[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 602-604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, JR.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination to 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a 
distinguished jurist from New Jersey, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., 
which seems to be blocked by some people in this Chamber yet unknown. I 
know it is not from my side of the aisle because I have checked. So it 
is on the Republican side of the aisle. Yet Judge Greenaway fully 
embodies the respect for justice and the rule of law that we demand of 
all of our judges. He has strong bipartisan support, and his nomination 
could easily have been taken care of this evening but for a few 
Republicans blocking the vote.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: End the 
obstructionism. Do what is right. Let us have a vote on this eminently 
qualified, noncontroversial nominee. It is clear the obstruction of 
this nomination is not about this nominee. He is eminently qualified. I 
will talk about that in a moment. And it is not about what is right for 
this Nation. It certainly is not about acting in the best interests of 
a badly overburdened Federal judicial system. In fact, oddly enough, it 
is not about ideology. It is not even about Judge Greenaway or the 
other seven nominees whom our friends are delaying. It is about the 
politics of having

[[Page 603]]

this President and this Congress fail, the politics of no, the politics 
of obstruction, of stopping any progress on any issue and almost every 
nominee. Our friends on the other side came to the floor in the last 
administration, the administration of President Bush, on countless 
occasions to argue for an up-or-down vote. I heard that many times: 
``Give us an up-or-down vote,'' demanding that a simple majority of the 
President's nominees is all that is needed--a simple majority of this 
Chamber. That is a position diametrically opposed to their position 
today. In fact, they went so far at that time to proclaim that 
filibusters of the President's nominations were unconstitutional, and 
they threatened what became known then as the nuclear option--to undo 
the right of Senators to filibuster a nominee. Well, which is it? What 
do my friends on the other side believe is right or is the question: 
What do they believe will work? Where is the call for an up-or-down 
vote now from our Republican colleagues? Where is the argument on the 
unconstitutionality of filibusters now? You can't have it both ways.
  We can agree to disagree on some nominees on principle, and we have 
over the years. But the numbers this year belie any notion that the 
obstruction of Judge Greenaway and all the pending nominees is purely a 
matter of principle. In this past year, our Republican colleagues have 
obstructed virtually all the President's nominees, confirming only 12 
Federal circuit and district court nominees, the lowest number in a 
half century. Let me repeat that: the lowest number in a half century. 
Contrast that to the 100 judicial nominees confirmed in the 17 months 
Chairman Leahy chaired the Judiciary Committee during the Bush 
administration.
  As Chairman Leahy has pointed out on this floor, in December of 2001, 
the first year of George W. Bush's administration, Senate Democrats 
confirmed 10 of President Bush's nominees in December alone, leaving 
only 4 nominations on the calendar--in the first year. All four of 
those nominees were confirmed soon after the Senate returned the 
following year, in 2002. In stark contrast, this past December, our 
Republican colleagues left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action 
and insisted on returning 2 of them to the President for renomination.
  So I urge my colleagues to reconsider, to end this obstructionism, 
and allow this body to exercise its constitutional authority of advice 
and consent and confirm the nomination of Joseph A. Greenaway to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is eminently qualified 
and deserves consideration.
  Let me close on that. At the age of 40, Justice Greenaway was 
appointed by then-President Clinton to the Federal bench, where he 
served for over a dozen years with distinction. By the way, he got put 
through by unanimous consent. It wasn't even--it was by unanimous 
consent of the Chamber when he was put on the Federal bench. He went 
through unanimously, out of the Judiciary Committee, for this position 
on the appellate division--unanimously out of the committee.
  Joe Greenaway earned a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University, 
where he was honored in 1997 with the Columbia University Medal of 
Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003. He was an Earl Warren 
Legal Scholar at Harvard University. He clerked for the late Honorable 
Vincent L. Broderick in the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of New York. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark 
and later received a promotion to become chief of the Narcotics Bureau. 
In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, 
Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel and served at Johnson & Johnson as 
in-house counsel. He has an incredible background. He is chair emeritus 
of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and has been an adjunct 
professor at Rutgers Law School.
  Currently, he is an adjunct professor at the Cordozo School of Law 
and at Columbia College, where he teaches courses on trial practice and 
a seminar on the Supreme Court.
  But this is merely Judge Greenaway's impressive resume in one way--a 
distinguished resume to say the least--but it does not do justice to 
the man. There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance to the 
Department of Justice a few blocks from here. It reads: ``Justice in 
the life and conduct of the State is possible only as it first resides 
in the hearts and souls of men.''
  The two qualities of justice do indeed reside in the heart and soul 
of Joe Greenaway, and he deserves a vote.
  He grew up in Harlem in the northeast Bronx. He is accomplished and 
successful, but he has always given much back. He has been instrumental 
in mentoring students and graduates, often taking them under his wing 
as law clerks or fellows. He once said:

       I tell my students to work hard and work smart. Our 
     profession requires a drive to search for perfection; without 
     that goal mediocrity becomes the norm.

  He has always strived for excellence. He has always taught young 
lawyers to do the same.
  So Judge Joseph Greenaway respects the law. For all that Judge 
Greenaway stands for--for justice served; for honor and decency; for 
the qualities and qualifications that have brought him to this place in 
his career; for his years of service and his judicial temperament; for 
his respect for the Constitution and precedent; for the fact that 
justice does, indeed, reside in the heart and soul of this man; for the 
fact that, in fact, he was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee and previously, to become a district court judge, had the 
unanimous consent of this body--somehow, despite all that history and 
all that qualification, there are colleagues on the Republican side of 
the aisle holding up this nominee.
  I urge my colleagues to end the obstructionism and to give us a vote 
up or down. I know when we get that vote, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway 
will be confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I 
will continue to come to the floor to dramatize this challenge. We 
cannot have a set of circumstances under which the judiciary labors, 
especially with eminently qualified, bipartisan candidates, because 
there are those who want to see this President or this Congress fail. 
It is about the Nation not failing. It is about our judicial system not 
failing. It is not about the politics of obstructionism.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I commented a few moments ago, I 
thanked Senator Casey for the comments he made about my 10,000th vote 
and said that I would be speaking at the conclusion. But I yielded to 
the Senator from New Jersey because my speech will be somewhat longer, 
and Senator Lautenberg has now come to the floor. I don't want to keep 
him for a lengthy speech, so I would be glad to yield--if I may inquire 
as to how long the Senator from New Jersey will take.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would say about 10 minutes. Ten 
minutes would be more than adequate.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey. I had called 
some family, to be very personal about it--my wife, sister, aunt--and I 
don't want them to think I am not going to speak, but for 10 minutes I 
will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him for having cast 10,000 votes. We 
all know Senator Specter so well, and we know that 10,000 votes cast by 
him represents 10,000 thoughtful decisions. He is a lawyer of 
distinction. He came to the Senate and was accorded respect for his 
views. We have often listened to debates where Senator Specter 
participated and his views were always respected by others and carried 
much weight. He and I have gotten along over the years very well. I was 
pleased to see him have the courage to switch parties because of his 
beliefs in how this body ought to function, and we congratulate him for 
that as well. The only disagreement we have is whether the Philadelphia 
football team, the Eagles, is more loved by people in the

[[Page 604]]

southern part of our State, New Jersey, or whether their loyalty is 
better appreciated by those from Pennsylvania. It depends, with me, on 
what their record is. I am sorry, excuse me.
  But it is a pleasure to serve with Senator Specter. I am somewhat 
behind him for the number of votes cast, but it is easy and 
particularly when I am asked: Well, what was the vote 8,003 that you 
cast? I say: Well, I will have to check the Record. Thousands of votes 
are a lot of votes. They require a lot of decisionmaking. Once again, I 
congratulate Senator Specter for his good decisionmaking.

                          ____________________