under our distinguished colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions, in 

the Alabama Attorney General’s office as Deputy Attorney General 

in charge of civil and constitutional matters. Without question, Attorney General Pryor has the legal capacity to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. 

Yet, Mr. Chairman, to my surprise, there are some detractors 

here today. I am surprised not only because of Attorney General 

Pryor’s excellent qualifications but especially given the ringing 

pledge of support from Thurbert Baker, the Democratic Attorney 

General from my State of Georgia. Attorney General Baker was 

first appointed in 1997 to his position by then Governor of Georgia 

and now our esteemed colleague, Senator Zell Miller. Attorney 

General Baker has since been re-elected twice by the people of my 

State. He has a perspective unique from any of those who oppose 

Attorney General Pryor here today because he has worked right beside Attorney General Pryor on issues of great concern to both our 

respective States and to this Nation. 

80

Attorney General Baker’s support for Bill Pryor represents the 

belief of the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Georgia 

that this nominee possesses the qualities and experiences needed 

to serve the people of Georgia on the Eleventh Circuit. 

In a letter written to Senators Sessions and Shelby, Attorney 

General Baker had high praise for Mr. Pryor. I would now like to 

share a few of those comments with the Committee. Mr. Chairman, 

I also ask that Attorney General Baker’s letter be added to the 

record at this point. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, it will be. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. In his letter, Attorney General Baker states, 

‘‘Bill has distinguished himself time and again with legal acumen 

that he brings to issues of national or regional concern as well as 

with his commitment to furthering the prospects of good and responsive government.’’ 

Thurbert Baker also lauded Attorney General Pryor’s positions 

on crime, saying, ‘‘Bill has made combating white-collar crime and 

public corruption one of the centerpieces of his service to the people 

of Alabama...Bill has fought to keep law enforcement in Alabama 

armed with appropriate laws to protect Alabama’s citizens, pushing 

for tough money laundering provisions and stiff penalties for trafficking in date rape drugs.’’ 

‘‘Time and again as Attorney General, Bill has taken on public 

corruption cases in Alabama, regardless of how well connected the 

defendant may be, to ensure that the public trust is upheld and the 

public’s confidence in government is well founded.’’ 

Again I quote Attorney General Baker: ‘‘He has always done 

what he thought was best for the people of Alabama. Recognizing 

a wrong that had gone on far too long, he took the opportunity of 

his inaugural address to call on an end to the ban on interracial 

marriages in Alabama law. Concerned about at-risk kids in Alabama’s schools, he formed Mentor Alabama, a program designed to 

pair volunteer mentors with students who needed a role model and 

an attentive ear to the problems facing them on a daily basis.’’ 

Again, Thurbert Baker concludes in his letter, ‘‘These are just a 

few of the qualities that I believe will make Bill Pryor an excellent 

candidate for a slot on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. My 

only regret is that I will no longer have Bill as a fellow Attorney 

General fighting for what is right. But I know that his work on the 

bench will continue to serve as an example of how the public trust 

should be upheld.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, those are not positions that people in the Deep 

South necessarily have adhered to over the years, and I think it is 

remarkable that a man of Attorney General Pryor’s stature would 

take on those tough subjects. And I could not agree more with my 

State’s Attorney General. A close review of Attorney General Pryor’s record demonstrates that he has been a champion for justice. 

In the area of crime prevention and administration of justice in 

Alabama, Bill Pryor has been a fair and impartial leader for all 

citizens of his State, making his decisions based on the law and not 

politics. He has fought corruption by cracking down on dishonest 

government employees of all political ideologies. He established a 

new division in the Attorney General’s office designed to specifically investigate, prosecute, and defend Alabamians from public 

81

corruption and white-collar crime, problems that plague every single State. He even secured the conviction and imprisonment of a 

Republican former director of the Alabama Department of Transportation and two lobbyists on bribery charges. 

His crackdown on corruption in statewide politics was saluted by 

the Montgomery Advertiser as having an ‘‘absence of partisanship’’ 

as he had successfully targeted Democrats and Republicans, blacks 

and whites, for ballot fraud. 

In addition to working to eliminate corruption in Alabama, Attorney General Pryor has been a staunch supporter of reforming Alabama’s criminal justice system to make it fairer with heightened 

standards of honesty and compassion. He has fought to modernize 

the State’s criminal sentencing system by instituting a State Sentencing Commission to ensure that similar crimes result in similar 

punishments. He has advocated and created alternative programs, 

such as drug courts and substance abuse treatment, which emphasize victim resolution and community restoration for first-time nonviolent offenders. He has endorsed the Prison Rape Reduction Act, 

sponsored by fellow Judiciary Committee members Senators Kennedy and Sessions. 

Most importantly, Attorney General Pryor has made a difference 

in the lives of countless young children in Alabama by creating 

Mentor Alabama. This program is designed to reduce juvenile 

crime by introducing adults into the lives of children who need 

them most. Under Mentor Alabama, adult volunteers serve as mentors, tutors, and role models. Mentor Alabama has been so successful that it has been designated as the official Alabama affiliate of 

the National Mentoring Partnership, a partner of the America’s 

Promise program founded by Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

Attorney General Pryor not only implements these society-changing programs, he believes in them enough to get involved at the 

ground level. To this end, he has personally served as a mentor to 

a public school student in Montgomery for over 3 years. 

As Attorney General, he has also been a champion for women in 

the State of Alabama by dedicating himself to furthering the case 

of women’s rights and improving the lives of women. He has sought 

to protect women from the scourge of domestic violence while fighting to bring to justice those who would commit such atrocities. He 

was a key proponent in the year 2000 when the crime of domestic 

violence was enacted in Alabama. 

General Pryor has advocated increasing the penalties for repeat 

offenders who violate protection orders. Now in Alabama, secondtime offenders face a mandatory sentence of 30 days in prison, and 

further violations will result in mandatory 3-month prison terms. 

Attorney General Pryor supported passage of a law that now requires that those arrested for domestic violence in Alabama stay 

behind bars until the safety of the victim and society can be assured. 

In other efforts to improve the legal protections available to 

women, Attorney General Pryor pushed to add the date rape drug 

GHB to Alabama’s drug-trafficking statute so that the punishment 

would meet the crime. Attorney General Pryor has also helped create innovative programs designed to improve the lives of Alabama 

women. Using money awarded from the State from a class-action 

82

settlement, he funded ‘‘Cut It Out,’’ a program that helps encourage victims of domestic violence to seek help. This program seeks 

to educate the very people who are often confidantes for battered 

women, such as their hair stylists, on how to spot abuse and help 

victims. 

He has also been a dedicated supporter of Penelope House, the 

first shelter designated for battered women and their children in 

the State of Alabama. Last year, Attorney General Pryor had the 

honor of being inducted into the Penelope House Law Enforcement 

Hall of Fame in recognition of his fight against domestic violence. 

I have heard it argued that Attorney General Pryor is against 

the voting rights of some people simply because he disagrees with 

certain procedural provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The truth 

about Bill Pryor and the voting rights record is that he has done 

nothing but dutifully enforce all of the Voting Rights Act. He has 

simply stated that there are some procedural provisions in the Act 

that need fixing. 

Well, I agree with that. The Attorney General of my State agrees 

with that. And minority legislators in Alabama and Georgia agree 

with that. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has some serious 

problems that inhibit the very goal the Act was designed to accomplish: the empowerment of minority voters. As the head attorney 

for the State of Alabama, though, he is constrained to enforce the 

law as it is written and interpreted by the courts, and that is exactly what Attorney General Pryor has done. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Bill Pryor is a superb candidate, 

graduating at the top of his class from Tulane Law School, where 

he served as editor-in-chief of the Law Review, the highest honor 

one can receive in law school. A fair review of his record shows that 

he has used his gifted abilities to serve the people of Alabama and 

this country. He will make an excellent judge, and I am proud to 

support his nomination to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. 

We have a vote on, so I am going to recess for about 10 minutes 

so I can get over and get back. And then we will turn next to Senator Feingold, if he is available. But we will do that when we get 

back, Senator. We are going to recess for about 10 minutes. 

[Recess 11:27 a.m. to 11:47 a.m.] 

Chairman HATCH. Let’s have order. We are going to turn to Senator Feingold at this time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Pryor, welcome, and thank you for your 

testimony and your willingness to answer the questions. 

In 1999, you helped found an organization called the Republican 

Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, to promote the election of 

Republican candidates for Attorney General, and I understand you 

served as its first treasurer. After its formation you gave a speech 

to the Steering Committee of the Civil Justice Reform Group. You 

said, ‘‘Two years ago, I warned that the lawsuits filed by my fellow 

State Attorneys General against the tobacco industry threatened 

the entire business community.’’ 

You went on to describe ‘‘a growing number of novel government 

suits against entire industries, no industry is safe,’’ you said. 

You offered five ideas for those who want to curb this new form 

of lawsuit abuse. Number five was the business community must 

83

be heavily engaged in the election process as it affects legal and judicial offices. You said, ‘‘Frankly, this need is the most important 

of all.’’ 

You then hailed the newly formed RAGA and then said, ‘‘Hopefully it will help elect more conservative and free market-oriented 

Attorneys General.’’ 

As I understand it, RAGA raised money from large corporate donors and then sent those contributions to the Republican National 

State Elections Committee, the RNSEC, which is a soft-money fund 

run by the RNC for use in State Attorney General’s elections. I am 

concerned about involvement of the top law enforcement officer of 

a State in this kind of an operation, and I am not alone in that 

concern. A number of Democratic and Republican State Attorneys 

General criticized your organization as unnecessarily partisan, and 

some have characterized its fundraising practices as fraught with 

‘‘ethical land mines.’’ 

For example, Mike Fisher, the Republican Attorney General of 

Pennsylvania, now a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, refused to join RAGA, saying he wanted to keep politics out of his office. Despite these concerns, you said, ‘‘I am proud 

to support RAGA and it does not create a conflict of interest.’’ 

RAGA solicits financial contributions from large corporations 

that may be subject to State investigations. According to several 

news accounts, RAGA’s contributors may include Aetna, SBC, GTE, 

Microsoft, and many tobacco companies. Yet RAGA has refused to 

disclose its contributors. 

As Alabama Attorney General, you have asserted that your office 

has sole authority to determine which lawsuits will be filed on behalf of the State of Alabama. Consequently, one of RAGA’s contributors—the identity, of course, is concealed from the public—could 

be under State investigation. You still have the last word on 

whether a lawsuit will be filed against that company. 

Don’t you agree that this scenario would present at least the appearance of conflict of interest given your role in RAGA? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator. I helped form a Republican Attorneys 

General Association, as you mentioned, several years ago. I no 

longer serve as an officer, but I did for several years. There’s now 

a Democratic Attorneys General Association. We modeled our organization after the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association, both of which work with each of the 

National Committees. And as a political official, as an elected official who runs on a party label, I have been active in helping my 

party elect other candidates to office. I don’t think that that creates 

a conflict of interest. I can assure you that in no instance would 

it in any way impair my judgment as Attorney General in enforcing 

the law against any lawbreaker and ensuring that the law is enforced. And it never has. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, let me reiterate my question. My question was not whether it would simply create a conflict of interest. 

It was whether it would create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest. Is it your testimony that undisclosed, 

large soft-money contributions to this organization could not possibly create an appearance of a conflict of interest? 

84

Mr. PRYOR. Well, first of all, the contributions that are made are 

made to the Republican National Committee, not—they were not 

made to a separate organization called RAGA. And every one of 

those contributions, every penny, was disclosed by the Republican 

National Committee every month. 

I don’t think that that creates any appearance of impropriety, 

and I think that that’s the obligation of the political party, to comply with the campaign finance laws, to make sure that the donations are properly disclosed. But it does not in my judgment create 

an appearance of a conflict of interest. After all, all of these State 

Attorneys General are already raising campaign funds in races in 

their own States, working with their own State political parties. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Our information is that there is a different 

trail to the money and there is a direct connection to RAGA, but 

we will pursue that with a written question. Let me also assure 

you the mere fact that the Democrats also do it, based on my 7 

years of experience with soft money, is no defense. 

Despite RAGA’s refusal to disclose its contributors, we do know 

that soft money raised by RAGA and funneled to the Republican 

National State Elections Committee was then used in State campaigns in Alabama. In fact, the RNSEC made a contribution of 

$100,000 to your own re-election campaign for State Attorney General. 

How do you reconcile RAGA’s relationship with the RNSEC and 

the RNSEC’s contribution to your own campaign with your duty as 

State Attorney General? Do you think it is appropriate for Attorneys General to solicit funds or receive funds from corporations 

who they may later have to investigate? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I wasn’t receiving in that instance a direct contribution, of course, from a corporation. I was receiving it from the 

Republican National State Elections Committee, just as I received 

contributions from the Alabama Republican Party and from political action committees in my own State. And it has never created 

a conflict of interest. If that was— 

Senator FEINGOLD. This doesn’t concern you at all in terms of 

your role as Attorney General? 

Mr. PRYOR. The system that we have in America of elections requires candidates to raise funds to wage campaigns. I have done 

that, and I’ve disclosed every donation that my campaign has ever 

received. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. Then will you provide to the Committee a comprehensive list of RAGA’s contributors and the 

amounts and dates of their contribution? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t have such a list, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Who does? 

Mr. PRYOR. The Republican National Committee. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Will you urge them to provide that list? 

Mr. PRYOR. I would ask you if you need that kind of list that you 

really need to seek it from them. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I am asking whether you will help us as a 

former treasurer of RAGA, an officer of RAGA, to receive this information since you just stated that you were in favor of full disclosure. 

85

Mr. PRYOR. I’m in favor of the full disclosure according to the letter of the law. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You oppose the disclosure of this information? 

Mr. PRYOR. I’m not saying that I oppose it or I favor it. I support 

the Republican National Committee making its decisions of what 

it has to do to follow the law. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I am taking this as a refusal to urge the release of this information. And are you saying that you never solicited a contribution for RAGA or the RNC to use in your own campaign? 

Mr. PRYOR. To use in my own campaign? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Did you— 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Are you saying that you never solicited a contribution for RAGA or the RNC to use in your own campaign? 

Mr. PRYOR. I did ask the Republican National State Elections 

Committee to contribute to my campaign. And they did. 

Senator FEINGOLD. In a recent brief to the Supreme Court, you 

equated private consensual sexual activity between homosexuals to 

prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, incest, and 

pedophilia. In addition, your office defended a statute that denied 

funding to the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual Alliance, a student organization. The Eleventh Circuit unanimously declared the statute unconstitutional. 

Furthermore, as Deputy Attorney General you joined an amicus 

brief in Romer v. Evana, arguing that local governments in Colorado were prohibited from enacting laws to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. The Supreme Court later rejected your 

view, but you called the decision ‘‘undemocratic.’’ News accounts 

also report that you even went so far as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day. 

In light of this record, can you understand why a gay plaintiff 

or defendant would feel uncomfortable coming before you as a 

judge? And I would like to give you this opportunity to explain why 

these concerns may or may not be justified. 

Mr. PRYOR. I think my record as Attorney General shows that I 

will uphold and enforce the law. In the Lawrence case, the first 

that you mentioned, I was upholding and urging the Supreme 

Court to reaffirm its decision of 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, which 

is the law of the land, and the argument to which you referred, the 

slippery slope argument, was taken from Justice White’s majority 

opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States. 

In the second instance that you mentioned, the Eleventh Circuit 

case involving university facilities and funds for homosexual groups 

in Alabama, that argument was presented by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not by me. And, in fact, after the decision came 

down—by the time the decision came down, I was Attorney General, but I did not file any papers to quarrel with the decision because, in fact, I agreed with it. When we worked together in the 

Attorney General’s office, I declined to participate in that case for 

General Sessions because I had agreed with the district court ruling, and I agreed then with the Eleventh Circuit ruling. 

In the case of Romer v. Evana, General Sessions again was the 

Attorney General at the time. I was his Deputy Attorney General, 

86

but he was the one who made the final decision. I have criticized 

the Romer decision. 

As far as my family vacation is concerned, my wife and I had two 

daughters who at the time of that vacation were 6 and 4, and we 

made a value judgment, and that was our personal decision. But 

my record as Attorney General is that I will uphold and enforce the 

law, particularly, as I mentioned in my first example, in the Lawrence case, the brief that we filed defending Alabama law which 

prohibits sodomy between unmarried persons follows the Supreme 

Court’s precedent. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I certainly respect going to Disney 

World with two daughters. I have done the same thing. But are 

you saying that you actually made that decision on purpose to be 

away at the time of that— 

Mr. PRYOR. We made a value judgment and changed our plan 

and went another weekend. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I appreciate your candor on that. 

Mr. Pryor, you have criticized those— 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, your time is up. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Then let’s turn to Senator Sessions and then 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator SESSIONS. To my colleagues, the comment that General 

Pryor just made about the case involving the university and homosexuality is a good example of his integrity and his commitment to 

the rule of law. I do recall that we had a statute that seemed to 

have validity that the district judge had found unconstitutional. We 

discussed what to do about it. Most Attorneys General use a test, 

Mr. Chairman, informally called the throw-up test. You probably 

have heard of it. If you can defend your State’s law in court without throwing up, you should do so. Somebody has to defend it. You 

are the chief lawyer for the State. Nobody else has primary responsibility to defend the law. So I decided we would at least take it 

up one further step. Bill declined to participate because he didn’t 

agree with it. Of course, he was proven correct by the ruling of the 

Eleventh Circuit. 

Mr. Chairman, I would offer into the record a letter from Mr. 

Chris McNair. He is an African-American leader in the State of 

Alabama, a lifelong Democrat. He served in the Alabama House of 

Representatives from 1973 to 1986 and served as a member of the 

Jefferson County Commission—that represents Birmingham, and is 

our largest county commission—until his retirement in 2001. His 

daughter, Denise, was one of the four young girls that was murdered in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. This important African-American Democratic official writes in strong support for Bill Pryor for this position. 

It has been suggested that your views are extreme, that they are 

outside the mainstream. You have been connected to positions of 

Governor James, which in fact you have resisted. You have been 

connected to positions of Chief Justice Roy Moore, many of which 

you have not endorsed and, in fact, have opposed. 

I would like to talk to you about a very contentious issue that 

arose in the State involving the districting of the State legislature. 

Republicans have elected the Governor, two Senators, five out of 

87

seven Congressmen, but only about a third of the State legislature 

are Republicans. The Republicans are convinced that part of that 

is the way the district lines are drawn. So a group of Republicans 

came up with an argument to get those lines redrawn, and they 

sought your support, conteding that they had some basis for their 

legal position. 

We saw recently in Texas what happens when you start dealing 

with district lines and how important that can be in a political environment. 

I would like for you, Attorney General Pryor, to say what you 

told to some of your friends and some of my friends about your 

views on that lawsuit they wanted to bring and, in fact, did bring. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, the process of redistricting, Senator, as you 

know, is an inherently political one. But the politics of redistricting 

are irrelevant to me in my capacity as Attorney General in representing the State’s election officials. And when our State legislature redistricts itself and draws Congressional district lines and 

draws lines for the State Board of Education, it’s my responsibility 

to meet what you described as the throw-up test, and that is, to 

defend those districts if an argument can be made in their defense. 

I felt strongly, though, that in this instance—really, two separate 

occasions, both district lines that were derived in the 1990’s following the 1990 census, and then again a series of litigation following the 2000 census, there was redistricting litigation. In each 

instance, I felt very strongly that there were meritorious defenses 

to be presented by the State that would defeat the claims of the 

Republican plaintiffs. 

In the 1990’s era, there was a case called Sinkfield v. Kelly. I had 

argued that—there were white plaintiffs complaining about alleged 

racial gerrymandering of black districts in which they did not reside. The district court, a three-judge district court, ruled in favor 

of the Republican plaintiffs and white plaintiffs on a couple of—

several of the districts. But I believed that under Hayes v. United 

States that they lacked standing to bring that lawsuit, that there 

was a fundamental jurisdictional defense to be presented. And I 

took that argument to the Supreme Court of the United States, and 

they unanimously agreed with our argument and reversed the district court. 

Following the 2000 census, lawsuits were filed challenging the 

new district lines. We obtained the preclearance of all of those district lines. My office was responsible for the preclearance process, 

and we obtained preclearance from the Justice Department of all 

the districting plans. And then we defended Congressional school 

board and legislative district lines in court, and all of those district 

lines have been upheld by the Federal courts. 

Senator SESSIONS. As a practical matter, as Attorney General 

you felt it was your duty to defend the law. But, in fact, the way 

it turned out, the African-American community, they were supporting your position, which was contrary to the position of the Republicans. 

Mr. PRYOR. Oh, absolutely. In the Sinkfield case, the NAACP 

was alongside in our position filing their own brief, making the 

same arguments that we were making. And, yes, the legislature, as 

it has to do under the Voting Rights Act, had drawn majority-miVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
88

nority districts. That is how we obtained preclearance of those districts under the Voting Rights Act, and I, of course, defended those 

as the law required. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on that comment, people were really intense about that matter. I was called by 

State legislators, Republicans, who said, ‘‘Bill used to work for you. 

You go tell Bill he ought to do thus and so.’’ And I remember telling them then what I will now tell this Committee, and these were 

almost my exact words: ‘‘If you have got a case that convinces Bill 

that he is wrong on the law, present it to him. If you don’t, no need 

to talk about it because if he is convinced the law is contrary to 

your position, he is not going to change, and I am not going to ask 

him to.’’ So that is the way he does business. 

That was an example where you utilized a defense of standing. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s right. 

Senator SESSIONS. To block the lawsuit, to favor the Democratic 

African-American position against the Republicans, that is what 

Attorneys General do. They just have to defend the law of the State 

in a number of different ways. 

I would yield back my time. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. 

We will turn to Senator Durbin now. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Pryor, thank you for being here. A number of people 

have characterized your political philosophy. How would you characterize it? 

Mr. PRYOR. I’m a conservative. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you consider yourself a moderate conservative or one who is more conservative than most? Put yourself on 

the spectrum. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, Senator, that’s a difficult thing to do. In Alabama, I think sometimes I’m called a moderate. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. That comes as no surprise. 

Let me ask you on the issue of States’ rights. Throughout your 

career you have argued very strongly for the issue of States’ rights. 

I think of the employment discrimination case that you were involved in, the Garret case, as well as the decision relative to the 

Violence Against Women Act. Where would you put yourself in 

terms of believing in the concept of States’ rights as opposed to 

Federal authority? 

Mr. PRYOR. I believe in the Constitution of the United States, 

Senator. I don’t particularly like the term ‘‘States’ rights.’’ I can’t 

say I’ve totally avoided it in my political career. But much more 

often than not, I refer to federalism. I believe in a balance of Federal and State power. I’ve expressed that perspective on a number 

of my writings and speeches. In the cases that you mentioned, the 

federalism perspective that I offered in Garret and in the Violence 

Against Women Act was the position that the Supreme Court of 

the United States sustained, and it’s their responsibility to uphold 

the Constitution. 

Senator DURBIN. When I recently visited your State for the first 

time with Congressman Lewis of Georgia to look at Birmingham 

89

and Mobile and Selma, some of the civil rights shrines, I was told 

by Congressman John Lewis about Judge Frank Johnson, a Federal judge from Alabama, a Republican, appointed by President Eisenhower, who, according to John Lewis, has not received the credit he deserved because he had the courage to stand up against 

States’ rights and even against some members of his own Federal 

judiciary, believing that there were more important issues at stake 

in terms of civil rights. 

Tell me how you view Frank Johnson, civil rights, and the fact 

that traditionally States’ rights have been used to justify discrimination, particularly during the civil rights era and when it comes 

to questions like disabled Americans and their rights. Do you view 

States’ rights as often being the shelter that people who want to 

practice discrimination rush to? 

Mr. PRYOR. There’s no doubt in the history of the United States, 

from John C. Calhoun to George C. Wallace, the mantra of States’ 

rights has been used as an illegitimate defense of evil, frankly, of 

racial discrimination in more modern times and slavery in earlier 

times. 

I think Judge Johnson is a hero. The Federal courthouse in 

Montgomery a few blocks from where I work is now named after 

him, thanks to the Congress of the United States. I had the privilege of working, of clerking for another hero of the Deep South, a 

Republican who was appointed also by President Eisenhower to the 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I clerked for John Minor Wisdom. 

I’m proud that I clerked for him, especially because of his record 

on race and especially because he recognized the difference between what the Constitution requires in a balance of Federal and 

State power and the flawed and totally discredited and rightly discredited views of nullification and interposition that were advocated by Southern populists back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, General, let me just ask you then: Let’s 

fast forward from an easy chapter in history, which many of us either just read about or witnessed, to the more contemporary challenges. Can you understand the anxiety and fear that many people 

have when they hear you argue about the fact that this is a Christian Nation and the many positions you have taken relative to the 

assertion of the Ten Commandments in a public setting and statements that are made. I am Christian myself, but I can understand 

how people who are not would feel that this is a form of discrimination against them. And I would ask you, how do you reconcile then 

your admiration for Frank Johnson’s courage to stand up against 

discrimination against people of color and the fact that you seem 

to have an ambivalence when it comes to the whole question of asserting the rights of those who don’t happen to be Christian to 

practice their religion in this diverse Nation. 

Mr. PRYOR. I have never used the term ‘‘Christian Nation.’’ I 

have said that this Nation as founded on a Christian perspective 

of the nature of man, that we derive our rights from God and not 

from government. And part of that perspective is that every individual enjoys human rights without regard to what the majority 

wants. Every individual enjoys human rights, like religious freedom and freedom of conscience, including the freedom not to worship. 

90

That is what I have said. That’s what I believe in. That goes to 

the core of what I believe in. It is, I believe, the perspective of the 

American form of government, and I have been faithful in my 

record as Attorney General in defending the Constitution when it 

comes to issues like religious freedom. 

In the area of school prayer, when the Governor who appointed 

me was arguing that teachers should be able to lead prayer, I was 

the one taking the legal position in the State of Alabama that 

school-sponsored religious expression is incompatible with the First 

Amendment and that instead the Federal courts had overstepped 

their bounds in one regard in censoring genuinely student-initiated 

religious expression, because those children derive their right to 

pray genuinely on their own from God. 

Senator DURBIN. But let me just ask you, you seem to state 

that—you just noted the historical connection between the Founding Fathers and Christian faith. But you went further than that. 

You have said, ‘‘The challenge of the next millennium will be to 

preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.’’ 

What I am asking you is: Do you not understand that that type 

of statement in a diverse society like America raises concerns of 

those who don’t happen to be Christian, that you are asserting an 

agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own, inconsistent 

with separation of church and state, which we have honored since 

the beginning of this Republic? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator, I think that would be a misunderstanding if someone came away with that impression. It goes to the 

core of my being that I have a moral obligation that is informed 

by my religious faith to uphold my oath of office, to uphold the 

Constitution of the United States, which protects freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression. My record as Attorney 

General has been just that. 

When the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Bourne decision, I 

worked with a broad cross-section, liberals and conservatives, in 

Alabama to adopt our own religious freedom amendment to the 

Constitution of Alabama modeled after RFRA. 

When the City of Huntsville tried to use its zoning ordinances to 

curtail what I thought was legitimate activity of a synagogue in 

Huntsville, I intervened as a friend of the court on their side because I thought their argument was supported by the religious 

freedom amendment to the Constitution of Alabama for which I 

had campaigned. 

I think it would just be a misunderstanding to come away with 

that impression. My perspective is one that a Christian perspective 

of the nature of man is that every person enjoys freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, which, of course, is protected by 

the First Amendment to the Constitution. 

Senator DURBIN. General, unfortunately, we have a limited 

amount of time, and I can’t follow up because you clearly have 

opened up a long series of questions related to the Establishment 

Clause. It is one thing to say that we have the freedom to practice. 

It is another thing to say that we condone by government action 

certain religious belief or, in fact, propose or promulgate that belief. 

91

And I am going to save those for written questions, but let me go 

to a more specific area in the limited time that I have remaining. 

Are you a member of the National Rifle Association or its board 

of directors? 

Mr. PRYOR. The National Rifle Association? I’m a member of the 

National Rifle Association. I am not a member of its board of directors. 

Senator DURBIN. Are you familiar with the case of United States

v. Emerson? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. Which was filed in Texas, the case involving 

Timothy Joe Emerson, the subject of a domestic violence restraining order prohibiting him from threatening his wife or daughter or 

causing them bodily injury, and under Federal law he was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he was under this restraining order against domestic violence; and that although this was a 

Texas case being decided by the Fifth Circuit, you decided to file 

an amicus brief on behalf of the people of the State of Alabama in 

support of Timothy Joe Emerson being allowed to carry a gun. Can 

you explain why you went out of your way to say that a man that 

is under a restraining order for domestic violence who would 

threaten the life of his wife or former wife’s boyfriend should be allowed to carry a gun? 

Mr. PRYOR. I was arguing a position to get the Fifth Circuit in 

that case to look at the Federal statute itself and avoid the question that the district court had ruled upon. The district court dismissed the indictment of that individual on the basis of the Second 

Amendment, claiming that the Federal law in question was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. 

There were some confusing aspects to the Federal statute in 

question that I thought the court ought to look at. The court ended 

up looking at that and rejected my argument. But I had urged the 

court to—if my argument had prevailed, to avoid the question of 

a Second Amendment defense. 

Senator DURBIN. Should he have been allowed to carry a firearm 

if there was a domestic violence restraining order against him for 

threats to his wife and daughter and the boyfriend? 

Mr. PRYOR. The law should be enforced against him if he has violated it. It was not clear to me from the text of the law that he 

had. If it had been and this Congress had made that clear, then 

absolutely, it should have been enforced and he should be punished. 

Senator DURBIN. Is it customary for the Attorney General— 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, your time is up. 

Senator DURBIN. If I could ask one last question? Is it customary 

for the Attorney General of the State of Alabama to file this kind 

of brief in a case involving Texas? 

Mr. PRYOR. We file as State Attorneys General amicus briefs in 

courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States routinely. The Federal Rules of Appellate procedure give us a right to 

do so without permission. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, The CHAIRMAN. 

Chairman HATCH. We will go to Senator Kennedy. 

92

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In your brief, General Pryor, you included the words ‘‘a sweeping 

and arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment right to 

keep and bear arms and a provision that is massively overbroad in 

its prohibition of firearms ownership.’’ You weren’t interested in 

the technicalities of sending this back. You were stating what your 

position is with regards to bearing arms. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator, that’s not— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, you had that in your brief, nonetheless, 

and in response to the question of Senator Durbin, ‘‘a sweeping and 

arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment right to bear 

arms and a provision that is massively overbroad in its prohibition 

of firearms ownership.’’ That is what you were really concerned 

about. 

Mr. PRYOR. I’d be happy to look at the brief itself, Senator, to see 

what you’re reading from. I know for a fact, though, that the argument that I presented to the Fifth Circuit was that they should 

avoid the question of the Second Amendment defense that had 

been relied upon by the district court. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think a fair reading of the brief would 

include that as only a partial rather than the central thrust of the 

position. 

Let me say, General Pryor, all of us are impressed about your 

background and about the success that you have had in the private 

sector and also in the political sector, and obviously you bring a 

great deal of energy and talent to this particular position that you 

have at the present time, and we congratulate you on the nomination. 

Now, having said that, I think we have a very important responsibility to make sure that anyone that is going to serve on the 

courts is committed to the core values of the Constitution. And the 

way we do that, as you understand, is through this process and 

also reviewing the statements and comments that you have made. 

And over the period of time we have had a number of nominees 

who have been very effective advocates for positions that we differ 

with but have been approved by the Senate and who we have voted 

for. 

I think the very legitimate issue in question with your nomination is whether you have an agenda; that many of the positions 

which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy but a very deeply held view and a philosophy, which you are entitled to have. But 

you are also not entitled to get everyone’s vote. If we conclude—

in any particular vote we have a responsibility not to just be a rubber stamp for the Executive, but to make an independent judgment 

whether you have the temperament and also the commitment to interpret the law and also to enforce the law. 

And I am troubled by these series—with the time that we have, 

the series of statements and all that they mean in terms of their 

significance on the public policy issues that are central to constitutional values. Your statements talk about the need to limit the 

power of Congress to remedy civil rights violations, restrict a woman’s right to choose, uphold gay rights, restrict the rights of religious minorities, and reduce the separation of church and state. 

93

And many of your statements make clear that you want to roll 

back constitutional doctrine in a range of areas to fit your agenda. 

So I don’t understand looking at your record how one can conclude that you don’t have an agenda. What concerns me is not simply that you have been an advocate, but that you are an advocate 

so extreme about so many core Federal and constitutional rights, 

that you are hostile, to so much that are existing law and that your 

statements at times are so intemperate that I don’t know how you 

would be able to put that aside and be fair as a judge. 

Earlier in the hearing, you were asked about why you said, 

‘‘Please, God, no more Souters.’’ And I don’t know that you adequately explained, but it seems to me that you made these statements about Justice Souter not simply because you disagreed with 

him on the two opinions. I know in earlier responses to Senator 

Schumer you indicated that you disagreed with him on two opinions, on the Violence Against Women and Bush v. Gore. But isn’t the real reason behind that statement because he was 

a Republican appointee whose ideological views as a Justice have 

not been to your liking? Isn’t your concern that he has not voted 

to limit Congress’ power to provide remedies for violations of civil 

rights the way you expected, the way that you had expected a Republican nominee to rule? 

Mr. PRYOR. I said earlier, Senator, that I have disagreed with 

Justice Souter’s opinions in several cases, not just the two. The 

question was asked why did I pick Souter in those two instances. 

Well, he had written opinions in each of those instances. But 

there’s no question that in several cases in which my office has either been a party or an amicus, Justice Souter has almost always 

been on the other side. And that’s the reason I made this statement. 

Senator KENNEDY. Because of your differences with Justice 

Souter, your ideological differences. 

Mr. PRYOR. I’ve criticized his rulings. I’ve been open about it. I’ve 

had disagreements with his rulings. 

Senator KENNEDY. Now, in the same speech, you also said we are 

one vote away from the demise of federalism. This term the 

Rehnquist Court issued two, you characterized, ‘‘awful rulings’’ that 

preserve the worst examples of judicial activism, Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. So your characterizations of the Miranda 

case and also the Roe case, in this term, are two awful rulings that 

preserve the worst examples of Roe v. Wade. Later on in the issue about the stay of execution in the electric 

chair case, which we will come back to, you actually ridiculed the 

Supreme Court of the United States by saying, ‘‘This issue should 

not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on 

the Supreme Court.’’ That is on the question about the use of the 

electric chair in Alabama. 

And then on a case involving children’s rights, you said, ‘‘My job 

was to make sure the State of Alabama isn’t run by a Federal 

court. My job isn’t to come here and help children.’’ 

Let’s get to the issue on the electric chair. As I understand, by 

2000 Alabama was one of the only States in the Nation that used 

the electric chair as the sole method of execution. After the Supreme Court had granted review in a case to determine the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
94

stitutionality of Florida’s electric chair, Florida changed its law to 

provide for lethal injection. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in 

2001 that its use of the electric chair constituted cruel and unusual 

punishment. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of 

an execution for an inmate, Robert Tarber. Tarber had appealed 

his death sentence on the ground that Alabama’s use of the electric 

chair violated the Eighth Amendment, and by a vote of five to four, 

the Supreme Court ultimately allowed Tarber’s execution to proceed. 

Before that happened, however, you made the following statement: ‘‘This issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers.’’ 

Do you think that is an appropriate way to refer to the Supreme 

Court of the United States? 

Mr. PRYOR. It was probably over-heated political rhetoric on my 

part, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. What was over-heated? What were the circumstances that would get you over-heated where you would make 

that kind of a comment? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t remember the exact context. I’m a political 

figure, and I know it was not a statement that I made in any court 

of law and would not have made in any court of law. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is entirely improper, is it not? 

Mr. PRYOR. I think that was over-heated. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is improper. Either over-heated or not 

over-heated, it is improper, is it not? 

Mr. PRYOR. I think it was an inappropriate remark, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. You are familiar with the case—in 2002 you 

authored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the 

Court should not hold that the execution of mentally retarded persons does not violate the Eighth Amendment. In its decision in Atkins v. Virginia, the Court rejected your argument by six to three. 

Just last month, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit unanimously 

stayed the execution of Alabama prisoner Glen Haliday over the 

strong objections of your office. Finding it a reasonable likelihood 

that Haliday is mentally retarded, the Eleventh Circuit concluded 

that pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins, he should be 

allowed to file a second habeas corpus petition, raising this claim. 

The Eleventh Circuit specifically rejected your argument that Alabama’s interest in executing Haliday outweighs his interest in further proceedings. 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s true, Senator, and we— 

Senator KENNEDY. You believe the Eleventh Circuit was wrong 

to stay Haliday’s? 

Mr. PRYOR. I haven’t really formed a judgment about that because I haven’t read in detail that—it was a very recent ruling. I 

would say, however— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, that should make it easier for you to remember. You don’t remember the issue on the execution of a mentally retarded person and your intervention and your characterization? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator, the question, as I understood it, was 

whether I agreed with the ruling or not. I have not read that recent 

95

Eleventh Circuit ruling in detail. I know that we’re now going forward— 

Senator KENNEDY. You agree with its outcome, its conclusion. 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know. We’re going forward with an evidentiary hearing where we’re going to determine whether Mr. 

Haliday is mentally retarded or not and subject to capital punishment or not. 

Senator KENNEDY. This is amazing that you are effectively ducking that. I don’t mind people that duck, but, you found enough that 

you wanted to intervene in this case. You filed an amicus brief. You 

didn’t have to. You were interested enough in the case to have filed 

an amicus brief about the execution of a retarded individual. And 

now the Eleventh Circuit found that Haliday scored 65 on his IQ 

test. The trial court had instructed the jury to consider mental retardation as mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. The 

prosecution noted Haliday’s mental retardation during its closing 

argument. 

Given these remarkable facts and the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Atkins, how in the world would you be out there to prevent 

Haliday from litigating his rights and his claim? 

Mr. PRYOR. Haliday is litigating his rights, Senator, and he is 

going to be given an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he’s 

mentally retarded or not. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, what do you think about 65 on an IQ 

test? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know that that is a proper measurement of 

his IQ. The lawyers on my staff— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, if it is— 

Mr. PRYOR. —have said it’s not. 

Chairman HATCH. Let him answer the question. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I— 

Chairman HATCH. Let him answer. 

Mr. PRYOR. The lawyers on my staff have informed me that they 

don’t believe it is based on the record. 

I’m an active, engaged Attorney General, Senator, but I will 

admit to you that I don’t read every page of every brief that’s filed 

by my office. Now, the Atkins brief is one with which I’m very familiar with and am prepared to defend what we argued in that 

case. But in Haliday, the ruling that came down from the Eleventh 

Circuit, I have not had the time to study in detail. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, your time is up. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, my time is up. I will file additional 

questions. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like consent to file a statement for the record as part of my presentation. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, we will put it in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Mr. Attorney General, there have been some very 

serious charges made against you, some by people not on the dais 

but by interest groups who oppose your nomination. One is a wellknown group, People for the American Way, some of whom are in 

the audience. They have a press release they have put out: ‘‘News, 

96

news, news. William Pryor unfit to judge.’’ I don’t know, maybe you 

have seen it. But it contains some very serious allegations. 

Let me just read one paragraph and then ask you about four specific allegations that they make here. I would like to know whether 

they are true or not. 

Among the other things, to kind of set the stage, they say, ‘‘‘What 

can President Bush be thinking?’ asked Neas.’’ That is Ralph Neas, 

the head of the organization. ‘‘Maybe President Bush thinks Bill 

Pryor will make other far-right judicial nominees look tame. Maybe 

he thinks any Supreme Court nominee will look good in comparison. Or maybe Pryor is this month’s political protection payment 

to satisfy the demands of the religious right political leaders and 

their allies who are constantly on guard for any signs of moderation.’’ 

That kind of sets the stage for their point of view. But they make 

these very serious charges. The first has to do with amicus curiae 

briefs, and Senator Kennedy referred to one. For those who aren’t 

familiar with it, the amicus brief is a brief that you file not if you 

are a party but if you are not a party to the case, and the courts 

frequently accept them, sometimes do, sometimes don’t. 

But here is the charge that they make about you, and I want to 

know whether this is really true: that you promote your position 

‘‘not only through litigation in which Alabama is a party’’—and I 

am quoting now—‘‘but also by filing amicus curiae briefs in cases 

in which Alabama was not involved and Pryor had no obligation to 

participate.’’ 

Is that really true? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, Senator, that is true. I have on a number of occasions filed friend of the court briefs. The Supreme Court of the 

United States, of course, gives every State Attorney General an 

automatic right to do so on the presumption that the perspectives 

we can offer in those cases that come before them would be helpful 

to the Court in resolving the controversies. 

Senator KYL. Do you know of any cases in which the Court has, 

at least in part, accepted views that you have presented in those 

briefs? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. in fact, Senator, there have been several occasions when I have filed an amicus brief and the Court agreed with 

me. Of course, there have been some where they disagreed with 

me. If you’re an active litigator, you get both kinds of notches on 

your belt. 

But in the case, for example, of Morrison where I argued that 

one part of the Violence Against Women Act was beyond the power 

of Congress, the Supreme Court agreed. 

In the migratory bird rule case where I argued that the Clean 

Water Act was properly interpreted only to apply to interstate waters, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed. 

Most recently, in California v. Ewing, the three-strikes case, I 

filed an amicus brief on behalf of many States, and the Supreme 

Court agreed and reversed the Ninth Circuit. In fact, the National 

Association of Attorneys General tomorrow will award my office the 

Best Brief Award, one of their Best Brief Awards, for that amicus 

brief. 

97

Senator KYL. Well, congratulations. Incidentally, there has been 

some question about the legal position taken in the Violence 

Against Women Act litigation, which, I remind people, upheld your 

point of view against the political desires of a lot of people, but at 

least from a legal position obviously you are correct. 

But did the legal position that you took in that case affect your 

personal views with respect to the need to protect women from violence? 

Mr. PRYOR. Oh, absolutely not. My personal views, if anything, 

run contrary to what I thought the proper legal argument was. I 

have on many occasions worked hard with advocates in Alabama 

to strengthen our laws, to add GHB, a dangerous date rape drug, 

to the list of controlled substances in Alabama, to enact a State domestic abuse law. I’ve worked with Penelope House out of Mobile, 

Alabama, which is a shelter for battered women and children, and 

promoted their work and helped them with their work. 

I think the Violence Against Women Act is an important law. As 

an Attorney General, as a member of the National Association of 

Attorneys General, I have voted for resolutions urging Congress to 

reauthorize the law. I think it’s important that you’ve provided resources to help Federal and State prosecutors do their job. But I 

did think that one provision of that law was unconstitutional. I so 

argued in an amicus brief, and the Supreme Court agreed. 

Senator KYL. Well, thank you. I guess on the first charge that 

you filed amicus briefs on, you do stand guilty as charged. I would 

like to see whether you are guilty of this second charge. 

I am quoting exactly: ‘‘Pryor is also a frequent public speaker 

whose speeches make clear that the ideological positions he has 

taken in these cases are his own.’’ Meaning, I guess, you are not 

a hypocrite, anyway. Is that true that you are a frequent public 

speaker? 

Mr. PRYOR. I am a frequent public speaker, Senator. 

Senator KYL. And that the speeches you make are consistent 

with your ideological positions? 

Mr. PRYOR. I try to be honest in my speeches, Senator. 

Senator KYL. Guilty as charged. 

There is another one here. You actually believe in federalism. Is 

that true? 

Mr. PRYOR. That is true. 

Senator KYL. Can you defend that? 

Mr. PRYOR. I believe I can. On many occasions when I have made 

federalism-based arguments in the Supreme Court of the United 

States, the Supreme Court has agreed with our argument because 

I think it’s a central feature of our Constitution to balance the 

power of the Federal and State governments. 

Senator KYL. Maybe some folks need to go back and look at the 

Constitution and see whether that defense is an appropriate defense. 

Let me ask one more, and I am quoting again: ‘‘He personally 

has been involved in key Supreme Court cases that, by narrow fiveto-four majorities, have restricted the ability of Congress to protect 

Americans’ rights against discrimination and injury based upon 

disability, race, and age.’’ Meaning, in other words, that you were 

involved in cases where your position was accepted by the Court 

98

as correct by five-to-four majorities that had the effect in their 

opinion of doing these things. Is it true that you have been involved 

in Supreme Court cases that you have won? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, it is true. On several occasions. 

Senator KYL. Well, I guess you stand guilty as charged. We will 

have to take that into consideration. 

Let me close with one other thing. There have been a lot of letters filed on your behalf, one that struck my interest from Hon. 

Sue Bell Cobb, Judge of Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Here 

is part of what she wrote in January of this year: ‘‘I write, not only 

as the only statewide Democrat to be elected in 2000, not only as 

a member of the Court which reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor’s work, but also as a child advocate who has labored 

shoulder to shoulder with General Pryor in the political arena on 

behalf of Alabama’s children. Bill Pryor is an outstanding Attorney 

General and is one of the most righteous elected officials in this 

State. He possesses two of the most important attributes of a judge: 

unquestionable integrity and a strong internal moral compass. Bill 

Pryor is exceedingly bright, a lawyer’s lawyer. He is as dedicated 

to the rule of law as anyone I know. I have never known another 

Attorney General who loved being the people’s lawyer more than 

Bill Pryor. Though we may disagree on an issue, I am always confident that the position is a product of complete intellectual honesty. He loves the mental challenge presented by a complex case, 

yet he never fails to remember that each case impacts people’s 

lives.’’ 

What I was curious about, what I found arresting by that, was 

her reference to your work on behalf of children. And I would like 

to ask you to expand on that, if you could a bit. 

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Senator. Judge Cobb and I have been 

partners in a project known as Children First. She is the Chair of 

the Children First Foundation in Alabama, and I have the privilege 

of serving as the Vice Chair of that foundation. 

And what we have worked to do in a nutshell over the last several years is to devote more of our State’s resources to programs 

to help at-risk children, whether it’s juvenile justice programs that 

are proved to work, whether it’s alternative schools to remove troubled youths from the regular school environment to help promote 

a safer learning environment in the regular schools, but also to 

give more intensive help to kids who are having difficulty in regular schools, children’s health insurance, just a number of issues. 

And we have been partners in that enterprise. 

We do not always agree. We sometimes have our political differences. But we have worked in a bipartisan effort. It has been a 

very successful one in Alabama. There are times when I have had 

members of my own party disagree with the work that we were 

doing, but I’m proud of the success that we have enjoyed with Children First. 

Senator KYL. Well, thank you, General Pryor. And just let me 

say that not only, I think, have you demonstrated the intellectual 

ability, the experience, and the temperament to be a fine judge, but 

your candor, your willingness to confront a somewhat hostile dais 

here, I think, is another indication of the fact that you will be a 

99

fine judge and that my colleagues ought to confirm the nomination 

that President Bush has made. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. 

We will turn to the distinguished Democratic leader on the Committee, Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, as I understand it, unless there is 

someone else who wants to question. Okay. All right. Senator, go 

ahead. I will tell you when we will reconvene as soon as you finish. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer one of the 

questions whether you speak out on a lot of things, I would assume 

as the Attorney General in elective office that that would be only 

natural. I can’t think of an Attorney General in the country who 

wouldn’t. And there is no criticism of you for doing that. 

We did, however—and Senator Kennedy raised your quote in the 

Montgomery Advertiser, speaking about the electric chair and 

whether it is an unconstitutional method of execution, you said, 

‘‘This issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who 

happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.’’ And I understand these 

questions—I mean, you seem to find it amusing. Did I misinterpret 

the smile on your face during that time? I mean, do you think this 

is an amusing description of the Supreme Court? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator. I said I thought it was inappropriate, 

and the reason I thought it was inappropriate was the use of the 

term ‘‘octogenarian.’’ I stand by my statement, however, that I 

don’t think the Supreme Court of the United States should have 

been the arbiter of the method of capital punishment in Alabama. 

I don’t believe that that method of capital punishment violated the 

Eighth Amendment. That’s the position we took in Federal courts. 

But we have since changed that method of execution, and I helped 

change it. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you have any question, though, whether the 

Supreme Court has the authority to decide that issue? 

Mr. PRYOR. Of course not, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Okay. You testified in July 2001 before this 

Committee on the subject of appointed counsel in capital cases. In 

your testimony, you quoted then professor, now Federal Judge Paul 

Cassell for the proposition that, ‘‘The death penalty system in 

America is the most accurate criminal sanction in the world.’’ 

There have been about a dozen death row inmates that have 

been exonerated and released. They found they had the wrong person, some within days of their execution time. In Arizona, for example, Ray Krone was released from prison after DNA testing 

showed he did not commit the murder, the murder he had been 

convicted for 10 years before. And the local prosecutor said that 

Mr. Krone ‘‘deserves an apology from us, that’s for sure. A mistake 

was made here. An injustice was done, and we’re sorry.’’ 

Had he not been successful in getting hold of the DNA results, 

he would have been executed. Interestingly enough, the DNA, 

when they did get it, found that it pointed the finger at the person 

who did commit the murder. 

I look at well over a hundred in the past few years who outside 

of the criminal justice system, either because of journalism stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
100

dents or others, were found not to be guilty of the crime they were 

charged with. Do you still think that the death penalty system in 

America is the most accurate criminal sanction in the world? 

Mr. PRYOR. I agree with Professor Cassell’s judgment that the 

system of capital— 

Senator LEAHY. What is your judgment? I mean, we have confirmed Professor Cassell. I actually voted for him. I disagree with 

him on this particular point, but what is your judgment? 

Mr. PRYOR. My judgment is that the system of capital punishment has extraordinary safeguards, many safeguards to ensure 

that we review every death sentence to ensure that, number one, 

we’re executing only the guilty; number two, that it’s free from discrimination; and, number three, that it’s in cases of extreme and 

heinous crimes. 

There’s no question that that system catches errors. That’s what 

the system is supposed to do. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you think that there have been—do you think 

there have never been people executed who were innocent? 

Mr. PRYOR. I’m not aware of any case, since the death penalty 

was reinstated after the Furman decision by the Supreme Court of 

the United States in the late 1970’s, where an innocent person has 

been executed. If someone has a case that they would like to 

present to me, I would certainly review it objectively. But I’m not 

aware of one. 

My own experience tells me, though, with the—I think it’s now 

14 executions that we have had in Alabama in my administration, 

that all of those were cases of extreme crimes and evidence of overwhelming guilt. 

Senator LEAHY. I am not questioning the heinousness of some of 

the crimes. I am questioning the fact that we have well, over 100 

people, some of whom were found not by the criminal justice system, not by the kind of checks and balances you are referring to, 

either by somebody—I mean, in one case a group of college students who had taken an elective course on journalism, and then got 

heavily involved and found they had people on death row, some 

within days of being executed, and they found them and found 

gross mistakes, errors by the police, coverups within the criminal 

justice system. Most of Alabama’s death row inmates were convicted and sentenced before 1999 when compensation of the appointed lawyers was capped at $1,000 per year. Do you really think 

that you can get adequate representation in a capital case where 

compensation is capped at $1,000? 

Mr. PRYOR. I am proud that our State increased the compensation— 

Senator LEAHY. I am talking about before 1999. 

Mr. PRYOR. Because I don’t think that compensation was adequate, Senator. Does that mean, though, that the criminal defense 

lawyers who took on the responsibility by court appointment to 

zealously represent a capital defendant did an ineffective job? No, 

not at all. 

Senator LEAHY. So you are convinced that all those cases, many 

awaiting execution now, where it was capped at $1,000, that in 

every single one of those cases there was effective representation? 

101

Mr. PRYOR. No, Senator. There were certainly cases, and we have 

procedures available in the courts to determine those cases, where 

there was ineffective assistance of counsel, and there have been 

findings by courts that there were, in fact, instances of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 

My point was only that it would be wrong to paint with a broad 

brush and assume that because our compensation was inadequate—and I concede it was inadequate. I’m proud the State increased it. But it would be wrong to paint with a broad brush and 

say that all those criminal defense lawyers who were doing their 

duty to the bar and to the court and to the community in providing 

zealous representation— 

Senator LEAHY. General Pryor, that— 

Mr. PRYOR. —were ineffective. 

Senator LEAHY. —is not my statement. That is yours. That is not 

mine. I will accept your answers as you give them, and I won’t 

characterize them differently than you do, and don’t 

mischaracterize my questions. The fact is that you—I believe you 

have—you raise a real red flag when you have any State that caps 

defense lawyers at that amount. And the idea that always the bar 

will come through, and in another State near you the State Supreme Court said that when they had a lawyer who slept through 

much of the capital case, they said, well, the Constitution requires 

you to have counsel, it doesn’t say it requires them to be awake. 

I think the fact of the matter is that at the very least a warning 

sign should go up. At the very least, contrary to some of the feelings that you expressed back in 2001, at the very least we ought 

to be having strongly competent counsel for the defense, just as I 

feel we should have very competent prosecutors. I was a prosecutor 

for 8 years. I feel very strongly that way. I prosecuted a lot of murder cases. But I also know what can happen if you don’t have good 

people on both sides. 

I am looking at some of the amicus briefs. We have discussed 

some of them that you have filed as an example perhaps of your 

judgment. You were the only Attorney General out of all the States 

to file an amicus brief opposing the Federal Government in the 

case involving the Violence Against Women Act that allowed victims of gender-motivated violent to sue their attackers in Federal 

court. You have spoken many times with pride about your involvement and your lone opposition in this case. Incidentally, 36 other 

States took the other position. 

Under your leadership, Alabama was the only State to submit an 

amicus brief in the case of Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook 

County v. U.S. You argued the Federal Government did not have 

authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to prevent destruction of waters and wetlands that serve as critical habitat for 

migratory birds. I heard from a lot of hunters in my State on that. 

And while you were Attorney General, Alabama was the only 

State to file an amicus brief in the famous case Bush v. Gore. Even 

conservative Republican Attorneys General were not willing to do 

that. 

I only raise this because we expect circuit court judges to be able 

to reach consensus with their colleagues as much as possible. Obviously in these cases you were unique among your fellow Attorneys 

102

General, and I will concede, of course, that you represent only the 

State of Alabama, and you only have to answer to the State of Alabama, not the other 49 Attorneys General. But do you feel that you 

may be giving a signal that you might not be collegial enough to 

be on the court? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, not at all, Senator. You’ve raised several points. 

I’d like to address as many of them as I can, as I can recall. 

Senator LEAHY. Sure. 

Mr. PRYOR. First of all, in both the Swank case, the migratory 

bird rule or Clean Water Act case, and in the Violence Against 

Women Act case, it’s true I was the only State Attorney General 

who offered that perspective, but it was the perspective that the 

Supreme Court ultimately sustained. 

There have been many other instances, though, where, as a State 

Attorney General, I have filed amicus briefs that many States have 

joined. In fact, my office has previously received the Best Brief 

Award from the National Association of Attorneys General because 

of our Supreme Court work, the first time that our office has ever 

received that, and tomorrow we’ll receive another one of those 

awards for an amicus brief that we wrote. 

Now, I think it’s a misunderstanding, though, to say that I was 

the only State Attorney General to file an amicus brief in Bush v. 

Gore. There were at least a dozen Democratic Attorneys General 

who filed an amicus brief in Bush I. There were three Republican 

Attorneys General who filed an amicus brief in Bush I. And I filed 

one separately. I filed one because Alabama had a case that I personally handled called Roe v. Alabama that was a part of the legal 

argument that was being made by the two sides, and I wanted to 

offer my perspective about that case, and that’s where our argument was principally focused. It was an equal protection and due 

process argument, and we offered it again in Bush II, which had 

a less than 24-hour deadline for filing an amicus brief. I don’t know 

how many of my colleagues tried to meet that deadline. But it is 

untrue that other Attorneys General did not file amicus briefs in 

that case. There were several of them who did. 

Senator LEAHY. Unfortunately, my time is up. I will follow up on 

that particular point, as you can imagine, with follow-up questions. 

I would ask you just one last question, if I might, Mr. Chairman, 

and my others will be in writing. 

You have been criticized because of your personal views and your 

political philosophy, which are always open to question for any one 

of us, except that no matter what your personal views, no matter 

what your political philosophy is, you are expected to be a fair and 

impartial Federal judge if you are confirmed. 

What assurances can you give us that you would be that fair and 

impartial judge that people coming into your courtroom wouldn’t 

look at you and say, well, I am the wrong political party or I am 

the wrong political philosophy so I am not going to be treated fairly? What assurances would you give? 

Mr. PRYOR. I would urge them first to look at my record as a 

State Attorney General. Of course, eventually I would hope that 

they could look at my record as a judge and see my decisionmaking 

and see my fairness and impartiality, but look before that at my 

record as a State Attorney General. When you raise issues of poliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
103

tics, I have prosecuted Republicans. I have prosecuted the former 

director of the department— 

Senator LEAHY. So have I. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. I have also prosecuted Democrats, I must say. 

Mr. PRYOR. Me, too, and that’s my responsibility as Attorney 

General. I have sided with Democratic interests several time in legislative redistricting cases because I thought their argument was 

the right legal argument. I prosecuted the former director of the 

State Department of Transportation in the Governor—in the administration of the Governor who appointed me and convicted him. 

I have prosecuted Republicans for voter fraud, for trying to rig elections. 

I would urge people to look at my record. My record is one that, 

whatever my political philosophy might be on the one hand, when 

it comes to my record as Attorney General and making tough decisions I strive to follow the law. And I would urge people to show 

otherwise. I believe that my record shows that I strive to follow the 

law. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

We are just about through for this morning, now afternoon hearing, but let me just clarify a few things, if I can, before we finally 

wind up. 

Isn’t it true that although you are clearly pro-life—and you have 

made that clear—you directed prosecutors to enforce— 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct one thing. 

I moved Paul Cassell through while I was chairman, but I did vote 

against him on the floor. I had that error. I didn’t want to—I had 

forgotten. I knew that—I resisted the urging of many to hold him 

bottled up in committee. I brought him out on the floor so he could 

have a vote. 

Chairman HATCH. You did, and we appreciated that. 

Let me go back again to this question because I think we need 

to clarify a few things before we break for lunch. It is true that you 

are strongly pro-life. That is apparent. So am I. You directed prosecutors to enforce the State partial-birth abortion ban only to the 

extent permitted by the Supreme Court. Is that right? 

Mr. PRYOR. That was what I strived to do. 

Chairman HATCH. Even though you had people pushing you to 

go farther. 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. To try and expand that law beyond what the 

Supreme Court had said. 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. So you went along with the Supreme Court, 

which is the law of the land. 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Even though you might have believed otherwise. 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. Even though you did believe otherwise. 

104

Isn’t it true that even though you have been critical of Section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act, you defended majority-minority voting 

districts created under the Act all the way to the Supreme Court, 

which sided with you? Isn’t that right? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. In other words, even though you disagreed 

with it, you defended them, and you defended the rulings that you 

disagreed with all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme 

Court found you were right. 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Isn’t it true that although you filed a brief in 

Lawrence v. Texas, you relied on the language of Justice White of 

the United States Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, right? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. So you were following the law of the land. 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. The law as determined by the Supreme Court 

of the United States of America. 

Isn’t it also true that although you defended the display of the 

Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court and studentled prayer, you did so only to the extent permitted by precedent 

and on much narrower grounds than that suggested by the Governor who appointed you? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. And you were right. 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. You were found to be correct by the courts. 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, isn’t it true also that although you filed 

briefs in the Garret and Kimmel cases as well as the Morrison case, 

the cases involving the Americans With Disabilities Act, et cetera, 

those briefs challenged only small portions of the Americans With 

Disabilities Act, the ADEA, and VAWA, or the Violence Against 

Women Act? You filed briefs in those cases, but who did the Supreme Court agree with? 

Mr. PRYOR. They agreed with our arguments every time. 

Chairman HATCH. They agreed with you. So all these criticisms 

that seem to be criticisms and arguments against you are arguments against decisions by the Supreme Court. I wonder who is 

outside the mainstream. It certainly isn’t you. That is a shibboleth 

that is used around here far too often. 

Now, let me just go a little bit further here. On the death penalty, is it not true that you strongly support increasing payments 

for appointed counsel up to $15,000 in capital cases? 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. Per case. 

Mr. PRYOR. In the first stage of appeals, and I’ve been unsuccessful in that urging, but it is something I still urge. 

Chairman HATCH. And it is something you think would be a step 

in the right direction? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, just for the record, what is your religious 

affiliation? 

Mr. PRYOR. I’m a Roman Catholic. 

105

Chairman HATCH. Are you active in your church? 

Mr. PRYOR. I am. 

Chairman HATCH. You are a practicing Roman Catholic. 

Mr. PRYOR. I am. 

Chairman HATCH. You believe in your religion. 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. I commend you for that. But I would like to 

ask you just a few questions to follow up on Senator Durbin’s concerns that your strong statements about Christianity indicate some 

sort of insensitivity towards religious minorities. I would like to say 

something very important that debunks that allegation. As Attorney General you have been a tireless defender of religious liberties 

and freedoms for people of all faiths, have you not? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, as you mentioned in response to Senator 

Durbin, you worked tirelessly to promote the passage of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the Alabama Constitution, 

which requires the government to show, quote, ‘‘a compelling interest,’’ unquote, in other words, a higher standard, before it imposes 

religious restrictions, and the restriction has to be, quote, ‘‘the least 

burdensome,’’ unquote, possible. And that applies to people of all 

faiths, does it not? 

Mr. PRYOR. It does, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. And you were advocating for that? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. As a committed Catholic. 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. For everybody, regardless of religious belief. 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, I would like to submit for the record a 

letter written by an active member of the Birmingham Jewish community, Herc Levine, who writes that Attorney General Pryor—

quote, ‘‘That Attorney General Pryor has’’—I’ve got the quote right, 

who writes that you have his support, quote, and here is what he 

says, ‘‘and the support of many in the Alabama Jewish community 

because of his personal integrity and commitment to ensure that 

all of our citizens are treated fairly and receive equal justice under 

the law. He has been a true friend to the Alabama Jewish community on many important issues,’’ unquote. Are you aware of that 

letter? 

Mr. PRYOR. I am. 

Chairman HATCH. I want to say something else that is equally 

important. You have been honored for protecting the religious liberties of incarcerated prisoners, have you not? 

Mr. PRYOR. I have. 

Chairman HATCH. Many states have considered exempting prisoners from religious freedom protection, but not you. 

Mr. PRYOR. No. I demanded otherwise. 

Chairman HATCH. You successfully prevented the Alabama Religious Freedom Act from including a prison exemption; is that correct? 

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman HATCH. You fought for that? 

Mr. PRYOR. I did. 

106

Chairman HATCH. Now, in recognition of your efforts, if I have 

it correctly, you were honored with the 1999 Guardian of Religious 

Freedom Award by the Prison Fellowship Ministries, the Justice 

Fellowship and the Neighbors Who Care, right? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. I think, you know, it is easy to take somebody 

who has been in politics as long as you have, and pick statements 

out of literally thousands of paragraphs and writings and records 

and briefs that maybe you have not even written, as has been indicated here, and pick out isolated paragraphs with which you think 

you can disagree or you could make a fuss over, and then try to 

undermine a person’s credibility. Here we have a religious person 

who is very up front about his religious beliefs and his personal 

views, but who in every case that I can see—and I have really gone 

through this with pretty much of a fine-tooth comb—has followed 

the law regardless of his personal, deeply felt, strongly felt religious beliefs. And in virtually every case except a few that you lost, 

you won. The Court sustained your positions. And yet almost every 

point that has been made, or at least attempted to be made against 

you here today, has been a point made in areas where you have 

won, where your point of view was agreed to. I think that is a fair 

statement, and I have seen what they tried to do to you when your 

nomination came up here. I am not talking about people on this 

Committee. I am talking about the outside groups who do not seem 

to care how outrageous their smears are. I thought Senator Kyl did 

a very good job of showing how really ridiculous it gets around 

here. 

I think it is also ridiculous to make such a fuss against people 

just because you disagree with them, and try to paint them as outside of the mainstream of American jurisprudence, especially somebody like you who wins all these cases, and whose point of view 

has been sustained by the Supreme Court time after time after 

time. We may not like that from time to time, but who are we? It 

seems to me we are outside the mainstream if we start trying to 

make a fuss about some of the things that Supreme Court has 

done. Now, we can differ with them just like you have. You have 

differed with Justice Souter in a number of ways. That does not 

mean that you hate the guy or that you do not think he has a redeeming quality or that you do not think he should be sitting on 

the Supreme Court, and maybe you have used some language that 

you wish in retrospect, sitting there, you had not used. You have 

said that in that one quote that it was a, quote, ‘‘feeble attempt,’’ 

if I recall it correctly, to be humorous. Did the people laugh who 

were there? 

Mr. PRYOR. In that mixed audience, mostly conservative, yes, 

there were a fair number of laughs. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I just would suggest from hereon in, as 

we make you judge, you should probably be very careful about criticizing Justice Souter, how is that? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. Or any other Supreme Court Justice for that 

matter, although it is very legitimate for lawyers, and especially 

Attorneys General, and especially lawyers on this Committee, to 

107

find fault with Supreme Court decisions, and to wish that they 

were otherwise. 

Now, you have wished that Roe v. Wade were otherwise. But you 

have sustained Roe v. Wade in your job as an Attorney General 

which is a much more political job than being a Circuit Court of 

Appeals Judge. You have done what is right, regardless of your 

personal views that are deeply held. Look, I wish we could find 

more people like you to be on the Federal bench. We would be a 

lot better off in this country, and I have to say, I think we are finding a lot of good people, just like you or similar to you or similar 

to great Democrats and Republicans of the past who have distinguished themselves once they became judges. And I can name great 

Democrat judges and I can name great Republican judges, and I 

can name lousy Democrat judges and lousy Republican judges, who 

really have not distinguished themselves. 

One thing we do as lawyers, we do criticize each other, and that 

is not unhealthy. That is a good thing. But I wanted to get some 

of those things across, that some of the things that some have criticized you for were the mainstream. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the next person, 

I just want to make, if I could, a couple quick points. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to go 

to the next person. 

Senator LEAHY. I would like, Mr. Chairman— 

Chairman HATCH. I will go to the Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, are we rotating here? 

Chairman HATCH. Yes, but we are going to go to Senator Leahy 

for whatever comment he wants to make. 

Senator LEAHY. Just went from a Republican to a Democrat now 

you see, that is rotation. 

I am not going to ask questions, but just to note two things. One, 

you were asked about your religion. In 29 years in the Senate and 

thousands of nominations hearing in all the different committees I 

sit on, I never asked a nominee what his or her religion was because I think that that is irrelevant to our consideration. And I 

would hope, I would hope that that is not going to become a question that nominees are going to be asked because we should be, 

just so as we are supposed to be color blind, we should be religious 

blind, as far as that is somebody’s personal choice, and has nothing 

to do with their qualifications. And I would hope that that would 

not become a question. 

Also in looking over the transcripts, so there could be no question 

in your mind, when I spoke about Bush v. Gore, obviously I was 

speaking about the final decision, the decisive one. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, let me just make it clear, I do not usually ask that question either, but lately we have been finding situations where some of the questions that come up clearly go to that 

issue. And I just wanted to make it very clear that he is a very 

strong Catholic who believes in what he is doing, but yet has abided by the law, and that is a very important point because some of 

the criticisms have been hitting below the belt, frankly. 

Senator Specter? 

108

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my objection to Senator Leahy’s latest intervention because I want to associate myself with his remarks. I do not believe that religion 

ought to be a question either. If you have been attacked for being 

a Catholic, that is one thing. Have you been attacked for being a 

Catholic? 

Mr. PRYOR. In my life, Senator? 

Senator SPECTER. No, in connection with this judicial proceeding? 

I would hate to go back over my life to answer that question with 

my religious background. 

Mr. PRYOR. I wouldn’t want to characterize anyone as having— 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I interpreted it that way. 

Senator SPECTER. If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HATCH. Sure. 

Senator SPECTER. In the absence of an attack, if there is an attack, it is a different matter. Then you have to defend yourself and 

it becomes a relevant issue if it is an attack, but I would hope that 

this Committee would not inquire into anybody’s religion. There 

are enough questions to inquire into and enough substantive matters that that ought to be out of bounds. So I want to associate myself with what Senator Leahy said. 

The Chairman has asked about whether you have made some 

comments which you now consider intemperate, and I regret that 

I could not be here earlier today, but as you know, we have many 

conflicting schedules. But I note the comment you made after 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where you were quoted as saying—

first I would ask you if this quote is accurate. I have seen a quote 

or two not accurate. ‘‘In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. 

Casey the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional 

law in our history,’’ close quote. Is that an accurate quotation of 

yours? 

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Is that one which would fall into the category 

that Senator Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not 

made? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, I stand by that comment. 

Senator SPECTER. Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General Pryor? 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported 

by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it had led to a 

morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That’s my personal belief. 

Senator SPECTER. With that personal belief, Attorney General 

Pryor, what assurances can you give to the many who are raising 

a question as to whether when you characterized it an abomination 

and slaughter, that you can follow a decision of the United States 

Supreme Court, which you consider an abomination and having led 

to slaughter? 

Mr. PRYOR. I would invite anyone to look at my record as Attorney General, where I’ve done just that. We had a partial birth 

abortion law in our State that was challenged by abortion clinics 

in Alabama in 1997. It could have been interpreted broadly or it 

could have been interpreted narrowly. I ordered the district attorneys of Alabama to give it its narrowest construction because that 

109

was based on my reading of Roe and Casey. I ordered the district 

attorneys to apply that law only to post-viable fetuses. I could have 

read it easily more broadly. The Governor who appointed me was 

Governor at the time and a party to the lawsuit, disagreed with me 

and openly criticized me. A pro-life activist in Alabama criticized 

me. But I did it because I thought that was the right legal decision. 

I still had an obligation to defend Alabama law. This was a recently-passed Alabama law. When the Supreme Court of the 

United States later of course struck down this kind of partial birth 

abortion law, we conceded immediately in district court that the decision was binding, but until then I was making the narrowest argument I could make, trying to be faithful to the Supreme Court’s 

precedent, while also being faithful to my role as Attorney General 

and my oath of office to defend a law recently passed by the legislature. 

Senator SPECTER. When you talk about post-viability and you 

have the categorization of partial birth or late-term abortion, is not 

that statute necessarily directed toward post-viability? 

Mr. PRYOR. That was one of the main arguments I made in construing it, but if you look at the actual language— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I asked you that question as to whether 

there was a basis for construing it to the contrary. When you talk 

about partial birth abortion, we are talking about an event in the 

birth canal which is definitely post-viability. When you talk about 

late-term abortion, we are also talking about post-viability. So 

aside from having some people who will raise a question about anything, whether there is a question to be raised or not, was it not 

reasonably plain on the face of the statute that they were talking 

about post-viability? 

Mr. PRYOR. No, I don’t think anyone would contend that. In fact, 

the abortion clinics argued that that was not how you could interpret the law, and that my instructions to the district attorneys, 

while helpful in narrowing the construction of the law, gave them 

no real benefit because I could withdraw it at any time. That was 

the argument they made. They made the argument that you could 

easily broadly construe the law to apply pre-viability, so, no. There 

was a legitimate issue there. 

There was also a law passed by the legislature in the same session that was a post-viability law itself. So you had a partial birth 

law and a post-viability law, and when you read the text of the partial birth law, that was not so clear, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. In Casey v. Planned Parenthood that was an 

opinion, plurality, written by Justice O’Connor, a strong pro-life 

Justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a strong pro-life Justice, and 

also Justice Souter. Now, some might raise a question as to Justice 

O’Connor’s instincts being a little more concerned with the woman’s point of view, but in Justice Anthony Kennedy, you have a 

Justice of impeccable pro-life credentials, a man whom I voted to 

confirm, as I did Justice O’Connor, and Justice Souter, and for that 

matter, Justice Rehnquist, and Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. 

What do you find in the writings of that plurality opinion, noting 

the presence of Justice O’Connor and especially the presence of 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, to be an abomination? 

110

Mr. PRYOR. Well, they preserved Roe and they were following Roe

and I considered Roe to be the abomination because it involves 

abortion, involves, from my perspective, the killing of innocent, unborn children. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let’s move on then. On the Civil Rights 

Act, you have objected to Section 5 of the Act and have urged its 

repeal. Why have you taken that position, Attorney General Pryor? 

Mr. PRYOR. I believe the Voting Rights Act is an important and 

necessary law in American history, and Section 5 was vitally needed in 1965 and for many years thereafter. It has now been almost 

40 years afterwards. And what we routinely see in Alabama and 

in other states, is that when we want to change a polling place 

from say a firehouse on one side of the street to a schoolhouse on 

the other side of the street, we have to submit that to either the 

Department of Justice or Federal District Court in D.C. to obtain 

permission. They are routinely now granted, but if we miss any 

identification of what change in law was precisely made in the 

preclearance process, there’s a ‘‘gotcha’’ game that is played by lawyers representing white voters, Republican voters, and others for 

their own political opportunity that has nothing to do with protecting the voting rights of minorities. That’s what I’ve seen in my 

own capacity as Attorney General. 

Senator SPECTER. Are there any other provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act which you would like to see repealed? 

Mr. PRYOR. No. I think that Congress— 

Senator SPECTER. The rest of it has been in existence for 40 

years too. Is any of it outmoded beyond Section 5 which you have 

already testified about? 

Mr. PRYOR. No. In fact, Section 2, the core provision, which applies to every jurisdiction in the United States, and prohibits dilution of minority voting strength, I have actively enforced, as I have 

Section 5. As Attorney General my record has been one of enforcing 

the Voting Rights Act, and I very sincerely believe in those protections and the importance of the Act, including the importance of 

Section 5 of the Act for the time of its enactment and for many 

years afterwards. And there may be, if Congress reviews it very 

carefully, even consistent with my perspective, a need for continued 

vitality of aspects of Section 5. 

Senator SPECTER. I see I have 12 seconds left on the clock, so I 

will start another line here if I may. That relates to the decision 

on the Age Discrimination Act and the move by the United States 

Supreme Court on States’ rights, overruling the Lopez case, which 

stood for 60 years under the commerce clause, and now an interpretation of the 14th Amendment and legislation under Article 5 

of the 14th Amendment, very difficult to find a line of discernment. 

In the most recent case there was a shift in position with Chief 

Justice Rehnquist voting to uphold the Family Leave Act. Do you 

agree with that most recent Supreme Court decision? 

Mr. PRYOR. I filed an amicus brief on the other side, on the side 

that was the losing side in that case, Senator. It was obviously a 

very close case, and if you look at whether the Act was designed 

to prohibit gender discrimination, as the Court found, then 

Congress’s authority was much more likely to be sustained. If on 

the other hand you argued, as I and several State Attorneys GenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
111

eral did, that it was more of an employee benefit offered to all 

without regard to gender discrimination, then it was much less 

likely to prevail. Our argument did not prevail, and I respect the 

decision of the Supreme Court. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you agree with it? 

Mr. PRYOR. We made the argument on the opposite side. I did 

not have the opportunity to go through what the Supreme Court 

Justices did and read everything in the record and all the briefs. 

I think it was a very—that was a very close case. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you agree with it? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know whether I do or not without going 

through that process, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. ‘‘I don’t know’’ is an answer. 

Mr. PRYOR. Okay. I’m sorry. 

Senator SPECTER. In looking at your involvement with the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act matter and the Americans With 

Disabilities where you were very active on both those cases, and 

you now have the family leave case, and if you try to discern a rational line on what the Supreme Court is going to do, I think it is 

virtually incomprehensible, I think it is incomprehensible as to 

whether there is a sufficient record by the Supreme Court to satisfy the Supreme Court. The Court has come to the position on so 

many Congressional enactments that they haven’t been thought 

through. And it is a matter of grave concern to me, and you talk 

about judicial activism, which we frequently do, as to the lack of 

deference that the Supreme Court gives to Congress. 

The whole point is that we are supposed to make the laws, and 

they are supposed to interpret them. But they have some line of 

delineation as to whether there is a sufficient record, and really it 

boils down to whether it has been thought through by the Congress. 

And then I always raise the question as to whether it has been 

thought through by the Court. These decisions are five-to-four; the 

most recent one was six-to-three. Could you articulate a standard 

for trying to decide this complex area? And I ask you that because 

so many people are concerned about—Attorney General Pryor, you 

are obviously a man with a very distinguished record, magna cum 

laude undergrad and magna cum laude in law school, and you are 

a very articulate witness. You have had a very distinguished career, and what arises as a point of concern is that when these questions come up and they are so very, very close, whether your own 

philosophical orientation will steer you one way as opposed to another. 

So could you give us a statement as to the prevailing principles 

on these decisions which go both ways and have a very hard time 

to see if somebody could find a clear path as to what the standard 

is? 

Mr. PRYOR. I will do my best, Senator. I will do so noting that 

in some of the cases I have made the arguments that were prevailing arguments, but in some, like Hibbs, the Family Medical 

Leave Act case, I was on the losing side. So I may not be the best— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you might be wrong. You haven’t told us 

if you disagree with the Court yet. 

112

Mr. PRYOR. Well, it may be that I might not be the best judge 

of how do you delineate it. It was our prediction— 

Senator SPECTER. You are the only one we have— 

Mr. PRYOR. Fair enough. From my understanding, though, of the 

case law, when the Supreme Court looks at the Congressional exercise of its power under Section 5, its remedial power, its power to 

enforce the guarantees of the 14th Amendment and ensure that 

when violated, that those violations are corrected, that when they 

look at the pattern of State conduct, they want to see whether Congress has compiled a record of unconstitutional activity by the 

States. Congress is owed more deference when the form of discrimination involved is, for example, racial discrimination, which is subject to the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and Congress 

is given less deference in an area that is subject to rational basis 

scrutiny, as in the case of age discrimination or disability discrimination. 

Senator SPECTER. Where is Congress given no deference? 

Mr. PRYOR. Pardon me? 

Senator SPECTER. And where is Congress given no deference? 

Mr. PRYOR. I don’t know that it’s ever anywhere given no deference. 

Senator SPECTER. I read a great many of the decisions that way. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, that’s my best perspective of where the Court 

is coming from, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. Thank you very much, Attorney General 

Pryor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Specter. 

Here is what we are going to do. We are going to recess until 3 

o’clock. The reason is some of the Senators have some additional 

questions of you. And at 3 o’clock we are going to—let me just see 

here. 

At 3 o’clock we are going to give you a little extra time here. We 

are going to proceed with Diane Stuart, which shouldn’t take a long 

time. Diane has sat here all day, and she is, of course, to be the 

Director of the Violence Against Women Office, and that is at the 

Department of Justice. So what we will do is we will proceed with 

her, and I think you should be back here somewhere shortly after 

3 o’clock. And then we will resume with you, hopefully for not too 

long a time after that, and go through these questions. 

Now, I want to make this clear because I am really upset with 

some of the things that have gone on in this Committee over the 

ensuing months. It is not the Committee’s usual proceeding to ask 

a nominee about his or her religious beliefs. And I agree with that 

position and with both Senator Leahy and Senator Specter. But 

perhaps Senators Leahy and Specter were not here when you were 

asked whether, in light of your statements about Christianity, you 

could be fair to religious minorities. You have also been asked extensively about your personal beliefs with regard to Roe v. Wade, 

which almost everybody for a circuit court judgeship is asked—in 

fact, everybody is because that seems to be the be-all, end-all issue 

to some people in this Committee. 

113

But, of course, being asked those questions, as I understand it, 

that stems from your pro-life beliefs, which in turn are rooted in 

your religious beliefs. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, one more time— 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just— 

Senator LEAHY. —I must object if we are going to go into people’s 

religious beliefs. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just finish with my remarks and you 

can say whatever you want to. So though it is unusual to ask about 

a nominee’s religion, I think it is in this case because—it perhaps 

should have been raised in some prior cases as well with what has 

gone on in this Committee. 

In this case, General Pryor’s religious beliefs have been put 

squarely at issue, and if not directly, indirectly. But I think directly. So that is the reason why I raise it. I don’t intend to raise 

it again, but the fact of the matter is that I just wanted to make 

sure that that is clear why I did that. And I don’t intend to do it 

in the future, but I sure hope we can get off some of the approaches 

that the outside groups are encouraging us to do up here. And we 

can be more fair to people who do have deeply held religious beliefs 

regardless of religion. 

And the point I am making with you is that your whole career 

has been spent making sure that there is religious freedom and respect for religious beliefs throughout your career, and I just wanted 

to make that point. Would you disagree with that? 

Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate the Senator’s perspective very much. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

With that, we will recess— 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, you said I could respond. 

Chairman HATCH. Sure, go ahead. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with you, and 

you are my friend. I think it is inappropriate if we start raising 

what a candidate’s religion is. Going into their philosophy beliefs, 

that is fine. But to somehow jump from there to what their religion 

is and, thus, what their philosophy is I think is very, very dangerous. 

Chairman HATCH. I agree. 

Senator LEAHY. I think if we start down that track, we are going 

to all regret it. 

Now, sometimes in the political arena a person’s religion has 

been attacked in an elective office. I know when the Chairman, my 

good friend’s religion was attacked, I took to the Senate floor to defend him. In the political context I have had my religion attacked 

by some members on the other side of the aisle, and I assume 

someday one of them will defend me. But I do not think it is an 

appropriate question to ask a nominee. 

I admire people who hold deeply religious views, whatever they 

might be, but I really strongly believe in the First Amendment and 

feel that that should be their belief or their family’s belief. I admire 

them for it, but I don’t think it should be part of the questions that 

we ask. I really don’t. I think that we could run into a very difficult 

thing if we started doing that. I think it would be a terrible, terrible precedent to start. 

114

Chairman HATCH. Then let’s get the outside groups to stop doing 

that. 

We will recess until 3 o’clock. 

[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 3:00 p.m., this same day.] 

AFTERNOON SESSION [3:03 p.m.] 

Chairman HATCH. Let me call the Committee to order, and I 

would like to start by welcoming Ms. Stuart before the Committee. 

Diane is an old friend of mine, and I want to congratulate her for 

being nominated by President Bush. 

It is a true pleasure to have Ms. Stuart before the Committee. 

Her impressive background, dedication to the issue of domestic violence and violence against women as well as her past Government 

service make me very confident that she will be a great asset to 

the Department of Justice, to this Committee, and to the American 

people, above all to women. 

On a personal note, I want to express on behalf of myself and 

the Committee my sympathy to you, Diane, for the tragic loss of 

your grandson. I want you to know that my thoughts and prayers 

are with you and have been with you and your family as you cope 

with this terrible loss. 

Let me turn to your nomination. Since it was created in 1994, 

the Office on Violence Against Women has played a vital role in 

protecting our children and women from the tragedy of violence 

and abuse. I have been and will continue to be a strong supporter 

of the office, along with my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator 

Leahy, Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, and others on this Committee. 

Since 2001, Diane Stuart has demonstrated her ability to lead 

this important office to bring new energy and focus to its many 

missions and to continue to help our Nation’s women and children 

who fall victim to abuse and violence. 

Ms. Stuart is a dedicated public servant who has a longstanding 

record of accomplishment in promoting programs and policies to 

protect women from violence. Anyone who knows Diane Stuart also 

knows that her public service and commitment to this area began 

long before 2001, when she assumed the position of Director of the 

Violence Against Women Act Office. 

From 1989 to 1994, Ms. Stuart served as the executive director 

of the Citizens Against Physical and Sexual Abuse from Logan, 

Utah, where she was responsible for a 20-bed shelter for victims of 

domestic violence and in addition was responsible for a rape crisis 

center. 

From 1994 to 1996, Ms. Stuart was a victim advocate specialist 

for the State of Utah in Salt Lake City. From 1996 to 2001, she 

served as the State of Utah’s coordinator for the Governor’s Cabinet Council on Domestic Violence. 

Finally, from 1995 to 2001, she served as a member and later became spokesperson for the National Advisory Council on Violence 

Against Women. 

That was such an impressive background at both the State and 

Federal level, I am confident that Diane Stuart is the right person 

for this critical post at the Justice Department, and I am really 

115

hopeful that the Committee and the Senate as a whole will move 

quickly to confirm her, and I expect them to do so. 

So, Diane, maybe you can stand and we will swear you in. Would 

you raise your right hand? Do you affirm that the testimony you 

are about to give before the Committee is the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Ms. STUART. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Now, if you have a statement you 

would care to make, we will be glad to take it at this time. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE M. STUART, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. STUART. Thank you, Senator. I do. 

First, Chairman Hatch, I would like to thank you for holding this 

hearing today and for your sensitivity in the death of our grandson 

and the postponement and rescheduling of this hearing. I am honored to be here, and I am very thankful to the President of the 

United States for the honor of nominating me to the Office of Director on the Office on Violence Against Women. 

I am also extremely grateful to the President and the Attorney 

General for their unwavering support and leadership in our National efforts to end violence against women, from the President’s 

Domestic Violence Month proclamation to the White House Roundtable on Violence Against Women, from the Attorney General’s 

Symposium on Domestic Violence to the President’s DNA Initiative. 

This administration’s commitment to this issue has been and continues to be extremely strong. 

As the former director of the domestic violence shelter that you 

mentioned and rape crisis center, I know very deeply of the importance of Federal leadership on these issues, and, of course, Congress recognized that when they passed the Violence Against 

Women Act in 1994 and when the office was created in 1995. At 

its very core, the Violence Against Women Act is about coordinated 

community response to these crimes. We have learned over and 

over again that collaboration among law enforcement, prosecutors, 

judges, advocates, health care workers, businesses, the faith community, and many others in the community that this is the key to 

ending violence against women. It’s this coordinating and working 

together effort. And through the grants that the Office of Violence 

Against Women administers, we know that it works. Policies and 

procedures are being impacted by this coordinated community response. 

But, Senator, when the Justice Department statistics reveal that 

in a single year there are almost 700,000 incidents of domestic violence, 248,000 rapes and sexual assaults, and over 1 million incidents of stalking, there is, as we all recognize, still much to do. 

Should I have the honor of being confirmed as the Director of the 

Office on Violence Against Women, I want to commit to you now 

to serve with integrity, compassion, and dedication. And then I welcome any questions. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much. I have no doubt that 

you will do exactly that, knowing you as well as I do. And I am 

very proud to see you in this position and, of course, I am proud 

116

of your willingness to come here to Washington and serve here, giving up staying in the beautiful State of Utah, our home State. That 

is a big sacrifice in my book, and I understand it myself. 

But since 2001, you have done, in my opinion, a remarkable job 

as the Director of the VAWA office. Could you take a few moments 

and, in addition to your opening statement, give us some of what 

you consider to be the most significant accomplishments since you 

assumed the position of Director? 

Ms. STUART. Mr. Chairman, when I came to the office, the first 

thing that I recognized after interviewing with each one of the staff 

was that the office needed to be reorganized, if you will, to better 

meet the needs of staff and, more importantly, better meet the 

needs of the individual grantees. And so that was one of the first 

things that we did, was to organize the office in such a way so it 

would be more responsive to grantees, and ultimately more responsive to victims. 

At the same time, we started working on the application process 

for grants, mostly for discretionary grants. There are 11 grant programs and 9 discretionary grant programs. And we began working 

with that process of what was needed from the discretionary grant 

programs, what applicants needed to know in order to successfully 

gain an award from that very, very highly competitive process that 

we had. 

And so we rewrote the solicitation so that it would be very easy 

for an applicant to look at it and see clearly what we are looking 

for, the kind of elements. We put it on a scoring form, which elements would be important. So refining the grant application process we think is an accomplishment. 

Also, refining and improving our technical assistance program. I 

believe that technical assistance is a key to communities, to States 

implementing what is intended with the Violence Against Women 

Act in a way that really works. Congress asked grantees to measure their effectiveness, and that’s another accomplishment. We’ve 

moved very, very far down the road in a very complicated process 

in order to help grantees with the tools that they need in order to 

measure how effective they are and where they need to go in the 

future. So combining the technical assistance program that we 

have, that initiative that we have, and making it better than it was 

with their effectiveness project is certainly an accomplishment. 

I think we’ve accomplished a better communications with the 

State administrators, with national organizations, with individual 

grantees even, a lot through the technical assistance projects but 

just on the day-to-day communications with grantees in our office. 

I think that a lot of policy is being directed through many of the 

initiatives that are coming out through our office. For instance, we 

have had a—we have begun with a focus group on specific elements 

that are in the African-American community. What is the same? 

What is different? And how can we be more responsive to that particular community? 

Re-entry, the same thing. Very often members that are—individuals that have been in jail go back into the homes that they were 

abusing. And so working on that initiative and helping States and 

communities learn more about how to deal with those that are reentering their community and keeping victims safe as they do so. 

117

We have organized a Federal coordinating board which—I discovered that local communities were organized. They had understood 

the Violence Against Women Act and the coordinated community 

response. States were coordinated. But we in the Federal Government weren’t very coordinated. What was happening at Labor was 

not available to the Department of Justice, not available to the Department of Human Services. And so bringing key people from 

those Federal agencies together and talk about what they are doing 

and what needs to be done in a coordinated fashion I think is as 

major accomplishment. 

And, finally, you are aware that the National Advisory Council 

has been reorganized. It is very, very effective. It is very—what a 

marvelous group of people, and many of the Senators on this Committee suggested people for that National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women. Energetic group. They’re going to accomplish 

quite a bit in the future, and we’re looking forward to their accomplishments. 

Chairman HATCH. Thanks so much. That is very helpful. 

Now, looking forward and hopefully after a quick confirmation of 

your nomination here in the Senate, can you outline—I think you 

have pretty well outlined the issues that you have been concerned 

with up to now. Can you outline any significant issues and challenges you think you are going to face as Director of the Violence 

Against Women Office? 

Ms. STUART. Excellent question, Senator. Always looking to improve what is happening is a challenge. But most specifically, as 

I said, the grant—discretionary grant programs are highly competitive. I think one of our largest challenges is how to figure out how 

individual communities, individual States can sustain the programs that they initiate and how to keep that going far beyond 

Federal funding. There’s no guarantee that they will be a continued 

recipient of any grant funds, so how do we help them be effective 

in what they’re doing and really change the way they do business 

in that community, even change the fabric of that society so that 

they can continue what they’ve started with Federal funding, if it’s 

2, 3, 4 years, or maybe an organization or a State that doesn’t get 

a particular—an arrest grant or a rural grant. There are many 

rural areas in our State that are seeking out how do we do this. 

How are we effective? How do we reduce violence against women? 

How do we keep victims safe? 

So our challenge is how to get information and resources to those 

areas that are not receiving them now, and those areas that are 

receiving them, how they can continue it on in the future. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

I think what we are going to do, we have one questioner who 

would like to question you, and that is Senator Biden. We are supposed to have a vote that is supposed to start right now, but the 

Senate is not the most efficient organization in the world, as you 

know. I think what I am going to do is recess until Senator Biden 

gets here, because those are the questions I had, and I knew you 

would answer them pretty much like you did. 

But let me put into the record several significant letters that the 

Committee has received, letters of support for your nomination. 

Specifically, we have received letters from the National District AtVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
118

torneys Association, the Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council, 

the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the 

Minnesota Program Development, and we will put those in the 

record without objection. 

I think that I will head over to the floor. We will recess until 

Senator Biden gets here. Is Senator Biden’s staff here? Just have 

him begin his questions if he gets here before I do. And our staff, 

you make sure that happens. Okay? And then I will get back as 

soon as I can, and hopefully after 10 minutes or so we can move 

on to our judgeship. 

Well, thank you, and Senator Biden is the prime author of the 

Violence Against Women Act. It was the Biden-Hatch bill, and I remember when we decided to do this together. We hadn’t been too 

successful up until then, but we were able to get it through. And 

we both take a tremendous interest in it, and Senator Biden in 

particular deserves a great deal of credit for the Violence Against 

Women Act. So we are showing this complete deference because of 

his efforts in this area. And I would do it, anyway, but I would certainly do it because of his efforts. 

So, with that, hopefully we will get this vote over and Senator 

Biden could get here and ask you whatever questions he wants, 

and then we are going to go back to our judgeship nominee, General Pryor, and hopefully finish that up within a short period of 

time. 

So, with that, we will recess until after we get back from the 

vote. 

Ms. STUART. Thank you, Senator. 

[Recess 3:17 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.] 

Chairman HATCH. We will call the Committee back to order. 

Diane, Senator Biden isn’t here. I hate to have to ask you to 

wait. I know it has been inconvenient all day, and we could have 

gotten this done. But I think what we will do is just start with the 

other hearing again and call you back as soon as I can. 

Chairman HATCH. General, you will have to understand why I 

might have to interrupt you again, if it is all right with you. But 

I just don’t see wasting this time. So if you will be kind enough and 

forgive me for this, we will go ahead and do that. General, if you 

will take the seat again. 

While we are waiting, I might as well ask some questions myself. 

General Pryor, you have been criticized for a number of positions 

you have taken in your role as Attorney General of Alabama, I 

think very unjustly criticized. I think that my good friend Senator 

Biden said it best during the confirmation of Justice Souter, about 

whom we have heard a good deal today. Senator Biden said, ‘‘I am 

mindful, of course, that a State Attorney General has an obligation 

to defend the actions and politics of the State even when his own 

views are at variance with them and even when he would not, if 

he were a judge, adopt the arguments he is making as an advocate.’’ And that is what you have demonstrated here today, and you 

agree with that. 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. You agree with Senator Biden. 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

119

Chairman HATCH. What strikes me as ironic is that you are 

being criticized for your position in a number of cases that you won 

before the United States Supreme Court. Sure, you lost some, too, 

but every good lawyer does. Nobody wins them all if you have had 

any kind of a practice. But I think that the fact that the Supreme 

Court agreed with you in a number of these cases indicates that 

your arguments were hardly out of the mainstream, you know, as 

some would try and indicate or as some would believe. 

For example, you have been criticized for your comments relating 

to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but in Sinkfield v. Kelly, you 

defended several majority-minority voting districts approved under 

Section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. 

And the Supreme Court agreed with you, didn’t it? 

Mr. PRYOR. Unanimously. 

Chairman HATCH. In other words, you didn’t agree with the 

present-day application of Section 5 because you think it needs to 

be changed. But you did uphold that, and the Supreme Court 

agreed with you. 

Mr. PRYOR. I did uphold— 

Chairman HATCH. So here they are criticizing you for your honesty in saying that Section 5 needs to be changed because it is no 

longer applicable in a more modern time, 40 years later, as it was 

in the past and it needs to be modified. I think most Attorneys 

General in the South would certainly agree with you. And yet when 

push came to shove and you had to defend the statute itself, you 

did so, even though you disagreed with it. 

I mean, I don’t see how you get criticized for that, but we do everything wrong here on the Judiciary Committee from time to time. 

In the Garret case, you argued that the Americans With Disabilities Act could not constitutionally authorize money for damage 

suits against States in Federal court. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s correct. 

Chairman HATCH. And the Supreme Court agreed with you, 

didn’t it? 

Mr. PRYOR. They did. 

Chairman HATCH. So now it is kind of ironic for you to be criticized here before this august body for having won a case sustaining 

the Americans With Disabilities Act, an Act that I had a major role 

in, even though you—you know, well, let me just leave it at that. 

It seems just ironic that they would criticize you for that. 

Now, in the Kimmel case, you and a bipartisan group of 23 other 

State Attorneys General argued that the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act could not constitutionally authorize money damage suits against States in Federal court. You were making a federalism argument. Is that right? 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s correct. General Butterworth from Florida and 

I presented that argument together. 

Chairman HATCH. That is right. And what did the Supreme 

Court do? 

Mr. PRYOR. And the Supreme Court ruled in our favor. 

Chairman HATCH. It agreed with you. 

Mr. PRYOR. Right. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, it is interesting to me how some might 

try to say, as they did against Jeffrey Sutton, that you must be 

120

against the Americans With Disabilities Act, and yet you took a 

case up and sustained that Act. 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s right, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. At least you took a case up where you won on 

that issue. 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s right. 

Chairman HATCH. In U.S. v. Morrison, where you, I guess, criticized Justice Souter for his dissent in that case, you argued that 

the civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act 

could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. And, again, the Supreme Court agreed with you, didn’t it? 

Mr. PRYOR. They did. 

Chairman HATCH. Sure did. Well, now, Senator Biden and I 

might not like that decision, but they agreed with you. 

Mr. PRYOR. They did. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, that doesn’t mean you are against the 

Violence Against Women Act, does it? 

Mr. PRYOR. Oh, absolutely not. I support the Violence Against 

Women Act, and as a State Attorney General and as a member of 

the National Association of Attorneys General, I have joined resolutions of our organization urging Congress to reauthorize that law. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay, but some of the criticisms from these 

outside groups have been in all of these cases, haven’t they? 

Mr. PRYOR. They have. I abhor domestic violence. I abhor rape 

and sexual assault of women. I’ve dedicated a large part of my administration to fighting that criminal activity in the State of Alabama. I think we’ve been very successful with our efforts. We’ve 

promoted the work of shelters for battered women and children. 

We’ve strengthened our laws dealing with the possession of dangerous substances like GHB, which is a dangerous date rape drug. 

We’ve passed important laws, like the domestic violence law, in a 

bipartisan package with my former Governor. 

That’s the core of who I am, but when it came time to uphold 

the Constitution and to present the argument that I did, I felt that 

it was important that the Court consider that argument and was 

pleased the Court agreed with it. 

Chairman HATCH. And in many cases, you set aside your own 

personal beliefs in order to do your job and duty to sustain the 

statutory language. 

Mr. PRYOR. I would like nothing more than to have more remedies to go against those who would perpetrate violence against 

women, but it has to be done consistent with the Constitution. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 

County, you argued that the Army Corps of Engineers did not have 

the authority under the Federal Clean Water Act to exercise Federal jurisdiction over entirely intrastate bodies of water—in this 

case, an abandoned gravel pit, if I recall it correctly. 

Mr. PRYOR. That’s correct. 

Chairman HATCH. And the Supreme Court again agreed with 

you, right? 

Mr. PRYOR. They did. 

Chairman HATCH. So you are being criticized as being anti-environment because of the case that you won in the Supreme Court. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I don’t perceive it as— 

121

Chairman HATCH. By some of these outside groups, that is. 

Mr. PRYOR. And I don’t perceive it as anti-environment at all. 

Making sure that there’s the proper balance of Federal and State 

power allows State authorities and Federal authorities to know 

where the lines are so that State environmental protectors can do 

their jobs as well. 

Chairman HATCH. But, again, there are some of these inside-the–

Beltway groups that have criticized you even though you won the 

case in front of the Supreme Court. 

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I was pleased that they ruled in our favor. I 

thought it was the correct decision. I thought, again, that as a 

State Attorney General I had a perspective that would be helpful 

for the Court in resolving a very difficult controversy. 

Chairman HATCH. You can see why I am upset and why I am 

not going to sit here and allow a well-qualified, fair-minded nominee like yourself to be categorized as ‘‘an extremist,’’ which some 

of these outside groups that have tried to make you out to be. You 

know, you won these cases. These are cases—this is the law of the 

land. 

Mr. PRYOR. It is. 

Chairman HATCH. The ones who are outside the mainstream are 

these people who are the critics, especially when the positions you 

have taken have been consistently supported by the Supreme Court 

majorities. 

Now, these are some of the things that have bothered me a great 

deal about some of the unjustified criticisms that you have received, and that is one reason why I have taken the time to go 

through these. 

Senator Sessions, I think you had a couple things you would like 

to say. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for your leadership. And it amazes me how you are able to master 

all the details of so many of these cases in so many of these hearings that we go through. And I know you are involved in a lot of 

other issues at this time, such as an asbestos bill and also the prescription drug legislation that is moving forward today. And I 

thank you for your leadership. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. And so everybody 

understands, I am going to have to leave in a little while because 

of some of the other duties I have, and I am going to ask Senator 

Sessions to continue to chair this hearing until we finish it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Attorney General Pryor, I think the thing to 

me that is distressing is that the groups that are making the complaints about you and some of our Members of the Senate don’t understand the reality of life in Alabama today. They have a rather 

unfair 1960’s image of the state. But we have a vigorous two-party 

system. We have a substantial number of very able and outspoken 

African-American leaders in the State. We talked earlier about the 

very strong support you have gotten from Dr. Joe Reed, who is a 

State representative and Chairman of the Alabama Democratic 

Conference for probably 30 years, the most powerful African-American political force in the State, also a member of the Democratic 

National Committee. I have talked with him over the years, and 

122

I know he knows about Federal courts and has always taken that 

as a real interest. 

So we have some people from outside the State that might complain, but the people who really have been carrying the water for 

civil rights in Alabama are supporting you. Alvin Holmes is one of 

the most outspoken members of the legislature. I have gotten to 

know and admire him and watched him over the years. He would 

be here today were not the State legislature in session. His letter 

on your behalf says, ‘‘From 1998 to 2000, Bill Pryor sided with the 

NAACP against a white Republican lawsuit that challenged the 

districts of the legislature. Pryor fought the case all the way to the 

United States Supreme Court and won a unanimous ruling in 

Sinkfield v. Kelly in 2000.’’ 

The lawsuit was filed by Attorney Mark Montiel, who both you 

and I know, and a three-judge federal court ruled in favor of Judge 

Montiel. But despite that, you carried it forward. 

Why were you willing to take the political heat, oppose a position 

of your friends, and take the position that Mr. Alvin Holmes did? 

What motivated you to do that? 

Mr. PRYOR. I took an oath of office when I became Attorney General. I swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of not only the 

United States but the State of Alabama, and I firmly believed in 

that lawsuit that the laws required the dismissal of the case, that 

Mr. Montiel’s—Judge Montiel’s, as you referred to him—his clients 

lacked standing to sue and to complain about those districts when 

they did not even reside in those districts. I thought the precedents 

of the Supreme Court were clear, and we took the case up on that 

basis, and that’s how the Court ruled on that basis and agreed with 

our argument unanimously. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, there is a good government group in 

Alabama, and they concluded that one of the legal problems with 

reform in education was that teachers or junior college administrators were able to serve in the legislature. A large number of them 

in fact had key positions in the legislature, and there was a dispute 

about whether this was legal or not. And you were the Attorney 

General for the State of Alabama, and the group wanted you to join 

in that lawsuit, which had wide support within the State. 

How did you analyze that tough call? And what decision did you 

make? 

Mr. PRYOR. I looked at the complaint that they filed in the circuit 

court and concluded that, in fact, the complaint was contrary to the 

law, that the teachers and junior college employees had a right to 

serve in the Alabama Legislature. And I took that position. I did 

my duty as Attorney General and defended the case and defended 

the practice that was complained about. And the Supreme Court of 

Alabama agreed with our argument. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Sessions, could I interrupt you? 

Senator SESSIONS. Please. 

Chairman HATCH. Diane, we are going to let you go because Senator Biden is unable to come, and he has agreed to end the hearing 

at this point for you. And what we are going to do is keep the 

record open for questions by close of business next Tuesday, so you 

will need to get your questions back because we will put you on, 

not tomorrow’s markup but we will put you on next Thursday’s 

123

markup. And I don’t want you put over for a week at that time, 

and hopefully we can report you out next Thursday—not tomorrow 

but next Thursday. 

So, with that, we will let you go, and your family, and we appreciate having you here and we are proud of you. 

Now, General Pryor, I have been informed that there are no further requests for time for questions. I think that is probably because you have handled yourself very well. I am hopeful that that 

is so because I believe you have. I believe you not only answered 

every question in a fresh, honest, straightforward way, but you 

have done it in a very intelligent way in each situation. And I am 

hopeful that some of the threats that have been issued in the past, 

without having met you on the part of some of our Senators, will 

dissipate because they should. You have clearly been a very intelligent, very gifted witness here today. You are clearly a person of 

great conscience and clearly a person of great ability. You clearly 

have our support. And, frankly, I am hopeful that we will be able 

to get you through within a relatively short period of time so that 

you can go on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and do what 

you have been doing as an Attorney General in the sense that you 

are following the law. And you are intelligent enough to know how 

to decide cases where there is no law, which is all we can ask of 

judges, and to decently and honestly do so. 

We have to set our personal preferences aside and do what is 

best for the law. And I have no doubt that you are going to do exactly that. And I believe with that, Senator, if you have no objection, I think we will formally close the hearing and wish you well. 

We are going to keep the record open for you to answer questions 

until—any member of this Committee can submit questions as of 

the close of business at 5 o’clock on next Tuesday. So that gives 

staff and members of the Committee until next Tuesday to submit 

written questions. We would suggest that you get your answers 

back immediately, as soon as you can, so that we can move your 

nomination. 

We will put you on the next Thursday—not tomorrow but the 

next Thursday markup, like Diane as well. And under our Committee rules you may very well put over for another week. I hope 

not but you may be. That has kind of become the rule lately, and 

I would like to see us not always have to use that rule, and we can 

vote and support good people and get them out to the floor and get 

them voted on. But that would be about as early as I think you are 

going to be able to have a vote on your nomination. But that will 

be good if we could get that all done. 

So, with that— 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would just offer for the 

record a strong editorial in support of Attorney General Pryor from 

the State’s largest newspaper, the Birmingham News. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, without objection, that will go in the 

record, and I want to compliment the State of Alabama for having 

such high-quality people working for them as you and those who 

associate with you and work with you. I think it is a real tribute 

to you that you have been able to handle some very, very difficult 

questions today with aplomb, with ability, with a keen sense of the 

law, and with a straightforward approach towards always susVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Feb 09, 2004 Jkt 091200 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91200.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
124

taining the law of this land that you will be obligated to sustain. 

And that is all we can ask of you. 

And, with that, we are grateful to have had you and your family 

here. I thought your two little daughters were terrific to last as 

long as they did without making any noise or difficulty. You tell 

them we are real proud of them, and your wife as well. 

So, with that, we will recess the Committee until further notice. 

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[The biographical information of Ms. Stuart, questions and answers, and submissions for the record follow.]

125


91200.050
126


91200.051
127


91200.052
128


91200.053
129


91200.054
130


91200.055
131


91200.056
132


91200.057
133


91200.058
134


91200.059
135


91200.060
136


91200.061
137


91200.062
138


91200.063
139


91200.064
140


91200.065
141


91200.066
142


91200.067
143


91200.068
144


91200.069
145


91200.070
146


91200.071
147


91200.072
148


91200.073
149


91200.074
150


91200.075
151


91200.076
152


91200.077
153


91200.078
154


91200.079
155


91200.080
156


91200.081
157


91200.082
158


91200.083
159


91200.084
160


91200.085
161


91200.086
162


91200.087
163


91200.088
164


91200.089
165


91200.090
166


91200.091
167


91200.092
168


91200.093
169


91200.094
170


91200.095
171


91200.096
172


91200.097
173


91200.098
174


91200.099
175


91200.100
176


91200.101
177


91200.102
178


91200.103
179


91200.104
180


91200.105
181


91200.106
182


91200.107
183


91200.108
184


91200.109
185


91200.110
186


91200.111
187


91200.112
188


91200.113
189


91200.114
190


91200.115
191


91200.116
192


91200.117
193


91200.118
194


91200.119
195


91200.120
196


91200.121
197


91200.122
198


91200.123
199


91200.124
200


91200.125
201


91200.126
202


91200.127
203


91200.128
204


91200.135
205


91200.136
206


91200.137
207


91200.138
208


91200.139
209


91200.140
210


91200.141
211


91200.142
212


91200.143
213


91200.144
214


91200.145
215


91200.146
216


91200.147
217


91200.148
218


91200.149
219


91200.150
220


91200.151
221


91200.152
222


91200.153
223


91200.154
224


91200.155
225


91200.129
226


91200.130
227


91200.131
228


91200.132
229


91200.133
230


91200.134
231


91200.156
232


91200.157
233


91200.158
234


91200.159
235


91200.160
236


91200.161
237


91200.162
238


91200.163
239


91200.164
240


91200.165
241


91200.166
242


91200.167
243


91200.168
244


91200.169
245


91200.170
246


91200.171
247


91200.172
248


91200.173
249


91200.174
250


91200.175
251


91200.176
252


91200.177
253


91200.178
254


91200.179
255


91200.180
256


91200.181
257


91200.182
258


91200.183
259


91200.184
260


91200.185
261


91200.186
262


91200.187
263


91200.188
264


91200.189
265


91200.190
266


91200.191
267


91200.192
268


91200.193
269


91200.194
270


91200.195
271


91200.196
272


91200.197
273


91200.198
274


91200.199
275


91200.200
276


91200.201
277


91200.202
278


91200.203
279


91200.204
280


91200.205
281


91200.206
282


91200.207
283


91200.208
284


91200.209
285


91200.210
286


91200.211
287


91200.212
288


91200.213
289


91200.214
290


91200.215
291


91200.216
292


91200.217
293


91200.218
294


91200.219
295


91200.220
296


91200.221
297


91200.222
298


91200.223
299


91200.224
300


91200.225
301


91200.226
302


91200.227
303


91200.228
304


91200.229
305


91200.230
306


91200.231
307


91200.232
308


91200.233
309


91200.234
310


91200.235
311


91200.236
312


91200.237
313


91200.238
314


91200.239
315


91200.240
316


91200.241
317


91200.242
318


91200.243
319


91200.244
320


91200.245
321


91200.246
322


91200.247
323


91200.248
324


91200.249
325


91200.250
326


91200.251
327


91200.252
328


91200.253
329


91200.254
330


91200.255
331


91200.256
332


91200.257
333


91200.258
334


91200.259
335


91200.260
336


91200.261
337


91200.262
338


91200.263
339


91200.297
340


91200.264
341


91200.265
342


91200.266
343


91200.267
344


91200.268
345


91200.269
346


91200.270
347


91200.271
348


91200.273
349


91200.274
350


91200.275
351


91200.276
352


91200.277
353


91200.278
354


91200.279
355


91200.280
356


91200.281
357


91200.282
358


91200.283
359


91200.284
360


91200.285
361


91200.286
362


91200.287
363


91200.288
364


91200.289
365


91200.290
366


91200.291
367


91200.292
368


91200.293
369


91200.294
370


91200.295
371


91200.296
372


91200.298
373


91200.299
374


91200.300
375


91200.301
376


91200.302
377


91200.303
378


91200.304
379


91200.305
380


91200.306
381


91200.307
382


91200.308
383


91200.309
384


91200.310
385


91200.311
386


91200.312
387


91200.313
388

Æ


91200.314