The Pickering nomination: Just do it

Last week, when committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) placed Pickering’s name on the agenda for a vote, some Republicans feared Democrats might call for yet another hearing — it would be the third — to investigate Pickering’s alleged “insensitivity” to civil rights concerns.

But Democrats didn’t seem to be interested. “We’ve had two hearings,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said last week. “I chaired them. And I think we know all the facts about Judge Pickering.”

“I think it’s now up to everyone to weigh the facts,” Schumer added.

Schumer said he expects the committee to split along party lines, which means Pickering would win, 10 to 9. Then, Schumer said, “We will go to the floor of the Senate, and in all likelihood we on the Democratic side will not allow his nomination to go forward.”

For the moment at least, it appears Democrats have the strength to sustain a filibuster of Pickering, although there are signs this one might be tougher than earlier blockades of Bush nominees.

For one thing, Pickering will have the support of Vermont’s Sen. James Jeffords, the nominal independent who has sided with Democrats in previous judicial filibusters.
On Sept. 17, Jeffords released a statement saying he had reviewed Pickering’s decisions, read transcripts of the confirmation hearings, consulted with colleagues and met with Pickering himself.

“From my review of all the information, I believe that Judge Pickering is qualified to be a federal judge, and I will vote accordingly,” Jeffords said.

Pickering got another show of support recently from top officials — all Democrats — in his home state.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), received a letter signed by every current Democratic official elected statewide in Mississippi — that’s Governor Ronnie Musgrove, Secretary of State Eric Clark, Attorney General Mike Moore, Insurance Commissioner George Dale and Agriculture Commissioner Lester Spell.

“Judge Pickering’s record demonstrates his commitment to equal protection, equal rights, and fairness to all,” the letter said. “We believe Judge Pickering should be confirmed.”

“We are all active Democrats,” the officials continued. “Charles Pickering was, before rising to the federal bench, an active Republican. It is our hope that party labels can be transcended in this fight.”

Some of the new expressions of support can be attributed to the efforts of Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering (R-Miss.), the judge’s son, who has been quietly working to bring doubters over to his father’s side.

First, the younger Pickering has been active at home, gathering up support from the few Mississippi state officials who hadn’t backed his father already.

One of those is Phillip West, chairman of the state legislative black caucus. West originally signed a petition against the Pickering nomination but has changed his mind.

“I labored under the impression that opponents had a clear and convincing argument,” West wrote recently. “Now, I am not certain that the ammunition on [Pickering] is as powerful and as convincing as I was led to believe.”

“Judge Pickering’s record of working with both races and working for racial reconciliation in past and present years is beyond what many whites ... in positions of leadership have done in our state,” West continued.

In addition, Rep. Pickering has been working behind the scenes to shore up support on the Hill. The congressman has helped make his father’s case to Sen. Jeffords and other undecideds.

Right now, Rep. Pickering believes the judge’s supporters are close to gaining the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster.

But they’re not there yet.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of when the Republican leadership will bring the Pickering nomination up for a vote in the full Senate.

There’s no need for Democrats to filibuster unless the GOP actually schedules Pickering for a vote. So far, Frist has not scheduled another embattled Bush nominee, Carolyn Kuhl, for a vote, even though she was approved by the Judiciary Committee May 8.

The GOP leadership apparently believes there is simply too much other business going on now to spend much time on judicial debate and cloture votes.

So Pickering, who had to wait for a hearing and had to wait for a committee vote, may have to wait for a filibuster, too.

Meanwhile, there’s still a (probably) ugly scene to take place at the Judiciary Committee meeting tomorrow.

“I think there will be a lot of screaming and shouting, but I intend to pass [Pickering] out,” Hatch said last week. “Then, we’ll just have to see.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994423/posts

Check out Lindsay Graham, from Byron York's good Pickering column:

Graham took as his starting point a statement that Schumer had made earlier in the meeting. Slamming Pickering over the cross-burning case, and then criticizing the White House for nominating him, Schumer said, "We'd prefer to find consensus, agreement, and comity. But if the administration insists on a fight, then a fight they'll get."

"If I thought that Judge Pickering somehow condoned cross burning, it would be the easiest decision in the world to vote no," Graham began. "And if you really believe that, then you're absolutely right, you should vote no."

The truth is, the man's been under siege for a couple of years now, and I can only imagine what he and his family went through. It's been total hell. There's nothing worse you can say about somebody other than they're a racist. And there's nothing worse you can say about a southern white person than that they're a racist. We have to live with that all the time, and it's our own fault to a certain extent.
In my state, 31-percent African American, we're a long way away from South Carolina being where it should be. The incomes in my state of African Americans are dramatically lower than the population as a whole. So I don't want anyone to leave this room today thinking that we've fixed our racial problems in the South. We have not.

But I tell you, you need to look at your own states and see if you've fixed them in your state. There's a long way to go, and beating on this good man is not going to make us a better nation.

The reason we're here is that you all have chosen a handful of nominees — and there are not many, but one is too many — and you've used the tactic of stopping them from having a vote up or down on the floor. And we will respond in the future, and the country will be the great loser.

What's happening is going to doom the future of the U.S. Senate, because if you think the people on my side of the aisle, when there's a Democratic president, are going to sit back and not do the same thing — that's just naive.

This is history being made in the United States Senate. This is horrible history. It's happening on our watch. God, I wish I could fix it. But I don't see it being fixed.

Senator Schumer said let the fight begin. The fight has begun, and the fight needs to be taken to its logical conclusion. We need to break these filibusters, we need to bring reason back to the table, and we need to stop taking good men and women who are well qualified by the bar association and saying that they are racists.

Do you know what it must have been like in 1967 to get on the stand and testify against the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi? Do you have any idea what courage that took? Shame on you.

By the end, Graham was nearly in tears and the room was silent. It was an almost stunning conclusion to a meeting that had just a few minutes before seemed entirely recycled and pre-scripted.

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.

Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each Wednesday. E-mail: byork@thehill.com