The problem is not that Southwick is not a good man.  He probably is a good man.  The problem is that he has not been able to answer the substantive concerns that have been raised about him as a candidate for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Senator Cochran’s defense is comparable to saying “Please promote this man to vice president of the company--he has three kids to feed!”

I’ve actually read the ruling on the lesbian mother, and it’s a violation of the Morrison v. Morrison (2001) precedent holding that sexual orientation cannot be the sole factor in custody decisions.  Southwick said that it could be, and he cited the (ancient and unconstitutional) sodomy law as if it were proof.  Quote the Bible if you like, quote that idiot Paul Cameron if you like, but Southwick was still blatantly legislating from the bench.  He may as well have written a ruling consisting of the words “because I said so.”

Is he a homophobe in his private life?  Probably not.  He probably holds beliefs comparable to those of the average Mississippi Republican.  But if he can’t separate his personal religious convictions from the law, he doesn’t belong on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then there’s the matter of the racial slur case.  He would have ordered that the fired official be reinstated, with backpay, as if this were a First Amendment or Title VII violation.  He did not suggest that sanctions or disciplinary action of any kind be imposed.  He, in effect, elected to punish MDHS for firing an employee who used a racial slur--and it would have had a chilling effect on any similar attempts to fire an employee under such circumstances, rendering the N-word fair game for any white employees who wished to use it.  After all, who would want to fire one of those employees only to have the employee return with backpay after a protracted trial?

The bottom line is that whether he’s a good man or not, and I have no reason to believe he’s not a good man, Leslie Southwick does not belong on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals any more than I do.  Period.

There is a larger issue here than whether or not Southwick is qualified or “deserves” to be on the court.  The fact is that Democrats in the Senate simply cannot reward a man who jumped at the chance to go play a part in Bush’s War.  I would argue that his qualifications - top ABA ratings, etc. - make it all the more important to not confirm him.  Let the Senators opposing him use whatever public excuse they want - so long as they understand that this is a vote about the war - and that those who fueled the Bush war machine need to be punished - not given promotions.

President Bush could appoint the perfect conservative candidate --- meaning that you couldn’t find a ruling anywhere to highlight as a reason not to confirm--- and the Congress would still not confirm.

the reason is that the Dems in Congress think that they have a chance to win the Presidency in 2008, and would prefer that a Democrat appoint the judge to fill the vacancy.

Any argument there?

I wouldn’t go quite that far, as it looks like Bush’s plan B candidate stands a good chance of being confirmed, but certainly it is a factor.  If a Democrat appointed Southwick, or if Bush had appointed Southwick when his approval ratings were imperviously high, nobody would have heard about either of the two cases above and he would have been approved without a hitch.

Tom makes a good point.