Who is Charles Pickering? The Honorable Charles W. Pickering, Sr., from Laurel, Mississippi, was unanimously confirmed by the U. S. Senate as a federal district judge in 1990, after his appointment by President George H. W. Bush. Eleven years later, Judge Pickering was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the next level above his district court position, and one level below the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Pickering had a variety of people who either testified or went "on the record" stating that he should be confirmed to the Fifth Circuit. Those included past Mississippi governors William Winter and Bill Allain, both Democrats, as well as then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, also a Democrat, and then-Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, also a Democrat. Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers, also enthusiastically supported Pickering’s nomination. Attorney General Mike Moore was quoted as saying:

"Charles Evers’s brother was slain in the civil rights movement and Charles Evers would not be here supporting Judge Pickering’s nomination if there was anything wrong with Judge Pickering. Who knows more about the Judge, the people of Mississippi or the people in Washington who live in a logic-free zone?"

As for himself, Charles Evers was "saddened and appalled" to learn of the false allegations put forth by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about Judge Pickering. "As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for equal treatment of African Americans, I can tell you with certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on civil rights issues. He has taken tough stands at tough times in the past, and the treatment he and his record are receiving at the hands of certain interest groups is shameful." One of those "interest groups" was the mis-named "People for the American Way."

Former Mississippi Governor William Winter even visited with Senate Democrats in an effort to help Judge Pickering win confirmation. He stated, "You are not going to get a better nominee from this administration than Judge Pickering." Governor Winter is an honorable man and a Democrat. He pointed out that opposition to this nomination would hurt Democratic candidates in the south. Then-Governor Ronnie Musgrove, a fellow moderate Democrat who cannot fairly be described as a "Washington liberal," lost his re-election bid the very next year to Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee.

A great number of Mississippians, both African-American and white, Democrats and Republicans, supported Judge Pickering’s nomination, and a number of them testified on his behalf. Those included Judge Johnny Williams, the first African-American elected as a Chancery Judge in the district which includes Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where Judge Pickering’s federal court was located. Melvin Mack of Judge Pickering’s hometown of nearby Laurel, who was later elected the first African-American mayor of that city, and who is a Democrat, also spoke in support of the Judge.

There were some members of the NAACP who opposed Judge Pickering’s confirmation. That made what the African-Americans from Mississippi did in speaking in his favor that much more courageous. Charles Evers later stated: "the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan are the only two organizations that are against him."

On a later program of 60 Minutes after the confirmation process, Evers gave an NAACP official an earful:

Evers: "You know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped us to break the Ku Klux Klan. Did you know that?

McGee: I have heard that.

Evers: Well, I know that. Do you know that?

McGee: I don’t know that.

Evers: Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman?

McGee: No.

Evers: So Charles Pickering took the case [defending him]. Came to trial and won the case and the young man became free.

McGee: I didn’t know about that.

Evers: Do you know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his churches?

McGee: I don’t know about that.

Evers: Well, you don’t know a thing about Charles Pickering."

Members of the plaintiffs bar, who usually represent injured persons in lawsuits against companies and insurance carriers, supported his appointment. Plaintiffs’ lawyers often fear being "stuck" in federal court, with more stringent rules and judges who are possibly more conservative. That group did not have that concern with Judge Pickering, as they knew he was fair to both sides, and allowed lawyers to "try their case," if it did not settle first. More than a few defense attorneys in civil cases could tell of facing Judge Pickering in a "settlement conference" and being told, in private but point-blank, of the weaknesses in their defense, and being asked to seriously consider offering an appropriate amount to resolve the dispute, rather than take their chances before a jury. Many of those cases would be resolved.

Judge Pickering enjoyed an outstanding reputation for fairness and faithful service in his native state of Mississippi. A no-brainer, right? We need more people like him on the bench, so his approval by the Senate was just a mere formality, correct? Surely the U. S. Senate had better things to do than waste time pondering whether Charles Pickering was fit for the federal appeals court–that was beyond question to the vast majority who knew him and had practiced before his court. Plus, again, the Senate had unanimously confirmed him to his present position just over a decade earlier.

Well, maybe in a fair world, that is what would have happened. Perhaps in a U. S. Senate in which service to the public was the never-ending standard of behavior, even when reasonable people disagree with one another. But, no, not in the real world. Not when there were liberal Democrats who could extract pounds and pounds of flesh from George W. Bush, using their attack on Charles Pickering as the battering ram.

So, who was the "they" referred to above in the first paragraph? That would be certain liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in particular, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Edwards (D-NC) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and their remaining Democratic colleagues on the committee which was charged with holding hearings on the confirmation process of Judge Pickering. Those Democrats used Judge Pickering’s nomination as an opportunity to berate the Bush administration and practice partisan politics of the most sordid kind. Judge Pickering was ultimately denied his appointment. Our nation’s citizens were ultimately denied his outstanding continued public service by the selfish actions of these liberal Democrats in the U. S. Senate, most of whom are still there.

The same ones: So why mention this now, on the eve of a national election in 2008, some six years after? Because most of those partisans are still in the United States Senate, and all of them are actively and energetically campaigning for "change" via their chosen candidate and fellow member of the Senate, Barack Obama. Given the way they treated Charles Pickering, all this stuff about "change we can believe in" is absolutely nothing more than a cheap, political slogan that has no foundation.

If you asked Senator Obama about his Senate colleagues named above and the others who were on that committee, without giving him the "setup" information on what they did to Judge Pickering, we have no doubt that he would sing their collective praises. They are his allies–more on that in a moment--and he is their designated leader. However, those named senators no more practice a "different" kind of politics than the man in the moon does. We invite you to read Judge Pickering’s excellent book on his ordeal with this confirmation process, A Price Too High (The Judiciary in Jeopardy) [Stroud & Hall, 2007].

Not only did these liberal Democrats in the U. S. Senate unjustly attack Judge Pickering, he also was the target of the usual bashing by Big Media. There were no shortage of such stories, though, perhaps surprisingly, there were several that were fair to the Judge. Those seemed to be outnumbered by the negative stories, in our observation. We watched a local television station manager in his weekly editorial lament the unfair treatment Judge Pickering was receiving in the Senate and in the national media, and then two days later watched his very own station run one of those "bash Pickering" stories on its Saturday evening newscast, imported from a national network that leans left. We doubt that was intentional, and surmise that someone was just filling up thirty minutes of air time with the available stories of the day.

So what was the issue with Judge Pickering? Why was his confirmation not the "slam dunk" it should have been? Of all the cases the Judge had handled, certain Democrats on the Judiciary Committee focused on one, a "cross-burning" case in south Mississippi which occurred during the Clinton administration. We recommend you read Judge Pickering’s book to get the breadth of the details, but here is a brief summary: three defendants were charged with burning a cross in the lawn of an interracial couple. The Janet Reno-led Justice Department offered two of the defendants no jail time whatsoever in a plea deal, and they took the deal. The third defendant, who was not the ring-leader of the atrocious act, was offered a plea deal which included 18 months of jail time, and he decided to go to trial instead. He was convicted, and the length of his sentencing was the responsibility of Judge Pickering.

Judge Pickering sentenced this defendant to 27 months of jail time, which was 50% more time than had been offered in the plea deal by the Janet Reno-led Justice Department, though it was not the "maximum" time allowed by law. Judge Pickering did not think it was just or fair to give this one defendant the maximum prison time when the ringleader and the other defendant both received no jail time at all–under the plea deals offered to them by Reno’s Justice Department. The defendant he sentenced also had no previous criminal history, while the ringleader–who, again, got no jail time with his plea deal--had even fired a shot into the couple’s home on a previous occasion.

The Janet Reno Justice Department wanted the remaining defendant, whom Judge Pickering sentenced, to get seven and a half years of jail time, while the other two, including the ringleader, got none at all under that department’s plea deals. Without getting into a discourse on federal sentencing law, suffice it to say that federal judges are required by law to consider "proportionality in sentencing," and if different defendants charged in the same case with the same crime get "disparities" in sentencing, the appeals court will likely reverse that judge’s decision. Judge Pickering told the attorneys involved in this case that it was the worst case of "disproportionate sentencing" that had ever been recommended to him. Therefore, he gave the remaining defendant a stiff 27 months, rather than the zero jail time Reno’s department had offered the other two defendants, and even more than the 18 months that Reno’s department had offered to the remaining defendant in the plea deal.

Incidentally, when Judge Pickering sentenced the third defendant, the Judge told him that he had committed a "despicable act," a "dastardly deed," a "heinous crime," and that the defendant had "to pay a debt to society for a reprehensible crime." The Judge added, "the type of conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated."

So what did the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee do? They used this case to try and paint Judge Pickering as a racist, as someone insensitive to horrible conduct like cross-burning, as someone who "went light" on the defendant he sentenced, and who did not handle the case as he should have. These Senate Democrats attacked Judge Pickering in a contentious hearing, and did all they could to sully his fine career and outstanding reputation.

But, as the Judge discusses in his book, their real agenda was two-fold: (1) attack judicial nominees who are pro-life, and (2) show the Bush administration "we mean business" as to the judicial nominees he sent over for confirmation. Therefore, the Democrats on that committee used the cross-burning case to totally misrepresent Judge Pickering’s impeccable record and sterling reputation, and a life of work in doing what is right and trying to stamp out racial injustice.

If the above is not enough to raise the ire of the reader, here are a few more tidbits: in the 1960s, Charles Pickering was the county prosecuting attorney in Laurel, Mississippi. He and the district attorney took on the Ku Klux Klan, despite repeated threats, and Pickering was trusted by the FBI and worked closely with that agency in derailing the KKK. In nearby Forrest County, Pickering was called on to testify against the KKK in a horrible case, and he did so.

When schools were integrated in Mississippi, Judge Pickering and his wife chose to send their children to the local public schools across town, which were about 70% black after integration, even though there was a long-established private school one block from their house. He also organized and chaired a bipartisan, biracial committee in his home county to work on better race relations. In September, 2005, some three years after the liberal Senate Democrats attacked him, Judge Pickering was given the Civil Rights Award by the International Black Broadcasters Association.

When Judge Pickering got attacked by these Senate Democrats, incidentally, all of whom happened to be white, veteran political columnist Bill Minor–who will never be confused with a conservative–said they were "barking up the wrong tree" in trying to paint Judge Pickering as having a "segregationist" past. The Washington Post, not exactly a "conservative" newspaper, ran an editorial that said, "Opposing a nominee should not mean destroying him....The need on the part of liberal groups and Democratic senators to portray [Pickering] as a Neanderthal–all the while denying they are doing so–in order to justify voting him down is the latest example of the degradation of the [judicial] confirmation process."

The New York Times even spoke out against how Judge Pickering was treated. As the Judge wrote, "When the liberal press is appalled at how liberal Democrats treat a conservative nominee of a Republican president, Democrats must have crossed a line."

So, who were the attackers? Judge Pickering has described John Edwards’ "inquisition" at the hearing as "the most vicious of all." Ted Kennedy, who also opposed Judge Pickering, later said, "John Edwards’ questioning of...Mr. Pickering, destroyed Mr. Pickering, as he should have been destroyed." Sounds pretty "non-partisan," don’t you think?

Senator Chuck Schumer said that Judge Pickering showed "glaring racial insensitivity" and that his nomination showed "Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy is still alive and well in the White House," which Judge Pickering took as an effort to connect him with "race-baiting." Schumer also stated that Judge Pickering had no African-American support in Mississippi, which was blatantly false. We’ve already named three prominent persons above who spoke in his favor, and they were by no means the only ones.

Senator Dick Durbin later bragged to supporters about opposing Judge Pickering, writing in a fundraising letter: "Back in Illinois one of Pickering’s critics in Chicago said to me: ‘He can change the sheets but he can’t change who he is.’" [emphasis added by us]. Unbelievably, with his letter Durbin tried to equate Judge Pickering with being a racist KKK member–this a man who had stood against, prosecuted, and testified against that horrendous organization, despite threats made against he and his family and regardless of the political consequences.

At the time of the vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as to whether Judge Pickering’s nomination would be allowed to be considered by the full Senate, there were ten Democrats on that committee, and nine Republicans. All the Republicans supported Judge Pickering. He only needed one Democrat to step up and at least vote to allow his nomination to go to the Senate floor–that one Democrat could then vote against him on the Senate floor if he or she so chose. Conventional wisdom said that if his nomination made it to the Senate floor, Judge Pickering would have easily won confirmation from the full Senate.

So, just one vote. One vote. Who else on that committee could have done the right thing and voted in favor of Judge Pickering’s nomination going to the full Senate for consideration? Who could have put an end to this slanderous charade with just one vote? A name very familiar to today’s political scene:

Senator Joe Biden. Yes, the running mate of the one constantly preaching "change we can believe in." No, Senator Obama, the more accurate way to put it would be "change we can be run over by," because that is just what your colleagues did to an honorable man and outstanding jurist, all in the name of partisan politics, which you have spent months saying you will depart from. Joe Biden had previously stated during the Clinton administration that he thought every judicial nominee was entitled to an "up or down" vote (by the full Senate). So, that should have meant Senator Biden voted for Judge Pickering, to receive just that, right?

Maybe in the make-believe world of nonpartisan politics, that is what Senator Biden would have done. But, he didn’t. He opposed Judge Pickering’s nomination, and voted with his fellow nine Democrats on that committee, and the nomination never reached the floor of the Senate.

All he had to do was vote "yes" on sending Judge Pickering’s nomination to the Senate floor, for an "up or down" vote by the full Senate --he even could have voted against the confirmation later. But no, Joe, we have to say "it is so": with a chance to do what was right, what you said you believed in, what the vast majority of those from Judge Pickering’s home state had urged, Joe Biden instead played partisan politics, and allowed the slander "hit job" of his Democrat committee colleagues to rule the day. In our opinion, we don’t need that kind of "leadership" in the White House, or a heartbeat away. We really don’t.

Please note the additional significance: those very same Senate colleagues of Senator Obama and Senator Biden are now, six years after, enthusiastically promoting their candidacy, and lambasting Senator McCain and Governor Palin at every opportunity. Do you really want those senators’ candidates in control of the White House? Do you really want those senators to remain in the Senate? Or their party to remain in control of either house of Congress? No, Republicans are not immune to partisanship. But if you want more judges deciding policy questions and legislating their own views from the bench, then that is what you will get with Obama in the White House and his friends in the U. S. Senate. Plus, John McCain and Sarah Palin both have solid histories of working with the other side, and even taking on their own party. When Joe Biden had the chance to do that with Judge Pickering’s nomination, he punted, and played politics as usual.

What happened to Judge Pickering at the hands of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee was slander. They slandered a man of impeccable character and integrity who had spent his life doing the right thing, standing up to and showing courage against narrow-minded bigots, and doing whatever he could to bring people together and bridge the gap between the races. For all of his efforts, he got slandered by Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin, and John Edwards, and their party colleagues on that committee, including Joe Biden, did nothing to stop that, and did not do the right thing.

We do direct our columns to non-Republicans and non-conservatives, and not just to conservatives. We respect the "PUMAs" out there who have chosen to vote principle over party, and support McCain/Palin. We realize a number of you in those categories may not appreciate what we have written about those liberal Democrats. We don’t know how we could view what happened to Judge Pickering any other way. When there are an overwhelming number of people from his own state, both black and white, Democrats and Republicans, plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers, all saying that the man should be confirmed, and he is even told behind the scenes that "this isn’t about you" as he is railroaded by Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Edwards and company, then something is very wrong with the process.

Those senators do not deserve our trust. Their candidates for president and vice-president do not deserve our support. They will not bring "change" of any sort that will be good for our country, but will be ready to engage in further examples of character assassination and dirty politics, particularly if their party has clear majorities in both houses of Congress, and their candidate in the White House. To all you "moderates" and independents out there, and even to liberals disappointed with the outcome of the Democrats’ primary race, do you really want to see our country in the hands of these?

"Change we can believe in"? No, bad partisan politics as usual. That is what you will get if that group has the power. They are counting on you to give it to them, by either voting for them, or falling for Big Media’s "pronouncement" that it is "over" and that Obama has the election "in the bag." It is their fervent hope that this dishonest sales job by the liberal media will convince enough of you that there is no point in showing up at the real polls on November 4, when, in fact, you can put them in their place and put the candidates who stand for real change, John McCain and Sarah Palin, in office, and in a position to deal with partisans like those who attacked Judge Pickering.

Our country does need "change." So does our Congress. What those above did to Judge Charles Pickering illustrates that all too well.

Let’s not ignore this recent history, or we may be doomed to repeat it. If that happens, that won’t be good for America. That’s putting it mildly.