Click The Logo To Donate
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/10/2002 3:50:18 AM PDT by The Anti-Democrat
Even more interesting will be IF LEGHORN ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING BESIDES SAYING HE'S MAD. Talk is cheap.
Yes Strom is. I was speaking of Senator Zell Miller staying a D-rat because having some conservatism inside their party makes the left have fits.
When did the people of South Carolina buy back Hollings from the Walt Disney corporation?
That desciption fits Senator Hollings.
There probably isn't enough money in SC to buy back Hollings.
NOMINATION OF JUDGE DENNIS SHEDD -- (Senate - October 09, 2002)
---
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my outrage at yesterday's proceedings in the Judiciary Committee. In an unprecedented move, Chairman LEAHY violated committee rules and removed the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd from the agenda. On a procedural vote, the committee refused to consider Judge Shedd's nomination.
I am hurt and disappointed by this egregious act of destructive politics. Chairman LEAHY assured me on numerous occasions that Judge Shedd would be given a vote. I took him at his word.
Dennis Shedd is a fine judge who has received a rating of well qualified by the American Bar Association. President Bush nominated him to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 9, 2001, but his hearing did not take place until June 27 of this year. Since that time, he has answered all questions asked of him.
For over 17 months, I have waited patiently. On July 31, Chairman LEAHY stated publicly before the Judiciary Committee that we had reached a solution regarding Judge Shedd that would be satisfactory. The chairman's recent actions are not only unsatisfactory, but they are unacceptable. In my 48 years in the Senate, I have never been treated in such a manner.
Mr. President, I hope this situation will be corrected and that Judge Shedd will soon be confirmed as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he will be kind enough to allow me to respond to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, as the name of my friend, Senator Leahy, was mentioned on several occasions.
Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. REID. A few minutes; 6 or 7 minutes at most.
Mr. BYRD. Not to exceed 7 minutes. I make that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we understand that Senator THURMOND is disappointed that the Judiciary Committee was not able to proceed on Judge Dennis Shedd's nomination at its meeting this week. We all have great respect for Senator THURMOND and I know that the committee is working toward a committee vote on the Shedd nomination.
The Judiciary Committee has continued to receive opposition from South Carolina and from African American and other civil rights organizations and leaders from around the country to the Shedd nomination. Senators are taking those concerns seriously and being thoughtful and deliberate in reaching their own conclusions.
Over the past weeks, the committee--led by Chairman LEAHY who has done such an outstanding job--has received hundreds of letters from individuals and organizations, both in and out of South Carolina, expressing concerns about elevating Judge Shedd, and these letters raise serious issues. Many of these letters have arrived in just the last week or so. The committee has just received a letter from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, citing the interests of the many Latinos living in the Fourth Circuit, and expressing opposition to Judge Shedd. A letter arrived recently from the Black Leadership Forum asking for more time to consider the nomination. It was signed by a number of well respected African American leaders, including the forum's chairman, Dr. Joseph Lowery, and over a dozen other nationally recognized figures. In recent weeks, State legislators from Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland, have written with their misgivings about the elevation of Judge Shedd. And hundreds, probably thousands, of letters from South Carolina citizens have been arriving that urge a closer look at Judge Shedd's fitness for this job.
Senator LEAHY was correct in his judgment that beginning the debate on the nomination of Judge Shedd on Tuesday morning would not have resulted in a final vote, but might well have prevented committee action on 17
other judicial nominees of this President. Indeed, as it was, Republicans almost prevented those 17 judicial nominations and six executive branch nominations from being reported before the end of that business session. [Page: S10163]Unfortunately, this partisan procedural maneuvering obstructed the committee from reaching any items on the legislative agenda, even the simplest consensus items of significant importance. Republican Senators even objected to granting consent to an amendment of the American Legion charter. I understand that today Republicans boycotted a business meeting of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
I understand that at Senator THURMOND's request, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing fro Judge Shedd who has a lifetime appointment to the District Court in south Carolina. Judge Shedd's hearing was the second for a nominee to the Fourth Circuit since the reorganization of the committee in the summer of 2001.
In fact, no judge was confirmed to the fourth Circuit during the last 30 months of Republican majority control even though there were nominees of significant qualifications. Neither Judge James Beaty, Judge Rich Leonard, Judge James Wynn, Judge Roger Gregory, Judge Andre Davis or Elizabeth Gibson received a hearing or a vote from the Republican majority on their nominations to the Fourth Circuit.
In contrast, the first nominee on which the Judiciary Committee held a hearing in July 2001 and the first confirmed after the change in majority was a Fourth Circuit nominee, Judge Gregory.
In addition, the Committee worked hard to consider and report the nomination of Judge Terry Wooten to be a Federal district court judge in South Carolina at the request of Senator THURMOND. Judge Wooten's nomination was not without controversy but with hard work and perseverance the committee was able to report that nomination to the Senate and the Senate confirmed Judge Wooten last November.
The committee also expedited consideration of Strom Thurmond, Jr., to be the U.S. Attorney for south Carolina last fall, under tremendous pressure to Senator LEAHY.
During the last 15 months, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings on over 100 judicial nominees, voted on 100 and reported 98. The Senate has confirmed 80 to date with 18 more on the calendar, as we speak. That is more hearings for more nominees and more votes on nominees and more confirmations of more nominees than in the last 30 months in which Republicans controlled the Senate.
The Judiciary Committee is doing a good job of helping reduce the judicial vacancies it inherited from the Republicans when they delayed and obstructed President Clinton's nominees.
I understand Senator Thurmond's disappointment, but he has to understand Senator Leahy is doing an outstanding job. And I and the rest of the Democrat conference totally support this good man, the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from West Virginia to allow me 5 minutes to respond.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for not to exceed 5 minutes--I hope this will be the last request--not to exceed 5 minutes, and that I retain my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. I appreciate it.
I listened to these remarks, and I am outraged. I know they were not written by any staffer for Senator Reid, and they are not accurate. I think we have had very disdainful treatment of one of the most prestigious and important Senators in the history of this body.
Let's think about it. Yesterday, Chairman Leahy denied a vote on Dennis Shedd, President Bush's nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the nominee from South Carolina. This action was outrageous because yesterday may very well have been the last markup Senator Thurmond, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who cares very deeply about Judge Shedd's nomination, was able to attend.
The committee rules are very clear. They allow an agenda item held over from 1 week, which Judge Shedd was held over, to be brought up on the next agenda. He was held over on September 19 on that markup agenda by the Democrats.
Yesterday, Chairman Leahy, in violation of committee rules, removed Judge Shedd from the agenda. This is not right. To my knowledge, that is the first time that has ever happened. It may have happened before, but I do not remember it.
What makes this even more unusual and has our Members outraged is that we operate in the Senate under a presumption that a Senator's word is as good as gold. Chairman Leahy assured several Republican Senators--our leader, Senator Thurmond, Senator Grassley, Senator Brownback, and myself--that Judge Shedd would get a vote. He promised that to me, and all of these others. It is fair to say the entire Republican caucus expected a vote yesterday on Judge Shedd.
There is no doubt about Judge Shedd's qualifications. He has strong bipartisan support. One of his most ardent supporters from South Carolina is none other than my dear friend and colleague, Senator Fritz Hollings. The people of South Carolina support him. The ABA, long held to be the gold standard by the Democrats, gave him a well-qualified rating. So it is not Judge Shedd's qualifications that are standing in the way. Simply put, there is no good reason that Judge Shedd did not get a vote at yesterday's markup.
In accordance with the rules, I moved to have a vote. The chairman ruled it out of order. It was a 9-to-9 vote, not sustaining his position but basically not allowing the vote.
The real reason Judge Shedd was not on the agenda was there are liberal special interest groups in this city that seem to have lock-stock control over the Judiciary Committee. When I was chairman, I never ceded control to any of these outside groups. In fact, I told them to get lost. I have to say I paid a big price for it, too. It is atrocious that ceding of control is happening now.
With regard to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and those nominees cited by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, they did not have home State senatorial support. We cannot do much about that when there is not home State senatorial support, which has always been a courtesy that has been extended.
Think about it. Judge Shedd has been waiting for almost 18 months. Now all of a sudden, at the last minute, we come up with all of these lame excuses to not give him a vote. All we were asking for was a vote in accordance with the rules of the Senate--a vote in the Judiciary Committee and then a vote on the floor--for a man who used to be chief of staff of the Judiciary Committee, who was sponsored by one of the most dignified and important Senators in the history of this body. Just one committee vote and a floor vote.
If they want to vote him down, they can do that, but Senator Thurmond deserved the benefit of the doubt. He deserved the privilege of having a vote on his nominee, especially since this nominee has waited for almost 18 months. He was peppered with all kinds of questions. He answered them. He did everything he possibly could. He has a wonderful reputation. He had it when he was on the committee. What is more, every member of that committee who sat when he was here knows it.
Now this is wrong. It is wrong to treat a senior Senator like this. It is wrong to treat a distinguished Federal district court judge like this. It is wrong to break the rules. It is wrong to break them with impunity. And I think it is wrong to treat the President's nominees this way.
To make a long story short, virtually everything that was said yesterday and even today was not very accurate. I would ask that this body reconsider, that my friends on the other side----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I ask for 30 seconds more, and I will finish.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield an additional minute to the Senator, under the same conditions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I am grateful to my colleague.
I ask for simple courtesy from the other side. Give us an up-or-down vote on Dennis Shedd. Everybody who is on the Judiciary Committee knows this man, and I think most others in the Senate know this man and know what a good person he is. But everybody knows Senator Thurmond, that he is an honest, decent man, and he deserves this kind of courtesy, especially at the end of the longest, most distinguished career in the Senate.
I thank my dear colleague from West Virginia.
But I think even if the Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party in a non 17th system- those Senators would be more interested in appeasing their State legislators (who they would rely on to get reappointed) than they would be in playing politics on the National level and this is the way it should be. The citizens of Texas shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a little man from South Dakota simply because he has Presidential aspirations. The only people that little man from South Dakota should care about impressing should be the populace of South Dakota.
I think you'd see very subtle changes that would have great effects over the course of time. Again as I said, I believe the political parties would start spending much more money and time on local elections because it would be more important that they get their little guys into the State Legislature. This would mean they'd have to get more involved in local issues which would return politics and government to the people.
The way the system is now, as long as the GOP or Dems believe they can put together a winning campaign in time for election- it doesn't matter really who controls the Legislature in any given election (except for very close Presidential elections)- in their minds at least. It only matters that they put together a flashy advertisement campaign and discredit the other guy. In the non 17th system, they'd have to focus on keeping their guys in the State houses happy which would mean paying more attention to the things that get each of those little guys elected.
This is all just my opinion, but I'd be willing to cede control of the Senate in return for repealing the 17th.
This is the same attitude as those conservatives who claim to be for smaller government, more liberty, etc. They are more than willing to go along with the liberal agenda in order to feel liked. They have no stomach for a fight. And, they are fraudelent.
Agreed. The "outrage" that the "honor" of the Senate has been impugned? HA!
This is the same Senate that conducted a sham trial for a POTUS who shamelessly and smugly violated his oath of office.
What a nest of phonies. Spare me.
Remember that the Dems control the House merely through grotesque gerrymandering. We elected a House Speaker as long ago as 1968 (now-US Rep Bill Jenkins (TN-1st)), and the Dems got control for the next session and have screwed us at every redraw since. We get a majority of the total vote for the State House now, but only have 42 of 59 seats. We badly need to depose "Boss Hogg" Naifeh and take the House this year... it'll be tough, but not impossible. All we need is 8 more seats.
You're a bit more optimistic than I. There may be some more subtle changes, but probably not by much. I'm not sure politics in this country has ever been entirely sane. Remember in the 19th century that MC's regularly would challenge others to duels, and even on the Senate floor, swords and pistols were pulled on occasion. At least we don't do that anymore...
"But I think even if the Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party in a non 17th system- those Senators would be more interested in appeasing their State legislators (who they would rely on to get reappointed) than they would be in playing politics on the National level and this is the way it should be."
Yes and no. Yes in that they would have to appeal to the majority party of a given legislature, but no in that you'd still likely have these individuals playing politics at the national level. This would especially be true in states that had unbreachable one-party control where Senators could safely engage in doing just that (Ted Kennedy would be routinely reelected by a state legislature in MA today just as Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. was a century ago -- both managed to be major players, though elected in different ways (Lodge, though, managed to make the transition from a legislative election to a statewide popular, even when he was a bit past his prime)).
"The citizens of Texas shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a little man from South Dakota simply because he has Presidential aspirations. The only people that little man from South Dakota should care about impressing should be the populace of South Dakota."
Well, if not SD, perhaps CT or my state. TX would have 2 Democrat Senators now (though not after this coming election when they win the legislature for the first time since reconstruction), probably named Ann Richards and a hack like Bob Krueger, and they'd also be following the lead of their Democrat Majority Leader, either Jim Sasser (now, ex-Senator from TN) or Chris Dodd of CT. SD would blissfully have 2 Republicans, probably Bill Janklow (who would've succeeded the legendary Joe Foss, the man who in reality, should've beaten George McGovern) and Jim Abdnor.
"I think you'd see very subtle changes that would have great effects over the course of time. Again as I said, I believe the political parties would start spending much more money and time on local elections because it would be more important that they get their little guys into the State Legislature. This would mean they'd have to get more involved in local issues which would return politics and government to the people."
Subtle changes, yes, though I still don't believe that great of a difference. More often than not, legislatures get bogged down on a host of parochial issues that really a US Senator need not concern themselves with (or should be involved with). While you do want them appealing to the state as a whole, it should be how the state relates to the rest of the nation rather than the entirety of the state down to local interests. A small example of this is a woman who ran and won the primary in an adjacent Congressional district named Marsha Blackburn. State Sen. Blackburn was a tenacious fighter against the state income tax, almost her singular issue, and she used it to ride to a primary win. The problem is that, while she is to be commended for her helping defeat it this past session, her issue is moot in Washington (as that is solely a parochial/state issue). We really needed Marsha to remain in the legislature, especially for the coming term, where we stood an even chance of winning back the State Senate. She's going to have to acquaint herself with a host of national issues that were of no relevence while she was a state legislator.
"The way the system is now, as long as the GOP or Dems believe they can put together a winning campaign in time for election- it doesn't matter really who controls the Legislature in any given election (except for very close Presidential elections)- in their minds at least. It only matters that they put together a flashy advertisement campaign and discredit the other guy. In the non 17th system, they'd have to focus on keeping their guys in the State houses happy which would mean paying more attention to the things that get each of those little guys elected."
Again, yes, but you'd still have similar-style campaigning. Remember the Lincoln-Douglas debates ? For all practical purposes, there was no need for them to go around Illinois doing that since the voters themselves had technically no say in the matter, the final arbitor were the state legislators. Taken to this time, you'd probably see similar commercials/campaigns today urging a vote for a member of a given party so that "that" candidate would go to Washington. It almost seems more parliamentarian when you think about it.
"This is all just my opinion, but I'd be willing to cede control of the Senate in return for repealing the 17th."
I'm not so sure I'd go in with that. I think we'd still have many of the problems we have now, just with a set of different players.
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.