ConfirmThem

wait, 10th circuit?? who's leaving?

still nothing about the 1st/Flanders. since both Dems and Chafee have all expressed support for Flanders, I guess this means either that Bush finds him unacceptable, or that he's holding him till the end of the term for a quick confirm so the Dems can't use him to pad their total this year.

I guess we can assume the 6th circuit nominees will be Kethledge and Murphy?

on the 4th circuit, looks like BoBo's right, sigh. I knew Webb was a grade A asshole, but I didnt expect quite this. I really thought some agreement would be made to fill one of the VA seats. perhaps one will eventually, but that doesn't sound promising.

also, surely Reid didn't promise 17 by the end of this year? I find it hard to believe he promised 17 period. but if Leahy keeps an aveage of 1 per month this year, then a fair number of 15 can easily be reached by the end of 08.

I'd guess the most likely candidates for retiring/senior status based soley on age are Paul Joseph Kelly, a GHWB appointee, and Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee. both were born in 1940 (though that makes them the youngest oldest judges on any circuit). of course its not impossible a GWB appointee could step down (the oldest is Terrence O'Brien, b. 1943). Also Chief Judge Tacha isn't that old (b. 1946), but she has been on the bench for 20+ years, so she may decide its time.

is not Insider!

I doubt that we will get any circuit court nominees confirmed after the summer break in 2008. McConnell needs to start pressing Leahy to confirm all of the President's nominees now - or else the GOP will simply filibuster everything. I just want him to let me know before he does, because the market loves it when congress is stalled and I could probably make some good money if I knew McConnell was planning on filibustering everything until Dubya's circuit court nominees were voted on. :-)

We've GOT to get Thomas Ravenel to primary and defeat Lindsey Graham!!!

It will be very interesting to see who Dubya nominates to the 5th Circuit. I wonder if it will be one of the Texas seats. Crossing my fingers for Cruz, Coleman, and Rosenthal! :-)

I suspect Mr. Graham is holding out for a nominee that will get a vote which does not mean that the nominee must liberal. He is trying to keep the remaining members of the Group of 14 (now 12) of together. I also don't believe that he wants an intellectual lightweight. I think he wants a qualified and intelligent nominee that would get a vote. The nominee being from South Carolina would not hurt either.

Mr. Webb, is not a jackass, why don't we ask why he is holding up both VA seats instead of assuming. Maybe he is trying to make sure these people will make sure the Veterans will be cared for and that there will be no more embarassments like the Walter Reid Hospital snafu. It is not that he won't work with Mr. Warner to fill the seats, it is a matter of weather the Presidnet will accept advice from the Senate. I want to know what he sees as wrong with the nominees and why the President and Mr. Warner thinks is so good about them.

I respect both Mr. Webb and Mr. Warner and I want to know what their disagreement is about. If it is just about not liking the Presidnet for Mr. Webb then he is overpoliticizing the issue and needs to be rebuked.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

How could they nominate someone on the 10th when there's no vacancy and no anticipated vacancy?

It's easy to blame Webb for being a jerk, but the administration had many, many months to find good nominees and nominate them long before Webb won his senate seat. The problems with filling the 4th Circuit seats, particularly in VA, are mostly the administration's fault.

Why would Graham want a "liberal, life-long democrat or a left-leaning intellectual lightweight" to fill the South Carolina vacancy? I'm suspicious of that inside info. Graham has his problems, but favoring liberal judicial nominees has never been one of them, certainly not for a seat in his home state, which is overwhelmingly conservative. I don't buy that info.

I expect we'll also get a nominee in NC to replace Boyle - Judge Conrad, perhaps?

there are only TX seats left to fill on the 5th circuit (not counting the already nominated Southwick, of course), so yes :D

I think we can get 1 or 2 confirmed in late 2008. it might have to be Flanders or a squish for the "California" seat, but I think Paul Clement could get through too, if Webb's moonbat hate subsides (or if it gives him a heart attack which wouldn't surprise me the way that loony toon appears to be going) or if a 7th circ. seat opens (and while that's possible, the chances of it being a WI seat seem more remote). at any rate, I don't think the autumn of 08 will be completely devoid of confirmations, if the Dems want any kind of goodwill on judges should they win the WH.

yes, Sen. Webb is a jackass. what on earth do judges have to do with caring for veterans? there are no nominees yet, so clearly the problem Webb has is his mindless hatred for Bush, not any nominee.

"There should be one nomination from the Fourth Circuit, one from the Fifth Circuit; two from the Sixth Circuit, one from the Ninth Circuit, one from the Tenth Circuit, and one from the Third Circuit"

One nomination from the Fourth is not enough. There are 2 VA vacancies, one MD vacancy, one NC vacancy, and one SC vacancy. These have to filled ASAP. For VA: Clement, Mahoney, UVA prof. Steve Smith, Richmond prof. John Douglass, or any number of solid lawyers and district court judges. For MD: Viet Dinh. How could Reid oppose it when he recently berated the president for a lack of Asians on the courts? If not Dinh, there are several solid district court judges in MD. For NC: district court judge Conrad, UNC prof. Melissa Saunders, or Duke prof. Curtis Bradley. For SC: US atty Lloyd, distict judge Henry Floyd, or private atty Steve Matthews. Let's get this done already.

For the 6th, Bush should renominate Kethledge and Murphy.

For the 9th, it'll be interesting to see if Bush continues the fight between Idaho/CA, or just goes with a CA nominee. I hope he goes with a CA nominee, but someone sterling like Prof. Michael Ramsey at San Diego Law School or any number of other outstanding law professors and practitioners in CA.

Tenth: no idea which state

For the 3rd: it's probably district court judge Noel Hillman to replace Alito in NJ.

For the Texas vacancies: Prof. Ernest Young at UTexas Law School, district court judge Lee Rosenthal, Ted Cruz, and/or Texas Supreme Court judge Dale Wainwright. All are outstanding.

I agree that Bush should renominate Ray Kethledge & US Attorney Stephen Murphy to the 6th Circuit.

But more important, Bush should make clear to Leahy et al. that he expects them to actually get a confirmation vote THIS YEAR (calendar year 2007). Renomination means nothing if they just languish until the Senate adjourns in '08 and their nominations expire again.

Bush and the Republican Senate leadership need to make judges a top priority, behind only the war on terror & illegal immigration. And the situation is most urgent in the 4th and 6th Circuits.

You may be surprised (apparently capable of continual surprise) by Webb's behavior and the ever-deepening 4th Circuit impasse fiasco. But I assure you I am not. How in the world could someone on this site be at all surprised after the disgraceful events of the past 4 years?

We are now reaping the bitter fruits of expert Democrat obstruction and unbelievable GOP stupidity in the feckless 108th and 109th Senates. I watched astounded as it happened before my eyes, as the administration foolishly continued pushing Boyle and Haynes last year instead of filling the seats with competent and confirmable conservatives, as they failed to appoint someone to Luttig's seat when he retired in June (and don't tell me it was all due to Luttig blindsiding them. Everyone knew more Virginia seats were coming open; nominees should have been vetted and ready).

I wrote here last October that our only hope was to retain the Senate majority. Now that George "Maccacca" Allen has helped to lose the Senate and blow almost certain re-election to a safe seat (at least he won't be around to blow the Presidential election next year), the 4th Circuit conservative mafority is new vulnerable to the whims of Leahy and Webb. Altogether disgusting.

Bottom line: Events are well beyond control. The 4th Circuit is now hostage to the unpredictable outcome of the 2008 election.

What it boils down to is that we have got to win in 2008 and take back the Senate.

That means

1. Protecting Sununu, Smith, Coleman, and Collins

2. Protecting the Colorado seat - and possibly Warner's Virginia seat and Domenici's New Mexico seat as well

3. Strongly challenging Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and possibly even Iowa

4. Replacing Lindsey Graham with Thomas Ravenel in South Carolina

I'd like to see Mike Huckabee abandon his doomed-to-fail White House bid in order to go back to Arkansas and clean Mark Pryor's clock. State Senator Bob Keenan might very well be a great choice to knock of Baucus in Montana, and Ensign needs to sign Mike Rounds up to run in South Dakota. I'd like to see Jim Nussle capitalize on his statewide name recognition from his run for governor in 2006 to take on Harkin in 2008.

If John Warner retires at the last minute, I'd like to see Jim Gilmore switch races to take that seat, and if Pete Domenici retires, we're probably best off with Heather Wilson. Scott McInnis looks like a solid choice for Wayne Allard's Colorado seat.

We can do this, but we've got to have the right candidates and start laying the groundwork now.

...is not a conservative, unless it's Opposite Day. :-)

Webb is headstrong, but he would need to come off it. I did not realize that he was blocking court nominees. I know that both Warner and Webb were on the Armed Services Committee. The veterans have nothing to do with the judges. I am sorry if I misread the post.

I refuse to call anyone names as much as I might disagree with them. Mr. webb needs to come off his pedeslat and work with everyone.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I am a moderate conservative.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Those you want to protect are more moderate than Graham. If you are getting rid of Mr. Graham because I believe that Ms. Collins was also involved.

Good luck getting Mr. Ravenel to run after he promised to serve his entire term as State Treasurer, unless someone is hearing rumblings of him changing his mind.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I have never heard of Mr. Graham favoring a liberal nominee period, especially for a seat in his homestate which is overwhelmingly conservaitve.

I also agree that not getting good nominees confirmed before Mr. Webb won the Senate seat because it is the administrations fault.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

It's that simple.

It is not that simple. I allow for Senators to do things indepently of the wishes of their electorate when they feel it right. Everyone is goiong to be happy sometime with the actions of an elected official.

I think it is good when someone decides to work with other people to try to create an environment where work can get done. Noone should get everything they want.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Dienekes-

I was surprised by the 10th Circuit reference as well, and I have an email in to my source seeking clarification.

I typed up this post after a very brief phone call, during which my source was rattling off the information. As I am sure you can understand, someone this close to the nomination process is extremely busy.

I hope you fail to get Mr. Ravenel to break his promise to fulfill his entire term. Mr. Graham is not that much of a problem unless you are of the mind that you should get everything you want or else.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Don't get us wrong, Alexham - your source is probably correct, just we common folk have not heard anything about such a vacancy. And I'd be greatly excited about a 10th Circuit vacancy. Bush has been very successful in re-stocking the 10th Circuit with fine judges - it's one of the best circuits now thanks to him.

The 10th Circuit judge who's going to take senior status must be judge Paul Kelly. He's the only 10th Circuit judge old enough and with enough years on the bench to qualify for full senior status benefits.

Judge Kelly's is a New Mexico seat, and a fine nominee to replace him would be US district court judge James Browning:

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3023

Browning, James O.
Born 1956 in Levelland, TX

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of New Mexico
Nominated by George W. Bush on April 28, 2003, to a seat vacated by C. Leroy Hansen; Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 2003, and received commission on August 1, 2003.

Education:
Yale University, B.A., 1978

University of Virginia Law School, J.D., 1981

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Collins J. Seitz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1981-1982
Law clerk, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Supreme Court of the United States, 1982-1983
Private practice, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1983-1987, 1988-2003
Deputy attorney general, New Mexico Department of Justice, 1987-1988

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Thomas Ravenel would be much more in step with the state. His blocking of William Haynes to the Fourth Circuit is absolutely infuriating to me, and his joining the Gang of 14 made him none too popular in SC - especially with GOP primary voters.

Of course senators should be allowed to act independently when they feel necessary - but that doesn't insulate them from being held accountable for it when they come up for election.

Susan Collins is perhaps the most oustanding senator we could ever hope to get from Maine. Same goes for Coleman from Minnesota and Smith from Oregon. Sununu is just one of the most oustanding senators in the country, period. But South Carolina? We can do MUCH, MUCH better than Lindsey Graham.

Thomas Ravenel would be much more like another Jim DeMint from what I can tell. We nee more Jim DeMints and fewer Lindsey Grahams in the Senate, period.

I couldn't disagree more. Is Mr. Graham out of step or too independent? I think he also attempting to represent all the voters and not just the Republican voters. I certainly don;t like every independent stand that Mr. Graham has taken, but it does not stop me from supporting him. I think he has done a good job.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Graham is out of step. Mind you, I don't want someone who just follows the conservative line because it's the conservative line. I want a true believer, like DeMint, Coburn, Sessions, etc. And if Graham has done such a great job, I'm sure he wouldn't mind facing the South Carolina GOP primary voters and making that case while Thomas Ravenel makes the case that he'd be a better senator from South Carolina than Lindsey Graham.

:-)

If true, this post's report is in line with the misplaced priorities we've seen for several years on appellate nominations.

First, the administration must concentrate like a laser beam on the 4th Circuit, followed in priority by the 5th, 3rd (Penn.), and 6th (if a deal can still be made-renewed there). At least 2 4th Circuit nominations (probably N.C. and S.C.)must be sent to the Senate in the next two weeks. A 9th Circuit nomination now is idiocy; the 28th (California Feinstein-Boxer approved) squish seat on the 9th should be at the very back of the line, along with the 1st Cir. seat (Rhode Island), 12th D.C. Cir. seat, and a prospective 10th or 7th.

First, hard pressure should be applied to get Hardiman and Livingston confirmed as quickly as possible. Then all-out on Keisler (definitely before Southwick). Dems. will doubtless insist on another hearing for Keisler (maybe this was part of a deal to let Hardiman through without another hearing). Keisler must be the A-1 priority in April-May. Then Southwick in May-June to fill the 13-year Mississippi vacancy on the 5th. By then, the 2 4th C. nominees (if sent now) will be ready for hearings.

And by July, maybe, just maybe, Stevens, Souter or Ginsberg will go, creating a vacancy that, if filled, is worth at least 20-25 appellate judges, and can render all this angst trivial and immaterial. If not, then on to the remaining 4th (Virginia, forget Maryland), 5th (Tex.), 3rd (Penn. only) and 6th Circuit vacancies.

logconservative is starting to remind me alot of that poser from georgia last year that would come on here and say idiotic things all the time until he was banned. what was the screen name of that guy anyone, it escapes me now?

One thing about this Graham business; it's the end of the road for Karen Williams to SCOTUS.

And of course, nominating her puts a SIXTH vacancy on the 4th??????? Criminey.

JRB (& yes, Mahoney too), whatever one thinks of her, doesn't create an important & unfillable COA vacancy by ascending to SCOTUS. Just another one of her overwhelming advantages!

Ikuta, Callahan & Sykes would never get their seats filled by anything remotely solid.

Keisler could be switched to JRB's slot, or it could be given to Eid or Paul Clement. Bush HAS to get Eid & Clement COA seats.

4th Circuit nominee will be Judge Conrad from NC.

Allison Eid and Paul Clement have got to get on circuit courts of appeal.

Clement seems like a natural choice for Luttig's seat, and I'd love to see what Maureen Mahoney would be like on that court as well. I really like the Viet Dinh for the Maryland seat idea, too. Talk about beefing up the 4th Circuit with three superstars!

Then, if Janice Rogers Brown were elevated to the Supreme Court, Eid would be a great choice to fill her seat. But if JRB is voted down, I think we should go ahead and directly elevate Eid from the Colorado Supreme Court to SCOTUS. Or maybe we should just get Bill Owens or someone to step up to the plate and defeat Salazar and get her on the 10th Circuit in 2010.

I do not think he would mind facing a primary challenge. The questions is who? Mr. Ravenel said he wouldn't run for the Senate in 2008. Are you inferring that Mr. Graham only follows the conservative line because it is the conservative line. I think two conservative true belivers can disagree on how issues and disputes should be resolved.

In my opinion, we sometimes mix up the conservative line with support for the Presidnet. My standadrd on an up or down vote extends to all qualified nominees weather the President in a Democrat or Republican, weather I like the person or not. I also allow for Sneators to use their judgement and decide to block a nominee in committee that they find unacceptable. Sometimes it seem that the argument that we must support the nominee or policy because it is President Bush's nominee. Or does your position extend to other presidents as well? Should a Democrat get elected in 2008 and Democrats keep the Senate will these nominees also be entitled to a vote on the floor, providing they get through committee?

You have to persuade Mr. Ravenel to break a promise he mad during the campaign to get the support of Mr Rainey. Are you an advocate of people breaking promises? I certainly am not.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

jtp7: Is what I say idiotic because you disagree with it? I do not mind you disagreeing with me, but there is no need to ifer that what I say is idiotic. Regardless of what anyone says I will continue to defend Mr. Graham.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

First of all, politicians very rarely make promises to not seek higher office. They usually hedge. So, I'm not going to take at face value that Ravenel has said what you claim that he has said.

But if Ravenel did say such a thing, then yes...I'm all for him breaking that promise. Just like I don't really mind congressmen breaking term-limit pledges as long as they are good congressmen! LOL.

I think that Ravenel would clean Graham's clock and he'd be a FAR superior Senator than Graham. So, I support Ravenel getting in the race because we need our BEST in the Senate. Let Lindsey Graham go back to South Carolina and be the state treasurer.

At the very least, Graham needs to be replaced with David Vitter or someone like that on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ravenel did not promise to never seek the Senate seat, he promised not to seek it in 2008 because that would be halfway through his term as Treasurer. Here is the exact quote for The State: "I won't. I will not challenge Graham in 2008" (Ravenel rules out U.S. Senate run in 2008, 29 Sep. 2006).

I cannot see Mr. Graham as state treasurer. I see him as Governor or Attorney General. ;)

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

No real conservative could support Graham. He is McCain's puppet oh the Judiciary Cmt. He was for the McCain-Kennedy nightmare. He foiled 200+ years of Senate tradition with the Gang of 14 deal. If he didnt like Haynes, fine but at least let the man get a vote! He plugged him up in cmt, to save McCain some face for his presidential run. The Senate needs people of all view points. Deep blue states elect very liberal Dems. Purple states elect squishes. Red states elect true conservatives in the mold of Demint, Coburn, Sessions, etc. SC is an uber conservative state. Allowing a nonconservative to sit in that seat upsets this balance. This is why I dont really have a problem with Arlen in PA, Collins in ME, or Coleman in MN. Just to give Graham a pass because he has an R next to his name and is an incumbant is just wrong. If he can stand on his record, he should have no problem in a primary. You and I and the readers of CONFIRMTHEM know that he cant. All of these topics have been discussed ad nauseam on this site for the last 2 years. Either you havent been paying attention or you are a moonbat in disguise. So go back to dailykos where you belong!

Mr. Graham is none's puppet, but he is Mr. McCain's friend. Actually that is a false statement to sat that the compromise foiled 200+ years of history and tradidtion. Abe Fortas was defeated a filibuster in 1968. It is also as proper operation of the Senate for a single Senator to block a nominee in committee; as Mr. Graham sis with the nomination of Mr. Haynes. The block was over policy which is also an acceptable use of the blue slip. Mr. haynes would have been filibustered if he had made it to the floor.

I am not arguing that you should not work for someone you think would do a better job, but I am not sure that knocking Mr. Graham out preserves any balance. For the longest time South Carolina had one Democrat and one Republican Senator.

I am not arguing to exempt from a primary challenge. I think he will be able to stand on his record. I never support people just based on their party label.

I have been reading and I do not always agree. I am certainly not a moonbat nor do I belong at DailyKos.
I am moderate in my leaning.
Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Actually that is a false statement to sat that the compromise foiled 200+ years of history and tradidtion. Abe Fortas was defeated a filibuster in 1968.

"Moderate," indeed. That is straight from Chuck Schumer's talking points.

First of all, Abe Fortas was already on the Supreme Court. The filibuster of Abe Fortas's elevation to Chief Justice was bipartisan and he would have been defeated anyway - but he would have remained on the Supreme Court anyway. Why he was then filibustered, I don't know. Perhaps Senate Democrats wanted to save LBJ face by allowing him to withdraw the nomination instead of seeing his nominee to be Chief Justice defeated. If Republicans had filibustered Harriet Miers, this would have been a more apt comparison.

No appellate court judge had EVER been filibustered in the history of the United States before Miguel Estrada was forced to withdraw his nomination due to congressional filibusters.

Lindsey Graham has been two-faced on the issue of judicial nominations, to say the least. Everyone knows that Lindsey Graham has been John McCain's tool on the SJC because he's aiming to be the next Vice President or Attorney General. Just one more reason to vote for Mitt Romney, I say. The fact that McCain would surround himself with people like Graham is another reason why I'd vote for Giuliani over McCain.

It lasted four days, and this was in the days of Mr. Smith style filibusters.

Alexham's post confirms several of my assumptions:

1) Senator "I'm so ANGRY" Webb will never allow Bush to fill the two Virginia seats.
2) Leahy will only allow one COA confirmation a month.

I am, however, surprised that Graham is once again balking at helping the White House with a judicial nomination. It makes his obstruction of Haynes look a little more sinister. Since South Carolina is a very conservative state, I don't understand why Graham seems to be distancing himself so much from the White House. Supporting Bush or a very conservative judicial nominee would not hurt his re-election chances. I can only assume that it has to do with a desire to be seen as a Washington D.C. power-player, someone who can force the president to bend to his will.

I will be very interested in seeing who the 5th Circuit nominee turns out to be. There are so many good state and federal district judges to choose from in Texas. I even wouldn't be that unhappy to see Miers or Gonzales nominated. I am also interested in more news about a vacancy on the 10th Circuit.

I think it is odd that Alexham didn't say directly that Murphy and Kethledge would be renominated. I can't help but think that those two seats are gone. I also think the Rhode Island seat is gone. If the state's two Dem senators really wanted Flanders, he would've been nominated by now.

So far, I count eight of the eighteen officially open COA seats that Reid and his Democrat minions will not allow to be filled:

First Circuit - 1
Fourth Circuit - 2 VA seats, 1 MA seat
Sixth Circuit - 2 MI seats
Ninth Circuit - 1 CA seat
D.C. Circuit - 1 (the 12th seat)

Graham's obstruction could be a ninth seat remains open.

As I have said before, I really think Leahy will shut down judicial confirmations in January of 2008, not in June of 2008. I doubt if he will allow any COA confirmations during the second session of the 110th Congress. That means Bush needs to nominate as many COA candidates as possible now in order to keep the once-a-month confirmation pace going without any interruptions for the rest of the year. That will give us 11 COA confirmations before the system if closed. If Bush waits too long in making nominations, it will give Leahy a good reason to slow down confirmations even more than he is doing now. Because of this Bush needs to get the Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina nominations done immediately. That way, they can get their ABA ratings in time for summer committee hearings. It would be nice to see Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Rhode Island and California nominees as well, but I think their chances are hopeless under the present conditions.

Harriet Miers is going to go back to Dallas and run the George W. Bush Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University, her alma mater. She won't be nominated to the 5th Circuit.

Alberto Gonzales could possibly get the 5th Circuit nomination. If he wants it, I'd say it is his. I'm still pulling for Cruz, Coleman, or Rosenthal to fill the Texas seats, though. I must say that the prospect of Ted Cruz entering elective politics is very, very alluring, though. I'd be all in favor of him using the Texas Governor's Mansion as a stepping stone to the presidency.

The Dems won't be in any mood to allow Gonzales onto any court and will be more than happy to use the documents excuse to kill his nomination.

I've updated the post on this point.

I have always been a moderate and had no knowledge of Mr. Schumer's talking points.

Mr. Graham has not been two-faced on filibusters. If any of the Democrats had joined a filibuster under the deal he would have voted for the nuclear option which he had reserved the right to do. A committee hold is not a filibuster. I do not believe he is anyone's tool. He "blue slipped" Mr. Haynes because of Bush's policy and he did not feel that Mr. Haynes had given him complete enough answers during the committee hearing. I am not sure he is aiming for any position higher than maintaining his Senate seat, which will be enough work. I haven't chosen who I am going to support in the Presidential race yet.
Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

That nomination will never make it to the floor and if it does there will be a filibuster for sure.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

The only purpose to Sen. Graham's holding of Haynes was to allow the Democrats to filibuster behind closed doors and protect the obnoxious Gang of 14 deal.

He put the "comity" of the Senate, as expressed by Democrat hatred of judicial conservatives, above his country, his constituents, and common decency. And yes, he did it to get in good with Sen. McCain.

Yep, as I suspected - the New Mexico seat must be Judge Kelly's. He's the only one who can take senior status at this point. Replace him with Browning (see above somewhere).

I read RI differently. If Flanders is unacceptable to one of the parties, it is the President, not the Dems. and again, if the Dems want ANY help with judges under a future D prez, they WILL confirm some judges in 2008 (I agree they will almost certainly have to be nominated by the end of this summer though). I conceded upthread that you are probably right as to VA though, alas.

Thomas, but it would get him (AG) out of the AG post, which they probably wouldn't mind. And he might well be a top choice for a President Guiliani, so giving him a few years to calm the fears of conservatives would be good.

as to logconservative and the furor over Graham: yes, Graham can be annoying, but I'm personally willing to give him a pass since he provided the pivot point for the Alito hearings after which confirmation was assured. log is an admittedly moderate leaning conservative, I don't think its necessary to attack him for supporting Graham.

I'm not convinced the Dems really hate Gonzales as AG. At least not anymore than they would hate whoever then next guy in line would be. He's a big step up from Ashcroft in their minds to be sure.

I don't even think they would mind him as a judge on the 5th Circuit. They would just kill his nomination because they can.

Placing the comity in the Senate as a priority is a good thing. Comity has nothing to do with hatred of anybody. The deal allowed us confirmations of Chief Justice Justice Roberts, Associate Justice Alito, and a number of circuit judges.

He does what he does because of many factors, I am not buying that Mr. McCain is one of them.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Placing the comity in the Senate as a priority is a good thing. Comity has nothing to do with hatred of anybody. The deal allowed us confirmations of Chief Justice Justice Roberts, Associate Justice Alito, and a number of circuit judges.

He does what he does because of many factors, I am not buying that Mr. McCain is one of them.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I sometimes get annoyed with Mr. Graham, but an always willing to hear him out as to his reasoning. He did provide the springboard for Mr. Alito's nomination to move forward. I have no problem with admitting what I am and I proudly support and defend Mr. Graham.

I do not believe in attacking someone for whom they support. We are not always going to agree, nor should we.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

That's a myth that's sprung up. The Gang of 14 Deal only killed the nominations of a lot of good people. If the filibusters had been ended (all it would have taken would be Sen. McCain getting off his high horse) we could have gotten everything and ended the filibuster threat forever. Instead we settled for dimes on the dollar with the Circuit nominees and will continue to pay for years to come.

As for Senate comity. What is it worth beyond Republicans bending to the will of Democrats?

And it always runs against conservatives.

Graham was all over the place talking about the virtue of an up or down vote when nominees he supported were up. But when William Haynes was up, he blocked and blocked and blocked. No up or down vote for Haynes. Lindsey Graham little more than a 2-bit, 2-faced liar on "up or down" votes for judicial nominees.

If the Democrats cared about comity, then they wouldn't have triggered the problem in the first place. No, the Democrats care about keeping lousy judges on the bench that will make laws that they like.

Republicans need to learn that the Senate is not a social club because the other side already figured that out.

You are calling Mr Graham 2-faced because he blocked Mr. Haynes. Well, Mr. Brownback also blocked a nominee in committee after talking about up-or-down votes. The committee is for vetting the nominees and if any Senator on the committee is not satisfied for any reason they have the right to block the nominee, and should in most cases. The up-or-down vote was an answer to actual filibusters on the floor and not committee holds.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Please tell me if you think Graham will back a major conservative for the open South Carolina seat? If the nominee is not a major conservative, would you blame Graham? Do you think that major conservatives like JRB, Patricia Owen or William Pryor are a worthwhile goal of the Republican Party? Or, rather, do you think internal cohesion in the Senate is more important than conservative judges?

Reaction to Sen. Brownback's behavior was most definitely negative on this blog.

See what happens when I type too fast.

Up or down vote on the floor, but no up or down vote in committee? WHAT!? No. The president nominates and the senate gives advice and consent. Senators vote ya or nay whether in the judiciary committee or on the senate floor.

Senator Brownback's conduct was roundly criticized here, so pointing to Brownback's hypocrisy in no way excuses Senator Graham's hypocrisy.

If Sen. Graham was opposed to Haynes, all he had to do was vote against him. He did not. He just held him up, despite assuring everyone on Hugh Hewitt's radio show that he would allow a vote on Haynes. So yes...Graham remains a 2-bit, 2-faced hypocrite on up or down votes for judicial nominees.

Are you asking him to place, in the South Carolina seat, someone that is not from South Carolina? Do you not believe that there are worthy conservatives in the South Carolina legal pool to take this seat?

I know he would. He voted for for Mr. Pryor to be confirmed the first time and even gave a speech on the Senate floor regarding his merits. Ditto for Owens and JRB.

Under circumstances in which we could not find an acceptable conservative in the South Carolina pool than he would support some one like the above mentioned. Nominations are historically and traditionally made after speaking with homes state senators.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

that logconservative has no clue what he is talking about. Haynes was nominated for a NC seat. The SC seat wont be vacant until July 1 of this year I believe. I suggest educating yourself on some basic things before you get on here running your mouth and wasting everyone's time with stuff that is way over your head. I have been an avid reader, checking this site multiple times a day for almost two years and very rarely delve into posting, but this dude has struck a nerve with me.

I am not sure why you assumed I was calling for Graham to nominate someone who wasn't from South Carolina. My comments were solely in reference to Alexham's earlier statement that Graham wanted a lifelong Democrat or a liberal, intellectual lightweight. If the nominee turned out to be a lifelong Democrat, would that bother you? If the nominee turned out to be a moderate or, God forbid, a liberal, would that bother you? In either scenario, would you feel that Graham had betrayed the Republican Party?

What I meant in my previous comment has to do with Graham's participation in the nominee selection process. What if, because of Graham's recommendation, a lifelong Democrat and/or liberal was nominated for the South Carolina seat? Should Graham be castigated by conservative Republicans then?

What is the committee hearings for? Are they just a dog and pony show? Why should Mr. Graham have let him through if he were unsatisfied with the answers he gave to questions or thought he wasn't being honest?

This process is a check against personal favor by the president. He was qualified in every way except Mr. Graham thought he wasn't being completely forthcoming about the treatment of detainees and what his responsibility in the formulation of the policy that led to the abuses. That was enough for him to decide to block the nomination.

Was he supposed to let Mr. Haynes through even though he was not at all satisfied with answers Mr. Haynes gave to the questions about the policy? Why have hearings if we are going to vote nominees out weather they answer the questions or not?

Mr Haynes represented extraordinary circumstances and I believe that the hold was the best way of avoiding the disaster that would have happened had he allowed Mr. Haynes to be voted on in committee.

Comity or conservative judges is a false dichotomy, which assumes that confirming a conservative judge and comity are mutually exclusive. I would submit that they are not exclusive of one another. Mr. Haynes presents a bad example of this maxim.

Most nominees do not have the association with a controversial and negative policy as Mr. Haynes did. Do we not have other highly qualified conservatives that we could nominate as judges about which there could be no argument?

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Who would you like to see the next Supreme Court nominee be?

Who do you like for President in 2008?

First things first, I am a woman, my name is Judy.

I knew for which seat Mr. Haynes was nominated. How dare you tell me what is way over my head. I read this site every day as well and usually do not post either.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I would like the next Supreme Court nominee to be J. Michael Luttig.

I have not decided about the 2008 Presidential election yet.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Yes. Judicial Committee hearings are just dog and pony shows.

And Sen. Graham could have voted against Haynes if he felt that strongly about it. But your contention that his placing a hold on Haynes was because of some principled stand doesn't pass the laugh test. Haynes was under no obligation, and indeed would have been unethical to, tip his hand on the treatment of detainees. The fact is Democrats didn't like him. Graham, under the orders of Sen. McCain, sabotaged the nomination in order to keep the vultures from ruining the illusion of comity.

Furthermore, yes, confirming conservative judges and Senate comity are mutually exclusive as long as Democrats see the judiciary as the primary means to fixing social policy to their liking. Sen. Schumer has primed the Democrat caucus to adopt a scorched-earth policy against conservative nominees. Even a utterly mild-mannered judge like Justice Alito barely made it without a filibuster in a Senate with 55 Republicans (all the while he was being called a racist).

I know your proclamations of being a moderate make you feel superior, but you seriously need to open your eyes. Graham is not a good guy. The Democrats aren't even pretending to play fair.

The Gang of 14 Deal did not give us Roberts and Alito, it merely assured that they will be the last great justices.

I havent seent such a lively discussion since we talked about confirmthem's favorite eigth circuit judge, Bobby Sheppard, lol. :)

Mr. Graham is a good guy. It is unfair to blame Mr. McCain for Mr. Graham's actions. He was taking a principled stand about the policy. He was also standing up for the JAGs, which he felt were ignored in the process that led to the policy. These were the questions that Mr. Haynes refused to answer or didn't answer them fully. How is this tipping his hand when we already knew of these things that were occurring? Why is it ok to ask a nominee about abortion or gay marriage, but not about things they did in their previous position? I think these questions deserve an answer just as much as the other questions.

The Democrats also feel that they are not having their concerns heard. Both sides contribute to the fairness problem.

If Mr. Graham recommended a nominee that was liberal leaning or a democrat then criticism would be warranted.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

actually Haynes was nominated for a VA seat. Boyle was to NC.

I don't necessarily have a qualm with Graham's dislike of Haynes. I do have a qualm with the manner in which he showed his displeasure. He should've allowed a committee vote on Haynes and then voted against him. His negative vote along with the presumably negative votes of all the Dems would've sunk the Haynes nomination in a clear, transparent manner. Instead, however, Graham chose to secretly block Haynes by not allowing a committee vote on him in the first place. My question is, why not just be open about deep-sixing Haynes? Why all the cloak-and-dagger shenanigans? Graham had been blocking Haynes a long time before what he was doing was finally exposed to the press. If he hadn't been exposed, I doubt Graham would've said a word about his opposition to Haynes.

Mr. Graham did make his opposition to the nomination of Mr. Haynes known. He also stated why. I do not have a problem with the block. There may have been more than one Senator blocking the nomination. I am betting that Mr. Graham wasn't the only one. He was ready to vote, but someone else was holding up the process. It was Mr. Graham's opposition that eventually caused Mr. Bush to withdraw the nomination.

His opposition was never a secret.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

And be done with it! Was Graham afraid of having it used against him? Hmm...?

Graham needs to go. I'd say either Gov. Sanford or Thomas Ravenel, but I think Sanford has too much work left to do as governor. That leaves Ravenel who needs to come in and be our white knight and vanquish Lindsey Graham.

You are wrong. Graham had been secretly blocking Haynes' nomination since 2003. It was finally exposed in a May 24, 2006 article in The Hill. Only then did Graham feel the necessity to explain his opposition to Haynes.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052406/new...

Can you provide sources for your version of the timeline?

Saying that the blocking of Haynes by Graham is okay validates all the past and future cases of Dems blocking nominees who have had anything to do with the Bush White House, Justice Dept, etc., because they will always argue there are more papers that need to be disclosed (no matter how much has been disclosed) or more questions that need to be answered.

As BoBo said, if he had concerns he should have voted against him in committee and on the floor. Or even better for "up or down" purposes, voted him out of committee and then against him on the floor.

I never had any doubt teat Mr. Graham was blocking the nomination because of issues surrounding concerns of the JAGs and the treatment of detainees. He only continued blocking because Mr. Haynes did not answer his questions at the second hearing after finally getting the JAG memos released. I think once the administration releases papers they owe us answers on issues related to those papers. I think that the nomination was to proper place to air these concerns and questions since before this came up there was not discussion of this stuff. Mr. Graham's block is valid.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I think there are reasonable and unreasonable requests just as there are reasonable and unreasonable blocks. Mr. Graham would have allowed the vote had the questions been answered. They weren't so why unblock the nomination. This is about something we all saw publicly, the second committee hearing.

The issue is where to draw the line. There has been a problem with getting documents relevant to the oversight process from the administration. I do think that they tend to claim either classified status or executive privilege in some cases for documents and testimony that may prove embarrassing.

The secret nature of the hold just aids the ability of Senators to act independently. However, I think that they should have to disclose their block and their reasons at some point.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I don't have an objection to a 'block' when it is for a brief period of time. A senator says 'I need / want more time / info'. However, that needs to be brief - about 2 weeks. After that, no blocks should be allowed. If a senator has not gotten answers to his questions, and a vote is called, that senator should simply vote 'no', rather than block a vote. Graham blocking a vote was wrong. He should have voted 'no'.

I think once the administration releases papers they owe us answers on issues related to those papers.

Are you serious????? If that is the case, then once those answers are released, then more papers will be requested, which will then demand more questions to be answered, and more papers to be released, and then more .... (in computer science we call this an infinite loop - in politics it is called 'waiting until after the next presidential election')

No real debate about Haynes' role in developing the torture guidelines occurred until AFTER Graham's block had been exposed. If Graham had truly wanted an open discussion on the merits of the torture guidelines and how they were developed, why did he secretly block Haynes' nomination for so long without a peep? My guess is that he was hoping to hide the fact that he opposed a Bush judicial nominee. I also tend to agree with those who say that Graham's approach was two-faced. To say that all nominees need an "up-or-down" vote and then to secretly prevent a nominee from getting just such a vote seems hypocritical to me.

Here is an interesting article about how the ABA upgraded district court nominee Vanessa Bryant's rating. It seems to me that the reason she was upgraded is that her one and a half Dem senators (Dodd and Lieberman) support her. If her two homestate senators had been Republicans, I doubt she would've been upgraded.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-bryant0228.artfeb28,0,2461697.story...

While we do need nominations, and need them quickly, they won't do any good unless the SJC starts holding some hearings.

Almost all of the pending nominees have ABA ratings, but nothing is scheduled.

See .sig

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 conservative leadership.

I agree generally with your analysis of appellate nomination priorities, although I hope that one VA seat may be salvagable, thereby mitgating the Haynes fiasco (please see my post #27 on this subject). Is Warner a mere cipher on nominations from his state? Nominate one of his proteges and see if he can persuade-muscle Webb.

As to the 5th Cir., given the age of many Reagan judges there, 3nd priority (after Keisler and the 4th) should be given to the two Texas seats, assuming that Southwick is confirmed by July. Miers would be appropriate, though it might be considered a step down for AG Gonzalez.

I believe that any time an administration, weather it be this one or another in the future, nominates a member of that administration to a judgeship they shoudl expect to discuss things that might be considered privileged under other circumstances.

Would your argument be the same if there were a Democrat in the White House and the shoue were on the other foot?

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Mr. Graham though that the judicial nomination forum was an inappropriate forum for the debate on this policy and so he blocked the nomination.

He secretly blocked the nomination because if he had done so publicly this would have happened, but much sooner. You would have attacked him anyway because there are many people here who don't think we should question the actions of the administration.

I question any administration that expects a rubber stamp on its nominations or other policy peerscriptions.

Is it not a bit disingenuous to have not desired an up-or-down vote on the Miers nomination which would have likely failed because everyone knew she was unqualified. They were effectively blocking Miers by requesting documents as well.

If you wish to have Mr. haynes on the forth circuit and he is formerly in the administration why not expose things that he was a part of so we have a chance to question and debate. That was what part of the block was about.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

The logical endpoint in your proposal is that an administration official will never again be allowed to be appointed to any position unless the the most basic tenants of executive priviledge are tossed out the window.

Try again.

...is just making it up as he goes.

There certain that can be protected. Are you proposing that because there is executive privilege that the Senate should just roll over and vote on the nominee while not questioning him about performance in his prior job or about a policy that was offensive? If we completely allow any administration to claim executive privilege every time they are asked for information than the logical endpoint of your suggestion is that no oversight should occur.

It is a touchy issue. Certain ought not be released. However, there does need to be some disclosure when the person is up for nomination to the Court or any other position. The policy was something we knew about at the time of the questioning and even before the second hearing. We knew about the memos because they were public. We knew about the concerns of JAGs that they were excluded form the decision making loop. Why should Mr. Haynes not be held to account for these issues before being placed on the court or given a vote. He refused to answer questions about his role in something that, though they wish not, was public. Mr. Graham was not asking for any more documents them the ones that were already public as far ad I know.He just wanted answers that Mr. Haynes did not give. The nomination should not go forward in anyway, even if it was a committee vote, until the nominee answers the questions on the matters that are public knowledge.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

If Haynes was stonewalling Graham, Graham should've allowed a committee vote to occur and then voted against him, explicitly explaining at the time that Haynes did not deserve a court seat because he was not forthcoming in his dealings with the committee. What would've been wrong with that solution? Why instead did Graham put a secret hold on the nomination? Voting against Haynes in committee and on the Senate floor seems like a much more honest, transparent way of dealing with a "bad" judicial nominee than placing a hold on him.

I see your point, but I disagree. A secret hold allows them to attempt to resolve the problem prior to a vote. Graham had began being public about his opposition because he needed to be. I think his reasons are justified.

Here is an explanation for the continued hold and eventual withdrawal of the Nomination:

"I understand several Senators on the Judiciary Committee, including the Chairman, have submitted additional questions to Mr. Haynes. It is my belief these questions should be answered in a relatively quick manner by Mr. Haynes." http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=259832

His intent was to allow a vote once all questions were answered. He would have voted know, but wanted everyone to have their questions answered.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

I am not making it up as I go and I am a woman.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Considering the small box you've put yourself in, yeat we do think you're making it up as you go along. And we don't really care about your gender.

I am entitled to my opinion or interpretation of the facts. Why do you think I am making it up as I go along? What small box?

I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge my correct gender in your post.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Great, we've sunk to "it's my opinion". There's got to be some sort of internet rule akin to Godwin's Law for that.

Aren't we all just stating our opinion or interpretation of facts when we post?

I will never represent my opinion as any more than my opinion. I am claiming any source close to anyone or anything. I am interpreting. Everything I say is only opinion or interpretation.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Congrats

that SHE is working with a very, very weak hand and basically appears to just be a Graham suckup.

I mean, I personally would never defend actions that I find indefensible, even if they were perpetuated by someone who I deeply respect and admire. Logconservative, however, obviously is not held back by those constraints. So, I have to stop and consider that, if I didn't care about my credibility, what is the very BEST argument that I could possibly come up with defending Graham's 2-faced actions on the Senate Judiciary Committee? I'm sure that if either you or I set about defending something as indefensible as that, we'd make some pretty shallow arguments, too. And when those with a bit more intellectual intergrity came along to shred our position, we'd likely hide behind the "(it's my opinion/freedom of speech) so don't criticize me" position, also.

Thank you for recognizing for respecting my wish to be accurately represented as a female. I feel that my hand is no weaker than that of the apologists for Mr. Bush. I am not a suckup for Mr. Graham. I can defend actions that I disagree with because I give people the ability to form their own opinions and take actions according to their conscience or principle. If your interpretation of the principle of an up-or-down vote does not allow for committee holds that is fine. My interpretation not only allows for it, but encourages it because I will under no circumstance support a filibuster once a nominee is voted out of committee. If I thought that Mr. Graham was blocking for the other than he stated regarding not having his questions answered than I would be highly critical of his choice.

I do care about my credibility. However, I do not see opinion or his actions as two-faced. We have a different opinion and that is ok.

I am making my arguments based on interpretation of what Mr. Graham has said many times.

I am not saying don't criticize me because I have a right to an opinion. It seems like you are telling me that I should not defend or in this case support Mr. Graham.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Logconservative, who is a woman, said...

"If your interpretation of the principle of an up-or-down vote does not allow for committee holds that is fine. My interpretation not only allows for it, but encourages it because I will under no circumstance support a filibuster once a nominee is voted out of committee."

So does that mean that one person on the committee can put a hold on a nomination, and keep it indefinitely even if the nominee has clear majority support?

I'm just trying to clear out the verbiage and get to the point. Answer as succintly as possible.

Is it because I is black? - Ali G

Under certain circumstances, yes, but that does not cover all blocks that have ever been used.

Clear majority support on the Committee or on the floor? What if they have clear majority support on the floor, but not in committee? Are you suggesting that they be voted out of committee despite the resistance of those with legitimate beefs with the nominee?

Ideology does not count as a legitimate to do more than voting, if one so chooses.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

that Sen. Lindsey Graham is not posting as logconservative.

I am not Senator Graham but am flattered by you wondering about weather I am or not. I am proud of the comparison to such a great American. I only have a similar viewpoints on some issues and defend and/or support his policy goals. I am just a college student in Illinois and admire the job that Sen. Graham is trying to do as a Senator.

He explains why he does things. I also think it is OK when he sometimes does not. He needs the zone of quiet to make some of his decisions. I do not think that he should always listen to activists or voters on either side. Sometimes he needs to be allowed the space to make a decision that he believes is best for the country, South Carolina, and the legislative process. This at times means making people upset about particular decisions because you weigh the conflict between principles in this case it up-or-down vote versus contaminating the nomination process with discussion of the administration policy. He though that having a judicial nomination process that could focus squarely on the qualifications of the nominee rather than on the policy was important. With Mr. Haynes this would never have happened because he didn't answer questions and even if he did the process would have been polluted by the policy discussion.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.