LITTLE ROCK — A president’s choices for federal judge ships deserve the courtesy of a vote, regardless of the executive’s political affiliation.
U.S. Senator 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 Senator 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 email 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.
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.”
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.
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’s hiring two private firms on a contingency-fee basis for the litigation so long as the attorney general kept control.
Cornyn didn’t like the legal theory and is a longtime critic of just such contingency-fee arrangements.
Differences over judicial philosophy might justify voting against the nominee-but not holding up a vote altogether. That would be plain partisan politics. And the Constitution and common courtesy demand better.
Editorial, Pages 10 on 04/11/2011