ConfirmThem

Was Durbin the only senator present or were there a few token Republicans?

Sen. Durbin, who presided, was the only member of the committee present. Judge Tinder's homestate senators, Bayh (D-IN) and Luger (R-IN), both spoke on his behalf. It lasted about a half-hour and was apparently pretty friendly. It would appear that Judge Tinder will be confirmed in due course.

Tinder ought to be confirmed on condition that he stop watching Keith Olbermann.

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/03/questions_prese_1.htm...

That show being on there was troubling indeed. Especially with no "conservative" show to balance it. I confess I watch Countdown every once in a while to see how crazy left it is. Hopefully that is why Tinder likes it too.

Read Leahy's statement on the site as an aside to the Tinder nomination which has support from both Senators, Leahy thumps Bush for not choosing from the Webb/Warner list.

I'm hopeful that we'll see Southwick or a halt to all Senate business soon. From what Leahy says about 1999 in his statement, I suspect that we'll see no more than six CCA nominations this year and zero "controversial" ones next year.

My continuing manta remains to fill all the Judicial Emergency nomination slots with WQ judges and then hammer away on the Dems if they hold them up. Yell "Judicial Emergency" from the rooftops and run Ads in all the states (especially given the last supreme court ruling on BCFRA).

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=2950&wit_id=2629

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Leahy and the Dems want to appear nonpartisan and reasonable at the moment concerning judges. By matching the number of COA confirmations in 1999, they can achieve this goal. Such an accomplishment would easily blunt any Republican outcry against the slow pace of confirmations this year. That is why I continue to think that, in addition to Southwick, Elrod and Tinder, Catharina Haynes will also be confirmed this session.

IMHO, next year is when all hell will break loose when the Dems try to block all the remaining nominees. Both parties will then use Bush's judicial nominations as political ammunition against each other.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1190745424150

"Bush's nomination of Getchell to fill one of the judgeships traditionally held by Virginia has drawn fire from Virginia Sens. Jim Webb Jr. (D) and John Warner (R) because Bush ignored their list of candidates. That opposition may doom Getchell's chances of being confirmed.

Wilkins says it is "certainly possible" that Bush won't be able to fill any of the five vacant judgeships. "That's part of the political process," he says. "The judges on the court, we stay out of the political process."

Tobias believes the Bush administration will turn the confirmation fights into a campaign issue in the next presidential election by picking very conservative candidates who appeal to the Republican base, even if the nominees have no chance of being confirmed in the Democrat-majority Senate.

"It now looks pretty clear that President Bush may not fill any of those five [vacancies]," he says. "They don't have anybody to blame but themselves. It's gone on and on and on. They either have their way, or they don't want to play. Now it's too late.""

"They [Bush administration] either have their way, or they don't want to play."

Apparently wanting to "have their way" means Bush following his Constitutional duty to "nominate ... judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States".

The Democrats have demonstrated time and again that they want to decide whom the President nominates. It is their duty to offer advice and then confirm them or reject them. Instead of doing it via votes in most cases, they are doing it via backdoor methods that are 10x worse than what they complained Republicans did to Clinton.

Did the framers intend this to be this huge political game that shifts all the power to the Senate, or did they intend a simple check and balance where the Senate ensures that only qualified candidates from the President are confirmed?

It will be interesting to see if we have a President Hillary whether these same Dems feel that GOP Senators should have this much power over her nominations. I suspect they'll change their tune.

Well, it's the same endless debate: Why wasn't Getchell nominated last summer when he was on the Warner-Allen list; are the two best names on the Warner-Webb list unacceptable for any reason other than the WH didn't think of them first; if Stevens drops dead tonight and Webb & Tester bring the WH a list tomorrow that includes Easterbrook, JRB, & Pryor should that list be dismissed out of hand; etc, etc.

While it's true that Leahy is using every excuse he can to slow down the judges, the White House has certainly helped him out quite a bit, the 4th CC merely being the latest example. We don't have 55 senators anymore, so get with the program. The VA list was fine, easy to pick 2 good candidates. There is a very fine line between stubbornness and stupidity, just wish George didn't cross it so frequently when it comes to the federal bench.

Having said that (and there is much more to say), I think it should also be true that our buddy Pat is setting the bar for future Democratic administrations, assuming the American public wants to lose the war on terror and bankrupt the treasury. If that nightmare happens, we now know exactly how many COA nominees need to go through the pipeline before closing the door. Doubt our side will follow thru, because few of them have either the backbone or the lack of scrupples that our left wing brothers possess.

You're absolutely right. Tobias is a moron.

"our buddy Pat is setting the bar for future Democratic administrations"

Just like he claims the "Thurmond rule" maybe we'll hear Republicans Senators claiming they are using the "Leahy rule" for years to come.

Why didn't the President or the GOP controlled Senate move faster on judges in 2006? In their wildest dreams they never imagined the GOP would lose control of the Senate. The arrogance of power did us in. They thought they had all the time in the world. And George Allen's loss was incredible. He had to do everything just right to lose that race and he did. Calling a young person from Webb's campaign a racist name, lying about the name's origins and then lying about his family background. Where do we get these people? Treat your enemies with respect, don't look down on others because of their skin color and tell the truth. We are having trouble getting good judges confirmed right now because our own party violated some pretty basic moral precepts and continues to do so (thank you Sen. Craig). I think we are going to lose the White House and we wont get back the Congress for many years to come because we became intoxicated with power and lost our way. The judicial branch will end up paying for it in the long run.

Do you think Bush should work with the Democrats to find COA nominees that can be confirmed BEFORE the 2008 election, or should he just flood the market with documented conservatives and let the Dems pick and choose who they will confirm?

Do you think Webb has any real gripe with Getchell, or is he just pissed off at a man he already didn't like?

I think Webb's anger arises from several different areas. To begin with, Getchell may have Virginia ties that too closely link him to Allen in Webb's opinion. Second, Webb must've disliked something about Getchell's personality or ideology since he and Warner interviewed Getchell before removing him from their list. Third, Webb is probably mad that Bush decided to cast away the list he so carefully (in his opinion) helped to create with Warner. No doubt, he feels Bush snubbed because he is a Democrat.

Don't count the dems out yet; they've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory many times before!

That said, you're 100% right, and things look bleaker now than at any time since Watergate, if not maybe ever.

Following the 1934 mid-term elections, there were 71 Democratic senators, and only 25 Republican senators. Following the national elections in 1936, the number of GOP senators dropped to 16, and there were only 88 GOP Representatives in the House. In addition, Roosevelt won 46 states as he started the second of what would be five straight Democratic administrations. Now that, my friend, is bleak.

I still shake my head in disbelief when I consider the lost opportunity of the last Congress. We had 55 Senators! And we simply caved into the Democrats. I don't know if Frist thought they would hold onto the Senate or not, but surely they knew they were going to loose seats. With 55 Senators, that was their best and only chance to confirm many COA nominees. Frist should have pushed for votes for every single judicial vacancy. Instead, he did nothing.

I still cannot believe it.

It might be if the Democrats had a decent candidate, ala Clinton in 92.

Well, they do, but their top 3 are almost as bad as our top 3.

I still expect only three more CCA confirmations this year: Elrod, Tinder, and Southwick (?!?). I still instinctively hedge about predicting a Southwick confirmation, from bitter experience, but acknowledge that his confirmation looks likely at this time. That makes 6 for the year, but who, if anyone, will be the 7th?

First, Democrats will very probably hold only one more CCA hearing this year. By delaying Tinder's hearing until so late in the month (Sept. 25th), they can now delay the next one until after the October recess. The next hearing will be the only one for a conflated October-November period.

Who will the hearing be for? There are 7 nominees presently awaiting hearings. Kethledge and Murphy are long cold in the grave. Getchell and Matthews are too recent and too controversial. That leaves Conrad (4th), Stone (3rd) and Haynes (5th).

Conrad is effectively out. Since the administration foolishly clumped him with 3 other nominees (as I warned against about 20 times earlier this year, as futile as always), Dems. will continue to ignore the 4th Circuit nominee as usual. That leaves Stone and Haynes. I'd guess Haynes, unless there's some deal with the Lautenberg-Menendez duo. Whether either will be confirmed by the end of the year is questionnable.

Frist and the rest of the Republicans suffer from a couple of common problems - they usually lack any kind of long term plan, and they play far too nicely with an ugly set of enemies. As I've said before, as much as I despise him, our side needs a few Schumers; look at how he cleaned the clock of the hapless Dole in the midterms.

First rule of politics is that when you have the other guy down, keep hitting, draw more blood. What a wasted opportunity, probably doubly wasted in the sense that the Reps learned absolutely nothing from it. Watch how the Donks push thru the nominees if they get the WH.

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_34/guest/20201-1.html

"On Sept. 6, President Bush nominated Duncan Getchell, a Richmond lawyer, for an opening on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The nominee was not one of the five individuals whom Virginia Sens. John Warner (R) and Jim Webb (D) had earlier proposed to Bush. This nomination is a classic example of divisive partisanship, although the president frequently mouths the platitudes of bipartisanship. Thus, the Commonwealth’s Senators and the entire Senate would be within their rights to reject the nominee. Indeed, Webb recently stated there was “no way” that he would return a “blue slip” allowing Getchell’s Senate consideration to proceed."

Does anyone know why Tobias is so often quoted in the MSM about judicial nominations? What makes him such an expert?

I think whoever has not had a hearing by 1/1/08 should be withdrawn. They will never get a hearing. They are just taking up space that could be used by someone more confirmable.

I think the President then needs to work to find the most conservative person confirmable for each vacancy and then nominate them as soon as possible in Jan. Some states have a plan for recommending judges apart from the Senators. He needs to nominate the most conservative person on those lists. The Dems will have trouble turning down persons on a non-partisan list. Where lists have been given by senators (ie Webb-Warner) he should choose the most conservative persons on that list. Finally, where those two plans are not in play, yes, he should talk with the Senators of the states involved even if they are Dems. If he is convinced the judges these consultations come up with are more conservative than ones Hillary would nominate, then he should nominate them.

What if the Dems use Bush's new generosity simply to screw him over? They know Bush has a limited amount of time in which to nominate people who can be confirmed. By creating long delays in consultations, they could delay nominations until June or July and then say that there is not enough time within the election cycle to have hearings or confirmation votes. In that case, the White House would've spent a lot of time and energy for nothing.

I have no doubt you are right for at least some of the spots. I have no illusions about the Dems playing fair. But I think we would get more spots filled than we will with the current plan of putting forth alot of people who are DOA. The Dems would want to look non-partisan. My goal is to lessen the number of judgeships a likely Dem president could fill with leftist radicals.

The current plan could be designed to make this a campaign issue, but I think that one is a non-starter with the American public. Better to fill all the spots available with the best people we can get.

As for whether the Dems shot themselves in the foot before the 2008 election yes its possible and yes I hope so. But currently we have one of our best minds (Newt) saying there's an 80% chance Hillary wins. I think we need to get as many conservative leaning judges confirmed as possible. For the states with 2 blue state senators, I'd even take a liberal leaning judge who had enough integrity to vote with conservatives when he or she felt the law demanded it (if there are such beasts out there) Anybody but the true believers on the left.

As for what Frist, Hatch and Spector were doing in 05 and 06 when they should have been getting great judges confirmed, I have no idea.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092707/content/01125110.gues...

just in case you live near one of these cities.

http://www.myheritage.org/Features/Specials/092607_Thomas.asp

can that read book?