Durbin does politics of fraud in judical nomination

Power Line:

... The main attack consists of the claim that Judge Southwick is racist or racially insensitive. As I pointed out, though, those best in a position to know whether this is so, including two African-American former law clerks, vigorously disagree with the allegation.

Durbin's attack centers on a decision in which Judge Southwick joined with the majority of his court to affirm, under a "limited scope of review," an administrative ruling that the use of the n-word by a public employee on one occasion did not justify that employee's firing. The opinion Southwick joined clearly stated that the employee's conduct "cannot be justified by any argument." However, the opinion rejected "an arbitrary, across-the-board rule" that use of the n-word (or of any other racial epithet) is always "so inflammatory or disruptive that it warrants the ultimate sanction of loss of employment."

This view is consistent with well-established federal law under which one instance of using a racial or sexual epithet generally does not create a hostile work environment and thus does not constitute racial or sexual harassment. A rule disqualifying from elevation judges who have expressed that view would rule out most judges who have opined on the subject. Yet, if one were prepared to engage in cheap grandstanding and personal attacks, one could call this rule "racially insenstive."

...

Opponents of the nomination falsely claim that the decision was overturned because of this ruling. The court actually agreed with the lower court and remanded solely to have either a lesser penalty imposed are an opinion on why no penalty would be imposed. The dishonesty of the attack is breath taking. Sen. Durbin should be referred to the Senate Ethics Committee for this fraudulent and bad faith attack on a nominee.