ConfirmThem

We should push for whichever pending nominees have the best chance of getting confirmed. If that's Kethledge & Murphy instead of Keisler, so be it.

Perhaps we'll see some new nominees this evening after Livingston is confirmed.

Although I think the 6th Circuit desperately needs Kethledge and Murphy, their confirmation will be a lot more difficult than Keisler's because Michigan has two Democrat senators. Levin and Stabenow could easily keep Kethledge and Murphy stalled in committee by the threat or actual use of blue slips. The D.C. Circuit is not controlled by any homestate senators, though, so no one can blue slip Keisler. I doubt any Republican senator will want to fight Levin and Stabenow's right to control who is confirmed from Michigan because that could set a precedent which would allow the control of their own homestate nominees to be ripped away from them in the future by a Democrat president.

In addition, the confirmation of Keisler will not drastically tip the scales in terms of D.C. Circuit jurisprudence. The confirmation of Kethledge and Murphy could easily, however, prevent the liberals from regaining ascendency in the 6th Circuit for decades to come. The Dems are more likely to confirm a conservative to an already conservative court than confirm two conservatives to a court that is presently almost evenly split between liberals and conservatives.

A "today" confirmation is by no means certain.
The consent agreement says that Livingston will be considered after S. 1082, prescription drug legislation which is moving slowly with a number of amendments. It will be done sooner or later since there was a cloture motion on debate, but not necessarily (and probably not even likely) today.

Levin & Stabenow obviously can block Kethledge & Murphy with "blue slips" (or just by prevailing on Leahy & Reid never to give them a committee hearing and/or confirmation vote).

But my question is, do we still have a package deal with the Dems on the Michigan Five or not? If so, don't they need to let Kethledge & Murphy have confirmation votes in order to get Janet Neff onto the W.D. Michigan?

At this point, it is not at all certain that Kethledge and Murphy are part of a deal to confirm Neff and the two other West Michigan district court nominees. In fact, I think the three district court nominees will be confirmed this month or next and that Kethledge and Murphy will never be confirmed.

They are debating now. Leahy is spewing his standard lines.

Leahy is killing me. He is on CSPAN-2 right now. He needs a new speech writer. Although everything he says is true. Like I said in earlier posts. Today is May 9. We will have 3 CCAs as of about 4 today. Flash back two years to 2005, when we had 55 Rs: ZERO were confirmed until the end of MAY!!! I hope the Reps just choose not to use their 1.5 hrs of "debate". This is just giving the Dems floor time to pat themsemselves on the back for "moving" Bush's judges. Keep this low key and move on, there is still a lot of work to do. Senate Reps shouldnt use this time to celebrate either. This is still not good enough.

You know, I thought Leahy sounded a bit dim in his written statements.

Compared to Cornyn, he looks and sounds like a complete joke on the floor.

Thanks for the updates, jtp7 and zendari. Please keep them coming, and let us know when the vote occurs.

I'm stuck in the office updating reports to clients so don't know what's happening out there. Oh what tedious work!

I think it's possible to get Murphy and Kethledge confirmed, but it may be a bit distasteful. Simply create a seat for White on the 6th as part of the deal (or give the donks a second Michigan district seat, which I'd prefer - but they probably wouldn't bite). If we want to move beyond one COA confirmation a month at best, we are going to have to make deals, like giving the 12th DC seat to the 9th. Let's recognize reality and start to do this, and Michigan is a good place to start.

I'm glad I was wrong. Zendari, thanks for the correction.

See the link at the top of the page - Neff is up at SJC for Thursday, with NO other Michigan nominees on the docket. Is that the price for giving Southwick a hearing?

I think we need to worry about hitting 1 a month before moving beyond it. Moving beyond 1 per with Leahy there is about as likely as any of us voting for Hillary Clinton.

Leahy is also trying to push the "Thurmond Rule" up to April. Just 3 years ago he started the rule in August:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200409/090804A.html

"In 2000, the Republican-controlled Committee followed the Thurmond Rule to the letter. After the August recess work on judicial nominations came to a halt. Although there were over 30 nominees pending after July 25, 2000, no more judicial nominees were scheduled for hearings or considered by the Committee."

Livingston just got in, 91-0. Between now and January, we need to get 7 nominees through. Assuming Leahy doesn't push up the April deadline again, that's only 4 judges in 2008.

As I understand it, Neff must have a new hearing to satisfy Brownback so that he can look like the big-man-on-campus by clarifying her position on same-sex marriage. The other two West Michigan district nominees are going to be confirmed just not without the torture of a second hearing.

The other two West Michigan district nominees are going to be confirmed just not WITH the torture of a second hearing.

...better cools his jets. I dont want him to ask questions to Neff about how she would rule on cases about ______. When she doesn't answer he will ask she recuse herself from all cases involving _______. That is a slipery slope. If he does it that give the Dems a green light to do it to any of our judges particularly our next SCOTUS pick. With that, the Ginsburg precedent goes out the window. Damn it! Why are out senators so stupid! Neff is in her mid 60's Sam. The other two WD-MI nominees are younger. Please for the love of the almighty, quit being a douche about this. LET IT GO! We have more important things to waste energy on than an old DJ from Michigan just because she attended a friend's "committment ceremony". She is a liberal but not radical. It could be worse. I know you have a presidential campaign to run but don't hold the Judiciary hostage to bump up your precentage in the polls to 5% from your current 3%. You are not going to win. GROW UP!

I have said this for the last five months. Leahy will stop most if not all COA confirmations in January 2008.

I think Leahy would like to shut off COA confirmations in January, but if he took that extreme a position I'm pretty confident McConnell would shut down the house.

At this point, McConnell is an unknown quantity concerning judges. He gave some oblique remarks concerning discharge petitions after he became the minority leader, but since then what has he really done about judges? The next two months should be very instructive, but almost too late to remedy any damage already done. If Keisler has not been confirmed by the August recess, we can all be assured that McConnell is just an ole windbag about judges like Frist. I hope I am wrong, but McConnell has been quite silent about judges for awhile now. At present, I want some proof - i.e. senate action - to prove that he is a man of his word and not a paper tiger.

As I have said before, I anticipate only 10-11 COA confirmations this congress. Three have already been confirmed (Randy Smith, Thomas Hardiman and now Debra Ann Livingston). That leaves 7-8 more. McConnell needs to get crackin' before Reid and Leahy close every COA nomination down next year.

I guess this is my call to remind everyone to call Senator McConnell. (202) 224-2541

Have you called him Bobo?

Call at least once a week until Keisler gets a vote. Thats what I have been doing. Be respectful though.

It's about time:

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

Now, KEISLER, KEISLER, KEISLER..........................

The vote was 91-0. If she proves to be the solid conservative I think she is and goes on to the short list for SCOTUS nominees, it'll be hard to defeat her based on pedigree and based on a 91-0 prior vote.

When was this instituted? I was looking at the 2nd COA website, and I noticed that the chief judge, Dennis Jacobs, was commissioned 10/2/92. This was one month before the 92 election. The Dems controlled the Senate and their candidate for President was ahead. Why did they allow this confirmation?

If I count correctly, there are now 7D and 6R nominees now on this court. However, 2 of the Clinton nominees are fairly moderate.

And one of the Bush appointees (Parker) is fairly liberal.

The Thurmond rule is a complete hoax. In 1980, when Thurmond was a member of the Judiciary committee, Steven Breyer was actually confirmed AFTER the election when Carter lost to Reagan. Ginsberg was confirmed barely a couple months before.

As for McConnell, things are slowly moving. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. If Southwick is moved by Memorial Day, McConnell has kept pace with our goal.

In hindsight, nominating Elrod was probably a mistake. That said, now that she's there, I'd wager Elrod will be after Southwick, in June.

The test will be July. Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, or a seat on the 4th (preferably to a VA seat, but those nominations would have to be made soon). The Democrats want to block all of these nominees, and if McConnell can get 1 of them through, I think he's made some progress.

Good news about Livingston, that's 3 in the bank for 2007. She seems top-notch and a possible future judicial star. I even enjoyed watching Leahy give the 118th rendition of his "GOP screwed Clinton nominees in 1996" speech, just as I predicted yesterday (ok--that wasn't hard). It was like taking your Cod Liver Oil before a treat, but he really seemed half-hearted and out-of-it while stammering and fumbling through his papers.

Our next priorities should be as follows:

1. Southwick Hearing, (May 10)
2. Nomination of 2 4th Circuit judges, N.C. and S.C. (by May 16th)
3. Southwick SJC vote, and confirmation (by May 22)
4 Keisler SJC vote (no 2nd hearing) by May 25-- strike while the iron is hot
5. Keisler confirmation vote (by June 8--the longer it's delayed the worse)
6. Elrod hearing, SJC vote and confirmation (by June 28)--that's the "June Confirmation"
7. "July Confirmation": Kethledge or Murphy, or one of the 4th Circuit nominees OR ... Lightning has struck and there's a Supreme Court Vacancy at last.

An ambitious schedule, to be sure. But time is short, and the stakes are huge and historic.

Our motto: Be bold, be bold. But not too bold.

Yes, I have called McConnell's office. At this point, I can't tell what is lip service and what is not. Last year, I called the offices of all the Republican members of the SJC and Frist in order to see if they were going to confirm Keisler during the lame duck session of the 109th Congress. None of the people wanted to really discuss the situation except the office of William Sessions. The staffer there was very pleasant and conversational, taking my call seriously and discussing the matter in some detail.

I like your plan until step 4. Let's not kid ourselves: We might get 2 in May, but there is no way we are getting 2 in June as well.

It would have been nice to get Keisler through in June incase lightning does strike, but I don't see that happening.

http://www.confirmthem.com/thurmond_rule_more_myth_than_reality

Basically, the Thurmond Rule is a convenient sham that allows the political party who controls the Senate and SJC in a presidential election year to stop consideration of judicial nominees nominated by a president of a different party under the guise of "Senate tradition'. Technically, the rule only says that no "controversial" judicial nominees will be allowed hearings and/or final confirmation votes after August 1st of the election year in question. Strom Thurmond first enunciated it in the fall of 1980 when he was the Republican chairman of the SJC in the last months of Carter's administration. As zendari has pointed out, it has always been a flexible rule depending on what the SJC chairman at the time wants to do. Breyer was confirmed AFTER August 1, 1980 because Hatch liked him and convinced Thurmond to waive his new rule.

As I have said before Keisler is much more likely to get confirmed than either Kethledge or Murphy. He cannot be blue-slipped like Kethledge and Murphy can. No Republican senator is going to challenge Levin and Stabenow on their senatorial "right" to control the nomination of people from their state. It would set up a bad precedent that could be applied to the Republican senators as well under a future Democrat president.

that we have to accept (with gratitude?) the crumbs tossed our way by the Dem leaders.

I so wish the constition would trump "Senate tradition."

Most of it is worthless, but these 2 paragraphs do not sound good. Leahy seems to be saying that the 6th COA nominees do not have the support of the Michigan Senators.

"All three of the other Circuit nominations are renominations that were not considered last Congress with a Republican majority. Two are renominations that the White House made knowing full well that they did not yet have the support of their home-state Senators. When I previously chaired the Committee, I was able to break the blockade of Sixth Circuit nominations that was established by the Republican majority when it pocket filibustered several of President Clinton’s outstanding nominations to the Sixth Circuit. Once we broke through with two Sixth Circuit confirmations in 2002, President Bush was left with seven appointments to the Sixth Circuit during his term in office. Given the White House’s unwillingness to work with the home-state Senators of the two current nominees, however, it will be very difficult to make more progress.

With respect to the nomination of Peter Keisler, that renomination is controversial. He was previously nominated in June of 2006 but was not considered by the Republican majority then in control. The Republican majority did not seek to proceed with this controversial nomination at that time. In fact, the President and the Republican Senate majority insisted, instead, to proceed over the last several years on other nominations to the important D.C. Circuit, which were, themselves, highly controversial. The nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh were each apparently a higher priority for this White House and the Republican majority than the nomination of Mr. Keisler. The others have each been confirmed to lifetime appointments on this very important court. At the end of the last Congress, the Keisler nomination was returned to the President without action in accordance with Senate Rules."

i think the Leahy statement definitely nails the coffin shut on the nominations of Kethledge and Murphy. Apparently, Levin and Stabenow do NOT support them. With the blue-slip policy in place, there is no way they can moved out of the SJC.

As I have said before, because he cannot be blue-slipped, Keisler is the obvious choice on which to fight a new confirmation battle. If McConnell is ever going to file a discharge petition it needs to be on McConnell who has no other procedural problem to deal with like disapproving homestate senators. He also would be easier to argue for with his magnificent credentials.

Leahy and the Dems must be having a hard time justifying not processing Keisler because they have just made up a new excuse on why they are blocking him. Never before have they said that they were blocking him because he wasn't as important to the White House as JRB, Griffith and Kavanaugh! What the hell difference does that make?

In all honesty, though, I would have preferred Keisler to Kavanaugh. I have never seen as bad a performance at a hearing (and that includes Estrada's disastrous hearing) as Kavanaugh's second hearing. Kavanaugh could barely articulate anything and sounded stupid. Specter had to refocus him several times. If it wasn't for the behind-the-scenes Kavanaugh for Boyle trade-off with the Gang of 14, he never would've gotten confirmed with such a lousy performance.

"As I have said before, because he cannot be blue-slipped, Keisler is the obvious choice on which to fight a new confirmation battle. If McConnell is ever going to file a discharge petition it needs to be on KEISLER who has no other procedural problem to deal with like disapproving homestate senators."

Leahy's statement does not make sense because those other DC COA nominations were confirmed a year before Keisler was even nominated. How could the WH have worked on the Keisler nominaton when it had not even been made.

I wonder if the Democrats would even confirm the 2 Michigan COA nominees if we gave them Helen White and a new seat. At this point, the Democrats believe they will be able to fill all of the seats in 2 years.

As per the above statement's 1st sentence, I count 4 CCA nominees, not 3: Keisler, Southwick, and the 2 Michigan judges. With regard to the MI judges: I am shocked if the White House renominated them without having some kind of understanding with Levin and Stabenow. If that is true what the hell are they doing? Have they learned nothing from Boyle, Haynes, Randy Smith, Kuhl, etc.? Apparently not. Miers isnt there to blame anymore. Who is screwing up so bad? The only thing I can think of is that Leahy may be using notes for a speech from two years ago when Saad was still the nominee. He must have grabbed the wrong draft this morning before the vote. Otherwise, Bush is wasting precious time with a failed strategy on judges. Only nominate if they can be confirmed! This isnt hard.

As per the above statement's 1st sentence, I count 4 CCA nominees, not 3: Keisler, Southwick, and the 2 Michigan judges. With regard to the MI judges: I am shocked if the White House renominated them without having some kind of understanding with Levin and Stabenow. If that is true what the hell are they doing? Have they learned nothing from Boyle, Haynes, Randy Smith, Kuhl, etc.? Apparently not. Miers isnt there to blame anymore. Who is screwing up so bad? The only thing I can think of is that Leahy may be using notes for a speech from two years ago when Saad was still the nominee. He must have grabbed the wrong draft this morning before the vote. Otherwise, Bush is wasting precious time with a failed strategy on judges. Only nominate if they can be confirmed! This isnt hard.

Leahy is pretty clear in his statement that he is blocking Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy. He is blocking Kethledge and Murphy at the behest of Levin and Stabenow who are claiming now that they weren't consulted about their nominations. He can't think of a good reason to block Keisler, so he comes with that new cockamamie excuse that Keisler wasn't a real priority with the White House.

MCCONNELL, WHERE ARE YOU? WHY AREN'T YOU REFUTING LEAHY'S REMARKS ON THE SENATE FLOOR? ARE YOU TURNING INTO A DO-NOTHING FRIST CLONE?

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200705/050907.html

He does mention Soutwick, but he does not say anything bad about him.

What is the evidence that Livingston will turn out to be a solid judicial conservative? I don't mean to suggest she won't, but a 91-0 confirmation raises a red flag, doesn't it?

Hardly. Roberts and Alito made it to the appeals courts without opposition. Heck, Scalia made it to the SCOTUS without opposition.

From his statement today:

"This President has shown that he would rather pick politic fights than good judges. I was encouraged at the beginning of this Congress that a few of the most controversial nominees from the last Congress were not renominated. That sensible approach seems to have ended, however, and this White House seems to be returning to its old, bad habits."

This seems to be a reference to the nominations of Kethledge, Murphy and Jennifer Walker Elrod. He is talking about nominations made since the first set of nominations (Hardiman, Keisler, Livingston, Smith and Southwick) on 1/9/07.

We've gone over the reasons several times here why it's safe to assume Livingston is a solid conservative. Go back in the archives and look it up.

Both Scalia (for the Supreme Court BEFORE the Bork fiasco) and Alito (for his Third Circuit seat) were confirmed in less partisan times. Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit not unanimously but by voice vote so that the Dems wouldn't have to go on record as voting against him. As such, it is impossible to tell just how many Dem senators would've voted against him. Let's face it, we live in very partisan times now and the possibility of unanimous confirmation votes is greatly reduced unless the nominee is more moderate.

I can't imagine that the Democrats will block her. Leahy seemed to make the point in this statement about having the support of home state Senators. Elrod has the support of her home state Senators.

Yeah, Roberts/Scalia/Alito aren't the best examples. I was just trying to make a small point.

I think you're right though..the 2 MI nominees are finished. That said, I think its time to move onto Virginia. Webb is certainly more belligerent than Levin/Stabenow, and probably hates the President due to the war. But at least Leahy can't play his 'both homestate Senators' garbage.

Now that we know the 2 MI nominees are DOA, I hope we see nominees for the 4 seats on the 4th, ignoring MD.

http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/judiciary/5-8-07_SouthwickJointLtr.pdf

"Now, with Judge Southwick, President Bush once again appears to have chosen a nominee for this seat [the Mississippi seat to which Pickering and Wallace were previously nominated] who has a problematic record on civil rights."

Personally I am mad that Southwick is being fast-tracked instead of Keisler. There is no doubt in my mind that Southwick is going to be confirmed this month in order to get Lott's help in passing an amnesty immigration bill. As Outsider said, I would prefer Keisler if Lott and the Republican leadership are going to sell out the country for a law that will result in the eventual hispanicization of all of the United States.

Well, if Keth & Murph don't get in, none of the Circuit ones should either.

McConnell is starting to make Frist look like Gen. Patton. No response from him or the WH rebutting Leahy.

http://www.1010wins.com/pages/436141.php?contentType=4&contentId=482967

"A Columbia University law professor who helped prosecute Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City."

If you notice in his statement, he also challenged the idea that he has to allow 15 COA nominations.

He laid the groundwork for stopping COA nominations in January 08 by saying that the GOP Senate did not confirm a single COA nominee in the election year 1996. Is this true?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31635.pdf

Here are Clinton's COA confirmation rates by congress:

103rd Congress (1993-1994) - 19 of 22 nominees confirmed (86.4%)

104th Congress (1995-1996) - 11 of 20 nominees confirmed
(55%)

105th Congress (1997-1998) - 20 of 30 nominees confirmed
(66.7%)

106th Congress (1999-2000) - 15 of 34 nominees confirmed
(44.1%)

I hate to say I told you so, but I warned everyone early on that the Democrats would not allow Bush to have 15-17 confirmed COA nominees in the 110th Congress. I also warned that Leahy would probably end COA confirmations in January 2008. My worst fears are being realized now with Leahy's inflammatory speech on the Senate floor today. Basically, Leahy announced today that he would not let Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy be confirmed.

McConnell needs to take an active step forward soon to rebut Leahy and promise to get more nominees confirmed. I will just die if McConnell caves in on Keisler and turns into another blow-hard clone of Frist who gives lip-service on judges and nothing else.

Regarding Keisler, we won't really know what's up until early next month at the earliest, and maybe later if they push Elrod ahead of him. I've always thought the Democrat strategy is and has been to delay him as long as possible, first Livingston, then Southwick, and then maybe Elrod moved ahead of him. Come July and who knows what may happen, perhaps a SCOTUS vacancy and Keisler will disappear into the deep background.

The only hope I've had for Keisler is that there's some kind of secret Senate deal involving his confirmation, as as been suggested several times in these pages (such as the DC to 9th judge transfer). Otherwise Keisler seems like the obvious target for a major fight by the Dems. If they set up a "show trial" 2nd hearing for him, his prospects are dim.

Leahy's bluster may or may not be significant. It might be directed to the Dem left wing attempting to appease them for the Livingston and probable Southwick confirmations. The Neas-NARAL-MoveOn-Soros crazies are doubtless giving the Senate Dems holy hell right now over judges and Iraq. If this is the reason, let's hope that Leahy & Co. decide that mere verbal appeasement is enough for now.

I think the Michigan nominees are dead and have been since the Senate GOP surrendered last September. McConnell and the GOP have to go all-out for Keisler, then for the 4th Circuit nominees (if they EVER come).

AFter Leahy's speech today, I think Southwick will be confirmed in June, Elrod in July and then the Senate is in recess for August. September may be the fight over Keisler.

Even though the particular circuit seat was not my first choice, we did get a confirmation today. I don't understand all of the negative comments regarding McConnell. The Republicans are not in control, yet we have gotten three confirmations in 4 months. Considering the circumstances, that's not bad. Yes, we need to keep up the pressure, but let's give Mitch a break for at least a day.

I'm not especially happy with which circuits have been getting filled. But you are right. There's only 3 plum seats on the 5th for the Dems to divert to; eventually they're going to have to touch the 4th and DC circuits.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Harry Reid sit down for heart to heart talk about what is genuinely in the best interest of the American people, putting politics aside.

At the end of the meeting, Dick Cheney announces his immediate resignation. An hour later, Bush announces his replacement. In a rush session, the Senate confirms his selection the next morning.

Later that evening, Bush goes on TV to explain that it was in our nation's vital interest that we prevailed in Iraq, and then acknowledge that we have not. Bush, then, takes full responsibility for failure, and resigns in disgrace for the good of the country.

Accountablity, what a concept. Just imagine! ["I did have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!," "I was in the loop on Iran-Contra, and I was proud of it." "I didn't want to serve in Vietnam, and because my daddy was a Congressman, and loved me, I didn't have to serve in Vietnam."]

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 choice real conservatives to lead their movement.

Can any of you post the full story to this. You need a subscription to view this article. This is the teaser.

GOP Pushes Pace On Nominations
By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff
May 10, 2007

Senators overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to confirm their third federal appellate court nominee of the 110th Congress, just days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) privately told Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he might trip up the Democrats’ floor agenda over stalled judicial nominations.

Based on that paragraph, it looks like Mitch is actually doing something...FINALLY! Livingston is in now. Let's get some more nominees flowing. Pull the two 6th Circuit CCA ones. Leave the WD-MI three though - that is still a good deal: two young conservative and an old Neff. Let's get nominees for NC, PA, and SC in that order of importance by the end of the week. As much as the 5th Circuit's caseload says it needs another judge, I would put off Southwick until after Keisler is done. I think it is time to demand a vote on Peter Keisler by Memorial Day break or else. Maybe we should have Lugar put in a good word. He seems to have the magic touch, case in point Van Bokkelen. Southwick will get in eventually. There is no way that three judges will be blocked for that stupid MS seat - Pickering, Wallace, and Southwick. That is a 2R state and Lott should raise hell if he gets snubbed again. There is no way that seat should be giving us so much trouble. Also what the hell is the White House doing. Why are there so many empty DJ vacancies??? This is especially bothersome in 2R states. Am I missing something? I understand the reasons to hold back the CCAs but what the heck is the reason for not nominating more DJs. Caseloads are at all time highs, particularly along the southern border. More judges = more bad guys in jail.

You need to start offering constructive plans with a realistic chance at implementation and stop ranting. You have still offered no realistic and practical method of getting Luttig-style judges successfully confirmed during the next two years. Put your thinking cap on.

I would love to read the Roll Call article as well. Thank heavens, McConnell seems to be doing something now, If he can get Keisler confirmed in the next two months, I will take back my recent comments and be greatly impressed with him.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/NEWS/70...

"Some of the same groups that opposed the nominations of Pickering and Wallace to the New Orleans-based appellate court are questioning Southwick's rulings on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, where he served nearly a dozen years before retiring last year.

The groups have asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the panel, to halt the nomination.

"A preliminary review of Judge Southwick's record raises serious concerns about his record on civil rights," People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a joint letter to the committee.

The Alliance for Justice, a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's, children's and consumer advocacy organizations, as well as the Mississippi NAACP have criticized Southwick."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/NEWS05/70510043...

"Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas told Congressional Quarterly for a story Wednesday that he still wants to know Neff's feelings regarding gay marriage when her confirmation for a western Michigan judgeship comes up before the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-36/11787399121865...

"Neff, an East Grand Rapids resident, was nominated to U.S. District Court in West Michigan as part of a compromise between Michigan's senators and President Bush.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and Carl Levin, D-Detroit, chose Neff. Bush named East Grand Rapids attorney Robert Jonker and Berrien County Circuit Judge Paul Maloney.

The three were approved by the Judiciary Committee in September and were headed to a vote in the full Senate until Brownback intervened.

That left Judge Robert Holmes Bell as the only active judge in a district that stretches from the Indiana border to the Upper Peninsula."

It really is sad the Kethledge and Murphy will never get confirmed. Look forward to President Hillary naming former Clinton nominees Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis as their replacements in 2009.

Just watched much of the Southwick hearing. No one laid a glove on him, or even seemed very hard to try to do so. Barring some unexpected bombshell, he should go through fairly easily; let's hope it's this month. Senator Whitehouse, who was chairing the hearing, concluded in a somewhat silly but quite significant way, asking Southwick to google "homosexual lifestyle" and to take what he leearns into account "WHEN [my emphasis] he is writing decisions/hearing cases on the 5th Circuit". [quote is approximate]

That sums up the thrust of the hearing, Southwick is all but in, and deservedly so. His testimony was impressive, articulate and reasonable. Democrat questioning was weak, and Southwick easily deflected their insinuations, and he genuflected sufficiently to the memory of the liberal's 5th Circuit hero Saint Frank Johnson. Kennedy and a few others may vote against him, mainly because he's a white conservative from Mississippi, and thus a target for easy liberal moralistic posturing; guilty until proven innocent. All of us who attended Ivy League schools in the '70's and '80's know all about that.

As to McConnell, I think he's right not to rock the boat too much right now. For all our angst here, things are moving along adequately at the moment; there may well be two Circuit confirmations of impressive nominees this month. Keep the pressure on low key on Leahy & Co. and more intensively behind the scenes, on Keisler. Bur there's no reason to rile the Dems. by publicly attacking them now. That would play into the hands of those who want to fight and shut things down.

Remember, Leahy's rhetoric yesterday may have been directed as much to soothing their Neas-Moveon-NARAL leftwing, rather than a substantive declaration of war against Keisler and GOP nominees. Those fringe Leftists are angry that hearings and confirmations are going forward, and Senate Dems may be throwing them some verbal bones. In the Senate, public words rarely mean what they appear to say, or often mean very little at all. This month is a time to wait and see. For now, Republicans should let the process roll along (with quiet prodding), cash in confirmations as they come, and keep the powder dry if a major fight develops over Keisler in June or July.

Enough with the "Get ready for Hillary to name..." statements! She has no chance of winning the presidency. All the negativity on the Rep side is so self-defeating, and so uncalled for. We have very good potential candidates, and once we're down to a handful and they get their names and ideas out there, it will become apparent to most reasonable people. The crazies you can't influence anyway, so don't worry about them.

The only evidence I've ever seen about Livingston presented on this board is that she is friends with John Manning, who is a good judicial conservative. On the other hand, she's also been described as a "Giuliani Republican" and it's been noted that she has no Federalist Society connection and no clear record of conservative scholarship.

If you know anything about her conservative bona fides, please share.

I believe in being realistic, even if it means planning for future unfortunate events. With the Iraq War going badly (and it is) and with the cyclical need of the country after a two-term presidency to test out a new party (remember that only ONCE since WWII has a two term presidency been replaced by a president of the same party), the chances are iffy for a Republican victory in 2008. That combined with the fact that the country is leaning Democratic in the polls at the moment and the Republicans have not yet been able to decide on a candidate that everyone can agree upon makes the discussion of possiblities of a Dem president in 2008 both necessary and wise. Although it might not be Hillary elected in 2008, any newly elected Dem president in 2009 is bound to rely on rejected Clinton nominees to fill any COA positions available at the time. There is no doubt in my mind that former Clinton nominees Elena Kagan, Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis will head up the first batch of COA nominees sent up by ANY Dem president in 2009. I merely use the name of President Hillary as a catch-all phrase to describe whoever Democrat President X actually turns out to be. I am in no way implying that it is predetermined that the next president will be Hillary, or for that matter even Democratic. I am just saying we need to constructively look at all the future presidential possibilities, even if they aren't Republican.

I understand your points. My position is based mostly on a sense I get from the things I've read about her. I've tried to locate the article I read concerning Manning's praise of her, but I can't find it anywhere.

John Manning, the preeminent academic textualist (look up his writings - he's amazing), personally vouched for her when she was first nominated. It is also telling that she is one of a handful of people he turns to to proofread his law review articles (and in fact they have co-authored several together). Yes, she is not on record as saying she's the female Scalia. I know nothing about her involvement in the Federalist Society, but lack of such involvement shouldn't disqualify her as a conservative. I'm not a Federalist Society member, yet I reckon I'm pretty darn conservative and I'm a firm believer in textualism/originalism as well. As for the "Giuliani Republican" pejorative, I believe that has less to do with her political beliefs and instead references her background as a law & order SDNY prosecutor. Otherwise, it has no meaning.

I'm very familiar with John Manning, and my post conceded that he is a good conservative. That's not bad evidence, but if it's all we have, I'd stop well short of declaring that Livingston belongs on the SCOTUS short list. (I'd also like to see Manning's comments: did he praise Livingston's approach to the law, or just her intellect?) People go to bat for their friends and colleagues all the time. Lots of liberal law professors went to bat for Judge McConnell -- not because he was liberal (far from it) but because he was their friend and colleague.

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I search Westlaw, I don't find any law review articles co-authored by Manning and Livingston. The fact that she proofreads for him means nothing: law professors rely on colleagues of all political stripes to offer suggestions on their drafts, and the acknowledgement footnotes in Manning's law review articles confirm that he relies on professors from all over the political spectrum.

I don't want to come across as a Livingston basher; I'm not, and I'm happy that she was confirmed. But more is needed before we declare her Supreme Court material.

that AFJ, PFAW, HRC and the like have not opposed as "troubling", "dangerous", "will turn back the clock", etc.?

I bet I've got better than even odds at guessing the entire list:
Janet T. Neff
-end of list-

The key to appointing excellent conservative judges like Luttig is to have a plan to confirm such judges in the short run, and a plan to confirm such judges in the long run.

Any short-term plan, aka "surrender," to confirm a few more moderates at the expense of jeopardizing the prospects of ever confirming a Scalia is to high of price to pay.

Again, if you were a moderate, establishment Republican you might very well see things differently.

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 leadership with intellectual and moral courage.

Basically, you are saying just what I thought you meant originally: you don't want any COA confirmations in Bush's last two years because it would mean compromising with the Dems. IMHO, your ultraconservative strategy is unworkable and counter-productive. It will unnecessarily leave the federal courts clogged with litigation due to needlessly open seats, and risk giving a Dem president the opportunity to fill those seats in 2009 with raging liberals. Very short-sighted.

Bobo,

You might not like my plan, but it is a plan.

Nor have you even characterized my plan properly. I have not issued any prohibition on "compromising" with the Democrats. I have stated that it is unacceptable to yield to the principle that there can be an ideological veto cast by a minority of the Senate. Do you remember what confirmthem.com was for before it degenerated into screwthem.com?

"Compromises" are still possible. For instance, in Michigan the GOP should make it clear that Levine blocks the remaining two nominees, or if they are blocked, Levin's cousin will never serve on a court as long as the GOP has 41 seats. But, if he agrees to up-or-down votes, we would reciprocate by allowing an up-or-down vote for his cousin, if a Democratic President were to appoint her.

Sure, if you mischaracterize my plan, and, assume, without a shread of evidence that it can't work, when the real facts are that you don't want it to work, then, under your assumptions, I would have to admit you have convinced yourself. So what?

What isn't going to work is your plan. We have already seen it unravel. In order to realistically expect seventeen nominations to pass we should expect at least ten by January, and at most seven 2008. Already, April has passed without a confirmation. Going forward, we can expect August [recess], Nov [recess] and December[same recess] to pass without confirmations. That leaves four more for this year. As Obama and Rodham try to out do each other in pursuit of the looney-left vote, surely that pace will grind to a halt. At that point, you will have failed since you have already rejected fighting as a viable option. Mark my words, you will be whining even more loudly than you were in April about how you had a "deal."

Pathetic.

Again, it would be suicidal, in the long term for unhyphenated conservatives to acceed to the principle that they are only entitled to elect Presidents who will appoint unhyphenated conservatives to the bench if the GOP has at least sixty seats in the Senate, and, otherwise, liberals and moderates can be appointed, and confirmed, at a much lower threshold.

In spite of the fact that you don't want it to work, fighting can work. Obama and Rodham want to be President. As President, they will want to appoint liberal judges. If it was made abundantly clear to them that the same tools and tactics they used against conservatives would be used in retaliation against liberals they would have a vested interest in stopping those tactics.

As you acknowledge, the escalation of the judicial wars would leave an increasing number of vacancies and clog the Courts. Surely, you would have to admit that would create an incentive for the Democrats to relent! Escalating the judicial battles, is poisoning the well, but, possibly, in two years they are going to have to drink the water. [Of course, you are passively writing off that election already. Pathetic again!]

In the worse case, it will be liberals who pull the nuclear trigger. In the short term, it will allow them to clear the backlog. But, in the long run, a conservative President will be able to appoint unhyphenated conservatives without the threat of the filibuster.

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 sack their weak and ineffective moderate leadership for principled conservative fighters.