Date: 2005-05-05
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. today I rise in support of the nomination to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals of Janice Rogers Brown. Janice Rogers Brown is a member of -the California Supreme Court. a former member of perhaps our most distinguished district court of appeals that meets in Sacramento. a former distinguished top legal advisor to then Governor Pete Wilson. formerly a distinguished deputy attorney general in the office of the California attorney generals office. one %ho has come from humble beginnings. An Alabama sharecroppers daughter who attended segregated schools while she was growing up. graduated from UCLA. has practiced law in the private sector. but has spent most of her time in the public sector. either as the attorney representing the State. as a legal advisor to the Governor of the State. or.as one who has served well as a member of the judicial branch in the State of California. Her nomination is one of those that has been held up in the other body. Hers is one that has been suggested as the price of the President receiving consideration of his other nominations. that is. the suggestion is made that hers is one of the nominations that should be withdrawn because she is. "out of the mainstream." Well. Mr. Speaker. in the short time I have available. I would like to speak to that point. In the State of California. we have a requirement that when one is nominated by the Governor of the State to either the appellate court or the California Supreme Court. they must undergo a rigorous review. which is concluded by a confirmation hearing and vote by a confirmation panel made up of three members: the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. the attorney general of the State of California. and in the specific instance of someone being nominated to the appellate bench. the chief presiding officer of that appellate bench. And for one who is being nominated to the California Supreme Court. that third person would be the seniormost serving presiding officer of any of the appellate benches in the State of California. On two occasions I had the opportunity. as the attorney general of California. to be a member of that panel and had the opportunity to review her -consideration. her nomination. And in both of those nomination processes. she received a unanimous vote of the 3member panel. When We considered her past legal work. when we considered her past judicial work. when we considered her qualifidations. her education. her character. her philosophy. that is. whether or not she was committed to doing the job that judges are supposed to do. that is. interpreting the law as opposed to making the law. being constrained by the Constitution of the United States. by the Constitution of the State of California and by the statutes of the State of California. and where they apply. the statutes of the United States. In that instance. she received a 100 percent vote from us in both cases. It is interesting that in the State of California. once one receives such an appointment. one has to go before the people of the State of California in a vote. And in that vote. when she was considered. after she had rendered opinions. after she had had her opinions published. when she was considered by the people of the State of California. she received. I believe it is. more than a 75 percent vote of the people. Some say. well. that happens all of the time. Well. in my memory. we have had at least three members of the California Supreme Court basically voted down by the people. So there is a real contest. there is a real review -by the people of the State of California. Approximately 75 percent of the people of the State of California. when given the chance. upheld her continued activity on the court. that is. the Supreme Court of California. Now she has been nominated to serve the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals by the President. To this day. there has been reluctance. if not refusal. on the part of the other body to have her considered before the whole body. There has been the suggestion that rather than being submitted to the entire body and a vote up or down where a majority would prevail. she is being subjected to a 60vote rule. a 60percent rule. One searches in vain in the Constitution to find any reference to that. I would suggest. as a matter of fact. it is questionable whether the Constitution would allow that kind of constraint on the prerogative of the President. as to whether or not advice and consent means that. But be that as it may. it is interesting that the two representatives from the State of California who will have a vote in that body have chosen not to support her. And while they haqe been elected and reelected by the people of the State of California. that very same electorate has voiced their opinion in an official vote by giving her a mandate of 75 percent. That hardly suggests that she is out of the mainstream. unless one suggests that California is out of the mainstream. She has been criticized for upholding Proposition 209. a proposition that was put to the vote of the people of the State of California to determine whether or not we in California believe that racial quotas and setasides were. in fact. appropriate under the law. The people of the State of California decided that they were inappropriate by a large margin. and she interpreted that in accordance with the people of. the State of California. and for that she is criticized and considered to be out of the mainstream. My suggestibn. Mr. Speaker. is that she ought to have the opportunity to have her voice heard. her case heard by the entire body in the other body-. and that it is my belief. given that opportunity. the people of California will be well served by a reaffirmation of the fact that she is well within the mainstream of judicial decisionmakers in. the United States.