John Edwards - Pickering Appointment is "an Insult"

[beaconess]

Statement Of Senator John Edwards On Appointment Of Charles Pickering


"I questioned Judge Pickering at his hearing, I reviewed his record, and I know Charles Pickering does not belong on the U.S. Court of Appeals. This is a judge who regularly put his personal views above the law in civil rights cases, a judge who violated judicial ethics in order to secure a lower sentence for someone who burned a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.

"Coming just before Martin Luther King Day, President Bush's appointment of Judge Pickering is an insult to everyone who believes in equal justice and a stark reminder why we need a new President committed to appointing judges who will enforce our civil rights laws."

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/press.asp

[Killarney]

1. Go Edwards!

Good for calling Bush out.

This is a slap in the face for Bush to appoint a man who was once pro-segregation and against minority voting rights on the day after he lays a wreath on MLK's grave. For shame, Bush, for shame. :grr:

[EllieDem]

2. To be Fair about this

there were quite a few high ranking blacks in Mississippi who supported Pickering and I always thought it looked foolish for some of our senators to be up there calling him racist while black civil rights leaders were there in the audience supporting Pickering - it made the whole thing look WAY too political. It made our white senators look like they were telling the black civil rights leaders (including Medgar Evers Jr ?) look like they couldn't decide for themselves about these matters. I thought it was very patronizing. And as bad as it looks I'm fairly certain Clinton appointed some judges in recess appointments. Does anyone know??

[AP]

5. I vaguely remember reading somewhere about Pickering's black supporter

s, and they were people who had close dealings with him. I can't remember the full details, but I was left with the definite impression that there was very little credibility to those supporters' endorsements.

Medger Evers, by the way, is a conservative Republican now.

Also, Dem congressperson called Pickering a racist, I'm willing to guess.

Edwards is right about this. Pickering is terrible.

The Dems have been very good about reserving their outrage for the worst judges so to make sure people got it. And this is a case where they're complaining about one of the very bad ones.

[beaconess]

8. Here are the facts

You're right that a few local black leaders supporter Pickering, but there's more to the story.

First of all, this was a tiny, tiny minority of people. In contrast, every major civil rights organization, including the Mississippi Chapter of the NAACP, vigorously opposed Pickering's nomination. Local black leaders were badgered into supporting the nomination through all manner of political maneuvering, but to their credit, most of them stood their ground. And by the way, it wasn't Medgar Evers, Jr. but Charles Evers, Medgar's brother who came out in support of Pickering. Not surprising. He also was a staunch defender of Ronald Reagan and Trent Lott. In other words, his word is not exactly reliable.

That's not all. Judge Pickering actually contacted lawyers who had cases pending in his courtroom and asked them to write letters on his behalf. He tried to convince the Magnolia Bar Association, the organization of black lawyers in the state, to endorse him, as well. Anyone who understands the legal systems in small southern states also understands how hard it is to buck a man who, if he doesn't get confirmed, will continue to hold considerable sway over your cases and futures. It was ugly and it was mean.

Finally, the fact that a few black people support someone does not, by definition, make opposition to him problematic. For example, a number of women support anti-choice candidates, but that does not invalidate the concerns of the women who oppose putting anti-choice candidates in the Congress and on the bench.

The bottom line is this: Charles Pickering's record is reprehensible. This is a man who - as John Edwards forced him to admit in his blistering Judiciary Committee questioning - violated the canons of ethics and intervened in a case to try to force a lighter sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross on an interracial couple's lawn. This is a man who consistently rules against plaintiffs in civil rights cases. This is a man who is repeatedly reversed by higher courts because he gets it wrong so often.

There are countless qualified, respected and decent lawyers and judges in Mississippi whom George Bush could have nominated, nominees who could earn broad support throughout their states and on both sides of the aisle. For Bush to shove this unqualified nominee, a nominee that so many African Americans find grossly offensive, down everyone's throat on the eve of Martin Luther King's birthday, no less is an outrage!

[spooky3]

34. Thank you for a very informative post.

I did not know any of this history.

It IS an outrage.

Kudos to Edwards for joining in to condemn this.

[paulk]

15. Clinton appointed one judge by recess appt.

right at the end of his term. Can't remember the name or state he was from, but Bush put him back up for confirmation because he had the support of both the Repub. and Dem. Senators of his home state.

[beaconess]

18. Roger Gregory

The appointment was an olive branch at the beginning of Bush's term that led many to believe that he would be reasonable.

Psyche!

[anti-bush]

3. Thank you John Edwards

I hope he brings this up over and over again on his camaign. John Edwards has continued to say that he will not appoint anybody to a federal court position who does not have a record of supporting civil rights, and I believe him. This is just appalling.

[funky_bug]

4. Go John, Go!

I have been chomping at the bit for one of the candidates to say something! I LOVE JOHN! I'm glad he got a word it quickly.

[anti-bush]

6. Pickering article in Salon

Here's what Salonsays about Pickering's past:

The new evidence, housed at the University of Mississippi Library, shows that Pickering's decision to defect to the Republicans -- a key turning point in his public career -- came at the strong urging of Gartin, who as lieutenant governor from 1956 to 1960 and again from 1964 until his sudden death in 1966 was a leading member of Mississippi's notoriously racist Sovereignty Commission. Gartin's papers -- including his personal letters, memos, press releases and other private documents, plus news clippings from the time -- also confirm, in more detail than ever before, that Pickering became a Republican in 1964 to protest the national Democratic Party's support for civil rights and its attacks on segregation -- a motive the judge refused to acknowledge in his testimony last year.

Read on for more damning info...

[JohnKleeb]

7. Good for him, glad to see hes been seen in Iowa

[West Coast Democrat]

9. Edwards would make an Excellent VP!

on any ticket.

[anti-bush]

10. Edwards would make an even better President

With any running mate! :-)

[West Coast Democrat]

12. Yes, he would make a good President someday

I just think he would make a better VP this time around

[AP]

19. With that someday being Jan 2005. His time is now, according to DM Reg.

[West Coast Democrat]

22. But I thought recent polls showed Edwards behind in NC

against Bush. That's no good.

[AP]

24. Uh, he's in 1st way ahead of the Dean in 2nd -- 43:24.

And this is more important than many people are willing to note.

If you measure each candidate in their homestate and compare current margins of victory and EVs, the fact that Edwards is far ahead in a state with so many EVs, that's a significant thing. Unfortunately, NC isn't an early primary state. If it were,

[Rooktoven]

37. Everyone is...

The campaign in NC hasn't started yet.

Edwards will win NC in 2004 (and I mean the general election.)

[beaconess]

11. Edwards speaking out on Pickering is nothing new . . .

SENATOR EDWARDS FLOOR STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF
CHARLES PICKERING TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
October 30, 2003

I rise today to speak out against the nomination of Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

I oppose this nomination because Judge Pickering has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for the principles that protect the rights of so many of our citizens. Judge Pickering's record as a judge is full of instances in which he has elevated his personal views above the law. For example, Judge Pickering has shown a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's landmark legal precedents, especially those that protect rights. He has harshly criticized the Supreme Court's "one person, one vote" rulings and has been reversed numerous times by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for his failure to follow "well-settled principles of law."

In one case, Judge Pickering took extraordinary steps to reduce the sentence required by law for a man convicted of cross burning. In addition, he exerted extraordinary efforts to reduce the five-year sentence mandated by federal sentencing guidelines in the cross-burning case and went so far as to make an ex parte phone call to Justice Department officials in an attempt to assist the defendant.

And, since his hearing, Judge Pickering has actively solicited the support of this nomination from attorneys who appear in his courtroom. This behavior not only calls into question Judge Pickering's commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans, but legal experts agree that his actions violated the canons of judicial ethics.

Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in their drive to push through every Bush judge at all costs, have turned this process into a personal attack on the integrity and motivations of those of us who oppose this nomination. We've been accused of anti-Southern bias. Of course, anyone listening to me talk would have to figure that I'm the last person to hold an anti-Southern bias.

We've even been accused of calling Judge Pickering a racist, something we have not done. I do not presume to know what is in Judge Pickering's heart. But I DO know what is in his record. That record proves him unfit to serve as a Court of Appeals judge.

We have tried our best to facilitate consensus and cooperation in judicial nominations. Unfortunately, most of our efforts are being rejected, which doesn't make a bit of sense, since we accomplish so much when we all work together.
. . .
But rather than accept my call for consensus, the President just said NO.

There's a saying that if you see a dog and a cat eating from the same dish, it might look like a compromise, but you can bet they're eating the cat's food. That's how things seem to be working in Washington these days . . .

We can do better than this. And we should do better. It is time for this President to stop saying NO to judges who respect our civil rights. Let's say yes to judges who will fairly apply the law. Let's say yes to judges who will not allow their extreme personal views to color their decision-making. Let's say yes to judges who will protect our civil rights. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today as we say a resounding YES to fairness, equality and justice.

[spooky3]

35. Thanks again, Beaconess.

Heartfelt remarks, beautifully expressed. Too bad they were only temporarily effective.

[jsw_81]

13. I'm shocked that Bush would do this only a day after MLK's birthday

That's low even by Bush standards. What a disgrace this man is!

[beaconess]

17. My take

Obviously this recess appointment was planned some time ago. Rove figured that a nice photo op of Bush making nice with black people and acting like he actually believed in anything that MLK stood for would insulate him from any criticism resulting from the appointment. So he bogarted into yesterday's MLK celebration, but it didn't turn out like they'd hoped. And then they were stuck having to announce this appointment (today was the last day they could do it) without the political cover they thought they would have.

A rare blunder by the normally well-prepared White House. And I think it was a big one that will cause them some serious problems.

[xrepub]

21. wake up

Please wake up to what it would mean to give bush 4 more years. I will support whoever we choose to oppose him

[jsw_81]

26. Me too

I'd support Lieberman if he were nominated.

[anti-bush]

14. Pickering from the Gartin papers:

From the Salon article I linked above:
Gartin's papers show conclusively that, contrary to McConnell's description, Pickering himself was one of those "white citizens and politicians who resisted integration and civil rights," not someone working to oppose such forces. Instead of "trying to establish better race relations" in the 1960s, Pickering worked to support segregation, attack civil rights advocates who sought to end Jim Crow, and back those who opposed national civil rights legislation, above all the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or, in the words of a public statement he signed in 1967, Pickering wanted to preserve "our southern way of life," and he bitterly blamed civil rights workers for stirring up "turmoil and racial hatred" in the South


And this is your new federal judge folks.

[jsw_81]

16. At least he's old

He won't be a judge for very long.

[cthrumatrix]

20. thank you John (a dean supporter)...they should all voice their

disdain.

[saltpoint]

23. Edwards is right.

Bush appoints deliberately polarizing people to judgeships. It's a disgusting abuse of power by the Bush administration.

[JohnLocke]

25. Go John!

[beaconess]

27. Lest we forget - "It's about the judges, stupid"

[DjTj]

29. There is no more important reason to beat Bush than the SCOTUS

...4 more years of Bush is bad, but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is far more potentially damaging.

[beaconess]

30. Not just SCOTUS

Just as important are the appointments to the Courts of Appeals, usually the courts of last resort. These are lifetime appointments and Bush is stacking the courts left and right with right wing idealogues and hardly anyone is paying attention.

However, you're right that the Supreme Court is crucial. The next president is likely to get at least two appointments to the Court - including the Chief Justice.

Whenever anyone tries to tell you there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, just tell them to look at the judicial nominations process. That should shut them up quick.

[JohnLocke]

28. kick

[JNelson6563]

31. Give 'em hell John!

I like this statement and love what he says about (against) corporate lobbying!! He absolutely must somehow be involved in the next administration!

Julie

[LWolf]

32. He's got that right.

Am I the only one to keep waking up and finding myself in some bizarre dream world...so far removed from reality that I must be dreaming? And then, just about the time I realize that this is real, I'm awake, and I have to deal with whatever "war is peace" meme America is floating, here comes something else?

I'm black and blue all over for all the pinching I've done to make sure I was really awake on earth these last 3 years.

[MidwestMomma]

33. You are not alone in bizarro world

It's unbelievable the surreal turn this country has taken. I mean for gawds sake...a manned mission to MARS!!!! Not to mention mini nukes....orbiting bombers...hunting endangered species to raise money for conservation...secret missions to Iraq to deliver a turkey...

But back to the thread...I think we're lucky to have a fine person like John Edwards willing to take on this mess. To me, it seems an overwhelming task to bring this country back from the point of insanity this administration has brought us to. I admire all the candidates for their willingness to put it all on the line in their bid for the job.

[spooky3]

36. Good point, MidwestMomma.