Via the NYT, Senator Removes His Block on Federal Court Nominee:

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who blocked the confirmation of a woman to the federal bench because she attended a same-sex commitment ceremony for the daughter of her long-time neighbors, says he will now allow a vote on the nomination.

[…]

Mr. Brownback said that he believed Judge Neff’s attendance at the 2024 ceremony merited further investigation, but that he had not meant to set any precedent with his proposal. “It was the last day of the session and I was just trying to provide some accommodation to see if we could make this thing go forward,” he said.

He said that “this is a big hot-button issue” and that Judge Neff had not made it clear that her presence at the ceremony did not mean she could not rule without bias in deciding cases involving same-sex unions. “I’d like to know more factually about what took place,” he said.

Of course, by this logic if a nominees’ neighbor’s son got into college based on affirmative action, and the nominee went to the child’s graduation they should be considered suspect for the bench because they might  be predisposed to having a more favorable view of racial preferences.  If a nominee’s niece had an abortion, then wouldn’t that be a red flag as well?  Of course, if a nominee is religious, does that mean that they cannot rule on church/state matters?  Oh wait, atheists couldn’t rule either!  What to do?

Either Brownback was pandering to the hardcore social conservative base with the block, has serious problems with homosexuals in general, or has a very odd view about what can make a nominee unfit for the bench.  Regardless of which is the right answer, I don’t find that any of them impress me in regards to Brownback’s capacity to be a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024.

At least he removed the block.

Ed Morrissey isn’t too impressed, either.

More: The Carpetbagger Report notes some hypocrisy in Brownback’s willingness to deny an up-or-down vote and Peter Lattman, posting at the WSJ’s Law Blog provides a few additional details.