ConfirmThem

From the previous thread:

As I have said before, Clinton got 7 COA confirmations in 1999. If Southwick, Elrod and Tinder are confirmed this session, then the Dems will have confirmed six people (Smith, Hardiman, Livingston, Southwick, Elrod and Tinder). That leaves one more COA confirmation.

My first prediction is that Catharina Haynes will be this last COA confirmation of 2007. Her credentials are almost exactly the same as Elrod's, and, if Elrod isn't blocked, Haynes won't be either.

My second prediction: all of the remaining white male nominees will be stalled until next year and some, if not all, may be returned to the White House during the December break. Kethledge, Murphy, Stone and Getchell are all likely returnees because they all have homestate Dem senators against them. Keisler might get returned as well for fear that he might be recess-appointed. If he is returned, I don't know if that prevents a recess-appointment. I think he can still be recess-appointed, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know the answer to this question? If he can, he definitely should be. That will keep the pressure on the Dems to confirm him.

In January, I anticipate Bush will renominate all of the outstanding nominees (Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, Conrad, Stone, Getchell and Matthews). In addition, I anticipate that he will fill all the rest of the vacant COA spots with hardline white male conservatives. Then he will leave it up to the Democrats to decide which 2 or 3 will get confirmed. In 2000, Clinton got 8 COA confirmations, but Bush is likely to get much less in 2008 if he continues to nominate people the Dems hate like Rosenstein.

Bobo, if a nomination is returned, that (or another) nominee can be recess-appointed. The constitution:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

By the way, I don't like recess appointments, just for the bad precedent it sets to a future (democratic) president.

I am not so sure that Stone is a dead duck. From everything I have read, the 2 NJ Senators were noncommittal when responding to questions about Stone rather than saying outright NO WAY like Webb did (and rightfully I might add - pick from the damn WW list Georgie). You are probably right but I just havent seen anything definative yet.

Hahahahah. President Bush won't do that. But to the question of whether or not being pending or being returned has any bearing, it has no bearing whatsoever.

I expect all the nominations that date back to 2006 (returned, renominated) to be returned again. They may be renominated again, or not. The "pocket filibuster" of them has gone without notice.

Leahy's statement about nominations is worth reading. It's similar to Senator Frist's bragging about the great rate of confirmation by the Senate.

Senator Leahy on today's SJC Meeting

1. Under the Recess Clause in Article II, Section 2, the President may temporarily appoint any person to vacancies in the federal courts (among other offices) "during the Recess of the Senate." It is not necessary for the person to be nominated to the office at the time. Theoretically, President Bush could recess appoint Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton to the vacant D.C. Circuit seat.

2. Why do you think that the Senate Democrats will in any way feel obligated to match the 1999 total of 7 Circuit confirmations this year? Do you really believe that Leahy & Co. will feel bound to be consistent with their oft-repeated litany of comparisons to the 1995-2000 confirmation totals when doing so runs against their interests? I don't.

3. What the devil is happening with Southwick? The silence since just after Congress reconvened has been deafening.

The following two paragraphs are from Sen. Leahy's statement. There was quite a bit of self-serving, disengenuous hoo-ha in the rest of it, but these two paragraphs, addressing the slow pace of nominations, could easily have been written by someone on this site:

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 47 judicial vacancies. The President has sent us only 24 nominations for these remaining vacancies. Twenty-three of them – almost half – have no nominee. Of the 19 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for eight of them, more than a third. Of the 16 circuit court vacancies, six -- more than a third -- are without a nominee. If the President had worked with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, we could be in a position to make even more progress. . . .

Of the 23 vacancies without any nominee, the President has violated the timeline he set for himself at least 15 times -- 15 have been vacant without so much as a nominee for more than 180 days. The number of violations may in fact be much higher since the President said he would nominate within 180 days of receiving notice that there would be a vacancy or intended retirement rather than from the vacancy date itself. We conservatively estimate that he also violated his own rule 11 times in connection with the nominations he has made. That would mean that with respect to the 47 vacancies, the President is out of compliance with his own rule more than half of the time.

"We're moving too slowly on nominees because Bush hasn't sent us enough nominees."

What a crock. It's obvious he wants more nominees so they can cherry-pick the most moderate ones or the ones that would have the least impact and then use that to "prove" how cooperative they are.

Leahy speaks the truth here though. There is no excuse for what Bush is or should I say isnt doing. If Bush follows his own rule, Leahy's argument comes crashing down like a house of cards. Remember: You can't confirm what isn't nominated!!!

As I said in a previous comment, I don't think there is any reason why individual Dem senators will cooperate with the White House over COA seats that they control. I do, however, think that the Dem leadership in the Senate is aware in a general sense that some reciprocity is needed now to make sure that the Republicans don't block numerous Hillary nominees in 2009. By keeping pace with the number of Republican approved Clinton nominees in the 106th Congress, the Dems appear to be both conciliatory and nonpartisan. They want that image right now. That can actually keep this pace in 2007 with the confirmations of Southwick, Elrod, Tinder and Haynes. The trick will be in 2008. I think Bush is going to try to ambush the Dems in 2008 with a slew of unacceptable white male nominees, thereby forcing the Dems to make a choice about their appearance. Do they appear obstructionist by blocking all the remaining white males (a good campaign issue as I have already noted) or do they continue to masquerade as nonpartisan by confirming some more movement conservatives (which has the benefit of solidifying Bush's judicial legacy)?

You can't confirm what is nominated!!!

Some facts: 1. There are presently 12 (TWELVE) Distict nominees stacked up waiting for a hearing.

2. There are at this moment 8 (EIGHT) Circuit nominees awaiting a hearing.

3. This month, the Leahy & Co. SJC will hold hearings for 1 (ONE) Circuit nominee and 1 (ONE) Diistrict nominee.

At this rate, counting recesses, the Democrat SJC will not get through the present crop of nominees until June or July of 2008!

Use your minds and calculate a little bit, people! The fact that some people here are falling for Leahy's specious arguments only reinforces my belief in P.T. Barnham's dictum: there's a sucker born every minute. If some posters here are buying this drivel, the general public is probably lapping it up voraciously. Puke time.

The number of year 7-8 confirmations as between Clinton and Bush may not be the proper comparison. Perhaps it would be more useful to compare the number of nominations not dealt with -- those left hanging with no up-or-down vote. How many did Clinton leave office with, and how many does Bush have pending now?

I clearly said that the SJC was not doing their job like they should. I am sure you would agree with me that Bush nominating more judges now would NOT have any negative impact on confirmtations. It is perception. When Bush leaves over half of the vacancies open w/o a nominee including judicial emergencies it looks like he doesnt care and its not important. So anytime we yell to the public "...the dems are obstructing and leaving American Courts understaffed in this time of attack on the homeland...", all Leahy and Co have to do is say no it is really Bush that does not care, its all his fault. Do you get what I am saying?

http://www.uscourts.gov/vacancies/12042000/judgevacancy.htm

In December, 2000, there were 25 open COA positions. 17 had nominees. Only one (Roger Gregory) was eventually confirmed. At present, there are 17 open seats. 11 have nominees. It looks like four will be eventually confirmed (Southwick, Elrod, Tinder and Haynes).

December, 2000 COA open seats with nominees:

Second Circuit - 1)Winter, Ralph K. Senior 9/30/00

Third Circuit - 2)Greenberg, Morton I. Senior 6/30/00 Orlofsky, Stephen M. 5/25/00

3)Lewis, Timothy Resigned 6/30/99 Cindrich, Robert J. 2/9/00

Fouth Circuit - 4)Ervin, Sam J. III Deceased 9/18/99 Gibson, S. Elizabeth 10/26/00

5)Hamilton, Clyde H. Senior 11/30/99

6)Murnaghan, Francis Deceased 8/31/00 Davis, Andre M. 10/6/00

7)Phillips, J. Dickson Jr. Senior 7/31/94 Wynn, James A. Jr. 8/5/99

8)PL 101-650 New Position 12/1/90 Gregory, Roger L. 6/30/00

Fifth Circuit - 9)Duhe, John M. Senior 4/7/99 Johnson, H. Alston III 4/22/99

10)Garwood, William L. Senior 1/23/97 Moreno, Enrique 9/16/99

11)Politz, Henry A. Senior 8/10/99

Sixth Circuit - 12)Keith, Damon Senior 5/1/95 White, Helene 1/26/99

13)Kennedy, Cornelia Senior 3/1/99 Lewis, Kathleen McCree 9/16/99

14)Nelson, David A. Senior 10/1/99 Markus, Kent R. 2/9/00

15)Ryan, James L. Senior 1/1/00

Eighth Circuit - 16)Fagg, George Senior 5/1/99 Campbell, Bonnie J. 3/2/00

Ninth Circuit - 17)Browning, James R Senior 9/1/00

18)Hall, Cynthia Holcomb Senior 8/31/97 Duffy, James E. Jr. 6/17/99

19)Wiggins, Charles E. Senior 12/31/96 Goode, Barry P. 1/26/99

Tenth Circuit - 20) Anderson, Stephen H. Senior 1/1/00

21)Porfilio, John C. Senior 10/15/99 Arguello, Christine M. 7/27/00

District of Columbia Circuit - 22)Buckley, James L. Senior 8/31/96 Kagan, Elena 6/17/99

23)Silberman, Laurence H. Senior 11/1/00

24)Wald, Patricia M. Retired 11/16/99 Snyder, Allen R. 9/22/99

Federal Circuit - 25)Plager, S. Jay Senior 11/30/00

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_30/news/20088-1.html

Anyone have access to ROll Call?

I do get what you are saying. For purposes of propagandizing the ignorant Public in competition with Leahy, Bush should eventually nominate persons to every vacancy. But not until at least next March. Dems would use additional nominees now to further cherry-pick, probably avoiding present 4th Circuit nominees altogether. All future nominees should be extremely conservative, since they probably won't be confirmed anyway. (Exceptions: a few moderate-conservative DJ's on the 8th, 9th and 3rd, and the 'Specter nominee' for the PA. CCA seat on the 3rd Cir.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327749/posts

I am very opposed to letting Specter fill the Van Antwerpen Third Circuit seat with Carolyn Short. She is liberal (she donated money to Hillary, need I say more?) and married to a Democrat. Let Hillary nominate her in 2009 if need be.

I hope that you are right about 7 confirmations this year. We shall see, but I am hereby officially (and sadly) staking an ephemoral penny against it. Six at most, says I (if we're quite fortunate). Five is a real possibility. Odd man out in that event: probably Southwick.

And I note that you seem to have given up on on your prediction of a Keisler confirmation. I gave up on that hope when Congress adjourned without action last year. Wretched fools!

As for the purported Deal, maybe DiFi traded Keisler off in exchange for voting for Southwick in Committee 7 weeks ago. Any thoughts on that?

The longer Keisler is left unattended, the more radioactive he becomes. I am indeed worried that Lott may have sabotaged Keisler's nomination in order to get Southwick confirmed. If he did, I view his actions as very short-sighted. Keisler is SCOTUS material, Southwick is not. Having said all that, though, I stil think that Keisler is not totally dead. It is still possible that a Feinstein/Kyl deal exists. Remember that Lott got TWO liberal nominees (Berzon AND Paez) confirmed in the 106th Congress for Feinstein. Maybe she too will allow TWO "controversial" nominees to be confirmed. I think the key is a recess-appointment in December. I think that will keep Keisler at the head of the confirmation list for the Republicans.

I don't think he is dead either. It makes more sense to confirm him to the 3rd than anyone to the 4th, from the Dems point of view.

This is especially true if Specter is holding out of a liberal to the PA seat...regardless of which side keeps the White House in 2008, the Dems have that seat regardless.

Our goal should be 7 confirmations with the 8th out of committee (Tinder hearing in Sept, Haynes in Oct, and an 8th in Nov).

When I referred to a "Specter nominee" in my #16, it was to a generic moderate-conservative. I completely agree that Short is totally unacceptable as a nominee for the 3rd Circuit. Surely Specter has plenty of other protege/allies who are not outright liberal. As long as he gets to choose one of his people, why would he keep insisting on Short if the White House makes clear she's a no-go?

The top CCA priorities remain confirmation of at least two 4th Circuit nominees and Keisler. Although rationally I've long thought Keisler's nomination was dead, your report last winter/spring of a D.C./9th deal gave me some hope, which I still can't quite abandon. The positioning of Keisler as Acting AG is fortuitous. I agree that Bush should pivot off this to a recess appointment in December Whether a new AG has been confirmed or not--it adds to Keisler's resume and then gets him out of the political maelstrom fairly quickly. Perhaps they can yet get him confirmed, although Senate Dems have said that Recess appointments make them furious.

Whoever the Dems have pocket vetoed and or returned to the President by the end of the year without a hearing, the President needs to give up on. He then needs to fill every open slot in Jan with moderate conservatives. He needs to work with Democratic home state senators and choose as conservative GOP judges as he can possibly get with their blessing. Whoever this process would come up with would be far superior to who would get nominated by Hillary. I know the President should be able to choose whoever he wants and the Senate should give them all an up or down vote, but that is not how the game is being played. The President must adapt and get the best we can get in as many slots as possible leavning a possible Dem Pres with as few spots to fill as possible.

I doubt Bush will follow your plan. think at this point, he could care less about bipartisan nominees. He would rather either create another election year issue concerning Dem obstruction of conservative judges or solidify his legacy with more strict constructionists. He apparently has no interest in the actual number of COA nominees that he can get confirmed.

Courtesy of How Appealing, Bush-appointed former Scalia/Burger clerk Paul Cassell is resigning as a district court judge:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/09/breaking...

"I would be less than completely candid if I did not mention the uncertainty surrounding judicial pay as a factor in my decision. With three talented children approaching college years, it has been difficult for my wife and me to make financial plans. As you know, this year federal judges have yet to receive even a cost of living pay increase. Your much-appreciated proposal to raise judicial salaries has yet to be acted on by Congress. I would like to ensure that my children will have the same educational opportunities that I had. How to achieve that within the constraints on current judicial pay is more than a difficult task. My wife and I have concluded that we may not be able to do what we have always planned to do unless I make some changes."

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695212149,00.html

I do not think judges is an issue that would motivate the majority of Americans to vote. It might stir up some of the base but it woud not garner that extra 15-20 % it takes to win. On a pragmatic level, it wont put you over the top. Americans simply do not care about this. So its poor political tatics.

As for getting his boys confirmed, his legacy could be mabye 3-5 more real conservative CCAs and 8-10 far left judges (nominated by Hillary) because I dont think the Dems are going to let any more real conservatives than that get by. That 3-5 includes Southwick, Elrod and Haynes. Tinder I understand doesnt fall into the real conservative category. Bush might get a couple more stealth candidates by but no more. Certainly everybody else currently nominated the Dems have said are DOA.

I dont think 3-5 real conservatives and 8-10 uber liberals is a good legacy. Or that 8-10 more could be conservative leaning moderates. I think that is a far better legacy to shoot for

I am all for an increase in federal judge pay. That being said, my blood boils when I hear BS like what Cassell said. My parents combined salary was probably half what a federal district judge makes. I still went to college and law school. It would not kill Cassell's kids to take out a few school loans like most normal Americans. (I doubt that is even necessary though. I would bet if Cassell had to write a check right now for all their educations today he could do it. Nothing to back that up, just a gut feeling.) Luttig had this same kind of reasoning when he left. It is total BS. Luttig left cause he was mad, which is fine. Cassell wants more money, which is fine. Both should not cite a phony reason saying they need to provide for their kids' educations. Damn. Good riddance. Enjoy the private sector. With all that extra money maybe you could help pay back some of my loans.

Judicial pay needs to be dramatically raised.

re: jtp7

I think that when he says he has talented kids he is saying that that it will be difficult to afford 21 years of tuition at The University of Chicago [(undergrad+law/medical/graduate school) X 3 kids] on a district judge's salary. I'm sure he's probably right.

Here the congress can spend tens of billions annually on pork projects while our federal judges go substantially underpaid. It's just embarrassing, and I think that they have a right to deliver parting shots like this.

Just a second. Cassell cites as a reason for leaving the federal bench that he has to make more money. O.K., I get that. So where is he going? A law professor job in Utah. Rural academia is the big Pot of Gold? What am I missing here?

Salt Lake City is hardly "Rural Academia" or "Rural" anything else, pal, though granted Cassell is hardly going to make as much money as Luttig does as GC of Boeing. And yes, the U of U Law School isn't even the best one in the state (that would be BYU).

I'm sure there's more to it than what Casell's saying; I know some U of U professors in other departments and they're certainly not throwing money around up there, with some notable exceptions.

We're a lil' sensitive here in the SLC, although obviously Cassell's spinning and nobody confuses the U law school with the medical school or the engineering & computer science colleges.

Agreed with the comments about Luttig; his resignation novel, err, letter was preposterous self-serving bilge. I have to say that I've done a complete 180 and am now very happy Bush picked Alito over Luttig. Both are equally qualified, but in terms of tempermant & intangibles there's no comparison, IMO.

Of course, nominating Luttig likely would've triggered the nuke, so there ya go.

It would hardly kill his kids to have to take jobs or loans, but why should they have to when his father could be making much more money?

It costs close to $50k to put a kid through school; if all 3 kids are in school simultaneously there goes most of his annual salary.

Luttig didn't want to spend the rest of his life sitting around on an appeals circuit, and I'm guessing Cassell is coming from the same ballpark.

I knew someone would take umbrage at "rural", and instantly regretted it. Perhaps I should have written "provincial academia".

if Southwick and Elrod aren't confirmed next week, that means we'll be heading towards 5 months without a single COA confirmation. On the other hand, if both are confirmed next week, the Democrats will seem almost reasonable overnight, especially if Tinder and Haynes/other are confirmed by year's end.

What happened to 'one a month'?