-
Pickering (and others) publicly resigned from the Democratic Party shortly after the 1964 Democratic convention, at which Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party had challenged the credentials of the state party's all-white delegation. Senator Russ Feingold asked if Pickering had been aware of the blatantly discriminatory tactics that were being used in Mississippi to stop African Americans from participating in Democratic primaries and caucuses. Pickering would not acknowledge this systematic exclusion black voters in Mississippi, Pickering's tepid response is extremely troubling.
More recently, as a federal judge in 1993, he has criticized the fundamental "one-person, one-vote" principle recognized by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment, calling it "obtrusive." Also, he has suggested that a deviation from equality in drawing legislative district lines, which the Supreme Court has held presumptively unconstitutional, were "relatively minor" and "de minimis." Pickering told Senator Kennedy that he did not term a 25% deviation "de minimis" and that he would follow the law. This claim is directly contradicted by the words in one of Pickering's rulings, in which he also suggested that he might very well have ruled that such a deviation would not violate the Constitution had that argument been raised...
At the hearing and elsewhere, Pickering's supporters have attempted to dismiss concerns about the nominee's record by pointing to instances where he has personally opposed blatant racism, notably his brief testimony given in a 1967 trial against a leader of the Klan. It is true that this was a courageous and commendable act. But the act itself does not necessarily mean, as some Pickering supporters suggest, that he was a champion of civil rights, or even that the testimony was motivated by opposition to the Klan's defense of segregation. A book by Chet Dillard, one of Judge Pickering's supporters, indicates that growing Klan violence was threatening the business establishment in Laurel, Pickering's home town.
Dillard's book includes the following portion of a public statement regarding Klan violence issued in the mid-1960s by the local District Attorney (Dillard), the sheriff of Jones County, the Mayor of the City of Laurel, the county attorney (identified elsewhere in Dillard's book as Charles Pickering) and the Laurel Chief of Police:
We, the undersigned elected officials and public officers charged with the responsibility of protecting you and your property, wish to publicly state and make known our position and intentions concerning certain acts of violence which have recently taken place in Jones County. While we believe in continuing our Southern way of life and realize that outside agitators have cause [sic] much turmoil and racial hatred, let there be no misunderstanding, we oppose such activities, but law and order must prevail.
...
Specifically, questioning by Senator Edwards revealed that Pickering had threatened to order a new trial in the case (even though the time for such an order had expired and Pickering had no authority to order it on his own motion), ordered Justice Department lawyers to take his complaints about the proposed sentence personally to the Attorney General, and initiated an ex parte communication with a high-ranking Justice Department official to complain about the case. A Justice Department letter released after the hearing revealed a series of "off-the-record" efforts by Pickering to pursue his complaints, including a direct phone call by him to the home of one prosecutor the day after New Years' Day, 1995. Senator Edwards expressed serious concern that Judge Pickering had violated Rule 3.A.4 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which specifically forbids ex parte contacts between a judge and attorneys for one side of a case about that case.
Pickering tried to justify his actions, focusing on his concern about the disparity in sentencing for the three defendants, but Senators clearly remained troubled. Although Pickering had referred to the cross-burning as reprehensible, Senator Durbin was concerned about the extreme lengths to which Pickering went to assist the defendant to obtain reduced punishment for conduct - the cross-burning -- that Pickering at one point called a "drunken prank." Senator Schumer stated that Pickering's explanation concerning the sentencing disparity "doesn't wash," particularly in light of other sentencing disparities when one defendant pleads guilty in a case, the invidious nature of the crime, and the fact that Congress had established a mandatory minimum sentence that Pickering was trying to avoid. Pickering's conduct in the cross-burning case further militates against his confirmation.
So, let's get this straight. He calls it a drunken prank even though the defendants fired shots into the house of the couple, narrowly missing their baby .
Hey, at least he's pro-life.
One sick puppy.