Opinion: Real reasons to reject Pickering

The nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first major test of President Bush's attempt to put his mark on the federal judiciary. Liberal groups are fiercely opposing Pickering's nomination, citing his personal opposition to abortion and putting an ugly spin on his civil rights record. Some critics have tried to cast him as an unreconstructed segregationist. Pickering doesn't deserve this kind of smear, but neither does he deserve a seat on a federal appeals court.

Our nation's appellate courts should be served by men and women who have distinguished themselves as premier jurists and lawyers. Pickering has not met that standard during his 11 years on the federal bench. He has inappropriately used his written opinions to ruminate on controversial issues -- in some cases questioning the value of certain civil rights laws.

Pickering reportedly asked attorneys who practice before him to write letters in support of his nomination, an ethical lapse on Pickering's part that put those attorneys in an awkward position. At his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, the judge even acknowledged that he made contact with the Justice Department to lobby prosecutors to seek a lighter sentence for one of three men convicted in a cross-burning case. That ex parte communication was inappropriate, to say the least.

Judicial confirmation battles have become ugly, ideological spectacles in which the nominee's qualifications are secondary to his or her philosophical bent. Both Democrats and Republicans play this game. Senators do not have to go where some of Pickering's worst critics wish to take them. Pickering's underwhelming record as a jurist and insensitivity to judicial ethics are reasons enough to reject his nomination.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright