[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22932-22935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF DENNIS SHEDD

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in his absence, I want to share some 
thoughts I have about Judge Dennis Shedd, who has been nominated for 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd is a superb nominee. 
He served 12 years on the Federal bench as a Federal district trial 
judge, hearing some 5,000 cases. He was rated by the American Bar 
Association, which goes around and interviews fellow judges, State 
court judges, and lawyers on both sides of cases. They get their 
opinions about how the judge has performed and they issue an 
independent rating.
  We conservatives have sometimes complained about their ratings, 
saying they tend to be more favorable to more liberal-type judges. But 
in this case, they rated Judge Shedd the highest possible rating, well-
qualified. They have about a 15-member committee that actually votes on 
all the paperwork that has been put together, and the ABA investigation 
is quite a deal.
  Frankly, I believe it is very valuable to this process. I always 
have. I was talking recently to Senator-elect Lindsey Graham from South 
Carolina, who will be replacing Senator Thurmond. We were talking about 
Dennis Shedd. Lindsey has been a practicing attorney for many years and 
had been in court a lot. What he said to me was exactly the way I feel 
about these things. He said: You know, when a person has been on the 
bench 12 years, everybody knows whether they are any good or not. In a 
State like South Carolina, there are not that many Federal judges. 
Lawyers go into their courts all the time. The fact is, after a few 
years, everybody knows whether they are any good or not. These lawyers 
support Judge Shedd. The American Bar Association has supported Judge 
Shedd.
  I have looked at some of the complaints that have been made about his 
record. I find them not only wrong, but in fact he should have been 
commended for the rulings he has made. I would like to share a few 
thoughts on that.
  One is that he has served the Judicial Conference of the United 
States during his tenure, 12 years as a Federal judge, serving on the 
Judicial Branch Committee and the Subcommittee on Judicial 
Independence. It is a mark of respect for a trial judge in the United 
States to be chosen to serve on key committees of the Judicial 
Conference. Most judges are not on these committees.
  From 1978 through 1988, he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
staff in this body. He is known by many of the Senators. He served as 
chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee for 
Senator Strom Thurmond. According to the Almanac of Federal Judiciary, 
the attorneys rate judges and make comments about judges. You go before 
a judge and want to know something about them. Lawyers have books on 
them. This is what they say about him. They say he has outstanding 
legal skills and excellent judicial temperament. A few comments from 
South Carolinians were included: ``You are not going to find a better 
judge on the bench or one who works harder.'' ``He is the best Federal 
judge we have,'' said one attorney. ``He gets an A all around,'' said 
another. ``It is a great experience trying cases before him,'' said an 
attorney.
  I like that. I tried a lot of cases and some cases you go to trial 
before a judge and it is miserable. A good judge can make the practice 
of law a pleasure.
  ``He is bright in business,'' said another. Everyone knows that is 
true. Plaintiff lawyers who seem to be stirring this opposition up have 
commended him for being evenhanded. ``He has always been fair.'' 
Another plaintiffs lawyer says: ``I have no complaints about him. He is 
nothing if not fair.''
  Judge Shedd will bring experience to the bench, having tried 4,000 to 
5,000 cases as a district judge. That will be more trial experience 
than any of the other Federal judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Trial experience is the crucible for training an appellate 
judge. Some can do well without it.
  As a practicing lawyer trying cases in Federal court full time as a 
U.S. attorney, and in private practice, as an assistant U.S. attorney, 
I understand Federal judges. I respect Federal judges. I know they 
learn from that trial bench. That will help them better when they read 
a written record to see if a judge made a mistake or not. Trial 
experience is helpful.
  They say this is some sort of a circuit that is too conservative. I 
don't believe this circuit is at all that way. I note the last five 
judges appointed to the Fourth Circuit have been Democrats. Some people 
have forgotten what President Bush did. Judge Gregory, who had been 
nominated for the circuit and who was not confirmed by this Senate 
before President Clinton left office was renominated. President Bush, 
in extending his hand of bipartisanship, reached out and took this 
African-American jurist and renominated him to the court as an act of 
bipartisanship. Judge Gregory was a Democrat, a Clinton nominee, and 
had not been confirmed. President Bush, shortly after he took office, 
renominated him. Of course, he was confirmed just like that.
  The other judges who were nominated at the same time have not moved 
so well.
  But there are 11 cases that Judge Shedd has ruled on that have been 
reviewed by Judge Gregory. He has affirmed all 11 of them. It is unfair 
to suggest this is somehow a radical judge who is out of step. One 
case, Crosby v. South Carolina Department of Health, has been raised, 
that somehow he made a bad decision on that case. I don't think he did. 
But regardless of that, people could have a different opinion. That was 
one of the cases that went to Judge Gregory, President Clinton's 
nominee. Many members of the Democratic Party were most aggrieved he 
had not been confirmed by the time President Clinton left office. Judge 
Gregory agreed with Judge Shedd. He affirmed Judge Shedd's opinion.
  That is just typical. Do 5,000 cases and somebody will find something 
with which to disagree. But, as Lindsey Graham said: Judges have 
reputations. And to me that means a lot. And this judge, through this 
career and background, has a good reputation of capability, experience, 
honesty, and a superb demeanor, making it a pleasure to practice before 
him.
  I just want to say this. I attended the hearings in which Judge Shedd 
testified, and he was there as long as they wanted him to testify. They 
submitted all these questions to him, demanding that he explain 
everything he has ever done. And I heard the complaints, and I read the 
complaints. I am just going to tell you: They do not hold up.
  He was criticized for doing the right thing. He didn't do wrong 
things. He was written up in those reports put out by special interest 
advocacy groups,

[[Page 22933]]

the ones Senator Hatch calls the usual suspects, and they have abused 
him and twisted his rulings. I am going to go through a few of them, 
and we are going to talk about them. It ought to be an embarrassment 
for any group to have submitted the smear sheets they submitted when 
allegation after allegation just gets knocked down.
  But how does it work around here? Unfortunately these attack groups 
file these sheets, and they make these allegations, and the press picks 
them up. By the time somebody gets the case and reads it and shows it 
is not true, they don't get nearly as much attention. The allegations 
get the attention first. It is really sad. I have watched this for many 
years. This is an absolute pattern.
  Judge Shedd has a very low reversal rate by the court of appeals for 
the thousands of cases he has handled. But I will tell you one thing: 
If these advocacy groups, these usual suspects, if their smear sheets 
were brought out in the light of day and they were graded on them, they 
would get a big fat F. It would come back off that court of appeals 
like a rubber ball off that wall.
  I am amazed that someone we know, who has such a sound record, who 
has served as a staffer in this Senate, has been put in the kind of 
grinder he has. Not one of the allegations, once you look at them in 
the slightest way, would serve as the basis for rejecting this superior 
judge.
  One of the things they said--and it was repeated earlier on the floor 
today--was that the judge acted sua sponte to throw out cases against 
plaintiffs. Oh, this is awful, they say. Sua sponte meaning he acts on 
his own motion, meaning without anybody having filed a motion. And this 
means he is anti-plaintiff.
  Have these people never been to court? They don't know what happens? 
You can tell one thing, I submit. They scoured his record. If they are 
digging up this kind of stuff, they have looked at everything he has 
ever done. So if they found anything of real substance, we would have 
heard about it.
  Let's look at these sua sponte rulings that are supposed to be so bad 
and represent a view that he is hostile to plaintiffs.
  One of them is Coker v. Wal-Mart. In that case, the defendant removed 
the case--Wal-Mart has the right, within certain rules and procedures, 
to remove the case to Federal court from State court. Judge Shedd, sua 
sponte, questioned whether the removal was appropriate as it appeared 
the motion for removal had been filed outside the 30-day time 
limitation established by 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). There was a time 
limitation. If you are sued in State court and you want to remove it 
out of State court, you have a time limitation to do so. Doubting 
whether he had the authority to remand the case sua sponte, Judge Shedd 
stated he would permit the defendant to file a brief addressing whether 
removal was timely and whether the court had the authority to remain. 
He had a duty to raise the issue of removal because it was 
jurisdictional. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The 
general courts of jurisdiction are our State courts. Federal courts 
have limited jurisdiction. So a good judge, the first thing he does is 
looks at a case that comes before him and he wants to know whether or 
not it even ought to be in Federal court, and that is all he was 
saying.
  He is saying: I looked at the case here, counsel, and it looks like 
it is outside the 30 days. Send me a brief on why I ought not to remand 
it back to State court. You waited too long to bring it to Federal 
court. All he asked for was a brief on the law. So that is what Federal 
judges are supposed to do.
  Here is another one. Gilmore v. Ford is a product liability case. 
Judge Shedd sanctioned the plaintiff for failure to prosecute the case 
by dismissing the case. He dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. 
He evaluated that decision and tested it by each of the factors 
established by the Fourth Circuit in Ballard v. Carson, a 1989 case. 
Indeed, the plaintiff failed to respond to this motion to dismiss and 
for failure to prosecute, after earlier failing to respond to the 
defendant's motion to compel discovery.
  You are not entitled to go to court and file lawsuits and continue 
lawsuits if you don't abide by the rules of the court. If you don't 
answer discovery, and if the judge sends you a warning that, I am going 
to dismiss the case and we are going to have a hearing, and you fail to 
respond--and the plaintiff doesn't even respond to that motion--the 
judge did the right thing, which was, remove the case from the court. 
That is not something he did wrong, it is something he did right.
  Here is another one: Lowery v. Seamless Sensations. The defendant 
raised the defense that the plaintiff failed to file a timely charge of 
discrimination with the EEOC--this is a defendant being sued over a 
discrimination charge--and he defended, saying the plaintiff did not 
file as required by law with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, the Federal agency that is supposed to deal with that; and 
he failed to file a timely lawsuit and the jurisdictional prerequisites 
to any Federal court action since that defense called into question the 
court's subject matter jurisdiction.
  The court has no authority and jurisdiction over the case if the 
plaintiff hadn't filed his claim and had a hearing before the EEOC.
  So the judge expedited consideration of those offenses as it would 
have served no purpose to proceed to the merits of a case in which 
there is no jurisdiction.
  So you have to figure that out first. If the court does not have 
jurisdiction, it should not consider the case.
  To expedite consideration of the issues, he ordered the defendant to 
file a motion to dismiss based on the defenses and that the motion be 
filed with the judge. Ultimately, the defendant was granted summary 
judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish a prima 
facie case. So it appears the motion to dismiss was not eventually 
granted. But the case failed on other motions.
  Let me just say this. I am a lawyer. I love to practice law. I 
believe in the rule of law. I believe in the right of people to go to 
court and to litigate. But there is a growing concern in this country 
about the expense and delay and time extensions of litigation. It is 
costing large amounts of money. Lawyers--maybe a half dozen of them--
are charging $200 an hour fiddling around with a case. One of the good 
government reforms that virtually every judge I know of who amounts to 
anything has bought into it. If the case fails on jurisdiction or has 
some other defect, it ought to be promptly ruled on and ended. We ought 
not to have six months of depositions and expenses when the case never 
had a basis to go to trial, anyway.
  So that is what Judge Shedd was doing here. He was simply carrying 
out good government and a good legal basis. If you do not meet the 
standard for jurisdiction, you don't go to Federal court, and the 
clients don't expend thousands and thousands of dollars eaten up by 
lawyers and end up later with the case being thrown out when it should 
have been thrown out to begin with.
  In McCarter v. RHNB, an age and sex discrimination case, Judge Shedd 
initially granted summary judgment--this has been complained of right 
here on the floor today--on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable 
to provide any evidence of age and sex discrimination.
  Following the entry of that judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion to 
alter or amend that judgment since it was based on grounds not raised, 
it was asserted, in the defendant's motion. The judge reconsidered it.
  Judge Shedd reconsidered his order, agreed with the plaintiff, and 
reinstated the motion. He wrote:

       Although the Court believes that the defendant's motion for 
     summary judgment and supporting memorandum may be fairly read 
     as raising the issue upon which the motion was granted, the 
     Court will nevertheless give the plaintiff the benefit of the 
     doubt and grant the motion to alter or to amend and deny 
     defendant's motion for summary judgment.

  So he says right there that he was going to give the plaintiff the 
benefit of the doubt and allow the case to continue.

[[Page 22934]]

  That is what a good judge does. He rules. If somebody shows he has 
made a mistake, or it is doubtful, he may reconsider his ruling.
  That, to me, shows again good behavior, that he is thoughtful; that 
if someone raises something he didn't fully understand, he will 
reconsider his decision and go forward.
  In Shults v. Denny's Restaurant, a disabilities and slander case, 
Judge Shedd sua sponte considered summary judgment, and ordered the 
plaintiff to file a memorandum in opposition to the court's motion for 
summary judgment.
  This action by Judge Shedd was again based on jurisdictional defenses 
raised in the defendant's answer. The allegation was that the plaintiff 
had failed to file within the 2-year statute of limitations, and he had 
failed to exhaust administrative equal opportunity commission review 
procedures.
  In the order requesting the plaintiff to file a memorandum, Judge 
Shedd wrote that:

       . . . although the express language of Rule 56 provides 
     only for the parties to move for summary judgment, Federal 
     district judges possess the inherent power to raise sua 
     sponte an issue for possible resolution by summary judgment.

  He cited appropriate authority of the United States Supreme Court in 
Celotex Corporation v. Catrett.
  That is absolutely the law of America. If a judge spots something 
that goes to the very nature of the jurisdiction, he can assert a 
summary judgment motion and ask the plaintiff to respond.
  This is really not adversarial. Some people in this country think 
that judges decide cases on the length of their foot; that they decide 
cases on how they feel that day; or they look at the plaintiff and they 
look at the defendant, they don't like Celotex, but they like the 
plaintiff, and so they rule for them.
  That is not what happens in America. We have rules, and judges follow 
the rules. They get the case to the jury, and the jury decides it, or 
the lawyers settle.
  I would point out that he acted within the law, and he raised those 
two fundamental questions. They were simple but very important. Had the 
2-year statute of limitations been violated? If it had, the case cannot 
be brought. Had they failed to seek the EEOC review required by the 
procedures? If so, the case could not be brought.
  The sooner that is determined, the better off everybody is going to 
be.
  Simmons v. Coastal Contractors was a discrimination and retaliation-
in-employment case in which both parties were pro se.
  Both parties, the plaintiff and defendant, were representing 
themselves; that is, both had fools for clients, as they say.
  Judge Shedd sua sponte brought the parties before the court. 
Traditionally you would not do this, perhaps. But he knew he had two 
nonlawyers. He ordered the plaintiff to cure specific deficiencies in 
his complaint or face dismissal.
  The decision really was an attempt to aid the plaintiff in properly 
drafting his complaint and should not be viewed as anti-plaintiff, 
given the pro se nature of both parties.
  Basically he said, Plaintiff, you cannot recover. If you recover on 
this complaint, the court of appeals will throw it out. You have to 
amend your complaint and file it in the right fashion.
  I think that is an advantage to the plaintiff. That was helping the 
plaintiff.
  Yet, these groups--these attack organizations argue that Judge Shedd 
in his rulings show hostility to the plaintiffs before him.
  That is one of the examples they cite.
  Smith v. Beck was a section 1983 gender discrimination case in which 
several women alleged discrimination when they were not admitted 
without male escorts to a nightclub featuring nude female dancers.
  Judge Shedd sua sponte questioned whether the plaintiffs' allegations 
sufficed to establish the defendant's private club's actions were under 
color of State law.
  It is a complex legal question. He raised that on his own. He says if 
it is not under color of State law, this is a private club, and you 
can't recover.
  So the question dealt with whether or not merely operating an 
establishment that has a liquor license does or does not transform the 
club into a State action. After consideration of the brief, he 
concluded that merely holding a liquor license does not make it a State 
action when they said you couldn't have in the strip club women coming 
in without male escorts.
  We do have some interesting cases in Federal court, as you can well 
see.
  I think that was a correct ruling, and apparently was not appealed 
and not reversed.
  Should he have allowed that case to go on? Should he allow 
depositions to be taken for months? Should he allow expenses to be run 
up? Insurance companies pay, people say. Well, you know, there is 
nothing wrong with that. The insurance company is going to pay the 
lawyer. Who pays the insurance companies? We pay the insurance 
companies. It is a cost of doing business in America. There is no free 
lunch and there is no free legal work in America. Somebody pays.
  In Tessman v. Island Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., this Title VII 
action, Judge Shedd sua sponte challenged the court's subject matter 
jurisdiction given the plaintiff's apparent failure to allege she had 
first presented her claim to the EEOC and received a right-to-sue 
letter.
  The way this works, as I understand it, if you have a complaint about 
discrimination in the workforce, you have to go and file your complaint 
with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. When you do that, 
they evaluate it, and you can settle it at that stage. Businesses, 
recognizing they made a mistake or many times the complaint is shown to 
be worthless, and it is settled right there, and it ends right there.
  But if the complaint is valid, and if the business or defendant does 
not respond to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff can ask 
the EEOC to give them a right-to-sue letter. That allows them to get 
their attorney to sue the defendant and take it to Federal court, to 
make a Federal case out of it.
  So the judge ordered the case dismissed unless the plaintiff could 
show cause why that action should not be taken. I think that is what a 
judge should do. That is the way he ought to rule. When you have 5,000 
cases, and you go through these, I am not aware that any of them have 
been reversed on appeal. And I think it is the right thing.
  On the right of a judge to issue sua sponte actions, this is the law 
of the United States. This is a Supreme Court case, the authoritative 
decision on the matter issued in 1986. The Supreme Court said:

       [D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the 
     power to enter summary judgment sua sponte, so long as the 
     losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with 
     all of her evidence.

  In each of these cases, the judge told the other party that was in 
trouble their complaint was being questioned for jurisdiction matters, 
that they had an opportunity to file a brief, and any other evidence as 
to why the case ought not to be dismissed. And that is the right way to 
handle it.
  The ninth circuit--this California circuit that strikes down the 
Pledge of Allegiance--has declared:

       District courts unquestionably have the power [to grant 
     summary judgment sua sponte].

  That was in 1995.
  The fourth circuit, of which District Court Judge Shedd is a part, 
ruled:

       It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts 
     of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only the 
     authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and 
     affirmatively granted by federal statute.

  Many Federal judges forget that, but that is the law of this country. 
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and they are empowered by the 
Constitution and Federal statutes to do certain things, and only those 
things.
  Continuing to quote the court:

       A primary incident of that precept is our duty to inquire, 
     sue sponte, whether a valid basis for jurisdiction exists, 
     and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.


[[Page 22935]]


  The fourth circuit further said:

       We have long held that receipt of, or at least entitlement 
     to, a right-to-sue letter is a jurisdictional prerequisite 
     that must be alleged in a plaintiff's complaint. Thus, where 
     neither the complaint nor the amended complaint alleges that 
     the plaintiff has complied with these prerequisites, the 
     plaintiff has not properly invoked the court's jurisdiction 
     under Title VII.

  So in each of the cases I have cited, and those that have been 
complained of by these scurrilous attack groups, Judge Shedd acted sua 
sponte, but he provided proper notice and an opportunity to the 
plaintiff to respond, as the law requires.
  None of these cases were reversed on appeal. Trust me, had they been 
in error, it would have been taken up and been reversed. I think this 
court is a great circuit.
  Several years ago, we had hearings to address the caseloads of the 
federal courts. Senator Grassley as chairman of the Courts Subcommittee 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, called the 
hearings. He had the chief judge of the fourth circuit appear and talk 
about his caseload. They have one of the highest caseloads in America. 
Actually, not one of the highest, I think their caseload, per circuit, 
based on the cases per circuit for judges, was the highest in America. 
They had worked extremely hard, and they had a good procedure for 
managing their cases. It was really a good example for the rest of the 
courts around the country.
  So I think this allegation--that this circuit is out of line--is 
something not healthy about the fourth circuit. It is just wrong. It is 
a great circuit, doing superb work, and the taxpayers are benefitting 
from it greatly.
  There have been suggestions, although not anything of substance 
really, but allegations that somehow Judge Shedd is a white Southern 
male, and he is insensitive on the matters of race. Those are serious 
matters. I think if somebody had something to say about that, they 
would come forward, and we would see it, and we would know about it. 
But vague allegations of that kind are not good.
  We ought to take very seriously any thought that someone would have 
acted without a commitment to equal justice. That would be wrong, and 
they ought not be on the Federal bench if they do not treat people 
equally.
  I would like to say, his record shows just the opposite. One of the 
things that Judge Shedd did as a district judge--and district judges 
play a significant role in the hiring of United States magistrates, who 
make about $1,000 less than they do per year. They do not have quite 
the lifetime appointment, but it is a good appointment. And magistrate 
judge positions are becoming highly sought after. A lot of good 
applications are made. There are a lot of superb lawyers who are acting 
as United States magistrate judges in America.
  He led the effort in his district to recruit an African-American 
magistrate for that district, Margaret Seymour. She did a fine job as 
that magistrate. Later on, President Clinton, a Democratic President, 
appointed her to the Federal bench in that district. Margaret Seymour 
is now a sitting Federal district judge. One of the main reasons that 
occurred is because, years before, Judge Shedd had gone out and sought 
her, and worked to have her selected as that United States Federal 
magistrate.
  He has worked actively to seek out minority and female candidates for 
other magistrate judge positions, and has directed the selection 
commission in South Carolina to consider diversity in selecting 
candidates for those positions.
  In addition, he has recommended an African-American female to serve 
as chief of the Pretrial Services Division in that district. Pretrial 
Services handles all the arrest matters involving defendants who are 
arrested: whether or not they should be allowed bail, whether they are 
on drugs, whether they ought to be locked up, how they ought to be 
treated, supervising them pretrial if they are released on bail. They 
do a lot of work. It is a pretty big deal. For the State of South 
Carolina, with one district, that is a big appointment. I just point 
those things out. His critics didn't raise those issues.
  Judge Shedd has bipartisan support from both his home State Senators. 
Of course, Senator Thurmond admires Judge Shedd immensely. He has 
observed his career for many years. He has observed with great pleasure 
Judge Shedd's success on the bench. And he is extremely proud, as he 
nears 100 years of age, about to complete the longest term any Senator 
has ever served in this body, that his former chief counsel, when he 
was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now in a position to 
be elevated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is not too 
much to ask, I submit. It is the kind of thing we ought not to deny 
unless there is a real basis to do so.
  He has both the support of Senator Thurmond and Senator Fritz 
Hollings from South Carolina. Before coming to this body, Senator 
Hollings was a real lawyer, a real litigator, a plaintiff's lawyer, a 
former national president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. He 
gives no quarter in protecting the rights of plaintiffs on this floor.
  When somebody complained one time about the plaintiffs trial lawyers 
getting so much money in these tobacco cases, he said they did so much 
good, as far as he was concerned, they could have more. He supports 
Judge Shedd. He and his friends in the Trial Lawyers Association--and I 
am sure he shares confidences with them--have agreed that this is a 
good nomination.
  I don't understand where we are with this problem. Judge Shedd has 
been completely forthcoming with the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
requests, many of them, for information.
  Earlier this year Judge Shedd sent nearly 1,000 unpublished opinions 
for review immediately after Chairman Leahy requested them. They wanted 
to plow through all his cases, the unpublished opinions, thinking they 
might find a nugget there. Apparently they haven't because they haven't 
raised any of them. We would be hearing about it. They would be blown 
up in charts.
  He continued to provide additional unpublished opinions as well as 
other information the committee has requested regarding his rulings, 
opinions, and judicial record generally. He has been absolutely 
forthcoming.
  Finally, I will just repeat, how do you know about all this? You hear 
these things and some person says this and some person says that, and 
what do you believe?
  The Democrats have tenaciously adhered to the view that the ABA 
rating is the gold standard, Democrats on our committee. They really 
insisted on that and placed the ABA review at the center of our 
confirmation process. Of course, it is an unofficial thing. It is 
nothing in the official process, but they have asserted it as the gold 
standard for determining whether or not a judge should be confirmed. 
This gold standard review process has been conducted by the American 
Bar Association. Their team of lawyers and investigators have talked to 
all the people down there who have practiced before his court. They 
talked to civil rights groups. They talked to plaintiffs lawyers. They 
talked to defense lawyers. They talked to the community and fellow 
judges. They have come back with the highest possible rating they 
give--well qualified--for Judge Shedd.
  He absolutely is well qualified for this office. He ought to be 
confirmed. It was a real disappointment to me to see a number of 
Senators in committee suggest that they might not be for him or were 
not for him, even though we never had an official roll call vote. I 
don't see where they are coming from.
  This is a man we know. This is a man with a record of integrity, 
judgment, good demeanor, experienced now to a large degree, the kind of 
capabilities that make for a great judge.
  He is going to be a great judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. I am proud to support him. I believe the complaints against 
him are baseless and that he should be confirmed.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________