ConfirmThem

If the Democrats block all of Bush's nominations, judicial as well as executive, they run a huge risk of alienating the Republican senators they need to pass their pet projects. Because of this, I think they may block all EXECUTIVE nominations but allow the flow of JUDICIAL confirmations.

I agree with a comment in the previous thread that it would be useless at this point to send up too many COA nominees at the present time. With the one COA confirmation a month pace, too many outstanding nominees would allow the Dems to pick and choose while still sounding reasonable. Bush should not nominate anymore COA candidates from states with TWO Democrat Senators. That means forgetting the Rhode Island, Maryland and California seats. He should first nominate people from states with TWO Republican senators. They have the best chance of getting confirmed. That means he should next nominate people for the North Carolina seat in the 4th Circuit and the second Texas seat in the 5th Circuit.

Another reason for the Dems to continue to allow the flow of judicial confirmations is that each COA confirmation could be used as bait to keep the Republican minority in line. If the Republicans get too rambunctious, the Dems can begin stalling judicial confirmations. The present gripe of the Dem senators is with the President and not with their fellow Republican senators. In fact, as I mentioned before, it would be counter-productive for the Dems at this point to alienate the very people they need to get their agenda passed. Bills blocked in Congress don't have the same capability of being used as propaganda against Bush as bills passed by Congress and vetoed by Bush.

I agree with your COA nomination strategy.

Here's hoping we get Keilser in May.

I know its a bit off topic, but other than the Ambassador that Kerry oppossed, who else was recess appointed?

Oz

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

I found the whole list here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070404-4.html

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

Keisler in May
Southwick in June
Kethledge in July
Elrod in August
Not sure if Murphy will make it

I disagree with the strategy of not submitting a Rhode Island nominee. If we leave that spot open and a Dem gets elected in 08 that would even up the count between R and D judges on that Court. Carper can be reasonable, and there are a couple of potential nominees who are out there. I think we need to shore up the close circuits as much as possible. For example, padding the Fifth Circuit does not get us much since it is split 11-4.

It is not a matter of trying to maintain or increase Republican numbers in close circuits. Of course that would be a good strategic move by Republicans, but not a practical one. The problem is that the Dems also are aware that such a move is strategic and will do what they can to prevent it. They will automatically increase their opposition to any conservative nominee who could permanently alter the jurisprudence of a court in transition. That is why Kennedy delayed the confirmation of Julia Smith Gibbons to the 6th Circuit. He wanted to preserve a Democrat majority on that court so that Grutter could be decided in a way that pleased the Dems. The Reid and Leahy will probably only allow new Republican judges onto courts that are either dramatically Democrat or Republican. That way their conservative jurisprudence can be minimized.

"Reid and Leahy will probably only allow new Republican judges onto courts that are either dramatically Democrat or Republican. That way their conservative jurisprudence can be minimized."

The exception to this rule is the 9th Circuit. Feinstein and Boxer are bound and determined not to let any real conservatives onto the 9th Circuit, despite the fact that the court already has a huge majority of raging liberals on it.

the 9th circuit is only one of two circuits with a democratic majority. the other being the 2nd which is only a one seat advantage. therefore i think your exception is more like the rule.

I think there is a choice to make, and it should be made soon. Either we go at Leahy's pace, which is one CCA nominee per month at most, or we try to cut a deal to do better. I'm willing to give the donks 3-4 CCA seats, and perhaps a couple of DC ones too, if it means getting our people approved. I think we can even get some reasonable nominees onto the 9th if we work on it (Levi was apparently acceptable to both DiFi and Boxer).

One way to start is give Levin what he really wants, a seat on the 6th CCA - create an extra seat for her. Get all the Michigan judges approved, then move on to other circuits and cut deals that give us 80% of what we want. Otherwises, I'm afraid there will be a lot of openings for the next President, which makes me very nervous.

Maybe a half-rule? Actually, though, certain courts are still "liberal" courts in the sense that the majority of their precedents are liberal even if the majority of their judges are not. The 6th Circuit is a prime example. Although Republicans have an 8-6 advantage on that court, it will take years before all the 6th Circuit's liberal precedents are overturned. That is why it is unlikely that Levin and Stabenow will allow any more Republican judges on it.

LC2 do you have any inside information regarding Murphy? Or some insight? It seems like the only controversy surrounding him is the complaints of a conservative blogger.

Of the two MI nominees, it has been speculated here that Kethledge is the more conservative (Federalist Society, Kennedy clerk) and hence may stand less of a chance at being confirmed. In fact, if he proves to be a very good writer like Sutton, it doesn't seem inplausible that he be nominated to the Supreme Court under certain circumstances. In a world where David Souter becomes a Supreme Court justice, anything is possible.

If in the end Kethledge is confirmed and Murphy is not -- that will be a victory in my mind. Murphy confirmed, Kethledge not -- that will be a disappointment in my mind. Neither confirmed -- that will probably be how it ends up. But, we do have McConnell -- so I'm hopeful (and prayerful, frankly).

Anyone know what happened at today's Judiciary Committee business meeting?

I don't know first hand what happened, but the Executive Calendar of the Senate shows the Mississippi nominee now on the calendar (sorry, I don't recall his name) but not the other two, from IL and WA. That strikes me as a bit strange, since IL and WA have Democrat Senators who presumably have signed off on them.

The only explanation that I can think of - although this is just a somewhat-educated guess - is that all three made it out of committee, and then the Senate immediately approved IL and WA, leaving the red state nominee to stew for a while.

If anyone knows for sure, please speak up.

They aren't listed, and that would be arare occurrence, so I doubt it went down that way:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_tease...

Hey, look who's famous!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY0NmQyNzcwN2UxZTAzYmJkNDVhNWM...

Seriuosly, thanks to Ramesh for the correction.

It's out of our hands at this point. If Levin wants to block them, he'll block them.

Elrod, I think, was a mistake. 3rd (PA) is a higher priority, as well as the 4th (NC) and 4th (VA) seats.

Tell Warner and Webb to shove it (since VA already has 4 seats) and put 2 North Carolina nominees up next.

We couldn't even get the non-controversial Smith put into a seat that was previously filled by an Idahoan in a 55/45 Senate because Sen. Feinstein decided she owned it.

I don't even want to think about Webb would do.

We couldn't even get the non-controversial Smith put into a seat that was previously filled by an Idahoan in a 55/45 Senate because Sen. Feinstein decided she owned it.

I don't even want to think about Webb would do.

There is no reason to nominate people to COA positions controlled by belligerent Dem senators. There has not been one Bush COA nominee who been confirmed if one of his Dem senators opposed him. Sarbanes and Mikulski successfully blocked Peter Keisler and Claude Allen for the Maryland seat in the 4th Circuit. Feinstein and Boxer successfully blocked Chris Cox and Carolyn Kuhl for California seats in the 9th Circuit. Levin and Stabenow successfully blocked Henry Saad for a Michigan seat in the 6th Circuit. It is important to note that McKeague, Griffin and Neilson were confirmed to the 6th Circuit only AFTER Levin and Stabenow removed their opposition during the "nuclear option" crisis. Since they now know that they can wait out Bush until 2009, there is absolutely no incentive for them to remove their opposition to Kethledge and Murphy. To nominate 4th Circuit nominees just to spite Webb would be ultimately useless.

For all those who think the White House could get around Webb by switching the Virginia seats to North Carolina, think again. State-switching has not worked so far. Sarbanes and Mikulski successfully blocked Claude Allen when he was nominated as a Virginia nominee for a Maryland seat. Later, Feinstein and Boxer successfully blocked Randy Smith as an Idaho nominee for a "California" seat. With the full force of Reid and the Dem leadership behind him, Webb could easily block North Carolina nominations that he feels should go to Virginians.

BoBo is right that Bush should nominate Circuit folks who can actually get confirmed, rather than try to prove a point or pick fights with Dem Senators.

The clock's ticking, and we need to get as many Circuit Judges on the bench as we can who have a record of respecting the rule of law and strictly limited, constitutional government.

So long as we get at least one Circuit nominee confirmed every month -- i.e., Livingston (2d), Elrod (5th), and 7 more this year -- we can take this approach of getting what we can without starting a war with the Dems.

If that pace slackens at all, though, the Senate Republicans need to make clear that NOTHING will pass until the Dems resume confirming at least one Circuit nominee per month -- no matter how close the presidential election is. The Dems want to delay and obstruct our reshaping of the federal courts, but they also need legislative achievements to run on in 2008...

Also in Maryland, the Dems senators apparently blocked Rod Rosenstein for the 4th Circuit. This ws from a TR Goldman article in the Legal Times last July:

"Democratic senators who serve during a Republican administration, as is the case with Maryland's two senators, find their influence severely diminished -- at least with this White House. Before Allen's 2004 nomination to the 4th Circuit, the name of D.C. lawyer Peter Keisler had been seriously floated, but he took himself out of the running after Sarbanes and Mikulski opposed him. Keisler, now the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, was not a member of the Maryland Bar.

The latest potential nominee, reported in April by The Baltimore Sun, is U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, a Pennsylvanian who also lacks deep Maryland roots and is opposed by Sarbanes and Mikulski. Sarbanes, who is retiring, has a particular fondness for the circuit; in 1960 and 1961 he clerked for Morris Soper, a 4th Circuit judge appointed by President Herbert Hoover."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1151571922670

Rosenstein has impeccible credentials. It's really a shame he got screwed:

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/39fed/03usattorney/html/msa14389.html

Sorry for my delay -- No, I don't have any inside information re: Kethledge & Murphy. I rely on the post and comments here over the the last six (or so) months.

I agree with your comments: I'd be happy with Kethledge only, but not with Murphy only.

BoBo is right that Bush should nominate Circuit folks who can actually get confirmed, rather than try to prove a point or pick fights with Dem Senators.

Just let the Dem Senators choose the nominees. Who cares about the Consitution? We can get back to following it when a Democrat is back in the White House.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2571

Democrats in Congress to Consider Making Laws
by Scott Ott

(2007-04-13) — Democrats who control the House and Senate today agreed to a long term “progressive” strategy to begin making laws sometime in late 2008 or early 2009, once they complete their investigations of everyone in the Bush administration.

“We don’t want to be too literalistic when it comes to defining the word 'legislator',” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, whose judiciary committee is investigating whether eight political appointees were fired from the Justice Department for political reasons. “However, at some point we think lawmaking would be a nice change of pace from the daily routine of hearings and probes of the criminals who work for Bush.”

Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said, “The president finds the new Democrat idea of Congress as a legislative body refreshing.”

“At this point,” Ms. Perino said, “They seem to be working their way slowly through the Bill of Rights and have yet to get beyond 'Congress shall make no law'.”

"For all those who think the White House could get around Webb by switching the Virginia seats to North Carolina, think again. State-switching has not worked so far. Sarbanes and Mikulski successfully blocked Claude Allen when he was nominated as a Virginia nominee for a Maryland seat. Later, Feinstein and Boxer successfully blocked Randy Smith as an Idaho nominee for a "California" seat. With the full force of Reid and the Dem leadership behind him, Webb could easily block North Carolina nominations that he feels should go to Virginians."

Well that's different.

Virginia and North Carolina used to have 3 seats each. Clinton got tired of dealing with Jesse Helms and put Roger Gregory (sadly aided by the current President) in the North Carolina seat.

North Carolina has more people than Virginia. It deserves its seat back.

Given that Idaho barely has a million people, you can make an argument that they only deserve 1 seat on the 9th.

I agree that the Dems are abusing their power and going far beyond an "advise and consent" role. I also agree that once a Dem is back in the White House, they'll suddenly remember the truly limited role that the Constitution envisions for the Senate in judicial confirmations.

I'm just trying to be realistic and not provoke a major showdown until and unless necessary.

You'll note that my previous post called for the Republican Senators to bring EVERYTHING to a screeching halt if the Dems ever fall below one Circuit confirmation per month. I'd be happy to see our Senators grow some cajones before then, but how likely is that?

By the way, I'm all for passing legislation to require that a judicial nominee be afforded an up-or-down confirmation vote on the floor of the full Senate within a specified number of days after his nomination by the President (365 days at the longest).

How about a Constitutional Amendment along the following lines: POTUS must nominate someone within 30 days of a vacancy occuring (death, etc.) or being announced (senior status, etc); the Senate JComm must hold hearings within 30 days of the nomination and vote/pass on the nomination within 3 days of the hearings conclusion; and the full Senate must vote within 30 days of receiving the nomination from JComm; else the nominee is considered confirmed.

Certainly would accomplish more than grandstanding on stuff like flag-burning. And yes, I'm fully aware that we could see a Dem POTUS/Senate combo again.

Speaking of grandstanding on meaningless issues, I hope Huckabee stops talking about Don Imus soon.

not Virginia. if Graham keeps pushing for his terrorst lovin' Democrat (but I repeat myself) judge, then Bush should nominate a North Carlolinian to fill Wilkins' seat.

I did some math.

Technically, by population, 15 seats would be distributed roughly

NC-5
VA-4
MD-3
SC-2
VW-1

if Graham keeps pushing for his terrorst lovin' Democrat (but I repeat myself) judge, then Bush should nominate a North Carlolinian to fill Wilkins' seat

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. I hate to screw over Sen. Graham's constituents, but they're better off with a good judge from N. Carolina than a bad one from S. Carolina anyway.

or maybe it's just me, but isn't the president suppossed to nominate judges.

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

a weekend open thread? Or shall we just continue with this one?

I would love the Dems to respect the constitution at the moment and allow presidential judicial nominees to be confirmed, but it ain't gonna happen under the present circumstances. The Dems just want scandal after scandal in which to thwart the President until they can get back into power in 2009. Unfortunately, this administration is a gift that just keeps on giving. Now, we have the "White House e-mail" scandal that must be investigated by studious supporters of the Democrat Party.

Don't expect any changes in how state seats are divided up on the circuit courts until a Dem president is in power in 2009, then the redistribution will be done not by state population but in order to screw over redstates with two Republican senators. Unfortunately, I think the Republicans are in for 5-7 years of walking alone in the wilderness until the American public is reminded once again of the shortcomings of Democrat social and governmental policy.

Since the Dems control the power now in the Senate, I don't see how the White House or McConnell can really force conservative COA judicial nominees onto a state with at least one belligerent Dem senator, let alone a state with two. Unfortunately, that means the White House must at this point attempt to bolster already conservative circuit courts as compare to switching liberal courts to conservative. Not what we wanted at the moment, but what have been forced into doing because of the 2006 election.

That means we must pretty much abandon Virginia's two 4th Circuit seats as well as the Rhode Island, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and California seats. With the 12th seat of the D.C. Circuit included, that means nine COA seats that are unlikely to be filled by this administration.

If Graham doesn't quit trying to impress the Dems with his maverick status soon, we may also lose the South Carolina COA seat on the 4th Circuit as well. He and the White House need to find some way around the "Floyd" issue.

Don't expect Rachel Brand to be nominated anytime soon for a judicial position on the Fourth Circuit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/washington/14replace.html

...maybe it's just me, but isn't the president suppossed to nominate judges.

If the President is a Democrat, that's how it works.
If the President is a Republican, then the Dems' advise and consent role involves giving the President a list of nominees he can choose from.

I can just imagine under a President Hillary having some GOP Senator blue-slip a nominee because he/she is too liberal or supposedly from the wrong state. That'll go over real well.

The only quibble is that I'd allow more time for the Prez to nominate and more time for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing (maybe 60 calendar days each). Whatever the exact timetable, a fixed Constitutional timetable would be welcome.

I have no problem with such a timetable preventing us from delaying Dem nominees. Unlike the Dems, we should be honest enough to state our reasons for opposing a nominee and simply vote against his confirmation rather than preventing a confirmation vote.

I'm a hard core Republican and dislike greatly the way that we treated the Dem nominees when Clinton was President. I'm not saying I liked everyone he put up, but for all our chants of "elections have consequences" when it comes to judicial nominations, it certainly was not the approach back then.

It will be interesting to see if the "Confirm Them" crowd is as enthusiastic about confirming nominees if Hillary is president.

I, for one, promise to be because I think a full or near full judiciary is a good thing. It's good for normal people. Do I want a conservative Prez? Sure, which is why I will do my best to find some cash for the final GOP candidate as well as time.

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

Kethledge and Murphy have been isued the same WQsm/Qmin ranking they had before. Maloney has a WQ ranking, Jonker and Neff have not been given rankings again yet.

The WDMI nominees could be confirmed as early as this week.

and predict there won't be a whole lot of NQs for Neff. ;-)

Oz, I agree with the point of your first paragraph. As for your last one, be my guest to be as "enthusiastic" for Clinton nominees as for Rep nominees for the sake of a "full" judiciary. I for one will despair over such a situation and will dread such nominees, who will no doubt subvert the Constitution and render our nation weaker. I would rather have NO FEDERAL JUDICIARY than one stocked by the likes of Hillary Clinton. After all, no government is preferable to bad government, and with a Hillary judiciary, we'll have a truly dangerous government. Or have you failed to notice the dismal records of Carter's and Clinton's judges? Taken a look at the 9th Circuit recently?

Clinton left office with about 25 vacancies. If Bush II leaves office with 10, despite all the mishaps, he's done a reasonably good job.

Of course, this entire line of discussion doesn't include a potential 3rd SCOTUS vacancy.

for AGAG--with his being on TV Sun. and testifying Tue? With possible implications re the judicial nomination process?

And Zendari, the second paragraph always gets people at this site going!

Only three district court nominees this week:

Robert Gideon Howard, Jr.
to be United States Marshall for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Frederick J. Kapala
to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

Benjamin Hale Settle
to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington

Make that two - one's a US marshall

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

Because she is not on the agenda for the 4/19 SJC business meeting, the only way now that Livingston can be confirmed before the end of the month is if she is voted out of committee during the 4/26 meeting without the Democrats holding up her nomination for one more week ("burning" the nomination). The recent Democrat practice has been to delay all COA nominations one week, but maybe Schumer will allow Livingston out of committee without the delay in order to appear reasonable. If not, there will be no "April" COA confirmation.

An all-too-short piece of audio of Janice Rogers Brown from the q&a during her recent visit to Harding.

I could have done without the question -- a long one about gays -- and you may want to skip ahead to her response (at 2:15).

Another swipe at the New Deal court.

They're not public schools, they're government schools.

She's right about the freedom of speech, and the actions of Europe and Canada are scary -- but thankfully our First Amendment protections are strong.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7583823299249920770&q=janice-ro...

In general, I think Leahy defers to Democrat homestate senators like Schumer about whether or not to forward COA nominees. As the Dem senators are usually monolithic in thought, there isn't much disagreement among the Dems on the SJC about when to process judicial candidates. Leahy will process Livingston when Schumer wants.

I thought I'd go and look up which judges replaced the current Supreme Court Justices in their circuit court seats just for fun. In the two cases where the replacement has himself already been replaced, I've also added the current occupant of the seat.

Justice (apptd. to circ. ct. by, elevated to sup. ct. by) - Replacement (apptd. by)
--------------------------------------------------------
Stevens (Nixon, Ford) - H. Woods (Ford) / Rovner (Bush 41)
Scalia (Reagan, Reagan) - Sentelle (Reagan)
Kennedy (Ford, Reagan) - Rymer (Bush 41)
Souter (Bush 41, Bush 41) - Stahl (Bush 41) / Howard (Bush 43)
Thomas (Bush 41, Bush 41) - Rogers (Clinton)
Ginsburg (Carter, Clinton) - Tatel (Clinton)
Breyer (Carter, Clinton) - Lynch (Clinton)
Roberts (Bush 43, Bush 43) - vacant (Keisler nominated)
Alito (Bush 41, Bush 43) - vacant (Hillman rumored)

I believe Sentelle and Lynch are both highly regarded (maybe Tatel as well?). I don't know much about Rymer or Rogers, and next to (if not) nothing about Woods/Rovner or Stahl, and its too early to judge Howard, or Keisler or Hillman. On the whole it looks like a pretty distinguished group though (as I suppose we should hope/expect for a panel of circuit court judges, replacing our black-robed masters or not).

get that gal on the Supreme Court!

Confirm Keisler.

McConnell needs to throw a fuss.

Why is it fine if there's no Livingston confirmation? She's going to be a great judge, and even if you don't care much for her it's not a good sign the Dems are delaying these confirmations.

Sentelle is great. He should have been considered instead of Souter. Rymer is also an excellent judge on the 9th. Howard is proving to be quite good on the 2nd. The others are liberals and not worth discussion.

In one report I read, Pamela Ann Rymer is considered the most intelligent conservative female COA judge. Some have suggested nominating someone older like Alice Batchelder as an incentive to the Dems to confirm the next SCOTUS nominee. The ploy is the same as the one that worked with Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "she's so old, that we can put up with her jurisprudence for a 10-15 years instead of for 30." If that is the case, Rymer might be an excellent nominee. I have never understood why she seems to have never been considered by this White House. She would've been a much better female nominee than Harriet Miers and much less controversial than Jones, Owen or JRB.

I suppose age had to do with it. She was born in 1941. Still, 15-20 years is all right with me.

She should have been considered way back in 1990 instead of Souter. Oh well...

"Why is it fine if there's no Livingston confirmation? She's going to be a great judge, and even if you don't care much for her it's not a good sign the Dems are delaying these confirmations."

Depends on what we get in return for no Livingston confirmation.

Frankly, as long as we get 1 confirmation a month from this Senate, that's acceptable to me. We aren't really in a position to decide who that 1 confirmation is.

Note in my post I mentioned Keisler. I'm not saying Livingston is a good or bad judge, but Keisler is on a more powerful court, and is SCOTUS material. There's a reason the Dems are delaying him, and if the April nominee is Keisler instead of Livingston, I'll be happy to make that trade.

Not to worry about Livingston. Senate Democrats can't afford to be seen to be "rushing" a nomination too much, or their Move-On/NARAL/Ralph Neas base will sqeal that they're selling out. Hence the 2 week delay in getting her nomination out of Committee.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Livingston got a hearing last week instead of the 25th, and it's likely she'll be confirmed by month's end.

The big question now is whether Keisler or Southwick will be the "May confirmation". I'm betting on Southwick, unless the Dems. think that they can successfully filibuster Keisler or defeat his nomination outright.

I am not sure why people seem to be so upset about the 1 circuit court judge a month pace -- for a total of 17. I have reviewed the number of vacancies, and there are a total of 12 appellate vacancies right now. One of those is the 12th spot on the DC Circuit which is not getting filled by anyone. Assuming that more come free over the next couple of months, we would have a full appellate bench if we confirm 17 would we not?

http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=...

There's no chance on earth that the "April" nominee will be Keisler, but it still could be Livingston. And I would argue that Livingston is more likely SCOTUS material at this point, given the whole "too many white men on the Court" mantra. I love Keisler and would love to see him on the Court, but he's probably way back in the line for white guys, behind McConnell, Cox, Gorsuch, Easterbrook, Colloton, Griffith, etc.

Livingston, on the other hand, has sterling academic credentials, litigated extensively as an AUSA, is a prominent law professor with a specialty in national security law, is young (47 or 48 - born 1959) and is conservative. (Schumer called her more moderate than Keisler in August, but that was only to try to derail Keisler's confirmation, which was steaming ahead at that time. She is a conservative, as confirmed by conservative heavyweight law professor John Manning.)

There are presently 14 CCA vacancies, not 12. Two more (4th and 5th Circuits) fall vacant on July 1st.

Agreed, 17 confirmations in this Congress would be great (better than the lamentable 2005-06 G.O.P. Senate's total of 16). But it will not happen. 13-14 is the most we can hope for, unless a merciful Fate intervenes and Republicans regain Senate control (there are a lot of septagenarian and octogenarian Democrat Senators out there).

At present, there are the following eighteen openings (both current and future):

First Circuit - 1
Second Circuit - 1
Third Circuit - 2
Fourth Circuit - 5
Fifth Circuit - 3
Sixth Circuit - 2
Ninth Circuit - 1
Tenth Circuit - 1 (this seat is not listed but is based on Alexham's insider source)
D.C. Circuit - 2

According to Senate sources, Clinton only got 44% of his COA nominees confirmed in the last two years of his presidency. Regardless of what has been said about the one confirmation a month schedule, do not expect the Dems to allow Bush a much higher percentage in his last two years. I predict Bush will only get between 50-55% of his nominees confirmed UNLESS McConnell throws a temper tantrum, something he doesn't seem ready to do yet. Randy Smith and Thomas Hardiman have already been confirmed. Including them, I predict that only 10-11 COA nominees will be confirmed. That means ONLY NINE more COA confirmations for the 110th Congress.

At this point, I think Livingston, Southwick and Elrod are shoo-ins. Although I hate to say it, Keisler is iffy. Kethledge and Murphy are dead. If Keisler, Livingston, Southwick and Elrod join Randy Smith and Hardiman in being confirmed, that means ONLY FIVE more COA nominees.

The Dems will use today's Virginia Tech shooting to apply public pressure to the full D.C. Circuit to reverse Silberman's anti-gun control Parker decision.

Assuming that there will be 20 COA openings in the 110th Congress, I am guessing that the Dems will only allow Bush to fill 10-11 of those seats. Now, if Bush only nominates to seats that are confirmable, he may have a much higher confirmation rate than Clinton. For example, if Bush only makes 10 COA nominations and leaves 10 other COA vacancies unnominated, and then those 10 COA nominees get confirmed, he would have a 100% confirmation rate, but only 50% of the open COA seats would have been filled.

[Time article found at Drudge. I discount Barr these days and wonder about one or two of the others. But in the interest of information, I provide the following section--]

In what could prove an embarrassing new setback for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the eve of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of influential conservatives and longtime Bush supporters has written a letter to the White House to call for his resignation.

Related
The Letter: "An Unsuitable Steward of the Law"
The two-page letter, written on stationery of the American Freedom Agenda, a recently formed body designed to promote conservative legal principles, is blunt. Addressed to both Bush and Gonzales, it goes well beyond the U.S. attorneys controversy and details other alleged failings by Gonzales. "Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," it declares. "He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm." Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: "He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

The letter concludes by saying, "Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor..." It is the first public demand by a group of conservatives for Gonzales' firing. Signatories to the letter include Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, who has worked frequently with current Administration and the Republican National Committee to promote Bush's court nominees; David Keene, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, one of the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative groups; Richard Viguerie, a well-known G.O.P. direct mail expert and fundraiser; and Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia and free speech advocate, as well as John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative non-profit active in fighting for what it calls religious freedoms.

Yes, 17 announced openings. I was not including the semi-permanent Widener future vacancy on the 4th. This has been going on for over four years and his retirement appears to be contingent on confirmation of a successor.

If there is a vacancy on the 10th, Bush should let it go until all possible nominees on the 3rd, 4th! and 5th have been confirmed. Ditto the 1st and 9th.

Perhaps a deal can still be made to get one nominee through on the 6th.

As I've been saying for two months, Keisler is indeed very iffy. See my #61 above for the most recent iteration on this topic. I wish it weren't so; Why didn't those Republican Senate fools confirm him last year when they had the chance. Granted, the nomination was absurdly belated and tardy. June 29th!??!

I agree almost completely with your recent point that CCA nominations should be made at a very deliberate pace. If too many are put up at once, Democrats will cherry-pick and skip 4th Circuit nominees entirely.

Therefore, Bush should make only 2 CCA nominations in the next four to five months. Both should be to the 4th Circuit (N.C. and S.C.--something must be done about Lindsey Graham). Then when the current batch runs out, the SJC will have no alternative nominees to consider. Additional nominations can be made at that time, given the apparently obligatory 2-3 month lag between nomination and hearing.

I fully believe a good deal of this "scandal" is political grandstanding.

Even so, like Rummy a couple years ago, Gonzalez has lost the ability to govern the institution he leads, and he's getting in the way of things that are more important than he is.

2 good things come out of this: He's not getting on the Supreme Court, and this "scandal" boosts Priscilla Owen's stock. The entire line of criticism about her and Gonzo has lost its own line of credibility.

"Therefore, Bush should make only 2 CCA nominations in the next four to five months. Both should be to the 4th Circuit (N.C. and S.C.--something must be done about Lindsey Graham). Then when the current batch runs out, the SJC will have no alternative nominees to consider. Additional nominations can be made at that time, given the apparently obligatory 2-3 month lag between nomination and hearing."

Seems to me like the next 2 nominees should be 4th (NC) and 3rd (PA), if state switching the SC seat isn't possible.

I'd rather deal with Casey than Graham, plus we see whether his talk about supporting Alito was the real deal. We'll see whether he's a Ben Nelson or a Chuck Schumer; that's important information for future nominations.

Perhaps it's my problem with conjunctives, but I don't see how Owens being id'd with AG helps her at all--even based on the line of criticism.

I think the logic goes: the criticism of judicial activism came from Gonzales in the Texas abortion cases (though it wasn't actually directed at Owen's dissent, but rather at nathan Hecht's dissent). Now that Gonzales has no credibility and has proven his legal incompetence, the criticism against Owen goes away. It's a weak argument at best.

The Businees Meeting this week has been postponed due to AGAG being moved back till Thursday. Its a shame that the Dems wanted to move his hearing back a few days so that their made up scandal will at the top of the headlines rather than the school disaster. Who am I kidding they have no shame.

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

Looks like there will be no April confirmation since the next earliest BM will be the 26th.

I agree push that PA seat on the third. Casey, while not being any Rick, will be solid on the life issue including judges if he is anything like his father and lives up to his campaign promises.

Also I dont think that MD seat on the 4th is totally a no go either. The problem is Bush has not really nominated someone who is truly a Marylander. There has got to be someone in that state who is a little right of center, and BORN and RAISED there. Bush has nominated people for that seat that either dont live there, live there but dont belong to the MD bar, steal stuff at stores, or werent born there. TALK to Cardin. Im sure something could be worked out. Hell I think they would maybe take a Steele or Ehrlich just so they cant run for office again. Someone suggested that a while back and I think it may have a shot at working. If no, work something out. An "Ikuta" like person in that seat is better than leaving it open for Hillary to fill.

Finally, get Kyl to get another deal with DiFi to fix that NC/VA mess over seat ownership on the 4th. Let me say while I dont think the Trott seat was a CA seat per se, there was even less room to argue it should belong to ID. I found some of the arguments presented on here laughable. Anyway my three part plan: Tell DiFi that you agree with her that seats should not be moved from one state to another. Promise to concede to CA the Trott seat if she will get the Dems to concede one of that VA seats back to NC. If that doesnt go anywhere suggest adding 2 more seats to the 4th and making them NC seats so VA and NC both have 4. Stick it to that bill that moves the 12th DC seat to CA. Finally if that doesnt work, call up Widener and tell him to move his chamber/duty station a little bit down I-95 into NC while he is still active. Then the Pubbies can claim that is a NC seat. So what do you guys think?

Call our leader and tell him to get it in gear so we get at least someone confirmed in April. At this point Livingstion or Keisler will do.

Phone: (202) 224-2541

While I trust McConnell more that Frist a polite reminder from a few of us wont hurt either.

No way Cali gets the Trott seat. Aren't they already getting an extra seat amongst all these new ones?

I was once willing to *temporarily* concede it to Cali, providing it: was filled by Levi (or similar); reverted back to Idaho eventually; and was part of a broader compromise withdrawing Myers, Haynes, Boyle, & Wallace, but confirming RSmith, Keisler, the Michigan Five, and filling up the 4th.

Forget it now. Sen. Craig can and should hold/fb until the taters turn, w/my full backing, and he should also try to block the 9th getting ANY more seats until it's settled. Even/esp. if a Dem wins in '08.

That seat has bounced around many states during its history. ID was only its last stop. Looking at it population wise and by the number of cases filed ID is no way deserving of a second seat. Washington state has a much better case for an additional seat. I, just like you, would rather have the ID senators controling that seat rather than the Boxer/DiFi combo but I would also rather have a SCOTUS of 9 Clarence Thomases. We must be REASONABLE!!! Lets not kid ourselves here. That Nelson being an ID seat was purely an attempt to go around the blue slips Boxer and DiFi would have put on any nominee if it were a Cali seat plain and simple. It was a nice try but it didnt work. DiFi called our bluff last Congress and she has even greater standing now with 50 other Donkeys to back her up. DiFi can be worked with. Dont burn our bridges to her. She is more independent of the lefty loones than other Dem senators (especially on the Judiciary Cmt). Just give her a little of what she wants every now and then and talk to her like you care what she is saying to make her feel important and it will go a long way. The 9th and the state of Cali is a lost cause anyway. Elections have consequences; they deserve what they get. Are you really going to go to the mat over one stupid seat on the 9th? We need to look at the bigger picture.

I don't see Craig and Crapo going up against Feinstein and Boxer over the Trott seat. They did next to nothing to promote Myers and Randy Smith. Basically, they only did the most obligatory things. Let's face it, with a Dem-controlled Senate, Feinstein and Boxer have won this round. Trott's seat will now go to a Californian if Bush evers bothers to name a replacement nominee. I'm not sure Bush will even think the seat worthy enough to fill under these partisan circumstances.

I agree, it's a week argument. I doubt it would have any bearing on an Owen confirmation proceeding. My impression is that her being a SCOTIS nominee (should there be another opening in the next year or so) is a very long shot, at best.

Craig and Crapo knew that Trott seat was not an ID seat. We have all seen the lineage of that seat. They were half hearted about it because they knew it was wrong and would lose all credibility if they pushed that scam.

Reid will not allow an April confirmation. He will do it to make it clear he will not allow one COA confirmation per month. McConnell should take action if that happens. But alias, if McConnell did not do anything as majority whip with 55 GOP senators, I am not sure he will do anything as minority leader with 49. I still grieve over the lost opportunity of the 109th.

If Reid and Leahy actually slow or stop the once-a-month COA confirmation pace, it will be a test of McConnell's will. Will he allow the Dems to proceed with their delaying tactics, or will he show some spine? If he does nothing, he runs the risk of being labelled as another Bill Frist. Does he want that legacy?

"I think the logic goes: the criticism of judicial activism came from Gonzales in the Texas abortion cases (though it wasn't actually directed at Owen's dissent, but rather at nathan Hecht's dissent). Now that Gonzales has no credibility and has proven his legal incompetence, the criticism against Owen goes away. It's a weak argument at best."

I agree, but the entire argument against Owen being a "rightwing judicial activist" was pretty weak at best, too.

"I agree, it's a week argument. I doubt it would have any bearing on an Owen confirmation proceeding. My impression is that her being a SCOTIS nominee (should there be another opening in the next year or so) is a very long shot, at best."

I don't know.

Owen had 55 votes in the last Congress. Stevens didn't vote, so that's 56 supporters. Chafee voted against her anyway, so the Dems picked up 5 more votes, taking Owen down to 52. She had Byrd and Landrieu's support, and Casey's, if he is who he claimed to be.

Landrieu is up for re-election in a deeply red state (Katrina sort of wiped out the Democratic stronghold), so I guess it comes down to whether she wants to be back in 2009 or not.

Plus, she is a Texan, which is a plus for Bush. If the vacancy occurs after this term, my guess is Bush goes the Bork > Kennedy route, starting off with the heavyweight with a backup.

especially since I believe that Clinton nominated a bunch of judges in his last few months that had no chance of being confirmed, which lowered the last senate's confirmation rate by percentage (if Bush nominates a bunch of nominees at the end, that would lower his rate to an "acceptable" 50-60% range too). plus Clinton still got 16 confirmed (including Gregory) and 20 in the two years previous. and there will be more vacancies coming, either in the last 6 months of Bush's term, or soon after, plus the new judgeships that will likely be created in 2009 or 2010. no, there is NO excuse for letting the Dems get away with that phony baseline.

there will be at least 13 confirmations (including Smith and Hardiman), and I'm willing to bet Specter will get his 15.

I put a couple links to Allison Eid at our Confirmthem Resource Page. Her C.V. says she's written a ton of articles. Anyone read any of them?

Andrew,

What an impressive resume, huh? I would love to see her on the Supreme Court. Most of her scholarly articles focus on the "new" federalism, which isn't surprising given that she clerked for Jerry Smith and Clarence Thomas, two of the major adherents to it. I haven't read any of them, but I plan to.

Andrew, can we get a beginning-of-the-week open thread?

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings106.pdf

According to the ABA, Clinton nominated 9 people to be COA judges during his last year - three AFTER the annual August break. Only one of the nine - Johnnie Rawlinson of the 9th Circuit - was confirmed. Later, Roger Gregory received a recess appointment. Depending on how you look at it, that is either a 11% (1/9) or 22% (2/9) confirmation rate during Clinton's last year. Do you really think those rabidly partisan Dems will allow Bush something better?

As for the number of open seats available at the end of Bush's term, I don't think any more Republican-appointed COA judges will take senior status next year in 2008 because they know that there will be no way that Leahy will confirm replacements for them. I do, however, think that several Democrat-appointed judges will announce their retirement in 2008, knowing full well that Leahy will NEVER allow any Bush nominees to replace them. For example, I fully anticipate that Clinton-appointee Judith Rogers of the D.C. Circuit will announce that she is going to take senior status in the late fall of 2008 or the spring of 2009 with the confidence that Leahy will save her seat for a Dem president to fill in 2009. She might wait until 2009 to announce if she is afraid Keisler will be confirmed to keep the D.C. Circuit at ten members.

I'm too old to remember which comments I've read and which are new.

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

I wish there will be a vacancy soon. Unless we can hold the white house in 08.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman, Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1961

You don't want to get Andrew, or Judge Trott himself, going on whether or not that's an Idaho seat... ;)

Agreed, there's prolly little point in trying to fill the seat now. Way down the priority list.

Agreed also that this was an esp. wasted opportunity. I for one was screaming for months here that Myers had been killed by the Gang and would never get a floor vote. Swapping Smith into the Nelson slot and then nominating the SCOTUS-caliber David Levi for the Trott seat was so obvious and would've been a win on so many levels it's not even worth rehashing, except to note that not only is the Trott seat still open but now Levi's district seat is too; Feinstein is cockier than ever; and Myers eventually got pulled & Smith wound up in the Nelson seat anyway and the country managed to survive.

Just sad.