Results matching “"wisconsin supreme court"”

What's in the water in Wisconsin? - PointOfLaw Forum

Left-wing thuggishness is disturbingly common there, and not just in the recent unsuccessful union demonstrations to protect their special-interest privileged status from taxpayers.

  • I'm not particularly surprised that the math shows that the University Wisconsin undergraduate and law schools racially discriminate against whites: such racial discrimination is a matter of course in higher education, and I'm surprised that there aren't more entrepreneurial conservative activists taking this sort of thing on in the courtrooms instead of just writing op-eds. What surprises me is the brazenness with which students and administrators violently shut down a press conference on the subject, and how the left defends such violations of freedom of speech. [CHE (with great link roundup); see also OL]

  • "[O]n September 16, [University of Wisconsin-Stout (UWS) theater professor James] Miller placed a new poster on his office door in response to [the university's] censorship. The poster read 'Warning: Fascism' and included a cartoon image of a silhouetted police officer striking a civilian. The poster mocked, 'Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets.'" The university demanded he take that poster down because of the reference to "violent death." FIRE is on the case.
  • Why hasn't Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley faced any discipline for making false allegations against a fellow justice? [Blaska]
  • Meanwhile, though Governor Scott Walker won a victory for taxpayers against unions, the victory may only be termporary. In previous rollbacks of excessive union benefits—even rollbacks caused by bankruptcy, patient unions just waited for a future friendly government, and got those same excessive benefits restored retroactively. [Greve @ Fed Soc]

Around the web, August 26 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Yet another study debunking the vaccine-autism link myth, this from National Academy of Sciences. [WaPo]
  • Also not a surprise: no criminal charges in Justice Bradley's claim of being assaulted by Justice Prosser in Wisconsin Supreme Court hearings. Someone should be disbarred over this. [Adler @ Volokh; earlier]
  • The problem of "malfunction theory" in product liability. [Jackson]
  • Six million small businesses might be ensnared by little-publicized NLRB rule of questionable legality creating liability for failure to put up a sign about the NLRA. [NFIB]
  • Suit over closed-door "merit selection" of judges in Hawaii. [Pero]
  • New disclosure process in pending FCPA case will raise costs to criminal defendants. [BLT]
  • Interesting analysis of Minnesota case about third-party criminal liability for the acts of others. [Volokh]
  • Warren Buffett structures his investment in Bank of America to be tax-advantaged. So much for "stop coddling the billionaires." [Stoll; earlier]

Around the web, July 29 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Coverage of the Rice Krispies objection from an interesting new original-reporting legal news website, Business Law Daily. [BLD]
  • I wasn't that impressed with the ABA Journal's "30 Lawyers, 30 Books" list. And it seemed that they only found room for one right-of-center lawyer, Professor Eugene Volokh. But I do wholeheartedly concur with Volokh's recommendation for Ward Farnsworth's The Legal Analyst, which is perhaps the most systematic guide to clear thinking this century.
  • Mississippi Supreme Court stays fishy $322M asbestos judgment. [LNL; earlier on POL]
  • Governor Jerry Brown, apparently nostalgic for Rose Bird, nominates Goodwin Liu to California Supreme Court; his confirmation will be a formality. This gives Asian-Americans four seats out of seven on the Court, with the only Latino on the Court retiring for the big bucks of mediation, so one would expect quota advocates—like Goodwin Liu—to call for affirmative action. [Whelan; Severino; LA Times]

  • Attorney-general cy pres slush fund in Arkansas. [Greenberg via Overlawyered; more on cy pres at POL]
  • What isn't being reported in that Justice at Stake poll on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. [Pero; earlier on POL]
  • Google lawyer says patents gumming up innovation. [Bloomberg]
  • Lawyers behaving badly: fight at the end of a deposition. One of these two lawyers is committing perjury, and if it can be proved which one, he should be disbarred. And somehow, it's hard to think that the aggressor was the one who had to miss the ex parte hearing because of a mandatory chemotherapy session with his oncologist. What does the court reporter say? [ATL]
  • McDonald's engages in defensive restauranting, adds apples to Happy Meals; 89% of parents prefer fries. Meanwhile, Campbell's discovers that people prefer salt in their soup. [Olson @NYDN; Chi. Tribune]

  • "Aussie Woman Seeks Workers Comp for Injury During Hotel Sex" [ABA J]
  • In an age of debt crisis, why aren't we auctioning unused broadband spectrum? [Brito @ Time]

The attack on rule-of-law judges - PointOfLaw Forum

Left-wing reporters and blogs pushed an anonymously-sourced story about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser attacking fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley, but Byron York reveals that the reports are highly exaggerated and possibly even trumped up.

Almost as bad are the bogus ethics charges (led by the now-disgraced Anthony Weiner) against conservative Supreme Court justices; Curt Levey has details, and Randy Barnett comments.

JoAnne Kloppenburg will not challenge the results of Wisconsin Supreme Court election in court, she announced today in a news conference. Following a lengthy county-by-county recount, the Government Accountability Board last week certified incumbent Justice David T. Prosser Jr. as the winning candidate in the April 5 election. Prosser received 752,694 votes and Kloppenburg received 745,690 votes, a difference of 7,004 votes or 0.46 percent.

The announcement by Kloppenburg, a deputy attorney general, means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court retains its 4-to-3 conservative majority and is less likely to be sympathetic toward a legal challenge against the state's news collective bargaining law for public employees. Last Thursday, May 26, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi threw out the law, ruling that the Republican Senators had violated open-meetings laws when they passed the legislation with insufficient notice. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has Sumi's expected ruling here, and more coverage here.

Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenberg has requested and will receive a statewide recount of the April 5 election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which incumbent Justice David Prosser won by 7,316 votes. (Official county-by-county canvas.) Prosser's margin of victory was 0.489 percent, below the 0.5 percent margin means the state, i.e., the taxpayers, will pick up the approximate $1 million cost of the recount to begin next week -- even though no previous recount has ever reversed an election with such a large margin of victory.

At a news conference, Kloppenburg cited various "anomalies" to justify the recount and said:

Wisconsin residents must have full confidence that these election results are legitimate and that this election was fair. A recount will establish where votes were incorrectly tabulated and expose if irregularities compromised the electoral process. A recount may change the outcome of this election or it may confirm it. But when it is done, a recount will have shone necessary and appropriate light on an election which, right now, seems to many people, suspect.

And after the recount, will the losers then declare, "Yes, the vote was fair, we acknowledge the results, and congratulate Justice Prosser on his victory?" Seems unlikely, especially given the tone taken by the same union officials who supported her campaign and paid for anti-Prosser ads. The national AFL-CIO blog reports that Stephanie Bloomingdale, Secretary-Treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said "This race was a dead heat before something questionable happened in Waukesha."

Each and every voter in Wisconsin deserves to be certain that their vote counted and was counted correctly. No matter the results of the recount-April 5 demonstrates how Gov. Walker's extreme overreach and attack on workers' rights united Wisconsin to turn a runaway win for an incumbent judge into a competitive race.

In Wisconsin, Prosser wins - PointOfLaw Forum

With all counties having canvassed the votes, incumbent state Justice David Prosser has defeated Assistant Attorney General Joanne Kloppenburg for a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court by 7,316 votes. Kloppenburg can request a taxpayer-paid recount (the deadline is Wednesday 5 p.m. for the request) but the largest statewide margin ever overcome in a recount was 500 votes.

From Daniel Foster at National Review Online, a transcription of Prosser's comments at a news conference, including:

A public office is a public trust. While I have certainly made misstatements and mistakes along the way, I have never broken the public trust. This proposition was challenged repeatedly and viciously throughout the campaign. My detractors set out to paint a false picture of who I am and what I believe. "

Powerful forces, not always clearly identified, attempted to turn this election. . . into a referendum on the governor of Wisconsin. . . [As a result] the qualifications, experience, even the identity of my opponent became irrelevant. Fortunately the people of Wisconsin rejected this effort.

Also...

Sen. Ron Johnson on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race - PointOfLaw Forum

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) spoke at the Heritage Foundation's weekly The Bloggers Briefing today on federal spending, the budget and political matters. Johnson was elected in the strong Republican showing in the 2010 Wisconsin elections that brought Scott Walker into the governorship and gave the GOP control of both the state Senate and Assembly.

In response to a question, Sen. Johnson described Tuesday's Supreme Court race between the incumbent Justice David Prosser, a conservative and former Republican legislator, and the union-backed Joanne Kloppenburg as an extension of the 2010 elections:

So if you really take a look at the detailed results of that election, I’m actually pretty buoyed by it. I was pretty depressed. I came in here, I think it was Wednesday morning, and he was up by a couple of votes, and I attended a hearing and come back, and he’s down by 224. And that was depressing. The signal that that would have sent, the amount of energy that would have provided to public sector unions, the bosses, and just to the Left in general, I think would have been terrible for the nation, truthfully.

Prosser ahead in Wisconsin - PointOfLaw Forum

Reports had Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg, ahead by 204 votes out of about 1.5 million, suggesting a long and painful ballot litigation that might have to go to a Wisconsin Supreme Court where three of the six remaining justices are heavily partisan. But Thursday, Waukesha County announced that it had not counted 14 thousand ballots that gave Prosser a 7000-vote lead. That doesn't change the possibility of litigation, but it does provide some cushion that makes it less likely that the election will be decided by a fluke of the courts.

UPDATE (6:55 p.m.): From WisPolitics.com: "The Waukesha County canvass netted Justice David Prosser more than 7,500 votes over JoAnne Kloppenburg, swinging the vote total dramatically in his direction."

Yes, there's next to no way to overcome a 7,000 vote margin in a recount.

..........

UPDATE (4:47 p.m.): WisPolitics.com has an election blog, from which we learn that Justice David Prosser's legal team for the recount will be headed by Jim Troupis and include Milwaukee-based Attorney Dan Kelly and Ben Ginsberg of Washington, D.C., who was prominent on the 2000 Bush-Gore recount in Florida.

..........
UPDATE (4:23 p.m.): With additional precincts reporting, now Prosser's up by several hundred votes.
.........

Joanne Kloppenburg, the union-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, declared victory over incumbent Justice David Prosser Wednesday on the basis of 206 votes out of 1.5 million case. A recount is likely.

Two takes on Kloppenburg's advance are common, typified by:

  • Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit: "WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT: A Referendum That Wasn’t. Nope. The unions went all-in and managed a dead heat in a judicial election. The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse."

Versus ...

  • Greg Sargent at Washington Post's Plumline blog: "[Even] without a win, labor and Dems will have exceeded expectations big time, and will have proved that the grassroots energy unleashed by Walker’s overreach is still in full force. And of course, if Kloppenburg does pull this off, it will constitute a huge win that will only lend more momentum to the recall drives and confirm that Walker remains as politically toxic as ever."

It pains us to agree with Sargent, but a victory is a victory is a victory. John Fund at The Wall Street Journal raises the possibility of voter fraud, which would be no surprise given the flood of outside activists coming to the state and Wisconsin's same-day voter registration law.

Wisconsin Supreme Court results - PointOfLaw Forum

As of a few minutes after 9 PM Central, with 17% of the vote in, incumbent Prosser is up by less than one percent. It's not clear whether the early count comes from predominantly Democratic or Republican regions, though. You can follow the count on this page.

Update: county by county, Kloppenburg is running six or seven points ahead of John Kerry in 2004; Kerry won the state by 0.4 points that year.

Update: Prosser leads this morning by 835 votes out of over 1.47 million cast, suggesting litigation and shenanigans to come.

Robert Costa of National Review Online reports on a speech Monday to supporters by Joanne Kloppenburg, the union-backed candidate in today's Wisconsin Supreme Court election, running against incumbent Justice David Prosser.

Kloppenburg’s closing argument against Prosser began with a comparison of Facebook profiles. “When you look at my opponent’s Facebook page, you see a lot of meanness, a lot of hatred, a lot of fear,” she said. “When you look at my Facebook page, you see hope.”

Thus does campaigning progress. Next election cycle, candidates will compare Twitter accounts.

Will Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general, oust Prosser, a rule-of-law jurist, and in the process turn the court's majority into a 4-3 liberal, activist majority? Organized labor certainly hopes so, working hard to elect Kloppenburg with the clear hope she will vote to overturn Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining and budget reform legislation. The election results will depend on voter turnout: Will the "progressive" voters of Madison come to the polls in sufficient numbers to outweigh voters from the conservative counties?

The last week or so has not been edifying. Organized labor threatened business owners who refused to post pro-union signs in their stores, a protection scheme that some police unions even signed on to.

The lefty group, the Greater Wisconsin Association, has run ads against Justice Prosser accusing him of cossetting child-abusing priests and damning him for referring to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as a "total b*****." The Prosser campaign responded to the first ad with its own commercial, and The Wall Street Journal's John Fund suggests the original attack may have backfired.

Around the web, April 4 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • How should courts treat "professional objectors"? [Schonbrun; Karlsgodt]
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court election tomorrow, has become proxy vote on Governor Walker union reforms. [Kaus]
  • Chamber continues to oppose Jack McConnell D.R.I. nomination; Senate Judiciary Committee approves. [ILR]

  • Virginia governor vetoes HB1459, which would have increased medical malpractice damage caps. Unlike most states, Virginia law caps total damages, and the bill increased the caps by 2.5% or less a year for twenty years. [WaPo]
  • Medical malpractice reform dies in New York. [Heritage]
  • Nocera on an odd exercise of prosecutorial discretion. [NYT]
  • US FCPA self-reporting down, while UK passes similar Bribery Act. An economist suggests that legalizing bribery (while continuing to forbid bribe-taking) is optimal way to discourage bribery, so these laws move in the wrong direction. [Corporate Crime Reporter; Levick @ Forbes; Tabarrok]
  • Odd, and likely unconstitutional, Arkansas ban on cyber-bullying passed despite sound opposition from Dan Greenberg. [Volokh]
  • Discredited Duke lacrosse accuser Crystal Mangum arrested for stabbing a man. [Raleigh News Observer]

Stephen Moore at The Wall Street Journal reports on the April 5th election for Wisconsin Supreme Court, which organized labor and the political left are trying to turn into a referendum on Gov. Scott Walker's budget and collective bargaining reforms. From Political Diary, "Wisconsin's Battle Supreme":

State supreme court justice elections are typically slam dunks for the incumbent unless there is a scandal or a high-profile court decision that galvanizes opposition. In this case, incumbent David Prosser is caught in the crossfire over collective bargaining issues. Conservatives currently hold a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin court, but an upset would give liberals the balance of power. Mr. Prosser's opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, was a relative unknown and a decided underdog until the protests ignited in Madison. She is now running around that state arguing that Mr. Prosser is a rubber stamp for Governor Walker and his agenda. The liberal groups are up with ads called "Prosser Is Walker."

Union activists and their allies explicitly link Kloppenburg's candidacy to reversing the new collective bargaining law in the Supreme Court. As The Superior Telegram reported, "PeopleFirst rallies behind Kloppenburg," quoting an organizer for the group, Mike Raunio:

Raunio says Kloppenburg could be a vital asset to repealing Scott Walker’s cut to collective bargaining rights.

“She is an ally to the people of Wisconsin. If we help her to get into to position then she will defiantly be an advocate to the rights of workers and everyday citizens.”

Both candidates have accepted public financing limiting their expenditures to $300,000, so outside groups are doing the advertising. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce recently went on the air with a restrained pro-Prosser ad. In a fund-raising appeal to its members, WMC President James Haney wrote, "One union even told its members they want to defeat a Supreme Court justice to 'get even.' It’s shocking and they are putting big money behind their efforts, including boycotts of home-grown Wisconsin employers."

On April 5, Wisconsin voters will elect a justice to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, choosing between 12-year incumbent David Prosser (campaign website) and Joanne F. Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general (website). Left-wing activists are supporting Kloppenburg's candidacy as the next stage in the fight over collective bargaining for public employees. Talk about politicizing the judicial elections.

Mickey Kaus, now at The Daily Caller, reports:

Second-Half Game Plan: Firedoglake’s David Dayen on the labor-Dem plans to fight back in Wisconsin after losing their battle with Gov Walker. The most intriguing wrinkle is the scheduled state Supreme Court election:

The matchup between David Prosser (R) and JoAnn Kloppenberg (D) for the state Supreme Court on April 5 just got very interesting. It’s a statewide vote, and the balance of power on the state Supreme Court is at stake.  …. If Democrats win, the legality of what took place tonight [i.e. passing Walker's plan-ed.] may be put in greater question.

Will Wisconsin voters feel comfortable turning a judicial election into, in effect, a referendum on a law Democrats don’t like? Will the other 3 Democratic-appointed Supreme Court judges play along with this slightly banana-republicy game? True, conservatives have often campaigned against liberal judges after unpopular rulings (e.g., Rose Bird in California). But it seems even worse, in terms of legal etiquette, to elect a judge in order to make a particular ruling, about a particular law, in a particular upcoming case. …

Ann Althouse, a University of Wisconsin law professor and top-notch blogger, also reports, "Politicizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court election":

There's an election coming up, and JoAnne Kloppenburg is the challenger to the incumbent David Prosser. There are many Kloppenburg signs at the march and, as I've noted before, although it's supposed to be a nonpartisan election, some people try to make it very political. I've seen many people out at the protests stressing the need to make Kloppenburg a Supreme Court Justice so that she can vote against the GOP budget repair bill and do other things that will help the party that lost the elections last fall get something back in the judicial process.

Around the web, February 17 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Texas asbestos and silicosis reform a success. [LNL; TCJL]
  • Elsewhere in Texas, Governor Perry proposes loser pays and making access to justice easier for smaller cases. [TCJL]
  • Extensive tort reform in Wisconsin undoes some bad Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, caps punitive damages. [Sachse]
  • Multi-billion dollar judgment in Ecuador in Chevron lawsuit. Chevron has a webpage detailing its response to and summarizing the various collateral litigations, including a Hague international arbitration temporarily prohibiting international enforcement of the judgement.

  • "Climate Policy by Judicial Fiat: How Global Warming Lawsuits Subvert the Democratic Process" [Heritage]
  • Insider trading and the Sentencing Guidelines. [Ribstein]
  • Why is Obama meeting with a group that launders Chinese money? [Carney @ Examiner]
  • DOJ/DHS operation shuts down over 83,000 web sites for no reason. [Blackman]

Around the web, February 13 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Tort reform in Wisconsin? Package passed to undo bad Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, establish Daubert standards, cap punitive damages. [Sachse; Shopfloor; ALEC; NFIB]
  • "Uncommon Law: Ruminations on Public Nuisance" [Faulk @ BEPress]
  • Does David Frum want to criminalize agency costs? [Bainbridge]
  • How bad is the California Supreme Court's Kwikset decision? [Jackson; CJAC; Overlawyered]
  • Some plaintiffs' lawyers pretend that their real Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuit is over the lack of a brake override (which wouldn't prevent driver error); others continue to promote their junk science theory. [NLJ]
  • "Does America have a lawyer problem, or a law problem?" [Reynolds @ Washington Examiner]

  • "Arbitration records lift curtain on Milberg's legal woes" [NLJ]
  • Paging the Truth on the Market bloggers! When it comes to the North Carolina State Bar regulating attorneys overcharging clients, they're slow or unwilling to act, but they're quick on the draw when it comes to innovations that might lead to increased competition and lower fees: "Proposed NC Ethics Opinion Says Lawyers Can't Ethically Offer Groupon Deals." [ABAJ]
  • Andrew Grossman testifies to Senate Judiciary Committee that there isn't a free lunch when you let bankruptcy courts coerce mortgage modifications. [Senate Judiciary Committee]

  • Arbitrator awards $7.5 million to non-tenured teachers fired by Michelle Rhee. Thanks, teachers' union! [Washington Examiner]

Scott Greenfield details the disturbing Wisconsin Supreme Court case of State v. Smith, where Wisconsin extended its sex-offender registration requirement to the case of a non-sexual felony false imprisonment of a minor stemming from a 17-year-old boy's dispute over a drug debt with another 17-year-old boy.

Senate moves slowly ... - PointOfLaw Forum

The Washington Post today revisits a perennial story, that of the speed with which the Senate is confirming judicial nominations, "Senate moves slowly in confirming Obama's lower-court judicial nominees."

The story comes in the wake of Democrats taking to the Senate floor last Thursday, July 29, to demand confirmation votes on President Obama's federal judicial nominees. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) led the colloquy, starting on page S6476 of The Congressional Record.

Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin praised Louis Butler Jr., the former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice nominated for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin. As this Wall Street Journal editorial recalls, voters in 2008 kicked Butler off the state Supreme Court, in part because of his liberal rulings against medical liability reform and his invention of "collective liability" for paint manfacturers. President Obama nominated him to the federal court in Oct. 2009 and renominated him last January.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed of Rhode Island were also exercised about Republicans preventing a vote on John "Jack" McConnell, the Motley Rice attorney and Democratic contributor nominated to the U.S. District Court. Whitehouse attacked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by name, posing the rhetorical question, "Do we want to let powerful out-of-State interests trump the better informed views of home State Senators about district court nominees? That is not the tradition of this body. I again ask my colleagues: Is this the tradition they want to set? If they open the door to out-of-State special interests trumping the considered judgment of home State Senators on district court nominees, will they ever get that door closed again? I submit it is a mistake for this body to go that road."

Alternatively, do we want Senators' parochial and political interests to always trump the public's objections to judicial nominees whose qualifications are solely political? Is that the road we want to go down?

Sen. Udall asked for unanimous consent several times to move the pending judicial candidates, with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) objecting. Two other controversial nominees who were stopped were Goodwin Liu to be a Ninth Circuit judge and Robert Chatigny to be on the Second Circuit. (Page S6486.)

Addendum: Originally appointed by Gov. Mike Doyle to the state Supreme Court to fill a vacancy, Justice Louis Butler was defeated in April 2008 for a full term by Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman. The expensive, rough-and-tumble campaign offended "good government" types, and Gableman became the target of a complaint based on one truthful TV ad. Last month the Wisconsin Judicial Commission decided not to take any action.

At NRO this morning, I argued that it was important to keep an eye on judicial nominations other than Elena Kagan's to the Supreme Court:

[I]n 1986, the Democrats in the Senate were so focused on attacking William Rehnquist -- whom Ronald Reagan had chosen to elevate to chief justice of the Supreme Court -- that they made nary a noise about Reagan's pick to succeed Rehnquist as an associate justice. Thus it was that Antonin Scalia was confirmed to sit for life on the highest court in the land with 98 senators in favor, and none against.

It's incumbent on those of us who care about the judiciary to keep this in mind as the nation's attention focuses on Elena Kagan. Only a tiny fraction of cases decided by the appellate courts are granted review by the Supreme Court, which means that those lower appellate benches are usually the courts of last resort in the federal system. And because so many cases never make it even that far, federal trial courts wield enormous power, too.

I focused on three nominees of concern:

  • Goodwin Liu, my law school classmate (see previous posts on this site);

  • Louis Butler, of Wisconsin Supreme Court lead paint and med-mal fame (see ealier posts here); and

  • Jack McConnell, the plaintiffs' lawyer who was Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's symbiotic partner in Rhode Island's $3 billion-lead-paint-verdict fiasco (see posts here, and earlier writings here and here).

Liu's nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee today on a straight (12-7) party-line vote.

Our readers may recall that Butler's nomination also passed out of Judiciary last year on a 12-7 party-line vote but wasn't acted upon by the full body; and that the president resubmitted his nomination this January.

McConnell's hearings before Judiciary were scheduled for this afternoon. As Carter reported, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out strongly against this nomination on Tuesday, and my piece today in NRO was joined by critical editorials in the Washington Times and American Spectator.

2 3