ConfirmThem

for the open thread I requested this a.m.

I know I'm lazy, but when is the floor vote for Southwick expected?

The Senate comes back September 4. It's unknown when they'll schedule Southwick.

Does anyone think that the liberal core of Senate Democrats will vote for Southwick. I would be surprised if Southwick is confirmed by more than 60 votes. In fact, I think he might be confirmed by no more than 52 votes (all the Republicans plus Landrieu, Pryor and Nelson of Nebraska. I am even suspicious if Feinstein will vote for him.

Why wouldn't he?

Outside of Iraq and the GWOT, Lieberman has shone no inclination to join the Republican agenda. How many controversial Bush judicial nominees has he voted for? He voted against Alito. In addition, he voted against cloture in the case of ALL ten filibustered COA nominees. That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Judicially, I think Lieberman is a liberal ideologue.

I wouldn't mind having him switch and caucus so the GOP could be in the minority until Jan. 09. Quite possibly the GOP will go deeper into minority status at that time--though I hope not.

One other thought, maybe he'd be more inclined to vote favorably on Republican matters once he made the switch. Wasn't that mostly the case with Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado?

does your response indicate that Reid et al could postpone for a pretty long time ever having a vote on Southwick, despite the committee's vote? Could that be another reason why DiFi didn't mind voting him out of committee? Is there some other majority ploy that's about to be pulled? Sorry to be so paranoid, but we've been given reason to be so over the past year and a half.

I think it will probably come up pretty soon, after September 4. Reid made some promises before the Committee vote, I think.

But you are comparing 2001-2005 PFAW-camp Lieberman with 2006-2007 Enemy-of-America Lieberman.

I do not think they are equivalent.

I'm not sure why you think Lieberman has changed on judges. After all, he still wants to be re-elected as a senator in Connecticut. I think in a dark blue state like that it would be very hard for him to explain supporting conservative jurists at the same time as he is supporting the Iraq War.

because he's a conservative jurist who served in Iraq? and CT is a blue state, but it's not like Massachusetts or Rhode Island, and he wasn't elected by the "dark blue" population of the state anyway and so isn't beholden to them. its far from certain he'll seek another term anyway, and even if he does, a vote for Southwick hardly seems like something that would suddenly kill his chances. he's no more liberal than Feinstein, and I do think she will vote for confirmation.

zendari, I thought the PFAW-camp WAS the Enemy-of-America camp? :P

Any one know anything about his nomination?

I don't think he wants to be re-elected, nor do I think he can be. Just look at his comments on Iran, which has caused his own party head to turn on him.

Even if he does, 5 years is a very long time, and the chances of an appelate nomination being relevant 5 years from now are slim, IMO.

Dienekes, I was referring to the fact that the leftwinged kooks consider Lieberman to be the Enemy-of-America. I actually came across an article saying that President Lieberman might be worse than Bush!

Since re-election, he has:

Praised the Bush Legacy
Promoted the idea of a military strike on Iranian soil
Voted against the Gonzalez no-confidence vote
Voted for the new FISA law

I don't think he is redeemable in the eyes of the dark blue crowd.

As present, Keisler's nomination seems to be on hold. It may or may not be tied to a deal between Kyl and Feinstein on the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, different versions of which have been passed in the House and Senate. Both the Dems and the Republicans may be holding up Keisler's nomination until the conference report version of the bill is passed by both houses and signed into law by Bush. Or, alternately, the Dems may just be holding up the nomination to appease the liberal special-interest groups. Who knows at this point.

This a very interesing thread over at kos on judicial immunity from tort action; mainly about Pierson v Ray (1968), and it's progeny.

Of course, the author blithely fails to mention other than in passing that it was the great liberal heroes (w/the notable exception of Douglas) who set forth all he rails against. He completely ignores the supreme (sorry!) irony of praising a Thomas (!!?!) opinion.

And yes, it's all somehow Bush's fault, as well.

But, it's still one of the more interesting things I've read on the Court, esp. from over there.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/19/93159/7328

You wrote: "I think he might be confirmed by no more than 52 votes"

If that is true, he will be filibustered. Clinton, Obama, Schumer and more will certainly try and if there is so little support for Southwick a filibuster will likely succeed.

Don't forget Reid said Southwick will get a floor vote. He didn't say "up-or-down vote".

I don't think the Dems will try to filibuster for three reasons:

1) Being the majority party, such an action would make the Dems look foolishly partisan. They would appear to be run by the liberal special-interest groups, and at the moment I think the Dems want to maintain a more moderate appearance in advance of the presidential election in order to attract more independent voters.

2) Along the same lines, I don't think the Dems really want to give the Republicans a winning issue in 2008 regarding judges. The Dem leadership was basically sideswiped this spring by the liberal special-interest groups concerning Southwick. Before Ralph Neas and Nan Aron got involved, Reid and Leahy were perfectly willing to confirm Southwick in order to keep the flow in the confirmation pipeline going.

3) The Dems need to be careful about antagonizing the Republicans too much now because they know perfectly well that President Hillary or Obama will nominate lots of controversial liberals to the courts in 2009. If they don't want most of those liberal nominees blocked, the Dems are going to have to let some people like Southwick through.

You wrote that you believe Southwick's nomination will come up on the Floor soon after the Senate reconvenes on September 4th, because "Reid made some promises before the Committee vote, I think." Why does this somehow fail to instill complete confidence?

Answer: Because Reid is a documented dishonorable liar, a cheat, a breaker of promises, and very likely a crook as well (Nevada land transactions).

Why would anyone here still give credence to any pledges that Reid, Durbin or Schumer make? I will believe in Southwick's confirmation only when a favorable confirmation vote has been cast, tallied, announced and publicly recorded.

You'll believe it when he's sworn in, since who knows - maybe they'll take a clue from the House Dems and change any losing votes after the fact.

"The Chair reserves the right to revise and extend any vote results."

Good point & I did. Actually, I'd already thought of that and taken that possibility into account when writing my prior post. That's why I included that the vote had to be "publicly [officially] recorded". The official printout of the confirmation vote must be posted on the Senate site, copied and physically in my hands (they could easily delete it electronically from the site) before I will completely believe it. That's what it's come to; nothing is beyond them. Trust no one.

But you might be right. Maybe we should wait until the swearing-in, which should be arranged to occur about 10 minutes after the vote.

Days elapsed since last CCA confirmation: 103