ConfirmThem

In 2005, the Court recessed on June 27th, while it took until July 1 for the retirement to come down.

However unlikely it might be, the possibility dies on Monday.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Please call members of the Judicary committe and ask them to Support an up or down vote on Nominee Leslie Southwick.

Let them know that we're paying attention, just like we let them know what was going on with the Immigration Bill. We can make a difference if they hear form enough of us.

DO NOT waste your time on the hopeless ones like Kennedy and Schumer. Southwick met with Kohl and Feinstein yesterday. Call them if you call no one else - and PLEASE be respectful. Also calling the GOPers again on the SJC wouldnt hurt either.

In hindsight, was it really a bad idea putting him in charge of the Judiciary Committee?

I don't think he has voted against a single Bush II nomination. Collins and Snowe turned against William Pryor if memory recalls, and Chafee did the same several times.

I never expected a retirement this year, but I'll repeat my sentiments from last year. As far as John Paul Stevens is concerned, it bothers me that he has decided to hang on to his seat simply because he can. It's not as though he's 67 or even 77, he's 87 years old! He claims to be a loyal Republican, but clearly he has decided to wait for a Democrat president to replace him. That's his choice, but it seems to me that he's decided the Republican party he once knew is now best reflected by those in the Democrat party.

Based on the last six years, we can only assume Stevens doesn't like the "four horsemen of the right" and he may not even allow Fred Thompson to replace him. Unless a miracle occurs, and I'm not talking about an unexpected death, our hopes of a truely new direction on the Supreme Court will likely never happen. Despite my disappointment, we did make a dent on the Court and that should run for at least ten years.

"So I would leave it to a judge to decide that, and my endeavor will be to find judges who have intellectual honesty, which means that they are going to work as hard as they can to interpret what other people mean. That's going to lead them to different conclusions sometimes--you and I can look at the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment and we can come to slightly different conclusions about it--but at least they're not going to be trying to figure out what it should mean."

Who on the court meets your intellectual honesty litmus test right now?

Alito, Roberts--I would have appointed either one of them--Scalia clearly does, and Thomas. I would have appointed any one of the four of them--I worked with three of them. Not that there aren't times they write a decision and I disagree with it, but probably eight out of 10 times I agree with them.

Note no Kennedy and certainly none of the liberals. When the dems were asked at their debate who their model SC Judstice was, they ALL said Ginsburg, except for Richardson who said Byron White before they said the Justice has to be living and then he said Ginsburg. He also later came out and said he thought White was for Roe v Wade and didn't know he dissented. Richardson won't win anyway. Hillary and Barack both said Ginsburg.

He goes on to talk about how he agrees with Silberman's Parker decision:

Larry Silberman wrote the Parker decision, a couple of months ago, in the District of Columbia (it was about the Second Amendment). There was this big debate, an academic debate, about whether the Second Amendment is a personal right or the Second Amendment is some kind of a "civic right." I'm not sure I understand what a civic right is but--to me it's a fairly easy conclusion: The first 10 amendments are all about personal rights. And if you just don't happen to like the Second Amendment, you can't decide that it isn't a personal right.

So you agree with Silberman's opinion?

I don't think you can disagree with it. It's the same language--"the people shall be secure against unreasonable search and seizure;" "the people have the right to bear arms." Whenever the Framers put those words down, it was to give a personal right. There's nothing that suggests, other than your view, that guns should be restricted more--that suggests that it's anything other than that. And I don't know what Larry Silberman's views on guns are--he could be very antigun as far as I know, or pro-gun--but I think a judge has to put that all aside and you've got to go honestly figure out what the people who wrote this mean.

I just had breakfast yesterday with a friend of mine who has been a federal judge for many years, and we were talking about this. It's a really serious issue when a federal judge in particular starts to execute their own social and political theories, because it really deprives us of freedom.

He repeats saying that a conservative could either reverse Roe or accept it as precedent and limit it or scale it back as has been done with Miranda and other criminal decisions that now have oodles of "exceptions".

Some may disagree with this but I think Rudy is spot on. I think everyone would agree that Scalia is a conservative and even he won't reverse every decision he disgrees with. Now, in abortion, he will(but I honestly think his personal views come into play there somewhat). However, in other cases such as the commerce clause, federailsm, regulatory, new deal era cases, etc... he's accepted older precedent even if he disagrees with it. Same with Bork. He talked about how he disagrees with some of the new deal cases but it's too late to reverse them. Same with Thomas, although to a lesser degree. Same with Rehnquist in the Dickerson case and others(I think everyone here would be happy if Stevens retired under Rudy and he replaced him with a Rehnquist ca 2000 clone). I suspect both Scalia and Thomas both disagree with Baker v Carr and reynolds v Sims as original matters(as did Alito), but I doubt either of them would overturn those cases.

It all depends on how you see abortion. Do you equate the reliance and buildup of 35 years of Roe v Wade and its effect on society with say 40 years of one man-one vote, the 70 years of the new deal, the 30 years of affirmative action, the 35 years of Miranda warnings, etc... But I see nothing particularly remarkable in Rudy's statement that a conservative judge wouldn't necessarily be 100% to overturn every decision he or she disagrees with.

Roberts and Alito appear to be of Rudy's school there. I'd say right now that neither Roberts nor Ailto will ever vote to outright overturn Roe v Wade or PP v Casey. I think they'll limit it, hollow it out, etc... but i don't think they'll overturn it. Not any time in the near future at least and not by a 5-4 margin, either. I think it will have to be at least 6-3 and more likely 7-2 before it would be formally overruled. I think at the least 1st trimester abortions and those for legitimate health reasons/rape are here to stay, short of a constitutional amendment.

I can understand not feeling comfortable with Rudy in the primary and if someone feels that Mitt or Fred would make better appointments, I can't really blame them(it would be curious to see what Fred's voting record was on Clinton's judges. How many did he vote to confirm? If he was 100% or close to it what does that say?).

But, if Rudy were to win the nomination, I don't see how anyone could claim that there'd be no difference between Rudy's judges and Hillary's.

Do you think Hillary would agree with Silberman's decision?

Would she list Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito as passing her litmus test? agree with them 80% of the time?

Just in the past year alone, Rudy has agreed with the Conservatives in Carhart, in the race cases, in the FEC case, in the Hamdan case. He openly supported and advocated for both Roberts and Alito during their nominations. He advocated Scalia for Chief Justice. Hillary? none of the above. In fact, her judges would be guaranteed votes to reverse every conservative decision made this term.

If anyone thinks there'd be no difference between the Elena Kagan's, Merick Garland's, David Tatel's, Sonia Sotomayor's, Harold Koh's, that Hillary will appoint and the Judges Rudy would, they're sorely mistaken.

Even at their worst, Rudy's judges would further weaken and limit liberal precedents; Hillary's would strengthen and expand them. Rudy's Judges will be with the conservatives at least 80% of the time in the split cases; Hillary's 0% of the time.

Given that the next Senate will most likely be the same or more democratic, it's going to be hard for any GOP President to get a staunch conseervative through. So, in that respect, who the President is is irrelevant. Another Thomas or Scalia isn't going to be confirmed to replace Stevens. So regardless of who wins, we're going to get pretty much the same type of nominee. I suspect that no matter who wins, if the GOP hold the WH, the next nominee will come from among Sykes, Estrada, P. Clement, a GOP Senator, Luttig, McConnell or Mahoney.

A Rudy victory might even lead to more vacancies. A souter or Stevens might feel more comfortable retiring with him than under someone who explicitly ran to the right and courted the pro lifers like a Romney or Thompson. They might decied to hold out until 2012. And we don't want that.

As long as he isn't replacing Scalia, I don't really mind his victory. I don't think he can or will do worse than Souter.

If we have a Republican President, he is going to be picking from the 50+ judges Bush has placed on the appeals courts. There are a lot of decent choices.

Would Elena Kagan and Harold Koh really be so bad?? ;) (I kinda have a crush on Kagan, despite her mannish hair-do)

I wonder this: are any of you conservatives disappointed in the decisions as not going far enough? Particularly the schools case, doesn't seem to really close the door to considering race, as much as some on my end of the political spectrum would like to claim.

Complaining that decisions don't go far enough seems rather minor complaining that decisions are incorrect.

3 of our guys are under 60. Give it some time.

Although there are probably a few conservatives who want immediate results a la Scalia and Thomas, I think most conservatives realize that the incrementalism of Roberts and Alito will be better accepted by the American public in the short term. I think the whole conservative world is just excited to know that we finally have a Supreme Court that follows the explicit text of the Constitution and congressional statutes. It is so refreshing. If the Dem-controlled Congress doesn't want the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the laws it passes in a conservative manner, it needs to start being very specific about how it writes legislation.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the FEC case. I think Scalia had the better of the arguments but I think he got too personal with both Roberts and Alito. I don't really see what that adds. Compare his concurrences in those cases to Thomas' in Carhart.

In FEC you already had Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy agreeing to overturn so I don't see why not. At least in Hein there wasn't a 5th vote in Kennedy so I don't mind Alito's incrementalism. However, as both Scalia and Souter acknowledged, McConnell was overturned in WRTL, so practically there's no big difference.

I think Scalia relaizes he's 71 and isn't quite on board with the timeframe Roberts and Alito have. He wants some big victories. Now.

As far as the race cases, I think Roberts and Kennedy should have worked it out so there'd be 5 votes. The difference between them doesn't seem so far that he couldn't have dropped a few words to get Kennedy's vote. Kennedy, to my knoweldge has NEVER upheld ANY race-conscious measure so I think his hypothetical is just that(See Croson, Metro, Adarand, Grutter, etc...). He leaves the door open but it's so narrow that it's of no importance. If liberals are counting on Kennedy to save them in race cases, they're in for a rude awakening. He is irritating, but on race and free speech he's just about as automatic as they come.

I don't think anyone expected Grutter to be overturned today and I don't think the plaintiffs even asked for it. Grutter is largely irrelevant anyway as Michigan got rid of aff action through an election. How many states still even have it? In any event, now taht this case has come down I suspect the next step will be that someone will bring a case that will directly chlallenge it. The court will take it, and it will fall.

Same with McConnell. Bopp's next case will go even further, and WRTL will make it all the more easier to do away with it.

Does anyone know of a site that would list Fred Thompson's votes on Judges? He served 1994-2002 I believe. Did he vote to confirm Breyer? What about some of Clinton's Judges like Berzon? Garland? I don't recall him being a vocal voice against all the liberals Clinton was filling the bench with.

Although it may be a tough going, you can go to the Senate website and look up each confirmation vote. You will need to know the date that each was confirmed to do this:

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

The date that the specific judge was confirmed can be found here by entering in the judge's name:

http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

Has this site become so beholden to GOP funders that it attempts to whitewash Rudy Guiliani?

When Rudy was mayor, it is my understanding that not only did he support the appointment of liberal judges but that he called for PUBLIC funding of abortion.

I guess some of you are of the opinion that now that he has jettisoned another wife for a new one, alienated all of his children, lobbied for crooks like Kerik to be appointed to cabinet positions that he is now, all of a sudden, a constitutionalist's best hope in 2008.

I mean, it seems this guy cant figur out who he is and what he stands for.

I can just see him appearing on MTV. The question wont be "boxers or briefs?", it will be " thongs or speedos?".

Give me a break. If he is the best the GOP has to offer, it will be better for the country to sit the 2008 election out, regroup, and seek to elect a conservative president in 2012.

In my humble opinion.

I disagree 100%. A Dpotus would very likely replace Stevens, Ginsburg, & possibly Souter between 09-12, so 2008 could hardly be more important.

I'd prefer that trio be replaced by JRB, Pryor, & Cruz, but even Sykes, Williams, & Mahoney are far better than the Sotomayor-Kagan-Koh trio Hillary'd give us.

The Repub POTUS candidate will almost certainly be either McCain, Mitt, Rudy, or Fred. It's a sorry list, to be sure. All are deeply flawed, and wouldn't be considered in an ideal world.

But compared to the havoc Hilly, Barry, or Gore would wreak upon the Judiciary? C'mon.

Rudy's a social liberal no doubt, tho one must consider what anybody has to do to get elected mayor of NYC and then govern effectively. But he's been pretty clear he won't use the courts to ram his personal agenda down the country's throat.

And he's been very clear that he'd appoint Roberts, Scalia, Alito & now finally by name for the worriers here, Thomas. Plus he's got Ted Olson signed on.

A lot better than the usual pabulum about "strict constructionist" judges, IMO.

Thompson only took office in December 1994. He wasn't around for the Breyer vote. The 9 No votes were:

Burns (R-MT)
Coats (R-IN)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Helms (R-NC)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Smith (R-NH)

Helms, Nickles, and Smith also voted No on Ginsberg.

I looked through CSPAN a bit. It turns out Thompson did vote to confirm Marsha Berzon and Merrick Garland. He voted against Paez and Fletcher of the 9th. He wasn't in the Senate in 94 when Breyer was up but he probably would have voted for him since most other Republicans did. Not exactly manning the ramparts for the Constitution.

I never said Rudy was a Constitutionalist's best hope. I certainly understand why someone would not vote for him in a primary. But I don't understand how someone could say it would be better to stay home, put Bill and Hillary back in the WH and regroup for 2012. That really worked out in 1992. It was really great that we stayed home or voted for Perot and regrouped for 1996 when Bob Dole retook the WH like MacArthur storming the Phillipines.

It'll really be worth it when the liberals retire and Hillary restocks them with 3 or 4 under 60 instead of solidifying a conservative Court for the next 20 years.

And anyone who thinks there's even a remote comparison between the process of appointing city judges in New York and making appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States just doesn't know what they're talking about. There's so many differences it's not even worth discussing.

Lastly, my comment was not "this site". I don't work for them or run it and if you read here you'll see that this site is pretty much supporting Mitt with Fred in 2nd place.

Who knows? Stevens is 87, Ginsburg is 74. Bush could end up appointing a Diane Sykes or Karen Williams to replace one of them and this whole issue would become a lot less important.

On the left you have

Hillary Clinton, who had ~50% disapproval nationwide.
Barack Obama, who has been a Senator for 2 years.
John Edwards, whose greatest accomplishment is cosponsoring the IWR.
Bill Richardson, who said Byron White was his ideal SCOTUS judge.

If Gore runs, I think he wins, but I don't think he is going to.

Whatever party wins in 08, though, I think loses in 12. Setting the Judiciary aside, though, George Bush and Bill Clinton have left the nation with a lot of problems, ranging from entitlements to immigration to the Iraq War. The nation is rather divided and somebody is going to piss a lot of people off when they try to tackle these issues.

If Bush gets to replace Stevens, I would probably agree with you. It took a Democratic victory and the disastrous Carter Presidency to bring forth the Reagan revolution.

I'm not so much concerned with Fred voting for Breyer, Garland, & Berzon, as I am with failing to lead on judges in general and Estrada in particular. The more I read about Fred, the less I like, and I wasn't wild about him to begin with. He wouldn't even be on the radar if even a Jeb level candidate was in the field, let alone a Reagan type.

Elections have consequences. Breyer, Roberts, and Alito all should've been confirmed unanimously, IMO. RBG was obviously a different case & unique situation, as would JRB be.

But when the President is whimsically considering destroying the country with Babbitt or Cuomo, you do what you have to do. I've always given Hatch credit for coming up with a frail, elderly cancer survivor, although the Dems of course have never reciprocated for Aunt Ruthie's Garden Party hearings, nor of course have the Repubs taken full advantage of the Ginsburg Precedent.

That said, Ruthie needed to be raked over the coals for the ACLU, as JRB should expect to have to defend her many speeches. But both should be confirmed also. Again, elections have consequences, and as long as you're not dealing with characters issues like Fortas & the shoplifter guy, lunacy like Reinhardt & Douglas, or blatant lack of qualifications like Harriet, I lean strongly towards confirmation.

A wise man once said (in fact, the Wisest of all Men), that is someone cant be trusted in small things, he cannot be trusted in large matters.

I have voted straight GOP for 22 years because of the pro-life issue.

If they expect to EVER get my vote again, they need to offer a better argument than either:

1) Demonizing Hillary;

or

2) Nominating an anti-life candidate like Rudy.

My vote is just one...but it is a solemn promise I made to myself that I will not let people BS me on the pro-life issue anymore and if they arent gonna walk the walk, they WILL NOT GET MY VOTE but their opponent, even the most liberal candidate the DEMS can nominate, will...just so I can be part of the movement in the GOP to purge the party of the BSers and the RINOs.

Just my opinion.

"Has this site become so beholden to GOP funders that it attempts to whitewash Rudy Guiliani?"

Gee, if we are going to talk about whitewashing, where is the criticism of GOP candidates other than Rudy with respect to affirmative action?

Rudy strongly supported this week's decision.

For the other candidates, mum seemed to be the word, as though they were at an NYT editorial board cocktail party.

"never" is a word that rarely works out like we expect. Take heart. Conservatives have 4 plus, with the plus stronger than the previous plus.

How would you & others here feel about Kennedy & The Irrelevant Four being replaced by five Byron White clones? Not perfect, but overall far better than a paleoliberal or Philosopher King.

Speaking of which, the cover story of the current New Republic on AMK should be required reading. Whatta kook. WITW was Howard Baker thinking, pushing the nomination of someone with psychological issues that deep? NTM, the fact he submitted to the level of questioning he did according JCG should also have been immediately disqualifying.

And now he sits at the epicenter of the nation's judiciary, The Humble Arbiter of Great Events & Grand Designs. I wonder if anyone's ever had their lifelong dream come true quite like he has.

He was probably a better judge than 4/5 Nixon/Ford judges that followed him, and light years beyond the Eisenhower garbage that preceded him.

Given his opinions on Miranda, Roe, and Bowers, I bet the left considered him their Souter. The man was probably not a conservative so much as he was a reflection of the Democratic Party of John Kennedy, which is a relic today.

Either way, it's quite odd for a modern Democrat to mention his name in the same category as Ginsberg.

As for Kennedy, well, the man seems to be wielding more influence than even O'connor used to. For one, he seems to be more malleable. Second, there are 4 solid votes on either side, so he can pick the winner almost all the time.

This recent term confirms that.

You're right - it's pretty solid 4+4+Kennedy right now. With O'Connor, you had 4 solid left, 3 solid right, and SDO and Kennedy in the middle. So depending on how it went, you could say either of them was a swing vote depending on the case. But now it's pretty much always Kennedy who will make the decision if it's split.

This is what's so annoying about all these leftist whine-a-ramas about the "right-wing" court. Under Bush it has gotten to exactly the center for the first time in decades. Only if we elect another Republican in 08 might we eventually get a SC that tilts right.

If one of the libs retired and was replaced with another moderate like O'Connor, we'd have the exact mirror image of what Bush started with - 4Left+3Right+2Mod --> 3+4+2. I'd call that "leaning" right, not "solid" right, but I'd take it. If a Dem wins in 08, we're guaranteed never to get past equilibrium for another decade or two.

Given that Kennedy votes 'correctly' some 2/3 of the time, the left is losing a lot more often than they are winning. And while it is tough to quantify the importance of a case, it is tough to get excited when all you are winning is Texas death penalty cases.

On another note, I came across this bit in Federalist 77. Hamilton discredited it then, but I guess he is eating his words.

"The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless."

does anyone else find it odd that Scalia didn't write in either of the 2 big cases this term(the abortion and school cases).

I mean both those cases were minimalist incrementalist. They both were narrow and stopped short of any real change. Their practical effects are both rather limited. He ripped into Alito and Roberts in Hein and WRTL for the same reasons yet in the two biggies nothing.

Throughout his career abortion and aff action are his 2 biggest issues. He's written in every other big case(Webster, Casey, Stenberg, Grutter, Croson, Adarand) but in these two he says nothing, even though their guilty of the same complaints he had about the others.

Odd.

Also, all is not lost in the Gitmo cases. If you read Kennedy in Hamdan and Rasul he seems to indicate he'd be ok with them. In Hamdan Breyer even openly says that the main thing for him was that Congress and the Executive were not in agreement(Youngstown 2) and thus the President's power was diminished. he says the opinion leaves open the chance for both branches to agree and explicitly called on them to work out a deal. So there's at least 2 chances for a 5th vote.

Given thursday, I doubt Breyer ever joins the conservatives in a big case ever again(certainly not if Roberts is writing). He all but accused them of being segregationists and overturning Brown. That's not quickly forgotten.

I still think there's a chance with Kennedy, though.

Even if they reverse, I can't imagine a better issue as the campaign heats up then a Rudy or Fred callling out the libs on the SC for shutting down Gitmo and giving Constitutional rights to Al Qaeda.

I'm a Fred Thompson supporter so allow me to defend him on the issue of judges. First, he never voted for Breyer because Breyer wasn't confirmed until August of 1994 while Thompson wasn't elected until November of 1994. As for some of the other appeals court nominees he voted for, what exactly was he supposed to do? He voted against the worst of the worst, but he couldn't have been reasonably expected to vote against all of them. Just look at the number of liberal Democrats who have voted for very conservative Bush nominees. That's just the way the process works.

A quick Google search of Richardson's comments on White reveal White is despised throughout kos/moveon land. A few of the more rational types consider him marginally "better" than Thomas.

Good point about Hamilton in the Federalist (it was No. 81). While it may seem discredited -- if you read the rest of that essay he provides a simple and democratic remedy for when the Court goes on making law (applying the spirit of the law rather than the text of the law) -- impeachment. Furthermore the Court cannot enforce its own rulings, it takes the other branches. But back to impeachments... Hamilton makes it quite clear that Judges can and should be impeached and tried for going beyond their constitutional mandate. After discussing how judges won't apply the "spirit" of the law, he says, "[w]hile this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments." Its clear Hamilton thought the solution to rule by the Court (an oligarchy) was a stronger assertion of the people through their elected representatives and constitutional mechanisms (executive appointment, Senate confirmation, impeachment, etc...). So long as the elected branches (and the public) roll over and take judicial usurping of governmental power (from the States, the Congress, and the People) they are stuck with the Court governing. The more I read the founding documents, the more I see that things we take for granted as instruments of last resort were really the first line of defense for constitutional improprieties. Is wholesale impeachments necessarily the only response? Probably not, but it is interesting to see our Founders take on the whole matter and it goes to show how there really isn't a whole lot new under the sun. I mean apply the spirit of the constitution sure sounds a lot like the living constitution arguments I've heard.