6th Cir. Obstruction and the MI Primary
By Curt Levey Posted in Circuit Courts — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Michigan is home to both the next presidential primary and the decade’s most outrageous obstruction of judicial nominees. Back in 2001, Sens. Levin and Stabenow started blocking Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit and they’ve persisted to this day. As a result, Steve Murphy and Ray Kethledge have gone more than a year and a half without so much as a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, despite the fact that the seats to which they are nominated are judicial emergencies.
The confluence of the primary and obstruction campaign by Michigan’s senators provides an opportunity for journalists to ask both the presidential contenders and Levin and Stabenow about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process. No doubt Levin and Stabenow will once again cite, as justification, the failure of two second-term Clinton appointees to the Sixth Circuit—one of whom is married to Levin's cousin—to get hearings. Besides being petty, that justification rings hollow, given that Levin and Stabenow have been offered “generous” compromises that would put the two Clinton nominees on the federal bench. But the senators “can't take yes for an answer,” to quote Detroit News editorials (9/13/04 & 11/25/01).
It’s a shame that Sen. Levin has forgotten his own words from the Clinton era:
“It is unconscionable to keep [judicial nominees] waiting. At a minimum, give people a hearing and vote them up or down. If members want to vote no, that is their choice. But not to give them a hearing is just unfair.” (Detroit News 10/17/99)
Levin and Stabenow have an extra incentive now not to allow anymore Bush COA nominees to be confirmed. Like so many other Dem senators, they want a Dem president in 2009 to fill the COA slots under their blue-slip control. At present, it doesn't make much difference about what was or was not done to Helene White in the past. With the exception of Gene Pratter, I doubt seriously that the Dems will confirm ANY Bush COA nominee in 2008 unless that person comes from a state with two Republican senators. The Dems desperately want to make sure that Bush's impact on the federal judiciary is kept minimal in advance what they hope will be a victory in the November election.
recess appointments
by Matthew Friendly
Curt,
Will there be any opportunity to recess appoint these guys, and if so, would they accept?
Matthew
by BoBo
Although I would love to see Peter Keisler recess-appointed, as time ticks closer to the end of Bush's term, the reason for anybody's recess-appointment quickly diminishes. In the short amount of time the person may have left to serve, little can be accomplished.
At this point, the only nominees I think Bush can conceivably recess-appoint with impunity are Supreme Court nominees. If Stevens should retire this summer (and I am NOT saying he will), Bush should recess-appoint someone to the Supreme Court in August, regardless of whether or not Reid holds any more pro forma sessions in the Senate.
I think there are enough votes on the court (i.e. the Fab Four and Kennedy) to support the constitutionality of the president's recess-appointment powers if the Dems should bring a legal challenge. It would be difficult for the remaining liberals (Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) to voice too much opposition because of the way it might embitter their new colleague against them.
This process could be greatly aided if the person who is recess-appointed is a former Kennedy law clerk. Although for the reason I have already mentioned (a recess-appointment of a blocked COA nominee might be useless in terms of effectiveness now), if Bush really wants to test the Dems in the courts, he should recess-appoint Keisler and Kethledge, both former Kennedy clerks, soon. I really dont think Stevens will be able to convince Kennedy to deny two of his former clerks federal judgeships.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/29/164527.shtml
I know this is newsmax, but read down into the article. I am trying to find another article that confirms this. I can't imagine McCain would actually do this due to the age issue.
2nd source
by AC1
This is from the website of 2006 Senate candidate Ed Bryant of Tennessee:
http://bloggingforbryant.blogspot.com/2005/07/thompson-floated-for-us-su...
thompson is too old
by Dienekes
if for no other reason than that, he'd make as awful a nominee for SCOTUS as he would for POTUS, where he'd make Bob Dole look like a world-beater.
John Dean liked Thompson for SCOTUS, too.
bottom line, if you're going to nominate someone in their 60s, it better be someone exceptional, not mediocre like Fred.
Thompson is too old
by AC1
But I just think this shows the depth of the friendship between the 2. A Senate with 55+ Dems would also never confirm someone who is speaking out daily now in South Carolina against Roe.
Agree with McCain
by AndrewHyman
If there's a vacancy between now and the end of the current presidential term, I think Thompson might be an ideal nominee, unless he starts winning primaries.
if mccain is president, there won't be 55 dems
by Dienekes
do you really see mccain getting the nomination, winning the general, and not having coattails enough to keep MN, OR, ME (all of which I think are pretty safe anyway in part because they haven't drawn serious challengers), and maybe CO and NH and VA? the most at risk seat in the case of his election is the one we'll certainly lose - his own.
Senate seats
by AC1
I would say we are going to lose NM, CO, NH, and VA as of today. Hopefully we can win LA. McCain at the top of the ticket will help our candidates. Can you imagine what would happen to OR, MN, or ME with Huckabee at the top of the ticket?
should McCain resign?
by skippy1
Should McCain resign from the Senate seat in late summer, forcing the governor of AR to call the election to replace McCain in Nov 2008? I assume, if McCain waits until after Nov 2008 to resign, then the governor's (who is a Democrat) appointment would last until Nov 2010. Hopefully then, the GOP would not loose that Senate seat.
That's a fascinating
by AndrewHyman
That's a fascinating question, skippy1. Here's what the 17th Amendment says:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Here's some previous speculation about a McCain resignation, from US News and World Report. Here's the pertinent Arizona law:
A. When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or representative in Congress by reason of death or resignation, or from any other cause, the vacancy shall be filled at the next general election. At such election the person elected shall fill the unexpired term of the vacated office.
B. For a vacancy in the office of representative in Congress, if the next general election is not to be held within six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy, the governor shall call a special primary election and a special general election to fill the vacancy. The special primary election shall be held no less than seventy-five nor more than one hundred five days after the occurrence of the vacancy, and the special general election shall be held not less than thirty-five nor more than forty-five days after the special primary election.
C. For a vacancy in the office of United States senator, the governor shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy. That appointee shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and shall serve until the person elected at the next general election is qualified and assumes office.
Gov. Napolitano would have to appoint someone from the "same political party." My bet: she would appoint Sandra Day O'Connor.
senate seats
by Matthew Friendly
CO and NM are running nearly as dead heats in polls right now. VA is not so good, but the Rep presidential candidates are polling very well there, so who's to say we can't pull out VA with a strong Rep prez showing there? We'll see.
Can you detail the generous compromise you talk about? If they were both offered DJ seats that would really not be fair.