ess. I don't object to it as long as it is within bounds of not being obnoxious. Mr. MONAGHAN. Well, maybe the way to conclude is to say this. This is an unsettling experience and one may say, probably, of this process what Churchill said of democracy-"It is the worst form of government except for every other one." I don't know. Senator DECONCINI. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. It is the only one we have. Thanks for coming. While we are bringing the next panel up, the committee has received today telegrams from two professors that relate to one of the essays submitted to us by former Secretary Carla Hills. Both professors object to the description of their views in the essay written by Professor Mary Ann Glendon. The first telegram is from Professor Lucinda Finley, of Yale Law School, and her telegram reads as follows: I would like to respond to the gross mischaracterization and oversimplification of my views on sex equality contained in the written remarks of Professor Mary Ann Glendon delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Carla Hills. It is I, and not Judge Bork, who in my writings has argued for a nuanced and differentiated approach to equality. I have written that our concept of legal equality must be enhanced to include the needs and experiences of women, rather than the predominantly male standard that has traditionally been applied in his judicial opinions on sexual harassment in the American Cyanamid case. Judge Bork has displayed startling insensitivity to the needs and realities facing working women. Far from advocating the nuanced approach to equality that would protect women, Judge Bork has continually questioned whether women should even be protected by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In this regard he would be far worse for women than any recent members of the Supreme Court. While I do not always agree with the approach of all Justices, the Court has developed a consensus in favor of sex equality that Judge Bork does not support and has frequently criticized. I strongly oppose his nomination. Thank you for considering my views and allowing the opportunity to correct the record. Sincerely, Lucinda M. Finley, Associate Professor of Law at Yale. And the second one is from Carol Gilligan, Professor, Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Carla Hills in her testimony to your Committee cited a paper by Professor Mary Ann Glendon. Professor Glendon's paper erroneously implies that I would support the nomination of Judge Robert Bork and states that his judicial philosophy exemplifies what I have called a different voice. In fact, Judge Bork represents precisely the kind of rigid, dogmatic, abstract and impersonal judicial philosophy that calls for a different voice. His opinions and writings rule out of court many voices which the American judicial system must be responsive to if protections afforded by the Constitution are to be extended to all citi zens. I strongly urge a vote against his confirmation. Carol Gilligan, Professor, Harvard University Graduate School of Education. [Telegrams follow:] LM FINLEY 227 MIGHLAND ST NEW HAVEN CT 06511 24AM Western Mailgram Union 4-0321348267 09/24/87 ICS IPMMTZZ CSR WHSB 2034324929 MGMS TDMT NEW HAVEN CT 237 09-24 0428P EST SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE GROWTH MISCHARACTERIZATION AND OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF MY VIEWS ON SEX EQUALITY CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN REMARKS OF PROFESSOR MARY ANN GLENDON DELIVERED TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY CARLA HILLS. IT IS I, AND NOT JUDGE BORK, WHO IN MY WRITINGS HAS ARGUED FOR A NUANCED AND DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO EQUALITY." I HAVE WRITTEN THAT OUR CONCEPT OF LEGAL EQUALITY MUST BE ENRICHED TO INCLUDE THE NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN, RATHER THAN THE PREDOMINANTLY MALE STANDARD THAT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN APPLIED. IN HIS JUDICIAL OPINIONS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND IN THE AMERICAN CYANAMID CASE, JUDGE BORK HAS DISPLAYED STARTLING INSENSITIVITY TO THE NEEDS AND REALITIES FACING WORKING WOMEN, FAR FROM ADVOCATING A "NUANCED APPROACH TO EQUALITY THAT WOULD PROTECT WOMEN, JUDGE BORK HAS CONTINUALLY QUESTIONED WHETHER WOMEN SHOULD EVEN BE PROTECTED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IN THIS REGARD, HE WOULD BE FAR WORSE FOR WOMEN THAN ANY RECENT MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT. WHILE I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE APPROACH OF ALL JUSTICES, THE COURT HAS DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF SEX EQUALITY THAT JUDGE BORK DOES NOT SUPPORT AND HAS FREQUENTLY CRITICIZED, I STRONGLY OPPOSE HIS NOMINATION, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY VIEWS AND ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE RECORD. SINCERELY YOURS, LUCINDA M FINLEY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAN YALE LAW SCHOOL 227 HIGHLAND ST NEW HAVEN CT 06511 16126 EST MGMCOMP TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBERS CARLA HILLS IN HER TESTIMONY TO YOUR COMMITTEE CITED A PAPER BY CAROL GILLIGAN, PROFESSOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Two practicing lawyers make up our next panel. Howard Klein is a partner in the Chicago law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, and Read Carlock is a partner in the Phoenix law firm of Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite. Would those gentlemen please come forward? I welcome them to the committee. And, if they will be sworn. Would you gentlemen take the oath? Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. KRANE. I do. Mr. CARLOCK. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Welcome, gentlemen. As you have observed, by being so patient all day, we are trying to adhere to a 5-minute rule. If we could start with you, Mr. Krane. Did I say Klein? I meant to say Krane. I'm sorry if I said that. Mr. KRANE. That is quite all right, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Krane, I am correct you are a partner in Kirkland & Ellis? Mr. KRANE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF HOWARD KRANE AND READ CARLOCK Mr. KRANE. Thank you. I am grateful for this opportunity to testify in support of Judge Robert Bork's nomination as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As you have said, I am a senior partner in the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, in its Chicago office. I am a member of the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute. I have written extensively in the field of taxation and have taught business planning for over 15 years at the University of Chicago Law School. I have served on occasion as an unpaid consultant to the Treasury and to the Senate Finance Committee on tax matters. Others have testified to Judge Bork's qualifications as a constitutional law scholar and his record as a distinguished and principled jurist. My focus will be on Bob Bork the person. I hope my testimony will be helpful to this committee because I understand that some committee members who have not known Bob Bork over the years have wondered what sort of person he is. By way of background and as an historical footnote, I am the lawyer who as a young man was the immediate beneficiary of Bob Bork's insistence to the senior partners of my law firm that it eliminate prejudice and discrimination from its hiring practice in 1957, a time, regrettably, when quotas and other discriminatory practices were not uncommon within the legal profession and most other parts of American society and business. During my work with him at my firm over 4 years our personal friendship began and grew. After he left to teach at Yale, our association continued. I was close enough to Bob to share his grief and sorrow during Claire's long illness and tragic death. I was close enough to Bob to have had the honor of serving as best man at his marriage to Mary Ellen. From these 30 years of close acquaintance and friendship, I believe I can supply answers to any questions you may have about Judge Bork as a person. So that there is no mistake about my own politics and viewpoints, I readily acknowledge that I am and have been considered a liberal Democrat. I have voted for every Democratic Presidential nominee beginning with Adlai Stevenson. The negative symbolism and rhetoric that has clouded real insight into Judge Bork's views during this confirmation process bear no resemblance to the man and his true character. Bob Bork is a person without prejudice against any group. In all the many personal and private conversations I have had with him over the years, I have never heard him disparage anyone based on race, gender, religion or ethnicity. There can be and is no basis for any suggestion that Bob Bork's personal views and beliefs make him unsympathetic to victims of official or private discrimination or predisposed against their plight. If there were, we would not be friends, and I would not have had the opportunity he opened up for me and others at my firm. Second, Bob Bork is a person who has devoted his professional life and much of his personal life to thoughtful analysis and intellectual inquiry. His intellectual life reflects the highest standard of (2980) |