Senator Risks Party's Future in Supreme Court Hearings
July 11th, 2009Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, little known to the country, will lead the charge against Obama’s Hispanic nominee, Sonia Sotomayor of New York
Editor’s Note: I would like to thank the Huffington Post investigative fund for partial funding for this story.
by Glynn Wilson
When the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes Monday, July 13 to begin advise and consent hearings on President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the United States Supreme Court, potentially the first Hispanic on the court, the American people will learn all there is to know about Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge from New York who will most likely be confirmed to replace Justice David Souter. But they may not know a thing about the senator who is expected to enter the national limelight for the first time as the lead inquisitor in her confirmation, who faces grave political risks for his party if things are mishandled and go wrong.
![]() |
| Senator Jeff Sessions |
Jefferson “Jeff” Beauregard Sessions III, the ranking minority Republican on the committee elevated by his colleagues to take the lead in questioning Ms. Sotomayor, is an Old South senator with an Old South name from the Deep South state of Alabama. He is an arch-conservative with a voting record ranked in the top five most conservative in the Senate by the National Review. He has voted consistently with a majority of his Republican colleagues 93 percent of the time, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Sessions has already indicated he will want to question Ms. Sotomayor on whether her empathy as a Hispanic from her time on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund will translate into favoritism or “activism” for certain groups. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich started that fight when he was quoted from a Twitter Tweet calling her a racist. Sessions will have to tread a fine line on the race issue since he was turned down for a federal judgeship in 1986 for making racist remarks himself — by the very Senate committee he now leads on the minority side. He called the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American,” and he said the Ku Klux Klan boys were all right with him — until he found out they were “pot smokers,” according to testimony from his failed confirmation-hearing transcript.
That story will be told time and again over the next few days by the nation’s top newspapers, including the New York Times, on cable news and blogs all over the country. But it may not be the most important thing people need to know about the senator who is sitting in judgment on who will be allowed to serve on the nation’s highest court to shape the future of American law for a generation.
What they need to know is that Mr. Sessions has been on a crusade on the side of corporate America and against the rights of workers and juries for many years.
His support from and for large corporations, especially the big banks, insurance companies, energy giants and military contractors, and his corresponding support of deregulation in those industries as well opposition to health care reform, is as responsible for the economic meltdown in America as anything else, many economists agree.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, suggests a fundamental reason for the economic crisis in a column for Business Age: “the dominance of the Chicago school of economics, with its belief in the self-regulating properties of unfettered markets. This belief justified the deregulation of financial markets … which grossly underestimated the amount of risk in the system.”
In pushing for health-care reform, President Barack Obama and others have said the current health-care system is a big cause of the nation’s economic troubles. The spiraling costs and inconsistencies in the amount and quality of care people get is a “ticking time bomb” for the federal budget.
Health care accounts for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy, more than any other industry. Spending on health care totals about $2.5 trillion, 17.5 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (a measure of the value of all goods and services produced in the United States). It is up from 13.8 percent of GDP in 2000 and 5.2 percent in 1960, back when health care spending totaled just $27.5 billion, 1 percent of the level today.
Yet Senator Jeff Sessions opposes any public option to fix the health care system with legislation, totally supporting the position of big business, whose over-paid managers want to keep all the profits in private hands.
Alabama state Senator Roger Bedford, the Democrat from Russellville who lost to Sessions in his first run for the U.S. Senate in 1996, said Sessions has been part of the problem in Washington.
“One of the reasons we are having this financial meltdown is the lack of regulation and accountability of the business community,” Bedford said in an interview. “Part of the reason is the push for tort reform, to hold (corporations) harmless for lyin’, cheatin’ and stealin’.”
Bedford contrasted Sessions’ record to his senior colleague in the Senate, Richard Shelby, who has stood up for consumers, helped recruit jobs and industry and build infrastructure, he claims.
Sessions, on the other hand, “has voted with McCain against that. He has always been more concerned with the philosophical views of judges than what’s good for working families in Alabama,” Bedford said. “His record’s consistent.”
That is not just a matter of opinion. It is a matter of documented fact.
The conservative Wall Street Journal did an expose on Sessions back in October, 2007, which documented a conflict of interest on Sessions’ part in using his position in the Senate to help some of his top contributors in the banking industry. The story did not gain any legs at the time because no one knew the recession started in December 2007 until December 2008, and President George W. Bush had not announced his first big government bailout of banks and insurance companies.
In the story, it was not just a payoff to Sessions’ campaign contributors the Journal was concerned about. Mr. Sessions and his wife owned stock in two of the institutions that would have been shielded by an amendment pushed by Sessions that would have allowed banks to avoid paying billions of dollars a year in royalties on technology that converts paper checks into electronic images. Mr. and Mrs. Sessions at that time owned shares in Compass Bancshares Inc. of Birmingham, Ala., valued at between $115,002 and $300,000, and his wife owned stock in Citigroup Inc., valued at between $15,001 and $50,000, according to financial-disclosure records. Sessions was quoted as saying those contributions had nothing to do with his support for the amendment.
But over the years, while Sessions fought along with his conservative colleagues like Trent Lott of Mississippi for deregulation of the banking industry, which many economists now say was largely responsible for the breakdowns that led to the need for massive government bailouts under then-President Bush and President Obama, the nation’s big banks were among his top campaign supporters. Between 1996 and 2006, records show, big banks donated more than $320,000 to Sessions’ campaigns.
All the way back to when Sessions’ was a state attorney general in the 1990s, he has been a vocal proponent of imposing limits on civil liability claims in court, supporting legislation that would shield handgun manufacturers and doctors from lawsuits, for example, making him a favorite of the big insurance companies as well. The insurance heavy-hitter Torchmark Corp. is among his top contributors, giving $43,600 over the course of his career, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield has given him $34,700, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Sessions is also supported by energy giants such as Alabama Power, which reward him for his rabid anti-environmentalism. He always ranks near the bottom of every environmental scorecard put out by the non-profit groups, including the League of Conservation Voters. Southern Company has given Sessions at least $162,765, according to verifiable records, and the company’s law firm, Balch and Bingham, has rewarded him with contributions of at least $123,775. The coal giant Drummond Company has pumped $74,650 into his campaign coffers, and the polluter Vulcan Materials another $52,150.
Then you come down the list to his favorite defense contractors, and you see that Collazo Enterprises, a company that started up in Huntsville to work on the so-called Star Wars missile defense shield, gave Sessions $64,900 — and was subsequently rewarded with millions of dollars in earmarks, otherwise known as “pork,” an Old South term for pork barrel spending. Collazo was followed closely by the defense contractor Lockheed Martin, which has given Sessions $47,150 over his career, not counting what doesn’t show up on paper in all kinds of hidden PACs. This also does not count secret cash contributions, which still go on in Alabama. Nor does it count companies the senator shares silent partnerships with, some rumored to be CIA front companies. Sessions also awarded a similar earmark to the Westar Aerospace and Defense Group in Huntsville, another intelligence-defense startup in Sessions’ state supported by taxpayer money.
Some key highlights of Sessions’ voting record over the years shows he is a tool of big business and the military and no friend of the American worker, women, veterans, children or the sick in need of breakthroughs in stem cell research.
He voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, without which economists say the economic recession would have been much worse.
Sessions is on the record opposing any legislation to curb greenhouse gases due to global warming and he is in favor of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
He voted against the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, giving women equal pay under the law.
In October, 2005, he was one of only nine senators who voted against a Senate amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. government. In other words, he came out in favor of torture, a policy that military experts say leads to more torture of American soldiers serving abroad.
Sessions has taken a strong stand against any form of citizenship for illegal immigrants. He was one of the most vocal critics of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the one time he defied the Bush administration in eight years, and he was one of 37 Senators to vote against funding for embryonic stem cell research.
As for his personal background, Sessions was born on December 24, 1946, in Hybart, Alabama, near the famous town of Selma in the state’s Black Belt. He attended public schools there, “barefooted,” according his profile on Wikipedia, then went on to become student body president at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, from where he graduated in 1969. He then attended the University of Alabama School of Law in Tuscaloosa and graduated in 1973, and was admitted to the state bar that year. He practiced law in Russellville from 1973 to 1975 and served in the U.S. Army reserves as a captain. He then moved to Mobile to practice law in 1977, and was appointed by then-President Ronald Reagan as a U.S. attorney, where he served until 1993.
He ran for Alabama’s top law enforcement job in 1994 and was elected attorney general that year, where he served until 1996, when he ran and was elected as a Republican to the U.S. Senate. He was reelected in 2002 and 2008.
He was elevated to ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced he was switching parties to run as a Democrat rather than facing strong Republican opposition in a primary campaign. Specter, who also voted against Sessions’ confirmation as a federal appellate judge in 1986 along with then-Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, is expected to be reelected in his state as a Democrat. He will be leading the charge on the majority side of the aisle during the confirmation hearings.
Former U.S. attorney Doug Jones, who was an aide to Heflin in the 1980s and in Washington for Sessions’ losing confirmation fight in 1986, said if given the choice he would rather have a Democrat and a judge like Heflin in that committee spot than a Republican like Sessions. But he pointed out that Sessions does have a history of being “deferential” to presidential appointees going all the way back to the Clinton years.
“There’s got to be a fine line he’s going to walk between playing to the conservative base of the Republican Party, of which he is full-fledged member, and his record of being deferential to presidential selections,” Jones said in an interview.
You can go back and watch Sessions’ floor speeches and see the softball questions he asked in advice and consent confirmation hearings especially for Bush’s appointees to the court.
Sessions is vulnerable on that issue, on the race issue because of his own past, and he is vulnerable when he starts getting into the Republican spin issue of “activist judges,” which will inevitably come up, Jones acknowledged.
“There are plenty of people who say Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are the two most activist judges on the entire federal bench,” he said.
As for Sessions’ record of supporting big business, he is tied to that, Jones said, “because that is his bent. He is a chamber of commerce senator, no question about that, and that will be reflective in his questioning.”
He knows Sessions well enough to know the senator is smart enough to couch his questioning in careful, diplomatic terms, not racist terms, even when talking about cases such as the white firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut who just won a victory with the Roberts Supreme Court — even though Sotomayor ruled against the town’s promotion test because too few minorities qualified.
Those cases are not about race to Sessions, Jones contends. “They are all about business and quotas and making sure businesses and cities can hire the best — regardless of race.”
That’s right up Sessions’ alley. While Sessions is being put up as the hatchet man in this fight, he will want to appear to be a lawyer and a statesman.
The political risk is this, Jones says: “If Republicans, even a white Republican from the South, comes after the first Hispanic nominee for the Supreme Court in a vicious or mean spirited way, then politically that’s going to be damaging for the Republican Party.” The party has already lost some of the gains picked up by Bush and Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004 to Obama in 2008, he said. “They will lose the rest if they handle it wrong.”
Glynn Wilson is a veteran investigative reporter, free-lance writer and editor and publisher of the independent Locust Fork News-Journal, LocustFork.Net.
Tags: deregulation, health care, Jeff Sessions, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court





July 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well done. It will be interesting to see which Sessions is the Republican leader of the Committee’s sessions.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I hope he stubs his big toe and gets caught up in the ethnic issues, especially re: Sotomayor’s Appellate Ct vote on the New Haven CT case involving testing practices for promoting firefighters. The Court this time took a different position. Judge Sotamyor’s vote was consistent with prior Court votes on the subject. Maybe he will question her statement about the ability of Hispanic women vs. white men.
Keep your true colors, Sen. Sessions. This is a Senate Hearing not a FOX interview.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The more the country knows about Sessions, the less it likes.
Jeff has a chance to be a hero in this nomination hearing (simply by being a gentleman), but I bet he blows it.
An unwelcome reminder about how bad Heflin was with Clarence Thomas. When will Alabama elect a bright, progressive, intelligent Senator?
July 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Maybe in about a decade, Rowland…
July 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Excellent story, Glynn. As Rowland opines, Sessions has a chance to be a hero, by acting gentlemanly. Or not. We’ll see.
More fundamental is the question about the future of the Republican Party itself. Many Americans think that the “two-party system” must be enshrined in the Constitution somewhere, but of course, it isn’t. Washington’s farewell address warned against having parties at all. But Hamilton and Jefferson just did not see eye to eye, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The Republican Party was born, if memory serves in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin. At that point the Whig Party, the principal opponent of the Democrats of the era, was imploding. Up until then, the Democrats, originally the Democrat-Republicans, had been more or less dominant since the demise of the Federalists with the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, although there had been a couple of Whig presidents and a substantial Whig presence in Congress.
The end of the Whig Party and the birth of the Republican Party was not a bad thing. After all, the Republicans of the day led the Union in the Civil War and ended slavery, although they later cravenly made deals with Southern Bourbon Democrats that kept African Americans in second class status for another century.
Thus there is precedence for the demise of a major US party and its replacement with a new one, although it has been more than a century and a half since it happened.
If the Republican Party implodes in the near future, it will not necessarily be a bad thing. They seem to have drunk long and deeply at the well of corruption and authoritarianism during their years controlling both elected brances of the federal government. Their leadership is in disarray and/or disgrace. They forgot that even laissez faire free markets require basic rules like not cheating, stealing and defrauding. They enshrined a Bismarckian neoimperialist ideology as the modus operandi for foreign relations, featuring pre-emptive wars and bullying diplomacy. They turned a budget surplus in 2000 into the largest deficit in history by 2008. They made pork-barrelling Democrats of the 1980s and early 90s look like pikers by comparison.
It might be good if the Republican Party disintegrated and were replaced by one or two principled opposition parties, which, if asked, I would want to be the Libertarians and the Greens.
Certainly, at least for a time, the level of policy debate would change, and certainly, with the Libs and Greens probably controlling only a marginal number of elected offices during the first few years, the new loyal opposition would not be tempted to go off their respective reservations and compromise ideology.
And we could re-cycle that elephant back to just being a mascot for the Crimson Tide, a much more straightforward and honest occupation.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I’m with Yana Davis. Additionally, I’d like to see The Socialist Party get on the ballot because The Democrats have bowed down to the banks on so many things. $7.25 is not a living wage. It’s so wrong for people with more than five years of experience and/or a college education to be offered minimum wage when they are coming off the unemployment rolls but it happens every day in Alabama.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Competition would be nice, but American political history shows the breakthrough third party movements accomplish one thing: Influencing the policy agenda of the two major parties.
Democrats and Republicans are pretty good at co-opting any major issues that crop up, at least in rhetoric. Often, they don’t live up to their promises, which tends to hurt individual candidates more than the parties.
Also to consider, the parties themselves are not as important anymore as the media in shaping elections. The conventions are media events. The Fourth Estate mainly stomps out any third party movements by keeping them out of print and off the airwaves.
It remains to be seen what influence the Web Press will have on this in the long-term…
July 12th, 2009 at 4:57 am
I agree with Glynn Wilson: It won’t be until we can get campaign finance reform to level the playing field for third or other parties to participate will democracy be allowed to rear it’s head again. Until then, it’s a rich man’s game and We the Taxpayers are the door prize. But mobilizing We the People to accomplish this is something else because so many Americans simply are uninformed or ill informed because their primary knowledge and understanding of government and politics comes from the TV and Fox news (a free gift of Bill Clinton to the Far Right in the form of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,) and the proof of this is that the average American votes for so-called “rock stars” like Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger who has intentionally and effectively driven California into the ground so he can use bankruptcy as an excuse to liquidate public holdings such as public buildings and lands and sell them off into privatized hands better known as “crony pals” so these private companies can then turn around and sell back to We the People that which was free and ours to begin with. This is being done all over the US by Conservative politicians, both Right and Left.
As things stand now, there really isn’t much difference between the Right and Left; they have both been bought off and the current government is heavily seeded with former Goldman-Sachs employees. (Please do get a hold of a copy of Matt Taibbi’s “Bubble Machine” article in the Rolling Stone; it’s an eye-opener.)
And the proof that the fix is in can be seen in Obama’s policies which are at odds with his liberal campaign stance. From Obama’s mind-boggling FISA vote, to AIG, to the TARPs bailouts, to his reaffirmation of NAFTA, to his embracing the Clinton machinery, to his support of Free Trade ideology together with his primary raison d’etre to cobble together all of the industrial countries of the world into a fully functional and global dominating WTO (if you think soaring prices are a problem now, wait ’til the WTO gets off the ground…), to his failure to keep so many campaign promises like rebuilding the American infra-structure with new jobs and rebuilding the American manufacturing base, to changing trade tariffs in favor of American workers, all of which should have been a top priority, but no, this president is either weak or a coward to so throughly turn his back on right-from-wrong, the dream of an American democracy, and the American people in favor of pandering after the riches and approval of three-tenths of one percent. Bill Clinton looks like a dog on a leash being lead around by Poppy Bush as a show of defeat of American democracy and the supreme rule of the oil magnates and the industrial aristocracy. Both the Clintons and the Obamas willingly embrace complete corruption in every aspect of American life to satisfy their lust for ambition and the results are a Huey Long state where candidates for office, like Sen. Al Franken, are elected on the promise to be Wellstonian in policy, yet, the day after being sworn in shift their position to “I want to make nice with the Repbulicans,” even though the Republican Party is in tatters on the floor and the Senate now has a 60 vote margin. Why are so many supposedly Democratic politicians caving to Far Right thinking and policy? Summarily: corruption, fear, cowardice, weakness, meets the power of controlling corporate campaign contributions.
We need campaign finance reform. Plain and simple. And nothing changes if nothing changes.
I’ve said it before but I’m going to say it again, if there was a shred of decency in Washington these days, the members of Congress would come together and put through the campaign finance reform that is so desperately needed to get the corruption out of government.
If every adult in the US contributed one to ten dollars toward election campaigns and arrangements were made with TV stations such as PBS or C-SPAN to carry any and all campaign messages, there would be a chance for democracy. But as things stand now, our government goes up on the auction block every four years and is sold to the highest bidders and We the People are little more than economic slaves on that block up for bid.
July 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Just added the Bubble Machine link to the news page. Here it is:
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.
The Great American Bubble Machine
July 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
This just in from a Facebook comment. Can believe the link is still up from 2002, but here it is:
Trent Lott must think he’s living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond’s century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can’t scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott’s comments “thoughtless” and told CBS’s “Early Show” audience on December 12 that “Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down.” And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, “I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people … who don’t get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I’m tired of being embarrassed by Republicans … who don’t get it.”
It’s a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott’s east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi–and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
The New Republic: Closed Sessions
July 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Bill Moyers Show Tonight Reveals Insurance Lobby’s Secret
Plan to Attack ‘Sicko’ and Michael Moore
Friday, July 10th, 2009
ALERT: We’ve just been informed that Bill Moyers, on his
show later tonight, will expose for the first time the
health insurance industry’s secret campaign against Michael
Moore and his film, “Sicko.” It contains a stunning
revelation and admission by a top health insurance executive — the former head of publicity for CIGNA, one of the top health insurance companies in the country — that the disinformation and attacks on Michael and the film were extensive and well-planned. Their job was to stop the movie from reaching a wide audience (and, more importantly, from having the widespread political impact the industry feared “Sicko” would have).
Wendell Potter, former Head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA (which provides health insurance to nearly 70 percent of the Fortune 100 companies) admits that, in fact, “Sicko” “hit the nail on the head” and told the real truth about how much better people in other countries have it when it comes to their health care.
The show airs tonight at 9:00 PM on PBS. (Check your local listings for exact times. Many areas show it on Saturday night, too.)
You can check out the segment about Michael and “Sicko”
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv1FwOCNoZ8
Be sure to tune into Bill Moyers Journal tonight at 9:00 PM for the full program. Check here for local listings (and rebroadcasts).
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html
If you get this email too late, their website will soon post the full show soon:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers
Finally, the truth comes out. From one of their own.
Amazing.
Yours truly, Webmaster
MichaelMoore.com
webguy@michaelmoore.com