Posted on 11/19/2002 7:11:25 AM PST by xsysmgr
Last Friday, several of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate made plans for a filibuster to stop the confirmation of Dennis Shedd, President Bush's choice for a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Frustrated that they did not have the votes to defeat Shedd in the Judiciary Committee, chairman Patrick Leahy, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and others explored the idea of blocking the nomination before it could reach a vote in the full Senate.
The Democrats were cheered on by a number of liberal interest groups, who have attacked Shedd as "insensitive" to the rights of minorities and hostile to the legal arguments of plaintiffs in employment-discrimination cases. The groups had hoped Shedd would be voted down in committee and, when that did not happen, urged that the nomination be killed in a full-Senate fight.But when it came time to fight, the fighters didn't show up.
Although several hours had been set aside yesterday afternoon for debate on Shedd, only Leahy appeared on the floor to denounce him. There was no Kennedy, and there were none of the Judiciary Committee Democrats — Richard Durbin, Russell Feingold, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and John Edwards — who voted against Shedd last week. The filibuster quietly disappeared.
Instead, there was a relatively brief rehashing of the arguments that failed to stop Shedd in the Judiciary Committee. Leahy said Shedd had a history of "assisting the defense" in cases where plaintiffs claim they have suffered discrimination on the job. "His record as a whole raises concerns about whether he should be elevated to a court that is one step below the U.S. Supreme Court," Leahy said.
Orrin Hatch, the Republican who will soon replace Leahy as Judiciary Committee chairman, answered, "Perhaps my colleague will be less troubled than he appears to be when he learns that none of the cases he referred to where Judge Shedd supposedly assisted the defense were reversed on appeal. Not one."
The outcome was certain from the beginning. At the same time that Kennedy and Leahy were contemplating a filibuster, the Democratic leadership team of Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. Harry Reid was backing away from it. If there had been a filibuster, Republicans would have needed 60 votes to stop it and move forward to a vote on Shedd. Daschle and Reid had already indicated to the GOP leadership that they would vote to cut off debate, and Republicans were confident that enough Democrats would join them to easily put an end to a filibuster.
Of course, Kennedy, Leahy, and the anti-Shedd faction knew that. So why was there talk of a filibuster in the first place? In part, because the liberal interest groups behind the anti-Shedd campaign wanted one. It is a stretch to say that they believed a filibuster could stop Shedd on the floor, but liberal activists still wanted a filibuster, partly as a sign that Democrats are determined to continue fighting Bush nominees even after the party loses power next month. From the Democrats' perspective, planning a filibuster — or at least going through the motions — would show the groups that the party does not intend to sit back and let Republicans confirm all of the president's nominees.
Complicating it all was the issue of Sen. Mary Landrieu. Landrieu is in a runoff election in Louisiana, and the Shedd nomination had the potential to affect her fortunes. Some Democrats worried that opposing Shedd would hurt Landrieu's chances with centrist voters. But other Democrats worried that allowing Shedd to be confirmed would anger the interest groups, particularly the NAACP, who provide the get-out-the-vote organizing that is critical to Democratic victory.
Finally, there was the issue of homeland security. The Senate is racing to approve a bill before the lame-duck session ends, and most Democrats were not particularly eager to appear to be shutting down the Senate — and work on homeland security — over a little-known judicial nominee.
So in the end, nothing happened. Leahy said a few words, Hatch said a few words, and the Senate moved on. Shedd appears to be headed toward confirmation, although it also appears that a vote on his nomination will not take place until after the homeland security vote. If the security vote is delayed for some reason, Shedd's might be, too. But confirmation appears to be certain. The November 5 elections took care of that.
If that had happened Leahy would have gone back to all the leftist donors and say, You wanted that person's nomination killed and I did it. Could you send more money as a reward for a job well done?"
If on the other hand Leahy doesn't have the votes, he rants and raves and make all sorts the noise he can. Then the person gets confirmed. Leahy orders copies of the congressional record containing all his rants and raves and sends them to all the leftist donors and says "You wanted that person's nomination killed and I did all we could to stop it(see enclosed rants and raves). I just barely failed. I might have succeeded if you had sent me more money. Could you send me more money?"
The current state of the Dem Party: paralyzed by battling special interest groups. Yes!
Judge Dennis Shedd
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit,
Status of nomination: Awaiting floor vote
Brief Biography
Background on the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, is known as the most right-wing federal appeals court in the country. Several of its decisions undermining basic rights have been subsequently reversed by the conservative Supreme Court as too extreme, including Condon v. Reno 1 a challenge to Congress’s power to protect the privacy of drivers’ license information; a decision that would have overruled the Miranda warnings; 2 and the state of Virginia’s attempt to ban certain abortion procedures. 3
The Fourth Circuit now has seven judges appointed by Republicans and four appointed by Democrats. During the Clinton Administration, the Republican-led Senate obstructed President Clinton’s efforts to moderate the Fourth Circuit through the nomination of centrist judges.... blah, blah, blah....
He looks pretty good to me.
Cordially,
I thought a filibuster was when Daschle gives a stern look to Trent Lott and the bill dies. When the Dems are really serious, Hillary skywrites "Surrender Trent".
Maybe Lott has finally found a vestigle backbone.
He really doesn't of course--he is just another guy who has spent an entire professional career from 1977 on in the public trough. There may have been a few minutes between 1988 and 1991 when he had a real job but I doubt it--he was teaching law until he got the district court appointment in 1990.
He is our guy in the public trough so his confirmation is a plus, however it would be a positive if the politicians could find some commited conservatives out there who have had something to do with the real world for some period in their professional life.
Cordially,
What a bunch of Dim wusses!
Still worried about "sending a message," I see. Folks with their fingers stuck on the "send" button don't do a whole lot of receiving, and these are no exception. They simply refuse to believe that 5 November was a crashing rejection of judicial obstructionism and are calling for more of the same.
At the beginning of the next session Senator Hatch will apportion the committee chairs. An olive branch may get an olive branch in return; a ballbat is absolutely guaranteed not to. That is how politics works in the adult world.
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.