ConfirmThem

I am not sure what your point is. D.C. voters should be allowed to vote for Maryland representatives and senators? If that is the case, why not the governor of Maryland and other state officials? What in the amendment clearly separates D.C. from being just another Maryland county or municipality? I think your amendment seems to blur the line between federal and state jurisdiction in the District of Columbia by creating a slippery slope of unintended consequences.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-2.html

It should be noted that Filip is a former Scalia/Burger clerk. He will be the second Scalia clerk who has resigned this year (after Paul Cassell of Utah). I don't think there are any Scalia clerks left now as federal judges.

I think it is also interesting to note that Bush has no problem quickly naming numerous Justice Department nominations but has left many judicial seats open for over a year.

Bobo, I understand your issues, but I think that the amendment language only speaks to congressional representation and shouldn't affect other federal issues. And, it doesn't apply to Maryland state issues (such as governor's elections) either.

The key issue is that the "Andrew" amendment would give these folks a voice in Congress WITHOUT giving the District two (liberal Democrat) Senators and one (liberal Democrat) represenative, which is what other proposals would lead to. While I'm not thrilled with the idea, and I think we share concerns here, it would be an interesting solution to the "taxation without representation" issue in a manner that wouldn't just result in more Democrats in Congress.

Former Scalia clerk Patrick Schiltz is still a district court judge in Minnesota.

There would be an additional representative in Congress, but no additional Senators, although DC citizens would get to vote in Maryland's US Senate elections. And Nomination Observer is right; this only speaks to representation in Congress, and would not affect the state government of Maryland in any way, nor affect home rule in DC, nor affect the role of DC in presidential elections.

DC citizens need to be represented. Andrew's solution is the best of all options heading off some very bad options. Someone needs to push it forward.

Did the 4 DJ nominees get voted out of committee?

I agree, as long as the D.C. citizens (overwhelmingly liberal or worse) will vote in Maryland elections only, not in Virginia. Virginia is in enough danger as it is from D.C. suburban residue. Maryland is a lost cause anyway, so give the D.C.ers their voting rights in Maryland, where it can't hurt anyway (and also relieve the pressure for a radical-socialist D.C. congressional delegation).

Anyway, D.C. is on the Maryland side of the Potomac, so it should be with Maryland. Geographical considerations should be paramount. And if the land for D.C. was in fact ceded by Virginia, then the "ceded" clause must be removed from your proposed amendment.

Phoned the SJC majority and minority staffs about 15 minutes ago. The majority staffer said that the Committee has been doing FISA all morning and will probably vote on the District nominees later today. The minority staffer told me that the Committee had just reconvened "5 minutes ago" after doing FISA all morning, and is likely to vote on the nominees when they finish with FISA.

I also asked if they were planning another Judicial nominee hearing in December, and strongly urged that they hold one for Conrad or Haynes, and at least 4 District nominees. They were somewhat evasive, but both said that the Committee would "try to" do so. The minority staffer said that Senator Specter made a statement along those lines at the meeting this morning. I hope everyone here will call the Committee (202 224-7703 and 202 224-5225) to push for another hearing next month.

Addendum to my #7: Reflecting on it, I think the land for D.C was in fact ceded by Maryland, since it's all on the north side of the Potomac. Always wondered why the part of the grid south of the river (in Virginia) was never included. Does anyone here know the history of this? Maybe the Lees, who owned much of the land, effectively killed it. The Feds did eventually grab much of the Lee land during the Civil War for Arlington National Cemetary (spoils of war). But I don't think Arlington is part of D.C. proper in any event.

Bottom line: since D.C. would originally be part of Maryland anyway, keep the Ceded Clause in Andrew's proposed amendment.

The District of Columbia used to be a lot bigger. However, in 1847, all the land from Virginia was retroceded back to Virginia.

Why don't we get the Republican Party onboard with a totally different solution. Forget trying to legislate a vote in the House for DC. How about we just make federal income taxes inapplicable to residents of the District? What a great way to avoid liberal seats AND show exactly how many great things would happen when you lower taxes.

Seriously though - District residents know what they get by living here. It's only a few miles to the border from any point in the city. Want federal representation - move.

The District voted to apply for statehood about 15 years ago - before the 1994 Republican takeover. The petition was overwhelmingly rejected by the House at that time.

And the much easier solution (easier than a constitutional amendment) would be to just pass a simple law that cedes a good portion of the residential areas of the ditrict (most of the city north of the area immediately surrounding the mall) back to Maryland.

BTW - even your amendment would add a liberal Democrat seat to the House - if DC residents vote with Marylanders, we'd have to count in Maryland's census total for apportionment purposes and that would almost guarantee the addition of a seat to the Maryland delegation that would then likely be districted to be coterminus with the District.

No portion of the current District was ceded by Virginia. The Virginia cession was returned in the 1820s and is now called Arlington County. Only the Maryland portions of the original grant are left within the District.

Reldim, if your retrocession solution were adopted, then you'd add a liberal Democrat seat to the House, so there's no advantage on that score.

The retroceded areas would no longer be under the ultimate authority of Congress, and thus Congress would lose control of an area that Congress may desperately need to control if and when the s--t hits the fan. The whole point of setting up a federal district was to remove that district from the authority of the individual states.

By the way, a retrocession bill is pending in Congress right now. That bill does not address the problem about whether the few remaining residents of the district would still have three electoral votes in the electoral college, per the 23d Amendment.

Per your suggestion, I called the two SJC numbers. I pointedly asked about a hearing for Haynes before the December break. The minority (Republican) staffer I talked to seemed totally clueless and referred me to the majority office. The majority (Democrat) staffer said point blank that there would be no more hearings this year and then began touting the fact that the SJC had just voted the four district court nominees (Laplante, O'Connor, Schroeder and Thapar) out of committee. I guess that means that only Tinder and those four will be confirmed by the end of the year.

A Tinder confirmation will bring the total number of Bush COA nominees confirmed in 2007 to six. IMHO, the Dems are being very short-sighted by not confirming seven, the number of Democrat COA nominees the Republicans confirmed in 1999, Clinton's second to last year. Such an action just gives the Republicans more incentive to block a Dem president's nominees in 2009. I really do wonder if there is any way now to reduce the partisanship of the judicial confiramtion wars. If the partisanship doesn't end soon, the federal judiciary is going grind to a halt due to a lack of COA confirmations, no matter which party is in control. What do we do then?

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-roll-call-reports-on-federal...

"The Senate is unlikely to take on any new court battles this year, and it doesn’t appear that there is any particular nominee outstanding who would spark an immediate showdown.

The first year of the 110th Congress has moved relatively smoothly for Bush’s court nominees. Bush started out the year by withdrawing a series of his most controversial picks, and the bulk of this year’s selections have advanced uneventfully through the Senate.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said that he believes the “window is closing” for Bush to move controversial nominations through the Senate, and with that in mind, it’s likely that both parties will be looking to coalesce around mutually agreeable court picks — unless an opening arises on the Supreme Court, an unlikely scenario that would assuredly shut down the Senate, he said.

“The desire for a fight may not be as strong right now,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). “First, they’ve been through this before and they are tired of it. Also, with a year left, is it really worth a big brouhaha over a federal judge?”"

Does this mean that Keisler, Conrad and Matthews aren't considered "controversial" by the Dems, and they will allow those three to be confirmed next year? Or, conversely, does it mean that Republican senators have no desire to fight for any more "controversial" COA nominees and will as a result allow these three to be permanently sidelined? I'd love it to mean the former, but I fear it means the latter.

BTW, I think it is obvious that Kethledge, Murphy, Stone and Getchell were sidelined long ago by the blue slip method and shouldn't be considered in any new confirmation equation, except of course if they are withdrawn.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/11/president-bush.html

"Bush nominated Gregory Katsas, the current acting associate attorney general in the department's number-three position, to head the Civil Division -- which was vacated by the departing Peter Keisler. Until Michael Mukasey's arrival a few days ago, Keisler also was acting attorney general."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_V-APfQyxx4N4b7aqy10JoVCaUwD8SUBBJ03

"In a statement, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said lawmakers will take a close look at the [new DOJ] nominees to make sure they are qualified. It likely will take weeks, if not months, before the Senate confirms them.

"The Senate will act purposefully under its constitutional role to evaluate these nominations when we receive them to ensure that these vacancies can be filled, but also that they will be filled with nominees who are committed to restoring the independence and mission of the Justice Department," Leahy said."

This is horrible. There is no doubt in my mind that the Dems in the SJC are going to end up spending some ungodly number of hours on hearings and debates concerning the five new DOJ nominees next spring to the exclusion of any COA nominees. UGH!!! It looks like Bush just played right into the hands of Reid and Leahy who now have a perfect excuse not to process any more COA nominees all next year. Who needs The Thurmond Rule when you have five new DOJ candidates to question?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5304825.html

"In a blistering rebuke, President Bush today said the Senate's confirmation review of his judicial nominees has too often become a "search and destroy" mission that ruins a person's reputation.

"Senate confirmation is part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances. But it was never intended to be a license to ruin the good name that a nominee has worked a lifetime to build," Bush said in excerpts of a speech he was to deliver tonight to The Federalist Society, a conservative group that emphasizes legal matters."

"Bush's swipe at the Democratic-run Senate comes amid mounting White House frustration over the president's stalled nominations to the federal courts. It also is part of a clear pattern by Bush to publicly condemn Congress for not getting its work done, a strategy the White House believes gives it the upper hand.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., requires several documents before he'll move forward with a nomination, including the candidate's rating by the American Bar Association and an FBI background check. Committee officials say that some of Bush's nominees have not submitted all of that paperwork."

http://www.fed-soc.org/events/id.465/default.asp

"6:30 p.m. - Doors will close at 6:15 p.m.
Union Station Main Hall
50 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.

Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Gala (Ticketed event) BLACK TIE

Featured Guest:

Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States
Additional Special Guests:

Hon. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court
Hon. Robert H. Bork, Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Hon. Edwin Meese III, Heritage Foundation
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Hon. Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court
Hon. Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court"

WE just have to win another election. This is the only way to achieve our goals. The only candidates who can beat Hillary are Rudy and McCain. The other announced candidates would lose badly. If you disagree go to real clear politics and see for yourself. If Hillary wins, she will likely have a Senate majority for 4 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-12.html

I guess in anticipation of his Federalist Society speech tonight, Bush finally nominated Pratter to the Third Circuit and Rosenstein to the Fourth Circuit.

Your amendment does not clearly preclude that possibility itself.

If you include DC residents in Maryland's federal elections (for House and Senate) than you would probably have to count DC residents as Maryland residents for purposes of seat apportionment at each Census. With somehwre in the vicinity of 600,000 residents, adding DC to Maryland would result in the addition of a seat in the House for MAryland, which would almost certainly be occupied by a liberal Democrat (there are only 2 Republicans in the delegation to begin with), as the new Maryland 9th would probably consist mostly of DC residents.

You would never get an amendment like this passed if you presumed to tell Maryland that they have have to take 600,000 new voters but get no additional representation for it. I don't see how that would be constitutional even under your amendment. And if you tried to write in such a way that DC residents vote in a Maryland House district without being counted for apportionment purposes you would certainly never get it passed through Congress to get it to the states.

As for the 23rd post-retrocession. I see no way to, by statute, prevent the rump District left after retrocession from getting the advantage of the 23rd Amendment. The 23rd itself does not define the District, only that "the District constituting the seat of government of the United States" would get 3 electoral votes (actually that it gets EVs equal to what it would get if it were a state but not to exceed the number of EVs granted the state with the fewest EVs - which for the indefinite future is 3). To prevent 3 EVs from being awarded by a population that could be as smal as only a few hundred people, you'd need to repeal the 23rd Amendment.

It would be unconstitutional in itself. An amendment cannot be conditioned on the acceptance of any given state. If 49 states ratified this amendment and only Maryland didn't, it would still be a duly ratified amendment with full effect. And if Maryland did ratify it, but nobody else did, it would not be effective under the terms of Article V.

Your amendment looks more like it should be in statutory form - and historical precedent seems to indicate that Congress could, by statute, merge DC into Maryland solely for Congressional representational purposes. But in that case see my apportionment issue above. A statute could be made conditional on the consent of the affected state (Maryland) - but in that case, I doubt you would get consent without awarding Maryland another seat in the House. Even with that concession, you would get fierce resistance from Maryland Republicans - including DC in their electorate in House and Senate elections would virtually eliminate any possibility for a Republican to win a Senate seat. You would in effect be giving the Democrats 2 automatic seats in perpetuity.

Lincoln D. Almond, of Rhode Island, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, vice Ernest C. Torres, retired

Mark S. Davis, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, vice T. S. Ellis, III, retired.

David Gregory Kays, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, vice Dean Whipple, retired.

David J. Novak, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, vice Robert E. Payne, retired.

Gene E. K. Pratter, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, vice Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, retired.

Rod J. Rosenstein, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, vice Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., deceased.

Carolyn P. Short, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vice Gene E. K. Pratter, upon elevation.

No. Confirmations will continue to be contentious and partisan so long as the official position of Democrats and liberals is that judges should, and do, have the power to implement liberal policies that cannot be passed in the political branches of government.

Liberals see the judiciary as another arm of government - designed to implement "good policy" and not to adjudicate disputes in accordance with written law. If liberal judges are going to view it as their mission to create, alter, and eliminate laws according to liberal policy preferences, then conservatives will rightfully take issue. And certainly liberals will take issue with any nominee who doesn't subscribe to their view that judges should "protect the little guy."

Lincoln Almond as in the former governor of Rhode Island?

http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/JUDGES/Almond%20Bio.asp

"In 1985 graduated "with distinction" from the University of Rhode Island - Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.

In 1988 graduated with "high honors" from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Admitted to the Connecticut Bar in 1988 and the Rhode Island Bar in 1990.

From 1988-1990 - Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey, Hartford, Connecticut.

From 1990-2004 - Private practice, Providence, Rhode Island - concentrating primarily in litigation / labor and employment law."

The two Lincoln Almonds must be related, maybe father and son? The former governor is Lincoln CARTER Almond. The U.S. Magistrate judge is Lincoln D. Almond.

On September 10, 2004, appointed United States Magistrate Judge."

http://www.advance.uri.edu/quadangles/spr2005/story7.htm

"Another URI alumnus who is relying on colleagues to help him become acclimated to the judiciary is Lincoln D. Almond, who was appointed a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, in June 2004.

Almond, the son of former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln C. Almond ’58 and former First Lady Marilyn Almond ’58, earned a B.S. in accounting in 1985. Since beginning his eight-year term on the bench in September 2004, Almond has turned to fellow magistrate judge David L. Martin ’68 for advice and assistance. “I can’t imagine a better colleague than David Martin to teach me the ropes,” said Almond. “He is extremely bright and thorough. At any time, he will stop what he’s doing to listen to me and explain. He’s been invaluable.”

Like Robinson, Almond was a partner at Edwards & Angell, LLC, and practiced in the area of labor and employment law for 14 years. “My concentration was exciting but fairly narrow, and I was ready to try something different. It is very invigorating to start at square one. Every day brings a new twist.”

Almond’s new responsibilities include issuing arrest and search warrants, conducting preliminary proceedings in all federal criminal cases, conducting settlement conferences to mediate disputes, and serving as a resource to the district judges in a wide variety of civil cases.

A common misperception about Almond’s new role is that it is necessarily a prelude to a district judge nomination. Almond clarified the differences between federal magistrates judges and district judges. “Article III of the U.S. Constitution set up the judiciary, and Article I established government’s legislative branch. The president has constitutional power to appoint district judges with lifetime tenure, while Article I judges—or federal magistrates judges—are appointed to fixed terms and are subject to reappointments.”

Almond, who is a former president of the URI Alumni Association, also shared that his position is not a steppingstone to elected office. “Politics is not my thing, it was my father’s. I don’t have the same fire to be in politics.”"

Anyone in his place will be a large improvement.

I am a little disappointed by the response to today's events. Not only has Bush named five new DOJ officials, he has named five new district court nominees and two new COA nominees. To top it off, he made a blistering speech in support of his nominees at the Federalist Society. Yet, there seems to be no real excitement on this site.

Admittedly, I too have been disillusioned by the whole process. I have been disillusioned by Bush's extremely slow pace on nominations as well as his refusal to compromise on candidates. I have also been disillusioned with the lack of active Republican support in the Senate. Reid and Leahy's delaying and blocking tactics I have always taken for granted, but the Republican response has worried me more. Despite all this, I still want more Bush COA confirmations next year. Conservatives as a group must now pressure their senators more than ever to get as many Bush COA nominees confirmed as possible - even if there will only be 4-5 more! This is especially true with the five new DOJ nominees. We have to let our senators know that we want them to concentrate on the COA nominees and NOT the DOJ ones! EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE CALLING THEIR SENATORS NOW!

Reldim, as I said at #5, there would be an additional seat in Congress to represent DC. Do you think that half a million people should not be represented in Congress?

And the idea that such an amendment would be unconstitutional does not make much sense. The only limit that Article V places on amendments is that no state can be denied equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, and this suggested amendment certainly would not do that.

No, I didn't say that. My dispute was with the impression I was getting that you wanted to give DC votes without creating a new liberal Democrat seat. That's not possible.

My point about constitutionality was that you write into your Amendment that effect seemingly depends on Maryland accepting. But there is nothing in the amendment that would require it (you are not depriving Maryland of its Senate seats, nor are you creating a state out of MAryland terrirtory). And Article V does not allow for any such restriction - as I said - if 49 states ratified this amendment and MAryland didn't it would still go into effect and DC residents would vote in Maryland federal elections whether Maryland wanted them to or not.

My later point was - I don't see any reason why your plan to let DC residents vote, for federal purposes, as if they were Marylanders, requires a constitutional amendment at all. Congress would have ample power to pass legislation saying the exact same thing as your amendment does - and should Maryland be willing to go along with it, that legislation would be perfectly valid. Congress has made similar statutory rules for DC residents in the past.

I'm not sure why retrocession would be terrible. Most bills carve out a portion of the current District that would remain as the Congressionally controlled district - usually encompassing the location of all federal government buildings and monuments, etc. I'm not sure I see what $%^# could possibly hit the fan that would desperately require Congress to have direct control over the area in Upper NW where American University sits. There isn't anything outside the downtown area that is of federal significance that couldn't already by maintained as federal territory (the military bases are military bases like those in any other state, and the Naval Observatory and VP's residence, if not already considered a military base, could be designated as one and treated likewise).

I would refer to the Pentagon - there seems to be no concern about control and it is clearly in Virginia. And things seemed to be handled as well as could be hoped during the events of 9/11 such that I don't see why turning my apartment on U Street from Washington, DC to Washington, MD would make much difference.

Reldim, the amendment language I've suggested gives power to Maryland, but does not require Maryland to use that power. This is not really any different from many of the other grants of power in the Constitution. The effect often depends upon what the recipients of the power decide to do, usually without requiring the recipients to do anything at all. The President is not required to make treaties, Congress is not required to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court is not required to hear a lot of cases that it has power to hear.

You also have not addressed the 23d Amendment. After retrocession to Maryland, you want the few remaining citizens of Washington DC to have 3 electoral votes in the electoral college? Even if Congress arguably has power to cancel those 3 electoral votes, do you really want Congress to be able to confer such huge voting power on a very small number of people?

You make a good point about the Pentagon, but still the Constitution envisioned a large federal District of 100 square miles. You would chop it down to only a few square miles. I just think it's wiser to have a federal district that's at least 50 square miles, because you never know what may happen in the future, and it's better to be safe than sorry. You have not given any reason for retrocession, other than to enfranchise people who are currently DC citizens, whereas those people can easily be enfranchised without retrocession (see amendment language I suggested).

Finally, you argue that Congress already has power to let DC residents vote, for federal purposes, as if they were Marylanders, if Maryland consents. I don't understand why you think that would be constitutional if done by federal statute, but unconstitutional if done by constitutional amendment. In any event, I do not agree that such a statute would be constitutional. Otherwise, Congress and Maryland could team up to let all the citizens of Puerto Rico vote as Marylanders too. Which part of the current Constitution empowers Congress to do that?