DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2003 No. 164—Book III Senate EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. WARNER. I will sit down. The political left. But these inside the Belt- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Senator may go ahead. way, left wing groups have gotten the CHAMBLISS). The Senator from Iowa. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Democrats to do their bidding. They Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ator from Iowa. have hijacked the judicial confirma- yield myself such time as I might con- Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise tion process in an unprecedented fili- sume. today to discuss the Democrats’ fili- buster of judicial nominees, and they Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, par- buster of President Bush’s judicial are denying these good men and women liamentary inquiry: Can the distin- nominees. The Senate Democrats still an up or down vote. Federal judicial guished Senator from Iowa—we were think it is Halloween and are trying to seats will remain unfilled, and liti- told to come here at certain times, and spook us into believing that President gants seeking justice from those courts if he were to take as much as he wish- Bush has nominated a bunch of extrem- can expect further delays. es, that would preclude any other Sen- ist individuals that cannot be good The reality is that the Constitution ator speaking in the time period. judges. The Democrats are claiming of the United States gives the Presi- Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Sen- that these nominees are ‘‘outside of the dent the power to appoint individuals ator whatever time he needs. mainstream’’. The truth is that these to seats on the Federal judiciary. The Mr. WARNER. I withdraw my par- individuals will not implement a lib- Constitution gives the Senate the re- liamentary inquiry. eral agenda on the bench. The truth is sponsibility to advise the President in Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the Senator that these individuals will follow the this process. And the Constitution re- whatever time he wants. law, rather than bend to the will of the quires the Senate, by a simple majority NOTICE If the 108th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 21, 2003, a final issue of the Congres- sional Record for the 108th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Monday, December 15, 2003, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT–60 or S–410A of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 12, 2003. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 15, 2003, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators’ statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ‘‘[email protected]’’. Members of the House of Representatives’ statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http:// clerkhouse.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after re- ceipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT–60 of the Capitol. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512–0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman. ∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. S14683 . VerDate jul 14 2003 01:09 Nov 15, 2003 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G12NO6.481 S12PT3 S14684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 12, 2003 vote, to give its consent to the Presi- preme Court by wide margins and has tions, outstanding intellects, and their dent’s choices for Federal judgeships, served that court admirably. Judge compelling life stories, it saddens me or to withhold that consent. But Owen enjoys the support of her two to know that the Democrats have been through an unjust abuse of the fili- home state Senators and has been en- so ready and willing to stomp all over buster, a minority of Senators is pre- dorsed over and over again by elected their good names and to deny the venting the majority of the Senate officials, fellow jurists, and attorneys American people quality jurists—all from taking an up or down vote on alike. this in the name of carrying the sword President Bush’s judicial nominee. Janice Rogers Brown, the daughter of for special left wing interest groups. That is not right. a share cropper who attended seg- I have served in this body for many I have always been of the position regated schools, put herself through years. And I have seen the filibuster that judicial nominees should be care- California State University and even- used to leverage a better bargaining fully scrutinized by the Judiciary Com- tually law school at UCLA. She did all position on legislative matters. But it mittee because they are life-time ap- this while raising two children as a sin- hasn’t been used to block a judicial pointments. It is my opinion that judi- gle mother. She served her state in a nominee, and especially not where that cial nominees should have intellect, ex- variety of legal roles, including Deputy nominee enjoys majority support by perience, character and integrity. They Attorney General and then later as a the Senate. This is the first time in should also have the right judgment legal affairs secretary to the Governor. history that the filibuster has been and temperament for the job. But most Judge Brown has served on the Cali- used to prevent a judicial confirma- importantly, they should understand fornia Supreme Court since 1996. tion, even though my colleagues on the their role on the bench, which is to in- Carolyn Kuhl has been a judge on the other aisle say that isn’t the case. It is terpret the law and to follow the law, Los Angeles County Superior Court wrong and probably unconstitional. It not to make the law and legislate from since 1995. She served in a variety of is an abuse of the process. The Senate the bench. That is the most important positions in the Justice Department, is supposed to provide advice and con- credential in my book. And I take that and then was a partner at a prominent sent. The Democrats are denying the job of looking at judicial nominees Los Angeles law firm. Judge Kurl re- rest of the Senate our responsibility very seriously. ceived a well qualified rating by the under the Constitution to give our con- However, once the Senate Judiciary ABA, and enjoys bipartisan support. sent—or even to withhold our consent. Committee has had the opportunity to Three other highly respectable nomi- It is a terrible disgrace and ought not review these candidates and to approve nees have already been filibustered. to continue. them, these individuals should get an Bill Pryor has earned the reputation as up or down vote by the full Senate. one of the most experienced states at- The Democrats are leading us down a This is the right process. This is a fair torneys general in the country. He path that is just going to make mat- process. During my tenure with the graduated from law school magna cum ters worse. The judicial confirmation United States Senate, I haven’t always laude, and clerked for Fifth Circuit process is already in an unhealthy agreed with a sitting President’s Judge Wisdom. We have seen that he state of repair—we don’t need to de- choices for the Federal bench. I have enforces the law regardless of his per- stroy it altogether. The Democrats voted against a number of judicial sonal convictions. General Pryor also need to stop playing politics with the nominees because I didn’t believe they has overwhelming support from across judiciary. They need to stop spooking were qualified to be a judge, or because the political spectrum. people about the qualifications and I didn’t believe that a seat needed to be Judge Charles Pickering has been a ability of these nominees to be good filled. But I have never filibustered a lawyer and county prosecutor, and has federal judges. They need to stop judicial nominee. served as a distinguished federal dis- spooking away qualified nominees like But that is just what is happening trict court judge for the past 11 years. Miguel Estrada. We need to stop this right now. We are seeing the unprece- He received the ABA’s highest rating, unjust filibuster and give these worthy dented use of the filibuster rule to stop ‘‘well qualified.’’ He stood up against nominees what they deserve—an up or judicial nominees from being con- the Ku Klux Klan, and has been a lead- down vote.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present
    Order Code RL32013 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present Updated October 22, 2003 Mitchel A. Sollenberger Analyst in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present Summary The blue-slip process had its genesis in the Senate tradition of senatorial courtesy. Under this informal custom, the Senate would refuse to confirm a nomination unless the nominee had been approved by the home-state Senators of the President’s party. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary created the blue slip (so called because of its color) out of this practice in the early 1900s. Initially, the blue slip permitted Senators, regardless of party affiliation, to voice their opinion on a President’s nomination to a district court in their state or to a circuit court judgeship traditionally appointed from their home state. Over the years, the blue slip has evolved into a tool used by Senators to delay, and often times prevent, the confirmation of nominees they find objectionable. The following six periods highlight the major changes that various chairmen of the Judiciary Committee undertook in their blue-slip policy: ! From 1917 through 1955: The blue-slip policy allowed home-state Senators to state their objections but committee action to move forward on a nomination. If a Senator objected to his/her home-state nominee, the committee would report the nominee adversely to the Senate, where the contesting Senator would have the option of stating his/her objections to the nominee before the Senate would vote on confirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • Advise & Consent
    The Los Angeles County Bar Association Appellate Courts Section Presents Advise & Consent: A Primer to the Federal Judicial Appointment Process Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Program - 12:00 - 1:30 PM Zoom Webinar CLE Credit: 1.5 Hours Credit (including Appellate Courts Specialization) Provider #36 The Los Angeles County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. The Los Angles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. PANELIST BIOS Judge Kenneth Lee (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) Kenneth Kiyul Lee is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on May 15, 2019, making him the nation’s first Article III judge born in the Republic of Korea. Prior to his appointment, Judge Lee was a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block in Los Angeles, where he handled a wide variety of complex litigation matters and had a robust pro bono practice. Judge Lee previously served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush and as Special Counsel to Senator Arlen Specter, then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He started his legal career as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. Judge Lee is a 2000 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1997 summa cum laude graduate of Cornell University. He clerked for Judge Emilio M. Garza of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2000 to 2001. Judge Leslie Southwick (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) Leslie Southwick was appointed to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 14 Florence Wagman Roisman Michael D. Mccormick Professor Of
    THE JUDGE-MAKING POWER: THE STRUGGLE FOR “INTEGRITY AND MODERATION” Florence Wagman Roisman Michael D. McCormick Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis Keynote Speech Delivered at the Third Annual Norman Amaker Mid-West Public Interest Law Retreat, Bradford Woods, IN March 26, 2004 It is a great honor and pleasure for me to speak to you. I've spent the past 40 years in public interest advocacy and teaching, and am inspired and inspirited by the great compassion, courage, creativity, commitment, and competence that you law students bring to make a bright future for public interest law in the future. My topic is one of vital importance to all of us as lawyers; as citizens, voters, and other political actors; and as human beings. It is of vital importance also to our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, our present and future clients -- to everyone, not only in this country but throughout the world. The topic is the federal judiciary -- and, in particular, the current crisis in appointments to the federal bench. I hope that what we will discuss this evening will increase your knowledge and understanding of this crisis, and will encourage you to learn more; to discuss what you've learned with your families, your neighbors, and your co-workers (and fellow students); and to take action -- and encourage others to take action -- by writing and calling your Senators, by writing letters-to-the-editor and "op ed" articles, and by speaking out at public forums. You should be among the best-informed and most concerned people regarding this issue, and you have both opportunity and obligation to share what you know with others.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Judicial Selection During the Bush Administration: Business As Usual Or a Nuclear Winter?
    APPELLATE JUDICIAL SELECTION DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: BUSINESS AS USUAL OR A NUCLEAR WINTER? Elliot E. Slotnick* INTRODUCTION With the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, an uneasy equilibrium established by an unprecedented bipartisan agreement among fourteen rank and file senators was maintained in federal judicial selection processes. Prior to the Spring 2005 accord, advice and consent processes had become more acrimonious and divisive than ever before. The divisiveness was most evident when a united Democratic minority used cloture-proof filibusters to block confirmation votes on a targeted group of Bush appeals court nominees. The leadership of the slim Republican Senate majority threatened to invoke the “nuclear option,” so named because of the fallout its utilization was likely to provoke, also known as the “constitutional option,” the name its supporters preferred. This option would alter Senate procedures to overcome future filibusters and seat judges with the simple majority votes that the Republicans could readily muster. The agreement was significant for a number of reasons. It was accomplished without the Senate’s partisan leadership brokering or even sanctioning the compromise. Just as important, however, was the open-ended nature of the actual agreement reached. The Democratic signatories would abandon the filibustering of selected Bush appellate nominees, specifically Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor, while filibustering per se was not eliminated as an option in advice and consent processes. The instances in which filibustering might be considered legitimate were identified as “extraordinary circumstances” where “each signatory must use his or her own * Ph.D, University of Minnesota, 1976, Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of The Graduate School, The Ohio State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Postpartisan Federal Judicial Selection
    POSTPARTISAN FEDERAL JUDICIAL SELECTION Carl W. Tobias* Abstract: The problem of numerous, persistent vacancies in the federal judiciary continues to undermine expeditious, inexpensive, and fair case resolution. As the Obama administration is still in its early stages, the process for nominating and securing the confirmation of federal judges merits consideration. This Essay chronicles the origins and development of the appointments conundrum. Although enhanced federal jurisdiction and growing caseloads are partially to blame, partisan politics has also prevented swift nomination and confirmation for over twenty years. The Essay then describes the processes employed by the Obama administra- tion during its nascency. Finally, the Essay offers suggestions to facilitate the judicial selection process, targeted at both the Obama administration and the Senate. Introduction President Barack Obama campaigned on a vow to restore biparti- sanship.1 Few areas so desperately need postpartisan approaches, or have more importance, than judicial selection. The President nomi- nates and, with Senate advice and consent, appoints life-tenured judges who exercise the vast power of the state and resolve disputes over con- stitutional rights.2 Democratic and Republican allegations and coun- tercharges, divisive gamesmanship, and incessant paybacks have riven selection for over twenty years.3 There are 858 appellate and district court judgeships, but 100 were vacant at the beginning of the current * © 2010, Carl W. Tobias, Williams Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. I wish to thank Thomas E. Baker, Chris Bryant, Michael Gerhardt, Sheldon Goldman, Mar- garet Sanner, Elliot Slotnick, and Tuan Samahon for valuable recommendations; Paul Birch, Suzanne Corriell, Matthew Farley, and Gail Zwirner for valuable research; Tracy Cauthorn for valuable processing; and Russell Williams for generous, continuing support.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Scorecard
    CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM Judicial Scorecard www.cfif.org Escalating partisan animus continues to infect the judicial confirmation process in the 108th Congress. A minority of U.S. Senators have chosen to obstruct justice and to abandon their responsibility to the American people by refusing simple up or down votes on President Bush’s nominees. This scorecard details 16 Senate votes this year that would have ended the partisan filibusters now blocking five of President Bush’s nominees and has caused one to withdraw his nomination. The partisan antics of U.S. Senators like Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy should not go unnoticed by the American people. These politicians were elected with a responsibility to support and defend the U.S. Constitution – a responsibility that has been grossly neglected. Nominees Held Hostage Janice Rogers Brown Justice Brown currently serves as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, a position she has held since 1996. She is the first African-American woman to serve on that State’s highest court and is well-respected by her peers. As the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, Justice Brown has achieved the American Dream despite the hurdles of segregation during her youth. She received her B.A. in Economics from California State University in Sacramento and her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law. Carolyn Kuhl Justice Carolyn Kuhl currently serves as the Supervising Judge of Civil Division in the California court system. Throughout her career, Judge Kuhl has been dedicated to improving the law and the administration of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Alarms Or Smoke Detectors: the Role of Interest Groups in Confirmation of United States Courts of Appeals Judges
    FIRE ALARMS OR SMOKE DETECTORS: THE ROLE OF INTEREST GROUPS IN CONFIRMATION OF UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS JUDGES By DONALD E. CAMPBELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016 © 2016 Donald E. Campbell To Ken and JJ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It took Leo Tolstoy six years to write War and Peace. It has taken me twice that long to complete this dissertation, and I am certain I required much more support throughout the process than Tolstoy. I begin my acknowledgements with Dr. Marcus Hendershot. In short, this dissertation would not have been possible without Marc’s guidance, advice, and prodding. Every aspect of this dissertation has Marc’s imprint on it in some way. I cannot imagine the amount of time that he spent providing comments and suggestions. I will forever be in his debt and gratitude. I also want to thank the other members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Lawrence Dodd, the chair, has been a steadying force in my graduate school life since (literally) the first day I stepped in the door of Anderson Hall. His advice and encouragement will never be forgotten. The other members of my committee–Dr. Beth Rosenson, Dr. David Hedge, and Professor Danaya Wright (University of Florida School of Law)–have been more than understanding as the months dragged into years of getting the dissertation finalized. No one could ask for a better or more understanding dissertation committee. There are also several individuals outside of the University of Florida that I owe acknowledgements.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judicial Selection from George Bush to Donald Trump
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 95 Issue 5 Article 3 6-19-2020 A Survivor's Perspective: Federal Judicial Selection from George Bush to Donald Trump Leslie H. Southwick Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1847 (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\95-5\NDL503.txt unknown Seq: 1 10-JUN-20 15:01 A SURVIVOR’S PERSPECTIVE: FEDERAL JUDICIAL SELECTION FROM GEORGE BUSH TO DONALD TRUMP Leslie H. Southwick* INTRODUCTION Where are we, and how did we get here? Those are not bad questions for seeking a way out of any troubled situa- tion, or for that matter, remaining in a good one. Over recent decades, fed- eral judicial selection controversies are worsening in their frequency and intensity. They distort all three branches of government. My particular con- cern is with federal judicial selection for judgeships below the Olympian heights of those on the United States Supreme Court, namely, the judges on the twelve regional circuit courts of appeals and the ninety-four district courts. The depth of partisan acrimony over judicial confirmations has placed us in the infernal regions, and we seem to be continuing our descent.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGE CAROLYN KUHL Nominee to U.S
    JUDGE CAROLYN KUHL Nominee to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (California) (Nominated June 22, 2001) ● Carolyn Kuhl has been a judge on the state trial court in Los Angeles since 1995. The American Bar Association rated Judge Kuhl “Well Qualified” to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Senators Leahy and Schumer have referred to the ABA rating as the “gold standard.” Ninth Circuit ● Judge Kuhl has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. ● In a Senate speech, Democratic Senator Schumer recently described this circuit as follows: “The Ninth Circuit is by far the most liberal court in the country. Most of the nominees are Democratic from Democratic Presidents. It is the court that gave us the Pledge of Allegiance case which is way out of the mainstream on the left side.” ● The 28-judge court has 17 judges appointed by Democrat Presidents and 8 judges appointed by Republican Presidents. President Bush has submitted nominees for the 3 current vacancies, including Carolyn Kuhl. ● The seat to which Judge Kuhl has been nominated has been designated as a “judicial emergency” by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Despite that, she has been waiting nearly two years for a vote by the Senate. Background on Judge Kuhl ● Since 1995, Judge Carolyn Kuhl has served as a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. She has served in both the civil and criminal divisions of the court, and is now the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, the first woman to hold that position.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 US COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT Judicial Profile
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Judicial Profile: Carlos Bea COURT: Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals APPOINTED: 2003, by President George W. Bush BORN: April 18, 1934 LAW SCHOOL: Stanford Law School PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: San Francisco Superior Court Bench, 1990-2003 After long wait, Bea ascends federal bench Jason Hoppin The Recorder November 18, 2003 Carlos Bea can breathe a little bit easier now. Not only are his chambers in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals much larger than his old haunt at the San Francisco Superior Court, but he no longer has to wonder what kind of federal judge he'd have made. He's about to find out. The longtime litigator and dedicated Republican had been on the superior court a little more than a year when the first President Bush tapped him for the Northern District federal bench. His nomination died without a hearing, however, and Bea waited a decade before being offered his current post. The former Olympian is still fit at 69 years old. The white hair, dark complexion and crisp shirts project the dignity of an ambassador. Bea seems to fit right in at the beaux-arts Ninth Circuit headquarters on Seventh and Mission streets. His enormous office is decorated with paintings from his personal collection -- portraits and scenes painted in a classical style. Weathered antiques have been imported in a feeble attempt to fill the cavernous space. On the superior court, Bea required decorum in the courtroom. Some lawyers say he can come across as imperious.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Confirmation Battles and the Search for a Usable Past," 131 Harvard Law Review 96-132 (2017)
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 11-2017 Unprecedented? Judicial Confirmation Battles nda the Search for a Usable Past Josh Chafetz Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Chafetz, Josh, "Unprecedented? Judicial Confirmation Battles and the Search for a Usable Past," 131 Harvard Law Review 96-132 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY UNPRECEDENTED? JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION BATTLES AND THE SEARCH FOR A USABLE PAST Josh Chafetz* "Unprecedented" is a dirty word - at least in the context of consti- tutional politics. The claim that some behavior is unprecedented carries with it a distinct whiff of impermissibility: if it's never been done before, then at the very least the burden is on those who would want to do it to show that it is permissible. A thumb is very firmly placed on the scale against constitutional novelty. The claim that some activity is constitu- tionally novel is therefore a politically potent one. Of course, to call one act a "precedent" for another is not to state a fact about the relationship between them but rather to engage in a cre- ative act of interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Patrick Leahy
    Testimony of The Honorable Patrick Leahy April 1, 2003 Today we meet to consider the nomination of California Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Florida Judge Cecilia Altonaga to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and Louisiana Judge Patricia Minaldi to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The District Court nominees have the support of their home-state Senators, although, as I will discuss in a moment, Senators Graham and Nelson have had a most difficult time getting the White House to agree to continue the tradition of the Florida bipartisan selection commission, and have only recently come to a meeting of the minds with the White House. The Circuit Court nominee before us today, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, however, is not supported by both of her home-state Senators. Her appearance before this Committee, despite that clearly stated opposition, is the latest in a string of transparently partisan actions taken by the Senate's new majority since the beginning of this Congress. In each of these actions - each of them unprecedented -- Republicans have done something they never did while in the majority from 1995 to 2001. Each provocative step, taken in tandem with the White House, has broken new ground in politicizing the federal judiciary. The Republican majority has shown a corrosive and raw-edged willingness to change, bend and even break the rules that they themselves followed before when the judicial nominees involved were a Democratic president's choices, instead of a Republican president's choices.
    [Show full text]