Corporate Governance

This Thursday, June 10, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets in an Executive Business Meeting to further deliberate on, among other things, President Obama?s nomination of John J. (?Jack?) McConnell of Motley Rice for the District Court of the District of Rhode Island.  Last month, McConnell was ?raked over the coals? by Republican Senators before the Committee last month, according to a Huffington Post blog last week by Carl Pope, Chair of the Sierra Club (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-politics-of-poisoning_b_598139.html).  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also has opposed the nomination, arguing that McConnell has an ?apparent bias against the business community.?  McConnell has been the target of several Wall Street Journal editorials, including one on Monday, June 7, 2010 (?The Judge from Motley Rice?), going back to 2006.

McConnell?s track record clearly reflects the ability to manage the courtroom in complex litigation.  A substantial majority of the ABA?s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary found McConnell qualified for the bench.  But his opposition is clearly focused on what side McConnell has taken in his work as an advocate.  McConnell was the lead attorney for the State of Rhode Island in litigation against major former manufacturers of lead paint, obtaining a jury verdict in 2006 that found the manufacturers liable for cleaning up lead pain in homes but which was subsequently overturned by the state?s Supreme Court.  He also played a major role in litigation against the tobacco industry on behalf of State Attorneys General.  According to Motley Rice?s website, http://www.motleyrice.com/attorneys/view/john-j-mcconnell-jr, McConnell early on won a jury verdict for the family of a mesothelioma victim in his first trial as lead counsel. 

Pope, the Sierra Club Chair, aptly highlighted the absurdity of the partisan opposition:

And let's look a little more carefully at the question of who is fit to be a federal judge. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had also looked at the issue of after-the-fact liability -- and determined that victims of Hurricane Katrina had a legal right to bring a lawsuit against the oil industry for the role that global warming pollution had contributed to the damages. The oil industry then appealed that ruling to the entire sixteen-judge court.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case. But then various judges began recusing themselves from the case. Eventually the court was left without a quorum, because eight of the sixteen judges felt they had a conflict of interest. Last week, five of the remaining eight judges announced that since too few of their colleagues could hear the case, they would restore -- not the three-judge appellate opinion -- but an original lower-court ruling that Katrina victims had no right to be in court against the oil industry.

Pope pointed out that Senators Kyl and Sessions, who were the most aggressive in questioning McConnell last month, voted to approve all of the presently sitting Fifth Circuit judges who came up during their terms in the Senate.

Similarly, the AP reported on Sunday that:

More than half of the federal judges in districts where the bulk of Gulf oil spill-related lawsuits are pending have financial connections to the oil and gas industry, complicating the task of finding judges without conflicts to hear the cases[.]

. . .

The AP review of disclosure statements shows the oil and gas industry's roots run as deep in the Gulf Coast's judiciary as they do in the region's economy. For example, one federal judge in Texas is a member of Houston's Petroleum Club, an "exclusive, handsome club of, and for, men of the oil industry."

?AP IMPACT: Many Gulf federal judges have oil links,? by Curt Anderson, Associated Press, June 6, 2010.

For a webcast of Thursday?s meeting, visit the Judiciary Committee?s website: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4627.