The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, JR.” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S187-S188 on Jan. 25, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, JR.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a distinguished jurist from New Jersey, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., which seems to be blocked by some people in this Chamber yet unknown. I know it is not from my side of the aisle because I have checked. So it is on the Republican side of the aisle. Yet Judge Greenaway fully embodies the respect for justice and the rule of law that we demand of all of our judges. He has strong bipartisan support, and his nomination could easily have been taken care of this evening but for a few Republicans blocking the vote.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: End the obstructionism. Do what is right. Let us have a vote on this eminently qualified, noncontroversial nominee. It is clear the obstruction of this nomination is not about this nominee. He is eminently qualified. I will talk about that in a moment. And it is not about what is right for this Nation. It certainly is not about acting in the best interests of a badly overburdened Federal judicial system. In fact, oddly enough, it is not about ideology. It is not even about Judge Greenaway or the other seven nominees whom our friends are delaying. It is about the politics of having this President and this Congress fail, the politics of no, the politics of obstruction, of stopping any progress on any issue and almost every nominee. Our friends on the other side came to the floor in the last administration, the administration of President Bush, on countless occasions to argue for an up-or-down vote. I heard that many times: ``Give us an up-or-down vote,'' demanding that a simple majority of the President's nominees is all that is needed--a simple majority of this Chamber. That is a position diametrically opposed to their position today. In fact, they went so far at that time to proclaim that filibusters of the President's nominations were unconstitutional, and they threatened what became known then as the nuclear option--to undo the right of Senators to filibuster a nominee. Well, which is it? What do my friends on the other side believe is right or is the question: What do they believe will work? Where is the call for an up-or-down vote now from our Republican colleagues? Where is the argument on the unconstitutionality of filibusters now? You can't have it both ways.
We can agree to disagree on some nominees on principle, and we have over the years. But the numbers this year belie any notion that the obstruction of Judge Greenaway and all the pending nominees is purely a matter of principle. In this past year, our Republican colleagues have obstructed virtually all the President's nominees, confirming only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees, the lowest number in a half century. Let me repeat that: the lowest number in a half century. Contrast that to the 100 judicial nominees confirmed in the 17 months Chairman Leahy chaired the Judiciary Committee during the Bush administration.
As Chairman Leahy has pointed out on this floor, in December of 2001, the first year of George W. Bush's administration, Senate Democrats confirmed 10 of President Bush's nominees in December alone, leaving only 4 nominations on the calendar--in the first year. All four of those nominees were confirmed soon after the Senate returned the following year, in 2002. In stark contrast, this past December, our Republican colleagues left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action and insisted on returning 2 of them to the President for renomination.
So I urge my colleagues to reconsider, to end this obstructionism, and allow this body to exercise its constitutional authority of advice and consent and confirm the nomination of Joseph A. Greenaway to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is eminently qualified and deserves consideration.
Let me close on that. At the age of 40, Justice Greenaway was appointed by then-President Clinton to the Federal bench, where he served for over a dozen years with distinction. By the way, he got put through by unanimous consent. It wasn't even--it was by unanimous consent of the Chamber when he was put on the Federal bench. He went through unanimously, out of the Judiciary Committee, for this position on the appellate division--unanimously out of the committee.
Joe Greenaway earned a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University, where he was honored in 1997 with the Columbia University Medal of Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003. He was an Earl Warren Legal Scholar at Harvard University. He clerked for the late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark and later received a promotion to become chief of the Narcotics Bureau. In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel and served at Johnson & Johnson as in-house counsel. He has an incredible background. He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.
Currently, he is an adjunct professor at the Cordozo School of Law and at Columbia College, where he teaches courses on trial practice and a seminar on the Supreme Court.
But this is merely Judge Greenaway's impressive resume in one way--a distinguished resume to say the least--but it does not do justice to the man. There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance to the Department of Justice a few blocks from here. It reads: ``Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as it first resides in the hearts and souls of men.''
The two qualities of justice do indeed reside in the heart and soul of Joe Greenaway, and he deserves a vote.
He grew up in Harlem in the northeast Bronx. He is accomplished and successful, but he has always given much back. He has been instrumental in mentoring students and graduates, often taking them under his wing as law clerks or fellows. He once said:
I tell my students to work hard and work smart. Our profession requires a drive to search for perfection; without that goal mediocrity becomes the norm.
He has always strived for excellence. He has always taught young lawyers to do the same.
So Judge Joseph Greenaway respects the law. For all that Judge Greenaway stands for--for justice served; for honor and decency; for the qualities and qualifications that have brought him to this place in his career; for his years of service and his judicial temperament; for his respect for the Constitution and precedent; for the fact that justice does, indeed, reside in the heart and soul of this man; for the fact that, in fact, he was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee and previously, to become a district court judge, had the unanimous consent of this body--somehow, despite all that history and all that qualification, there are colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle holding up this nominee.
I urge my colleagues to end the obstructionism and to give us a vote up or down. I know when we get that vote, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway will be confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will continue to come to the floor to dramatize this challenge. We cannot have a set of circumstances under which the judiciary labors, especially with eminently qualified, bipartisan candidates, because there are those who want to see this President or this Congress fail. It is about the Nation not failing. It is about our judicial system not failing. It is not about the politics of obstructionism.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I commented a few moments ago, I thanked Senator Casey for the comments he made about my 10,000th vote and said that I would be speaking at the conclusion. But I yielded to the Senator from New Jersey because my speech will be somewhat longer, and Senator Lautenberg has now come to the floor. I don't want to keep him for a lengthy speech, so I would be glad to yield--if I may inquire as to how long the Senator from New Jersey will take.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would say about 10 minutes. Ten minutes would be more than adequate.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey. I had called some family, to be very personal about it--my wife, sister, aunt--and I don't want them to think I am not going to speak, but for 10 minutes I will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him for having cast 10,000 votes. We all know Senator Specter so well, and we know that 10,000 votes cast by him represents 10,000 thoughtful decisions. He is a lawyer of distinction. He came to the Senate and was accorded respect for his views. We have often listened to debates where Senator Specter participated and his views were always respected by others and carried much weight. He and I have gotten along over the years very well. I was pleased to see him have the courage to switch parties because of his beliefs in how this body ought to function, and we congratulate him for that as well. The only disagreement we have is whether the Philadelphia football team, the Eagles, is more loved by people in the southern part of our State, New Jersey, or whether their loyalty is better appreciated by those from Pennsylvania. It depends, with me, on what their record is. I am sorry, excuse me.
But it is a pleasure to serve with Senator Specter. I am somewhat behind him for the number of votes cast, but it is easy and particularly when I am asked: Well, what was the vote 8,003 that you cast? I say: Well, I will have to check the Record. Thousands of votes are a lot of votes. They require a lot of decisionmaking. Once again, I congratulate Senator Specter for his good decisionmaking.
____________________
