Executive Session

Floor Speech

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - October 24, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few brief remarks on this nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which serves the residents of Mississippi, Louisiana, and my State of Texas.

Judge Leslie Southwick has served for almost 12 years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals where he has participated in thousands of cases in almost every area of State civil and criminal law. He is, by all accounts--notwithstanding some of the attacks by interest groups that we have heard recounted here today--a respected member of that court and an honorable and decent man. Notably, he took a leave from the bench to volunteer to serve his Nation in Iraq. I ask: What kind of man would give up a cushy job on the Mississippi Court of Appeals to put his life on the line in Iraq?

The American Bar Association has unanimously found Judge Southwick ``well qualified'' to serve on the Fifth Circuit, which is the highest rating the American Bar Association gives. It is important to point out that the American Bar Association investigates the background of these nominees, talks to litigants who appeared before them, talks to other judges and leaders of the legal community, and they have concluded that instead of the comments we have heard today attacking the integrity of this public servant, that he deserves the highest rating of the American Bar Association.

For whatever reason, this honorable public servant has been dragged through the mud in this confirmation proceeding and, in my opinion, has been slandered by some of his critics. Judge Southwick has been called an ``arch-reactionary,'' a ``neoconfederate,'' ``hostile to civil rights,'' everything but the word ``racist,'' although that has been implied time and time again.

Judge Southwick's nomination was opposed by 9 of the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But, to her credit, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, declined to be strong-armed by the interest groups who are whipping up manufactured hysteria when it comes to opposing this nominee. Announcing that she found ``zero evidence to support the charges against Judge Southwick,'' Senator Feinstein joined the nine Republicans on the committee to advance the nomination to the Senate floor.

What was never answered in the Judiciary Committee's debate over this nomination is why the same panel had, just a year earlier, unanimously approved him for a seat on the Federal District Court bench. I posed this question to my colleagues during the Judiciary Committee debate:

If there is a concern out there that Judge Southwick is not qualified because of some perceived racial problem, why in the world would that opposition deem him acceptable to be a Federal District Court judge?

Think about that a second. The discretion afforded a District Court judge is so much greater than that on the court of appeals--from the start of a trial, through voir dire and juror strikes, through evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. I trust that my colleagues would never vote for someone with a perceived race problem for life tenure in a role with such enormous discretion. We all know that there was no objection at the time he came before the committee for a Federal District bench because, the fact is, the allegations against him had been manufactured since that time.

There is no legitimate concern about Judge Southwick's character or record. This is just the latest incarnation of the dangerous game being played with the reputations and lives of honorable public servants.

The Republican leader put it this way:

When do we stop for the sake of the institution, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of the party that may not currently occupy the White House? When do we stop?

The Washington Post's editorial page, along with the respected legal affairs columnist Stuart Taylor, both lamented the treatment afforded Judge Southwick who has yet to be confirmed by the Senate but hopefully will be today. Stuart Taylor's column is appropriately titled ``Shortsighted on Judges.'' He writes:

The long-term cost to the country is that bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, more and more of the people who would make the best judges--liberal and conservative alike--are less and less willing to put themselves through the ever-longer, ever-more-harrowing gauntlet that the confirmation process has become.

The attacks on Judge Southwick, unfortunately, have come to typify the kinds of vicious, gratuitous, personal attacks that are occurring with greater frequency against judicial nominees.

I wonder if there is a Member of this body who doesn't think we need to improve the tone and rhetoric of the judicial confirmation process. When good men and women decline the opportunity to serve on the Federal bench out of disdain for this unnecessarily hostile process, the administration of justice in this Nation can only be the worst for it.

I urge my colleagues to send a strong message today with this vote that these unwarranted, baseless attacks on Leslie Southwick are beneath the dignity of the Senate. At some point in time we have to stop it, and I can think of no better time than now with this outstanding public servant.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source