CFFJ Calls on Byrd to Apologize for Outrageous Remarks

March 03, 2005

Compares Senate Republican Efforts to Halt Unconstitutional Obstruction of
Judicial Nominees to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany



(Washington, DC) The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary today called on the United States Senator Robert Byrd to apologize for his outrageous statements in a speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate in which he compared Senate Republican efforts to confirm judicial nominees with a simple majority vote rather than the unconstitutional supermajority imposed by a minority of Senators, to Hitler's Nazi Germany.

"The Anti-Defamation League has condemned in the strongest terms possible the insensitive language used by Senator Byrd and we could not agree more," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. "Given the Senator's past affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and his numerous attempts to change Senate rules in the past, the hypocrisy of his rant on the Senate floor is stunning."
Specifically, the statement released yesterday by the Anti-Defamation League read as follows:

Contact: Myrna Shinbaum, Todd Gutnick, both of the Anti-Defamation League
NEW YORK, March 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage at the remarks of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who suggested that some Republican tactics on judicial nominations were similar to Adolf Hitler's use of power in Nazi Germany. In remarks on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Byrd compared a Senate rule cutting off debate on nominations to Hitler's use of constitutional means to push legislation through the German Reichstag at the start of the Nazi era.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
"It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The Senator shows a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented.

Senator Byrd must repudiate his remarks immediately and apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process."

"Senator Byrd is no stranger to Senate rules changes," said Daly. "It would appear, however, that he is in favor of changing the rules only when it suits his immediate political goals. To stand on the Senate floor and denounce Republicans in the most crude, despicable terms for actions he once supported and even led the charge on is the height of hypocrisy."


From the office of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

On January 15, 1979, Senator Byrd said, "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. . . . . The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . .. So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote."

In fact, Sen. Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:

In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating:
"I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order." That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.

In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills - notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.

In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to "deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed" to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38.

In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what - even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.

# # #

The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary (www.fairjudiciary.com) is a 501(C)4 organization comprised of more than 75 grassroots organizations dedicated to supporting qualified, capable federal judicial nominees who are committed to fair and accurate interpretation of existing law. Judicial activism, characterized by rulings that create law rather than apply the law, has had a detrimental impact on American society and commerce. We seek to support federal judicial nominees who, in the words of Socrates, will "hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially."