Posted on 10/10/2002 3:50:18 AM PDT by The Anti-Democrat
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond continued his last fight in office Wednesday, taking the Senate floor to condemn the Judiciary Committee's inaction on Dennis Shedd's appeals court nomination.
Then he carried the battle to the White House.
Thurmond, who is retiring after nearly 48 years in office, stood feebly but spoke harshly in the Senate.
"I rise to express my outrage at yesterday's proceedings in the Judiciary Committee," said Thurmond, who turns 100 in December. "I am hurt and disappointed by this egregious act of destructive politics."
Thurmond is angry that the Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member, would not vote on Shedd's nomination Tuesday. The inaction probably means the nomination is dead.
Shedd, of Columbia, is a U.S. district judge who used to work in Thurmond's Senate office.
Thurmond's harshest words were aimed at U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman. Thurmond says Leahy broke a promise to allow a vote on Shedd.
"Chairman Leahy assured me on numerous occasions that Judge Shedd would be given a vote. I took him at his word," Thurmond said.
Leahy and other Democrats, including Shedd supporter Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., have said they still intend to vote on Shedd. They rejected GOP claims the Democratic-controlled committee didn't vote on Shedd because he is too conservative.
Thurmond's comments came during the Senate's debate on Iraq. Two other senators responded before the Iraqi debate continued.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended Leahy. Reid said "hundreds" of letters had arrived from South Carolina and other states opposing Shedd's nomination, some within the past week.
Civil rights and other groups oppose Shedd because they say he has a weak civil rights record.
Reid said a committee debate on Shedd would have precluded votes on 17 judicial nominees that aren't controversial.
Reid added that the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee had previously acted speedily on Republican-favored candidates. They include Terry Wooten as U.S. District Court judge, another nominee strongly backed by Thurmond.
"The committee also expedited the committee's consideration of Strom Thurmond Jr. to be a United States Attorney for South Carolina," he said.
The Senate confirmed the younger Thurmond, 29, in November 2001.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, rebutted Reid's remarks. He said the committee's inaction on Shedd was discourteous to Thurmond.
"Everybody knows Senator Thurmond and knows that he is an honest, decent man and that he deserves this kind of courtesy," Hatch said.
Unappeased on the Senate floor, Thurmond and seven Republican members of the Judiciary Committee met with President Bush, who nominated Shedd in May 2001.
After 20 minutes with the president, the lawmakers met with reporters on the White House lawn.
"We had a good meeting today, and we're going to help this president and he's going to help us," Thurmond said. "So we're going to get a lot of good things done."
But Thurmond's colleagues acknowledged they didn't have a strategy to push their nominees through, other than to win back a majority in the Senate.
Besides Shedd, the committee has rejected two other Bush judicial nominees since Democrats won control of the Senate in March of 2001: Charles Pickering of Mississippi and Priscilla Owen of Texas. But Democrats rejected Republicans' assumption that Shedd's nomination is effectively dead.
"He will definitely make it," said Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., adding it might not happen during this session of Congress, which is rapidly drawing to a close. Hollings, too, was upset about Democrats' handling of Shedd's nomination on Tuesday.
"I'm mad," he said.
Dwight James, executive director of the S.C. Conference of the NAACP, said opposition to Shedd's nomination isn't about Thurmond.
Along with other civil rights groups, the South Carolina and national branches of the NAACP have fought hard against Shedd's nomination, calling him biased against plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
"No disrespect to the senator, but this is about the service that will be given to the people who reside in the 4th Circuit. They're the overriding interest," James said.
"I'm mad," he said.
At least one Democrat is a man of honor. Incidentally, Washington Times notes that Dems released these letters yesterday, and only 3 were from South Carolina residents: the rest were from liberal special interest groups.
I remember Senator Hollings also coming out in favor of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court back in the 80's.
Lear is affecting our lives by the tyranny of the courts and Meathead is writing speeches for Algork. It doesn't get any worse than that.
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman.
Thurmond says Leahy broke a promise to allow a vote on Shedd.
Repeal the 17th Amendment!!!
The Founding Fathers may have been right, when the wrote a Constitution in which state legislatures elect US Senators.
may you rise for an eternity Mr. Thurmond - and may your voice resonate for generations to come...
much respect!
With all due respect, Sen. Thurmond, it would be thought that, after all your time in the congress, that you would know by now that you NEVER can trust a democRAT to be true to his word.
May have been? They were dead on. The 17th has only been around since what, 1913? Our country was the other way longer than the way it is now.
I think it is pretty clear our Founding Fathers were afraid of the idea of democracy and rightly so. They only gave one sixth of the gov't over to democracy. One sixth. They never intended for the President to be democratically elected- the General Election is basically a token gesture, an act of appeasement to the rabble if you will. They never intended for the Senate to be democratically elected. They never intended for the Justices to be at the mercy of democratically elected representatives. All the important roles of the Congress they gave to the non-democratically elected Senate- Treaty ratification, Approving Justices etc. The Senators were also given the longest terms. They knew that the House of Representatives would be basically a monkey house of a forum for the rabble to get up on a soap box and pontificate and this is reflected in the extremely brief terms they were given. If a Rep proved to be a jack-ass he could be dumped in short order while the more responsible section of the Congress (the Senate) would be able to have 6 years to work on their ideas.
If we were to repeal the 17th, you would see much change almost immediately. The focus in politics would rightly return to the States. Who the people elected for their State legislatures would be extremely important and you'd see the various parties do more than pay lip service to the smaller States because the process would work a lot like the Baseball Farm system. You want a Republican controlled Senate 12 years from now- you'd better start now in those states even though the election is 12 yrs away. You'd see most of the ugly politics return to the States as well. Let the local boys sling mud at each other over who they're going to send to the US Senate. Let them do the name calling and hair pulling. Let that ugliness be carried out on a State level rather than a National one. The Senators would be much easier for the States themselves to control as well.
I heard that he and Gloria lived in the White House for most of the 1990's
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.