ConfirmThem

I disagree with your premise that only Pratter will get confirmed next year. Rather, I agree with Outsider's predictions. In the last thread, I tried to show with statistics what the current Dem strategy is. They plan to return in kind what they think was done to Clinton COA nominees in 1999-2000. In 1999, Clinton got 28% of his COA nominees confirmed. In 2000, he got around 30% confirmed. The Dems will not go lower than those percentages. Why? They know if they do, then the Senate Republicans will do everything possible to block all the COA nominees of a future Dem president in 2009. This points to 3-4 Bush COA nominees being confirmed next year.

Haynes and Pratter seem like shoo-ins. I disagree with your idea that the Dems will simply not let Haynes be confirmed because Elrod and Southwick were confirmed. Just like the Republicans confirmed an astounding fourteen Clinton nominees to the Ninth Circuit because they had given up on the liberalism of that particular court, the Dems will confirm Haynes to the Fifth Circuit simply because they have given up on its conservatism. Haynes' addition to that court will not change its general judicial philosophy any more than the confirmation of people like Paez and Berzon changed the judicial philosophy of the Ninth Circuit. Rather, I think the delay in Haynes' confirmation is due to the fact that the Dems want to save her confirmation for 2008 in order to include her in their predetermined percentage of Bush COA confirmations for that year. The Dems did the same thing to Deborah Livingston last year. They refused to confirm her in 2006, so that they could include her in their 2007 numbers.

I agree with you more concerning the Fourth Circuit. The Dems know that they are on the brink of controlling that court for decades to come with some nominees from a Dem president in 2009. For that reason alone, they will do everything possible to block any Fourth Circuit nominee.

Keisler is in a unique situation. His confirmation is not dependent on the approval of any home state senators because he is nominated to the D.C. Circuit. This makes his confirmation much easier than those of Kethledge, Murphy, Stone, Getchell, Rosenstein and Smith. In addition, he has impeccable credentials. To deny him a judicial seat could create huge problems for the Dems if a president of their party is elected in 2008. The Dems have loads of well-credentialed potential nominees like Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan. To deny Keisler a seat would give the Republicans a good reason to block Kagan and other impressively credentialed liberals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/23/AR200712...

"Reid decided that enough is enough and held this sort of pro forma session over Thanksgiving, then decided to do it again after talks with White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten broke down. In this case, Reid said, it came down to one nominee -- Steven G. Bradbury for assistant attorney general. As acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2005, Bradbury signed two secret memos authorizing harsh CIA interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects -- techniques that critics deem torture. Reid said "there is no chance" Bradbury would be confirmed, yet Bush refused to rule out giving him a recess appointment.

Reid said he offered to confirm 60 stalled Republican nominees and eight Democrats to various positions if Bush would give up Bradbury, but he refused. "Think about this," Reid said last week. "Because the president wants one person whom we cannot get out of the Judiciary Committee, he is willing to hold everything up. It doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me." Reid sent through those nominees anyway because "I am not going to meet stubbornness with stubbornness.""

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/the-next-supreme-court-justic...

"At age 61, Bill Clinton is many things, but he is not a young Hispanic woman. Democrats have not one but two candidates who meet all of those three criteria. First, Judge Sonia Sotomayor currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, a job she took after having been appointed by the first President Bush to a district court judgeship. The second potential candidate, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th Circuit, has much more extensive political experience and is closer to the Clintons - she served as Hillary Clinton’s scheduler in California, and her husband was the chair of Bill Clinton’s campaign in the state. Both women are almost universally respected as judges and would be easily confirmed.

What about later seats? I expect a second woman will be appointed to bring the court more into gender balance, particularly if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. For that seat, she could turn to three candidates regarded as genuine intellectual heavyweights - Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, and former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan. If Barack Obama prevails instead, it would not be surprising to see a second African-American named to the court, perhaps Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears, or, if the seat opens up after his term ends in 2011, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTljNTk1ODA0NGZhODQ3M2UzOGEzN2Fh...

"There had been controversy over whether the D.C. Circuit ought to have 10 or 11 seats, and that controversy had been used by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a reason not to act on Peter Keisler’s pending nomination, since Keisler would become the 11th active judge on the D.C. Circuit. This soon-to-be-law plainly reflects the Senate’s judgment that the D.C. Circuit should have 11 seats, and it thus ends that controversy. All the more reason for the Senate Judiciary Committee to move promptly to report Keisler’s nomination to the Senate floor and for the Senate to confirm Keisler, who was nominated nearly 18 months ago and who had his hearing more than 16 months ago. (The fact that the provision eliminating the 12th seat does not take effect until January 2009 is irrelevant to this point; what matters is that there will continue to be an 11th seat.)"

I just spent an hour calling every Republican on the Judicary Committee and asking them to push for speeding up the pace of hearings next year, particulary for Keisler to the DC Circuit & 4th Circuit nominees, and I recommend that each of you do so as well. I did the same for Southwick when all of you had written off his nomination as dead in the water. Senators do listen to their constituents, but they count on their constituents to not pay attention to get away with stuff. Pick up a phone and make a call or two and politely request an extra effort on getting these Circuit nominees a hearing, or quit sitting aroudn crying about how Leahy is delaying and obstructing.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

It's quaint that you think you made a difference in the Southwick confirmation struggle. I don't recall anyone here having written off his nomination - most actually believed it would happen since the Dems had such little to go against.

Nevertheless, I think it's a big waste of your holiday time bothering to contact the Judiciary Committee members. The Reps have very little influence in the process at this point, so you'd be wasting your time trying to convince them to do something they'd already like to do but simply can't, lacking the leverage to do so.

We'll see what the new year brings....

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the filibustering and other blockages, but if Reid is telling the truth that a deal for 60 appointments was held up because of one person then the White House is just stupid.

I like Bush, but this kind of thing is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If we take him at his word (!), isn't Reid saying that he's blocking Bradbury from getting confirmed or appointed, and because he's mad that Bush won't pull this one DOA nominee he's blocking 60-something other nominees?

I can't wait to see a future Republican Senate invoking the "Leahy Rule" and the "Reid Rule" left and right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR200712...

"The White House believes that the Democrats are overreacting, noting that more than 160 of Bush's nominees are stalled in the confirmation process.

Democrats contend that the president is trying to use the interim appointment power to install people such as Steven G. Bradbury, Bush's selection for assistant attorney general, whom Democrats may not want to confirm."

I read this article and almost bursted a vein from laughing so hard. It compared Schroeder to Kozinski.

"Judge Schroeder also cooperated with the GOP Senate majority to fill the court's openings." Gee I forgot she was the one nominating the judges - not Bush or DiFi - silly me.

"She also fostered the PROMPT, economical and fair disposition of appeals." then later on in the same article he says "Kozinski will confront numerous challenges as he assumes leadership of the Ninth Circuit. Foremost among them will be improving the court's delivery of appellate justice. For instance, the tribunal requires one-and-a-quarter years to decide appeals, making it the SLOWEST among the twelve regional circuits." (I capitalized for emphasis.) Which is it Tobias are they prompt or the slowest of any CCA??? Funny how he only says bad things when talking about Kozinski and good about Schroeder.

For lots of other laughs, visit:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071231_tobias.html

"The recently-passed Judicial Improvements Act concomitantly transfers the twelfth judgeship on the D.C. Circuit to the Ninth Circuit, which will increase judicial resources."

Uh, I guess I'm way off base, but the seats have to be filled to 'increase judicial resources'.

Tobias refers to the "Judicial Improvements Act," which doesnt't exist as far as I know. Rather, the act in question is the "Court Security Improvement Act." This may seem like a minor error, but I think it is indicative of Tobias' lack of knowledge.

BTW. Bush has still not signed the Court Security Improvement Act (H.R. 660) into law. I wonder why. It sounds relatively uncontroversial.