In the case, two men and a juvenile had burned an eight-foot cross on the lawn of an interracial couple with a young child...
Specifically, questioning by Senator Edwards revealed that Pickering had threatened to order a new trial in the case (even though the time for such an order had expired and Pickering had no authority to order it on his own motion), ordered Justice Department lawyers to take his complaints about the proposed sentence personally to the Attorney General, and initiated an ex parte communication with a high-ranking Justice Department official to complain about the case. A Justice Department letter released after the hearing revealed a series of "off-the-record" efforts by Pickering to pursue his complaints, including a direct phone call by him to the home of one prosecutor the day after New Years' Day, 1995. Senator Edwards expressed serious concern that Judge Pickering had violated Rule 3.A.4 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which specifically forbids ex parte contacts between a judge and attorneys for one side of a case about that case...
Senator Durbin was concerned about the extreme lengths to which Pickering went to assist the defendant to obtain reduced punishment for conduct - the cross-burning -- that Pickering at one point called a "drunken prank." Senator Schumer stated that Pickering's explanation concerning the sentencing disparity "doesn't wash," particularly in light of other sentencing disparities when one defendant pleads guilty in a case, the invidious nature of the crime, and the fact that Congress had established a mandatory minimum sentence that Pickering was trying to avoid. Pickering's conduct in the cross-burning case further militates against his confirmation.http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1292if you still don't get it, maybe you don't want to.