Southwick Resolution Tests Red State Democrats
By Curt Levey Posted in Southwick — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Committee for Justice issued a press release today in which I noted that yesterday’s Sense of the Senate Resolution is a good strategy because, while “all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are from blue states and thus free to engage in partisan battles,” on the Senate floor, “20 of the Democratic senators are from states that voted for George Bush in 2004.”
Below the fold is the full press release.
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE
1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 2, 2007
CONTACT: Curt Levey, (202) 270-7748, clevey@committeeforjustice.org
Southwick Resolution is Test for Red State Democrats
One Way or Another, We’ll Know Where Every Senator Stands
WASHINGTON, DC – The Committee for Justice (CFJ) reacted today to the introduction of a Sense of the Senate resolution declaring that Fifth Circuit nominee and Iraq War veteran Leslie Southwick “should receive a vote by the full Senate.” The resolution, introduced by Senators Mitch McConnell and Arlen Specter as an amendment to pending legislation, is aimed at ending the obstruction of Judge Southwick’s nomination in the Judiciary Committee.
“Forcing a vote by the full Senate is the right strategy,” explained CFJ executive director Curt Levey. “Just do the math. Majority Leader Reid has made sure that all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are from blue states and thus free to engage in partisan battles. But Reid doesn’t have that luxury on the Senate floor, where 20 of the Democratic senators are from states that voted for George Bush in 2004. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has already said he sees no reason to oppose Judge Southwick, and it’s likely we’ll pick up at least a few more red state Democrats.”
“If I were a Democratic senator from a red state, I wouldn’t want to go home for August recess and explain to my constituents why I shot down an Iraq War veteran at the behest of ultra-liberal groups like People for the American Way,” said Levey. “Before those groups decided to target Judge Southwick, Democratic leaders assured their Republican counterparts that this nomination would sail through the Senate. Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin can get away with taking their marching orders from the Left. Byron Dorgan, Jon Tester, and Evan Bayh can’t.”
Levey pointed out that “red state Democrats running for reelection next year are the least likely to risk a vote against Southwick. Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 because his strategy of filibustering judicial nominees made him look obstructionist and out of the mainstream. In putting forth this resolution, Republicans are betting that senators like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, and John Rockefeller don’t want to be the next Tom Daschle in 2008.”
“Democratic senators from the South will find it hard to vote against the Southwick resolution,” Levey predicted. “After all, the obstruction of Judge Southwick is part of a larger pattern. Seven times President Bush has nominated a southern white male to the U.S Courts of Appeal, and seven times Senate Democrats have tried to block the nomination. I would think that southern senators such as Landrieu, Pryor, Jim Webb, and Bill Nelson would want to distance themselves from that pattern.”
“Even a couple of blue state Democrats named Clinton and Obama will hesitate before siding with the obstructionists,” Levey explained. “If they oppose giving Judge Southwick a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, they’ll have to deal with the ramifications if elected president. President Clinton or Obama would then have a hard time arguing that their judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote.”
Responding to Harry Reid’s vow to table the resolution, Levey said “That’s just one more piece of evidence that Judge Southwick has the support of a majority of senators. If Reid had the votes to defeat the Southwick amendment outright, he wouldn’t be trying to obfuscate the issue with a motion to kill the amendment. Sen. Reid is mistaken if he thinks the American people can’t figure out that a vote to table the amendment is a vote against this Iraq War veteran. Whether Reid’s motion fails or succeeds, at the end of the day, we’ll know where every senator stands.”
Leahy just stated the
by SOP
Leahy just stated the executive business meeting has been moved to 2pm EST.
and perhaps even moreso perhaps the next Democratic President, but it seems like there are way too many outs here. They can claim they're voting against it because:
- It's not relevant to the SCHIP debacle debate.
- There are centuries of sacred precedence of not overruling committees on non-SC nominees.
- etc.
The press will gladly recite the Dem talking points and try to make the GOP look like sore losers, so I'm not sure how much mileage we get out of this.
It still appears Reid is trying to goad McConnell into shutting down the Senate, which Reid thinks will score political points for the Dems.
Graham Talks About Southwick
by SOP
"Hugh Hewitt has a post today about Southwick, in which he makes the following statement:
"And according to statements by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, himself a member of the Judiciary Committee, there are negotiations underway between some Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee and Southwick’s home Senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, about a replacement nominee that would be acceptable to the Democrats."
I don't know how accurate the statement is, but I hope it's not true."
From Graham's comments today, it sounds as if the Republicans fully expect Southwick to be voted down in committee today and then for the McConnell/Specter "sense of the senate" amendment to be tabled. That is why they are scrambling to find a new Mississippi nominee to replace him. If that is the case, I hope that Southwick is guaranteed the district seat he was first nominated. It would be terrible to have put this honorable man through all of this debate without offering him anything in return.
Politico article
by cubsfan
I'm glad you called them on it, Andrew. I was even more incensed at the drivel coming from Leahy about our Chief Justice in that article. The only thing I can conclude from Leahy's insulting inanity is that he's hoping to induce another seizure and force the Chief to retire.
Having gone through this exercise to keep him off the CoA, how can they then turn around and approve him for a lower court? To do so would prove they are the liars we know they are.
Leahy still pressing Wingate
by BoBo
Courtesy of How Appealing,
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/NEWS/70...
"[Leahy] suggested the White House nominate Judge Henry Wingate of the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, for the opening on the appellate court. Nominated by then-President Ronald Reagan, Wingate is the only black federal judge in Mississippi.
"I cannot imagine why an experienced judge appointed by Ronald Reagan would be unacceptable to this White House," Leahy said.
Southwick's nomination is likely to be rejected on a party-line vote in Leahy's committee, composed of 10 Democrats and nine Republicans."
bk - it has happened before
by BoBo
In Bush's first term, magistrate judge William Steele was forced to withdraw by the Dems as an Alabama nominee to the 11th Circuit but later was confirmed as a district judge as compensation. The White House replaced his nomination with that of William Pryor.
1) If there is at least one Dem Senator in a state, he/she does the nomination.
2) If there are two GOP Senators, the SJC Chairman does the nomination.
3) If the ABA rates them poorly they are eliminated.
4) If the ABA rates them highly that doesn't count.
5) Ralph Neas and Nan Aron have veto power.
Of course if we get Hillary in 2009, the story will be different of course.
BoBo #9 - you're right
by bk
Did that one get as stretched out and get as much negative comment from Senators? I don't recall anything about it.
bk - part 2
by BoBo
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=risen052603
"Take William Steele. An Alabama magistrate judge, he was nominated in 2001 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. But he soon came under withering fire from a bevy of civil rights groups, who charged him with "racial insensitivity" in a number of anti-discrimination suits. His nomination was withdrawn, but, in January, Bush nominated him to Alabama's Southern District Court; he was confirmed by voice vote in March."
http://mail.abanet.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0301&L=irrdeathpenalty&T=0&F...
"Steele's nomination has languished for 15 months without a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the NAACP last year objected to Steele's nomination because of a 2001 opinion he issued in a racial harassment case filed by black employees at a Pennington paper mill. Although Steele found evidence of racially insensitive remarks in the work place, he dismissed the case in favor of the mill's owner because the employees failed to meet several legal requirements."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054583117
"Another nominee who generated some controversy last year has been demoted, in a sense. Bush tapped U.S. Magistrate Judge William Steele of Alabama for a seat on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit last year. But when the president sent his letter to the Senate last week, Steele was nominated for a U.S. district judgeship.
Steele has drawn flak from civil rights groups for his ruling in a 2001 case in which black workers at a paper mill alleged that they were subjected to a racially hostile environment, including the frequent use of the word "nigger." Steele dismissed the case on the grounds that the harassment was not pervasive enough to constitute a violation."
Leahy is now slamming Roberts
by zendari
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5219_Page2.html
"I think in his actions and the actions in which he has joined, he has made the court an arm of the Republican Party," Leahy said.
Leahy said he voted for Roberts because he knew Roberts was going to be confirmed anyway and did not want a party-line vote that would encourage Roberts to believe that he was "an appointment of the Republican Party."
But that is what has happened anyway, Leahy said.
"I love to hear Republicans give lip service to the ideals of the Founding Fathers and then ignore them when it serves their purposes," he said. "They (the Republicans) say they don't want an activist Supreme Court, but this is the most activist Supreme Court we have ever seen, running roughshod over the Constitution, like Plessy v. Ferguson did."
Feinstein
by cubsfan
Feinstein is saying she sees things differently than her Democratic colleagues.
She hasn't concluded yet, but I'm seeing pigs fly.
Leahy and Schumer did their usual smear. I need a shower. But Feinstein is saying all the right things at the moment. We may just get a 10-9 vote for Southwick!
Southwick out of committee
by BoBo
See my post in the next thread
it's official 10-9 for Southwick
by cubsfan
OMG
I've just posted a blog entry over at Redstate on a really outrageous article in the Politico, slamming CJ Roberts. See:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/andrewhyman/2007/aug/02/an_outrageous_arti...