[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 150 (Tuesday, November 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11512-S11522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S11512]]
                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF DENNIS W. SHEDD, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
                  CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to vote on the Shedd nomination.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the 
votes from here on out will be 10 minutes in length. And I intend to 
cut off the votes at 10 minutes. I hope everybody will stay on the 
floor and cast their votes so we can complete our work at a reasonable 
hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dennis W. 
Shedd, of South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Fourth Circuit.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Judge Shedd 
to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His nomination is also 
opposed by a large number of individuals, law professors, bar 
association and civil rights groups across the country, because he has 
not shown the commitment to the protection and vindication of Federal 
rights that is essential for this high position in the judiciary.
  Judge Shedd has an unacceptable record in cases involving race and 
gender discrimination. In race discrimination cases, for example, he 
consistently grants summary judgment against African-American civil 
rights plaintiffs, preventing even close cases from reaching a jury, 
and he often does so with little or analysis. In one case, he granted 
summary judgment for the defendant after the EEOC determined there was 
a reasonable cause to find that the plaintiff was denied promotion and 
the denial was based on race. In another case, the plaintiff was denied 
a pay increase despite the recommendation of his immediate supervisor, 
where the employer was found by the State to have been discriminating 
against African-Americans on pay increases.
  Judge Shedd has a similar record in gender discrimination cases. He 
granted summary judgment for an employer in a sexual harassment case in 
which the male supervisor's conduct was so inappropriate that Judge 
Shedd himself stated that the supervisor's conduct was ``sufficiently 
severe and pervasive to constituent a hostile work environment.'' 
Nonetheless, Judge Shedd granted summary judgment for the employer, 
finding no evidence that the plaintiff herself thought the work 
environment had been hostile. This ruling is impossible to reconcile 
with the facts of the case--the plaintiff had told her supervisor that 
his comments were offensive, she had reported the conduct to her 
supervisor, she had taken concrete steps to pursue the complaint, and 
she eventually quit her position.
  In another case, Judge Shedd reversed a magistrate judge's decision 
to deny summary judgment for an employer. In this case, the plaintiff's 
supervisor had harassed both the plaintiff and a number of other female 
employees. Yet Judge Shedd dismissed this case, against the 
recommendation of the magistrate, because the plaintiff had complained 
to two different people, a supervisor and the company's chief financial 
officer, but did not complain to the president of the company, as 
required by company policy. Judge Shedd ignored the fact that the 
company's policy also called for the supervisor and the CFO themselves 
to report the plaintiff's complaints to the president, which they 
failed to do. Judge Shedd also relied on the fact that the plaintiff's 
complaint referred to ``harassment,'' instead of ``sexual harassment.''
  These were not merely cases in which Judge Shedd ultimately decided 
on the facts that discrimination had not taken place. These are cases 
in which he determined that the jury should not even be permitted to 
hear the plaintiff's claim. Judge Shedd dismissed the vast majority of 
race discrimination cases brought by African-Americans, before those 
cases could reach the jury. By contrast, in the five discrimination 
cases brought by white males, Judge Shedd allowed four to go to a 
trial. This pattern is very disturbing. The people of the Fourth 
Circuit deserve better from their Federal judges.
  In addition, Judge Shedd has often reached out from the bench to 
affect the litigation of the cases before him. In discrimination cases, 
he is known to raise arguments on behalf of the defense from the bench, 
even arguments not raised by the defendants themselves. He has gone so 
far as to dismiss cases on grounds not raised by the defendant. In one 
case, he initiated an inquiry into finances of an unemployed woman who 
had been granted pauper status by another Federal judge; Judge Shedd 
ruled that she did not deserve such status, in large part because of 
the money she had spent pursuing her claim, and recommended that the 
Fourth Circuit dismiss an appeal the woman had pending in a different 
suit. He published his conclusions, he said, because other judges may 
want to know of his personal findings shout this woman.
  The States of the Fourth Circuit have a large minority population, 
the highest percentage of African-Africans of any circuit in the 
country, and they deserve a fair judiciary, committed to protecting 
basic rights.
  For all of these reasons, I oppose this nomination. the 
administration can, and must, do better for the people of the Fourth 
Circuit.


                      u.s. circuit court nominees

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the confirmation of Professor 
Michael McConnell to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit.
  At every level of the Federal court system, federal judges have a 
tremendous impact on the rights and protections of all Americans. The 
federal judiciary effectively ended segregation and ensured a woman's 
right to reproductive choice. Every day we count on federal judges to 
protect our civil rights and liberties.
  The Senate serves as the only effective check on the Federal 
judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and 
consent to the President's judicial appointments. These are lifetime 
appointments. Furthermore, because the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a 
few cases, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are often the courts of last 
resort for citizens seeking justice from the federal bench. As 
Senators, we have a constitutional responsibility to evaluate these 
candidates.
  I believe judicial candidates should be experienced, even-handed, 
possess a fair judicial temperament, and be committed to upholding the 
rights and liberties of all Americans.
  Dennis Shedd does not meet that standard. He has failed to show this 
Senator that he possesses the characteristics necessary to receive a 
lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
  As a Federal District Court Judge, Shedd's rulings and actions on the 
bench indicate he lacks the even-handedness we expect from our federal 
judges. He has consistently sided with employers in workplace 
discrimination suits on issues ranging from sexual harassment to race 
and age discrimination. In fact, in his 11 years on the Federal bench 
not a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination 
case has prevailed in his courtroom.
  His willingness to inject his own personal bias about the rights of 
individuals shows he also lacks the requisite judicial temperament we 
should require in a Federal judge. He has shown hostility to those 
seeking justice from the bench by assisting the defense and granting 
summary judgment for the defense in a disproportionate number of cases.
  Aside from employee rights and discrimination cases, he has also 
shown an unwillingness to uphold the basic civil liberties and rights 
of all Americans. He has favored a state government's ability to 
violate an individual's right of privacy by selling their personal 
information despite a federal law to the contrary. He also struck down 
part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, by arguing a State 
cannot be sued under FMLA due to sovereign immunity.
  He has further shown a disregard for protecting the rights of voters, 
and has displayed an insensitivity on issues concerning race.
  Considering his history of narrowly interpreting the rights of 
individuals

[[Page S11513]]

and his hostility toward civil liberty protections, we can only assume 
he would not uphold the civil liberty of privacy, including honoring 
the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, at his confirmation hearing he 
refused to commit to upholding the fundamental right of reproductive 
freedom.
  Dennis Shedd's record clearly illustrates he is not even-handed, that 
he lacks the right temperament for the appeals bench, and that he has 
consistently failed to protect the rights and liberties of our people. 
He should not be confirmed for the Federal appeals court. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this nomination.
  I would also like to express my opposition to Professor Michael 
McConnell's recent confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Tenth Circuit.
  Professor McConnell has consistently expressed strong opposition to 
protecting civil rights and liberties, going so far as to call the Roe 
case ``a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.'' He has also 
argued, contrary to existing law, that abortion protestors have a 
``constitutional right to protect against abortion--forcefully and 
face-to-face.''
  He holds extreme opinions on the separation of church and state and 
other key civil rights protections. Professor McConnell has severely 
criticized the Supreme Court's 8 to 1 decision in Bob Jones University 
v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the IRS may 
deny tax-exempt status to a religious school with racially 
discriminatory policies. Professor McConnell wrote that the racial 
discriminatory practices at Bob Jones University should be tolerated 
because they were religious in nature. He has also argued for giving 
religious institutions preferential treatment and has advocated direct 
federal funding of religious institutions. Clearly, Professor 
McConnell's opinion on the separation of church and state strays far 
from the mainstream and far from generally recognized conservative 
legal analysis.
  Finally, Professor McConnell has argued for weakening both statutory 
and constitutional protections against discrimination based on race, 
gender, and sexual orientation through exemptions for private entities.
  Like Judge Shedd, I believe Professor McConnell lacks the basic 
qualities needed to serve on the Federal appellate bench.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the confirmation of 
Dennis Shedd to be a United States Judge for the 4th Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Judge Shedd's record as a judge on the United States District 
Court raises a number of concerns about both his approach on the bench 
and his commitment to equal justice--leading me to the conclusion that 
he should not be promoted to the second highest court in the land.
  Of particular concern to me are Judge Shedd's extreme view on the 
limits of Congressional authority and his record of hostility to 
plaintiffs in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. This 
combination is extremely dangerous given the critical role that 
Congress plays in passing laws to ensure that Constitutional 
protections are afforded to all Americans. Further, I am troubled by 
what appears to be a lack of thorough consideration in Judge Shedd's 
approach. This is particularly unsettling given the significant 
Constitutional issues that have been at stake in his courtroom.
  With respect to Judge Shedd's view of the Constitutional role of the 
Congress, two cases stand out, Condon v. Reno and Crosby v. South 
Carolina.
  I voted for, and Congress enacted, the Drivers Privacy Protection Act 
in 1994 to limit the availability of personal information--such as 
photographs, social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers, 
and even some medical information--contained in motor vehicle records. 
In Condon v. Reno, the state of South Carolina challenged the law, 
claiming that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the state's 
rights because it restricted South Carolina from setting its own 
standards for releasing State motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno, 
Judge Shedd ruled that the law was unconstitutional and in the process 
endorsed a view that--if permitted to stand--would have severely 
limited Congress ability to legislate under the Commerce clause of the 
Constitution. Judge Shedd's decision endorsed a view of congressional 
authority so far out of the mainstream that the Supreme Court ruled 
unanimously to overturn him in a decision written by Chief Justice 
Rehnquist.
  Judge Shedd's decision in Crosby v. South Carolina Department of 
Health and Environmental Control also deeply troubles me. In Crosby, 
Judge Shedd adopted a magistrate's recommendation granting defendant's 
summary judgement--agreeing with the magistrate that the 11th Amendment 
doctrine of state sovereign immunity should prevent the plaintiff from 
suing the state for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act 
because he believed that Act was an improper exercise of Congress's 
enforcement power under the 14th amendment. Despite the obvious and 
profound implications of this decision for Congress's authority, Judge 
Shedd offered virtually no analysis to support his decision. This is 
despite the absence of directly controlling precedent and the presence 
of a split among other Federal district courts on the issue. Acts of 
Congress are entitled to a presumption of Constitutionality. Ruling to 
overturn a Federal law should not be taken lightly. In a case of this 
import, Judge Shedd's failure to articulate a rationale for his 
decision is deeply disturbing. The fact that other judges may have 
reached the same conclusion as Judge Shedd is not the point here. 
Parties before the court on an issues of this magnitude are entitled to 
a judge's reasoning. Judge Shedd offered none.

  The Crosby decision is not the only example of Judge Shedd's tendency 
to accept magistrate recommendations with little or no comment on 
important matters. In South Carolina, all cases under Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 are automatically referred to magistrates for 
pretrial matters. In important employment discrimination cases, Judge 
Shedd has often adopted magistrates' recommendations in favor of 
summary judgement. And he has done so without comment in many instances 
where it appears to me that comment was warranted. In fact, Judge Shedd 
has done so in cases where a party has raised an objection to one of 
the magistrate's recommendations and he was required to conduct a de 
novo review. In a number of these cases, Judge Shedd's rulings do not 
address the objections at all. Instead, his decisions simply adopt the 
magistrate's recommendations and pay lip service to his obligation by 
including a statement that he has conducted the required de novo 
review. Given the concerns I have about this approach in the Crosby 
case, this practice deeply concerns me.
  Mr. President, nothing is more important for a judge than a 
commitment to equal justice. A review of Judge Shedd's record also 
raises the question whether this ideal is being upheld.
  In a number of civil rights cases, Judge Shedd appears to have 
intervened in a manner that has tilted toward defendants. He has 
granted summary judgement for defendants on grounds not even raised by 
the defendants. He has ordered a defendant to file a motion to dismiss 
a case and later granted the motion. And Judge Shedd even granted 
summary judgment against a petitioner even though it appears that the 
defendant never filed a motion for summary judgement. These decisions 
raise serious questions about whether plaintiffs are getting a fair 
hearing in Judge Shedd's courtroom.
  I was particularly struck by the Judge's answer to a question from 
Senator Edwards in his Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year. 
Senator Edwards asked Judge Shedd whether he had ever granted relief to 
a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. Judge Shedd could not 
recall a single instance where a plaintiff alleging employment 
discrimination was granted relief in his courtroom. Judge Shedd's 
inability to recall such a case is actually not surprising as a review 
of his published opinions failed to reveal even one such instance. 
Eleven years on the bench and not one of his published opinions 
reflects a favorable ruling for an employee in a discrimination case.
  Mr. President, I'm afraid Judge Shedd's record simply does not 
support his promotion to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to

[[Page S11514]]

the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Although the President has pledged to nominate qualified individuals 
with outstanding judicial records to the Federal Court System, he has, 
time and time again, failed to make good on that pledge. Judge Shedd is 
no exception. During his tenure as a trial judge, Judge Shedd has 
exhibited extreme, even radical views on an array of important issues. 
Judge Shedd's record demonstrates that in cases involving civil rights, 
privacy, discrimination and federalism, he is willing to cross the 
boundaries of established case law and rule in a manner that is out of 
touch with mainstream thinking.
  A few cases in particular merit the attention of this body. In a case 
demonstrating Judge Shedd's extreme stance on federalism, he struck 
down as unconstitutional the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which we 
passed to ensure that states keep drivers' license information 
confidential. This legislation, designed as ``antistalking'' 
legislation, was drafted in part because antiabortion activists have 
used accessible drivers' license information to obtain the addresses of 
doctors who performed abortions in order to post that information on 
websites. Mr. President, this case was reversed unanimously by the 
Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist authoring the opinion.
  Judge Shedd also has a record of condoning serious civil liberties 
violations by law enforcement. In one particularly disturbing case, 
Judge Shedd dismissed a lawsuit brought against a corrections officer 
who had stripped an inmate naked and left him without bedding for 48 
hours after the inmate confessed to not knowing the prison's rules 
concerning lights out. In dismissing the case, Judge Shedd merely 
stated that he did not think the inmate had been punished. In another 
instance, he imposed an inconsequential $250 fine in a case where a 
sheriff and a prosecutor secretly videotaped a jailhouse conversation 
between a defendant and his lawyer. Judge Shedd defended the penalty 
stating that he did not think the pair committed any civil rights 
violation. I am deeply troubled that we might appoint a judge who does 
not recognize the blatant civil rights violation in this circumstance.
  Perhaps most troubling is Judge Shedd's overwhelming tendency to 
grant summary judgement against plaintiffs in race and gender 
employment discrimination cases, preventing the vast majority of such 
cases from going to trial. In a case involving sexual harassment in the 
workplace, Judge Shedd reversed the recommendation of a magistrate that 
the plaintiff be allowed to present her case to a jury, granting 
summary judgment for the employer even though Judge Shedd himself 
concluded that the supervisor's conduct ``clearly was, from an 
objective standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a 
hostile work environment.'' He relied, therefore, on a tortured 
interpretation of both the facts and the law to rule against the 
plaintiff in that case. This is one of many instances that demonstrate 
a clear pattern in which Judge Shedd has prevented cases brought by 
people of color and women from ever reaching a jury.
  We routinely put aside our partisan differences to send qualified men 
and women to the federal bench because it is in the best interests of 
our country to fill seats with those individuals who have pledged to 
interpret the law objectively and without bias, whether or not they 
happen to be liberal or conservative in temperament. We place a great 
deal of trust in these men and women, as their appointments are 
guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, based on the records and statements 
I have reviewed, I do not believe we can place our trust in Judge Shedd 
to protect the civil liberties Americans of all races and beliefs have 
fought so hard to win. It is because of this that I will vote against 
his nomination.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, every judicial nomination that comes 
before this body is critically important. However, I take a particular 
interest in appointments to the Fourth Circuit, which includes my home 
State of North Carolina. The Fourth Circuit needs qualified, fair-
minded judges who will put aside their personal views and follow the 
law. After reviewing his record carefully, I have concluded that Judge 
Dennis Shedd is not such a judge.
  While Judge Shedd's record provides numerous reasons to oppose his 
confirmation, I am most troubled by his poor record on civil rights, 
where he has demonstrated an alarming propensity for putting his 
personal views above the law. Judge Shedd has repeatedly overstepped 
the bounds of judicial restraint and engaged in judicial activism on 
behalf of defendants in discrimination cases.
  I raised this concern with Judge Shedd earlier this year during his 
confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Judge Shedd could 
not point to one instance in his eleven years on the bench in which an 
individual alleging discrimination--based on race, sex, age or 
disability--has ever won a case in his court. In the same period, there 
have been over 20 verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in other Federal 
courts in the State. In written questions, I asked Judge Shedd to say 
whether a victim of employment discrimination had ever prevailed in his 
courtroom. He could name no such case.
  On the other hand, there is considerable and disturbing evidence of 
Judge Shedd's conduct in civil rights cases to benefit the defendant. 
To name only one example: in a sexual harassment matter, Judge Shedd 
overruled a magistrate's ruling allowing a case to go to trial, even 
though the plaintiff had offered sworn evidence that her supervisor had 
commented on her breasts, asked her graphic sexual questions, bought 
her panty-less pantyhose, and frequently stood behind her, rubbed her 
shoulders while trying to look down her shirt, and so on.
  Finally, in a major case involving the Federal Government's power to 
protect the privacy of individuals' personal records, Judge Shedd sided 
against individual rights, and was reversed by a unanimous Supreme 
Court. There is no other case since 1995 in which a lower court has 
limited Congress's power and the Supreme Court has reversed.
  Federal judges have no responsibility more important than enforcing 
our laws equally. Because Judge Shedd has proven his willingness to put 
his personal views above the law, especially in civil rights cases, I 
must vote against his confirmation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from a group of 16 
North Carolina law professors addressing these and several other of 
Judge Shedd's decisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 12, 2002.
     Hon. John R. Edwards,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards: We are writing to you--as individual 
     members of the faculties of the School of Law of the 
     University of North Carolina, Duke Law School, and North 
     Carolina Central University School of Law--concerned that the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee may be poised to act without 
     conducting a full investigation of President Bush's recent 
     nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
     Circuit, United States District Judge Dennis W. Shedd. We 
     suggest that to act precipitously on this important 
     nomination would be a serious mistake.
       As you know, the Fourth Circuit is one of the region's most 
     influential governmental bodies; its impact on 
     constitutional, statutory, and regulatory issues in the 
     Southeast has no equal apart from the Supreme Court itself. 
     Moreover, a wide range of responsible observers concur that 
     during the past decade the Fourth Circuit has become the most 
     activist federal court in the nation. In certain crucial 
     areas, including federal judicial efforts to confine Congress 
     in the exercise of its traditionally broad national powers, 
     the Fourth Circuit has no peer. It has led the way in 
     attempting to narrow the Congress's Commerce Clause powers, 
     see, e.g., Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998), 
     rev'd, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (challenging Congress's authority 
     under the Commerce Clause to enact the Driver's Privacy 
     Protection Act); Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst., 169 
     F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc), aff'd United States v. 
     Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (challenging Congress's 
     authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the Violence 
     Against Women Act), its Section 5 powers under the Fourteenth 
     Amendment, see, e.g., Brzonkala, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999) 
     (en banc) (challenging Congress's authority under Section 5), 
     and in promulgating aggressive conceptions of the Tenth and 
     Eleventh Amendments. See South Carolina State Ports Authority 
     v. Federal Maritime Comm'n 243 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2001), 
     aff'd 122 S. Ct. 1864 (2002) (invalidating the FMC's 
     authority over state port entities, previously 

[[Page S11515]]

     granted by Congress under the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq., on Eleventh Amendment 
     grounds).
       As a federal district judge during the past eleven years, 
     Judge Shedd has been a sympathetic participant in this 
     judicial campaign to disempower Congress. He authored the 
     original decision in Condon v. Reno, 972 F. Supp. 977 (D. 
     S.C. 1997), and struck down the Driver's Privacy Protection 
     Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2721-25, a decision later 
     overturned in a 9-to-0 decision of the Supreme Court authored 
     by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Judge Shedd also acted to 
     invalidate the application of the Family and Medical Leave 
     Act to state agencies, holding that ``Congress did not 
     properly enact the FMLA under Sec. 5 of the fourteenth 
     amendment, and therefore, has not abrogated [the State 
     defendant's] eleventh amendment immunity from suit.'' Crosby 
     v. South Carolina Dep't of Health & Environmental Control, 
     C.A. No. 3-97-3588119BD, at 1 (D. S.C. Oct. 14, 1999).
       Were Judge Shedd's highly protective views of state 
     sovereignty, his skepticism about Congressional power, and 
     his aggressive use of judicial authority the only issues 
     presented by his nomination, they would suffice to require 
     careful Senate consideration. However, we are concerned by 
     three other features of his record: (1) an apparent 
     skepticism of federal civil rights claims; (2) a marked 
     sympathy for employers in employment disputes; and (3) an 
     unusually vigorous use of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules (the 
     summary judgment provision) and similar procedural provisions 
     to wrest lawsuits from trial juries and end them by judicial 
     fiat.
       We are not prepared to say, at this point, that Judge Shedd 
     has acted with bias in these areas, since so many of his 
     decisions are unreported (and we have not been able to review 
     the briefs in these cases) and since an unusual number of his 
     reported decisions are merely brief orders that accept and 
     adopt relatively summary reports from United States 
     Magistrates. However, in some sixty-six cases that presently 
     appear in the LEXIS online system, we note the following 
     patterns. Judge Shedd appears never to have granted relief to 
     a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case, although he 
     has granted numerous summary judgment motions in favor of 
     employers. See, e.g., Roberts v. Defender Services, Inc., 
     C.A. No. 0:00-1536-19BC (D.S.C., Sept 27, 2001) (rejecting a 
     female employee's sexual harassment and hostile work 
     environment claims); Austin v. FN Manufacturing, Inc., C.A. 
     No. 3:98-3605-19BC (D.S.C., March 23, 2000) (rejecting an 
     African American employee's racial discrimination, hostile 
     environment, and constructive discharge claims); Taylor v. 
     Cummings Atlantic, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 1279 (D.S.C. 1994) 
     (rejecting an older employee's age discrimination, fraud, and 
     breach of contract claims); (Bailey v. South Carolina Dep't 
     of Social Services, 851 F. Supp. 219 (D.S.C. 1993) (rejecting 
     an African American employee's non-promotion claim, although 
     backed by EEOC Determination of reasonable cause that 
     plaintiff was not promoted because of his race); White v. 
     Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 1212 
     (D.S.C. 1992) (rejecting an employee's breach of contract and 
     promissory estoppel claims).
       In the Roberts case, for example, Judge Shedd granted 
     summary judgment to an employer in a sexual harassment 
     lawsuit, even after he noted that ``the alleged conduct [of 
     Ms. Robert's supervisor] clearly was, from an objective 
     standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a 
     hostile and abusive work environment.'' Roberts, supra, at 2. 
     Judge Shedd concluded, nonetheless, that plaintiff Rogers 
     raised no genuine issue of fact about whether she herself 
     ``subjectively perceived the environment to be abusive,'' 
     id., although it was undisputed that she had joined in making 
     a formal complaint about her supervisor's abusive behavior to 
     corporate headquarters, and then met with a corporate 
     investigator to detail and protest the supervisor's sexually 
     suggestive behavior.
       We have also obtained a list of unpublished fifty-three 
     federal race, gender, age, and disability cases in which 
     Judge Shedd has dealt with cases on summary judgment. In 
     most, he has granted defendants' motions and dismissed the 
     cases, denying all relief to the plaintiffs. Since these 
     cases are not reported, we have not yet been able to review 
     them to discern whether they manifest bias, but the overall 
     anti-plaintiff pattern is troubling.
       The tendency by Judge Shedd to resolve cases on his own, 
     short of trial, is also manifest in his use of Rule 56 
     summary judgment in other, non-employment contexts, see, 
     e.g., Alston v. Ruston, C.A. No.: 9-99-244-19RB, 2000 U.S. 
     Dist. LEXIS 11939 (D.S.C. March 9, 2000) (prisoner's Section 
     1983 and Eighth Amendment claim); Joye v. Richland County 
     Sheriff's Dep't, 47 F. Supp. 2d 663 (D.S.C. 1999) (Section 
     1983 and Fourth Amendment, false arrest claim); Cianbro Corp. 
     v. Jeffcoat & Martin, 804 F. Supp. 784 (D.S.C. 1992) 
     (attorney malpractice action), and by the use of other 
     procedural devices, such as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, 
     see, e.g., Gray v. Petoseed Co., 985 F. Supp. 625 (D.S.C. 
     1996) (fraud in sale of contaminated watermelon seeds), as 
     well as by use of Rule 50 motions to grant judgment 
     notwithstanding the verdict, see, e.g., Storms v. Goodyear 
     Tire & Rubber Co., 775 F. Supp. 862 (D.S.C. 1991) (wrongful 
     discharge and breach of implied contract); Wilds v. Slater, 
     C.A. No. 3:97-1608-19BD, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20771 (D.S.C. 
     March 7, 2000) (National Environmental Policy Act action for 
     failure to file environmental impact statement).
       In Alston, for example, Judge Shedd granted summary 
     judgment on a Section 1983 complaint after somehow 
     concluding, as a matter of law, that a prison guard had not 
     used excessive force--despite an affidavit and a well-pleaded 
     complaint from the plaintiff alleging that the officer had 
     sprayed him in the face with tear gas without justification, 
     advanced toward him ``swinging his fists and punching 
     [plaintiff] in the mouth,'' and wielded a broomstick until 
     other officers intervened. We do not, of course, know whether 
     the plaintiff's version of these facts is correct or, 
     instead, whether the correctional officer's version should be 
     credited; we do believe it is impossible fairly to conclude 
     that the conflicting evidence of record about what happened 
     that evening raised no ``genuine issue of material fact.''
       In another such case, Joye v. Richland Co. Sheriff's Dep't, 
     Judge Shedd dismissed a Section 1983 claim brought by a 
     person wrongfully arrested by sheriff's deputies under a 
     bench warrant issued for his son. Despite the fact that 
     the arrest warrant described a man aged 31, standing 
     5'11'' (while the plaintiff was 61 years old and stood 
     only 5'8''), despite plaintiff's allegations that the 
     arresting officers ``refused to inform him of the basis 
     for his arrest or provide him with a copy of the 
     warrant,'' despite the fact that ``the warrant . . . 
     listed the driver's license of [the proper suspect]'' 
     which ``differ[ed] from plaintiff's driver's license 
     number,'' Judge Shedd granted summary judgment on the 
     grounds that the defendants had ``a reasonable, good faith 
     belief that they were arresting the correct person'' He 
     thereby rejected, as a matter of law, the contrary 
     conclusion of a United States magistrate that the officers 
     were not entitled to a ``good faith'' defense on these 
     facts since ``[a] simple check of the bench warrant should 
     have revealed that Joye was not the person wanted.'' Joye, 
     47 F. Supp. 2d at 665-66.
       Judge Shedd also appears to be willing to interject himself 
     in unusual ways into ongoing judicial proceedings. In one 
     case, Maytag Corp. v. Clarkson, 875 F. Supp. 324 (D.S.C. 
     1995), he went out of his way to draft and publish an opinion 
     castigating a lawyer for making a closing argument urging the 
     jury to decide a case on its notion of ``what is right and . 
     . . what is moral and . . . what is just.'' Judge Shedd had 
     submitted the case to the jury on a special verdict--limited 
     to the question whether the defendant was liable to the 
     plaintiff under a written guarantee--and although plaintiff's 
     attorneys made no objection to the defendant's closing 
     argument (and although the jury subsequently returned a 
     verdict for the plaintiff), Judge Shedd felt the need to 
     publish an opinion declaring that the defendant's appeal to 
     morality, decency, and justice--what the Court termed the 
     sympathy of the jury--was inappropriate: ``Therefore, while 
     this matter is now closed, this Order should serve as a 
     reminder to all counsel that arguments of the type addressed 
     herein are improper and will not be tolerated in this 
     Court.'' 875 F. Supp. at 330.
       In yet another such example, Judge Shedd initiated, sua 
     sponte, an inquiry into the finances of an unemployed party, 
     living with her mother, who had been granted in forma 
     pauperis status by another federal judge and whose case was 
     already pending on appeal in the Fourth Circuit. Assaad-
     Faltas v. University of South Carolina, 971 F. Supp. 985 
     (D.S.C. 1997). Based on ``the prolific litigiousness in which 
     she has engaged,'' id. at 986--specifically citing her use of 
     a telephone to make long-distance telephone calls to the 
     Fourth Circuit and her use of her mother's automobile ``to 
     travel to the courthouse on a regular basis,'' as well as her 
     practice of ``flood[ing] the Court and opposing counsel with 
     numerous legal filings, many of which contain multiple pages 
     and/or exhibits''--Judge Shedd revoked her in forma pauperis 
     status and recommended that the Fourth Circuit dismiss her 
     pending appeal, concluding that these acts were ``certainly 
     indicative of the fact that she has financial resources 
     available to her to fund this litigation.'' Id. at 988.
       In our considered judgment, these cases suffice to raise 
     red flags that should require the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     to proceed only after the most careful review of Judge 
     Shedd's full judicial record--most of which has only become 
     available for consideration in the past few days. The Fourth 
     Circuit does not, in our view, need another federal appellate 
     judge who would constrain the authority of Congress in the 
     21st century by resort to outdated and reactionary views 
     of federal power. It does not need a federal judge who 
     would be hostile to African Americans, to women, to the 
     aged, or to the disabled who bring serious claims of 
     employment discrimination or other forms of discrimination 
     prohibited by federal laws or the Constitution. It does 
     not need a federal judge who would reflexively side with 
     management against labor, with employers against 
     employees. Nor does it need a federal judge who is 
     dismissive of the precious right to trial by jury, cutting 
     short legitimate factual disputes that, under the Seventh 
     Amendment, properly belong to federal juries.
           Sincerely,
         John Charles Boger, Lissa L. Broome, Kenneth S. Broun, 
           John O. Calmore, Charles E. Daye, Eugene Gressman, Ann 
           Hubbard, Daniel H. Pollitt, Marilyn V. Yarbrough, 
           Professors of Law, UNC-Chapel Hill, School of Law.
         Christopher H. Schroeder, Jerome Culp, Professors of Law, 
           Duke University, School of Law.

[[Page S11516]]

         Renee F. Hill, David A. Green, Irving Joyner, Nichelle J. 
           Perry, Fred J. Williams, Professors of Law, North 
           Carolina Central, University School of Law.
       One final note. The Fourth Circuit, as you know, presently 
     is comprised of eleven judges, and there are four pending 
     vacancies. Although North Carolina is the largest State 
     within the Circuit, it has no current representation on the 
     Circuit at all, and has had none since 1999, despite a 
     federal statute that requires that ``in each circuit, there 
     shall be at least one circuit judge in regular active service 
     appointed from the residents of each state in the circuit.'' 
     28 U.S.C. Sec. 44.
       South Carolina, the state in which Judge Shedd currently 
     sits, has three judges currently on the Fourth Circuit. Judge 
     Shedd's elevation would constitute the fourth. We respect our 
     sister state, of course, yet we do not understand why, with a 
     population less than half of North Carolina's, it should 
     receive its fourth active judge while North Carolina 
     languishes without a single sitting representative, and with 
     only two seats even authorized.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed 99 judicial 
nominees during the 107th Congress--all of which have occurred since 
Democrats assumed the majority. Democrats have also confirmed more 
circuit court nominees than Republicans did any of their prior six 
years of control. Today we are considering the nomination of Judge 
Shedd for the Fourth Circuit.
  There has been much discussion over Judge Shedd's nomination, and I 
understand the Judiciary Committee has received hundreds of letters 
from individuals and organizations expressing concern over elevating 
Judge Shedd. While his nomination was reported out of the committee 
last week, there was considerable debate and many members raised 
serious concerns. I am troubled by allegations that Judge Shedd has a 
pattern of injecting his personal opinions into the proceedings before 
him, including--ordering defendants to make motions for summary 
judgment, and deciding on issues before they are raised.
  I am also concerned about allegations that individuals raising 
employment discrimination claims before him are unable to receive a 
fair and impartial forum. I understand that through questioning by the 
Judiciary Committee, it was uncovered that Judge Shedd could not think 
of a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination 
case who had prevailed in his courtroom--in fact, Judge Shedd has never 
granted substantive relief to a plaintiff in an employment 
discrimination case.
  I am also concerned about his extreme views of the constitutional 
allocation of powers between the States and the federal government--
views that are not shared even by the current conservative Rehnquist 
Court. In a 1997 case challenging the constitutionality of the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Judge Shedd held that the federal 
government did not have the power to require states to protect the 
confidentiality of state driver's license records. In a 9-0 reversal of 
Judge Shedd's ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that he had gone too 
far. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate the 
President's nominees, offer advice, and grant--or withhold--its 
consent. I take this responsibility very seriously.
  Unfortunately, in Judge Shedd's case I believe enough concerns have 
been raised about his judicial temperament to lead me to the conclusion 
that he should not be elevated to the Fourth Circuit. So, on this vote 
I plan to vote against Judge Shedd's nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd is a man of great character who will make 
an outstanding addition to the Federal appellate bench. He possesses 
the highest sense of integrity, a thorough knowledge of the law, and a 
good judicial temperament.
  I want to assure my colleagues that Judge Shedd is committed to 
upholding the rights of all people under the Constitution. This fine 
man is truly deserving of such high honor, and he will serve the people 
of the Fourth Circuit with distinction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for 
Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: United States Senators.
     From: Luonne Abram Rouse.
     Re: Dennis Shedd.

       Dennis Shedd is an outstanding American citizen, and a 
     friend of high integrity and godliness. The United States of 
     America will benefit greatly from his service in the 4th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
       The Honorable Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina 
     introduced me to Dennis in 1983. Putting history behind, we 
     came together in the 80s, while I served as president of a 
     local NAACP chapter in South Carolina. We established a 
     friendship and respectful sharing that has been mutually 
     beneficial for our work in America and beyond. Since that 
     time, I have found Dennis Shedd to be the type of person that 
     I trust to weigh the issues with dignity and legal focus.
       In 1982, Senator Thurmond was a guest in our home following 
     a time when he and I had written communication concerning the 
     Civil Rights Act. The Senator visited my home to personally 
     thank me for the communication, and state that he had changed 
     his mind and agreed to support the Civil Rights Act after 
     dialogue with several African American leaders. During the 
     same visit, he extended an invitation for me to be a guest 
     chaplain at the United States Senate in Washington, DC. I 
     responded with my presence in April of 1983, at which time I 
     met Dennis Shedd.
       Dennis and I have kept up with one another's growth and 
     experiences. He has prayerfully supported my appointments in 
     United Methodist Churches across racial lines in South 
     Carolina, since 1986. The support he has shown for racial 
     inclusiveness in churches, during a time in which leading 
     sociologists claimed that there are no truly desegregated 
     churches in South Carolina, has been encouraging to my 
     ministry of intentionality and reconciliation in this period 
     of church desegregation.
       I am confident that persons will be able to communicate 
     with this experienced Judge, and find him seeking to maintain 
     peace with justice based soundly on the law. When this matter 
     is concluded, I would like to have Hillary Shelton, another 
     outstanding man and long time activist who has been an 
     overnight guest in our home, to dinner and discover the real 
     essence of Dennis Shedd as a judge of fairness and justice 
     regarding issues of human rights.
       Many people have sought to block Dennis Shedd's appointment 
     to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and some have led me to 
     study his decisions closely. I respectfully ask those who 
     would oppose him to consider that there is more to a decision 
     than a final report reveals, and much more to the person 
     having to issue the judgment regarding the same. I have known 
     Dennis as a man of his word, who reaches decisions weighing 
     the evidence with matters of law. I have been a long time 
     advocate for women's rights and civil rights, and would never 
     support someone whom I believed had personal issues 
     outweighing legal judgment on matters concerning the same. 
     Even is disagreement, his listening ear would grant the same 
     respect offered to him by those with opposing views. And the 
     respect he provides for one, I trust him to provide to 
     others. As a political leader Senator Thurmond has been most 
     respectful in communicating with me, and as a legal 
     representative Dennis has been most receptive and 
     respectful of my calls.
       In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes 
     and dreams for the future are in them. I believe Dennis will 
     represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities 
     in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not 
     believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for 
     economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as 
     one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the 
     same psycho-social respect within the law.
       Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd 
     to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands 
     firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and 
     informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not 
     expect him to change just for political correctness. He will, 
     however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him 
     because of his listening ear and desire for justice.
       I appreciate your prayerful action and reception of this 
     letter.
                                  ____



                              Law Offices of Jack B. Swerling,

                                   Columbia, SC, January 26, 2001.
     Re the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd.

     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senator,
     Columbia, SC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing you in support of the 
     nomination of the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe that you could not find 
     from our great state a more able or deserving jurist to sit 
     on the Fourth Circuit.
       I have been in practice for almost 28 years and a 
     significant part of my practice is dedicated to the 
     representation of defendants in criminal cases in the 
     District of South Carolina. Since Judge Shedd was appointed 
     to serve as a District Judge, I have had the opportunity to 
     appear before him on many occasions, in both hearings and in 
     trials.
       Judge Shedd presides over the proceedings before him in a 
     fair and impartial manner.

[[Page S11517]]

     All litigants, whether they be private individuals, 
     corporations, or governmental entities, enjoy the opportunity 
     to be fully heard in the presentation of their case. I have 
     always felt that while one side or another must ultimately 
     prevail, each litigant as well as their counsel have been 
     treated with the utmost respect and dignity in Judge Shedd's 
     courtroom. He is known among the federal bar to be 
     intellectually gifted. He has a complete command of not only 
     the federal rules of evidence and procedure, but also the 
     federal case law throughout the country. His orders and trial 
     rulings are based upon a sound and insightful perspective of 
     the applicable federal rules and law. In order to reach a 
     just result in a recent case, Judge Shedd and his very able 
     law clerks worked long into the night and started again early 
     the next morning to study the transcripts and research all of 
     the applicable federal law before ruling on my motion for a 
     judgment of acquittal. His Order, with underlying factual and 
     legal support, is a model for any jurist.
       It has been an honor and a privilege to practice before the 
     Judge over these years. He is a man of integrity with the 
     highest ethical standards; a highly energetic and motivated 
     jurist; and one with the demeanor and intellectual ability to 
     serve with distinction on the Fourth Circuit just as he has 
     served in our District over these past years. On behalf of 
     this lawyer, I would urge you to support his nomination.
           Very truly yours,
     Jack B. Swerling.
                                  ____

                                                 Jan S. Strifling,


                                        Attorney at Law, P.A.,

                                    Columbia, SC, October 2, 2002.
     Re Hon. Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge.

     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     U.S. Senator, Leo O'Brien Bldg.,
     Albany, NY.
       Dear Senator Schumer: By way of introduction, I introduced 
     myself to you in the Tetons last summer when you and your 
     family were hiking in cascade canyon.
       I am writing you in support of Judge Dennis Shedd's 
     confirmation as Judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
     I practice criminal law and can understand that a great deal 
     of the outcry against Judge Shedd comes from the results of 
     the criminal cases. From my viewpoint, Judge Shedd makes 
     decisions which follow the law notwithstanding their 
     popularity.
       I have practiced criminal law for over thirty years and 
     have had a substantial number of cases before Judge Shedd 
     since he began as a District Judge. He has always been 
     courteous to me and my clients and cognizant of the rights of 
     all parties.
       I think that he has been a judge who has been fair to all 
     litigants and that he would continue in that manner in the 
     Circuit Court.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Jan S. Strifling.
                                  ____


             The ``Quattlebaum Case'': What the Lawyers Say

   E. Bart Daniel, the criminal defense attorney who represented the 
lawyer who pled guilty and was sentenced to jail for perjury (letter to 
                 Senator Hatch dated November 18, 2002)

       I have been a practicing attorney in South Carolina for 
     over 22 years. During my career, I have served as an 
     Assistant State Attorney General, and Assistant U.S. 
     Attorney, a United States Attorney under the previous 
     President Bush and an active federal trial attorney. My 
     practice over the years has developed into primarily a 
     ``white collar'' criminal defense practice. I have appeared 
     many times in court before Judge Shedd and found him to be 
     courteous and fair. He has exhibited great integrity and a 
     strong character while on the bench.
       One of the most difficult cases in which I appeared before 
     Judge Shedd was in United States v. John Earl Duncan. Mr. 
     Duncan was a practicing attorney who was convicted of 
     perjury. Judge Shedd sentenced him to four months in a 
     federal penitentiary and four months in a community 
     confinement center (halfway house). He fined him $33,386.92. 
     Judge Shedd's decision was a difficult one, but fair. As his 
     counsel, we recognized that Judge Shedd would be compelled to 
     sentence Mr. Duncan to an active term of incarceration since 
     he was a practicing attorney who had been convicted of lying 
     to a federal grand jury.
       During the sentencing phase of the Duncan case, Judge Shedd 
     was courteous and patient and listened intently to the many 
     people who spoke on our client's behalf including my co-
     counsel Dale L. DuTremble and me.
       I know of no judge more qualified for the position than 
     Judge Shedd. If you have any questions or I can be of any 
     further support, please do not hesitate to call.

Jack Swerling, the criminal defense attorney who represented the Deputy 
   Solicitor who was tried for perjury before Judge Shedd (letter to 
                Senator Hollings dated January 26, 2001)

       I am writing you in support of the nomination of the 
     Honorable Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. I believe that you could not find from our great 
     state a more able or deserving jurist to sit on the Fourth 
     Circuit.
       I have been in practice for almost 28 years and a 
     significant part of my practice is dedicated to the 
     representation of defendants in criminal cases in the 
     District of South Carolina. Since Judge Shedd was appointed 
     to serve as a District Judge, I have had the opportunity to 
     appear before him on many occasions, in both hearings and 
     trials.
       Judge Shedd presides over the proceedings before him in a 
     fair and impartial manner. All litigants, whether they be 
     private individuals, corporations, or governmental entities, 
     enjoy the opportunity to be fully heard in the presentation 
     of their case. I have always felt that while one side or 
     another must ultimately prevail, each litigant as well as 
     their counsel have been treated with the utmost respect and 
     dignity in Judge Shedd's courtroom. He is known among the 
     federal bar to be intellectually gifted. He has a complete 
     command of not only the federal rules of evidence and 
     procedure, but also the federal case law throughout the 
     country. His orders and trial rulings are based upon a sound 
     and insightful perspective of the applicable federal rules 
     and law.
       It has been an honor and a privilege to practice before the 
     Judge over these years. He is a man of integrity with the 
     highest ethical standards; a highly energetic and motivated 
     jurist; and one with the demeanor and intellectual ability to 
     serve with distinction on the Fourth Circuit just as he has 
     served over these past years. On behalf of this lawyer, I 
     urge you to support his nomination.
       Joseph M. McCullough, Jr., the criminal defense attorney 
     who intervened on behalf of Quattlebaum in the federal 
     prosecution to have the videotape suppressed at trial (letter 
     to Senator Hollings dated January 29, 2001)
       Having practiced law in South Carolina for more than 20 
     years, and as past President of the South Carolina Criminal 
     Defense Lawyers Association, I have had occasion to be in 
     Judge Shedd's courtroom frequently and have tried several 
     cases before him. I have always been impressed with Judge 
     Shedd's factual familiarity and legal preparation in every 
     matter before him. I have found him to be extremely 
     intelligent and a firm hand in the courtroom. I have always 
     been impressed with his understanding of the law, and believe 
     that he would be a strong addition to the Fourth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals.
                                  ____

                                              U.S. District Court,


                                   District of South Carolina,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     In re Dennis W. Shedd, Nominee to Fourth Circuit Court of 
         Appeals.

     Senator Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking Republican Member, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: This in response to your request that I 
     provide information regarding Dennis W. Shedd, a judge on our 
     court, who has been nominated for a position on the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I have served 
     as a United States District Judge for 16 years, the last two 
     as Chief Judge for our district. I knew Judge Shedd prior to 
     his appointment as U.S. District Judge, and, subsequent to 
     his appointment, he and I have served as suite mates in the 
     courthouse here in Columbia. I, therefore, feel that I am 
     qualified to comment on his abilities, qualifications, and 
     reputation.
       In response to your specific inquiries, I can say without 
     hesitation that Judge Shedd has a reputation for fairness, 
     both in his community and on our court. As Chief Judge, I 
     have received no complaints about his courtroom demeanor, his 
     decisions, or his procedures. It is my considered opinion 
     that all people who appear in his court receive a fair 
     hearing, regardless of the type of cases involved, or the 
     status of the parties in the case (plaintiff or defendant).
       Judge Shedd is scrupulous in his dealings on the court. If 
     there is any remote suggestion of the appearance of 
     impropriety, he will not hesitate, and has not hesitated, to 
     rescuse himself and he is very consistent about this.
       I regularly review the advance sheets of the United States 
     Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit, and it would appear 
     to me that Judge Shedd has an extremely good affirmance rate 
     in that court.
       In regard to the issue of granting summary judgment or 
     otherwise dismissing cases short of trial, it appears to me 
     that Judge Shedd's record is no different from any other 
     judge in this district. That is to say, some of his cases are 
     ended by a ruling on summary judgment. Those that are not are 
     then set for trial and a great number of those eventually 
     settle before the trial can be conducted. In regard to 
     summary judgment decisions, settlements, and actual trials, 
     Judge Shedd's statistics are not significantly different from 
     any other judge in this district.
       I hope this letter is responsive to your inquiry and if you 
     need any additional information, please do not hesitate to 
     let me know.
       With kind personal regards.
                                          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
     Chief United States District Judge.
                                  ____

                                                       The Senate,


                                            State of Arkansas,

                                                 October 11, 2002.
     Re confirmation for Federal Judge Dennis Shedd (South 
         Carolina) to the US Court of Appeals.

      Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: I am writing this letter to provide 
     my strongest possible recommendation for the Hon. Dennis 
     Shedd, of

[[Page S11518]]

     Columbia, South Carolina, who has been nominated by President 
     Bush to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.
       Yesterday, I read the story in the A Section of the 
     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette regarding the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee's decision to delay confirmation of Judge Shedd 
     until after the recess, after which Senator Strom Thurmond 
     (R-SC) will have retired from the Senate.
       I understand that you are not a member of the Judiciary 
     Committee. However, I am writing this letter as one of your 
     loyal supporters and good friends, and as a good Democrat as 
     well. I want you to know that I cannot think of many people 
     who would make a better Appeals Court Judge than Dennis 
     Shedd.
       Dennis and I are good friends from the days when we both 
     worked in Washington, he for Senator Thurmond and I for 
     Senator Bumpers. In addition, he was my landlord for over 
     four years at the townhouse where I lived. We have kept in 
     touch over the years as we got both got married and built 
     families. I have also visited Dennis and his wonderful wife, 
     Elaine, in South Carolina during the occasions my family 
     vacations there.
       However, taking friendship and political philosophies 
     aside, I can honestly say that he has one of the finest minds 
     I have ever encountered, including President Clinton and many 
     others with whom I have had the good fortune to become well 
     acquainted. Furthermore, his sense of personal and 
     professional integrity is unrivaled, as is his knowledge and 
     understanding of the law. He was one of the lawyers involved 
     in the dissolution of the Heritage USA Bankruptcy (Jim 
     Baker), and he gave half of his legal fees to victims. On one 
     visit to South Carolina, I had the opportunity to sit in on a 
     high profile case, and was very impressed with the way he 
     dispensed justice in that proceeding, and with the 
     relationship he had with the then Democratic US Attorney's 
     Office. He has a wonderful family and is someone I would say 
     is a true patriot.
       In short, I believe Dennis Shedd has proven to be a good 
     and valued officer of the court, and would make an excellent 
     Appeals Court Justice. I believe the problem with the 
     confirmation has more to do with the politics of having been 
     chief of staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee when 
     President Reagan was in office, and several Democrats see an 
     opportunity for partisan retribution for some of the judicial 
     politics of that era. I want you to know that I saw Dennis 
     Shedd almost every day during that period, and there is no 
     one who would deny his professionalism in handling these 
     matters. The politics of that era had more to do with who was 
     in power than it did with the staff. The US Senate, including 
     Democrats, should move his confirmation forward.
       Dennis is a self-made person who came from a small South 
     Carolina town and worked his way through law school while a 
     member of Senator Thurmond's staff, and who did such a good 
     job was ultimately promoted. You know that I am a good and 
     loyal Democrat. However, the fact of his political 
     affiliation should not prevent or detract from all of these 
     qualifications, and I sincerely plead with you to bring this 
     up in the Senate Democratic Caucus with a request that the 
     Judiciary Committee honor its word to Senator Thurmond, and 
     move Judge Shedd's nomination forward and out of the Senate.
       I think this is one of only a handful of letters I have 
     ever written you. Thank you for your time, and please forgive 
     the length of this letter. However, I do hope you will take 
     this request seriously, and pass it on to your colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin A. Smith,
     State Senate.
                                  ____

                                                  Garry L. Wooten,


                                Attorney and Counselor at Law,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Senator Ernest F. Hollings,
      Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the confirmation of Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia, 
     South Carolina. I handle primarily personal injury and 
     criminal cases. My practice is a Plaintiff's practice. I have 
     been a member of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association 
     since graduating from law school and appreciate your strong 
     support for that organization.
       I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of 
     cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one 
     case, my client was African American. That case involved a 
     lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my 
     client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife. 
     Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the 
     law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the 
     benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely 
     knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity.
       I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and 
     show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the 
     Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       With the kindest regards, I am.
           Sincerely,
     Garry L. Wooten.
                                  ____

                                                Gregory P. Harris,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: This is the second letter that I 
     have written to you in support of the confirmation of Judge 
     Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I 
     believe that it is necessary to write another letter in light 
     of recent accusations that I have read concerning Judge Shedd 
     fairness and temperament on the district court bench.
       I was the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office when Judge Shedd took the bench in 1992. As 
     a federal prosecutor, I tried three cases in front of Judge 
     Shedd. He was tough, but fair. In 1993, I entered private 
     practice specializing primarily in federal criminal defense. 
     Since entering private practice, I have tried seven cases in 
     Judge Shedd's court and appeared on other matters on numerous 
     occasions. During each of these trials, Judge Shedd was 
     similarly tough and fair. It has been my experience as a 
     federal prosecutor and a private attorney that Judge Shedd 
     feeds everyone out of the same spoon.
       As to his temperament, on occasion when he and I have 
     disagreed over the admittance of evidence, the admission of a 
     statement, or any other matter of law, he has been 
     professional, courteous, and usually right. Nevertheless, 
     even after these disagreements, he has never left the court 
     room at the end of the day without a smile and a kind word to 
     the lawyers.
       It seems to me that those leveling the accusations at Judge 
     Shedd have never even seen him in court, much less appeared 
     before him. Almost all of us who have, strongly support his 
     confirmation to the Fourth Circuit. If have any questions, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me regarding my 
     professional and personal feelings about Judge Shedd.
           Regards,
     Gregory P. Harris.
                                  ____

                                               Nathaniel Roberson,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Re nomination for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Senator Earnest F. Hollings,
     Senator Orrin Hatch.
       Gentlemen: This is on behalf of Dennis Shedd and his 
     nomination for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I have tried many cases, argued motions, and have done may 
     guilty pleas before Judge Shedd since he became a District 
     Court Judge in South Carolina.
       I have found him to be open and honest with litigant 
     members of the bar and witnesses relevant to the issues 
     before him. He has at all times demonstrated the kind of 
     judicial temperament that has made him a credit to our 
     judiciary.
       He has been accused by groups and organizations of being 
     biased either for against certain issues that has not 
     endeared him for the reasons expressed by those organizations 
     that oppose him.
       My experience with Judge Shedd has been professional, 
     judicial, and he has never blocked or interfered with my 
     representation of clients and those issues that I was 
     required to make on behalf of the people I represented. I 
     urge you and your colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Shedd 
     being elevated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Thanks for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Nathaniel Robertson.
                                  ____

                                       Young and Sullivan, L.L.P.,


                              Attorneys and Counselors at Law,

                                Charleston, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Re Judge Dennis W. Shedd, nomination, Fourth Circuit.

     Senator Orrin Hatch,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I have been in an eight week (8) long 
     jury trial before Judge Dennis W. Shedd and many other jury 
     trials, motion hearings, and sentencing hearings and appeals 
     to the Fourth Circuit. I have appeared before Judge Shedd as 
     much or more than any defense lawyer in South Carolina.
       I am not a political crony of Judge Shedd, I am a trial 
     lawyer. I was Chief Public Defender in Columbia, SC (1972-87) 
     Adjunct Professor of Law, USC School of Law (1974-89), 
     President SC Public Defenders Association (1972-88), Founder, 
     SC Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Served by 
     election ABA Criminal Justice Council, and was awarded the 
     Bronze Star in Vietnam (1969-70).
       Judge Shedd is a competent, fair, even-handed jurist and I 
     urge your support for him to be a Judge on U.S. Court of 
     Appeals--Fourth Circuit.
       Tell any U.S. Senator opposed to Judge Shedd's nomination 
     to call me, I am in my office.
           Sincerely,
                                               John McMahon Young,
                                                  Attorney At Law.

  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the chair.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are so proud of our senior Senator from 
South Carolina.

[[Page S11519]]

  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge 
Dennis Shedd and to congratulate the President on getting his 100th 
judicial nominee confirmed. Yesterday, I made much more detailed 
remarks in Judge's Shedd's favor.
  I am also glad for Senator Strom Thurmond. He is much loved in the 
Senate, he is much loved in South Carolina and throughout this country, 
and I know that he wanted to see his former Chief Counsel confirmed 
before the end of his long career in the Senate.
  In the recent election, as far as I see it, the President took three 
issues to the American people: his Iraq policy, Homeland Security and 
his judicial nominees. The election showed that Americans trust this 
President including in his selection of judicial nominees.
  The election indicated that voters rejected obstruction in the 
Senate, including on judicial nominees, and voters especially rejected 
the distortions of reputations that they read and heard about in 
hundreds of news stories, scores of editorials, and dozens of op-eds . 
. . and that they saw on TV.
  Voters sent us a clear message, it seems to me, that we should end 
the obstruction and maltreatment of judicial nominees. We need to 
evaluate judges or potential judges as unbiased umpires who call the 
balls and the strikes as they are, not as they alone see them and not 
as they want them to be. We must end the practice of projecting 
ideology to see if an umpire is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter or pro-
pitcher.
  Our job is to determine the character and temperament of a nominee to 
the judiciary. Period. This is true of the trial bench, the appellate 
court, and the Supreme Court.
  Again, I express my great satisfaction that the Judiciary Committee 
has favorably recommended the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd of South 
Carolina for a vote of the full Senate.
  When Judge Shedd was nominated to the federal trial bench, Chairman 
Biden had this to say to him: ``I have worked with you for so long that 
I believe I am fully qualified to make an independent judgment about 
your working habits, your integrity, your honesty, and your 
temperament. On all these scores, I have found you to be beyond 
reproach.''
  This is high praise, indeed, and from a colleague from the other side 
of the aisle for whom we all have the greatest respect.
  Judge Sheed has strong bipartisan support in his home state as well, 
and not only from Senators Thurmond and Hollings. He is also strongly 
supported by Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina State Chairman of the 
Democratic Party, and himself a trial lawyer.
  Dennis Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade 
following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice. 
While serving the Judiciary Committee, Judge Shedd worked, among many 
other matters, on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, RICO reform, 
the Ethics in Post-Employment Act, and the 1984 and 1986 crime bills.
  As Senator Biden put it: ``His hard work and intelligence helped the 
Congress find areas of agreement and reach compromises.''
  Judge Shedd will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. The last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been 
Democrats. When Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth 
Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he 
will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth 
Circuit.
  The American people should be grateful that President Bush has 
nominated Dennis Shedd to serve this country further. He has already 
served for nearly 25 years.
  Judge Dennis Shedd has heard more than 5,000 civil cases, reviewed 
more than 1,400 reports and recommendations of magistrates, and has had 
before him nearly 1000 criminal defendants. He has been reversed fewer 
than 40 times, less than one percent.
  In employment cases, he has only twice been reversed in his 
decisions. Remarkbly, in criminal cases, Judge Shedd has never been 
reversed on any ruling considered before or during trial, or on the 
taking of guilty pleas.
  Now, detractors have made much of the fact that he has a relative few 
decisions that he has chosen to publish. But, in fact, he falls in the 
middle of the average for published opinions in the Fourth Circuit. One 
Carter appointee has published all of 7 cases, one Clinton appointee 
has published only 3, and another Carter appointee has published 51, 
only one more than Judge Shedd, despite being on the court for 10 years 
longer.
  Notably, on cases involving the Voting Rights Acts, Judge Shedd has 
ruled for plaintiffs in each instance, an Act, I might add that he 
worked to extend in the Senate.
  From his service in the Senate to his role on the South Carolina 
Advisory Committee of the United States Civil Rights Commission, Judge 
Shedd has been a leader on civil rights. He led efforts to appoint the 
first African American woman ever to serve as a magistrate judge in 
South Carolina and has sought the Selection Committee to conduct 
outreach to women and people of color in filling such positions. He 
pushed for an African American woman to be Chief of Pretrial Services. 
He has actively recruited persons of color to be his law clerks.
  And because of Judge Shedd's work in an award-winning drug program 
that aims to reverse stereotypes among 4,000 to 5,000 school children, 
he was chosen as the United Way's School Volunteer of the Year.
  This record stands in contrast to the distortions we have heard about 
Judge Shedd's sensitivity on civil rights.
  The Judiciary Committee received a very touching letter from one of 
Judge Shedd's former law clerks, Thomas Jones and I placed in the 
record yesterday.
  Now this young man,--this young lawyer happens to be a person of 
color--an African American. He says:

       It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge 
     Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals 
     without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with 
     Judge Shedd . . . I trust the allegations are given the short 
     shrift they are due.

  I would like to read from a letter I received from Niger Innis who 
has inherited his father's mantle and is the national spokesman for the 
Congress of Racial Equality. We all know his father, of course, Roy 
Innis, who was a great leader of the civil rights movement in the 
1960's together with Dr. King.
  I received this letter even while I was on the floor of the Senate 
yesterday.
  Mr. Innis writes:

       This is an open letter in the interest of justice. The 
     Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) enthusiastically endorses 
     Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
     Despite a Democratic filibuster against Judge Shedd, it is 
     the strong opinion of CORE that Judge Shedd is a more than 
     worthy candidate for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  He goes on:

       Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit 
     and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American 
     legal system.
       Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully 
     from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory 
     Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and 
     honest review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would 
     show that he has sided numerous times with plaintiffs in 
     cases of race, gender and disability rights without falter or 
     hesitation. In each case, his decisions have allowed 
     employment discrimination lawsuits to go forward in the 
     interest of fairness and truth.
       Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights 
     for minorities and women, particularly within the court. . .
       We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge 
     Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair 
     smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the 
     Senate floor.

  Another letter I received while I was on the floor yesterday came 
from Phyllis Berry Myers, President of the Centre for New Black 
Leadership; another great name in the African American community.
  Ms. Myers writes:

       The Senate can restore itself, at least a modicum, a sense 
     of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and 
     procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all, 
     as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming 
     Judge Shedd.

  And at 2:32 pm yesterday, while I was on the floor, we also received 
a letter from the former Chairman of the NAACP of South Carolina. The 
Rev Dr. Luonne Abram Rouse writes:

       Dennis Shedd is an outstanding American citizen, and a 
     friend of high integrity and godliness. The United States of 
     America will benefit greatly from his service in the 4th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.

[[Page S11520]]

       The Honorable Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina 
     introduced me to Dennis in 1983. Putting history behind, we 
     came together in the 80s, while I served as president of a 
     local NAACP chapter in South Carolina. We established a 
     friendship and respectful sharing that has been mutually 
     beneficial for our work in America and beyond. Since that 
     time, I have found Dennis Shedd to be the type of person that 
     I trust I trust to weigh the issues with dignity and legal 
     focus. . .

  Reverend Rouse wrote a remarkable letter and ends this way:

       In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes 
     and dreams for the future are in time. I believe Dennis will 
     represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities 
     in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not 
     believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for 
     economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as 
     one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the 
     same psycho-social respect within the law.
       Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd 
     to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands 
     firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and 
     informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not 
     expect him to change just for political correctness. He will, 
     however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him 
     because of his listening ear and desire for justice.

  But these are not unique letters. We have received letters from the 
people who know Judge Shedd. They are the ones that matter.
  I want to take a moment to read a few excerpts from some of the 
letters we've received in support of Judge Shedd. Keep in mind that the 
letters are from lawyers who know Judge Shedd, who have practiced 
before him, and who are in the best position to assess his 
qualifications for the appellate bench.
  The first letter is from J. Preston Strom, Jr. Mr. Strom writes:

       I write to support Judge Shedd's confirmation to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As a former 
     United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina 
     appointed by President Clinton, my office had daily dealings 
     with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a fair and efficient jurist 
     who even-handedly applied substantive and procedural rules. 
     On occasions when my office disagreed with Judge Shedd's 
     rulings, I found that he always provided well-reasoned 
     analyses for his decisions. Further, when the rules provided 
     for discretion in sentencing for cooperation with federal 
     agents in the prosecution of crime, Judge Shedd deliberated 
     and provided substantial sentence reductions when warranted.
       Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have 
     practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants 
     and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have 
     represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and 
     found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my 
     clients, regardless of race.
       As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina 
     Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of 
     Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes 
     civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to 
     engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a 
     judge.

  Here is another letter. This one is from attorney Garry Wooten. He 
writes:

       I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia. I 
     handle primarily personal injury and criminal cases . . .
       I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of 
     cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one 
     case, my client was African-American. That case involved a 
     lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my 
     client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife. 
     Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the 
     law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the 
     benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely 
     knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity.
       I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and 
     show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the 
     Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  Another letter, this one from Jonathan Harvey, states:

       I am the current treasurer of the South Carolina 
     Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its 
     board as well as past representative to its Board of 
     Directors from the Fifth Judicial Circuit. . . . I have had 
     many opportunities to appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have 
     left each proceeding convinced that my clients irrespective 
     of social status, creed, gender, or race were treated fairly 
     and with a proper application of the law.
       I trust this letter will enable you to inform your 
     colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge 
     Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward 
     those parties who have appeared before him.

  In another letter, lawyer John Simmons writes:

       In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found 
     him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest 
     integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and 
     litigants with the utmost respect.
       In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual 
     non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated 
     with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and 
     difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my 
     client's identity while affording all litigants their 
     adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the 
     thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my 
     client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the 
     parties.

  Finally, here is a letter from Howard Hammer. Mr. Hammer writes:

       I have been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over 
     thirty (30) years. My practice primarily involves 
     representation of plaintiffs in civil litigation, including 
     representation of numerous individuals in employment 
     disputes. . . .
       I have found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in 
     all my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity 
     and I would respectfully urge your support of his 
     confirmation.

  I could go on and on reading testimonials from lawyers in South 
Carolina who have regularly appeared before Judge Shedd and who 
strongly support his confirmation on the Fourth Circuit. Yesterday I 
entered other letters into the record.
  Mr. President, Dennis Shedd is well qualified to serve on the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. I think so and the American Bar Association, 
hardly a bastion of conservative politics, has said so as well. In 
supporting his confirmation I for one express my gratitude on behalf of 
the American people for an entire life in public service.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for 
the confirmation of Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Congress of Racial Equality,

                                  New York, NY, November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: This is an open letter in the interest 
     of justice. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) 
     enthusiastically endorses Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite a Democratic filibuster 
     against Judge Shedd, it is the strong opinion of CORE that 
     Judge Shedd is a more than worthy candidate for the Fourth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit 
     and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American 
     legal system.
       Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully 
     from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory 
     Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and 
     honest review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would 
     show that he has sided numerous times with plaintiffs in 
     cases of race, gender and disability rights without falter or 
     hesitation. In each case, his decisions have allowed 
     employment discrimination lawsuits to go forward in the 
     interest of fairness and truth.
       Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights 
     for minorities and women, particularly within the court. His 
     efforts have championed the efforts to recruit and elect the 
     first African-American U.S. Magistrate Judge in the South 
     Carolina District, Margaret Seymour. He has actively sought 
     minority and female candidates for other Magistrate Judge 
     positions, and has directed the Selection Commission in South 
     Carolina to bear in mind diversity in the selection of 
     candidates for these positions.
       Judge Dennis Shedd's accomplishments and service have 
     transcended bi-partisan support even from his home state 
     Senators, notably, Senators Strom Thurmond and Senator Ernest 
     Hollings who wholly support his nomination.
       In the interest of fairness, balance we ask you to look 
     past the unfounded partisan attacks of propaganda against 
     Judge Shedd and fairly examine his work for yourselves. We 
     strongly believe Judge Shedd's accomplishments and 
     contributions to justice and civil rights speaks for itself.
       We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge 
     Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair 
     smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the 
     Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
     Niger Innis, National Spokesman.
                                  ____



                              Centre for New Black Leadership,

                                                November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: The Centre for New Black Leadership 
     (CNBL) believes the Senate's judicial nomination system is 
     broken and needs repairing.
       We have watched with great trepidation as the Senate's role 
     of ``advise and consent'' for Presidential nominations, 
     especially judicial nominations, has become increasingly, 
     ``search and destroy,'' ``slander and defame.'' It is a 
     wonder that reasonable, decent people

[[Page S11521]]

     agree to go through the confirmation process at all.
       The confirmation process has become particularly brutal if 
     the nominee is labeled ``conservative.'' Traditional civil 
     rights groups mass to castigate and intimidate, as they do 
     now, attempting to thwart the confirmation of Judge Dennis W. 
     Shedd to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Once again, we are witnessing the new depth to which public 
     discourse and debate has sunk when fabrications, statements 
     taken out of context, misinformation and disinformation can 
     pass as serious political deliberation and debate. The 
     vitally needed discussion about continued civil rights 
     progress in a 21st Century world gets lost in the cacophony. 
     Our nation and true civil rights advocates are poorer because 
     of this.
       The Senate can restore to itself, at least a modicum, a 
     sense of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and 
     procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all, 
     as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming 
     Judge Shedd.
           Sincerely,
                                              Phyllis Berry Myers,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                           Rosenberg Proutt Funk &


                                               Greenberg, LLP,

                                     Baltimore, MD, June 25, 2002.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: My name is Thomas W. Jones, Jr. I am an 
     African-American attorney currently practicing as a 
     litigation associate in Baltimore, Maryland.
       Upon my graduation from the University of Maryland School 
     of Law, I had the distinct pleasure of serving as a judicial 
     clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd (``Judge Shedd'') on 
     the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. 
     During my eighteen months of working with Judge Shedd, I 
     never encountered a hint of bias, in any form or fashion, 
     regarding any aspect of Judge Shedd's jurisprudence or daily 
     activities.
       It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge 
     Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals 
     without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with 
     Judge Shedd, his friends or family members. I trust the 
     accusations of bias levied against Judge Shedd will be given 
     the short shrift they are due, and trust further that this 
     honorable Committee will act favorably upon the pending 
     nomination of Judge Shedd for the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
       Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Thomas W. Jones, Jr.
                                  ____

                                                   E. Bart Daniel,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                 Charleston SC, November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     104 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re Nomination of Dennis W. Shedd to Fourth Circuit Court of 
         Appeals.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I have been a practicing attorney in 
     South Carolina for over 22 years. During my career, I have 
     served as an Assistant State Attorney General, and Assistant 
     U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney under the previous 
     President Bush and an active federal trial attorney. My 
     practice over the years has developed into primarily a 
     ``white collar'' criminal defense practice.I have appeared 
     many times in court before Judge Shedd and found him to be 
     courtcous and fair. He has exhibited great integrity and a 
     strong character while on the bench.
       One of the most difficult cases in which I appeared before 
     Judge Shedd was in United States v. John Earl Duncan (3:99-
     638-001). Dr. Duncan was a practicing attorney who was 
     convicted for perjury. Judge Shedd sentenced him to four 
     months in a federal penitentiary and four months in a 
     community confinement center (halfway house). He fined him 
     $33.386.92. Judge Shedd's decision was a difficult one, but 
     fair. As his counsel, we recognized that Judge shedd would be 
     compelled to sentence Mr. Duncan to an active term of 
     incarceration since he was a practicing attorney who had been 
     convicted of lying to a federal grand jury.
       During the sentencing phase of the Duncan case, judge Shedd 
     was courtrous and patient and listened intently to the many 
     people who spoke on our client's behalf including co-counsel 
     Dale L. DuTremble and me.
       I know of no judge more qualified for the position than 
     Judge Shedd. If you have any questions or if I can be of any 
     further support, please do not hesitate to call.
           Yours very truly,
     E. Bart Daniel.
                                  ____



                                             J. Kershaw Spong,

                                   Columbia, SC, November 4, 2002.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: Please allow this letter to voice my 
     strong support for the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Your 
     support for Judge Shedd's nomination is appreciated, and, as 
     a fellow South Carolinian, I hope you will continue to 
     support him throughout this process.
       Having worked with Judge Shedd in the U.S. Senate, and as a 
     practicing lawyer in South Carolina, I know him to be a 
     person of the highest integrity, professional competence, and 
     judicial temperament. As you may be aware, the ABA, which 
     reviews the nominees, has given Judge Shedd a majority rating 
     of ``well qualified,'' its highest rating.
       I am also concerned about the nominating process. I think 
     many things have been unfairly said about Judge Shedd by 
     outside special interest groups which have little basis in 
     fact. It will become increasingly more difficult to get good 
     and competent attorneys to step forward to serve in the 
     judiciary if they have to go through this highly charged 
     partisan atmosphere.
       I hope for your continued support for this exceptional 
     nominee and ask that you urge the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     to bring this nomination to a vote before the end of 
     Congress. After having to wait well over a year since his 
     nomination, and more than several months since his hearing at 
     the Committee, it is time for Judge Shedd to be confirmed to 
     the Fourth Circuit.
       Thank you for your consideration of my views.
           Sincerely,
     J. Kershaw Spong.
                                  ____



                                   Tompkins and McMaster, LLP,

                                   Columbia, SC, October 31, 2002.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I was extremely disappointed in your 
     recent action denying Judge Dennis Shedd, nominee to the 
     Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a vote on the Committee's 
     October 8th markup. Despite your promises to Senator Strom 
     Thurmond and other members of the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee--and in contravention of Committee rules--you 
     refused to schedule a vote to allow his nomination to proceed 
     to the full Senate.
       It would appear that you are bowing to the demands of 
     outside interest groups who have unfairly characterized Judge 
     Shedd's ruling on the district court. The facts are that he 
     has been reversed in fewer than 1% of the more than 5,000 
     cases he has heard in his twelve years on the district court. 
     After reviewing his record, the ABA rated Judge Shedd ``well-
     qualified,'' its highest rating. You once referred to the ABA 
     rating system as the ``gold standard.'' In addition, Judge 
     Shedd is well-represented by the members of the bench and bar 
     in South Carolina, and has the bipartisan support of Senators 
     Thurmond and Hollings--his home state senators.
       The Senate Judiciary Committee has had nearly a year and a 
     half to review Judge Shedd's record. I urge you to stop 
     delaying a vote on his nomination. Judge Shedd, an 
     exceptional nominee with the bipartisan support, deserves to 
     be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit before the end of this 
     Congress.
       Thank you.
           Yours very truly,
     Henry Dargan McMaster.
                                  ____



                                        STROM LAW FIRM L.L.C.,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senator-South Carolina,
     Washington, DC.
     Re confirmation of the Honorable Dennis Shedd to the United 
         States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
       Dear Senator Hollings: I write to support Judge Shedd's 
     confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fourth Circuit. As a former United States Attorney for the 
     District of South Carolina appointed by President Clinton, my 
     office had daily dealings with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a 
     fair and efficient jurist who even-handedly applied 
     substantive and procedural rules. On occasions when my office 
     disagreed with Judge Shedd's rulings, I found that he always 
     provided well-reasoned analysis for his decisions. Further, 
     when the rules provided for discretion in sentencing for 
     cooperation with federal agents in the prosecution of crime, 
     Judge Shedd deliberated and provided substantial sentence 
     reductions when warranted.
       Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have 
     practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants 
     and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have 
     represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and 
     found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my 
     clients, regardless of race.
       As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina 
     Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of 
     Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes 
     civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to 
     engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a 
     judge.
       From my many years of practice before Judge Shedd, I can 
     say that one admirable characteristic stands above all. 
     Diligence. Each time I have appeared before Judge Shedd, it 
     is clear that Judge Shedd has examined the entire case file 
     and performed the requisite research necessary to frame the 
     issues. For attorneys who vigorously represent their clients 
     at every stage of the criminal and civil processes, a hard 
     working judge is much appreciated. It is Judge Shedd's 
     diligence in examining each case on its facts and the 
     supporting law that makes him an excellent candidate for 
     appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fourth Circuit.
       If you or anyone on your staff has questions, please 
     contact me.
       With regards, I am
           Very truly yours,
                                             J. Preston Strom, Jr.

[[Page S11522]]

     
                                  ____
                                    Law Office of Jonathan Harvey,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                    Columbia, SC, October 1, 2002.
     Re Nomination of the Honorable Dennis Shedd.

     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: I am taking the liberty of 
     contacting your office on behalf of Judge Shedd.
       I had heretofore been grateful for the bipartisan support 
     of our senators and until recently thought that protocol 
     would suffice to ensure his nomination.
       However, recent developments concerning his nomination have 
     compelled me to contact you to provide a recommendation based 
     upon a hands on perspective.
       I am writing to express my support for his nomination. I am 
     the current treasurer of the South Carolina Association of 
     Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its board as well as 
     past representative to its Board of Directors from the Fifth 
     Judicial Circuit. As I am sure you know, the Fifth Judicial 
     Circuit encompasses Richland County and Columbia. My practice 
     is focused in the Midlands. I have had many opportunities to 
     appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have left each proceeding 
     convinced that my clients irrespective of social status, 
     creed, gender, or race were treated fairly and with a proper 
     application of the law.
       I trust this letter will enable you to inform your 
     colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge 
     Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward 
     those parties who have appeared before him.
       I am grateful and appreciative of the support you have 
     shown for his nomination and hope that my comments and 
     insight will prove to be beneficial on his behalf.
       Our State is fortunate to have been able to count on you as 
     a steward for its interests and I thank you for your tireless 
     efforts on behalf of our Country and State.
           Yours truly,
     Jonathan Harvey.
                                  ____



                                    Simmons & Griffin, L.L.C.,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Re Judge Dennis W. Shedd.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I am a former United States Attorney 
     who now practices law in Columbia, South Carolina. Prior to 
     entering government service and private practice, I served as 
     a law clerk on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Over the past twelve years, I have had the opportunity to 
     appear before Judge Dennis Shedd in criminal cases as both a 
     prosecutor and defense attorney. In addition, I have handled 
     numerous civil cases before Judge Shedd as a representative 
     of the plaintiff and defense.
       In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found 
     him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest 
     integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and 
     litigants with the utmost respect.
       In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual 
     non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated 
     with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and 
     difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my 
     client's identity while affording all litigants their 
     adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the 
     thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my 
     client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the 
     parties.
       I respectfully write in support of Judge Shedd's 
     confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fourth Circuit.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
       With kind regards, I remain,
           Sincerely,
     John S. Simmons.
                                  ____



                                  Hammer Hammer & Potterfield,

                                  Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
     Hon. Ernest Hollings,
     Russell Senate Office Buildings,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings I am writing regarding consideration 
     of United States District Judge Dennis Shedd for a position 
     on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you know, I have 
     been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over thirty 
     (30) years. My practice primarily involves representation of 
     plaintiffs in civil litigation, including representation of 
     numerous individuals in employment disputes.
       I have known Judge Shedd for over twelve (12) years. I have 
     found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in all of 
     my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity and I 
     would respectfully urge your support of his confirmation.
       With kind regards, I remain,
           Very truly yours,
                                              HOWARD HAMMER, P.A.,
                                     HAMMER, HAMMER & POTTERFIELD.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any Senator requesting time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Dennis W. Shedd, of South Carolina, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit? The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Barkley
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is laid on the table. The President shall be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________