Confirm Judge Southwick
By Fred Thompson Posted in Congress — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It’s hard to believe that Democrats in the Senate would expend this much negative energy against one man, but apparently they think Judge Leslie Southwick is important enough for them to do so. In case you’ve missed it, Judge Southwick was nominated for a long-standing vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by President Bush, was blocked by Democrats, finally voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this summer, and has been waiting for full Senate confirmation for several months. His nomination may come before the full Senate later this week.
Judge Southwick shouldn’t feel that what’s happened to him is an isolated situation. In fact, Democrats have been playing this game going all the way back to the days of their attacks on Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. Senate Democrats simply can’t stand judges who do right by the Constitution and ignore their political causes of the moment. So perversely, Judge Southwick should be honored by the attention Democrats are giving him.
Adding insult to the political web Democrats have spun is the fact that Judge Southwick has proudly served his country in Iraq, fulfilling his National Guard duty as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate from August 2004 to July 2005, and then as Staff Judge Advocate until January 2006. He also has served on the Mississippi Court of Appeals from that court’s very inception in January 1995 through December 2006. Prior to serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, from 1989 to 1993, he was in a general civil private practice for 12 years. He’s taught law as an adjunct professor at Mississippi College School of Law since 1998. Even the American Bar Association, which often treats conservative judicial nominees unfairly, unanimously gave Judge Southwick the institution’s highest possible rating.
Judge Southwick is qualified and ready to serve. Republicans should do all they can to get him confirmed.
As an aside: Great smack-down of Alan Colmes following Sunday night's debate. High-Fives™ for you, sir. The last thing Alan Colmes wants to do is read anything that refutes or lays to rest his precious TalkingPoints.™
On topic:
The Democrats realize that President Bush has made significant progress toward restoring balance in the federal judiciary, because they are feeling the heat from their liberal base and the ACLU.
Liberalism requires institutionalization by judicial fiat, because no sane person capable of rational thought would vote for any candidate who openly sought to legislate liberalism into American society. It's that dangerous.
On a personal note: I despise balance, because it's too much like bipartisanship. Both require abandoning principle to achieve.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Senator,
It's nice to have somebody who doesn't back down from his own personal convictions. You have my respect and vote, no matter what happens.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
Mr. Thompson,
Thank you so much for this post. I appreciate your leadership on this issue and can't wait to cast my vote for you.
Shannon Kerr
You did a great job on Sunday night Fred. We're behind you all the way!
Lane
Judge Southwick is white and from Mississippi. That means he must be a racist, right?
I can't help, but be bothered by his decision in S.B. v. L.W., Judge Southwick joined a concurrence arguing that people who "choose . . . the homosexual lifestyle" are less fit to raise children than straight parents.
I don't believe it's the courts, or the government's jobs to such broadly apply themselves in how a child is being raised.
This doesn't meet the criteria for any legitimate potential harm for the child, and strikes me as attempting to moralize from the bench. The rest of his record is impressive enough for such an appointment; I will hope in the future though that no such cases are brought before his court in if involving circumstances like the ones above.
The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. The do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
necessarily agree with every word in that document. Mere dicta, for example, or extemporaneous remarks are not normally considered when joining in a concurring opinion - the legal holding is what the concurring judge has endorsed.
Unless this was a decision where the court struck down a law favorable to gay parents, then what is the big deal? The people and legislatures should set family law and social policy. Judges should stay out of it for the most part.
A good discussion about Southwick's chances is happening at our sister site ConfirmThem. The vote on Wed looks razor thin close. The problem? No one in the senate can get ahold of John McCain to ask him to show up for the close vote for cloture that is expected.
Even dem senator Nelson is trying to get McCain to show up to help Southwick. If Southwick doesn't get an up or down vote because McCain skipped out on his senatorial duty to be out campaigning this won't look good.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
is not going to war for his judicial nominees.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Not that I expect it to do any good. :(
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Senator Thompson,
Thank you for speaking up for Judge Southwick and for taking a stand against democrats who seek to destroy the reputation of good, conservative judges for the sake of political grandstanding.
Our country needs a leader who is not afraid to speak the truth to the media and to the American people.
It has been disappointing how little talk there has been about judges in the debates.
Why haven't any of the other candidates called Giuliani out on his absurd statement about how a 'strict constructionist' could be either 'pro-Roe or anti-Roe'? That is the best ammunition to use against Giuliani and his talk about how he would appoint Scalias and Alitos.