Bush Wants To Elevate Judge With Suspect Past
By Cynthia Tucker.

After all, President Bush has always claimed to be interested in a racially diverse Republican Party.
But he isn’t serious. If he were, he would not insist on sending U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, a close associate of Lott’s, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana). Pickering’s political and judicial record on issues of race is troubling, at best.
Early in his career, Pickering established a record of staunch support for segregationist views. But his many friends and supporters — not just Lott, but also well-known activists such as James Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers — claim he has long since renounced those views and worked to eliminate racial disparities in Mississippi.
That may be true. But Pickering’s recent record still suggests a glaring racial insensitivity — a callousness that ought to give the White House pause. Just one example is Pickering’s handling of a 1994 cross-burning case over which he presided as a federal judge.
Pickering was upset because Daniel Swan, one of three white men convicted, was sentenced to 7 1/2 years under strict federal guidelines. Two co-defendants had received lighter sentences because they pled guilty. (There is nothing unusual about prosecutors offering lesser sentences in exchange for guilty pleas.)
Pickering called prosecutors into his chambers to insist that they reduce the sentence against Swan, calling his actions a “drunken prank.” He threatened to order a new trial if they didn’t comply. (The men not only burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple, but they also fired shots into the house, which just missed the couple’s baby. I can’t imagine Pickering demanding a lesser sentence for a black man convicted of a similar crime.)
Pickering also called the U.S. Justice Department (news – web sites) to complain about federal sentencing guidelines, even suggesting that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (news – web sites) intervene. Eventually, prosecutors caved in and dropped one of the charges against Swan — although he had already been convicted. As a result, Pickering was able to sentence Swan to 27 months.
Not only did Pickering’s handling of the case raise questions of racial insensitivity, but his lobbying on behalf of a convicted criminal was also shamefully unethical.
So were Pickering’s answers to questions about his record during an earlier confirmation process, in 1990. Asked about his relationship with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a staunchly anti-black group formed in the 1950s to resist the civil rights movement, Pickering said: “I never had any contact with the Sovereignty Commission.” But the record shows Pickering was an ally, voting to give the group state funds when he was a Mississippi state senator in the 1970s.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030112/228/30sbi.html
Op/Ed – Cynthia Tucker
BUSH WANTS TO ELEVATE JUDGE WITH SUSPECT PAST
Sat Jan 11,10:03 PM ET
By Cynthia Tucker
After Trent Lott’s longing for a segregated past embarrassed the White House, President Bush (news – web sites) got busy trying to repair the damage.
First, he arranged to have Lott deposed as Senate majority leader. Then, the White House suggested that the president would reinvigorate his efforts to attract minority voters. After all, President Bush has always claimed to be interested in a racially diverse Republican Party.
But he isn’t serious. If he were, he would not insist on sending U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, a close associate of Lott’s, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana). Pickering’s political and judicial record on issues of race is troubling, at best.
Early in his career, Pickering established a record of staunch support for segregationist views. But his many friends and supporters — not just Lott, but also well-known activists such as James Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers — claim he has long since renounced those views and worked to eliminate racial disparities in Mississippi.
That may be true. But Pickering’s recent record still suggests a glaring racial insensitivity — a callousness that ought to give the White House pause. Just one example is Pickering’s handling of a 1994 cross-burning case over which he presided as a federal judge.
Pickering was upset because Daniel Swan, one of three white men convicted, was sentenced to 7 1/2 years under strict federal guidelines. Two co-defendants had received lighter sentences because they pled guilty. (There is nothing unusual about prosecutors offering lesser sentences in exchange for guilty pleas.)
Pickering called prosecutors into his chambers to insist that they reduce the sentence against Swan, calling his actions a “drunken prank.” He threatened to order a new trial if they didn’t comply. (The men not only burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple, but they also fired shots into the house, which just missed the couple’s baby. I can’t imagine Pickering demanding a lesser sentence for a black man convicted of a similar crime.)
Pickering also called the U.S. Justice Department (news – web sites) to complain about federal sentencing guidelines, even suggesting that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (news – web sites) intervene. Eventually, prosecutors caved in and dropped one of the charges against Swan — although he had already been convicted. As a result, Pickering was able to sentence Swan to 27 months.
Not only did Pickering’s handling of the case raise questions of racial insensitivity, but his lobbying on behalf of a convicted criminal was also shamefully unethical.
So were Pickering’s answers to questions about his record during an earlier confirmation process, in 1990. Asked about his relationship with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a staunchly anti-black group formed in the 1950s to resist the civil rights movement, Pickering said: “I never had any contact with the Sovereignty Commission.” But the record shows Pickering was an ally, voting to give the group state funds when he was a Mississippi state senator in the 1970s.
Pickering might have renounced his segregationist past, but he surely must understand that he can still be called to account for it. If he has had a change of heart, he has no reason to hide the truth.
There are scores of other conservative judges who would not bring Pickering’s baggage to the confirmation process. So why would Bush insist on Pickering? Why would the president, who probably doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, stand by Lott’s friend?
Because in the White House, the only real agenda is winning re-election in 2004. So Bush constantly courts his ultraconservative base, including religious conservatives who admire Pickering’s rigid anti-abortion views as well as Southern whites who still resent progressive racial policies. In standing by Pickering, Bush pays homage to both groups.
On matters of race, President Bush clearly finds political expediency more important than moral leadership.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for the Atlanta Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.