ConfirmThem

If you think about it, the ruling makes sense. After all, why couldn't one just pull the old "perceived gender" trick out of one's hat, and then get married under that guise?

What a sick and twisted world we live in.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/333bfa39-5e18-4eaf-892b-da2c0bad9c2a

"Solicitor General Paul Clement has announced his resignation pending June 2. As testament to his wunderkind status, that's just a little more than three weeks before his 42nd birthday.

"In the interests of full disclosure, Paul is one of my closest friends from law school. Even so, even a more unbiased observer than I could agree that he has been a splendid SG, serving with distinction as the government's advocate before the Supreme Court both in cases where he (no doubt) agreed with the position he was asked to take, and in cases where he probably didn't.

"He is a person of dazzling intellect and enormous integrity. If we are fortunate, we will be hearing from him again in years to come."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/162144

Virginia Supreme Court Justice Steven Agee of Salem moved another step closer to a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, winning unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The panel sent Agee's nomination to the full Senate. A confirmation vote likely will occur before the Memorial Day recess, according to a news release issued by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Leahy said that Agee's nomination represents a breakthrough in efforts to fill five vacancies on the Richmond-based court. Previous nominations by President Bush have been stalled. But both Virginia senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb, recommended Agee as a candidate for the court and Bush nominated Agee in March.

Agee is one of two Roanoke Valley jurists Bush has nominated to fill vacancies on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from federal courts in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina. Bush last week tapped U.S. District Court Judge Glen Conrad of Roanoke for a seat on the appellate court. Like Agee, Conrad has the backing of Warner and Webb.

Agee has served on the Virginia Supreme Court since 2003 and was on the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2001 to 2003. He also served 12 years in the House of Delegates.

I had no idea you were that old. Perhaps that explains your wisdom and gracious nature--being willing to explain legal and judicial matters to a layman like myself.

Does anyone know which law firm he will be joining? Whoever gets him will obviously have landed a superstar practitioner and rainmaker, at least until President McCain appoints him to SCOTUS.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. When did I reveal my age? Let's just say I'm somewhere between birth and death. :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/washington/17fec.html?ref=politics

" President Bush’s contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission withdrew his name from consideration Friday, potentially ending a lengthy stalemate that had paralyzed the work of the agency.

The nominee, Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who did not have Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination, saying it was time for the deadlock to end."

Supposedly, Reid did his pro forma sessions of Congress during the Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks in order to prevent Bush from recess-appointing von Spakovsky and Steven Bradbury. Maybe with Spakovsky gone, Reid will not do pro forma sessions anymore. If so, Bush may be able to do some judicial recess-appointments. I don't know how helpful such a move would be now with only seven months left in his presidency, but if Keisler could be recessed appointed like Clinton did with Roger Gregory before Bush took office, then the Dems might be forced to confirm him in 2009.

I anticipate three COA confirmations this week - Agee, Kethledge and White.

Agee has already been voted out of committee, so his confirmation appears to be a done deal. The only question in my mind is if Reid and Leahy will confirm him earlier in the week without a connection to Kethledge and White, or whether they will hold off until later to package his confirmation with those of the Michigan two.

Kethledge's and White's confirmations should be very rushed affairs. In a letter Specter quoted from during the Kethledge/White/Murphy hearing, the ABA said it would be unable to announce the new ratings for White and Murphy until May 19th. That is Monday. I anticipate that as soon as he has those ratings in hand that Leahy will then have a committee vote on the three, possibly before Thursday when the SJC business meetings are normally held.

If Leahy waits until Thursday to vote out Kethledge/White/Murphy, I anticipate that those three and Agee will be confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote either late Thursday or early Friday as the last order of Senate business before the Memorial Day break.

I also expect district court nominees Davis, Kays and Limbaugh to be confirmed this week alongside Agee, Kethledge, White and Murphy.

The Republicans do not want to go on record as voting for liberal White, and the Dems don't want to go on record as voting for conservative Kethledge.

The fact that the Dems don't like going on record as supporting conservative nominees with no obvious partisan credentials is nothing new. Notice how the Dems refused to do roll call votes on Jennifer Walker Elrod and Catharina Haynes.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. I can't imagine that Hatch or any of the other SJC Republicans who blocked White's nomination under Clinton will want to go on record now as supporting her confirmation, something which I think they are honor-bound to do since White is a Bush nominee.

My theory is that Classic read the second paragraph of your post #2 as a direct statement by you, rather than a quote from the linked source. Thus, he thought your were identifying yourself as a Harvard Law classmate of Paul Clement's, which would indicate you were at least 41, and possibly older. There are apparently some who would consider 41 to be "old." I probably shared that view myself at one point, but it's funny how things change.

What are the chances that William Lawrence (Indiana) and G. Murray Snow (Arizona) will also be confirmed this week?

They're both already on the agenda posted for the Judiciary Committee's Executive Business Meeting on Thursday.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3375

I am less sure that Lawrence and Snow will get confirmed this week simply because I think the Dems will want to pad their confirmations for June in order to hold off Republican complaints. The confirmations of Lawrence and Snow in June will help the Dems to delay dealing with further Bush nominations.

When you're quoting something or someone, please put a quote mark (") at the start of each paragraph. Or you can use blockquotes. Thanks.

Bobo--I thought you wrote the article that I now see Carol P. L. wrote. My deepest apologies. I'm sure you will be forever young.

got it right. Thanks.

Yes, it's funny how things change. I remember when I was in Junior High (yes, I know, that dates me!) and saw a High School cousin of mine at a football game. I remember thinking that I'd never be that old. And now, by God's grace, I've passed the half century mark!

I'm told by a reliable expert that: the ssm decision will not have a stay and will not be appealed to the SCOTUS. Here are my questions:
1. Given that CA has no residency requirement, can't an anticipatory stay be granted so there is not chaos in other states?

2. If that doesn't happen, won't many states go to Federal court once couples from their states return from CA with a ssm wedding certificate and demand recognition?

3. If #2's the case, then couldn't those cases be bundled together and streamlined to the SCOTUS?

An important aside--wouldn't you think this would be enough to get McCain on board a federal marriage prpotection amendment?

Either way, it could help him in CA and FL (also going to be on ballot) in Nov.

As I understand it, #2 is explicitly forbidden by the Defense of Marraige Act.

friend of mine writes [this person has pulse on what's going on in the trenches. Note that some other lawyers are indicating there WON'T be a stay]--

From my
humble perspective, the scenario you describe has already happened in
many
states. Couples who were married in Massachusetts have already moved
to
other states and attempted in various ways to get their Massachusetts
wedding recognized---they have primarily been legal issues regarding
divorce
and child custody. In particular these issues have come up in Virginia
and
Rhode Island, but other states as well. The supreme courts of those
states
decide the issue---so far, (with the possible exception of Vermont) I
think
the states have not recognized the Massachusetts marriages as valid. I

think the Vermont issue (which involves child custody and is
intertwined
with Virginia since one lesbian parent of the child lives in each of
those
states). Anyway, these are state constituitonal issues so wouldn't be
appealed to SCOTUS, where the justices would only get involved in
determining a federal marriage amendment issue (and we don't have one
of
those yet). I did notice that Pres. Bush mentioned the need for a FMA
in
his remarks on the decision. Too bad he lacks the skills to actually
promote the policies he likes successfully. Hopefully a stay will be
granted in CA though until after the Nov. election since the state
constitutional amendment protecting marriage will be voted on at that
time.
I understand the losers will move for a stay. This issue could take CA
out
of the Dem column in Nov. as was Rove's strategy----as well as FL and
AZ
(although AZ should go for McCain anyway!!). Those are the 3 states
voting
on state marriage amendments in Nov. so conservatives will come out in
droves. Only problem will be whether they will vote for McCain as
well.

There are currently 49 current judicial vacancies and 32 nominees. Mark Filip (NDIL) resigned his DC seat to take a top position with the Justice Department and is not shown on some websites.

As I recall, the Dems like to package many nominees together prior to a holiday in order to obtain maximum press exposure over the congressional break. Therefore, I think that Lawrence (SDIN) and Snow (DAZ) will be included in the approved package this coming Thursday or Friday. Both come from red states. More importantly, Snow is being fast tracked to prevent McCain from using him as a campaign issue. Lawrence is a judicial emergency. Senator Lugar is always able to move his suggested nominees quickly and Lawrence is no exception. It looks like 6 [1 COA and 5 DC] nominees are on the fast track without any opposition for confirmation by week's end.

I don't know if there is enough time this week to process the Michigan 3, in spite of prior promises by Leahy and Reid. If the ABA comes through with their ratings on the three and the ratings are positive, I expect the EBM agenda to be immediately modified to include their names. If true, we can expect 9 [3/6] confirmations by the end of the week for a total of 14 [4/10] for the year 2008. After that point, it is anyone's guess.

I can't imagine anything taking CA off the table for the DEMS in 2008, but I guess that the constitutional ammendment protecting marriage will go about as far as possible to that end.

I could, however, see a lot of split votes especially from catholics for Obama and for the ammendment.

DOMA allows states to refuse to recognize any out of state legal relationship between persons of the same sex. It essentially says that the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't apply, so a state is free to accept or reject those relationships based on its own choices re public policy. DOMA doesn't apply to court judgments, like adoption and support decrees, according to court decisions since 1996. That leaves a confusing array of court decisions and partial recognition of same sex relationships.

And gay activists believe that DOMA itself is unconstitutional, but have lost a couple cases on that issue in the lower federal courts, so it's not being pursued any more.

Latest drivel from Toobin: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/05/26/080526taco_talk_toobin

He's been hysterical lately; was he always to the left of Dahlia? I always had him pegged as a mod-lib, a la JCG being a mod-con.

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

Boy, what a load of BS is Toobin's article, huh? Calling the Warren Court the "noblest" period in SCOTUS history. HAH!!!

To answer your question above: It's not so much that Toobin was always to the left of Dahlia (he was), but rather that he was (and is) dumber than a tack.

Toobin's "The Nine" was pretty even-handed w/a slight left lean, just how "Supreme Conflict had a slight right lean.

But his recent essays have been crazy.

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