ConfirmThem

If in fact this opinion from Stevens indicates his imminent retirement - of course, one would expect him to wait until Bush had no time to name a successor - let us pray for a McCain victory in November.

If you actually believe that old red herring about Stevens still regarding himself as a Republican, then maybe Stevens would retire now because in his mind it would give his misquided party one last chance to redeem itself by getting a moderate confirmed to succeed him.

This sums it all up:

I have relied on my own experience

Unbelievable.

don't you think your scenario is highly unlikely?

On the other hand, what could be better for the GOP--Senate AND McCain to show the Dims for what they are: esp. if Bush were to nominate a strong originalist.

If Bush had a chance to nominate a USSC nominee this summer, the ONLY choice -- for both practical and political reasons -- is to nominate Miguel Estrada. And he should nominate Estrada immediately given the chance.

Please let the Democrats block the first Hispanic named to the High Court -- especially in a year of a Presidential Election in which they need to carry Hispanics by a very wide margin to win the Presidency -- and by the way -- in the same year there are 2 open Senate Seats (CO and NM) in states with large Hispanic communities.

This would be a Godsend.

At best, we would have Estrada confirmed as the Stevens' replacement.

At worst, we win the Presidency, recapture the CO and NM Senate seats, and possibly garner some good will with the largest growing segment of American society.

I hope no other SCOTUS Justice pulls the stunt that O'Connor did, and announce retirement contingent on a successor being confirmed.

Slightly different subject, that of nominee White to the Sixth Circuit. Very tongue in cheek, but accurate per the Constitution, the president is under no obligation to appoint a nominee who has obtained the advice and consent of the Senate.

Stevens has already hired four clerks for th 08 Term. If Stevens retires at the end of this term, it sounds to me as if he has every intention of staying on until the confirmation of his successor.

Cboldt ate his Clever Flakes for breakfast this morning.

Agreed that it must be Estrada (contingent on HIS consent) if another opening magically occurs. Stevens will be carried out, tho, just like Douglas.

If McCain has two licks of sense he'll emblazon that quote from Stevens on every item of his campaign.

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

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3...

"As I understand, an agreement reached yesterday between Senator REID and Senator MCCONNELL will allow three circuit court judges to be moved forward by the May 23 recess. I
appreciate that progress. I live in the State of South Carolina, which is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. We have a judicial emergency on hand there. A third of the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals is vacant. We have two nominees, one from South Carolina and one from North Carolina, who have been awaiting hearings and confirmation for well over 200 days now.

I urge my colleagues to allow these fine candidates for the judiciary to move forward and the Senate get on about its business when it comes to judges."

"I look forward to working with my colleagues to break this logjam. Senator DURBIN and Senator KENNEDY were kind enough to meet with Steve Matthews, the nominee from South Carolina, and I appreciate them doing so."

"Peter Keisler, the circuit nominee for the D.C. Circuit here in Washington, was given a hearing in August 2006, but he has still not been voted on, called up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. He is a fabulous nominee. One of the reasons he is being objected to is the same reason they objected to Miguel Estrada, the same reason they objected to a lot of other nominees—he is so capable, he would be on the short list for the Supreme Court of the United States. If they can kill them off at this level, they will not be considered sometime in the future. That is just a fact. I have been here. I know how this works. There is no reason Peter Keisler ought not to be confirmed. He had a hearing in August 2006, and he still has not been brought up for a vote in the committee."

"I am pleased to note that some progress has been made, as announced by the majority leader after consultation with Senator MCCONNELL, the Republican leader. There is an arrangement to have three circuit judges confirmed before Memorial Day. That is a step in the right direction, providing that the right judges are confirmed. It has been announced similarly that finally, at long last, after protracted disputes, there is an agreement between the White House and the Michigan Senators on the nomination of two circuit judges for the Sixth Circuit. It is my hope that the confirmations will be directed to three of the nominees who have been ready for hearings or committee votes and have been waiting the longest time.

Peter Keisler, nominee for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, has been waiting for more than
650 days. There has been some talk about the D.C. Circuit not needing an additional judge. That is simply not factually correct. Mr. Keisler has been lauded by newspaper editorials—The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times—and is preeminently well qualified to be confirmed to that position.

Judge Robert Conrad, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in North Carolina, has been waiting for over 270 days, and he is nominated to fill a judicial emergency. There is no blue-slip problem with Judge Conrad; the Senators from North Carolina are both urging his confirmation. Similarly, with the nomination of Steve Matthews of the Fourth Circuit, he has been waiting for more than 220 days. And, again, both the blue slips have been returned. So, it is my hope we will move quickly to confirm Mr.Keisler, Judge Conrad, and Mr. Matthews. They are the ones who have been ready for committee action the longest and are most pressing."

Sessions:

"I would say there has been talk about invoking the so-called Thurmond Rule. The Thurmond Rule could sort of be, if you want it to be, an excuse for slowwalking nominees and not approving the nominees who ought to be approved just because there is a Presidential election on the horizon. Majority Leader HARRY REID mentioned last night that the so-called rule would be invoked in June. Senator LEAHY has mentioned before that he would invoke it in the second half of this year. Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election. I remind my colleagues that our now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman LEAHY, when he assumed control over the committee, stated he would institute the Thurmond Rule starting the spring of this year. He said:

"The Thurmond rule, in memory of Senator Strom Thurmond—he put this in when the Republicans were in the minority—which said in a Presidential election year, after spring, no judges would go through except by the consent of both Republican and Democratic leaders. I want to be bipartisan. We will institute the Thurmond rule."

Those were his remarks at Georgetown University Law School in December 2006.

In May 2007, he reiterated that the Thurmond Rule would kick in next April. Senator LEAHY said:

"Obviously the Thurmond rule kicks in. But let’s be very clear about it. The Thurmond Rule as interpreted is a false myth."

Senator LEAHY, before the statements he made in 2006 and 2007 during the Bush Presidency, has admitted as much. In fact, as Senator LEAHY said in 2000, when the situation was somewhat different—during President Clinton’s final year in office, like this is President Bush’s last year:

"There is a myth that judges are not traditionally confirmed in Presidential election years. That is not true. Recall that 64 judges were confirmed in 1980; 44 in 1984; 42 in 1988, when a Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed the Reagan nominees and, as I have noted, 66 in 1992, when a Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed 66 Bush nominees."

Those are not my words. Those are Senator LEAHY’s words."

Hatch:

"The majority leader last night suggested that there is some kind of rule that the Senate does not confirm judicial nominees after June. He actually referred to this as the Thurmond doctrine. I want to say to my colleagues that there is no such thing as a Thurmond doctrine, a Thurmond rule, or even a Thurmond guideline for judicial confirmations in a Presidential election year."

The Republicans who spoke on Wednesday morning all addressed the topic of who should get confirmations in May: Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. Will the Republicans stand firm if the Democrats offer Kethledge, White and Agee?

From the Reality Department: How many CCA judges were confirmed in the most recent presidential election year (2004)? Answer: FIVE (Van Antwerpen, Gruender, Benton, Hall and Sykes).

Does anyone here really believe that Reid was a naive innocent in all this, essentially duped by the evil Leahy? Obviously they plotted this out beforehand and planned this from the start. Only Senate Republicans could have been credulous enough to fall for this even for a few hours.

That said, the Michigan deal in itself is not so bad, but only as long as Pratter gets confirmed in June. Then we'd have what we very probably would have gotten anyway: Agee and Pratter, plus Kethledge. And confirming White is worthwhile to get Kethledge (and Murphy as a DJ) and to finally fill those long-longstanding 6th Circuit vacancies and resolve the 10 year Michigan Judge Wars in a somewhat fair manner. Better than keeping them open and chancing Hussein Obama judges.

Also, Bush will have appointed 7 out of 16 6th Circuit judges (not counting White) and Republicans will have a 9-7 majority on the 6th. Overall, a good deal. But ONLY if Pratter is confirmed. One would think that Specter would see to that, unless Dems decide to stiff and humiliate him. Doesn't seem likely.

And starting NOW, Republicans must go all-out to get Keisler confirmed this summer. This should be the Senate GOP's #1 priority. Probably one reason for Dems offering the Michigan deal was to reduce GOP pressure for Kiesler. GOP Senators and the Administration must not fall for this ploy.

"I want to say to my colleagues that there is no such thing as a Thurmond doctrine, a Thurmond rule, or even a Thurmond guideline for judicial confirmations in a Presidential election year."

Sheer bloody poetry there from my homeboy. Note how he's far too modest to bring up that he's never been thanked let alone reciprocated for helping Breyer thru AFTER the 1980 election, but Specter, et al, oughta start.

Outsider, as I said in the other thread, absolutely should White-Kethledge-Murphy be a package deal and only a package deal, a la WHR-Powell in '72.

Hell, that, this Keisler-Conrad-Matthews thing, Agee(Webb) and Pratter-Short(Specter?) isn't horrible for an election year that looks this bad, tho I'll believe any of it when I see it.

Pathetic how we all were talking about these deals nearly three years ago tho.

On a different note, I'm adding a "Judges cannot base leaving contingent on a successor's confirmation" clause to my "Judges shall be nominated/debated/voted on in the following manner: " Amendment to the Constitution.

;\

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

The 12th seat of the DC Circuit is not needed and all agreed to transfer it to the Ninth Circuit. As I understand it, a deal was struck this Congress whereby the 12th seat was to be transferred to the Ninth in exchange for confirming Keisler for the 11th seat on the DC Circuit. The legislation was passed and signed. The first part of the deal is done. But what happened to the second part of the deal which involved Keisler? The Dems are currently diverting the attention elsewhere--to the Michigan Swap-O-Rama on the Sixth Circuit.

I agree with Outsider and Bobo that Keisler is now the No. 1 priority. If he is not confirmed, then the Republicans will have been double crossed by the Dems. They will get an important seat to fill on the Ninth Circuit and the DC Circuit Courts in 2009 should McCain lose the election. This is their primary unstated goal.

What is unusual about the recent activity that occurred this week is the lack of specific names to be confirmed by the end of June. We have all been guessing. If they are smart, the Repbulicans will insist that the three to be confirmed prior to the end of June are Keisler, Conrad and Mathews, in that order, because there are no blue slips holding up their nominations. This is a reasoned and principled approach which is consistent with prior Senate practice.

Once the "Leahy Rule" is implemented in July, and we should all use that phrase, then only nominees who have the consent of both the D and R leaders will be confirmed. At that point, Agee, Kethledge and White, in that order, can be confirmed this fall as they meet the necessary "Leahy Rule" criteria. Thus, we can get 6 more COA judges approved this year for a total of 13 over a two year period.

In order to achieve this goal, the Republicans on the SJC must insist on this sequential order. Otherwise, the Republicans must threaten and refuse to show up at any SJC meeting for the rest of this year. McConnell must use all the available procedural tools at his disposal to stop the progress of any and all legislation in Congress. Let's make it an election issue as it strongly reasonates with the voters. Finally, the Republicans must pledge in writing that they will fail to show up for SJC meetings, and thereby deny a quorum, for all future COA nominees from 2009 - 2012 or longer unless and until the Senate confirms Keisler, Conrad, Mathews, Agee and Kethledge. If Senator Levin wants to play games for 7 years, I think the Republicans can play the same game too. The Senate should threaten to hold up Helene White's nomination in perpetuity until the five COA nominees listed above are confirmed.

In general, I agree with your plan. I just don't know if McConnell and the Senate Republicans have either the heart or actual power to carry it through.

To begin with, the Republicans must be willing to put aside prized pieces of legislation that Reid may put before them in order to divert their attention away from judges. What if Reid is willing to make some concessions on NSA wiretapping if McConnell drops the topic of judges? Would McConnell say, "no, no legislative negotiations until Keisler, Conrad and Matthews are confirmed?" I doubt it.

In addition, would Specter willingly give up the confirmations of Pratter and Short in order to get Keisler, Conrad and Matthews confirmed? Is he that self-sacrificing? Again, I doubt it.

To make matters worse, we are now working with a compressed timeline. As the quotes I listed previously from Sessions and Hatch show, Reid has already told the Republicans that the Thurmond Rule will begin in June, and NOT July. That means that if Keisler, Conrad and Matthews aren't confirmed by May 23rd, when the Senate breaks for Memorial Day, they will never be confirmed.

If it becomes a certainty by the middle of May that Keisler, Conrad and Matthews will not be confirmed, why not get Kethledge, Pratter, Agee and White confirmed in their place? If we force the Dems to wait until AFTER June 1st to confirm Kethledge, Pratter and Agee, who knows? Maybe the Dems will find some new way to spin these nominees and they too will become "controversial," and therefore ineligible under the "Leahy Rule" to be confirmed. What then will an extra delay into June or July have accomplished, besides losing four easy confirmations?

I think they have the heart and the actual power to do so. With the return of his cancer, Specter is for all practical purposes a lame duck Republican leader on the SJC. Hatch has grabbed the reigns and has put action on the SJC into high gear. He was my Senate hero for the last two weeks in a row.

If not now, when? If we don't get Keisler, Conrad and Matthews confirmed in the next 2 and 1/2 months, we will never get them.

What about the Democratic double cross with the Ninth and DC Circuits? Where's the Democratic follow up with Keisler? Where's the outrage? The Repubs agreed to send the 12th DC seat to the Ninth and did so. Where's the second half of the bargain? I say shut Congress down now and call attention to "Free the Three."

since he was covered by the earlier deal.

Neither should White, since she's on another separate deal.

If what was said is true, then we have just five (5) weeks to get three COA nominees confirmed by May 23. Agee and White were just nominated so they are unlikely to have ABA ratings by then unless expedited.

The only nominees that can't be held up by the home state Senators are Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. Pratter may be held up the new Democratic Senator from PA. and Specter can do nothing about it. So I say that it is time to play hardball now up until May 23.

Is there any way to find out about the blue slips on COA nominees?

Kethledge also has an ABA rating, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ABA doesn't rush the rating of Agee in order to accomodate their Democratic allies in the Senate. That means the Dems might offer up Kethledge, Pratter, and Agee instead of Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. I'm sure Casey might acquiesce to Pratter if it came down to a choice between her and one of the more "controversial" nominees - Keisler, Conrad or Matthews.