Southwick News
By AndrewHyman Posted in Southwick — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The White House stated on October 16:
[A]s the full Senate prepares to vote on his nomination, we encourage all members of the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Southwick. He is a highly respected attorney with an extensive record of public service as a judge and military officer.
On October 12, Senator Cornyn of Texas made a related statement, titled: "Attack On Southwick Latest in Dangerous Game Played With Reputations of Honorable Public Servants." On October 15, the New York Times had a blog post up, about Southwick:
He accepted the white worker’s claim that her use of the slur was “not motivated out of racial hatred or animosity directed toward her co-worker or toward blacks in general.”
On October 16, Ed Whelan had a reply to the New York Times at Bench Memos. Here is what Southwick actually said (or rather what he concurred in saying), with the quote placed into the context that the New York Times omitted:
Richmond...presented proof that her remark, though undoubtedly ill-advised and indicative of a rather remarkable insensitivity on her part, was not motivated out of racial hatred or racial animosity directed toward her co-worker or toward blacks in general....[T]he recipient of the remark [was] justifiably angered....The unwarranted use by a state employee of any inflammatory or derogatory term when referring to or directly addressing a co-worker is an action that cannot be justified by any argument. When such an incident occurs, it is incumbent upon the employing agency to deal with it in an appropriate manner.
This opinion that Judge Southwick joined never suggested that no penalty should be imposed for the slur. On the contrary, Judge Southwick voted to allow the state to "do what they feel like they have got to do" regarding penalizing the white employee short of the "ultimate sanction of loss of employment." The Mississippi Supreme Court later suggested that the state could "make detailed findings on the record why no penalty should be imposed," whereas Southwick's lower court never remotely suggested that no penalty should be imposed.
Here is what Judge Southwick said earlier this year about that opinion involving the N-word:
Captured in this one terrible word is a long, dark, sad chapter in our history. This racial slur is unique in its impact and painful to hear for many, including myself. I said at my hearing that this is the worst of all racial slurs. Its use is despicable. All people of good will should make their rejection of the word clear. The opinion had an opportunity to express more fully and accurately the complete disgust that should greet the use of this word. Such a statement would certainly be consistent with my own beliefs that this is the worst kind of insult. As I testified, everyone took this issue extraordinarily seriously. I regret that the failure to express in more depth our repugnance of the use of this phrase has now led to an impression that we did not approach this case with sufficient gravity and understanding of the impact of this word.
Very well said.
Example
by AndrewHyman
"Your work is lousy, and you need to shape up or ship out."
Southwick
by GATOR-liti
This distortion and lies about Southwick's record is the same tactic utilized against Judge Bork, but will not work this time, because the media is not just controlled by the 3 commie networks anymore. I have been writing anywhere I can find a blog about not Borking Southwick, as I am doing all I can to get the truth out there. Everyone else please do the same. The Democrats are NOT democratic, because they want unelected judges to decide all of our policy, and, of course, only in their direction. This is why they oppose judges who strictly construe the law, and adhere to its original understanding. This is the common-sense , traditional way law has always been interpreted. Just like a judge must interrpret a will in light of the intent of the testator, same for const and statutes. Why is this so tough to understand/grasp, so that judges are confined to their sphere of proper influence? It seems like we should all be able to agree on this, and any room for disagreement would be on the edges/in the interstices. It is ridiculous that a clause that is simply about fair procedure has been used as a vehicle for creating substantive "rights" that nobiody suspected were there, like abortion, sodomy, same-sex marriage, etc.
"Nominations" hearing
by BoBo
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2999
There is a judiciary committee hearing set for next Wednesday. Oddly, it isn't listed as being for either executive or judicial nominations, just "nominations". It might be for both. I hope that it includes Catharina Haynes.
On further thought
by BoBo
The hearing might be some Democrat publicity stunt detailing liberals' complaints against Bush's judicial nomination process and the resulting nominees - a chance to bash Kethledge, Murphy, Stone and Getchell?
Even further thought
by BoBo
The hearing might also list Dem complaints that Bush seems perfectly happy not to nominate anybody for a lot of executive positions. The Dems may want to express their irritation that Bush isn't seeking their approval for consensus nominees. Rather, he prefers "acting" officials he can trust.
More from Whelan on Southwick
by BoBo
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmE3NDE3MmNiYzI4MDlkYTg3OTllY2I4...
"If there is a filibuster attempt on this nomination (filibuster by the majority party?!?), Senate Republicans had better be ready not only to defend Southwick’s record but also to contrast it with the laughable records of Clinton nominees—Rosemary Barkett, Lee Sarokin, and others—whom Senate Democrats heartily supported."
cloture vote on Southwick next week?
by cubsfan
So reports Cong. Quarterly.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002609218.html
Southwick vote next week?
by BoBo
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002609218.html
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled Friday that the Senate may take up the controversial nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Reid is seeking a vote to limit debate on the nomination Tuesday. If that succeeds, the Senate would vote on whether to confirm Southwick."
"“Both Sen. [Patrick J.] Leahy [D-Vt.,] and I have said that when the Republicans tell us they want to move on that, we would do that,” Reid, D-Nev., said, referring to the Judiciary Committee chairman. “So, some time next week, I’m more than likely going to move to that matter. So I want everyone to know that, in fact, is the case.”
Senate Republicans have assumed they would need to round up a filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 votes to win confirmation for Southwick. It’s unclear whether Southwick’s supporters have done so. A spokesman for Reid declined to say whether Democrats would filibuster the nomination. A Senate Republican aide said there is no agreement on a time limit for debating the nomination."
It sounds then like there will definitely be a cloture vote on Southwick Tuesday. I just wonder when Reid will file the needed cloture motion - Monday? I also wonder, why now? Does McConnell feel comfortable now that he has enough Dem votes to stop a filibuster, or have Reid and Leahy decided at this point to force a filibuster on the Republicans as a blatant exercise of raw power?
Congratulations, cubsfan!
by BoBo
You beat me to the draw. Interesting new news about Southwick.
I have nothing left to do but read news articles. I need a life. :)
I'm going to be watching certain Dem senators carefully on the cloture vote, especially Gang of 14 members. Salazar is my home state senator, so he'll have some explaining to do if he chooses to hang with the Harry Reids of the Senate, after getting elected on promises of treating judicial nominees fairly.
p.s. I've adopted the Rockies so it's not all bad news.
Go Rockies!
by Classic
When a Cubs fan returned to his Iowa home after a visit to Colorado, I asked whether he had caught "Rockies' fever." He responded by referring to "our team." I'm happy to welcome all Cubs fans who are willing to enjoy the improbable yet inspiring ride of the Rox Kids!
Next week's SJC "Nominations" hearing
by Nomination Observer
Four district court nominees; no circuit court.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2999
There's also one executive branch nominee being considered.
While Tinder for the Seventh Circuit is being considered at next week's Business Meeting, it looks like it means that he and Southwick are it for potential circuit court confirmations this year.
Sometimes I think I am too addicted to this site and the adrenaline of the judicial confirmation wars. Too often, I find myself going from one extreme emotion to another based upon minor news articles or committee updates.
Southwick is a prime example of my bipolar reactions. At first, I thought his confirmation would be easy as pie. Then I noticed all the negative press his nomination was getting from the liberal MSM and switched gears. I thought he was a goner a la Boyle and Myers. Surprise, surprise - Feinstein then unexpectedly came to his rescue. This, however, was just another high followed by another low. When news later filtered out that McConnell and Lott wanted to delay a confirmation vote on him until they had collected more Democrat votes, I again thought he was a goner. Now, I don't know what to think. It appears that we will see a cloture vote on Southwick Tuesday. Is this a good or a bad thing? Anyone have a take on this situation?
Personally, I think the delay in a committee hearing for Catharina Haynes bodes well for a Southwick confirmation. It indicates to me that Southwick might indeed have enough votes to overcome a Democrat filibuster. One of the main reasons to fast-track Haynes has always been the need to keep the very busy 5th Circuit well-staffed. With both Elrod and Southwick confirmed, there would be a lot less pressure to quicken the pace on Haynes' confirmation.
Having said all this, though, I am still wondering which eleven Dem senators will risk their reputations with a vote for cloture? As I have said before, the only sure votes to end debate that I can pinpoint are from Nelson, Pryor and Landrieu. If Feinstein is added to that list, seven other Dem senators are still needed to ensure victory. I fully anticipate that among those seven there will be some who will vote for cloture but will not later vote for confirmation. Because of this uncertainty in numbers, I am still slightly nervous that Reid and Leahy have planned a humiliating defeat for Southwick's nomination, either by filibuster or direct vote.
"The unwarranted use by a state employee of any inflammatory or derogatory term when referring to or directly addressing a co-worker is an action that cannot be justified by any argument."
I fully support Southwick, but I'm curious: What, exactly, is a warranted use of an inflammatory or derogatory term?