by James Oliphant
It passed for the hottest judicial nomination controversy going, even if it paled in comparison to congressional wars over previous nominees.
But regardless, it's all over now. The Senate confirmed Judge Leslie Southwick this morning to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by a 59-38 count. Nine Democrats joined a unanimous Republican bloc in approving Southwick.
The vote is a setback for African-American interest groups and other civil rights advocates, which urged Democrats to bounce Southwick, saying he was pro-business and hostile to gay rights. They contended that a federal appeals judge in the Deep South should have an unblemished record on civil rights. But once his nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee (thanks largely to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.), Southwick's confirmation seemed assured.
The White House hailed the vote. "The confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a victory for America's judicial system and for the citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas," President Bush said in a statement. "Today's bipartisan vote resolves a long-standing judicial emergency and will help ensure that the Fifth Circuit can operate more effectively."
Bush urged the Senate to approve more nominees, saying its inaction had created "unnecessary vacancies" in the federal courts.
Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Joseph Biden (Del.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), and Barack Obama (Ill.), all voted against Southwick, as did the other Illinois senator, Dick Durbin
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The nominee, Judge Southwick, wasn't "contentious", as the headline proclaims. Rather, Senate Democrats chose once again to be contentious over a routine judicial nomination, in order to placate the more rabid members of their party base.
Posted by: Bruce | October 24, 2007 4:42 PM
Posted by: Bruce | October 24, 2007 4:42 PM
For once you're right Brucie, the Democrats did vote to placate the rabid minority and gay hating Republicans and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Please join Bill-O and I as we fight to save X-Mas | October 24, 2007 5:59 PM
What are the Dems afraid of? The Republic Base?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 24, 2007 8:21 PM
As Trent lott said the liberal Democrats did their best to obstruct this good Judge. That includes Illinois dream team Dickie Durbin and Barack Hussein Obama. Jerry White, Springfield,IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 25, 2007 10:09 AM
To understand the furor over President Bush's nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, one should start with the Goode family of Mississippi.
A propane heater exploded in their house, killing their granddaughter. The Goodes sued the manufacturer. After the trial, new evidence emerged demonstrating that the company had provided inaccurate information about servicing the heater. Yet, in a dissenting opinion, Southwick argued that the Goodes didn't deserve a new trial.
How about Annie Cannon? It was years before doctors determined that toxic chemicals at work caused her debilitating illnesses. No matter. Echoing the reasoning of the Roberts court's controversial decision that denied Alabama worker Lilly Ledbetter equal pay, Southwick authored a dissent saying that Cannon should be barred by the statute of limitations from bringing suit for her damages.
Southwick supporters are sticking to script when it comes to pushing for his confirmation. George F. Will certainly got his lines right [" Obama Judges a Judge," op-ed, Aug. 12].
But he got the facts all wrong -- especially his ludicrous claim that the only ammunition Southwick's opponents could find were his rulings in two cases. In one, Southwick affirmed the view that referring to an African American co-worker as a "good ole [expletive]" was akin to using the term "teacher's pet." In the other, he went out of his way to express the view that sexual orientation alone was reason enough to deny parents custody of their children. And while these rulings demonstrate the extreme positions he would stake out, that's not all there is.
Why are so many unions opposed to Southwick? Because Southwick voted against the interests of injured workers and consumers in divided decisions 89 percent of the time. Why are civil rights groups opposed? Because he also voted overwhelmingly -- 54 of 59 times -- against defendants alleging juror discrimination. That prompted his own colleagues on the Mississippi Court of Appeals to accuse him of "establishing one level of obligation for the State, and a higher one for defendants on an identical issue." Southwick, they charged in a dissent, placed his "stamp of approval on the arbitrary and capricious selection of jurors."
Southwick got achance to explain these decisions. Sen. Richard Durbin asked Southwick whether he could think of one example of an unpopular decision he had made in favor of the powerless, the poor, minorities or the dispossessed. The judge said he could not.
The opposition doesn't stem from anecdote but analysis, analysis that reveals overwhelmingly one-sided patterns. The Post said that opponents of Southwick "haven't made their case." But this argument doesn't reflect the most substantive points that opponents raise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082001423.html
Some enlightenment for Bruce.
Posted by: b | October 25, 2007 2:32 PM