Leahy Shafts Southerners Again
My column in today’s Examiner urges the GOP to grow a spine and fight about judges, but I did not have space to get into a subject that should be of particular interest here: Leahy again is going out of his way to shaft nominees from the old South (excluding semi-southwest such as Texas). Again and again Leahy and the Dems put more roadblocks in the way of southerners than in the way of anybody else. (They also tend to block conservative Catholics.) I will now go so far as to call Leahy an anti-Southern bigot. Consider that for months and months he has used “blue slips” as an excuse for not moving lots of judges, but now confronted with the actual fact that he has blue slips from BOTH senators from both Carolinas, he suddenly ignores his own previous standard and continues to block both Steve Matthews of South Carolina and conservative Catholic Robert Conrad of North Carolina (whom Leahy actually had the gall to claim had some “anti-Catholic writings” when in fact Conrad had written to criticize a leftish nun because SHE had denigrated an older priest specifically because the priest, to the nun’s distaste, had emphasized the traditional aspects of the faith).
But consider the record: Mississippi Judge Pickering: Never confirmed. Mississippi nominee Michael Wallace: Never confirmed. Both smeared. Mississippi nominee Leslie Southwick: Confirmed only over Leahy’s objections, after months of delay and smears. Arkansas district court nominee Leon Holmes: Blocked for a long long time, smeared, and finally confirmed by a bare 51-46 vote. Alabama nominee William Steele: Blocked until pulled down and resubmitted for a district court instead of appeals court. Louisiana district court nominee David Dugas: In what seems like a permanent holding pattern. Conrad and Matthews: Still pending while blocked. North Carolina’s Terry Boyle: Blocked. Virginia’s Duncan Getchell: blocked. Virginian/South Carolinian/(college in North Carolina) James Haynes: Blocked, although this was as much because of Lindsey Graham and John McCain as due to the Dems. Alabama’s Bill Pryor: Put through horrendous abuse, including a bogus and trumped up investigation, before finally squeaking through in Gang of 14 deal. Tennessee’s District Court nominee Gus Puryear: Pending, apparently blocked.
And I am sure I have forgotten some. That was literally off the top of my head. No other region of the country has been treated so shabbily. Readers of this site should be outraged.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Did it ever occur to you that these people were blocked, not because they are all Southern, but because they are all bad nominees?
Pickering was blocked because he’s a bad judge. Wallace was blocked because he’s an unqualified hack. Pryor was blocked because he’s a theocrat. Holmes was blocked because he’s a right-wing nut and an ass. Gretchell was blocked because Bush preferred to give the finger to Webb and Warner instead of taking their advice.
While they may all be Southern, the important thing they all have in common is that they are terrible nominees.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
KM-
Well, the people of Mississipi thought that Pickering was a pretty darn good judge. I know Wallace personally, and he is a damn fine lawyer He is also a former Supreme Court clerk. I think calling him a “hack” is simply code for “Republican.” Pryor and Holmes are both devout Catholics, but I fail to see why that makes them theocrats or asses. I don’t know much about Gretchell so I’ll leave Quin to respond to that one.
I think there is clearly a “deeply-held” animus by several SJC dems against religious Southern judicial nominees. It probably doesn’t help that this region of the country has been giving their party the middle finger in every presidential election since 1980.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“Hack” in in no way code for “Republican.”
“Nazi” is code for “Republican.”
And it’s not that I expect you to agree with me on these judges - I am just giving you the Democrats’ view on them. If Democrats and Republican agreed on their qualifications, they wouldn’t have been held up and we wouldn’t have having this discussion.
And I didn’t say Pryor was an ass - but he is a theocrat.
As for Holmes, he did say “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami” … and that makes him an ass, in my book.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
And virtually all were hostile to civil rights legislation, as i recall
April 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“No other region of the country has been treated so shabbily.”
No other region committed collective treason in defense of slavery.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Publius-
By “hostile to civil rights legislation,” I assume you mean that they thought it was high time that the federal goverment stop micromanaging every aspect of our local governments.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Sorry if the feds don’t trust your local governments to be fair to your fellow U.S. citizens of a different color, but the South did fight to maintain legal segregation and suppress the black vote well into the 70s. The idea that your short period of being facially neutral, while still engaging in plenty of sub rosa and institutional racism (as does the rest of the U.S.) means that all should be forgiven is a bit much.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Tom-
I live in a Southern town where the majority of local officials are African-Americans. Do you seriously believe that they need the federal government to tell them not to be racist?
April 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Mr. Stealth:
There has been no slavery for well over 100, move and get over it. I have never been to the deep South, but I have met several Southerns and they are not racist. There are a few racist Democrats up here in the North who produce the N word. Be careful before you make such wild accusations. Go to PA and MA before you accuse the South of racism.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Sorry should be Southerners.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:02 am
PLEASE READ THIS HATE-FILLED ARTICLE.
How the South Won (This) Civil War:
Southernism is taking over our national dialogue. Maybe it’s time for the North to secede from the Union.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134116
I’m going to try and write something on this but I thought the gents here would find it interesting as well as insulting…but oddly flattering in a way.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:02 am
If you think that is anti-Southern, take a look at this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134116
That is a true Anti-Southernite speakin’!
April 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Stop buying Vermont cheese and maple syrup. Buy Canadian maple syrup instead.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I have made pecan pies with generous amounts of maple syrup and bourbon. A Northern Southern pie if you will. But Leahy is making that bitter. A bitter pie for bitter people.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“Did it ever occur to you that these people were blocked, not because they are all Southern, but because they are all bad nominees?”
That’s thing, we don’t consider them “bad nominees” and found the “reasons” against their appointments rather wanting.
And I would like to see some elaboration on some assertions you made, Pryor = theocrat, Pickering = bad judge.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
William Pryor + “God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time, this place for all Christians — Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox — to save our country and save our courts” = theocrat.
Pickering + decision in cross burning case = bad judge.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
This will piss you off: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134116
Add Newsweek to your Leahy list.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Feddie,
Town does not equal state. I don’t know where you live, but the city of Atlanta is certainly a black dominated “town”, but that does not mean that the suburbs aren’t the result of white flight that has real discriminatory impacts.
Ohio Joes
Slavery may have ended over 100 years ago but legal segregation ended much more recently. My parents went to segregated high schools. People, in the South and the North, fought hard against that for years and decades. But all of a sudden we are no longer facially discriminating so everything is all right?!?
Further, this is the problem with the conservative idea of racism - that its only bad if its deliberate bigotry; the indifference to black suffering represented by multiple facially neutral policies that systemically hurt black people (and other minorities) in a way that would not be tolerated if there were similar amounts of white people suffering is ignored.
The judges are being rejected by liberals because for liberals they are bad judges. They are being supported by conservatives because for conservatives they are good judges. But we both very clearly care about the outcomes, so why the shock?
April 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
KM - With respect to Judge Pickering, I know him. He is not a racist and he was an excellent judge. If you look at the facts of in the “cross burning case”, he was concerned with the inequities of sentencing (i.e. the primary instigator was getting a much lighter sentence). He certainly did not condone the cross burning. He didn’t make a “bad decision” in that case. Back in the hey day of the KKK in Mississippi, Judge Pickering was the DA for Jones County. He stood guard in a church steeple while the U.S. Attorney met with a Klan informant. Working against the Klan at that time was not considered a good professional move and presented more than a little personal risk as well. But he did it because it was the right thing to do. Judge Pickering had broad support in Mississippi including the brother of Medgar Evers. It was a disgrace the way Judge Pickering was treated.
With respect to Judge Pryor, you are also wrong. Judge Pryor personally prosecuted then Chief Justice Roy Moore before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary when charges were referred against him because of his defiance of a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument. I can assure this move was not popular with a lot of folks in Alabama and he did receive threats because of the principled position he took. Taking such a stance is hardly the work of a “theocrat”. The quote you offer was a call to Christians to be active in the process. It was not a call to replace our democratic government with a theocracy which is what you imply. Judge Pryor also had broad support in Alabama including a number of prominent black leaders.
In summary, both men are gentlemen of character and ability and they did not deserve the treatment they received from Senate Democrats.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
With regard to the Newsweek article, all I can say is Huzzah!! It’s about time those yankee philistines figured out that this country’s moral and intellectual center is not in NYC.
As too the judges, calling them bad judges and theocrats is just a way for liberals to express disfavor for judges they no nothing about. The rank and file liberal in the country hears that about the judges on CNN and then automatically picks up whatever they have heard and repeats it as if it were a thought original to them (thus the “Bush is dumb” or “Cheney/Haliburton is evil” crowd), if you ask them why they think that they have no clue. If you dislike the judges, say: I disagree with Pickering’s sentencing philosophy, etc. Don’t bash the man.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I have to say that I am constantly amazed that conservatives defend Republican judicial nominations as “men of character” or “excellent judges” when, in reality, those things have little to nothing to do with the judicial nominations and confirmation process.
Maybe Pickering, Pryor and the others are all saints … that makes no difference.
The entire point of the nominations process is to find things in a nominee’s record that one side doesn’t like and use it to try and kill their nomination.
Were Pickering and Pryor unfairly treated? Perhaps. Were Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez and Reggie White and other Clinton nominees treated unfairly? Probably.
But that is how the game is played. Heck, Sam Brownback blocked one of Bush’s own nominees just because she had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony. Is that fair? No. Is it standard practice? Certainly.
I realize that you are not happy with the way Democrats have treated Bush’s nominees and that is completely understandable. But what is not understandable is this feigned ignorance of the basic rules of the confirmation process and this false outrage about the supposed lack of fairness.
If Obama becomes the next president, I full expect Senate Republicans to do exactly the same thing … and you won’t hear me complaining about it.
It’s just how the system works.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
KM: I am not happy with the way the system works and I was insulted by your characterizations of Judges Pickering and Pryor. If you read my post again, you will notice that I did not focus exclusively on either’s character but instead responded to your accusations they were unfit based upon accusations regarding their character. Professionally, both men were more than qualified. PG
April 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It’s just how the system works? KM, you have a poor memory. If that is how the system works, how do you explain Justice Ruth Ginsberg’s 94 out of 100 votes in the Senate. Name one Democratic judicial candidate who has been either “Borked” or Thomased.”
April 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Ginsburg was a compromise candidate! Clinton got her pre-approved because he didn’t want the big confirmation fight.
Ginsburg may be the left edge of the court now, but she is hardly a Scalia or a Thomas. Brennan and Marshall are the liberal equivalents of Scalia and SDISFS Thomas, and yes I fully expect Republicans to do everything they can to block such an appointment were we to try to push someone very left though very qualified like Tribe to the court.
The GOP put the kibbosh on several lower profile lower court Clinton nominees in the late nineties, the Dems are returning the favor - welcome to politics.
Also, why don’t you want it to work a little this way? You’re position boils down to the executive branch should have full leeway to appoint based on ideology (which is why staunch conservatives like Pryor and Pickering are chosen), but the legislative branch can only base its input on qualifications and bad moral character? This is silly.
I will agree that I wish we could just be honest and say we are voting based on ideology instead of these trumped up pseudo controversies.
April 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Longwalker:
Umm …I mentioned several: Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez and Ronnie White (whom I mistakenly called “Reggie White.”) There are several others - and you’ll probably defend what happened to them as not being a “Borking” or whatever because they were liberals or judicial activists. And that is exactly my point - I’m not going to defend their nominations because, in the end, opposition wasn’t based on some deep-seated principle or failing on their part … it was based on political opposition from Republicans because they didn’t like their views.
PG:
Defend them all you like - your view about their outstanding reputations and qualifications changes nothing. What you see as Pryor’s “principled positions” Democrats see as a dangerously ultra-conservative judicial philosophy. We can argue about it all day but neither of us are going to change our minds because our views are incompatible. You like Pryor’s views - I find them terrifying and no amount of discussion about principles and integrity is going to change that because we don’t share a common view of what sort of principles are desirable.
Their qualifications and character are fundamentally irrelevant. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:56 am
“I live in a Southern town where the majority of local officials are African-Americans.”
So are the majority of residents, if I’m not mistaken.