From The National Review Website 15 October 2002
October 15, 2002 10:00 a.m.
Is Leahy a Liar?
Republicans say yes. Leahy doesn't deny it.
In an escalation of the battle over judicial confirmations, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy has accused Republicans of "testing the limits" of a Senate rule restricting criticisms senators may make of each other on the Senate floor.
Last week, committee Republicans Strom Thurmond and Orrin Hatch appeared in the Senate to denounce Leahy for reneging on a promise to hold a vote on the federal appeals-court nomination of Dennis Shedd. Both Thurmond and Hatch suggested, but did not explicitly say, that Leahy had lied to them. "Chairman Leahy assured me on numerous occasions that Judge Shedd would be given a vote," Thurmond said. "I took him at his word." "Senator Leahy promised me," Hatch said. "We operate under the presumption that a senator's word is as good as gold."
The message was as clear as things get in the gentlemanly world of the Senate: Patrick Leahy lied.
Leahy did not deny the charge, nor did he appear on the Senate floor to defend himself. Instead, Democratic whip Harry Reid spoke on Leahy's behalf, saying the committee simply needed more time to consider the Shedd nomination, given the level of opposition to Shedd among African-American groups.
Now, in a letter to Hatch and other Republicans, Leahy strikes back at his accusers. Although he still does not deny the accusation that he lied, Leahy writes that he has "never resorted to the tactics and tone used by Republican members of this committee in committee statements, in hallway discussions, in press conferences, or in Senate floor debate testing the limits of Senate Rule 19." The rule Leahy cites says, in part, "No senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator."
The rest of the Leahy letter amounts to a five-page denial of a Republican request that the committee hold a special meeting to handle the Shedd matter. After Leahy backed away from a vote on Shedd, Hatch, Thurmond, and Iowa Republican Charles Grassley requested a special meeting of the committee. In a news conference, Hatch said that according to Senate rules, if three senators ask for a special meeting, one must be scheduled within three days. But the rule Hatch cited, Senate Rule 26.3, in fact says that while three senators may request such a meeting, the committee chairman does not have to comply unless a majority of the committee demands one. In the Judiciary Committee, that would mean one Democrat would have to join Republicans in calling for a special meeting, and it is simply inconceivable that any Democrat would break ranks with the chairman to do that.
In the letter, Leahy never specifically turns down the GOP request, but says instead that he will "consult with other members of the committee." Most of the rest of the letter is devoted to Leahy defending his record as chairman and attacking, as he does at nearly every committee meeting, the Republican record of handling Clinton judicial nominees.
The fight over Shedd effectively ends the judicial nomination process for this Senate session. The Senate is likely to leave Washington on recess by the end of this week, and even if senators return after the election for a lame-duck session, their work will probably be devoted to appropriations issues. It is highly unlikely that anything will be done on judicial nominations. And that means that Dennis Shedd, along with Michael McConnell, Miguel Estrada, and others, will wait until at least 2003 for action on their nominations.