ConfirmThem

Would ensure two permanent Senators who would filibuster every GOP nomination. Great idea.

but surely they would "own" all the seats on the DC Circuit right?

Maddux,
Actually, Andrew's proposal is different. Click his link. DC residents would be lumped in with Maryland's. So, DC wouldn't get two senators, but Maryland's two would also represent the residents of DC. Maryland would likely get an additional House seat as a result of the population increase, which would probably (more than probably) go Democrat due to the DC political profile. But, it's hard to argue with that, much as I don't want more Democrats in Congress.

Giving DC two Senators, though - no way.

Nomination Observer is correct. DC citizens would be able to vote in Maryland's US Senate elections.

If diehard supporters of disenfranchising DC citizens don't soon come to their senses, then this is what may easily happen: a simple majority of both houses of Congress may simply grant statehood to DC. I'd be against that, but it very well may happen if a better solution is not reached soon.

Just to complete the thought, if we ratified Andrew's proposed amendment we could dispense with the 3 electoral votes currently allocated to the District by the 23rd amendment. Here's a first draft to that end.

Amendment 29 - Amendment 23 Repealed

1. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. Where, by virtue of the 28th Amendment's treatment of citizens of the District as ciizens of the State from which the land of the Distrct was ceded for purposes of representation in Congress, any state gains one or more additional Representatives, such state shall be entitled to appoint an additional number of Electors equal to the number additional Representatives.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

What ever happened to the original dream of having a national capital district? Lets return to that original goal - of having a district dedicated to running of the national government - where everyone who lives in DC is legally a resident of another state, but working in DC to run the government. The district would be home to Senators and Congressmen and White House officials and their aides. The district would house all the embassies and foreign diplomats. If need be, lets redraw the lines of DC, to include the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetary in DC, but not to include residential areas of just normal people.

I'd add a sentence to my proposed amendment: "Appointment of electors of President and Vice President shall not be affected."

As long as D.C. doesn't get 2 ultra-liberal/socialist (or worse) Senators, I don't really care too much what happens in this matter.

But I appreciate and applaud Mose's impeccably logical argument: That since D.C. would be effectively incorporated into Maryland's federal political process (D.C. residents should also vote in Maryland Senate elections), the 23rd Amendment would be superseded and thereby repealed.

One suggestion: retrocede as much of liberal-infested northern Virginia back to D.C. before incorporating their federal votes into Maryland. This would make Virginia much more winnable into the future by dumping those lib/rad votes into the unwinnable Maryland political cesspool.

Well, one can look at what kind of mayors & councilmen DC's elected to get a feel for what their senators would be like... ;)

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Apparently in the latest polls McCain is within the margin of error of both Barry & Hilly, and less than half of self-identified Dems have an unfavorable opinion of him.

Has McCain commented publicly on DC statehood?

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

I just talked to a SJC staffer who told me that no business meeting has occurred today due to Senate voting. She doubted that one would be scheduled for tomorrow before the March break. That means that the first time Catharina Haynes can be given a committee vote is likely to be on Thursday, April 3rd.

http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=...

Chester J. Straub of the Second Circuit is taking senior status on July 16, 2008. Straub was appointed by Clinton in 1998. He comes from New York. Obviously, Straub must feel pretty confident that Schumer and Hillary will make sure Bush and the Republicans don't fill his position during the last six months of this year.

BoBo: "That means that the first time Catharina Haynes can be given a committee vote is likely to be on Thursday, April 3rd."

And when we add the automatic one week delay that the Democrats will "need" to study her nomination further, that means April 10th is the earliest she could be confirmed, right?. Gee, getting approved in under nine months seems pretty reckless to me. Surely the Dems can't have had a chance to determine in such a short a period of time whether she deserves a lifetime appointment....

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722065,00.html

"President Bush recently called Puryear and his 27 other judicial nominees facing Senate confirmation "highly qualified." Whether or not the Senate agrees on Puryear, Bush is likely to leave the White House with fewer judges approved than Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, both two-term chief executives."

http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/News/2008/03/13/A_White_Man_s_Danc...

"If you were to call the Belle Meade Country Club a relic of the 1950s, you’d be exaggerating its modernity."

"So it is against this backdrop of pride and prejudice that Gus Puryear, once seen as a safe bet to be confirmed as a federal judge for Tennessee’s Middle District, is struggling to defend his membership in the Belle Meade Country Club. Liberal members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hold the professional fate of this young GOP lawyer in their hands, as they examine the diversity and discriminatory practices of a creaky Southern country club whose weathered exterior and unremarkable grounds make its cachet all the more mysterious. But Puryear has fumbled his part in the query, raising questions about his honesty by choosing to give technical, misleading answers to very simple questions about the roles blacks and women play at this private bastion of Nashville privilege. And in the process, he’s put his own country club on trial for its antiquated ways."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/03/senior-help.html

"One might delicately refer to it as a senior issue. Since 2003, the number of senior federal judges, both appellate and district, has crept higher."

"It has never been suggested that these senior judges — who willingly lay aside retirement with full pay to keep working — financially burden the federal judiciary. But the phenomenon is raising eyebrows in Congress."

"Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services, broached the topic — delicately — during his round of questions for Judge Julia Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, chairwoman of the Judicial Conference’s budget committee, and James Duff, director of the Administrative Office.

“It sounds like, in most instances, that senior judges may require additional resources,” Durbin said. (The budget proposal does not include a dollar amount, as it’s unclear how many eligible judges will delay retirement.)

Gibbons moved quickly to quash that line of thought. “That’s too simplistic,” she said, adding that senior judges provide more resources than they burn because many work nearly as much as their officially active peers."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=H...

"Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas went to Capitol Hill to discuss the court's budget request for next year, a largely formal exercise made interesting by the rare give-and-take between justices and members of Congress."

"Kennedy reaffirmed his view that the judiciary is in crisis because of low pay, saying judges could perform the same duties yet triple their pay by becoming private arbitrators."

"Regarding cameras in the courtroom, however, both justices advised Congress to lay off legislation that encourages judges to allow televised coverage.

"The judiciary should make the call," Thomas said.

He said he worries that coverage of the court would focus on personalities instead of substance if cameras were allowed when cases are argued.

Kennedy said almost all the justices oppose letting in cameras. "We teach something by not having televised hearings," he said. "We teach that we're judged by what we write and not what we sound like.""

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/03/a-meeting-of-th.html

"Two New Year's days ago, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in his annual report that the failure to raise judicial salaries had reached the level of a "constitutional crisis." This January, Roberts toned down the rhetoric, but today Justice Anthony Kennedy kicked it back up again, telling a congressional committee, "We are at a crisis" over judicial pay. "We are losing our best judges, we can't attract them, we can't retain them.""

"As he has in the past, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, the subcommittee chair, pressed the justices on the dearth of minority law clerks, first raised as an issue 10 years ago this month. Though numbers are uneven from term to term, overall significantly more minorities are being hired than before. "We're conscious about it," said Kennedy, telling Serrano that law schools have been doing a "very good job" of encouraging more minority students to seek clerkships."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080313-11.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-to-block-white-house-recess-a...

"The Senate will move into pro forma sessions this month after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House failed to reach an accord on moving a slew of stalled nominees, a Democratic official said Thursday.

The pro forma sessions, during which the Senate is in session for less than a minute, will take place periodically over the two-week recess. By technically staying in session, President Bush will not be able to use his constitutional authority to install executive branch and judicial nominees during Senate recesses.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide said a Thursday meeting between Reid and Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff, was “positive,” but yielded no agreement. “We will continue to work toward an agreement, but [are] not there yet,” the aide said."

Today, the White House nominated Virginia Supreme Court justice G. Steven Agee to replace J. Michael Luttig. I suggest that Agee could be confirmed immediately after Pratter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Steven_Agee

"George Steven Agee (born November 12, 1952) was born in Roanoke, Virginia. He was educated at Bridgewater College (B.A.), the University of Virginia School of Law (J.D.) and New York University (LL.M., Taxation). From 1982 to 1993, he served in the Virginia House of Delegates. In 2001 he became a Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and three years later he was elevated to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia and is now serving out his first term on that Court."

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1260094_1

"Education:

New York University School of Law, New York, New York, 1978
LL.M., Master of Law(s)

University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1977
J.D., Doctor of Jurisprudence

Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, Virginia, 1974
B.A., Bachelor of Arts
Honors: magna cum laude

Honors and Awards:

Member, Virginia House of Delegates, 1981 to present

President, Salem-Roanoke County Bar Association, 1990-1991"

http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-faces-for-4th-us-circuit-c...

"State Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee, a staunch supporter of stare decisis, was endorsed by the Virginia Bar Association, the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys and the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. He was also rated "qualified" by the Virginia State Bar. This past Friday, Agee wrote the majority opinion in the capital case of Ricky Javon Gray.

Gray had been convicted and sentenced to die on two-counts of capital murder for killing two victims under the age of 14 by someone 21 or older. Defense argued that capital offense charges were unconstitutional based on equal protection under the law since the charges strictly varied with defendant's age of over 21.

The Court disagreed. Agee wrote that a rational scrutiny of law based on age exists, pointing to "other Virginia laws make age distinctions between adults in similar situations.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/national/23sniper.html?_r=1&oref=slogi...

"Under Virginia law, the killing by itself did not make Mr. Muhammad eligible for the death penalty. Prosecutors also had to prove either that he was both directly responsible for Mr. Meyers's death and had killed another person within a three-year period or that the killing of Mr. Meyers was part of an act of terrorism. The jury accepted both theories.

In yesterday's decision, Mr. Muhammad, 44, came close to convincing a majority of the court that there was insufficient evidence to justify a death sentence under the first theory, which required proof that Mr. Muhammad was the triggerman or was otherwise an "immediate perpetrator" of the killing.

Much of the court's 139-page decision was devoted to a debate about the relative culpability of Mr. Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Malvo, who was 17 at the time, and is now 20.

Writing for the majority in the 4-to-3 decision on this point, Justice Lemons conceded that "the evidence more reasonably proves that Malvo was the shooter." But, he went on, Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo were members of "a two-man sniper unit" that included a gunman and a spotter. That was sufficient, Justice Lemons wrote, to satisfy the triggerman requirement.

Justice G. Steven Agee, writing for himself and two other justices, dissented. "Muhammad's actions were of the same character as those of a lookout or a wheelman in a robbery," Justice Agee wrote. Since Mr. Malvo "could have picked any target and decided at any time to fire or not," Justice Agee continued, the evidence against Mr. Muhammad did not satisfy the triggerman requirement."

http://washdateline.mgnetwork.com/index.cfm?SiteID=wsh&PackageID=46&fuse...

Disturbingly, Agee was recommended to Warner and Allen for the first time in May 2006 right after Luttig retired. Why did the White House take almost TWO YEARS to finally nominate Agee - talk about a broken nomination and vetting process:

"Virginia's senators have received from state lawyers' groups the names of possible contenders for an appeals court judgeship, including sitting federal judges.

Sens. John W. Warner and George Allen, both Republicans, recently solicited suggestions of possible candidates for the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge J. Michael Luttig recently resigned from his seat.

The Virginia State Bar told the senators this week it had not had time for a committee to evaluate credentials of prospective candidates and to endorse several individuals.

Instead, the State Bar sent a longer list of people who have signaled interest, all of whom are viable candidates, said Phillip V. Anderson, the group's president.

These names were included: Circuit Court Judges Patricia Lee West of Virginia Beach and Christopher W. Hutton of Hampton; Court of Appeals of Virginia Judges Denham Arthur Kelsey and Elizabeth Ann McClanahan; and Supreme Court of Virginia Justices G. Steven Agee and Donald Wayne Lemons."

"The Virginia Bar Association, a voluntary group, separately recommended seven of the above names: Agee, Albro, Conrad, Douglass, Kelley, Kelsey and Lemons."

http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1604

"Last year Senators Warner and Webb proposed five names:
...

* Justice G. Steven Agee of the Virginia Supreme Court (a conservative former prosecutor);
...

* Justice Donald W. Lemons of the Virginia Supreme Court; Justice Lemons served on the Court of Appeals of Virginia for many years. He is very bright and would have to be called a moderate conservative in his decisions."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjq4yWcJ-Q-FfxMYBMIBPzwR1yOAD8V45ME00

"A divided Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the nation's first felony conviction for illegal spamming on Friday, ruling that Virginia's anti-spamming law does not violate free-speech rights."

"The court rejected Jaynes' claim that Virginia's law violates the interstate commerce clause because it regulates activity outside Virginia. Justice Steven Agee wrote that "the effects of this statute on interstate commerce are incidental and do not impose an undue burden.""

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080301/BUSINESS/4875468/1006

"Writing for the majority, Justice Steven Agee said that "misleading commercial speech is entitled to no First Amendment protection on its own merits." Justice Agee said the law, which criminalizes spam sent to e-mail addresses based in states other than Virginia, has only an "incidental" effect on interstate commerce."

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=8013793&nav=23ii

"Both of Virginia's U.S. Senators are applauding President Bush's nomination of Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb had recommended Agee and four others to the federal appeals court bench last June.

Agee has served on the state Supreme Court since 2003. He served as a judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2001 to 2003. Agee was a member of the House of Delegates from 1982 to 1994 and is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up Agee's nomination.

The Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, covers Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina."

D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court
Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''

The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service.

"The case has been structured so that they have to confront the threshold question," said Robert A. Levy, the wealthy libertarian lawyer who has spent five years and his own money to bring District of Columbia v. Heller to the Supreme Court. "I think they have to come to grips with that."

The stakes are obviously high for the District, which passed the nation's strictest gun-control law in 1976, just after residents were granted the authority to govern themselves. It virtually bans the private possession of handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.

The law's challengers -- security guard Dick Anthony Heller is the named party in the suit -- say the measure has been an abysmal failure at cutting crime or stanching the city's homicide rate, and a success only in depriving the law-abiding of a ready weapon for protection. The District contends that banning handguns is a logical decision in an urban setting, where more guns would result in more killings.

The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right and that, even if it does, the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia.

The case could be a revealing test of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Roberts came to the bench saying justices should decide cases as narrowly as possible, but last year he was part of a slim majority that made bold breaks with the court's jurisprudence in cases both recent and old, on issues such as school integration and abortion.

Clues to the justices' interpretations of the Second Amendment are scant and cryptic, and Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that the last time the court considered the issue -- in 1939 -- it "sidestepped" the fundamental questions.

That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

"It is very rare that the justices write on a clean slate," she said. "In some ways, it gives them great freedom."

Levy and lawyers Alan Gura and Clark Neily were able to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year to do what no other federal appeals court had ever done: strike down a local gun-control ordinance on Second Amendment grounds.

The amendment says that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'' and all but one of the circuits that had considered the issue previously had interpreted it as providing a gun-ownership right related only to military service.

But Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative icon, wrote for a 2 to 1 panel that the amendment provides an individual right just as other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," he wrote, the District may not ban them.

The Supreme Court's endorsement of an individual right would be a monumental change in federal jurisprudence, but perhaps not surprising. Even a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars -- "against my political instincts," in the words of Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe -- have endorsed the individual-right view.

But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions, and whether the justices are ready to decide on the reasonableness of the District's ban could be the crucial question of the case.

The city received an unlikely lifeline from the Bush administration, which told the court that the amendment provides an individual right but that the appeals court erred in deciding that the District's ban was automatically unconstitutional.

"If adopted by this court," Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in the government's brief, "such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."

Clement said that the District's law may well be unconstitutional, but that the case should be returned to lower courts for "application of a proper standard of review" and to permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion."

Gun rights supporters were furious about the government's position, and Vice President Cheney went so far as to join a friend-of-the-court brief that specifically rejects the administration's view. Levy said returning the case to lower courts would be a "death knell," and his team has urged the court to apply "strict scrutiny" to any government action that would restrict gun ownership.

Said Gura: "What we want to do is take prohibition off the table."

The case is complicated by the District's secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia.

The challengers have received a broad array of political support, signs of the strength of the gun rights movement: More than 31 states and a majority of the House and Senate have signed friend-of-the-court briefs.

Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain signed on, while Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton did not. Both Democrats have looked for a middle ground, saying they believe the Second Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions.

That position would seem popular. A Washington Post poll shows that 72 percent of the public believes the Constitution provides an individual right, but respondents were evenly split on whether it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership.

Nearly 60 percent said they would support the kind of law in question.

But nationally, it is hard to find many laws as restrictive as the one in the District, partly because of the gun rights lobby's vigilance. More than 40 state constitutions have gun ownership guarantees. Maryland's is one of the few that does not.

As a result, it is difficult to know what gun-control legislation across the country would be at risk even if the Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit's decision.

Levy said the next targets will be handgun laws in Chicago and New York City, although the court has never held that the Second Amendment is applicable to states. And one legal theory is that the provision is a restriction only against the federal government.

Both sides agree that the court's decision could send a powerful message beyond the District.

Tribe, whose support of the individual right is often cited by gun rights supporters, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal recently that said the District's law could still be upheld and urged the court to decide the case narrowly.

But he acknowledged in an interview that the justices might "jump at the opportunity" to write broadly when they finally have a chance to put their mark "on a part of the Constitution that isn't already paved over with layer upon layer of judicial precedent."

Polling director Jon Cohen and researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.