The Senate on Wednesday confirmed John “Jack” McConnell to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, voting along party lines, 50-44.

McConnell’s confirmation was made possible when 11 Republicans earlier joined the Democrats in a 63-33 vote to invoke cloture. Those votes should be seen as a statement on the confirmation process, that is, trying to dial back the partisan conflict that afflicts consideration of judicial nominees.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who voted for cloture but against confirmation, made the case this way:

[The] Senate is a body of precedent. One important precedent is that never in Senate history has a President’s district court nomination reported by the Judiciary Committee been defeated because of a filibuster, that is, because of a cloture vote. Once a nominee for federal district judge has gotten to the floor, the majority of senators have made the decision in an up-or-down vote.

Therefore, I will vote today for cloture in order to allow an up-or-down vote on the President’s nomination of John McConnell. Then, I will vote “no” on confirmation because I believe he is a flawed nominee.

Flawed is a gentle description. McConnell is probably the worst judicial nominee that President Obama has put forward.
(continue reading…)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday moved for a cloture vote on the nomination of John “Jack” McConnell to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island. McConnell has no judicial experience, but he did make millions the state tobacco lawsuits, transforming hundreds of thousands of dollars into political contributions.

McConnell was drove state’s egregious public nuisance suit over lead paint against paint manufacturers, in which then-Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse farmed out the litigation to McConnell’s firm, Motley Rice, on a contingency basis. The Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously rejected the suit in 2009.

A vote on cloture could happen as soon as Wednesday, but opposition from Senate Republicans and business is determined.

• Point of Law, “Senate moves closer to vote on controversial R.I. judge pick“
• Committee for Justice, statement by Executive Director Curt Levey, “Reid Files Cloture on Nominee, Signaling War“
• Legal Newsline, “Vote might be coming on controversial judicial nominee“
• Main Justice, “Reid To Try To Force Vote on Controversial District Court Judge“
• BLT, Blog of the Legal Times, “Democrats Push for Vote on Trial Lawyer Judicial Nominee“
• Power Line, “The Case of Jack McConnell“
• Wall Street Journal editorial, April 16, “Painting the Bench Green: A tort kingpin doesn’t deserve a federal judgeship.”

UPDATE (4:50 p.m.): Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) releases a blistering “Dear Colleague” letter opposing cloture on McConnell’s nomination. Excerpt (via the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform): (continue reading…)

No, not Elena Kagan. It’s Jack McConnell, a top trial lawyer from Rhode Island who wants to serve as a U.S. District Court judge.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on judicial nominees Thursday, including McConnell, a partner with Motley Rice who has distinguished himself for suing tobacco companies and paint manufacturers and for being a major campaign contributor.

Forbes senior editor Daniel Fisher writes on McConnell’s candidacy in his On the Docket  column:

McConnell’s the guy who, as a contingency-fee gun for hire, pursued expensive but ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits against the paint industry on behalf of Rhode Island.

McConnell also cashed in on the biggest tort bonanza in history, the tobacco settlement. According to financial statements he filed with Congress as part of this nomination, the Motley Rice attorney anticipates “deferred compensation for work performed and completed of approximately $2.5 million to $3.1 million each year through 2024.”

The litigation against the paint manufacturers sought to pervert public nuisance law, creating through the courts a second form of all-purpose product liability law. And the state’s hiring of Motley Rice to run its lawsuit in hopes of a huge payout was a class example of the “pay to sue” business that has undermined the integrity of the U.S. judicial system. (continue reading…)