A president's choices for federal judgeships deserve the courtesy of a vote, regardless of the executive's political affiliation.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas consistently has said as much, especially when it was Democrats impeding Republican nominees.In 2009, he even broke with fellow Republicans who were balking at a floor vote for an Indiana nominee from President Barack Obama. (Cornyn ultimately voted against him.)The constitutional duty of "advice and consent" doesn't mean complain and obstruct.Why then might Cornyn condone blocking a district court nominee from Rhode Island?After the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved John J. McConnell on an 11-7 vote, with GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in the majority, the Providence Journal reported that Cornyn said "he considers McConnell's nomination so objectionable that he might support a filibuster."Cornyn's staff said in an e-mail that the senator is considering an exception to his long-standing principle of giving every nominee a vote -- but hasn't made a decision.An exception wouldn't be justified.Cornyn came to the Senate eight years ago advocating a "fresh start" on judicial nominations. He knocked Democrats for stalling some of President George W. Bush's picks, particularly Texan Priscilla Owen, who eventually made it to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.According to the Congressional Record, Cornyn in 2004 said senators should treat nominees fairly and "provide the up-or-down vote the U.S. Constitution demands."In 2008, his website (cornyn.senate.gov) carried a statement calling it "unacceptable" to block votes on nominations: "An up-or-down vote is a matter of fundamental fairness, and it is the Senate's constitutional duty to act on each nomination."The Judiciary Committee has approved McConnell three times, but Republicans keep maneuvering to prevent a floor vote.Opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claim McConnell is too biased against business to be a fair judge. As a plaintiffs lawyer, he's worked on massive cases involving asbestos, tobacco and lead paint.He's also given more than $432,000 to federal election campaigns over the years, including to Rhode Island Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, the Providence Journal reported.In a statement submitted when the Judiciary Committee voted last week, Cornyn's main complaint was about McConnell's representation of Rhode Island in a public nuisance suit over lead paint. The state won a jury trial and the first appellate round, but the state Supreme Court reversed.The high court, though, said there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the state hiring two private firms on contingency-fee basis for the litigation, as along as the attorney general kept control.Cornyn didn't like the legal theory and is a longtime critic of such contingency-fee arrangements.As Texas attorney general, he tried unsuccessfully to scuttle the $3.3 billion in fees that private law firms were to get from tobacco companies after helping negotiate a landmark $17.3 billion settlement in the state's suit against the industry.Those fees were split among six firms: five from Texas, plus a South Carolina firm, now known as Motley Rice.McConnell is a Motley Rice partner.In his statement last week, Cornyn called McConnell a "crusading advocate" with a "results-based" view of the law.Differences over judicial philosophy might justify voting against him -- but not holding up a vote altogether. That would be plain partisan politics. And the Constitution and common courtesy demand better.Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
