ConfirmThem

Two more .. and two less.

Still waiting for the White House to step up to the plate and nominate a whole slate of CCA judges and judges to fill all of the judicial emergency slots.

A short article in today's New York Post said that the nomination of Mary Donohue, former Gov. Pataki's lieutenant governor, to fill the vacancy on the US District Court for Northern District of New York, is dead. It said Schumer's people had investigated her and determined she wasn't qualified.

This of course makes no sense. She was lieutenant governor of New York for the last 9 or 10 years. Before that, she was a New York State Supreme Court justice, a New York Court of Claims judge, and the District Attorney for her county. The ABA gave her a WQ/Q or unanimously Q rating (I forget which). Does anyone know what the heck this means? Is it Schumer sticking it to Pataki? Or perhaps the new gov Spitzer sticking to a nominee of a former gov because he wants one of his own?

Do you have a link to that article? Thanks.

[While it might not make it out of the House, one wonders what it will take for Sen. L. to caucus with the GOP, thus helping (I would think the movement of some more judicial nominees. Note paragraph on Reid. No comment by him is probably because of his fear of losing JL and the majority. May the anti-clot medicine continue to do its good work in VP Cheney!]

Democrats Want Iraq Pullout by Fall 2008

Mar 08 12:08 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a "date certain" for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The White House had no immediate reaction, although Bush has repeatedly rejected talk of establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals.

Within an hour of Pelosi's news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to "establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable" that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

"Gen. (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha," the Ohio Republican added. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has been heavily involved in crafting legislation designed to end U.S., participation in the war.

According to an explanation of the measure distributed by Democratic aides, the timetable for withdrawal would be accelerated if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not meet goals for providing for Iraq's security.

Democrats won control of Congress last fall in midterm elections shadowed by public opposition to the war, and have vowed since taking power to challenge Bush's policies.

Pelosi made her announcement as Senate Democrats reviewed a different approach _ a measure that would set a goal of a troop withdrawal by March of 2008. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called a closed- door meeting of the rank-and-file to consider the measure.

In the House, Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders.

The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress.

But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month.

To make the overall measure more attractive politically, Democrats also intend to add $1.2 billion to Bush's request for military operations in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is expected to mount a spring offensive.

The bill also would add $3.5 billion to Bush's request for veterans' health care and medical programs for active duty troops at facilities such as the scandal-scarred Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

http://www.newscopy.org/mary_donohue/index.html

This discusses the matter concerning Mary Donohue. After reading this I dont feel quite so bad about it as I did before. Plus its New York. They deserve what they get for electing the likes of Chuck and Hilldabeast.

The ABA gave Donahue a WQ(sm)/Q(min) rating. That hardly seems like the rating of an unqualified nominee. Schumer probably is balking at her politics and not her resume. As I have said before, I think Schumer and Clinton probably are also rethinking Debra Livingston.

It will be very interesting to see who will be the "April confirmation". I think it might be Keisler. The Kyl/Feinstein deal on the 12th/29th seat exchange between the D.C. Circuit and Ninth Circuit implies a thaw in the Dem response to Keisler. In the meantime, I think Schumer may be strategically delaying Livingston, and neither she nor Southwick have had hearings yet.

Upon reading the article, I would say that it is just an opinion piece. It don't think it really says anything about what Schumer or Clinton may actually think about Donahue. It also doesn't say she is being blocked. I stand by my previous statement, however, that I think Schumer may be delaying Livingston on purpose.

My response to the Donahue/Schumer matter is basically the Rhett Butler one. With the 4th Circuit in danger of being lost, the 3rd, 5th and 6th in medium-term jeopardy, and the Supreme Court still poised on a knife-edge, the fate of an insignificant New York District judge is a matter of indifference to me. In other words, "frankly ... I don't give a damn."

Meanwhile, there have been exactly 2 (minor District Court) nominations since January 9th. And most of the Jan. 9th nominations were retreads who should have been confirmed by the feckless GOP Senate last year (they couldn't even get the District Court nominees with hearings confirmed!). Where are the Circuit Court (4th Circuit!) nominations? They should have been sent to the Senate 10 days ago. This begs the usual question about Bush nominations: WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR? 2009?

And further meanwhile, the Administration found the time yesterday to nominate 3 persons for Senate confirmation to the crucial and illustrious "National Museum and Library Services Board". But as usual no judicial nominations. Great to know that the Bush Administration has its priorities so straight. WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR??

The Senate is hanging by a thread (50-49). An act of God or of Senator Lieberman's conscience could restore GOP control overnight. Multiple Circuit nominees (especially to the 4th Cir.) must be nominated immediately so as to be ready for possible hearings and Committee action in case of such an event. And even if Democrats retain control, nominations must be made NOW so that the nominees are ready for hearings in late June or July.

Once again: WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?

they're coming. whether it's today or in two weeks won't make a bit of difference (of course it appears there will only be one 4th circuit nominee in the upcoming batch, which is a shame, but I imagine there will be a couple more sometime this summer. its unlikely the Dems will let Bush fill more than 3 of the 5 vacancies anyway, and since only 1 of the current vacancies is an emergency, it will have to do, I suppose.)

That's not today's article. That article above is a year old.

Please see my second-to-last pararagraph ("Senate hanging by a thread") to see why immediate nominations may be more important than you think.

As to the virtues of calmness, I was quite calm through 2003, 2004, 2005, and much of 2006 as I watched increasingly bemused then appalled as the Administration and Senate GOP turned a virtually invincible position re judicial nominations into a potentially lost one.

After the amazing debacles of the past 4 years, perhaps the time for calmness re CCA nominations is past. Sometimes the virtues of calmness can be overstated. Remember that in 1940 General Gamelin remained impeccably calm even as the German Panzers broke through the French army and took Paris.

and will be ready for hearings whenever our donkey overlords deign to hold them.

While it would be immediately gratifying, if the nominees were dumped in our laps this second, would we be going any less crazy watching them wait and wait and wait for hearings and then business meetings only to be delayed another week for a committee vote and then to wait again for a vote in the full Senate? I doubt it. With Leahy's, ahem, "methodical" approach to judicial nominees, there's no difference bewteen having more nominees NOW versus the end of the month (and likely wouldn't be even were he less methodical, to be fair).

There will be nominees in time for the process to coontinue, such as it is.

Given continued Democrat control of the 110th Senate, I agree with your analysis.

Although Hardiman was reported to the Floor today, I expect it will be at least three weeks before he gets a vote.

The Dems will continue to delay CCA hearings. The first CCA hearing of 2007 will not occur until the last week of March or first part of April (Livingston or possibly Keisler). Schumer's delay on Livingston that BoBo reported is clearly part of this strategy of delay.

The Democrats medium-term strategy is to delay completing confirming the five Jan. 9th nominees (assuming that Keisler is confirmed at all) until at least early July. Then they can put off considering the next batch until Autumn. From there it's only 4 months to 2008.

So we will continue to reap the bitter fruits of last year's (post-Alito) GOP Senate ineptitude.

This should be interesting!

"Bill,

Judge Brown mentioned in her speech that she would try to send Dr. Burks a
script of her speech later after she had time to clean it up at home. We
will put you on the list of people who would like a copy if she is able to
send the script at a later time. Thanks!"

Debbie Stewart
Administrative Assistant
American Studies Institute
Harding University

Here's the link to the original story: http://tinyurl.com/3cvaam

Not the greatest photo ever taken of the Notorious One, but anyone who doesn't think the public will fall in love with her if she's presented correctly in the first 72 hours post-nomination and won't tolerate a Borking; or that the base will be united & mobilized like never before, including many who've been previously silent; or that she could be a serious contender for the Presidency if she choose; is crazy, IMO.

A humble yet eloquent, charismatic, Evangelical, Libertarian, Objectivist, Southern black lady? You kiddin' me? Slam dunk.

It will be a real shame if she is not able to make it onto the Supreme Court.

A lot of great legal minds have failed to make it onto the court. What's a shame is the number of mediocre minds that have.

Not going to happen.