Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the President's nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, Mr. Sutton has pursued an…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the President's nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, Mr. Sutton has pursued an extremist agenda against the employment rights of women with breast cancer as well as victims of domestic violence.
Here is what the New York Times reported on April 28th.
``Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in
the Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama
state hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because
she had breast cancer, violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the Act did not
protect state employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights
argument narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions
of state workers of legal protection. He also invoked
federalism to urge the court to strike down the Violence
Against Women Act. It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal
protection for sexual assault victims.''
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a moderate and independent Member of this House. I don't believe that extremism on either end of the spectrum can solve the challenges facing our nation. But I am concerned about a pattern of judicial nominations by the Administration which would fill our benches with the most ideologically driven nominees at the most extreme right of the conservative movement. Nominating an individual who has sought to dismantle federal protections against victims of domestic violence and who has advocated denying a woman with breast cancer legal protection is deeply disturbing.
I insert ``Another Ideologue for the Courts'' in today's Record, and urge my colleagues to consider it:
[From the New York Times, Apr. 28, 2003]
Another Ideologue for the Courts
It seems likely that Jeffrey Sutton, a nominee to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Cincinnati, will be confirmed by the Senate this week. But it
is important to recognize why he was selected, and how he
fits the Bush administration's plan for an ideological
takeover of the courts. Whichever way the Senate votes on
him, it must insist that the administration start selecting
judges who do not come with a far-right agenda.
There is no shortage of worthy judicial nominees. Federal
courts are filled with district court judges, Republicans and
Democrats, who have shown evenhandedness and professionalism,
and many would make fine appeals court judges. State courts
are overflowing with judges and lawyers known for their
excellence, not their politics.
The Bush administration, however, has sought nominees whose
main qualification is a commitment to far-right ideology. Mr.
Sutton is the latest example. He is an activist for
``federalism,'' a euphemism for a rigid states'-rights legal
philosophy. Although federalism commands a narrow majority on
the Supreme Court, advocates like Mr. Sutton are taking the
law in a disturbing direction, depriving minorities, women
and the disabled of important rights.
Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in the
Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama state
hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because she
had breast cancer, violating the Americans With Disabilities
Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the act did not protect state
employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights argument
narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions of state
workers of legal protection. He also invoked federalism to
urge the court to strike down the Violence Against Women Act.
It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal protection for sexual
assault victims. Mr. Sutton has said that he was only doing
his job, and that his concern was building a law practice,
not choosing sides. But throughout his career, he has taken
on major cases that advance the conservative agenda. He has
left little doubt in his public statements that he supports
these rulings.
At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sutton faced protesters
with guide dogs and wheelchairs, who were upset about his
role in rolling back disability law. Naturally, they urged
the Senate to reject him. But the senators' duty to advise
and consent goes beyond their vote on any particular nominee.
They must make it clear that in a nation brimming with legal
talent, it is unacceptable to focus the search for federal
judges on a narrow group of ideologues.