President Bush Meets with North Carolina Judicial Nominees
Remarks by the President After Meeting with North Carolina Judicial Nominees
Raleigh Durham International Airport
Raleigh, North Carolina
11:27 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. It's good to be in the great state
of North Carolina. I just met with three judicial nominees from this
state -- Judge Terry Boyle, Bob Conrad, Jim Dever.
7/7/04
White House Chief Counsel Judge Gonzales Judge Gonzales discussed judicial nominations on Ask the
White House. Click here to read the transcript
These are men with
broad experience, good character. They've been rated by the ABA as
qualified to serve on the bench. They represent mainstream values.
They will strictly and faithfully interpret the law. They won't use
the bench from which to legislate.
Their nominations are being held up, and it's not right and it's
not fair. The people of North Carolina deserve better. These judges
deserve better treatment in the United States Senate. A minority of
senators apparently don't want judges who strictly interpret and apply
the law. Evidently, they want activist judges who will rewrite the law
from the bench. I disagree. Legislation should come from the
legislative branch, not from the judiciary.
Judge Boyle -- Judge Terry Boyle of North Carolina has waited for a
vote since May of 2001. And there's no reason why this good man should
have been kept waiting for so long. He's an exceptional candidate for
the appeals court. He was appointed to the district court in 1984 by
President Ronald Reagan, and has spent the last seven years as Chief
Judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina. He'd make a superb
addition to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and he is vitally needed
on that court.
The seat I nominated him to fill has been designated a judicial
emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States -- because
when they name something a judicial emergency, it means there's a
shortage of judges. I put this good man up and he can't get an up or
down vote on the floor of the Senate. He is -- he, along with Bob
Conrad, have waited too long.
Bob Conrad I named for one of the district courts here in North
Carolina. He served as a federal prosecutor for 15 years, including
three years as a U.S. attorney in Charlotte. He did a really good job
in that capacity. He's waited for more than 14 months for a vote.
Jim Dever is the magistrate judge. He has had strong bipartisan
support. He's waited for more than two years for a vote. The post to
which I have nominated Judge Dever has also been declared a judicial
emergency. This is a disservice to the state. I repeat, there's a
minority of senators blocking the process. They're playing politics
with something as important as the judiciary. You might remember, I
had named six nominees to appellate benches. They had enough votes to
be confirmed, and they -- their nominations were filibustered on the
floor of the United States Senate. These are not the three I've
discussed. These are other judges.
Now, we recently got 25 nominees through, and I appreciate that.
But there's an issue in North Carolina that needs to be solved, and the
only people who can solve it are the United States senators, who are
holding these -- holding these nominations up.
I laid out earlier in the year some proposals that would make the
process go better. Judges would provide one year advance notice of
retirement or departure. Presidents would select a nominee within 180
days of receiving notice of an upcoming vacancy. And then the Senate
would hold both a hearing and an up or down vote within 180 days.
That's fair. That ought to apply to both Republican, as well
Democrats. This is the kind of reform that is necessary to make the
system work better.
The -- when we see vacancies where people are declaring judicial
emergencies, it seems like to me the Senate ought to pay attention to
them and give these good nominees an up or down vote, and a
confirmation hearing, in some cases. The Senate ought to let them go,
let them go in front of the Judiciary Committee and get them to the
floor. It's not right and it's not fair.
I told these three men that I'm standing with them. And I've said,
I am sorry that you're having to wait so long. I'm sorry that you're
being hung out by a handful of United States senators. I appreciate
their service. I'm honored that they would be willing to serve our
country by going on the bench. It's time for them to get -- to at
least get an up or down vote.
Let me answer some questions for you. Deb? Yes, I stiffed you the
other day. I'm glad to call you this time.
Q Mr. President, Kerry, during the primaries, often said that
John Edwards was not ready to be President. Do you believe that he is
ready to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office?
THE PRESIDENT: That will be up to the voters to decide. But I
tell you what I think about North Carolina. I did well here in 2000
because the North Carolinian voter understood we shared values. I'm
going to do well again in 2004. They know we share those values.
People in North Carolina remember I came to this state and said we'll
make sure our troops are well-paid and well-housed and taken care of,
and we've done that. I told them we'd cut their taxes, and we've done
that. The economy is strong here in North Carolina. I also know that
when they go to the polls to vote for President that they'll understand
that the Senator from Massachusetts doesn't share their values.
Steve.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, speak up. I'm getting a little --
Q If I could try another Edwards question. He's being
described today as charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist,
and even sexy. How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?
THE PRESIDENT: Dick Cheney can be President.
Next.
Q Mr. President, does this John Edwards selection force you to
spend more time in the South, and change your strategy in the southern
states now?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to carry the South because the people
understand that they share -- we share values that they understand.
They know me well. And I am -- I believe that I did well in the South
last time, I'll do well in the South this time, because the Senator
from Massachusetts doesn't share their values, and that's the
difference in the campaign.
Yes.
Q Will you have to spend more time, strategy-wise?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, talk to -- talk to the schedulers. I'm not
the scheduler, I'm just a simple candidate. (Laughter.)
Yes.
Q Mr. President, candidate --
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome. Well, "Mr. President," thank you.
Q The judiciary you hope to create with these nominees, could
you --
THE PRESIDENT: Those aren't the nominees.
Q Well, they're --
THE PRESIDENT: That's Senator Burr -- to be.
Q Could you -- could you offer thoughts as to how that
judiciary is different from the one that might exist under a Democratic
Kerry-Edwards administration, and perhaps with particular reference to
issues of civil damage suits and abortion?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I've -- first of all, on issues like
abortion, I don't have a litmus test. In other words, when the
nominees come before people in my administration, we don't say, what is
your specific position on that issue or another issue. What we say to
the person is, what is your judicial temperament? Will you be willing
to faithfully interpret the law? Or will you view your position on the
bench to rewrite law? And that is the difference of judicial
philosophies. I've been consistent in naming people to the bench that
will faithfully interpret the law. I suspect that's one of the reasons
why a minority of senators are blocking my nominees and creating a
judicial emergency.
And after I leave here, I'm going to Michigan to bring up the same
point. There are six judges that are being withheld because of their
judicial temperament -- not because of a specific issue, but because of
their temperament. And I don't believe in litmus tests. I do believe
-- I do believe in making sure that we share a philosophy. As I said
before, I want the legislators legislating. I don't want the judges
legislating.
Look, you look awfully hot, and I think it's time for us to go to
the next event. Thank you.
Q -- difference from a Kerry-Edwards administration -- could
you see how they might --
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. They're the ones blocking the nominees
in the first place. They're the types of senators who are blocking the
advance of these nominees.
Take for example here in North Carolina. Senator Edwards will not
allow two of the nominees to whom I referred to even get to the -- get
to the committee for a hearing.