ConfirmThem

*snark* LOL

Souter isn't that stupid...retiring after Bush v. Gore would essentially reward the illegitamate (in his opinion) winner of the case.

about being able to believe anything in this book.

Souter is too smart to have retired after Bush v. Gore. Why in the world would he want to reward a president that he regarded as illegitimate with an important SCOTUS retirement? It doesn't make sense. His present actions, though, do make sense. He is waiting for a Dem president in 2009 to replace him.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/02/wrongvery-very-wrong-part-deux/

Taken from the above article:

"Pat Leahy got snookered by Arlen Specter, into delaying the vote on Southwick so that the GOP leadership could work on Dianne Feinstein by playing to her ego. And Leahy fell for it — even though he had the votes to shut down the Southwick vote altogether back in July."

It is things like that that make me proud to call him my senator.

Conversesely, it's things like this next quote that don't.

On Tuesday, Specter, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Craig's GOP colleagues who pressured him last week to resign should re-examine the facts surrounding his arrest June 11. "The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts," said Specter, a former prosecutor. If Craig had not pleaded guilty in August to a reduced charge and instead demanded a trial, "I believe he would have been exonerated," Specter said.

Well Arlen, he DID plead guilty and from everything I have read about Craig his homoness was the worst kept secret on The Hill. Please just put this to rest. The last thing we need is to have another Foley style scandal in 2008. Do you ever want to be SJC chairman again???

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070905/NEWS/70...

Majority Leader Harry Reid, who sets the agenda for the Senate, said he would schedule a vote on the nomination before the Senate's next break in mid-October.

"We have a lot of things to do, and this is definitely one of them," said Reid press secretary Jim Manley.

Not soon enough...unless they are planning on voting on Southwick, Elrod, and possibly Keisler in one go at the end of the month.

" I contacted Sen. Leahy’s office about this issue last week — asking why a vote had been called if it was already known that DiFi was voting to pass the Southwick nomination through, and I’ve gotten no answer to my query as yet."

Seems to be implying that the SJC should have veto power on all nominees.

Seems to be implying that the SJC should have veto power on all nominees.

That is indeed how the Dems feel, at least as long as they are in the majority.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/new_assistants.ht...

"At least four new attorneys have been hired as Assistants to the Solicitor General:

Curtis Gannon, from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Toby Heytens, from the University of Virginia Law School

Leondra Kruger, from the University of Chicago Law School (and recently of WilmerHale)

and

Anthony Yang, from the Civil Appellate Division.

My understanding is that there are at least two other openings still to be filled."

Gannon is an E. Jones/Scalia clerk while Heytens is a Ruth Bader Ginsburg clerk.

If David Souter did cry about the outcome of Bush vs. Gore, then it confirms what I have always felt about him.

What in the world are Larry Craig & Specter up to now? This is just unbelievable. Go AWAY!

any news on what the Specter press conference re: Southwick was about?

SJC in this case stands for Senate Judiciary Chairman. The leftwingers seem to imply the chairman can simply refuse to bring up nominations he opposes, even if the other 18 Senators support it.

Leahy squashing a nominee automatically brings along Schumer, Turbin, Kennedy, Feingold, Biden, and probably Whitehouse and Cardin.

But I guess there is a slight distinction, even for the Dems, between 1 chairman blocking a nominee and a majority of the Committee blocking a nominee.

Just starting to see some info come out. Looks like its purpose is to keep Southwick's name before the public. FRC issued a release that starts:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 5, 2007 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS
FRC's Perkins Asks, 'Who Does Senator Reid Serve?'
September 5, 2007

Washington, D.C. - Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, made the following comments at a Capitol Hill press conference urging an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit...

more at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV07I01&f=PR07I01&t=e

Coburn was supposed to be there along with Hatch and Specter. No statement at other websites yet.

http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressR...

HATCH: SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM SOUTHWICK WITHOUT DELAY

Washington - Today Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) spoke alongside Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) in favor of the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit. Hatch's prepared remarks follow.

Thank you, Senator Specter, for your leadership on this nomination. Now that the Judiciary Committee has approved the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals with bipartisan support, I hope the full Senate will do the right thing and confirm this fine man, this fine judge, to the federal bench.

We hear a lot of talk in Washington these days about how the justice system is supposedly being politicized. If those Senators who protest about this most loudly are sincere, they should put their votes where their mouths are and support Judge Southwick’s nomination. What could be more politicizing than the demand that judges rule only for certain parties or promote certain political interests in their decisions? The opposition to Judge Southwick’s nomination is purely political, purely ideological. I hope those who really care about judicial independence, who really care about keeping politics out of the courts, will join us in supporting Judge Southwick.

In nearly 31 years on the Judiciary Committee, I have had my differences with how the American Bar Association has rated judicial nominees. I cannot, however, think of a time with the ABA was criticized for being too conservative. The ABA looks at such things as a nominee’s compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law. The ABA has given Judge Southwick its highest rating. In fact, the ABA has rated Judge Southwick higher for his current nomination to the appeals court than it did last year for his nomination to the district court.

The Washington Post also got it right. I have its editorial of August 18, 2007, right here. The title says it all: Qualified to Serve. The editorial describes the case against Judge Southwick as based on two opinions that he joined but did not write. Two opinions from among the 7000 cases in which he participated. The editorial says that the Washington Post does not like the results in those two cases but cannot find fault with Judge Southwick’s legitimate interpretation of the law. That says it all. Judges do not exist to deliver politically correct results, they exist to make judicially correct decisions. The Post agrees with our Judiciary Committee colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who said that Judge Southwick is a qualified, circumspect person. Exactly the kind of judge America needs on the federal appeals court.

If we really want to prevent politicizing the justice system, we have to apply the right standards in evaluating judicial nominees. We have to apply a legal standard, not a political standard. We need judges who are judicially correct, even if they are not politically correct. Anyone who uses the right standard, who examines Judge Southwick’s entire record, will see that he is superbly qualified for the federal appeals court. The seat to which he has been nominated has been vacant for too long. The Senate should confirm Judge Southwick’s nomination without delay.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Did+Souter+cry+over+200...

"Did U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter of Weare weep and consider resigning after being on the losing side of the historic 2000 split decision that ended the Florida recount and effectively installed George W. Bush as President?

Souter's close friend, former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman, calls that assertion in a new book by a well-known legal expert "absolutely false.""

"Rudman said he speaks with Souter often, and even now, 17 years after being appointed, Souter "loves being on the Supreme Court. He has found his calling in life."

Hackett did not weep, but it is correct that he considered resigning from the Court.

In fact, Justice Souter has considered retirement every single year since 1999.

Anyone who doubts this should read or at least skim his book about the Florida recount. Full of non-quoted profanity and colloquialisms like "jazzed" "pissed" and "bummed", Toobin just doesn't care about accuracy.

The man is trying to sell books to liberal wonky-types and doesn't even try to get a solid source on any of his outrageous assertions.

Don't get roped in by Toobin. He's full of crap. Demand to know what his sources are. Then track them down and verify everything he claims.

Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jeff Toobin.

Romney/Thompson 2008