ConfirmThem

much like the Neff deal. does anyone know anything about Pratter?

this article hardly makes Short sound as bad (potentially) as some other sources, though I suspect that's typical, intentionally biased reporting, of the "moderate Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer" variety.

of course, if there was any chance the Dems would have traded Short for some other nominations (say Stone and Keisler, plus an end to the idiotic obstruction of Southwick and a quick confirmation), I'd have taken that deal too.

doubt the Dems fill both 3rd circuit vacancies. So I think Stone, along with Kethledge, Murphy, Getchell, and possibly Kiesler, are on the heap now. Conrad and Matthews, with 2 R Senators probably can win confirmation, as might a nominee for the 2nd VA vacancy off the Webb/Warner list.

as for Pratter, here's the press release on her confirmation to the district court by her old lawfirm, Duane Morris, with praise from Sens. Santorum and Specter.

I'm glad Specter is seeing reason concerning Carolyn Short. If Specter really wants her, I doubt Leahy will deny him. Pratter also has the added plus of being a woman. It seems as if the female candidates (Livingston, Elrod and Haynes) are the only ones the Dems are allowing to be confirmed at the moment.

Here is Pratter's federal judiciary bio:

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3061

She has donated exclusively to Republicans.

http://newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=pratter&first=gene

Based on what little I know, she seems solidly right of center. And for the 3rd Circuit, a plain old moderate isn't all that bad.

Even if Pratter is nominated in Nov. or even February, Specter should be able to get her through if he really wants to.

This seems good. Apparently a solid moderate-conservative to finally fill the silly Van Antwerpen vacancy on the 3rd. Lesson: never nominate elderly District Judges with lots of seniority. This to me was always a weakness with Pickering and Boyle, even if they had been confirmed. If any CCA nomination is a slam dunk in the Senate in 2008, this Specter fiefdom is the one.

This nomination can safely be made in January or even February. So there's no need to hurry the nomination and further diminish the small chances of Conrad even further. Meanwhile, bye-bye Stone (officially).

It's one thing if an elderly judge serves for a year and then bolts in the last year of a presidency on his/her 65th birthday.

But Van Antwerpen left in the middle of Bush's 2nd term. As long as he was honest about that back in 2003 when he took the appointment, I don't see any problem.

Of course, he might not have anticipated the extreme Specter stonewalling.

That is one more senior judge to hear cases in the 3 judge panels. The 3rd circuit, while being split 6-6, has at least 4 or 5 senior GOP judges and 0 Dems. That improves the probability of getting a favorable panel where most appeals end anyway. This is only good if that seat gets filled by Bush before the end, obviously though. If Pratt is the nominee, this would go against the Bush strategy of nominating just to poke the Dems in the eye. If you are going to pick a strategy at least be consistent. Is the same person that selected Getchell picking Pratt??? WTF! Something does not compute. I guess they are just puting names on a board and throwing darts at them.

That's quite an ingenious take on the matter, but a bit too convoluted and risky for my taste. Put control of a Circuit at risk in order to have additional conservative senior judges to sit on panels? I'm not sure that passes a costs/benefits test. True, it could be marginally beneficial IF the successor nominee is confirmed. But what a huge downside if he is not, as often happens nowadays.

I think Bush's inconsistency in nominating judges can be explained. It has to do with the senators involved. In general Bush wants to nominate hardline conservatives. However, if Bush likes the senators and they specifically request more moderate nominees to ensure confirmation, he accomodates them. I think this has been the case with Cornyn, Hutchinson, Lugar and Specter. Cornyn and Hutchinson got Elrod and Haynes, Lugar got Tinder and now Specter gets Pratter.

jtp7, while I appreciate that interesting idea, it is way too difficult to get circuit court nominees through. If it was a piece of cake to get the nominees confirmed, I'd say have them retire and be replaced. However, it's a prize to get just one confirmed, and we cannot afford to have them retire within a couple years.

Presumably, Van Antwerpen figured his replacement would be an easier confirmation than it has turned out to be, with the leading Republican on the committee being from his state.

Of course, that's been part of the problem.

David Lat liveblogs (the re-airing of) Armstrong Williams' party for Clarence Thomas. thought you'd all like this, some very funny stuff.

From Lat's liveblog:

The two justices who missed the festivities: John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy.)

Not Kennedy, but was Stevens ill? Just in Florida? C'mon, we need some kind of fever swamp these days!

about Stevens, but Kennedy's fine. He was just up the road at Yale a few days ago getting his butt kissed by a law professor (who says he's "Lincolnian"). Of course, Justice Kennedy is not responsible for being kissed like that, but the professor is. :-)