Is Senator Jeff Sessions Qualified To Be on the Senate Judicary Committee?

As Senators mull the qualifications for United States judges, should they not be required to display some minimal understanding of the process before undertaking this important task? The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions seems unable to distinguish between a lawyer's role as an advocate and the impartiality required of a judge. In evaluating the nomination of Edward Chen to the United States District Court, Sen. Sessions expressed his concern for "cases Chen handled as an ACLU attorney in San Francisco from 1995 to 2001. They included an unsuccessful challenge to Proposition 209, and the 1996 ballot measure that banned government affirmative action programs involving race and gender preferences." (San Francisco Chronicle 10/17/09)

In considering judicial nominees it is not appropriate to merge clients represented, claims pursued and defenses asserted with the views and opinions of the nominee. If that were the standard, then no criminal defense lawyer could ever aspire or deserve to be appointed to the bench. They defend murderers, rapists, bank robbers, etc. Should those representations somehow disqualify them for judicial service?

Some of our country's greatest lawyers are those who have undertaken unpopular causes and unpopular clients. Should they be penalized for their courage and commitment to our judicial system? And worse, should they be rejected merely because one or more Senators do not agree with the positions they have taken on behalf of certain clients or disapprove of the clients themselves. Statements made, articles written and speeches given by the nominees are fair game so long as they have some relevance and are not too ancient to be worthy of consideration, but advocacy should be off-limits.

The focus on the these matters by Sen. Sessions seems particularly inappropriate since Judge Chen has served as a magistrate judge since 2001 and was recently re-appointed to a new eight year term by the sitting district court judges. It is that record that should determine his fitness to be elevated, not whom or what he represented as an advocate.

Note: Senator Sessions voted against reporting Edward Chen out of the Judiciary Committee along with 6 other Republicans. The vote was 12 to 7.

Comments

[S1m0n]

12:49 AM on 10/22/2009

He's qualified, because it's a lay position; deliberately so. He's also aware of the distinction between advocacy and ideology, but likely doesn't care. If he doesn't like the nominee, it's a good enough stick to beat him with, fairness or intellectual honesty be damned.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

05:40 PM on 10/22/2009

Simon - You are probably correct in all respects---unfortunately

[JackNasty]

11:47 AM on 10/21/2009

Jeff Sessions is the Senator from the great state of reactionary racism.

[keishalicious]

01:51 PM on 10/21/2009

I would agree with you in part. I am from Alabama, and please believe that not all of us are racist, biggoted, redneck and stupid. Don't get me wrong, lots are. There is a large progressive movement forming in Alabama and I am proud to be a part of it. We are made up of all ethnicities and orientations. We are gaining momentum! Alabama - blue state, 2012?? Hopefully!

[JackNasty]

08:10 PM on 10/21/2009

That's why I wrote that Jeff Sessions was a Senator from the not-so great State of Reactionary Racism. It transcends conventional survey boundaries.

My best wishes to you and everyone else who is attempting to move Alabama into the present!

[Skepticat]

11:40 AM on 10/21/2009

The founding fathers were an educated elite but rather naively thought that only educated folk like themselves would ever become senators or congressional representatives. Senators were also originally appointed by the state legislatures. Thus the qualifications for such positions were limited to age, citizenship, state residency and a warm pulse. Perhaps this issue of pre-requisite skills should be revisited.

[iyamchazz]

09:30 AM on 10/21/2009

That's the downside of democracy.
Politicians have no job description &
need produce no resume. All they
have to do is hoodwink enough voters
and become the Senator from the
Great State of Obstruction.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:31 PM on 10/21/2009

iyamchazz - Of course, we can also vote them out once we see them in action (or inaction)!

[DonJM]

08:57 AM on 10/21/2009

The more I have learned about Sessions' past history, the more surprised I am that he is in the U.S. Senate, much less sitting on the Judiciary Committee.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:32 PM on 10/21/2009

DonJM - Apparently a number of your fellow commentators agree.

[Rog49Thomas]

07:54 AM on 10/21/2009

You open a dangerous door by asking about qualifications - either intellectual or moral.

With standards like these imposed on Congress, few would be qualified to serve.

And then how would our corporations get the representation they're entitled to?

[serena1313]

06:19 AM on 10/21/2009

For decades Republicans have mistakenly disparaged the ACLU for fighting for "liberal" causes. Demonizing all things "liberal" plays well with the Republican "base." The far right buys into the belief that someone accused of committing a crime is automatically guilty 2) does not deserve to be defended 3) lawyers who represent 'criminals' are "liberals" 4) liberals side with criminals. By connecting Judge Chen to the ACLU Sessions reinforces their beliefs and throws the Constitution's "liberal" causes such as due process, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair and speedy trial under the bus.

Whether Sessions is ignorant or grossly misunderstands that as a member on the Senate Judiciary Committee requires being impartial to political persuasion or is deliberately unwilling or incapable of fulfilling his duties, either way is enough to disqualify him. But that in conjunction with the fact he broke his sworn oath to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution makes a dangerous combination that serves neither justice nor the country.

The ACLU's main goal is to legally defend our Constitutional rights, not score political points. Since the Constitution is not self-enforcing we must be vigilant in preserving it for future generations because our senators in Washington including Sessions won't.

Draw your own conclusion, but by all measures Sessions has no business being on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:36 PM on 10/21/2009

serena1313 - I know the feeling. For years I was accused of being "soft on crime" merely because I upheld the rights of those persons accused of crimes.

[JDeriter]

02:27 AM on 10/21/2009

Your honor, respectfully: If we start with the assumption that political views are relevant to the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry (and I argued in an earlier reply to another of your posts that politics should be irrelevant, but aren’t -- unfortunately), then the clients and causes a nominee chose to represent and pursue as an attorney are fair game. What could be more revealing about a nominee’s leaning, either left or right, than whether he chose to work for the ACLU or a U.S. Attorney? Undoubtedly, Sessions hasn’t the brain power to do the work Chen did as a advocate, and in a fairer world, Sessions wouldn’t be allowed to judge him. But judge him he does, with a purely partisan M.O. that has become the status quo for the Judiciary Committee. Every choice the nominee has made, therefore, is open for evaluation. And Chen chose to work for the ACLU.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:44 PM on 10/21/2009

JDeriter - I concede that one's choice of employment may be a relevant factor in discerning a nominee's political views. But if so, should it be a disqualifier? My guess is that half of the federal bench is made up of former prosecutors, but I cannot name a single criminal defense lawyer who is now serving on the federal bench. What conclusion is it that Sen, Sessions properly draws from the fact that Judge Chen served as counsel to the ACLU----that he is a liberal, and ergo, he cannot qualify as a judge?

[JDeriter]

01:22 PM on 10/23/2009

The fact that he is liberal should not disqualify him as a judge-- although Sessions would think it does. But the suggestion that the ACLU is not "liberal", or that it's unfair to conclude that Chen is "liberal" because he worked there, is just being obstuse-- and naive. (Serena1313-- with much respect, i mean this for you too.) Apparently, liberals don't see their views as occupying one place along the political spectrum-- they see them as the only views clear-thinking, right-minded people could possible hold. That is the only way to explain the objection on your part to the assertion that the ACLU is on the "left" of the spectrum, and if Chen worked there, he probably is too. Sessions is wrong to judge him on that basis, but he isn't wrong to draw the conclusion. Let's keep it real!

[TJCole]

10:14 PM on 10/20/2009

Your Honor knowing what I know of the workings of the Judiciary Committee and how they failed to handle the direct 1st person accounts of the crimes of Samuel Alito, and put that man on our Supreme Court I'd say Sessions is no worse in essence that the rest of that sorry lot...

[AJH]

06:15 PM on 10/20/2009

No other than getting elected there should be no artificial tests for a senators knowledge.

Yes, we'll get people like sessions that are pure politics and make decisions through that lens. Yes that is unfortunate. But to start adding subjective belief qualifications to any senator or elected official creates more opportunity for abuse and disenfranchisement of the electorate. Let's be honest he'ld look over such transgressions in a republican nomination getting the case for why it was acceptable correct. If you want to be at war with activist nominee's you have to find way's to define nominee's as tainetd before voting no. He did that. Politics not ignorance is the most likely reason.

It's up to Senator Sessions electorate to evaluate him not our beliefs of what is the right and wrong way to do things. Democracy isn't always pretty, is rarely efficient etc...

[CalexenderJ]

08:30 PM on 10/20/2009

This isn't a matter of whether or Sessions should be a senator, as long as people vote for him, of course he should be allowed to serve. The issue is whether or not he should be on the judiciary committee. If you don't have the requisite knowledge, then of course not. Would you want senators with no clue of what's going on outside of their own state on the Foreign Relations committee, or with no business sense on the Finance committee? Of course not. Now obviously there's likely to be a learning curve on each of these committees because senators typically don't get elected with expertise in these areas BUT you shouldn't get to be the ranking member of an important committee without a basic understanding of lawyer's role versus what a judge does.

[minerva117]

10:50 AM on 10/21/2009

Well said!!

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:55 PM on 10/21/2009

CalexenderJ - Thanks. My point exactly. Although in the real world and the world of the Senate, I think seniority supersedes competence and experience in a particular field or on a particular committee.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:50 PM on 10/21/2009

AJH - I totally agree. The electorate makes the fundamental decision as to who should serve. I do think, however, that the Senate itself can determine who is fit to sit on certain committee's. But who am I kidding, the seniority system governs and many must serve on committees where others could serve better. Incidentally, this is not meant to be a condemnation of the Senate or all Senators, I just happen to find Sen. Sessions position on this and other nominees to be unacceptable...

[veendam]

05:45 PM on 10/20/2009

Jeff Sessions isn't qualified to be in the Senate.

[ThinkCreeps]

07:41 PM on 10/20/2009

Given it must take a couple of million neurons just to keep a pulse going, Sessions is very lucky to be alive.

[punkingale]

02:53 PM on 10/21/2009

As an Alabamian, I can answer Judge Sarokin's question. Hell, no!!!

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

06:51 PM on 10/21/2009

punkingale - Thanks for your response---but is it unanimous?