Edwards' Floor Statement on Republican Filibuster

[mbali]

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues are calling this 30-plus-hour marathon "Justice for Judges." Now, I'm all for justice for judges. And that's exactly what every single one of President Bush's judicial nominees has gotten.

But I ask my colleagues, where is Justice for the American people? They seem more concerned about Justice for a handful of judges--the 2 percent of those Bush's nominee who haven't been confirmed--than justice, fair play and opportunity for the American people.

The Republican majority claims that we're facing a vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. Ninety eight percent of Bush's judges have been confirmed and this is a crisis? Two percent of Bush's judges have not been given lifetime appointments and we're in a crisis?

Under George W. Bush, the unemployment has risen to 6 percent the poverty rate has increased to 12.1 percent the percentage of Americans with no health insurance has gone up to 15.2 percent. And, during this time, the vacancy rate on the Federal courts has gone down to 4.5 percent its lowest point in over 13 years. In fact, there are more full-time Federal judges on the bench today than at any other time in U.S. history? The vacancy rate is now below the number that Senator Hatch called "full-employment" in the Federal judiciary during the Clinton administration.

Where is the concern for the 6 percent of the American people who can't find jobs? The same people who claim that 4.5 percent vacancy is a crisis think that 6 percent unemployment is great news, that a "jobless recovery" is a good thing. Why aren't they at least as concerned about Justice for the Jobless, Justice for Working People, Justice for the Poor, Justice for Families?

So, what does this marathon debate tell us about the priorities of the Republican majority? What does it tell us when they are more concerned about securing lifetime jobs for three sitting judges and a State attorney general than in securing jobs for the 9 million Americans who are out of work?

Why are they more interested in fighting for three judges and an attorney general--all of whom have received full and fair consideration--than fighting to bring hope back to the American people?

Why aren't we spending 30 hours debating how to help the 9 million Americans who no longer have the dignity and self-respect that comes from completing a hard day's work?

Why doesn't the Republican majority schedule 30 hours of debate to figure out how to provide health care to the American people and prescription drug benefits to the elderly?

We should be figuring out how to bring back the 3 million jobs we've lost on George Bush's watch--one job lost for every minute he has been in office.

We should be addressing the anxiety of families who fear that by sundown they will be without a safe home. We should be working to find a way to lift the tax burdens on working families and provide real economic opportunities so they can provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families.

We should be debating about the best way to close the education gap and support and fund our public schools.

We should be working together to lift Americans out of poverty.

And we should be coming together, not to fight for justice for judges but to fight to end the injustice that still tugs on the soul of America.

In other words, we should be fighting for Justice for the American People.

But instead, my Republican colleagues have virtually shut down the Senate to force lifetime appointments for three judges and an attorney general.

This political stunt is getting lots of coverage, but it's not doing a thing to improve the life of one single American--except three sitting judges and an attorney general.

We have confirmed 168 of President Bush's nominees. I voted for the vast majority of these judges, even though many of these judges have held conservative ideologies with which I strongly differ, because I believed they would ultimately enforce the Constitution and the law.

But I cannot and will not vote for these four nominees, for good reason. These nominees not only do not represent the mainstream, but they have demonstrated an unwillingness to set aside their personal views to uphold the law and protect civil rights. We have good reason to oppose these nominees. And we not only have the right, we have a constitutional obligation to stand up to the President when he makes unacceptable nominations to the bench.

Our Founding Fathers did not give the President unilateral or unfettered power to select Article III judges. They wanted to ensure that the people--through their elected representatives--have a say in who will be appointed to the Federal bench. So they created a partnership between the President and the Senate by requiring the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate in nominating judges.

Every President--whether Republican or Democrat--must consult in a meaningful way with the Senate to appoint highly qualified judges to the Federal bench. The give and take that results makes it far more likely that we will have a judiciary that is not skewed too far to the right or too far to the left, a balanced judiciary that reflects the people it serves.

Meaningful consultation does not mean that the White House just sends us who they want and we rubberstamp them, without careful examination and consideration. Meaningful consultation often involves compromise and consensus.

This approach has worked reasonably well--with some exceptions--over the years. But now we find ourselves dealing with a White House that disdains this longstanding principle of advice and consent. Instead, the President is appointing judges who are far out of the mainstream. Judges who are hostile to civil rights and equal justice. Judges who are not only willing but eager to put their personal views above the law. Judges he certainly knows are unacceptable to us and our constituents. These appointments are being made without our advice and without our consent. We have tried to work with the White House to find common ground, but most of our attempts to reach consensus with the administration have been dismissed. In some instances, our commitment to fairness and diversity has been attacked. This is not the way this process should work. It is wrong. It would be wrong, regardless what party the President belongs to.

Any honest observer must acknowledge that previous administrations of both parties attempted in good faith to work with the Senate in its appointments process. President Clinton put up numerous highly qualified mainstream nominees for Federal judgeships, only to have them blocked, denied hearings and denied votes by a Republican Senate. Twenty percent of Bill Clinton's judges were blocked by a Republican Senate. We heard nothing about justice for judges then.

This had a particular impact on my home State of North Carolina, which is part of the Fourth Circuit. North Carolina--the largest State in the circuit--until this year had not been represented on the court since 1994. President Clinton tried three times to put a North Carolinian on the court, only to have his nominees blocked for reasons other than their qualifications. In fact, during his last 6 years in office, President Clinton had eight nominees--four of them African American--blocked in the Fourth Circuit alone. These were well-qualified men and women, none of whom could be labeled ideologues, whose views were well within the mainstream of legal thought and practice. Nevertheless, they were blocked. I believe that this was part of a plan, a plan to keep these seats open for a Republican President who would fill them with right-wing judges outside of the mainstream.

We've seen what happens when the President meets us halfway. He's done it before--rarely, but he's done it. He reached out to us on Allyson Duncan, an outstanding North Carolinian who just last month was formally installed as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, breaking a logjam that had held our State back for a decade.

In that case, President Bush did more than just pay lipservice to our constitutional obligation to a advise and consent. He reached out to us before he made his decision--he consulted with us--he sought our advice. And in making his decision, the President selected a nominee who represents the mainstream of our State.

Throughout Judge Duncan's confirmation process, I commended the President for consulting with us and making an excellent nomination. And I told him that if he takes this approach to future judicial nominations we have a real opportunity to find common ground in the search for excellence on the Federal bench. When we work together, we find outstanding nominees like Allyson Duncan, who represents the best of North Carolina and America.

In light of our efforts to cooperate with the President on nominations, I'm puzzled and troubled by the Republican attacks on us, the accusations that we are anti-women, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Southern, anti-Catholic. They're running attack ads against us that represent the worst forms of religious and racial McCarthyism. They're doing this even though the record shows that Democrats have voted to confirm 13 of President Bush's African-American nominees while Republicans blocked 12 of Clinton's African-American nominees. We have confirmed 33 of Bush's woman nominees. Nearly 40 percent of the Bush judges confirmed have been from southern States. So, not only are these accusations of bias flat-out wrong, they are outrageous and I must speak out against such demagoguery and race baiting.

We have gone the extra mile. We have demonstrated that we are willing to work with the White House to move forward on nominees who provide balance to the courts. We have confirmed 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees--98 percent. We have been more than cooperative.

It's really a shame that the majority doesn't spend a fraction of the time they've spent on the full employment program for judges on finding ways to improve the lives of the American people.

The American people deserve better than this. We owe it to them to call a halt to this marathon madness and get down to work to address the problems they sent us here to solve. It is time to fight for justice, jobs and opportunity for the American people.

- Congressional Record, November 12, 2003 Page S14764

[Renew Deal]

1. If Edwards wants justice for the American people

why did he vote for the Patriot Act? To me, these seem like opposites. I think that him, Kerry, and others never expected to have to defend the war vote and all the other stuff that came along when they ran.

[AP]

2. Here's why:

(by the way, if this were the litmus test for picking a Democratic candidate, you wouldn't have many democrats to chose from. People say Landrieau and Schumer should run for president, or Byrd, or Clinton. People loved Wellstone. All of them voted for the Patriot Act.)

MR. RUSSERT: Those are very serious charges. It prompted The Washington Post to write this editorial: “‘I support dramatic revision of the Patriot Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft.’ So said North Carolina Senator John Edwards... Surely, then, Mr. Edwards voted against the anti-terrorism law rushed through Congress after September 11. Well, no. When he rose on the Senate floor...he said, ‘The bill’s not perfect, but it is a good bill. It’s important for the nation, and I’m pleased to support it.’ Indeed, Mr. Edwards voted against all four amendments offered by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold to ameliorate some of the civil liberties concerns that Mr. Edwards now seems to feel so keenly—and that the Democratic audiences he is wooing respond to with such fervor... Democrats have enough to run on against President Bush. They don’t need to ignore their records, stray from the facts or take such cheap shots to make their case.”
Do you regret your vote for the Patriot Act?
SEN. EDWARDS: No, I think there are provisions in the Patriot Act which never get any attention, Tim, that were very good provisions: for example, provisions to deal with some of the information-sharing deficiencies that existed before September 11, provisions that, in fact, bring the law up to date with technology, that allow us to deal in an effective way with some of the money laundering that’s gone on.
But I do believe there are provisions in the Patriot Act that can be changed. I can give you a couple of examples. For example, we are now allowing what is called sneak-and-peek searches without notice to the person who’s being searched, in my view, without adequate due process safeguards in place. The same thing is true—and I mentioned this in the statement you just showed—about the ability to go into libraries and bookstores without—and, again, in my judgment—adequate procedural safeguards in place. But if I could just for a moment step back from the Patriot Act, I think this issue’s a lot bigger than that. I think, for example, the administration’s pursuing a policy on what they call enemy combatants that allows them to arrest an American citizen on American soil, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely. They never see a lawyer, never see a judge, or even get a chance to prove that they’re innocent. You know, to me, this violates absolutely everything we believe in as a nation. So I think there are provisions in ‘the Patriot Act that need to be changed. There are provisions that need to stay in place. And I think there are other policies of this administration that run completely contrary to our civil liberties.
MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Feingold tried to amend the Patriot Act dealing with the library provisions, and voted against it.
SEN. EDWARDS: And here’s why. The problem with what Russ was doing was he was imposing on the national government, the federal government, a requirement that they meet individual state law requirements. The way to deal with this issue—it’s a national issue. We’re talking about federal law enforcement. They way to deal with this issue is to have national legislation. So if we fixed, for example, the provisions that I just talked about at the national level, that’s the effective response. The response is not to require our national law enforcement agencies to have to meet procedural requirements that exist in 50 different states.
MR. RUSSERT: When you go before a Democratic audience and say, “The notion they’re going to libraries to find out what books are being read” or bookstores, what books are being purchased—the Justice Department actually was asked whether that had ever been done, and here’s the response. “The Justice Department, which has repeatedly been accused of encroaching on civil liberties in its war on terrorism, has never actually used a controversial provision of the act that allows it to seek records from libraries, according to a confidential memo from Ashcroft... ‘The number of times the provision’s been used to date is zero.’” So it’s wrong for you to say that that’s being done.
SEN. EDWARDS: No. I think that—well, first of all, I have no way of knowing everything that the Justice Department is doing. What I do know is that based on testimony they provided to Congress, they have been—and I think I’m using something close to their language—they have been in touch with libraries and bookstores around the country. Now, what provision they were using to do that, whether it was the Patriot Act or something else, I have no way of knowing. But what I do know, is when the United States Justice Department is contacting libraries and bookstores, it has an enormous chilling effect. And that’s what my concern is about this provision in the Patriot Act. I still believe it needs to be changed.
MR. RUSSERT: Some Democrats have a different view: “Joe Biden of Delaware called criticism of the Patriot Act. Dianne Feinstein, (Democrat, California), mounted a strong defense of the Patriot Act, saying she believes that there is substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it’s employed. ...I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me.” Have you?
SEN. EDWARDS: To me, personally? No. But the independent inspector general in the Justice Department has found 34 credible complaints under the Patriot Act. I think in the first—if I’ve got the timing right, the first six months of this year, I think it’s a serious issue. I respect Joe Biden and Dianne very much, but I think we know that there have been abuses, and the inspector general’s findings would show that.

[chimpymustgo]

7. For Edwards, the judge issue goes back to civil rights days.

This writeup from the Orangeburg, SC newspaper. Edwards spoke there Friday:

- snip-

Edwards was born in 1953 in Seneca in the northwest corner of the state and has "vivid memories" of life in a racially segregated society.

Watching courageous federal judges issue rulings to desegregate the public schools and enforce civil rights laws taught him not to take lightly the job of selecting and confirming federal judges.

Southerners "have a special responsibility, not to follow but to lead when it comes to civil rights," he said.

Edwards said he believes not only in civil rights, but in equal rights and equal pay for women. "We need to treat women with the respect they're entitled to," he said to applause.

-snip-

http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2003/11/15/news/news1.txt

[AP]

3. By the way, if you want to talk about Edward's Patriot Act vote, start...

...a new thread.

There should be a DU rule that the first responding post is always responsive to the subject of the original post.

[sandnsea]

5. Because Democrats respect civil rights

Because Democrats can apply that law within its intent. Because a portion of that law is what Bill Clinton and Democrats wanted to enact back in the mid-nineties. Because if those provisions had passed back then, 9/11 might not have happened. The same with Homeland Security which was suggested in the Hart-Rudman report.

Kooks like Ashcroft can find laws to further their agenda, just like they're doing with Greenpeace, using 1800's laws. It's their abuse of the Constitution and our laws that's the problem, not Democrats who know how to enact needed laws and respect civil rights while implementing them.

[snowfence]

4. Great post!

Not like the fat head.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Good stuff from Edwards n/t

[a_lil_wall_fly]

8. Edwards shines again....

his years as a lawyer has come handy on this subject. There are alot good provisions with in the PA...but most of it is crap.

[beyurslf]

9. Edwards is always a great speaker.

Great speech!

Someone on his staff should buy him the cd for RENT, though. Maybe then he would know that a year has 525,600 minutes. (Seasons of Love) Or just get a calculater and do the math. (60x24x365x3)

So, 3 years has a little over 1.5 million minutes, but we have had 3 million job losses. Not 1 job lost for every minute Bush has been in office but (nearly) 2 jobs lost for every minute. That really puts things in perspective, now doesn't it.

[PATRICK]

10. Before my computer went out for a while

I was going to fume that some Senator should say exactly that. That made me a pretty firm supporter when Edwards did in spades. If only we had a media that could hammer that plain truth 24/7. The GOP only represents a very slect few of their own choosing. They should be a minor party if anything at all or our country has been hoodwinked into insanity.