| |
 |
| October 24th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Jared Whitley 202-224-5251 |
|
Printable Version |
|
|
FLOOR STATEMENT: SOUTHWICK CONFIRMATION
|
| |
Washington - Today Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) gave the following floor statement regarding the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
His confirmation is compelling for two reasons.
Judge Southwick should be confirmed because of his merits and Judge Southwick should be confirmed because of the traditions of this body.
Judge Southwick’s merits are obvious. He is a good man and a good judge.
Leslie Southwick has long been active serving his community, his church, and his country.
He is a man of character and integrity.
Our colleagues from Arizona, South Carolina, and Virginia, Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner, have spoken forcefully and eloquently from their perspective as veterans about Judge Southwick’s military service.
He volunteered for service in Iraq when he was old enough to have children serving in Iraq.
He did not have to do that, he offered to do that.
It seems to me that we want men and women on the federal bench who have this selfless commitment to serving others.
Leslie Southwick is also a good judge.
What could be more directly relevant to a federal appeals court nomination than 12 years of state appeals court service?
During that time, he participated in more than 7000 cases and wrote nearly 1000 opinions.
Earlier this year, the Congressional Black Caucus said that, in deciding whether to confirm Judge Southwick, we should consider how often his majority and concurring opinions were reversed on appeal.
I do think that is a legitimate factor to consider.
I thought I would find an unusually high number, that he has been repeatedly rebuked, rebuffed, and reversed, that Mississippi Supreme Court had to routinely put him in his judicial place.
I found just the opposite.
Only 21 of Judge Southwick’s majority or concurring opinions were reversed or even criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
That is less than two percent, with an even smaller reversal rate.
I am indeed impressed by that low figure, because it shows that judge Southwick’s work as a judge stands up under scrutiny.
If that is an appropriate standard for evaluating his nomination, we should confirm him immediately.
Judge Southwick’s critics suggest that he is supposedly out of the mainstream. That is the phrase liberals invented 20 years ago to attack judicial nominees who they predict will not rule a certain way on certain issues.
This is a completely illegitimate standard for evaluating judicial nominees and is based on a tally of winners and losers --as if judges are supposed to decide winners and losers by looking at the parties rather than at the law and the facts.
Perhaps my liberal friends could publish a confirmation rate card, telling us how often judges are supposed to rule for one party or another in certain categories of cases.
But the case against Judge Southwick is even more ridiculous than that.
The case against Judge Southwick’s nomination rests on two, just two, of the 7000 cases in which he participated.
It rests on two opinions, just two, that he did not even write.
No one has argued that those cases were wrongly decided. No one has argued that the court ignored the law.
No one is making that argument because no one can.
In fact, the Washington Post editorialized that Judge Southwick should be confirmed and said that while they might not like the results in these two cases, they could not argue with what the Post admitted was a “legitimate interpretation of the law.”
I ask my colleagues a very important, perhaps the most important, question.
Are judges supposed to be legally correct or politically correct?
Are judges supposed to decide cases based on legitimate interpretation of the law or based on which side wins or loses?
Are judges supposed to apply the law or ignore the law?
That question of what judges are supposed to do lies at the heart of every conflict over a judicial nominee, including the one before us today.
The case against Judge Southwick is that, in just two cases with opinions he did not write, the court was legally correct instead of being politically correct.
The case against Judge Southwick is that, in just two cases, the court did not ignore the law.
What kind of crazy, topsy-turvy argument is this, that Judge Southwick should not be confirmed because as a state court judge he stuck to the law?
I think that exposing the real argument against him is enough to show that there is no real argument against him at all.
I thought we wanted judges on the federal bench who would rule based on the law, who would be committed to equal justice for every litigant coming before them.
When it comes to evaluating Judge Southwick’s record, who should we believe, partisan and ideological critics here in Washington, or lawyers and judges who have worked with Judge Southwick for many years?
That is not even a close call.
Everyone who actually knows him, everyone who has actually worked with him, says that Judge Leslie Southwick is fair, decent, hardworking, and committed to equal justice under law.
You would have to twist and contort his record into something else entirely to conclude otherwise.
The American Bar Association also looked at Judge Southwick’s fitness for the federal bench.
They evaluated his qualifications and record not once but twice, last year when he was nominated to the U.S. District Court and again this year after his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
I must be candid with my colleagues regarding the ABA’s two rating of Judge Southwick.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must be honest that the ABA’s two ratings of Judge Southwick are not the same and, quite frankly, I think this must be considered when we vote.
The ABA’s rating for Judge Southwick’s current appeals court nomination is higher than their rating for his district court nomination.
The ABA says that it looks specifically at a nominee’s compassion, freedom from bias, open-mindedness and commitment to equal justice under law.
The ABA’s highest well-qualified rating means Judge Southwick’s receives the highest marks for these qualities.
I thought we wanted judges on the federal bench who are compassionate, free from bias, open-minded, and committed to equal justice under law.
Judge Southwick’s critics have offered nothing, absolutely nothing, to rebut this conclusion. Nothing at all.
I think the record, the evidence, and the facts are clear. Judge Southwick is a good man and a good judge and, based on his merits, he should be confirmed.
Judge Southwick should also be confirmed because of the traditions of this body.
Traditionally, the Senate has respected the separation of powers when it comes to the President’s appointment authority.
Under the Constitution, the President has the primary appointment authority.
We check that authority, but we may not highjack it.
We may not use our role of advice and consent to undermine the President’s authority to appoint judges.
That is why, as I have argued on this floor many times, it is wrong to use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who have majority support, who would be confirmed if only we could vote up or down.
That is why I have never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination.
That is why I argued against filibusters of even President Clinton’s most controversial judicial nominees.
And believe me, the case against some of those nominees was far greater, far more substantial, by orders of magnitude, than the non-existent case against Judge Southwick.
Traditionally, the Senate has not rejected judicial nominees based on such thin, trumped-up arguments.
We have not rejected nominees who received the ABA’s unanimous highest rating.
In fact, I remember when this body confirmed judicial nominees of the previous President whom the ABA said were not qualified at all.
We have not rejected judicial nominees who received such uniform praise from those who know them and worked with them.
We have not rejected judicial nominees for refusing to ignore the law.
Traditionally, the Senate has respected the views of home-state Senators.
Our colleagues from Mississippi, Senators Cochran and Lott, are respected and senior members of this body.
They strongly support Judge Southwick and we should respect their views.
Such home-state support was an important factor in moving even the most controversial Clinton judicial nominees to this floor and onto the federal bench.
So I say to my colleagues that Judge Southwick’s merits and our traditions mean that he should be confirmed.
Judge Southwick is a good man and a good judge.
Our traditions respect the separation of powers, respect the obvious merits of nominees, and respect the views of home-state Senators.
I urge my colleagues not to veer from that path, but to support this fine nominee and keep the confirmation process from slipping further into the political mire.
I urge my colleague to vote for cloture and to vote for confirmation.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
