ConfirmThem

Pryor of Arkansas just made a speech in support of Miller.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fight-over-judges-could-stall-patent...

"Senate Republicans threatened Thursday to hold up floor action on a patent overhaul bill until Democrats allow votes on a number of President Bush’s controversial judicial nominees.

The threat marked the next phase in the growing election-year battle over the judiciary, an issue that Republicans hope will energize conservatives eager to see more of Bush’s nominees confirmed to the bench.

But even before Republicans made their threat, the prospects of passage for the patent bill already were cloudy. That means the GOP might have to block bills more popular with Democrats in order to force the majority into allowing confirmation votes on Bush’s nominees."

"The Republicans say they will hold up the bill until the Senate confirms the nominations of Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Peter Keisler for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Gene Pratter for the 3rd Circuit."

"Republicans slammed Leahy at a committee meeting last week and threatened to shut down the Senate if Democrats don’t allow votes and hearings on the stalled nominees. They are looking at a number of ways to gain leverage, and are first targeting the patent bill.

But the patent bill, which would overhaul rules on intellectual property rights, had already hit a wall after Specter, Leahy and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were unable to reach an accord Wednesday night.

Republicans say they are looking at holding up other bills that have Democratic support, or objecting to routine proceedings on the floor."

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/republicans-ratchet-up-rheto...

"Today, Senate Republicans renewed threats to “shut down the Senate” if their Democratic colleagues didn’t start confirming President Bush’s pending circuit court nominees."

"Oddly enough, these complaints came on the same day that Catherina Haynes, Bush’s nominee to fill the final vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is expected to receive Senate approval for her appointment."

"The Senate GOP seems determined to instigate an election-year battle over the issue of judges – a particular favorite of their conservative base."

From Miss Partisanship herself,

http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/04102008.html

"Once again, Republicans are ratcheting up the rhetoric over judges, trotting out misleading statistics and calculated outrage. Today's latest stunt on the Senate floor was no exception. Numbers came fast and furious, often at the expense of the facts."

"Senate Republicans lob quite a few stones from their glass house, bemoaning the actions of Senate Democrats as politicizing the process when it is the Bush administration and its allies that treat judicial selection as a take-no-prisoners item on a political agenda."

http://www.cltmag.com/bush-lawyers-seek-the-next-soft-landing.html

"A cavalcade of stars has exited the Bush administration in recent months, such as the Justice Department's Rachel Brand, who jumped to Wilmer, and Peter Keisler, who went to Sidley. Firms around town are also preparing to open their wallets to get remaining lawyers like Solicitor General Paul Clement, who previously headed King & Spalding's appellate practice. Legal recruiters estimate that top picks like Clement could fetch as much as $2 million or even $3 million."

http://heathenmommy.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/first-richard-honakernow-ro...

"Do you remember Richard Honaker? He’s Bush’s pick for a lifetime appointment to a federal district court who tried to outlaw abortion three times in Wyoming.

Because you and thousands of pro-choice Americans contacted your senators, the Senate Judiciary Committee is still reviewing his record. He hasn’t moved forward, and that’s good news.

But our opponents in the Senate are pushing a new anti-choice nominee: Robert Conrad. That’s bad news.

Please take action now and urge your senators to reject Robert Conrad.

Conrad has nothing but disdain for women’s freedom and privacy. He’s called Planned Parenthood a 'radical, pro-abortion fringe group” that “promotes a radical abortion agenda.'"

In advance of the vote on Haynes, Leahy and Reid are trying to counter-attack on judges. Reid seems to imply that the Dems did promise to confirm as many as 15 COA judges during this section, but only if they were "consensus" nominees who were supported by their homestate senators. He advised Republicans to show up to the SJC business meetings if they really wanted to get that many confirmed.

His logic, though, seems a little odd. Basically, using his criteria, six of Bush's COA nominees can't be processed at all due to the blue slip policy (Kethledge, Murphy, Stone, Rosenstein and Smith). That means at most, after Haynes is confirmed, five more COA nominees could be confirmed (Keisler, Conrad, Matthews, Pratter and Agee). If the Dems do confirm those five, a situation that is highly unlikely except for Pratter and Agee, then that means 12 COA confirmations during the 110th Congress, which might be viewed as acceptable to some in comparison to Clinton's 15 during the 106th Congress. I just don't see that happening though. So, what does Reid actually mean?

BTW, Leahy again implied that he would rapidly process Agee because he is a "consensus" nominee.

Specter is for establishing a strict protocol delineating the exact amount of time after a nomination is submitted that SJC hearings, committee votes and final floor votes must be held. I am unaware of what time limits he wants or how effective a resolution will be in enforcing those limits.

Haynes confirmed by unanimous consent.

Haynes was confirmed in manner close to that of Jennifer Walker Elrod who was confirmed by voice vote. Too many Dems did not want to go on record opposing a well-qualified nominee without any evidence against her.

It looks like the Republicans mean business. The Dems have a chance of winning in '08, of course, and I hope they've been told privately that confirmations will be made as difficult as possible for any Dem unless they start moving on Bush's final nominees.

I hope this all ends in Keisler's confirmation. Well-qualified and a potential SCOTUS nominee. Not to mention a former Kennedy clerk who, I hope, will feed the Justice his right-wing clerks. And he's Jewish, which is beneficial as it momentarily takes away some left-wing platitude about evil white Christian males.

As to Paul Clement, let him make a couple million dollars in private practice, and then have President McCain appoint him in '11 after the Republicans have taken back the Senate!

Miller confirmed 88-0.

All three by voice vote.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=25112

"George W. Bush is in the twilight of his presidency and his approval ratings are scraping bottom, yet the Senate confirmed another controversial Bush nominee to a lifetime seat on the federal bench. Bush wants to remake the judiciary as part of his legacy, and the Senate must not continue to aid and abet his efforts.”

“Despite President Bush’s brazen rejection of compromise and consultation over judicial nominations, his nominees have fared far better under the Senate Democrats than President Clinton’s did under Republican control. When President Bush refused to meet them halfway, they went far above and beyond what was required of them. It is incredibly galling that Senate Republicans are throwing another tantrum over nominees — the manufactured hysterics are being ramped up but aren’t fooling anyone.

“Now is the time for Senate leaders to say ‘enough’ to nominees who would undermine Americans’ rights and liberties. The ‘Thurmond Rule,’ a longstanding Senate practice, dictates that only non-controversial judicial nominees should be processed by the Senate in the months preceding a presidential election. The nominee confirmed today, Catharina Haynes, failed to meet that standard.

“We don’t expect better from President Bush, but we do expect Senate leaders to resist pressure tactics and tell the president, ‘enough is enough.’”

1) It was released about an hour BEFORE Haynes' confirmation. I guess that means that it was common knowledge in Washington that Haynes would be confirmed - so much for all the liberal special-interest groups' sturm und drang about her being "controversial".

2) The statement tries to mislead its readers about when the Thurmond Rule applies. It applies only to "controversial" nominations still pending AFTER the annual August recess. Even if Haynes' nomination was considered "controversial", and it wasn't as evidenced by it being done by unanimous consent, when was April ever considered to be AFTER August?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080410/D8VV52QG0.html

"Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.

The survey showed the extended Democratic primary campaign creating divisions among supporters of Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and suggests a tight race for the presidency in November no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/04/senate-confirms.html

"The Senate today confirmed Catharina Haynes, a Baker Botts partner in Dallas, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. She is the first federal appeals court nominee to be approved by the full Senate this year and the seventh in the 110th Congress.

In addition, the Senate also confirmed the following nominees for judgeships: Brian Miller in the Eastern District of Arkansas, James Hall in the Southern District of Georgia, John Mendez in the Eastern District of California, and Stanley Anderson in the Western District of Tennessee.

Last year, the Senate confirmed six federal circuit nominees and the pace is expected to slow this year ahead of the November presidential election. GOP Senators have threatened to block legislation if the Democrat-controlled Senate does not speed up the pace of judicial nominations.

Conservative groups have complained that President George W. Bush's presidency stands to expire with fewer judges on the bench than the other two-term presidents, Presidents Reagan and Clinton."

Starting in 2009, a Dem president could name five new judges on the Fifth Circuit in order to replace:

1) Carolyn Dineen King - born in 1938 - appointed by Carter
2) E. Grady Jolly - born in 1937 – appointed by Reagan
3) W. Eugene Davis - born in 1936 - appointd by Reagan
4) Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. - born in 1934 - appointed by Bush I
5) James L. Dennis - born in 1936 - appointed by Clinton

I think some judges stay on way too long. Some of these judges should've retired years ago, especially Wiener. If Widener had taken senior status in 2002, some of the problems we are having now with the Fourth Circuit wouldn't exist.

I don't know about the judges you've cited in the 5th Circuit, but your statement as to Judge Widener is clearly incorrect. Judge Widener indicated in 2001 that he would take senior status as soon as his replacement was confirmed. The President failed to nominate anyone to replace Judge Widener until 2006 (i.e. William Haynes).

After waiting for six years for the Senate to confirm his replacement, Judge Widener took senior status anyway in 2007. Despite a terminal diagnoses of cancer, Judge Widener continued to serve honorably on a severely understaffed Fourth Circuit till the end. Our current Fourth Circuit problem is in no way his fault.

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress.NewsReleas...

“Catharina Haynes will make an outstanding addition to the federal appellate bench. Her legal experience and dedication to justice make her exceptionally well-qualified to serve in this position.

“Judge Haynes’ record demonstrates the legal acumen, and commitment to justice and public service required for the appellate court. The federal bench needs more men and women of her caliber.”

http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2008/04/haynes-takes-th...

"Baker Botts spokesman Mike Cinelli, speaking on Haynes’ behalf, says, 'She’s honored by the confirmation.'"

Widener foolishly refused to take senior status for years. He specifically made his retirement contingent upon the confirmation of his successor. Regardless of what the White House was doing, this was a strategic mistake on Widener's part. He could have spent the last few years of his life with a reduced work load AND placed a huge deal of pressure on the Dems to replace whomever Bush nominated to quickly replace him. Instead, he literally worked himself to death for no good reason.

"He could have spent the last few years of his life with a reduced work load AND placed a huge deal of pressure on the Dems to CONFIRM whomever Bush nominated IN ORDER to quickly replace him."

Sandra Day O'Connor missed out on the last few months of her husband's lucidity because she stubbornly clung onto her seat on the Supreme Court until her successor was confirmed.

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/musical_chairs_jim_ho_replaces.php

On new trend in choosing Texas solicitor generals:

"A quiet trickle of a rumor last week was that James C. Ho, currently of counsel with Gibson Dunn and a former law clerk to Justice Thomas at SCOTUS, has been tapped to serve as the next Solicitor General of Texas. If this is true, Texas will be in very capable hands as Jim Ho is certainly one of the best appellate lawyers in the state (and the country for that matter), and has demonstrated great and valuable political savvy on the national stage as well.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that, now, three of the four solicitors general have clerked for SCOTUS (Greg Coleman–Justice Thomas; Ted Cruz–the late Chief Rehnquist; and Jim Ho–Justice Thomas). A SCOTUS clerkship now appears to be a prerequisite to the post, which makes eminent sense because one of the OSG’s main functions is to represent the State before SCOTUS–a job we have noted current General Cruz has done extremely well."

On the future of Cruz:

"As for outgoing Texas SG Ted Cruz, it's not clear where he'll land. Given his stellar talents as an advocate, reflected in his huge recent win in the Medellin case, any firm would be lucky to have him. But we hear that private practice may just be a way station for him, on the way to what one source describes as 'bigger and better -- and more political -- things...'"

To be fair to Sandy, her husband did decline far more rapidly than expected. And a SCOTUS seat is far more, er, precious, than a COA seat. ;)

W/out rehashing the history again, what's happened to SDO compared to WHR certainly ensures that none of the others will ever retire (barring extraordinary personal circumstances) until they're at death's door, esp. Nino & Tony.

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

tbaugh

Has anyone heard any rumors of a plan to break the 6th circuit logjam (e.g. by giving a seat to Helene White?).

It was stated above that the "Thurmond Rule" starts after the August recess.

But if Reid has pro forma sessions every day, then there really isn't an August recess, right? The whole idea is NOT having a recess so Bush can't do any recess appointments.

Therefore the Thurmond Rule can't ever kick in, right?

With all I have read on this site and elsewhere, it appears as if Senator Hatch made numerous points on the floor of the Senate that were not only uncontested, but devastatingly accurate. It was clear that Senator Hatch is the real leader of the Republicans on the important matter of the federal judiciary, not Specter or McConnell. I wish he could become the Republican leader of the SJC once again, but he may be barred by Senate rules.

Can anyone tell me if Hatch can serve as Repub. leader of the SJC in 2009? Who would you suggest otherwise? Has Arlen become a lame duck leader of the SJC this year?

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002701274

"Senate Republicans are threatening to directly retaliate against Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., if he does not send more appellate court nominations to the full Senate.

GOP lawmakers are fuming about the panel’s pace in dealing with those nominees over the course of the 110th Congress. They blame Leahy, who has held a committee vote on just one nominee this year.

Republicans said Thursday that they might block one of Leahy’s priorities, a bill (S 1145) that would overhaul federal patent law, if he does not move quickly to process several more appellate court nominations."

"Several of the pending nominees are from states represented by Democratic senators who don’t necessarily back the choices; they are thus unlikely to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee.

That could lead to more bickering, and perhaps a blockade against more of Leahy’s legislative wish list, including an identity theft bill (S 495) and draft legislation to establish a federal shield law for journalists."

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008d.html

"Republicans Thursday suggested the Senate was moving too slowly in the consideration of judicial nominations, many of which do not currently have the necessary support of their home-state senators. However, with today’s circuit court confirmation, the Senate has surpassed the total number of circuit judges confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate in the 1996 session. In that same election year, the Senate failed to vote on a single judicial nomination before July 10.

“We are three months ahead of the schedule followed by Republican leadership during that presidential election year,” said Leahy of consideration of judicial nominations in 1996. “I would rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees the Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about controversial nominees selected to score political points.”

Despite allegations from the Republican leadership and members of the Judiciary Committee that the nominations have been stymied under Leahy’s chairmanship, the Committee has held five hearings this year for 15 nominees. During the past year, the Committee has reported 10 nominations for high-ranking positions in the Department of Justice, including the Department’s top three positions – Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzgxNmMyZWRiZDBlOTg3YWVhMDRjOWJm...

"The Senate confirmed Catharina Haynes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit yesterday, along with several district court nominees. Haynes is the first appellate nominee confirmed by the Senate in 2008, and only the seventh during the 110th Congress. This marks a completely unprecedented slowdown in judicial confirmations.

Tempers have already flared over this issue, and it's likely to get worse unless Senate Democrats ease up on their obstruction. CQ reports Senate Republicans may block important legislation, such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's patent reform bill, until more judicial nominations move."

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2008/04/seven-gop-senators-took-...

Curt gives a pretty good summary of the floor statements of the Republican members of the SJC in this article.

Courtesy of the Committee for Justice, here is a blog entry from the Huffington Post about who McCain might pick for the Supreme Court:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-heffner/a-mccain-court-likely-le...

"McGinnis dismisses the idea that McCain's views on immigration or the environment are relevant to his choices because the Court will respect any compromises McCain strikes with Congress on those issues, many of which he believes the judiciary will not closely follow. Plus, he notes that middle-ground conservative justices are not as prevalent as they once were. "The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party."

Asked if he could name any current lawyers or justices who fit this profile, Columbia law Professor Michael Dorf named Judge John T. Noonan of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in California. Moving away from judges, Dorf mentioned Gov Mike Huckabee as another example of a social conservative whose views on fiscal and tax policy are more centrist than purely conservative. But Dorf concedes, "Most [nominees'] judicial philosophies come in packages rather than a la carte." In other words, it would be difficult for a President McCain (or Obama and Clinton, for that matter) to find a potential nominee who varies from conservative to liberal on issue to issue."

What the heck? John T. Noonan was born in 1926 and took senior status in 1998:

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1776

I am not sure what point Dorf is trying to make here mentioning such a strategically impossible choice. Dorf, though, likely is just trying to stir the pot. Remember, it was Dorf, a noted liberal, who was the law clerk who convinced Anthony Kennedy to side with O'Connor and Souter in Casey.

I think Huckabee would be a horrible choice as well. He has a bizarre combination of contradictory political stands that would make him totally unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee in my book. No politicians for me, thank you!

Lazarus, a liberal and friend of John Roberts, opines here on whom he thinks McCain would pick:

http://www.scoop08.com/stakes-much-higher-dems%2C-says-lazarus

"I do expect that [McCain] will stick to a stricter constructionist model. If, however, he is elected president and the Democrats increase their Senate majority, to as high as 60, that would certainly limit the president's ability secure confirmation and might well effectively force the White House to pick a more moderate nominee. In either event, I would expect that Sen. McCain's short list would include prominent women, including Maureen Mahoney, one of the leading SCT advocates and [a] former clerk to Justice Rehnquist; also Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit, and perhaps Debra Livingston, a recent Bush appointee to the D.C. Circuit. Current SG Paul Clement might well be on a short list, and former Fourth Circuit Judge Mike Luttig, a finalist when both Roberts and Alito were nominated, might well make a return visit to the Final Four.

Klarman of the University of Virginia has this to say about McCain's picks:

http://www.scoop08.com/klarman%3A-obama%2C-clinton-justices-would-have-h...

"I have no idea whom McCain would be likely to appoint. He speaks the rhetoric of so-called "strict constructionists." He was part of the Gang of 14 that compromised over filibusters of judicial nominees. His views on campaign finance reform would suggest he isn't likely to want to appoint people like Scalia and Thomas who think all of it is unconstitutional. And his views on many other issues—e.g., climate change, torture, the gay marriage amendment—are sufficiently different from his party's right-wing base that I think he'd have some doubts about appointing hard-line conservatives. But I suppose this depends entirely on how dependent he feels he is on the right-wing base for his election, assuming he wins. I assume there are still some moderate Republican judges out there, of the John Paul Stevens, Arlin Adams, Harry Blackman-type. But they are probably harder to find today than they were 20-30 years ago, given the Bush administration's commitment to appointing Federalist Society hardliners."

Debra Ann Livingston was nominated to the Second Circuit on 6/28/06, but not confirmed until 5/9/2007.

Catharina Haynes was nominated to the Fifth Circuit on 7/17/07, but not confirmed until 4/10/2008.

Both of them were noncontroversial nominees who should've been confirmed the year they were nominated, but both were forced to wait until the next year in order to be confirmed. Why? The Dems already knew that they would confirm each one, but needed some confirmation numbers to pad their totals for the next year. That is because they also knew they would NOT confirm most of the other pending nominees at the time.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040110...

"Dallas County may be turning Democratic, but it's about to gain two prominent Republican residents: The Bushes are moving back to town.

First lady Laura Bush confirmed Thursday that she and her husband will return to the area when they leave the White House in January.

"I guess I can announce it in front of the press," Mrs. Bush said at a National Park Foundation event at Williams Preparatory School in Dallas. "President Bush and I will be moving back to Dallas, which is where we lived" before Mr. Bush was elected governor in 1994, she said."

Maybe they can invite new Fifth Circuit judge Catharina Haynes, whose chambers will be in Dallas, over for some tea next year. :)

Klarman has quite a sense of humor, referring to Stevens and Blackmun as moderate Republicans!! Hah hah hah!!! Hilarious.

I think Lazarus is probably not far off in his assessment, though there are of course other prominent women we have often discussed here. BTW, Livingston was appointed to the 2d Circuit, not the DC Circuit.

Sen. Leahy characterizes circuit court nominees who lack the backing of both home-state senators as "controversial" and uses that label as an excuse for not processing them. Why not expose the insincerity of that claim by simply nominating candidates from states with 2 Republican senators for the circuit vacancies? I know there is an unwritten rule that a nominee will come from the same state as the judge being replaced, and this proposal would upset that distribution. But we're seeing that while Bush and the Republicans play by the unwritten "rules," the Democrats are not. Why not shake things up a bit?

While we know that Sen. Leahy will not process such candidates anyway, outflanking the Democrats' blue-slip strategy by picking from states with 2 Republicans would at least take away Sen. Leahy's talking point and would force him to explain why the President must choose a nominee from a particular state based on a rule not passed by Congress nor found in the Constitution.

Article I Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

This phrase is used to subvert everything else in the Constitution it seems.

thanks for all the information on guesses re McCain's judicial picks. May he have the opportunity.

I agree with the point (regretfully) that he might have problems with a Dem. Senate flexing its muscles. I also agree with the prof. who wrote "I just don't know...."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/DN-h...

"Judge Haynes is probably one of the last appellate judges President Bush will nominate, said law professor Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond in Virginia, who tracks congressional fights over the judiciary. She was nominated in July; other nominees are in limbo."

This statement by Tobias seems a little ambiguous to me. Does he really mean that Haynes will be one of the last judges Bush nominates? That seems odd. SIX judicial nominees have already been named after her, and Bush still has three more slots he can fill - Trotter's California seat, Luttig's Virginia seat, and Straub's New York seat. That doesn't even include the soon-to-be dissolved 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit.

Tobias probably means Haynes , "is probably one of the last appellate judges Bush CAN GET CONFIRMED."

BTW, I don't see why every newspaper reporter who needs a quote runs to Tobias as a source on judicial nominations and confirmations. He may have been tracking them for years, but sometimes his opinions seem to me to be poorly thought out and badly expressed. In addition, he appears to have a liberal bias that makes the accuracy of some of his "facts" appear dubious.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/11/pat-leahy-is-losing-his-mind/

"Some politicians get to a certain age and you can’t help but notice that the edge has worn off from them. They say things that seem embarrassing after being so widely respected for so many years. And they take actions that are contrary to the position of political leadership that they have been entrusted with. And sadly, all of these things have become all too true about a particular long serving member of the U.S. Senate. And I am sure you are aware of who I am referring to. Yes, it is none other than Pat Leahy."

Lazarus also referred to Souter as a moderate Republican in the Scoop links.

Folks, I hate to say it, but I'll predict here that if Stevens croaks during McCain's first term, "Hullo, Justice Mahoney!".

Hardly ideal, to put it mildly, but a vast improvement nonetheless. Maybe he could slip JRB or Estrada in during his honeymoon phase. Shame Ted Cruz is neither female nor quite ready (by MSM standards) yet. Gonna suck to be a white male for awhile, but that's the worl in which we live.

I blame Poppy Bush. WHYWHYWHY did he nominate Souter instead of Edith Jones? What kind of bizarre love triangle existed btwn Souter, Rudman & Sununu? Beyond mind-boggling every time you think about it. Like picking Sam Bowie's BROTHER over Michael Jordan.

Souter, brilliant academic record aside--Oh, never mind.

(grumble, grumble, Friday night, whereza bar...)

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

Personally, I think with a Dem-controlled Senate, McCain will choose from the conservative "lite" list we have already discussed on this website a million and one times - Edward Prado, Connie Callahan and Maureen Mahoney. Jones, Garza, Luttig, JRB, Estrada and possibly even Sykes will be considered too ultra-radioactive if the Dems increase their Senate numbers this fall.

I also think some new, lesser known female names will join the main three: Sandra Ikuta, Debra Ann Livingston, Jennifer Elrod and possibly Catharina Haynes. Because these new COA judges have scant records at this point, it will be easier to get them confirmed to the Supreme Court.

The only really conservative nominee I see McCain as nominating is Karen Williams, the protegee of his close friend Lindsay Graham. I still, however, think a Williams confirmation might be impossible in a liberally oriented Senate.

The only non-Hispanic white male I see having a chance is Alex Kozinski, a bad choice in terms of conservative predictability in my humble opinion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-judges12apr12,0,403...

"Like the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys, petty warfare between Republicans and Democrats over nominations to the federal courts has been going on so long that no one is sure when it started. With a Republican-controlled Senate stalling some of President Clinton's nominations? With earlier obstruction of Republican appointees by a Democratic-controlled Senate, including the failure in 1992 to confirm the first President Bush's nomination of future Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to a federal appeals court? Maybe the bad blood began boiling in 1987 when a Democratic Senate defeated President Reagan's nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court, or in 1968 when Republicans (with help from some Southern Democrats) ran out the clock on President Johnson's administration rather than confirm Justice Abe Fortas' nomination as chief justice.

Whatever its origins, serial stalling of judicial nominations is standard in the Senate, especially in the last year of a presidential term. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, went to the floor to complain that in 2008 "we have a situation where there has not been one confirmation of a federal judge this year." He contrasted that situation with the last two years of Clinton's second term, when "15 circuit judges were confirmed compared to six in the past two years, so far, of the Bush administration, [and] 57 district judges were confirmed compared to only 34."

Democrats crunch the confirmation numbers differently, using different time frames.Thus, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) noted that since Democrats regained control of the chamber in 2007, the Senate has confirmed 40 judges, "more than were confirmed in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000, when a Republican-led Senate was considering President Clinton's nominations."

In truth, as Specter admitted, "the blame rests on both parties" -- and, in recent years, on the second President Bush, who has nominated (and renominated) some needlessly divisive candidates. But that doesn't completely explain the delays. Former Assistant Atty. Gen. Peter D. Keisler, for instance, has been rated well-qualified by the American Bar Assn. Keisler was first nominated in 2006 to replace Roberts on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He deserves a vote.

In recent days, the logjam has started to break. On Thursday, the Senate approved Catharina Haynes, a former Texas state court judge, for a seat on the New Orleans-based U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, along with four district court nominees. That still leaves 10 pending nominations to appeals courts and 18 to district courts that should not be put on hold in hopes that a Democrat will be elected president in November. The feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys eventually ended. In the interests of justice, so should this one."

BillM:

"What kind of bizarre love triangle existed btwn Souter, Rudman & Sununu?"

Awesome! That's hilarious. And possible.

I think one white male is a possibility as the next SCOTUS nominee because of his undeniable excellence: Michael McConnell. I think it would be hard for the Dems to deny him, given his widespread support even from many liberals.

http://www.sltrib.com/contents/ci_8900469

"One might think that either Leahy or Hatch is wrong when they argue about the last time the Senate was this sluggish in approving judicial nominees. Hatch says 1848. Leahy says 1996. They both can't be right, right?

Well, here's how it breaks down:

In 1996, two judicial nominees were approved Jan. 2, but technically those judges got the OK in the first session of Congress because that session wasn't gaveled to a close until Jan. 3. So Leahy's case that Congress didn't approve a judicial nominee until July in the 1996 session is right. So is Hatch when he says there were two confirmations only days into the year.

See, everyone is right about the other party being wrong.

"Both parties are guilty of this practice of arriving at a conclusion, regardless of the facts," says Dan Gerstein, a former senior aide to independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut who spent a decade in the Capitol Hill spin machine.

It's all about conforming your facts to advance your political agenda, Gerstein says. "The sad part is rarely do they stop and engage in debate. Both sides have their talking points, and the goal is not to kind of persuade each other, but to put on a show."

And like some shows, the facts and figures have been changed to protect the innocent."

http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/04/10/New...

"'Obama has said 'we need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.' Hillary Clinton's approach will be the same.'"

"If Democrats do take the presidency in the upcoming election, Whelan said that Republicans will be faced with three options.

'We can (1) roll over and play dead, (2) fight to the death and filibuster, or (3) make the case why the person is a good or bad nominee, and then vote up or down and move on.' Whelan said. 'I would advocate for choice three.'

While Whelan said he would not support a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, he said that Republicans will no longer be able to simply let the nominations slide by without incident due to the availability of information on modern candidates.

'In the 1970s, Justice Ginsburg had advocated for coed prisons, the right to prostitution, and abolishing Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day to create a Parents' Day,' Whelan said. 'She was not viewed as controversial because no one got the information out there. Republicans won't be able to roll over and play dead when it comes to judicial nominations anymore. The internet has made it too difficult. If the Republicans do nothing, they will face some political costs now.'"

As of 2016.

That way, no one can say who is going to be in charge of what by then.

Sorry to post consecutively on the board. I had a question though about Debra Livingston.

Is she considered a reliable conservative?

Is she someone that the GOP would be happy with as a SCOTUS nominee.

She's 49 now so she would obviously be good from an age point of view in the next few years.

I do think that I would go with JRB is I were Bush and got a shot at a nominee.

I'd love to see the reaction from Democratic Senators attacking an African-American woman during an election year.

"'Obama has said 'we need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.' Hillary Clinton's approach will be the same.'"

Good point. JRB fits the bill, though somehow I don't think Obama agrees....