Last year, President Bush nominated Judge Leslie Southwick, a Mississippi state appellate court judge and Iraq war veteran, for a federal district court judgeship. The liberal-leaning American Bar Association gave him a very high rating at the time, and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously (10 Republicans, 8 Democrats) voted him out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full Senate. The Senate, however, recessed before the nomination could be voted on in the 109th Congress.
As we all know, the 2006 election changed the composition of the Senate, and Democrats took over control of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 10-9 majority.
In recognition of the new reality, President Bush threw the liberals a bone by not renominating four radioactive appellate nominees of the previous year: Terrence Boyle, William Myers, William Haynes and Michael Wallace. Senate liberals publicly acknowledged the peace offering and thanked the President and promised sweetness, light and cooperation in handling future nominations.
Well, maybe not the sweetness and light part.
Reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time" prior to World War II, only one side was fooled by similar peace talk this time as well.
In January, Bush renominated Southwick, but this time for a vacancy on the more important 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Significantly, the ABA rating committee upgraded its recommendation of Southwick to a unanimous "well-qualified" for the new position. That's significant because the ABA committee typically interviews dozens of lawyers who know Southwick the best and who have appeared in his courtroom.
Predictably, Judiciary Committee processing of appellate judges slowed to a crawl beginning in January, and only three appellate judges have been confirmed since then. But Southwick's nomination progressed without obstacle right through his hearing before the committee on May 10. Post-hearing, Chairman Leahy scheduled a vote on Southwick at the committee's business meeting on May 24. Three successive postponements later, Senator Specter, a Republican, has now asked for another postponement, because, reportedly, Senator Leahy informed him that all the Democrats on the committee (eight of whom voted for Southwick last fall) were now going to vote against Southwick, killing his nomination. Specter wants another week to convince a Democrat or two to change their minds and allow Southwick to move to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.
Why the sudden change of heart by the very Senators who had previously approved Southwick for a district court judgeship? Enter the usual left-wing groups who typically enjoy smearing the president's conservative judicial choices. White papers, editorials and op-eds began popping up all over the liberal press and websites around the time of Southwick's May hearing libeling him as a "racist" and a "homophobe." The mainstream media then suggested Southwick's nomination was "in trouble." Liberal senators felt the pressure – or enjoyed the excuse the smear campaign provided, take your pick.
These charges are even more profoundly false and transparent than usual, because they are based on a couple opinions that Southwick didn't even write. And both decisions were correct as a matter of law and appellate practice, but that didn’t' matter to the attack dogs who are seeking to derail the third straight Mississippi nominee for this 5th Circuit seat.
That's right – both Charles Pickering and Michael Wallace were previously nominated by this president for this same seat, then tarred and feathered by the Left with similarly ridiculous treatment as Southwick is receiving now. Apparently liberals look upon white male nominees from Mississippi as whack-a-moles – when one pops up, bam!
Don't get me wrong. When the members of the Judiciary Committee want to have a serious debate over the proper judicial philosophy for a federal judge, be it "living Constitution" or "originalism" (and polls show that America is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter approach), I'll not complain about how any particular vote comes out, because I don't mind losing in a fair fight. But don't try to argue with a straight face that an opinion not even written by Southwick that uses the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" somehow disqualifies Southwick from serving as a federal judge. Do we now have a "speech code" in addition to the religious test that has previously been imposed on nominees by liberals?
And the racist label? That comes from an employment case where the "N-word" figured prominently, and Southwick forgot the liberal rule in such cases: forget what the law says – always vote against whatever party uttered the slur. The liberal smear here also includes the half-truth that the decision was reversed on appeal, but intentionally omits that the decision's reversal on appeal had nothing to do with Southwick's legal view of the slur's effect.
So the liberals have thrown down the gauntlet. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate conservatives warned their liberal counterparts just a couple weeks ago that Senate business (and the Democrats' legislative agenda) would slow to a crawl or stop completely if liberals did what they're doing now with appellate judges. And Senator Specter has formed his own "Gang of One" in an effort to stave off the inevitable confrontation.
I say a little confrontation is a good thing. Let's have some.
