ConfirmThem

the Senate is on recess, shouldn't Tedward be off somewhere too drunk to speak?

It's pretty obvious from the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings that good old-fashion Borking just doesn't work anymore. The Right is too prepared to be caught unawares as they were when Bork was nominated and Ralp Neas, Nan Aron, et al have lied so many times that even most of the liberal MSM doesn't believe them anymore. They need some new tactics and this is one of them.
For example, remember the Henderson/Mintz hit piece on Alito put out by Knight-Ridder? Within 24 hours conservative groups and the White House were showing it to be a complete fabrication. The final straw was Stephen Henderson being absolutely humiliated on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Years ago the MSM would've accepted a story like that as gospel. Today it was almost immediately underminded and by the time the hearings rolled around it was a non-factor.
Or how about that NARAL ad on Roberts that backfired so bad it essentially took NARAL out of the debate completely? And Kennedy's attempt at Borking Alito with that nonsense about Concerned Alumni for Princeton didn't work too well either.
What used to work for them simply isn't enough anymore, so this is a new trick in their arsenal. I think, as Andrew has shown above, this one's not gonna work too well either.

The three most common words during any confirmation hearings should be "Ruth", "Bader", & "Ginsburg".

Note how clips of her hearings were aired in pro-JGR & -Alito ads.

This is a very easy tactic to turn against the Dems. Kill 'em with their own words.

On a somewhat related note, this is what has always baffled me about Estrada's hearings; how he handled the convoluted (but essentially simple) question from Chuck about screening AMK's clerks so poorly.

Hell, WHR was practically accused of burning crosses at the polls, and Thomas of being a near-rapist, and they handled it.

Any nominee who can't handle Teddy's demands for philosophical sharing, in such a way that humiliates the old drunk, isn't fit to serve on SCOTUS, IMO.

Ted: "The breakdown in the nomination process matters, because the Supreme Court decides issues of enormous importance to Americans’ ***daily*** lives."

Kennedy is just a sore loser. As he basically admits, what bothers him the most is that the Republicans found a way around the Nazi-like "borking" tactics that he and the liberal special-interest groups instituted with the Robert Bork nomination. He misses the good ole days when all he had to do to ruin the reputation of a fine conservative jurist was make a speech on the Senate floor.

In general, everything is relative. Kennedy hates the confirmation process and calls it "broken down" when it helps to put on the bench conservative judges (Roberts and Alito), but loves it when it gets his people on the bench (Ginsburg and Breyer). The Republicans are the same way.

Unfortunately, if there is Dem president and Dem-controlled Senate in 2009, just watch as Republicans condemn the easy confirmation of a liberal to the court who uses the "Ginsburg precedent" in their hearing and refuses to answer questions about Roe and same-sex marriage. A word to the wise, all politicians are basically self-serving and hypocrites. They say what suits their purposes at the moment. Kennedy is doing exactly that right now in his Alliance for Justice speech in order to shore up his liberal base in case there is a third Supreme Court vacancy for Bush II to fill.

http://stories.baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=d8d12a927155ab15

"Randall Sowells has argued dozens of cases in Elrod’s court, not always on the winning side. He said that Elrod, perhaps differently from some more high-profile judicial nominees, is not driven by ideology or partisan agenda.

“She genuinely listens to an argument, and she has the ability to cut right to the point and decide an issue based on the arguments presented,” Sowells said. “Many judges have the reputation of deciding cases based on their own beliefs or on just one point, but she sees right down the middle.”

Sowells said a lifetime appointment, such as the 5th would be for Elrod if confirmed, sometimes causes judges to be detached from common people, and unable to step into the shoes of lawyers, plaintiffs and defendants.

“But she will never forget that each case is the most important case to them, and she will give it as much thought as it deserves,” Sowells said."

Courtesy of How Appealing, here is a very interesting article about a liberal Dem who desperately wants to be on the Supreme Court, former Blackmun clerk and current dean of Yale Law School Harold Koh:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20558

"Criticism of Koh in the legal blogosphere has picked up since the start of the 2006-’07 school year. While he always has had supporters in cyberspace, Koh’s dissenters are particularly harsh: First, they attacked him for making the decision to again bar the ROTC. Then bloggers, along with several students, criticized Koh for giving an allegedly cold welcome to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in November.

“Dean Koh has a long and ignominious record of suppressing conservative speech,” wrote one blogger named Doug. “It’s sad that they let him go this long.”

So is Koh really walking the line, or is he falling to one side?

A third-year law student, who asked to remain anonymous, says there are “a lot of students, including me, who think it’s not the place of the Law School to take positions on controversial law issues of the day.”"

I am intrigued by an implicit admission that there is tension between Koh and another liberal SC justice wannabe, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan:

"David Bernstein LAW ’91 said that when he attended Yale, it was considered a friendlier place than Harvard for conservatives and libertarians. Leading conservative thinkers in law and economics were appointed to the faculty under Calabresi, and the Federalist Society was founded. The former dean says he went out of his way to tell non-liberal students that he valued their perspectives.

But today, Harvard Law School is at the forefront in this area: Conservative thinkers Jack Goldsmith and John Manning were recently appointed to the faculty by the Harvard Law School dean, Elena Kagan, who declined to comment for this story."

Can't O'Connor do something useful like thrashing Senator Kennedy for threatening judicial independence - her cause celeb these days?

"Giuliani stands by support of publicly funded abortions."

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

""Ultimately, [abortion]'s a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city."

That statement is really scary. It proves that Giuliani thinks that Roe was rightly decided.

Here are some other disturbing quotes about how Giuliani views conservative judges and Roe:

"Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.

"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.""

I'm sorry but that comes across to me as code for "I will choose pro-business, PR0-CHOICE judicial nominees." After these quotes, I don't know how any Giuliani supporter can argue that he would nominate pro-life people like Edith Jones, Luttig, McConnell or JRB to the Supreme Court. It sure sounds more like he would nominate people like Connie Callahan.

All I can say is - SCARY!

I think its the difference between Babbitt and Ginsburg. I suspect the former would get near unanimous Republican opposition, and the latter would get very little, 10 nays at the most, and very probably less.

It sure would be nice if radical Democrats afforded mainstream Republican nominees the same respect instead of 42 nays.

That is very, VERY scary indeed.

We want "pro-law, pro-Constitution" judges and justices, Mr. Giuliani, not "pro-business, pro-choic" judges!!!

Why is that so difficult to communicate? Why is that such a RADICAL idea?

I had already scratched Giuliani from my list earlier on, but not I have to say that I have to very grudgingly support John McCain over Giuliani, and Mitt Romney over both of them.

This is what I've always suspected and feared. Rudy just killed his chances. I hope. Romney or McCain either one would be infinitely preferable.

I just watched that interview at Yahoo! in the politics section if anyone wants to watch it. As someone who was considering supporting Giuliani, this video was the final straw for me. It was easy to see that he is arguing that the conservative position on Roe is to leave it alone because it has been around for 30 years. There is no way on the planet he will provide the 5th vote to overturn Roe. This is very disappointing to me because I believe he is the most electable candidate. He could say that he is still pro-choice but is opposed to federal tax dollars paying for abortion and that he thinks Roe was wrongly decided because it is a state issue. That position would allow him to not flip flop and still gain the support of people like me. I really believed that is the way he would go, but obviously I was wrong.

I've just created a diary with your post over at RedState. Thanks for bringing this to our attention

As a New Yorker and an Italian-American Republican, I was predisposed to liking Giuliani. Unless he can very convincingly explain these statements to my satisfaction, I have to adamantly dump him. Very distressing.

I'm thinking perhaps he was trying to draw a parallel between Miranda/Dickerson and Roe/(enter the hypothetical abortion case) and saying Rehnquist, a good conservative, ultimately took the position of acceptance because of length of time of the precedent in the "fabric" of our popular culture, so why not with abortion? What he doesn't understand is no conservatives other than Rehnquist accepted that position on Miranda, and NONE will ever accept it with Roe and abortion.

Dead in the water....

It takes swipes at 3 pillars of the Republican Party - social conservatives who are opposed to abortion, fiscal conservatives who don't want to fund abortions, and judicial conservatives who think that Roe is one of the great heights of liberal judicial activism.

It's hard to underestimate just how much damage this may do to Giuliani given that 20% of the GOP's most conservative voters are supposedly still backing Giuliani. It's hard to see how they can continue given these comments.

Given Giuliani's deeply flawed legal reasoning, everyone in the nation would also be entitled to land because we have the constitutional right to buy land, and some are denied this constitutional right simply because they don't have enough money to buy property. This sounds more socialist than federalist, which is what Giuliani is running on as an end-round to his social liberalism. This throws cold water all over Giuliani's federalist proclamations.

Theodore Olson needs to distance himself from Giuliani before he starts damaging himself, I think.

between the right to be left alone to engage in an activity (in this case, abortion) and the "right" to force others to use their property to subsidize the activity, he lacks even a basic understanding of individual rights. I'm surprised (maybe I shouldn't be).

By Giuliani's "logic," we have a right to use government to steal other people's property to subsidize ANYTHING we have a right to do. We have a right to travel freely, so others should be forced to buy us a car, and gas. We have a right to freedom of speech and expression, so others should be forced to buy us a newspaper, or a computer, Internet access, and a website. Where does it stop, Rudy?

Like Matthew Friendly, I'm also part Italian, and I'd love to see an Italian-American in the White House. But man, is this guy proving he's not the one...

David Lat shares a new nickname for Justice Ginsburg. there is a passing resemblence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has actually scheduled a hearing on judicial nominees! On April 11. No names named.

This illuminates some of the reasons that I've never supported Giuliani, and why he doesn't have (and never has had despite the media buildup) a ghost of a chance to win the GOP nomination, whatever the meaningless year-out polls have been saying. The man is essentially a charlatan and chameleon, and in no way can be trusted to nominate non-activist conservatives to the bench.

And by the way, I don't care a whit if a judicial nominee is "pro-Life" or "pro-Choice". I deeply care that said nominee is a solid conservative, Constitutional textualist, basically originalist, and a judicial non-activist who refuses to place personal policy preferences above the law and the Constitution (as 5 out of 9 current justices are quite ready to do on any given occasion). Such a jurist will definitely vote to directly overule (Scalia and Thomas) or to eviscerate (Roberts and Alito) Roe v. Wade in any case.

McCain is history and Giuliani is a fraud. On all counts Romney is clearly the best possible nominee. One can only hope that some people will get over their ridiculous and disgusting anti-Morman bias, which is being fueled by the Left to dupe conservative Christians and others, because they see Romney as a very formidible opponent.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2680

Chuck Schumer of New York is set to officiate, so I think that the hearing may be just New York nominees. If so, this could be Debra Livingston's chance to shine. More likely, though, the hearing will just be for the three Second Circuit district court nominees from New York - Roslynn Mauskopf, Mary Donohue and Richard Sullivan. Here's hoping that Livingston is included.

If Livingston is included, she will have to appear on the Thursday, April 19th, executive business meeting agenda in order to get confirmed by the end of the month. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for follow-up questions after the hearing, which means probably Schumer and Clinton don't mind her getting confirmed.

I'm stilling holding out hope for Keisler, but if Schumer is doing the April 11th hearing, it probably is Livingston's turn as the monthly COA confirmation.

Giuliani and McCain have always been non-starters with me. I like Giuliani but his position on social issues has always made me doubt that he would be any help.

And, as a minor secondary factor. Giuliani would just make a lousy president.

Getting back on track:

It's pretty obvious from the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings that good old-fashion Borking just doesn't work anymore. The Right is too prepared to be caught unawares as they were when Bork was nominated and Ralp Neas, Nan Aron, et al have lied so many times that even most of the liberal MSM doesn't believe them anymore. They need some new tactics and this is one of them.

No they don't. They will vote against a candidate using the flimsiest of excuses. They may not be able to create a media tidal wave like in the good ol' days, but what do they care?

Romney is definitely tops of the Big 3, and I think that he would be an extremely formidable opponant in the general election.

Romney also knows how to do a national rollout, and he's polling much more strongly in New Hampshire and Iowa than he is in national polls.

I would like to see Romney come out with a little bit more bold economic platform in addition to his pledge to veto budgets that exceeded CPI -1% in non-defense discretionary growth - like Brownback's optional flat tax, privatizing social security, health savings accounts fazing out medicare, Rudy's championing of school choice. But on the issue of the judiciary, there is no doubt that no one has seen the results of judicial activism more up close than Mitt Romney has. I think it made a huge impression on him, and I think that he would give us the best judges and justices by far.

Romney is such a brainiac that I'm sure that Michael McConnell would be at the top of his list. After all, Michael McConnell is a non-Mormon protestant from Utah (where he gets a lot of his political support from) who is widely respected throughout the legal community.

While McConnell would not really be an "advocate" model justice like John Roberts, Allison Eid, Ted Cruz, Paul Clement, or Maureen Mahoney would be, he seems to be exceedingly humble and amiable - which suggests that while he may or may not be able to be a huge force of persuasion on the court with anything more than his tremendous intellect, at the very least he would not push anyone away the way Brennan and Scalia do. I guess he'd be more like our Stephen Breyer on the court - except that he's written one of the most authoritative critiques of Breyer's "Active Liberty" approach to constitutional interpretation.

Not that it matters, but I think it's interesting that McConnell belongs to a First Evangelical Free denomination church. I don't know much about them, but they had a big church in Austin - and that's the only place that I've ever lived that had a large EV Free church. Those who I knew who went there seemed to be really wonderful people, though.

Bobo, if the hearing will be on Livingston, I hope the Dems have not selected a nominee who will help set a precedent of giving hints, forecasts, and previews about her judgeship.

If Schumer and Clinton have no problem with Livingston, should we, as conservatives, have problems with her?

I must admit that I haven't heard anything alarming about Livingston, but I also haven't hardly anything at all. The evidence against her is somewhat circumstantial. First, she is a dean at Columbia University, not exactly a conservative institution. Second, it was rumored at the time of her nomination that she in fact had first been chosen by the White House for the D.C. Circuit, but that conservatives didn't think she was conservative enough and wanted Keisler instead. Third, if she is fast-tracked this month, why are Schumer and Clinton seemingly so unbothered by her?

Is there anyone out there in the legal world of New York City that can give us some more info on her?

"I must admit that I haven't heard anything alarming about Livingston, but I also haven't HEARD hardly anything at all ABOUT HER POSSIBLE JURISPRUDENCE."

Not that I want any hints, forecasts or previews from her, mind you.

From one of the nested links on the "Tweety Bird" page:

A young Kiki Bader at summer camp: http://www.adirondackmuseum.net/adirondackmuseum.net-asp//paradise/media...

If the Republicans couldn't defeat a Koh nomination, they might as well shutter up the building right now.

Talk about the anti-JRB, and a pompous, hateful blowhard to boot. But, I'm sure he's second on Hillary's list after Sotomayor. And Obama'd just have to lurv him, too.

Forewarned is forearmed.

This is as I expected all along. Livingston, not Keisler for the "April CCA confirmation". And New York, and maybe the California (Rogan) District judges. The Democrats are obviously avoiding the 4th Circuit District nominees like the plague(5 District nominees at present). On the 4th Circuit level, Bush is making it easy for the Dems. by not nominating any.

I'm glad not to live in the 4th Circuit given what may be coming, but if the Dems. get in God help us on national security cases in the 4th Circuit. Democrats and their de facto terrorist allies will celebrate judicial victories in cases with dire national implications.

BoBo, since the DC circuit doesn't typically handle controversial social issues, it always seemed to me like it would be a much safer place to put Livingston in case she was more moderate than we'd like. the rumored switch perplexed me at the time and it perplexes me still. the only advantage to putting Keisler up for that seat is that he gets by the MD senators' blue slips.

If the April 11th hearing is for Livingston and the three New York district court nominees - Mauskopf, Donohue and Sullivan - do you think the three Michigan district court nominees will be delayed confirmation until May? I can't see the Dems confirming NINE district court nominees in April. I definitely think Settle, Ozerden and Kapala will get confirmed, but who will be the other three? The Michigan three or the New York three?

Livingston could get her hearing, then wait several weeks to be confirmed as the May confirmation (along with the NY District judges). Keisler could still be the April confirmation along with the WDMI and the other 3, if the Kyl/DiFi deal means Leahy won't require another hearing.

I still think Bush should just recess appoint the WDMI judges, like he did with Sam Fox today (hehe).

possible that Keisler and Livingston could both get confirmed this month. though if we're going to get a two-fer, I'd expect it to be Southwick and Elrod or Kethledge and Murphy. Or even 2 4th circuit, if Bush ever nominates them (hint, hint WH staffers we know to be hanging on our every brilliant word ;))

Word has it that Livingston is personally quite conservative and that her legal acumen is top rate. I recall John Manning, a prominent conservative law professor at Harvard, as raving about her conservatism and legal ability when she was first nominated. I think she will turn out to be a great judge.

Your scenario would make the most sense. Keisler and the three West Michigan district court nominees already have had SJC hearings and could be confirmed in April with no problem. If the April 11th hearing is for Livingston and the three New York district court nominees, then they could be the May confirmations. That would allow more than a week for Livingston to answer committee follow-up questions before being put on the SCJ executive business meeting agenda. The question is, however, would the SJC Dems be so logical and cooperative?

I hope you're right Matthew. In any event, I suspect that if her hearing is on April 11 then she may come under intense pressure to detail her political views.

In order to keep pace with a one COA confirmation per month schedule for the year, Reid and Leahy will have to allow two months where more than one COA judge is confirmed. There was no COA confirmation in January, and there will not be one in August either due to the annual Congressional recess. I just wonder if 12 is the correct number that Reid and Leahy will allow in terms of COA confirmation numbers this year.

I agree that White House needs to get on the ball here. There are only six COA nominees on the table now - Keisler, Livingston, Southwick, Kethledge, Murphy and Elrod. I will be amazed if Kethledge and Murphy are confirmed any time soon, and Outsider will be amazed if Keisler is. That leaves only three more confirmations for the year - Livingston, Southwick and Elrod - if the White House doesn't do something soon.

I think they are very afraid of Webb and Graham. That may delay the Fourth Circuit nominations for months, which would be a dangerous thing to do. As I have already said, I anticipate Leahy to shut down the COA committee process in January. The closer to that date that the new nominations are made, the harder it will be to get anyone confirmed.

Sorry for getting you confused with Dienekes. It's been a long day.

Dienekes, no I mean Matthew, no I mean Dienekes, no ... oh well, I think I'll take a break now and let my mind rest. I've definitely reached the point where I need to refocus and concentrate on correctly identifying to whom I am responding.

but I don't think there will be 0 confirmations in 08 either.

I'm guessing 8-10 this year (6-8 if there's a SCOTUS vacancy), and 4-5 next year. It would actually look better for the Dems to spread it out more evenly, confirm 7 or 8 both this year and next, but as long as they confirm 15 (give or take) total, they won't look too obstructionist.

ROFL at this beautiful (?) comment over on Volokh by commenter anonVCfan:

Harold Koh's America is an America in which we would all speak Esperanto. Our controversial cartoonists would be in hiding. Our women would dress like ninjas, be subject to genital mutilation and treated like property. Our economic sector would collapse under the weight of a mandatory 35-hour work week, and our prison doors would be flung wide open to allow murderers to roam the streets. Men in speedos would be commonplace at our beaches, and our political dissidents would be run over by tanks on the National Mall. Harold Koh would turn the clock forward to an anarchic, internationalist dystopia. Harold Koh must not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Seriously, Fletcher, Sotomayor, Tatel, Garland, Wood, Kagan... who would choose Koh over these people?

click me

It's a conservative, main stream church.

There most famous pastor is guy named Chuck Swindoll who I'm sure you've heard of.

My brother was a pastor in the denomination for a number of years.

I thought somewhere that I heard that there were some questions as to whether or not Michael McConnell was too Libertarian and not enough conservative for a SCOTUS post (i.e. that he might rule against drug laws, etc).

I'm not trying to start that rumor, just wondering why the thought is winding its way through my head.

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

He was born in my hometown! :-)