Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate turns to another judicial nomination, Jeffrey J. Helmick to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Ohio. I want to tell the Senate why I oppose the nomination and urge all Senators to do likewise.

We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a very brisk pace. Just 2 days ago we confirmed the 147th judicial nominee of this President to district and circuit courts. Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. We also have confirmed two Supreme Court nominees during President Obama's term. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term. And during President Bush's entire second term, the Senate confirmed a total of only 120 district and circuit court nominees. We have already confirmed 27 more nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush in a similar period of time. And this is in a Presidential election year--typically a time when judicial confirmations are limited to consensus nominees. Yet here we are considering a controversial nomination. Perhaps the Senate could better spend this time working on critical issues facing our Nation, such as our massive debt, intolerable deficit spending, an anemic economy, unacceptable unemployment levels, high energy costs, and national security issues.

The advice and consent function of the Senate is a critical step in the appointment of Federal judges. In Federalist Paper No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote this:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attention, or from a view to popularity.

In other words, the Senate has a role in preventing the appointment of judges who are unfit characters or political favors of any President or of those who are not qualified to serve as Federal judges.

What did our current President, then-Senator Obama say about this duty? He stated:

There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy, that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record.

Our inquiry of the qualifications of nominees must be more than intelligence, a pleasant personality, or a prestigious clerkship. At the beginning of this Congress, I articulated my standards for judicial nominees. I want to ensure that the men and women who are appointed to a lifetime position in the Federal judiciary are qualified to serve. Factors I consider important include intellectual ability, respect for the Constitution, fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial temperament, and professional competence. In applying these standards, I have demonstrated good faith in ensuring fair consideration of judicial nominees. I have worked with the majority to confirm consensus nominees. However, as I have stated more than once, the Senate must not place quantity confirmed over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal judiciary and the American people to simply rubberstamp them. This is not a pro forma process that we are engaged in.

Last year I became increasingly concerned about some of the judicial nominees being sent to the Senate by this administration. In a few individual cases, it was very troublesome. Mr. Helmick's nomination fell into that category. When I apply the standard I mentioned and the standards that then-Senator Obama laid out or the standards expressed in the Federalist Papers, I reach the same conclusion. In my judgment, Mr. Helmick fails to meet the required standard and should not be confirmed.

The Senate process for reviewing the professional qualifications, temperament, background, and character is a long and thorough process. In Mr. Helmick's case, there were some issues that needed to be fully examined. At the conclusion of that lengthy process, a substantial majority of my political party--the Republicans--on the Judiciary Committee determined that this nomination should not be reported to the Senate. Nevertheless, we now have the nomination before us. Even so, there are reasons sufficient to oppose the nomination.

In 2000 Mr. Helmick faced disciplinary action for failing to comply with a court-issued subpoena.

He refused to turn over an incriminating letter signed by a former client in the same case, which contained threats to a State witness. A grand jury issued a subpoena to obtain the letter, but Mr. Helmick refused to appear before the grand jury. The trial court found him in contempt of court. Mr. Helmick appealed, which caused the contempt sanction to be stayed. A three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals unanimously held that he was required to turn over the letter.

Mr. Helmick then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that he must comply with the subpoena, although they lifted the contempt citation.

The Supreme Court of Ohio stated that Mr. Helmick's concerns regarding the attorney-client privilege were not enough to ``override the public interest in maintaining public safety and promoting the administration of justice.''

I do not think we should confirm to the bench individuals who are willing to put private interests over the public interest in the administration of justice.

I am concerned about Mr. Helmick's view on national security, as evidenced by his handling of terrorism cases as a defense attorney. In looking at the arguments he has made in court representing terrorists, I am concerned he may believe terrorism cases are less serious than other criminal cases, and that in turn causes some concern about how he might handle terrorism cases that may come before him, if confirmed.

For example, he represented the terrorist Wassim Mazloum. This terrorist was convicted by a jury of a conspiracy to kill U.S. troops overseas and of providing material support for terrorists. Those are very serious crimes. According to the sentencing guidelines, Mazloum deserved life in prison. Mr. Helmick argued ``that perhaps the life sentence that was called for in the advisory guidelines was too severe or too harsh.'' In the end, this terrorist did not receive a life sentence, rather he received only an 8-year sentence--hardly a punishment or deterrent.

For these reasons and others I will vote no on this nomination and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source