By Kevin Binversie
On Monday, one-year after her initial nomination, a group of 53 well-respected law professors from across the country wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, urging action on the appointment of University of Wisconsin Law School professor Victoria Nourse to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Kindly add me, the former campaign research director for the man holding up her appointment, to the list of people urging action.
Don’t get me wrong, I still like and respect U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and gladly would repeat all the tireless hours put in to help him win a U.S. Senate seat. He’s just unfairly blocking a nominee with no real judicial red flags for little other reason than procedural grounds.
At the heart of Johnson’s disagreement is one rule in Wisconsin’s federal commission used by the state’s senators in picking federal court nominees. The board’s makeup allows the senator whose party has the presidency – Sen. Herb Kohl in this case – to appoint five members to the commission, while the other senator can appoint three. If both members are of the same party, they get four appointments no matter who holds the White House. According to Johnson’s staff, the senator wants both to have four appointed members to the commission each, regardless of party affiliation or who has the White House.
On that end, Johnson has a point. The “nonpartisan” commission should not be allowed to play favorites just because their party is in the White House. It is a little odd that no one has ever raised that point before.
I don’t doubt Nourse will be a center-left jurist on the 7th Circuit. A basic search on her will find she had given politically to Democrats in the past, worked for Democrat politicians in the past, and positioned herself as a left-leaning academic not just at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but as a visiting professor at Harvard, and elsewhere. These alone are not controversial and are to be expected from the type of nominee Democratic presidents like Barack Obama would consider.
As for Johnson’s remarks about Nourse having “little connection to Wisconsin,” that’s hard to merit given she’s been with the law school at the state’s leading public university since 1994, even with her visiting stints at other schools. It might have held some merit if she wasn’t a member of the Wisconsin Bar Association, but Nourse remedied this herself last December according to association records.
Johnson’s objection regarding the judicial commission outstanding, the senator should back down on his hold. If he’s still opposed to her becoming a federal judge, he can do so when she has an up or down vote in the Senate. That’s his right as a senator, as is the right of any president to nominate those he or she wishes.
Kevin Binversie is a Wisconsin native who has been blogging on the state’s political culture for more than eight years. He has served in the George W. Bush administration from 2007-2009, worked at the Heritage Foundation and has worked on numerous Wisconsin Republican campaigns in various capacities, most recently as research director for Ron Johnson for Senate. Contact him at kevin.binversie@franklincenterhq.org
10 Comments
I agree with Senator Johnson completely.. Even if Senator Kohl had made the same claim I would have agreed with the Principle of “Equal Choice.” No one US Senator of a State should have Power over another US Senator of the same State.. They should not only have Equal Power within the State they represent, they should have equal Power among all the US Senators when in the US Congress.. Also, -There should NOT be seniority Power of one US Senator over another US Senator.. They should all have Equal Power at the start of each new Congress and the Senate & House leaderships should be rotated every 30 days to another Senator and Representative. This feature would prevent that One US Senator of just one State from locking out the will of the US Senators of any other State for longer than the 30 days that they have leadership Power..
I stand with Senator Johnson. We sent him there to do precisely this, and not go along with the broken old partisan and big spending past. His postion will be fair for everyone, going forward, regardless of party. Are we not all seeing how imporatant the judiciary is, after the debacle known as Mary Ann Sumi? It is far to an important issue for our Senator Johnson to vote “present” on, as Obama did as a Senator. He is voting what we asked him to do.
Senator Johnson, We thank you.
Senator Johnson — PLEASE hang tough on this issue. I voted for you to do this exact same thing that you are doing. Some one has to do it!!! Thank you for standing up for us.
“No one US Senator of a State should have Power over another US Senator of the same State.”
That’s how it worked from 2001-07 when the Republicans held the White House and Senate and stacked the judiciary with right-wing nominees.
One-man filibusters and insane, stupid and ridiculous, and are designed solely to throw sand in the gears of government. The United States Senate is a dysfunctional disgrace, and Ron Johnson fits right in.
“Sensible” though Mr. Binversie’s position may appear, resistance to the status quo must begin somewhere. This is an opportunity for Senator Johnson to learn what it’s like to skirmish with critics who may bruise or scratch him up a bit. Future, bloodier battles await him–in DC as well as back home– for which he may then benefit from combat experience.
Criticism of my Senator is warranred for his failure to grasp the seriousness of his ill-informed support for extending unPatriot Act. Who gives up any liberty to gain (alleged) security deserves neither.
Wouldn’t any state be better represented if the party that controls the govership of that state had the benefit of more appointments. Or how about the party of the presedential candidate that garnered more of the popular vote during the previous election. Yes–I know these two would swing it different ways in our current situation–but how does it make sense that an elected president would recieve a political benefit derived from other states voting patterns that is used against the wishes of the majority of voters in this state. Let me guess–the rules were created during an election cycle where it benefitted Dems.
Thank you and God bless you, Senator Johnson.
Yes Senator Johnson, Thank you for standing up for us! hang tough, exactly why I voted for you!
Sen Johnson is doing the right thing. Thank you and God bless you Sen. Johnson.