Madam President, Debo Adegbile is the President's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He is a man who renews my faith in the American dream. He is the son of Irish and Nigerian immigrants. To say he grew…
Madam President, Debo Adegbile is the President's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He is a man who renews my faith in the American dream. He is the son of Irish and Nigerian immigrants.
To say he grew up in poverty is an understatement. There were times when he and his mom--he was raised mostly by a single mom--were homeless. Despite these challenges, he worked his way through the educational system and to the top of the legal profession.
He graduated from prestigious New York University Law School. He argued two of the most important civil rights cases of his generation before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has received numerous awards for his legal prowess and his commitment to civil rights.
He is one of the Nation's foremost civil rights attorneys. He is eminently qualified to lead the office that enforces Federal laws prohibiting every type of discrimination, including discriminatory voting practices.
His job--the job of that person who is in the Civil Rights Division-- is to do everything they can do to make sure people have the opportunity to vote. We know what has happened around the country. We know how Republican Governors and other Republican officials have done everything they can to stop voting. Early voting they eliminate or they shorten the time period. They take away voting places that make it easier for people to vote.
This is an important position. The person that is best qualified to do that is going to have a vote in just a few minutes. Despite all this nominee has achieved, Republicans have not given this man a fair shot at confirmation. His time at the NAACP, where he worked for 12 years, involved many different things. But one of the things he did not do, he did not step foot into a courtroom representing that violent murderer in Philadelphia that occurred in 1981 when he was 13 years old.
Although the condemned man was undoubtedly a very bad man, as I understand the facts: 3 o'clock, 3:30 in the morning a cab is stopped; the murderer's brother is in the cab, just by coincidence. So there were a lot of problems in Philadelphia at the time. The murderer gets out of the car and shoots a police officer viciously and wantonly, for no reason, in the head--terrible murder.
He was a bad man who was convicted of a heinous crime and given the death sentence. When the nominee got into this case, the murder had taken place 25 years earlier. Five years before he got into the case, the death penalty had already been overturned, was already gone. Where did the death penalty overturn come from? That is pretty interesting. It came from a Reagan appointee. Then the circuit court affirmed what the district court had done. They got rid of the death penalty. That district court decision was upheld by President Bush's appointees. I am sorry. The district court opinion was issued by an appointee of the first President Bush, H.W. Bush. The Third Circuit opinion that upheld it was composed of two Ronald Reagan appointees, including one of the most famous jurists of all time, John Sirica.
It is interesting. A person who wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal not long ago--who is the district attorney--chose not to reseek the death penalty even though he is writing op-ed pieces about what a bad guy this is, a man who had nothing to do with the case.
The defendant in 2001 was resentenced to life in prison without parole. The death penalty was gone. How can we engage in guilt by association? I repeat, the nominee did not step into a courtroom, a courtroom for the murderer. He did not write one word in a brief for the murderer. He worked at the NAACP and oversaw the litigation and signed the brief third down the row. He had nothing to do with the appeal as far as arguing it.
Even the Philadelphia Inquirer, the hometown newspaper where this murder of the police officer who was so tragically slain took place, said: ``It would be hard to find a better candidate for the position.'' I agree with that.
To argue that [the nominee], one of the country's foremost
legal scholars--especially when it comes to civil rights
law--should be disqualified from the Justice post because he
participated in [these] appeals is an affront to what it
means to live in America. This country allows every convict
to exhaustively appeal a verdict, even when all the prior
evidence appears to have assured his guilt.
I have met with this man on several occasions. I spent the morning in my office with him. He is a fine man. What a story of the American dream. He has devoted his life to public service. He could be like a lot of other lawyers--nothing wrong with that--go out and see how much money he can make, but he decided not to do that. He believes in public service. He is married, has two beautiful girls.
But I am afraid he is treated by the Republicans kind of like Congressman Watt, Mel Watt, Jeh Johnson, Todd Jones, Circuit Court Judge Wilkins. They have distorted this man's good name in an attempt to score points politically and block confirmation of a faithful defender of voting rights, which the Republicans do everything they can to not prevent. They want fewer people voting. They do not want people to vote. They especially do not want poor people to vote.
The NAACP, we know their record. So much has changed in America because of their legal defense fund. Thurgood Marshall is the most famous of all, but there have been great lawyers who have been part of that program. The organization stands for the constitutional right of every American to a fair trial regardless of the nature of the crime or the content of their character. I think that is what the legal profession is all about. That is what I thought it was about when I practiced law.
I represented some very bad people. I did it a lot of time for no pay. The NAACP also advances the cause of civic engagement, economic opportunity, education, health care, freedom from discrimination. That is for all Americans. They are not out representing just African Americans--all Americans. But there is no question Mr. Adegbile actually specializes in voting rights issues.
He has worked for years at the NAACP and every other thing he has done to safeguard the right of every American to cast a ballot without discrimination or intimidation. That is how the legal defense fund got involved in this case. He did not step into a courtroom. He did not write one single word of any brief. He did not make the decision to represent the Philadelphia defendant, who was a very bad guy, nor did he appear in court or write a word in this case.
They have attempted to paint him as sympathetic to the convict. The man is still in jail. That is where he should be. The truth is lawyers--not all of them but lawyers represent unpopular clients at some point in their cause and in their careers. John Roberts, he is not known as a great trial lawyer, but he is known as a great lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts provided pro bono assistance, for example, to the defense of a prisoner on Florida's death row who was convicted of killing eight people. That was not brought up during his confirmation hearing by us because he had a job to do.
As he said, advocacy on behalf of a client is not about overturning the rule of law, but it is vindicating the rule of law. This nominee has strong support from groups all over America. I cannot express strongly enough what a fine man he is. The President of the American Bar Association wrote the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said to Chairman Leahy and other members of the committee. He was ``alarmed to learn . . . [about] opposition to [his] nomination based solely on his efforts to protect the fundamental rights of an unpopular client.''
That is all it was about this murderer. He was a bad guy, but he is entitled to a lawyer. I repeat for the fourth time: The nominee did not step into a courtroom for this guy. He did not write a word of any brief. He has constantly--this nominee stood for the constitutional rights as well as Americans' fundamental right to participate in our democracy. He is exceptionally well qualified for the job for which he is nominated.
Opponents have used his defense of the Constitution as a political weapon
against him. He deserves an affirmative vote, to be judged on the body of his work and the admirable qualities of his character. I thought that is what we did here. It is a real shame that people are questioning whether he deserves this vote.
I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on the Hernandez nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to legislative session and a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each; that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate resume executive session and the consideration of the Hernandez nomination with the time until 4 p.m. equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that at 4 p.m. all remaining postcloture time be yielded back on the Hernandez nomination and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the Hernandez nomination; that upon disposition of the Hernandez nomination, the Senate proceed to the votes on the remaining motions to invoke cloture which were filed Thursday, February 27, on Executive Calendar Nos. 569, 565, 571, and 636; that if cloture is invoked on any of the nominees, with the exception of the Gottemoeller nomination, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nominations; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to each cloture vote; finally, all after the first vote be 10 minutes.
I would close by saying I sure hope we get enough votes for this good man. If we do not, maybe it is time America had a good discussion on civil rights. If this man who is defending the right of the Constitution--that is what he has done. Does the Constitution mean anything? Should a man who has had nothing to do with the case of a violent murderer be used as a scapegoat for the Republicans to try to stop people from voting? I hope not.
We will have a discussion if this good man does not have the votes. We will have a discussion on civil rights. I think he will have a lot to do with the direction the discussion will take.