ConfirmThem

It was one of the most stupid editorials I have ever seen in a major American publication. I can't believe they actually printed it.

To be fair, Justice Thomas also admitted he smoked some chronic in his college days. JRB has said she was "to the left of Mao" as an undergrad, and Obama has even admitted to cocaine use. I think Broder was high when he wrote this drivel.

What tripped up DHG, IIRC, was that the questionnaire had something about "abusing" drugs or alcohol, not just using or used. And I think he also wasn't completely forthcoming about the extent of it right away. Some rumors that he had provided or even sold small amounts to his former students at parties he hosted.

Small thing; it WAS the mid 70's, and pot is as harmless as booze or tobacco (maybe even less so), but it IS illegal, and....small things often turn out to be big things regarding SCOTUSJs. Same deal with Luttig's temper, maybe.

Whole thing was a Martian fire drill from the Burger (or even Stewart) retirement forward, as JCG laid out in Supreme Conflict. When you try to be stealthy or politically correct on top of refusing to fight and not understanding why it's important to fight to begin with, that's how you wind up with Sandy, Tony & Souter instead of Bork, Silberman/O'Scannlain & Jones.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Consider the source re A. Kennedy-- by Classic
Whacko WaPo. Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, but this ain't the time!

Jesse Helms on Kennedy: "A Vanilla Conservative."

And, BillM, marijuana isn't a harmless drug that just happens to be illegal. Read the objective studies.

Too bad Senator No didn't launch a one man filibuster against AMK.

Classic, I was being facetious about the ganja, and the hypocrisy viz. booze and ciggies, or even automobiles. I think USA Today a few years ago found that ~3000 teenagers a year die in auto accidents.

Lord only knows how many adults die in booze related wrecks, or from tobacco-caused illnesses every year. Every cop I've ever known has told me they hate alcohol-fueled domestic violence calls more than anything else. No way the FDA would allow booze or tobacco were they just invented today.

/rant

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR200807...

"A nominee for a federal judgeship who has been accused of plagiarism said yesterday that he will not withdraw his nomination because he fully disclosed the controversy to both White House officials and the FBI during interviews for the job.

Michael E. O'Neill, a former Senate aide nominated by the Bush White House to a seat on the U.S. District Court, said he acknowledged that he had inadvertently lifted material from another writer in a law review article.

"It wasn't intentional. It was my fault. It was my mistake, and I have to own up to it," O'Neill said in an interview."

NOTE: I get the impression now that O'Neill and Rosen were nominated simply to put nominees in place for the two open D.C. Circuit district seats. I think Bush and Specter both know that at this point the Dems have no intention of confirming any Republican to the D.C. Circuit, district or circuit level, for the rest of this year.

I am a little, disturbed, however, that the White House and Specter didn't even put up the pretense of nominating someone with a clean record. As it turns out, O'Neill's tenure was taken away because of his plagiarism. Did they really think that the Dems wouldn't make hay of the fact?

What really is inexcusable is the amount of time it took the White House to nominate anybody to the Kessler district seat. It has been open since January 2007. I think White House Counsel Fielding has made some huge mistakes in handling judicial nominations. As far as I can tell, the problems with the quality and speed of judicial nominations began when Harriet Miers took over the role of White House Counsel from Alberto Gonzales. Despite what anyone may think of his politics and/or ethics, Gonzales was quick to nominate high quality people as judges.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_2/news/26452-1.html

"Senate Republicans will convene their second policy forum next week to focus on the judicial confirmation process, but aides say the GOP is unlikely to express its disapproval with parliamentary maneuvers in the face of myriad must-pass bills of national concern."

NOTE: Without using procedural hurdles, I don't think there is a chance at all that Keisler, R. Conrad and Matthews will get confirmed. Rather, it appears that they are being left out to dry with nary a care in the world by McConnell et al due to other legislative concerns. Oh, I'm sure that there will be some more lip service, but as long as the Dems move on Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond, the Senate Republicans apparently don't care any more about judges. I think what raised Specter's dander earlier this spring was the knowledge that Pratter (and as a result, Short) wouldn't be confirmed. With the new deal concerning Diamond in place, I bet we won't see Arlen so hopping mad in the future.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/07/07/the-elec...

I really can't address his comments because I'm part of the "intellectually tired conservative base" he refers to, whatever that means.

Kmiec's support of Obama is totally illogical to me. For the life of me, I can't understand how anybody who supposedly supports judicial restraint and originalism could go for a man guaranteed to nominate liberal activists to the Supreme Court. Didn't Obama say that his ideal justice would be in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Kmiec is crazy if he thinks Obama will nominate another Roberts or Alito.

There is no way that Obama will nominate Carter Phillips like Kmiec suggests. To satisfy his liberal base, Obama will have to nominate a liberal ideologue. Although Phillips has extensive litigation experience, that will not be enough for liberal special-interest groups like People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice.

Kmiec may be right that McCain might nominate Diane Sykes or Paul Clement, but I think he is also wrong to believe that Obama would nominate either Kathleen Sullivan or Merrick Garland. Although extremely well-qualified, Garland is a white male. I have no doubt that Obama will nominate either a Hispanic and/or female to the court first (can anyone say Sonia Sotomayor?).

As for Kathleen Sullivan. I think she has two huge drawbacks. First, she failed the California bar exam a couple years back. Second, I understand she is a lesbian. While as a private individual I don't think her sexual orientation makes a hill of beans, I think as a public figure it will. As a nominee to the Supreme Court, her private life is fair game. Will Obama want to unnecessarily add an extra layer of difficulty to his first SCOTUS nomination?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/07/08/janice-r...

"As Dahlia [Lithwick] noted a couple of weeks ago, Chief Justice Roberts used his dissent in Sprint v. APCC [pdf] as an occasion to quote (or, perhaps, misquote) Bob Dylan. As Alex Long previously explained, however, quoting Bob Dylan in a judicial opinion is hardly novel: Dylan's lyrics have been invoked in dozens of legal opinions and articles.

D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown has taken this trend to a whole new level: Today she opened the court's opinion in K&R Limited Partnership v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency [pdf] with a line from ... Jimi Hendrix:

Forty years ago Jimi Hendrix trilled his plaintive query: “Is this love, baby, or is it … [just] confusion?” JIMI HENDRIX, Love or Confusion, on ARE YOU EXPERIENCED (Reprise Records 1967). In this False Claims Act case, we face a similar question involving a mortgage subsidy program initiated in that era: Is this fraud, or is it … just confusion?

I find it hard to believe that any other judge, boomer or otherwise, will be able to top this. So let's hope that good folks of the federal and state benches all have the good sense to stop trying, before this gets out of hand."

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/embattled-district-court-nom...

"No stranger to controversy, Michael O’Neill -- President Bush’s most recent nominee for a seat on the District Court for the District of Columbia -- is finding himself at the center of new polemics lately. The former chief counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) helped to usher the nominations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito through the Senate. Now, we’ll see if he can get his own off of the ground."

Note how JRB's opinion is only eight pages long, almost free of legalese & footnotes, and joined by the liberals Tatel & Rogers. So much for the crazy, unqualified, radical lone wolf.

C'mon, Stevens! Retire now, your seat will be in good hands. :)

Funny how the Slate twerp doesn't know that one of JRB's landmark speeches that made her such an icon is titled, "Whiter Shade of Pale".

What isn't funny is the purple haze Kmiec has been in lately.

O'Neill must be about the 100th person I've seen claiming credit for the Roberts & Alito confirmations. LOL, whatever, maybe he did help a bit, but they basically confirmed themselves, as would JRB.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Re. comment #8 above, Carter Phillips is one of the "elite repeat players in post-Roe Abortion cases" according to Karen O'Connor and Alixandra Yanus ("Where Have All the Pro-Choice Lawyers Gone?" in the journal "Law and Policy", Vol. 29, No. 3, July 2007). He made the pro-choice argument in nine Supreme Court cases, and is therefore ranked by O'Connor and Yanus as one of the top six pro-choice attorneys of all time.

Of course, that doesn't indicate his personal views, or indicate whether he despised the arguments he was making, or indicate whether he thought the legal theories he was espousing were bogus, or indicate whether he thinks the United States Supreme Court has usurped legislative power to impose its regime of death on an unwilling society. But it doesn't give one much confidence either.

June 2009 - Stevens retires
June 2010 - Ginsburg retires
June 2011 - Souter retires

When nobody retired last year, this schedule of retirements was determined. Would people generally rule Souter as more liberal than Breyer? If so, that would be the three most liberal justices on the court.

Who replaces them will depends upon November 2008's outcome. Go McCain Go!!!!

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422841848

"McCain has a 45-member Justice Advisory Committee headed by Olson and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who is a staunch anti-abortion advocate.

The advisory group includes Charles Fried, a Reagan administration solicitor general and a Harvard University law professor; John McGinnis, professor at Northwestern University School of Law; Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School professor; Eugene Volokh, professor at University of California at Los Angeles School of Law; and Rachel Brand, a former assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy.

Among the committee members is Steven Calabresi, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University and co-founder of the Federalist Society, a conservative stomping ground for many Republican judicial nominees.

McCain is committed to appointing judges much in the mold of Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Calabresi said. "I think he sees the role of judges [is] to apply the law, rather than [be] engines of change," he said.

By contrast, Obama, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. He has been sharply critical of the Supreme Court's decisions limiting back pay in a sex discrimination case and curbing desegregation plans in Louisville, Ky., schools. But he praised the court for granting rights to prisoners held at GuantAnamo Bay, Cuba. Obama has a less formal group of legal advisers on judicial issues, but no less legal star power.

Harvard Law School professor Charles J. Ogletree is a mentor and adviser to Obama. Also, in 1991, Ogletree represented Anita Hill during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

"I'm certain he will take the lessons of [Jimmy] Carter and [Bill] Clinton to ensure diverse appointments by geography, gender, race and ideology," Ogletree said.

Another Obama backer at Harvard who chips in occasional advice is Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor.

Also on the list is Abner Mikva, a retired judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia who served in Congress and taught law, as well as Christopher Edley Jr., dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

On the West Coast, Obama's California co-chair for the campaign and personal friend is Jeff Bleich, current State Bar of California president and a partner in Los Angeles-based Munger, Tolles & Olson's San Francisco office."

I think the only thing that makes sense is that Kmiec is a double-agent. The dems think they've flipped him, but in reality he has infiltrated the ranks of the Obamunists in order to spread disinformation and sow seeds of dissent. How else to explain his suggestion that Obama nominate Carter Phillips? This is what we know about Carter Phillips: (1) he is a very good lawyer, (2) he is a lifelong Republican, (3) his mentor was Rex Lee, a conservative icon and the SG for the first 4 years of Reagan's Presidency, and (4) he served in the SG's office during the same period of time as Justice Alito. Kmeic can't possibly believe that Obama would nominate Phillips to the Supreme Court, but what if Kmiec plants the seed of fear among the leftists that he MIGHT nominate Phillips? There would be open revolt! It's brilliant, I tell you, brilliant!

Alternately, it's also possible that Kmiec, who supports Obama because he opposes the Iraq war, can't deal with the cognitive dissonance of supporting a radically pro-abortion candidate, and is thus spinning fantasies about how good Obama will be on other issues in order to keep his head from exploding.

I may need to re-read it, but I think Kmiec was saying MCCAIN should nominate Phillips.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Kmiec is saying Carter Phillips would be a good consensus nominee for EITHER McCain or Obama:

"Phillips is one of those rare individuals of stature who could rather remarkably be seen as a nominee of either party."

NOTE: I think everyone here is confused as to why Kmiec would think Obama would ever consider Phillips. McCain is another story. Phillips is not such an odd choice for McCain, but I do think women and Hispanics come first for both candidates in the next round of SCOTUS nominations.

on the Supreme Court would be outstanding. But why stop there? ;) The GOP should nominate a woman for Vice-President already. E.g., McCain could consider Congresswomen Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee or Heather Wilson of New Mexico.......... But whoever McCain's Veep is, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let HIM be nominating judges instead of Obama 6 months from now..........

You leave off the two most obvious/possible female picks for McCain: Sarah Palin and Kay Bailey Hutchison. While I agree Blackburn and Wilson would be excellent picks, they are too unknown for a national ticket.