ConfirmThem

If only Stevens would retire, I would love Bush nominate to Sykes. But after Gonzales v. Carhart, Stevens knows that all his beloved liberal precedents are now in grave danger. He will never retire under a president he knows will appoint a replacement who will destroy what Stevens regards as his legacy.

OK, I'm warming up to Sykes now. This is the kind of stuff we need to see, tho obv'ly she's still far behind Jones & JRB in this regard.

------

While the court continued its creative expansion of judicial power in its next term, Judge Sykes, now on a federal appeals court, was not amused. Last year she gave a lecture at Marquette University, casting a critical eye on this unfolding record, which, she said, reflected "a dramatic shift in the court's jurisprudence, departing from some familiar and long-accepted principles that normally operate as constraints on the court's use of its power."

Thus it was a pleasure to read her text saying that "the court's responsibility of judicial review is not a warrant to displace legislative judgments." And: "The terms 'modesty' and 'restraint' -- the watchwords of today's judicial mainstream -- seem to be missing from the Wisconsin Supreme Court's current vocabulary.... The court has also manifested a cavalier, almost dismissive attitude toward the sources of legal interpretation generally thought to be most authoritative: the text, structure, and history of the constitution and laws, and the court's own precedents."

And Sykes' remarks were full of gems of the "gotcha" variety, such as when she criticized the court's majority for straining too hard to show that the Legislature's judgment did not proceed from a "rational basis": "It takes the court seventy-nine paragraphs to get there. You'd think if a law were truly irrational, it would be simpler to explain why."

-----

You never know; the four targets for replacement are all 67 or older. According to the actuarial tables, the situation could change radically any day, and volition as to whether or not to leave may not be a factor.

I continue to think that the top choices in the event of a vacancy are Karen Williams (if she can finesse Dickerson, which seems quite doable) and Sykes. I've laid out the reasons several times and will not do so again here.

One caveat on Sykes. Since the PBA decision last week, I've seen numerous statements and innuendos by liberals and leftists in the media that the decision was somehow attributable to the Catholicism of several of the justices. One said it was "a decision by five Catholic justices" and another actually said that the majority justices got their orders on the case from the Vatican.

This is of course pathetic and contemptible, but clearly there is a virulent strain of anti-Christianity and especially anti-Catholicism in the modern Left. And these people know no bounds in their diseased politics of personal destruction.

Sykes is Catholic. Do people here think that this, however inappropriately, could be a significant factor against her? The mainstream leftist media and Democrat Senators might use indirect insinuations and innuendo, while leftist bloggers and outlets like Air America would probably make direct attacks on her based on loathsome religious bigotry that they hypocritically claim to deplore. Would this create a backlash? I have no idea. In the present poisonous political environment, tactics that have always seemed beyond the pale now seem acceptable and even expected. See Harry Reid, for instance.

How can certain liberal Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy protest Sykes' Catholicism since they themselves are Catholic?

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2708

The new agenda for Wednesday's SJC business meeting is up. Neither Keisler or Livingston are listed for committee votes. Unless there is another SJC meeting on Thursday (doubtful), it means that there will not be any COA nominee available for a full Senate vote in April.

I've thought of Leahy and Kennedy, and assume that they would desist from bringing up the issue of Catholicism, although the depth of Kennedy's hypocrisy is so stupendous that he or his staff might just find some devious convoluted way to do so. Remember that this is the man who gave public lectures on the evils of waterboarding, simulated drowning, at televised Senate hearings. These pious lectures were coming from the Chappaquiddick Man! I could barely believe what I was hearing even as I heard it; maybe he didn't even realize what he was saying. Liberals and Democrats must have been cringing.

But even if Democrat Senators hold thir tongues about Sykes' or another nominee's Catholicism, I doubt that the leftist media and leftist special interest groups like Move-On, PFAW, and NARAL will. They are quite capable of any despicible smear. Didn't they virtually accuse John Roberts of inciting and supplying protesters to bomb abortion clinics back in July of '05, just after his nomination to O'Connor's seat?

Wow, no CA confirmation for April. This news is very disappointing. This probably affects the whole schedule: Livingston now in May; Keisler now in June; Southwick/Elrod in July/August; maybe CA6 nominees in Sept/Oct. Sorry for this simplistic gripe: This whole process is way out of whack--politics gone bad.

I like Sykes too. However, given the elitist nature of OLC/OLP higher-ups, don't y'all think her resume will negatively affect her? See generally, Greenberg’s discussion of OLP officials viewing J. Jones (UT) and J. Souter (Harvard) differently.

Since the publication of her book, Greenburg has said that JRB, Sykes and Mahoney are the top Bush nominee picks. Based simply on resume, Mahoney (University of Chicago) should be the pick. However, Greenburg specifically has said that Mahoney only becomes the front runner in 2008. If a vacancy occurs this year, JRB and Sykes look to be the "chosen ones". Since JRB seems to be dead-on-arrival if nominated, that leaves Sykes as the front runner in 2007 if Bush wants to nominate someone who actually has a chance of getting confirmed.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

In these times where it appears Republicans must beg for crumbs, Halil Suleyman Ozerden of Mississippi will get a full Senate vote tomorrow at noon.

This week's bad news is just what I've been fearing. This is a major week for a clear indication of how fast the confirmation pace will be. Unless there are last minute changes, the results are grim.

1. Hearings: Now that it's almost certain that there will be no more hearings this month, the Dems will get through April with only one hearing for 4 total judges (Livingston and 3 DJ's on April 11th). There is no excuse for not holding a hearing for 3 DJ's this week, at a 2 week interval from the last hearing, to meet the minimum acceptable total of 7 hearings (1 CCA and 6 DJ) per month. This is the third straight month with only one hearing (2/6/07, 3/13/07, 4/11/07). Democrats have been using the excuse that they have been busy confirming nominees who had hearings last year stupidly (and inexcusably) left unconfirmed last Fall by the feckless 109th GOP Senate. That GOP stupidity has given Senate Democrats an excuse to waste over 4 months confirming nominees who should have been confirmed last year. But now the supply is running out; only Keisler and the 3 W.D. Michigan nominees are still pending.

2. Judiciary Committee votes and Confirmations: There is no excuse for not puting Livingston's name on the list for this week's business meeting: 14 days will have elapsed since her hearing (and they still have the one-week delay card in reserve). Ditto the 3 DJ nominees who had hearings on 4/11. Only Kapala and Settle are on the list, and their hearing was six weeks (six weeks!) ago. Dems can now delay reporting Livingston to the Floor until at least May 10th. So much for 2 CCA confirmations in April/May.

Senate Dems. outrageously exploited the Virginia Tech killings to bump their scheduled 4/17 Gonzo Circus to 4/19, thereby bumping last week's Business Meeting to this week. There was no reason the Business Meeting couldn't have been held the preceding or following day (4/18 or 4/20). The Democrat SJC vermin are absolutely shameless, and for some reason they are never called on it, whether they're in the minority or majority.

This appears to be the week that SJC Democrats dropped any pretense of a fair and timely confirmation pace, and exposed their obstruction-delay cards plainly. It looks like the Democrat goal is only one CCA confirmation by the Memorial Day recess, two at most by July, and slowing DJ confirmations to a trickle.

Wonderful and whoopie! It looks like he'll be the the first of of a miserable total of three (all District judges) to be confirmed this month.

Thanks again to George "Macaacca" Allen and Conrad "Abramoff" Burns for achieving the virtually impossible, losing safe GOP seats and throwing control of the Senate and judicial confirmations to Democrat obstructionists.

Even if Abbott & Costello HAD won, we still would've needed McConnell to fight the footdragging, holds, and filibusters--ERR, WAIT, I mean the *threat* of filibusters, pardon me.

There is scant historical evidence that any Republican Majority leader will fight for judges, tho I agree it would be nice to give it another try.

"Say 'Good Night', Gracie."
-Good Night, Gracie!

(Boy, now I'm dating myself!)

The ball's in his court.

Assuming both Owen and Brown are DOA, which is preferrable between Williams and Sykes?

I don't think Dickerson is a smoking gun, no moreso than Casey was for Alito anyway.

Jan Crawford Greenburg says that the White House views Williams as a "constitutional lightweight" due to the number of her reversals in the Supreme Court. She did not specifically mention Dickerson. That tells me that Williams has probably had plenty of other decisions reversed in the Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit en banc rehearings that the White House is aware of. I know that just recently a decision she joined in in a 2-1 panel hearing (she didn't write the opinion) was reversed by an en banc rehearing.

In addition, Greenburg said certain conservative leaders (Dobson? Robertson? Sekulow?) didn't support her because she had excused herself from an en banc rehearing of an abortion case in which she claimed to know the abortion doctor.

If the White House and others didn't like Williams back at the time of Roberts and Alito, I doubt things will change for her now. Also if Greenburg had heard Williams still had a chance, don't you think she would've mentioned her name alongside those of JRB, Sykes and Mahoney?

Everything old is new again, aye?

It seems that Sykes is generally considered a better writer and more intellectual. Moreover, she is something of a movement conservative. And this may be an insult to Williams, but I get the impression that she's merely a conservative judge from South Carolina. I'm not sure if she is fully aware of the larger judicial debates, and all of their implications.

Some -- or maybe just Andrew -- have expressed concern about Sykes because of her alleged dependence on substantive due process in some case when she was on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In light of this, I believe he prefers Williams. Of course he himself can address this further and more aptly if he cares to.

is the title of JCG's post today http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2007/04/faithbased_just.html

Looks like it's Chuck Schumer's "deeply held beliefs" part deux.

I'm sure Judge Sykes has a lot of very good things going for her, and I don't feel like criticizing her right now based on her lousy decision in Wisconsin v. Oakley.

However, if we're going to play identity politics, by ruling out white males and that sort of thing, then I guess we would also have to consider religion, unfortunately.

another story about Mary Beth. She has been all over the news on TV here recently. Maybe getting her name out there before her nomination to the Third CCA. :)

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_504232...

which one of our resident idiot trolls do you guys think wrote this over at Legalities:

So it's obvious that the only way Roe is going to get overturned is if another conservative in the vein of Alito and Roberts is appointed to the Court. If instead someone with a moderate streak in them like Kennedy is appointed, Roe will not be overturned. Because of that, some Republicans who are "socially liberal" will be pushing for the next nominee to be along the lines of Kennedy (like some "socially liberal Republican" posters on some Republican blogs are currently doing -- like a poster named Dienekes at Confirmthem did yesterday). Conservatives will not be taken in by the twisted, deceptive reasoning of these socially liberal Republicans.

is it too much to ask that comenters be able to pass even a 3rd grade reading comprehension test to post here? sigh.

Jan's smackdown of Rosie was so beautiful it nearly made me cry.

I would first say bob but rightwingextremist is also a candidate. His post on the other thread seems very similar to the incoherent drivel bob has been typing. Bobo, you did a nice job trying to patientally go through piece by piece all the flaws and horid logic in bob's posts. It was written very well and obviously took a lot of time on your part. However it is falling on deaf ears, as evident by bob's and now rightwingextremist's reply. Man I hate stupid people. I really dont understand why they want to come over hear and bother us. It is obvious that only three posters I can think of agree with them in any way (However, I suspect that one poster might have mulitple screen names.) Go back to redstate or dailykos where you belong.

It's quite interesting that a White House that nominated Harriet Miers to SCOTUS and apparently considered nominating Gonzo as well, is so scrupulously concerned that Judge Karen Williams may be an "intellectual lightweight". Admittedly, one member of that White House team is no longer there: Harriet herself, who was going to take a "crash course" in Constitutional law to prepare for her Senate hearing, before the plug was mercifully pulled. So the intellectual quality of the choosers has no doubt risen.

I still have to pinch myself sometimes to believe that Roberts and Alito were indeed nominated and confirmed. A Williams or Sykes now would be far more than sufficient. Any new Bush justice would be surrounded by conservative heavyweights, so a reliable, confirmable middleweight would be the perfect choice.

You've got me curious. I couldn't find the opinion online, just a news story. Do you know of a link? I'm sure you don't agree with the majority result, so there must be something in her dissent that doesn't sit well with you.

I have a social conservative friend that's sort of an insider when it comes to 7th Circuit judges. That person favors Sykes over anyone else there as a SCOTUS candidate.

I do agree with the majority opinion in Oakley that the state action in question does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause. Here's a link to the opinions.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051031084715/http://www.courts.state.wi.us/...

"If the White House and others didn't like Williams back at the time of Roberts and Alito, I doubt things will change for her now. Also if Greenburg had heard Williams still had a chance, don't you think she would've mentioned her name alongside those of JRB, Sykes and Mahoney? "

I haven't read all of Greenburg's work, so I didn't know that.

I suppose you are right though. If a female nominee with significant judicial experience was acceptable (Jones, Williams), they would have gotten the Alito seat.

Sykes seems like an easy sell, though, starting with 72 votes for the Circuit Seat (i'm tacking on Lugar and Coburn). Does she have a trail on Roe?

Here is, I believe, the comment that was characterized by some unknown poster at legalities:

"the goal should a 3rd vacancy arise for Bush to fill should be to get someone to the right of Kennedy, especially on international law and war on terror issues, who will at least go along on some more restrictions on abortion, and who will not read the constitution to guarantee a right to homosexual marriage (and while Kennedy may be ok there, Lawrence leaves that an open question; someone who agrees with O'Connor's concurrence there would be fine (since I think that actually may be the position that I agree with most anyway)).

"such a justice also would create goodwill among the public with the appearances (if not exactly reality) of a 'moderate' judge, and make it easier for a Republican to win in 08 and cement the judiciary. further, such a person could serve as a 'chain' justice that bridges the gap and pulls Kennedy into more and more 6-3 conservative rulings, probably with CJ Roberts serving as another link in that chain. Breyer might even jump on as the leftmost link in the chain to limit some results, but at the same time providing us with even stronger 7-2 majorities in some cases."

Depending on what the meaning of "is" is, and the meaning of "who will at least go along on some more restrictions on abortion," is, the comment seems to be a pretty accurate characterization of your stated position.

I do not see how "who will at least go along on some more restrictions on abortion" fails to describe Kennedy and, perhaps, SDO! It certainly leaves opening the possibility of voting to uphold Roe!

Since you pointly stated it would be wise to appoint a judge open to affirming Roe, it is more than rational for an opponent of Roe to believe that Roe will never be overturned if persons such as Dienekes select nominees.

Favoring Lawerence certainly sounds like a "socially liberal Republican" to me!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand, and receive, the intellectual respect of their own leaders.

"It is foolish to do a frontal assault like Scalia and Thomas want. Just assume the Gonzalez case went along with what Scalia wanted to do and overturn Roe. Can you imagine what would happen? Bush would get ZERO more judges through. The Dems would shut it all down - SCOTUS, COA, and DJs. This would totally energize the Dem base and many who are marginally pro-choice. Everyone would recognize it as overstepping. The media would crucify Republicans and their "extreme right wing judges" for forcing the return of Bork's America ala the Ted Kennedy speech. We would never get another conservative judge through cause the Dems would make 2006 look like a gentle wave compared to the tsunami that would happen in 2008. Pro-lifers would finally realize their dream and lose vigilance. Etc Etc."

Pro-lifers would have to be total idiots to allow this man to select the next nominee on their behalf!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better, more principled conservative leadership.

Could we please end the feuding? Both of your positions have been made clear, and now there's not much left but ad hominem attacks.

Leahy and Kennedy are Catholic in name only. No real Catholic could ever fall on the side of pro-abortion, regardless of any other view they may hold.

Note that I am not Catholic.

You're right, Andrew, you can guarantee that identity politics will come into play, even though it shouldn't. The next seat is likely going to have to be a woman, and 100% guaranteed if the person stepping down was RBG. He or she can't be another Catholic, or that person will be Borked to the nth degree.

I think a good, solid evangelical, non-Catholic, would do the trick. I hate even to ask, but does anyone know where some of the top possibilies stand with respect to religion? The one I'm most interested in, and don't know about, is JRB. She seems to have a top-notch mind, a true intellectual heavyweight (using others' words), very articulate, all of the qualities needed for SCOTUS. She also happens to be a woman and black, and as much as I hate playing that game, sometimes it's necessary.

a noteworthy tidbit in that case is that the case was decided 4-3 with the four male Judges on one side and the 3 female judges on the other.

There were two dissents. If you read the dissent of the other Judge whose name escapes me at the moment, one of the arguments she makes is that one probable outcome of the majority opinion is that the man will be more likely to pressure a woman to get an abortion to escape his potential financial obligation and that she vehemently disagrees with any opinion that could result in more abortions. Sykes joined that dissent in full.

Combined with her praise of some antiabortion protestors while a trial judge, her being Catholic and mentioning taht it is important to her, and the fact that in her 4 yrs on the 7th circuit I've never seen her some down on a different side of a case than Judge Easterbrook, I think she'd be ok. 100%? WHo knows? But I'd have as much confience in her as I would in Brown, Williams, Mahoney, Owen, Clement or any other Judgette short of Edith Jones, who won't be nominated anyway.

I believe JRB is either Southern Baptist or Adventist(?), but is definitely not Catholic.

Whatever, she is clearly very spiritual and not shy at all about saying so, as her many speeches have made clear.

IMO, she's by far the best candidate for an opening that almost surely won't happen barring acts of God.

But if it must be Sykes or Mahoney, I'll take Sykes. Sykes at worst would be an O'Connor; i.e. small-town girl w/good intentions seduced by the spotlight. Mahoney at worst would be a Stevens; i.e. "I'm the only one who....etc., etc".

for the link to Oakley. I can see the basis for your view. But I don't think Sykes was clearly in error. Horrible facts, and a probation order of a unique nature, to say the least. Her constitutional analysis was reasonable to me. I also agree with helveticus' observation on the abortion issue.

I guess the bottom line for me is the Oakley case doesn't change my opinion of Sykes. When she gets nominated, we can look at the case again with our own "fine tooth comb".

BillM - When she was still in CA, the press reported her church as the Cordova Church of Christ in Rancho Cordova.I don't know about any current church membership.

Okay cubsfan, if you think the probation order violated the federal Equal Protection Clause, then we can discuss it if and when she's nominated. The issue seems more important now that the SCOTUS liberals have decided to rely on that Clause to defend Roe.

I would really love to see it happen before next year.

In a crazed dream, I see Souter putting aside his Bush hatred and stepping down so he can escape the crazy mess of Washington.

Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg are far too emotionally involved in Roe to go out voluntarily at this stage. Souter's never really seemed like his heart was in it.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

Would you care to quote were I have launched a single ad hominem attack against any poster here? You cannot, because I have not.

If you wish to denounce ad hominem abuse, consistently denounce ad hominem abusers, not their targets.

Your position reduces to the moral equivalence arguments liberals espouse.

My position is clear, concise, and not ad hominem in the least: conservatives are losing the cultural war precisely because they are being lead by moderates who have no real desire to fight liberalism.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better, more effective leadership.

Bob, no need for vitriol or defensiveness. I'm just saying that you've made your point a number of times, and now its time to move on.

to Halil Suleyman Ozerden, the newest member of the federal judiciary. No big surprise though. 95-0

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Since we're still called ConfirmThem, I thought I'd let everyone know Halil Ozerden was confirmed for the District Court of Mississippi today by a vote of 95-0:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Darn, ya beat me to it!

Over at Bench Memos:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGRlMGJjYzc1MGUwYjYwZmZlYWQwMTlk...

1) "There are ten existing or imminent vacancies (not counting the twelfth D.C. Circuit seat) that await nominations. Many of these have been awaiting nominees for a long time. It’s difficult to be sure where the problem lies. In many of these cases, it may well be that the White House is trying to overcome unreasonable obstruction from supposed home-state senators. (I say “supposed” because the work of circuit judges is not tied to any particular state, and the law does not identify their seats by state.)"

I think this update oddly tries to minimize the problems the White House may be having with certain Democrat senators. Whether Whelan wants to admit it, the Randy Smith/Feinstein situation proves conclusively that COA judges are for all practical reasons tied to their homestates. He also doesn't seem to get that certain Dem senators may just be too nasty to work with constructively. I can easily imagine that Webb of Virginia has been really terrible to work with in terms of Fourth Circuit nominees from Virginia. Under these conditions, why should the White House nominate people they know will be successfully blocked later?

2)"“Expediency is crucial,” Specter stated, “given the length of time often involved in the confirmation process and the Congress’ pressing legislative agenda; therefore, it is imperative that the White House submit nominations without delay.” In a Senate floor statement today, Specter restated his concerns.

A key Senate staffer tells me that he finds the delays “truly unbelievable” and complains that the White House “seems to operate without regard for the realities of the legislative calendar.”"

I think this Senate response is rather hypocritical. If time is of the essence, why haven't Keisler, Livingston and Southwick been confirmed yet? What have Republican senators done to speed the process? Bush might nominate people quicker if McConnell publicly gave him some proof that he could stop Democrat obstruction. McConnell could prove himself if he immediately brought up Keisler for a floor vote with a discharge petition. I am beginning to think McConnell is just as weak on judges as Frist. This is not all the White House's fault. Senate Republicans are also at fault for not pushing more aggressively the confirmation of the six COA nominees who are presently outstanding.

I admit time is ticking toward an inevitable judicial confirmation shutdown in 2008, but the Republican senators are contributing to the problem by not forcing the issue with the Democrats. If certain Democrats know that they can delay action on the nominees of their choice on the Senate floor, there is no reason for them to compromise or cooperate with Bush on judicial nominations concerning their states.

1. BoBo: Thanks for running an effective interference with a well-argued and amazingly patient discourse last night on another thread with BSB, so that we could have a reasonable discourse on this one. I'm only disappointed that you were distracted from making more entries here.

2. Rightwingextremest made some cogent points last night concerning the Miers nomination. In our hearts nearly all of us have been wary of upcoming nominations by this Administration since at least the Miers fiasco. I think that posters here should be wary of labelling persons with somewhat contradictory views as "trolls" and other epithets. Some posters here display an almost unconciously condescending "Washington perspective" which, while completely understandable and usually realistic, can be alienating to those who are (also understandably) angry with what has transpired concerning judicial nominations during the last six years (and more) and are impatient with the process.

3. I hope that the recent feud-duels that have cluttered these pages are a passing trend. Many fascinating and cogent points are going unresponded to while a small minority dominate the posts with predictable diatribes.

4. I would still like to find out more specifically what Jan Greenberg's present views are about K. Williams and how the present White House nominating group regards her. Can anyone here contact her and elicit her thoughts on this?

5. Regarding CCA nominations, the White House seems terminally lackadaisical while Senate Democrats are filled with a malicious passionate intensity. Senate Republicans never seem to care all that much. Sometimes I just want to forget the whole thing, but it's too important to forget. A perfect recipe for pain.

6. Time is rarely of the essence with the Senate. And if McConnell is really a major improvement over Frist, then what in the world was he doing for obstructed nominees as Whip from 2003 to 2006?

in the meantime, I'm not going to respond either to such idiocy, or to such willful misrepresentation (I'll let you pick whether you're being a moron or a liar, because I'm generous like that).

ok, becaue I'm feeling extra generous, I'll even give you a couple hints of where public education failed you:

1. "someone to the right of Kennedy" can in no fair sense be described as a "liberal Republican"

2. favoring restrictions on abortion can not in any fair sense be considered to be "like SDO", who's voted against every restriction on abortion she's seen. nor can it be called affirming Roe. it can be called signing onto Alito's evisceration plan.

3. nowhere did I say I favor or the hypothetical nominee should favor Lawrence. I said pretty much the opposite. I said they should be strong against homosexual marriage, and that signing on with O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence (NOT Kennedy's majority) would be ok, saying that laws against sodomy in general are perfectly constitutional, but laws against sodomy only when performed by homosexuals may well not be. that too cannot be fairly categorized as "liberal Republican", especially in conjunction with the adamant demand that they not allow gay marriage.

you may now cease your pathetic misrepresentations, BS Bob.

I don't think there is much the White House can do at this point, other than fill the vacancies.

Given the situation in Iraq, approval ratings, and so forth, President Bush really isn't in a position to be anything but lackadaisical.

It's McConnell and Specter's job to move the nominations that are already in place. The problem is we don't have a point guy like Schumer who's willing to take this issue head on.

After Alito was confirmed, I began to become upset at the White House for not quickly nominating new nominees. It became increasingly clear that there was a dysfunction in the White House. I tend to blame that dysfunction on Miers. I see no reason why she could not have named a replacement for Luttig quickly.

Now, however, I do not think the problem is as much with the White House. They are in a no win situation. First, they have to negotiate with a group of senators who know that Bush is basically now a lame duck. To make matters worse, the Democrat senators are more openly hostile than they have ever been. They probably see no reason to negotiate with Bush over judicial nominees. That makes the selection of nominees much more difficult than it should've been in the last congress.

In addition, as has been pointed out by others, if Bush was to flood the market with judicial nominees now, it would only allow the SJC Democrats to pick and choose the "squishiest" of the nominees to confirm. Nominees like Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy would be left by the wayside.

I just hope that McConnell is willing to throw a fit about judges. At the present time, with the Democrats doing everything possible to challenge Bush, McConnell needs to step forward and not allow the Dems to block COA judicial nominees.

Easy virtue is the modern moral trend in which traditional measures of virtue such as honesty, hard work, sacrifice, self-sacrifice, and generousity have been replaced with substitutes that are easy: being tolerant, being "open-minded," and otherwise sharing liberal attitudes! It is hard to be a virtuous conservative, or Christian for that matter, because it requires you do things that are often difficult.

Modern liberal virtue is obtained merely by spouting the proper attitudes. Trivial effort is expended to allow the practioner to bask in the glory of his own righteousness.

Here is a typical act of easy virtue:

Previously, Dienekers wrote,

"Reply To This — User Info — #37 — Thu, 2007-04-19 18:01
agree with BananaRepublican by Dienekes
I just skip over anything BS Bob writes anymore. his trolling is not worth the aggravation."

And, later, the formentioned Dienekers wrote something equally snide about saving his brain cells.

Turns out that Dienekers publicly praised himself for adopting an attitude towards me he himself didn't even practise!

I could say that Dienekers lied. But, that would be pointless. Honesty is one of those old-fashioned virtues.

What I will say is that Dienekers is a hypocrite!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives d

Dienekers wrote,

"favoring restrictions on abortion can not in any fair sense be considered to be 'like SDO', who's voted against every restriction on abortion she's seen."

Didn't Alito properly intrepret O'Conners' vote on Casey? And, did not O'Conner vote to uphold certain restrictions in the Casey decision, including, among others, a ban on sex-selection abortion?

And, did not other posters here state Alito's concurence with O'Conner in Casey as proof that Alito was in fact pro-life, and intent on "gutting Roe?"

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand real conservatives lead their movement.

you should let it rest, you miserable troll. you see, its pretty easy for me to respond to the one post, because you made it clear you were replying to my post in your subject line, and I anticipated such a response. I'd not like to be rude and ignore your every helpless pleading for enlightenment (though trying to bring forth understanding from the dark recesses of your mind is probably a fruitless endeavor). If you like, I can not bother to read your subject lines too, in future. I'd be happy to oblige.

(re: your irrelevant rambling on virtues, I confess to being guilty of not having patience for idiocy. but patience in such cases is not always a virtue, I am convinced.)

Andrew, can you check the IP addys to make sure BS Bob and RWE aren't the same person? (there's another account I suspect of sockpuppetry, but I can't think of the name off the top of my head).

bigskybob

1) Alito did NOT write a concurrence with O'Connor in Casey

2) Alito reviewed Casey on the appellate level. O'Connor reviewed Casey on the Supreme Court.

3) Although Alito correctly predicted O'Connor's undue burden standard, he used it differently than O'Connor. He said in a dissent that it DID allow a state to require a woman to inform her husband before an abortion. Later, however, when O'Connor reviewed Casey, she said her undue burden standard did NOT allow a state to require such a revelation.

4) In summary, Alito and O'Connor were not on the same side concerning abortion restrictions. He said abortion could be restricted in ways O'Connor disagreed with. That is why many social conservatives like Dobson and Robertson wanted Alito.

I forgot to respond to yet another instance in the endless stream of incorrect statements of "fact". you are too much a gentleman for his worth, good sir BoBo. while this tete-a-tete has been fleetingly amusing, I will try for the sake of the board to emulate you, or failing that, to follow every mother's advice on what to do if you can't say anything nice

BoBo is correct regarding the spousal notification provision. But Casey also involved other provisions, most notably a 24-hour waiting period and parental notification, and O'Connor (along with Kennedy and Souter) joined the conservatives in voting to uphold these provisions. Also, O'Connor voted to uphold abortion restrictions like these throughout the 1980s.

Contra BSB, however, Casey did not involve a ban on sex-selection abortions. The Supreme Court has never considered such a ban.

Let us see,

Dienekes claimed that O'Conner,

""...voted against every restriction on abortion she's seen."

I noted O'Conner voted in favor of Casey that upheld restrictions on abortion including a ban on sex-selection, abortion.

It is a very strange world in making such an obvious, and significant error in fact by Dienekes passes without comment, whereas, an error in recollection made myself, from a case decided twenty years ago, on the appellate level is pounced on with such malice.

I suggest you read a dictionary before you make false accusations that I claimed Alito filed a concurrent opinion to/with O'Conner in Casey. I clearly wrote, "Didn't Alito properly intrepret O'Conners' vote on Casey?" [Perhaps I should have said, "Didn't Alito properly project O'Conners' subsequent vote on Casey?"] Only someone intent on giving an intellectually honest, fair reading would jump to the conclusion you made. The dictionary defines "concurrent" as
"agreeing in the same act; contributing to the same effect."

I did not make the claims you stated. You made the logical fallacy of equivocating on the meaning of "concurrent," namely between the English common meaning, and technical legal term.
I merely noted that Alito and O'Conner came to essentially the same position, using the same legal reasoning, ie "undue burden standard." That is concurrent in the commonly understood meaning of the word.

However, the fact remains that Dienekes clearly claimed that O'Conner never voted to uphold any restriction on abortion, which was clearly false.

As to your alleged distinction between O'Conner and Alito on the "undue burden" involved in Pennsylvania's spousal notification law: Alito made the ruling that spousal notification was not "an undue burden." O'Conner made the ruling that a spousal *consent* was an "undue burden."

I do not in any way fault Alito for failing to "predict," as you put it, that SDO would make the counterfactual claim that spousal notification laws were in fact spousal consent laws.
But, as a result, I don't put any credence in claims that since they didn't agree, Alito must, with necessity, be more anti-abortion than SDO. My hunch would be that if Penn had passed a spousal consent law Alito would have found that "an undue burden."

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.

The Pennsyvania Abortion Control Act did outlaw sex-selection abortions.

It remains in effect.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives reject the moderates that now lead them.

Dienekes wrote,

"you should let it rest, you miserable troll. you see, its pretty easy for me to respond to the one post, because you made it clear you were replying to my post in your subject line, and I anticipated such a response. I'd not like to be rude and ignore your every helpless pleading for enlightenment (though trying to bring forth understanding from the dark recesses of your mind is probably a fruitless endeavor)."

I have no doubt that your attitudes are in fact "enlightened."

I just think they don't have much merit.

Again, a "troll" is a person who foments debate for the sake of fomenting debate. My purpose is to expose, discredit and purge the moderates who have entrenched themselves into leadership positions of the conservative movement.

Debating the wisdom of my project is a legitimate subject of debate. Debating the accuracy of my contentions is a legitimate subject of debate. Questioning the sincerity of my position is sophistry at best, and gross abuse of the ad hominem fallacy.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives reject the moderates who currently run their movement.

Good use of the thesaurus. Im sure we are all impressed with the big words you can use.

From your post #55 - Again, a "troll" is a person who foments debate for the sake of fomenting debate.

This is exactly what you are doing! You and your other handles are the only one(s) on your side. The things you say are just flat out dillusional. Insinuating that Dienekes, I, and other posters here are not conservative and posting that on other sites is terrible. Your posts seem to indicate a lack of even basic understanding of the constitution and basic legal principles. If you are trying to expose and purge members of leadership like you claim, why are you bothering us with your silly nonsensicle rants? What are you trying to prove?

Which candidate for the 2008 President contest best represents your values?

There is much wisdom in leaving some vacancies on the CCA. Right now there are 14 vacancies with 6 nominees:

First Circuit - 1
Second Circuit - 1 (Livingston nominated)
Third Circuit - 2
Fourth Circuit 3
Fifth Circuit - 2 (Southwick and Elrod Nominated)
Sixth Circuit 2 - (Kethledge and Murphy nominated)
Ninth Circuit -1
DC Cir - 2 (Keisler nominated)

The 12th seat on the DC Circuit will never be filled and looks to be moved to the 9th in a compromise to get Keisler through. The seats in the 1st, 3rd, and 9th are largely in democrat controlled states (exception is Specter who is close enough and will do us no favors). The fourth Circuit seats are also problematic, as at least one is a Maryland seat and another is a Virginia, which means Dems have virtual control of those nominations and in the South Carolina seat Graham is being a pain in the ass.

This administration is not in a position to fight the dem senatrs when it comes to their states' seats on the CCA, so any nominee would likely be at best a moderate and certainly not a strong judicial conservative. In contrast, the nominees currently pending are all judicial conservatives (with the possible exception of Livingston, although I believe that she will turn out to be the best nominee of the bunch with the possible exception of Keisler assuming he gets confirmed). If Bush leaves these seats open it places more pressure of the dems to hold hearing and votes on the pending nominees since they won't have more moderate nominations to fall back on. On all the openings without a nominee only the 4th Circuit is troubling as it couls shift the balance of the Court. If we can get the pending nominees through it might be a good trade, as a couple are SCOTUS material.

Since Casey has snuck back into the conversation...

I noted Ginsburg's assertion last week in Gonzales v. Carhart that, because of the majority's "effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court[,] ...A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have STAYING POWER" (my emphasis).

This got me to thinking about Casey itself. The controlling opinion in Casey was endorsed by ONLY THREE members of the Court. Controls as precedent because it was the narrowest opinion endorsing the outcome of the case, yes. But why should an opinion endorsed by 1/3 of the Court have "staying power"?
Shouldn't the respect of stare decisis future Courts owe to such a decision be less than usual?

Set aside for a moment the fact that the joint opinion in Casey was based on a Constitutional standard invented out of whole cloth and motivated by the nakedly political judgment that it was necessary for the Court to "call[] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division."

I think it's time for the Court to issue a new "precedent on precedent" (as Roberts called such dicta in his hearings): A plurality decision, such as Casey, is entitled to less deference under stare decisis than majority opinion. Should not have "staying power."

At this point, Bush should only make new COA nominations for seats controlled by two Republican homestate senators. The one exception should be Van Antwerpen's Third Circuit seat. With Specter's relationship with Leahy, a Pennsylvania nominee should be able to get confirmed. Once McConnell proves that he is willing to fight for Keisler, then Bush can start nominating people for seats controlled by difficult Democrat senators.

Would holding seats open make more sense if it was done as part of some deal? Instead what we have is:
- He can't nominate anyone (at least not anyone even moderately conservative) for X number of seats. Those are taken as a given.
- That leaves Y number of seats to fill. The Dems pick several of these to stall on, hoping the nominee gives up. If the nominee gives up, then that's his/her choice and can't be blamed on the Dems (according to the Dems).
- That leaves Z number that Bush is left with that are not DOA. The Dems then say, okay we'll make a deal. You get half and we get half or however they choose to do it.

So they get about 80% of what they want and Bush gets to apply his Constitutional role for the other 20%. Am I exaggerating here, or is this pretty close to how it's working?

It is ironic that you speak of my being "delusional" in the same post that you claim,

" You and your other handles are the only one(s) on your side."

I have not posted here under any handle other than my own! The evidence is clear and convincing. I am mildly dyslexic, and was taught to read with the "look-say" system. As a result, I have problems spelling and proofreading. The people who I assume you claim I am spoofing clearly aren't dyslexic, and don't seem to have the same problems spelling and proofreading that I do have.

I couldn't fake that ability! If I could, my own posts would be freer of such errors.

What is "delusional" is your utter denial that folks like me actually exist in sufficient numbers to generate multiply posters on this website.

It was some guy named "Tom" who posted a reasonable and accurate criticism of Dienekes. Dienekes own words damn him, not Tom's. It was not "terrible" that Dienekes was accurately summarized at another site, it was informative and accurate. It was being proposed that pro-life folk be sold out. Pro-life folk are entitled to know that fact.

P.S. Tom Colburn and Tom Tancredo would be above-average candidates. There is no ideal candidate. My ideal candidate would be for getting out of Iraq, {It isn't "supporting our troops" to send them to their senseless deaths!] stopping "comprehensive immigration reform," he must be pro-life, dedicated to appointing judges "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" who vote to overrule Roe, an advocate of fiscal reforms, and an advocate of structural reforms, such as term limits, ending the "pork system," and breaking the Senority system.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principled, conservative leadership.

BigSkyBob,

Thanks for the info about the Pennsylvania law. Note, however, that the sex-selection provision was not at issue in Casey. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html. Accordingly, Justice O'Connor did not vote to uphold it. (Your more general point is, of course, correct: O'Connor has voted to uphold numerous restrictions on abortion.)