ConfirmThem

Although I was the first to suggest that the hearing might be for Livingston since good ole Chuckie Schumer of New York is presiding, Nomination Observer was the first to notice that a hearing had been scheduled in the first place.

As Dienekes suggested in the previous thread, it is possible that Livingston will be confirmed either in April or May. I think May sounds more logical since that would give her more time to respond to follow-up questions after the hearing.

Here is a nice article detailing an award presentation to Sam Alito:

http://www.centredaily.com/129/story/60048.html

thanks for the link BoBo. I'd be interested to know what Roberts said in his video tribute.

interesting that the 1st award was in 2001 to O'Connor, and this the 2nd in 2007, was to Alito. Maybe they should rename the award the "Seat 8 Award", though I'd hope there's not a 3rd recipient in just 6 years, or even 4 times that.

I hope that Livingston finally gets her hearing. She will be an outstanding judge and could surface on the SCOTUS shortlist for the next Republican President, especially if it happens to be Rudy since she worked with him in the US Atty office in the SDNY. Unfortunately, I doubt the SJC is going to let in CCA nominees through.

For some very odd reason, Harold Koh must be beginning a political campaign to get himself appointed to the Supreme Court by a Dem president who he anticipates will be elected in 2008. Why else would the Yale Daily News be writing such propaganda about his possible nomination?

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20565

At least the article tries to be somewhat objective by detailing some complaints against Koh:

"But in a December 2006 controversy, David Lat, a blogger, claimed to unearth evidence that Koh had strong-armed a committee into awarding the school’s 2006 Merit Award to Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter and the recipient of a master’s degree from the Law School, over Justice Samuel Alito LAW ’75. Koh and Greenhouse have worked together in the past, but Lat suggested that Greenhouse would also be a helpful ally for Koh if he were ever named to the Supreme Court since her words carry significant power to frame the public elements of Court debates.

Koh was angered by the story — it included a fictionalized “account” of deliberations surrounding the award — but he stopped short of denying it. Before Koh awarded her the prize, Greenhouse said in an e-mail that Koh would make a “fabulous” Supreme Court justice.

Some blogs on Wednesday, entertaining the possibility of a Koh nomination, urged supporters to exercise caution.

“Koh’s appointment to the [Supreme Court] would be an unmitigated disaster,” wrote UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge. “There can be no doubt but that Koh would be a liberal activist of a stripe we haven’t seen since Brennan and Marshall. The personal policy preferences of elite left-liberal salons would rule, rather than the rule of law. Conservatives need to get ready to turn Koh into a verb synonymous with Bork.”

Koh still has to make it to the hearings before he can become an entry in the historical dictionary, and some of his ardent supporters express concern that he would not survive the scrutiny modern nominees face. Unlike other current justices, he is not an appeals court judge. He also has an extensive litigation record, including condemnations of executive power, that may scare off moderate or conservative presidents and legislators."

I say, if someone is this desperate to get on the Supreme Court, he has too much obvious self-serving ambition to deserve the honor. He needs to be filibustered if President Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton nominate him.

Did Kethledge and Murphy have hearings in the 109th? If so, will that speed things up for them like it did for J. Smith and J. Hardiman? On a related note, will that recent Michigan newspaper article decrying the long wait for Michigan federal judges push the SJC/Michigan senators to push all the Michigan judges (CA & DCT) faster?

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07095/775347-53.stm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_501224....

From the pictures, it sure looks like Alito has lost a lot of weight in the last year since his confirmation. I first noticed the weight loss at the time of his appearance at the last state-or-the-union address. The pictures from these articles confirm the weight loss to me as a real thing and not just a figment of my imagination.

Is Schumer going to scuttle their nominations? I recall reading that Mary Donohue's nomination was DOA since Pataki left office. Anyone know anything? I wouldn't put it past Schumer.

Kethledge and Murphy did NOT have hearings in the 109th Congress. Usually, Leahy will not schedule hearings for nominees until their ABA ratings have been completed, which usually takes at least 4-6 weeks AFTER the person's most recent nomination. In the case of Kethledge and Murphy, they were 3/19. I wouldn't anticipate their new ratings being available before 5/1.

There has been huge debate on this website on whether or not Kethledge and Murphy were part of the same deal the White House worked out last year to get the three West Michigan district court nominees confirmed. No one seems to be able to provide proof-positive for either case - yes or no.

My own personal feeling is that Kethledge and Murphy will be blocked because the Republicans earlier in the late 1990's blocked Clinton's two Michigan nominees to the 6th Circuit - Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis. By blocking Kethledge and Murphy now, Levin and Stabenow stand a good chance of keeping the 6th Circuit a liberal court by allowing a prospective Dem president in 2009 the chance to name two new liberal nominees to replace them.

The article you are referring to is from March 2006. I do not know if it has any real validity today. It is mostly an opinion piece and doesn't mention what Schumer and Clinton actually think of Donohue. Unlike with Feinstein and Boxer in California, so far the White House has been pretty good about getting Schumer and Clinton's approval on New York judicial nominees. With the partisan atmosphere in Congress now, I doubt they would've renominated her this year if Schumer and Clinton had expressed reservations about Donohue last year when she was first nominated.

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

I can't find it, but there was an article in the New York Post within the last month that quoted a Gov. Spitzer spokesman (or someone like that) who said Donohue was a crony and would be going nowhere.

Here it is:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03082007/news/regionalnews/patakis_no__2_har...

"March 8, 2007 -- ALBANY - Former Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue's nomination by President Bush to a federal judgeship is dead, a source close to Sen. Charles Schumer told The Post yesterday.

Donohue, a former state Supreme Court justice, was made a state Court of Claims judge by former Gov. George Pataki during his final weeks in office.

She was nominated last year by Bush at Pataki's request for a federal judicial post. But a screening committee of prominent New York attorneys used by Schumer - a Senate Judiciary Committee member - to review judicial nominations concluded "Donohue just didn't pass muster," the source said."

Sounds like a hit job to me. Of course Donohue is qualified - she just happens to be a Republican and a Pataki confidant for a long time.

Thank you for the information.

How does Donohue "not pass muster"? Here's her resume:

Birth: 1947 Troy, New York

Legal Residence: New York

Education: 1964 - 1968 College of New Rochelle
B.A. degree

1980 - 1983 Albany Law School of Union University
J.D. degree

Bar: 1984 New York

Experience: 1983 – 1988 O’Connell and Aronowitz, P.C.
Associate Attorney

1988 – 1993 Sole Practitioner

1990 – 1997 Rensselaer County
District Attorney (1993-1997)
Assistant County Attorney (1990-1993)

1997 – 1998 New York State Supreme Court
Justice

1999 – 2006 New York State
Lieutenant Governor

2006 – present New York State Court of Claims
Judge

Maybe then the hearing will be just for some combination of Livingston, Mauskopf and Sullivan. Strangely, for someone's whose credentials supposedly don't pass muster, Donohue got a remarkably high WQ(sm)/Q(min) rating from the ABA. You would've thought that the liberal ABA would've helped Chuckie out and given her a much lower rating.

Pataki being in office ro not makes any difference for Donohue's chances. If Schumer wanted to block her, he'd have done so even with Pataki there. Which is not to say he still won't, as that article certainly doesn't inspire confidence in Chuckles to act fairly (not that there ever was any such confidence in him).

Alito looks different in almost every photo I've seen of him. the Alito we saw when he was nominated through confirmation looked like a completely different person than the Alito in photos that accompanied short lists in the run up to the nomination. and he does look a bit guant now. I believe it was Greenberg who noted O'Connor said she lost a lot of weight while she was preparing for hearings, and maybe her first few years on the bench. I hope Justice Alito is handling the stress ok!

After the stress of the hearings, the first year on the bench should seem like a vacation.

I think he's getting into shape for when the Phillies call him up for their September pennant drive.

As I predicted last month (in opposition to others on this site), Livingston and not Keisler will be the "April CCA nominee". Here's another prediction: If there is a "May CCA nominee", it will be Southwick (5th Cir.), NOT KEISLER AGAIN. Write that down and take it to the bank.

The Democrats may be invidious and repulsive, but at least they're fairly easy to predict. You can bet that they've got their staffer minions hard at work right now digging up dirt for Borking purposes on Keisler's activities in the Justice Dept. They and their leftist allies like PFTAW and the ABA need more time to manufacture something nasty and discrediting.

As to the District Judges at the April 11th hearing, it will be some combination of Mauskopf, Donohue, Sullivan or Rogan (CA Central). Notice how they're avoiding the 4th Circuit (with 5 District nominees) like the veritable Plague. Does anyone here find that surprising in the slightest?

you know, with all the analogies to baseball, and 9 players, 9 justices, I was thinking where you'd place our Supreme Team in the field. my lineup:

P - Scalia - bringing the heat!
C - Roberts - calls a great game
1B - Thomas - just call him "The Big Hurt". built like a power hitting first baseman
2B - Kennedy - playing up the middle
SS - Ginsburg - SHORT stop, get it? get it?
3B - Alito
LF - Stevens - out in left field
CF - Breyer
RF - Souter - you always put your weakest fielder out in right

since its arguable that football is now our national sport, perhaps we should expand to 11 justices ;)

which would also match the number of numbered circuits (give all the AJs one numbered circuit (one will get 2, the 1st and one other), and the CJ keeps the DC and Fed circuits, unless you want to make the chief keep the 4th too, and so 3 circuits while all the others only have to take one (and one of those the tiny 1st circuit)), but of course that's not as important a reason as the sports analogy

All the other California judicial nominees from last year have been confirmed. Only Rogan is outstanding. I bet it is because of his role in the Clinton impeachment. I'm not so sure Feinstein, Boxer and/or Hillary Clinton will let him get confirmed.

As far as the idea that Livingston will be the "April" confirmation goes, I'm still not so sure. Yes, I readily admit that if Livingston has a hearing on April 11th then she MIGHT be confirmable by the end of the month, but that is not a given. First, she would have to be listed on the SJC business meeting agenda on Thursday, April 19th. How many COA nominees have been put so promptly on a executive business meeting agenda? I don't remember any.

To be confirmed by the end of April, a COA nominee (any nominee, be they Livingston or Keisler) would have to be on the Thursday, April 19th, SJC executive business meeting agenda. That would allow the Dems, as is their right, to delay the nomination one week ("burn" the nomination). Then, the COA nominee would come up for a committee vote on Thursday, April 26th. That leaves several days in April for a final confirmation vote on the Senate floor. Can Livingston make such a tight schedule? We'll see.

Independent of a Kyl/Feinstein deal, I think there are several other factors that could be in Keisler's favor in April. It should be remembered that the Dems desperately want a vote on the conference report for the Iraq withdrawal timeline in April as well as Republican cooperation in the U.S. Attorney investigation. McConnell and the Republicans control these situations. McConnell could easily use these two situations to force a vote on Keisler.

Nice article, BoBo, but what the hell is this crap at the end:

"Alito, also a former U.S. attorney and conservative lawyer for the Reagan administration, was sworn in as the 110th Supreme Court justice in January 2006 after being confirmed by the Senate in one of the most partisan victories in modern U.S. history."

Oh, so I guess the Bork debacle was one of the most bipartisan victories in modern US history??????????

As for Koh, I can't imagine him being confirmed, or even nominated, at this point. Clown makes Luttig look like a shy unambitious wallflower, and JRB seem a hand-wringing ditherer.

Trying WAAAAY too hard there, pal.

I sincerely hope that you are right about McConnell getting Keisler confirmed. We will see ... I still believe it will be Livingston.

I'm surprised that the Dems. would schedule a CCA hearing the first week back. Maybe the Dems will live down to our expectations and the April 11th hearing will be for New York District nominees only. Wouldn't Leahy, not Schumer, be chairing a hearing for a Circuit Court nominee?

I agree with your timeline if there is a CCA hearing on 4/11; it's hard to see a confirmation until May. This is in line with short-term Democrat goals. I see these goals as the following:

1. Put off or defeat the Keisler D.C. nomination
2. Make sure that only 5, not 6, Circuit nominees are confirmed before the Summer recess in August.

At the rate of one per month, 6 Circuit nominees should be confirmed between February and July. With Smith (Feb.) and Hardiman (March) confirmed, this programme is still on schedule. However, by delaying the "April nomination (Livingston)" into May, Southwick can then be delayed well into June. The 5th CCA nomination (Elrod?) can then be stretched through June and July, making a total of 5 confirmations. If they do Keisler instead, the Dems. can create a big fight and perhaps we'll end up with only 4 confirmations before August. This is a game of chess. Perpetual check.

Outsider, are you British? "Programme"?? I love it!

The judges getting out will be as predicted Kapala, Ozerden, and Settle.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2678

Keisler is no where to be found. Mitch better start raising a fuss.