ConfirmThem

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/04/if-you-think-bush-cant-do-an...

"A few days ago, I was unhappy with something I read in the Inside the Beltway publication, Roll Call, Reid, McConnell Strike Deal to Move Judicial Nominees. Basically it showed Reid caving in the Mitch McConnell's threats to filibuster the highway funding bill unless the Democrats confirmed some more radical right extremists nominated for lifetime judicial positions by Bush. I contacted the Majority Leader's office and they assured me that they plan to confirm non-controversial judges but not ideological extremists."

Of course, it is possible that Leahy's staffers are lying to this liberal partisan in order to keep the heat off until they confirm Keisler. Or maybe not. Are McConnell, Specter and the other Republican senators on the SJC really dumb enough to let the Dems only confirm Kethledge, Pratter, Agee and White?

Call me naive, but I can't imagine the Dems would want to establish the precedent of denying committee and floor votes to someone like Keisler. He is the prototype of an outstanding nominee - in this instance, a conservative. Do the Dems really want to establish that he's outside of the mainstream? That would mean the next time they had a Dem president and he nominated a Merrick Garland type to a COA (similar to Keisler, though of course Keisler is still a better nominee), it would be reasonable to obstruct his nomination. That's a dangerous road to go down for the Dems. Thus, I think ultimately they will confirm Keisler.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2VhYmZmMzVjOTVlY2I5ZTIzZWJmYjY3...

"John McCain wrote Thursday to Senator Arlen Specter, fully supporting Specter's effort to break what McCain calls "partisan gridlock" on judges. Precisely at issue are the stalled nominations of Peter Keisler, Robert Conrad, and Steve Mathews to the federal bench (in Conrad's case, elevation from a district to an appellate seat). But the Democrats' chokehold on these three is symptomatic of their larger, and more destructive, and unprecedented scheme to tank all pending nominations. McCain wrote to Specter that this is "unacceptable...and only serves to harm all Americans who seek justice in our courts only to find our
courts understaffed." In what will surely become a recurring campaign theme, McCain used Democrats' rhetoric against them. The two-year delay on Keisler is "most surprising," McCain wrote, "considering the American Bar Association unanimously rated him as 'well qualified' and Chairman Leahy has previously referred to the ABA's approval as 'the gold standard by which judicial candidiates are judged.'"

Perhaps the Democrats mean to revivie the rhtoric of their standard bearer a century ago. Does anyone remember William Jennings Bryan — the presidential three-time loser — and his talk of crucifixion on a "cross of gold"?"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5heA4TUz2U_feKgm6Yt1dIcAu1cJAD9035SFO0

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.

talk about the recurrence on the radio a few days ago.

I certainly wish him well.

Several weeks ago the SJC had a committee hearing on two VA and two MO district nominees: Mark Davis, David Novak, Stephen Limbaugh, and David Kays. Now all but Novak are scheduled for the next business meeting? Anybody know why Novak is missing?

Here's the problem folks. I have learned that no matter how much a plan makes sense, no matter how much the GOP gets stabbed in the back, no matter how much sense something does or doesn't make, and no mattter how much principle is involved, the republicans will NEVER street fight in committee or on the floor for what is right or fair. The dems own us in committee and the general senate "goings on" regarding judicial appointments and confirmations. No matter how much we desire things to change, the best we can hope for is scraps here and there. My God people, even with a GOP president and a GOP senate we couldn't keep things moving!

We have had to rely on several stealth candidates (and you NEVER see the dems do it). Sure, we got two terrific SCOTUS guys recently. But the lower courts are a joke. And if there ever comes a justice to tip the scales towards originalism or textualism to 5-4 you'll see the fillibuster movement move up to SCOTUS too.

I'm tired of watching the dems get away with these tactics. We all know darned well that when the shoe is on the other foot our senators will play nice with the dems and let them get any qualfied (but arch liberal) nominee they want on the courts. All of our quarterbacking and planning won't do us any good unless we have a GOP president and well over 60 senate votes (since we can expect several GOP defections on key votes if we ever could get a 60 GOP senate). Until then, it doesn't matter who the president is or who has the majority in the senate. Our "team" will just keep letting the dems rule the roost.

Sorry if I'm pessimistic, but it seems all I ever read about is how we have to "hope" for a floor vote for well qualified nominees. GOP nominees can expect to be treated like dirt (see Bork, Thomas, and even the recent two SOCOTUS votes) while libs get treated like royalty (look at the number of votes Ginsburg got). It just gets tiring.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Unfortunately, you have good cause for your pessimism....

I agree with HoosierTeacher on nearly everything. Specter just doesn't have any fight left in him. I have been complaining about him for some time now. All I want is for R Senators to act like the Dem Senators. Keisler was part of the 12th seat deal and we are getting the raw end of it. I have yet to hear a R Senator say anything about the 12th seat/Keisler deal double crossing. The Dems think they own the DC Circuit and will do anything to quash highly qualified nominees if they are possible SCOTUS material. Even WaPo is in favor of him.

The Keisler, Conrad and Matthews trio have never been held up by the blue slip process. They deserve to be voted upon now. Hatch and McConnell must know that there is a very narrow window of opportutnity to get these three confirmed within the next 2 or so months before Leahy implements the Leahy Rule.

The time for tough action, not talk, by the Senate is now. Talk or email the R Senators on the SJC committee for this or a similar plan of action. Confirm these three now and Agee, Kethledge and White in the fall. Othewise, shut it down now and vow never to have a quorum for White. Watch for Hatch to rise to the top. Don't forget that the Senate staff reads this site too. Tell them what you think now or forever hold your peace.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080418/NEWS02...

"The American Bar Association has given its top grade to the judicial nomination of U.S. Attorney Colm F. Connolly with a unanimous committee rating of "well qualified" for appointment to the federal bench in Delaware.

The ABA rating is considered to be the last bit of required paperwork before a Senate hearing is scheduled for a potential federal judicial nominee.

The federal court in Wilmington has been shorthanded for more than a year since the departure of Judge Kent A. Jordan in December 2006 to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three judges are doing the work of four, leading to delays in some civil cases and longer court hours.

But because of partisan differences between President Bush and the Democrat-controlled Senate, the pace of judicial confirmations has been slow.

Some groups have pressured Democrats to hold off on approving any nominees to lifetime positions until after the November election."

"Neither Biden nor Carper, both Democrats, would discuss Connolly or whether he will get a hearing."

whether Specter's cancer diagnosis will lead him to put things into further perspective and fight like crazy for nominations to get floor votes. Didn't he recently send a letter to the pres. candidates on this subject? It's be a great issue for McCain, who listed this matter as the number one thing he'd look for in a conservative running mate when talking with Hannity on the radio. McCain volunteered this as most important conservative thing he was looking for. If he can redeem the Gang of 14 fiasco, all the better.

See Bobo above--post #3.

There is no doubt that this a great election issue for conservatives and McCain knows this well. That is why the time is right for the Senate to fight like hell over this issue for the next 5 weeks. It will certainly energize the base when R Senators fight tooth and nail for judicial nominees. Works every time. By adding heavy weight McCain to the fold, the Republican Senators are now in a great position to make this fight very public and very successful.

I guess we are bitter and consequently we cling to our guns, Bibles and conservative judicial nominees.

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS,,,," Rest in Peace Charleton Heston.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26109&s=rcmp

"WHO'S ANTI-CATHOLIC?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has not backed down from giving "anti-Catholic comments" as a reason for not acting on the nomination of Federal District Judge Robert Conrad of Charlotte, N.C., to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But Leahy said he was willing to look again at the views of Conrad, who is a devout Catholic.

At an April 3 Judiciary Committee meeting, Leahy was asked why Conrad's nomination was stalled despite a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and backing from North Carolina's senators. He then raised Conrad's criticism of Sister Helen Prejean, who in her book "Dead Man Walking" denounced traditional elements of the Catholic Church.

Leahy, who also is a Catholic, told this column he based his view on what Conrad wrote in the January/February 1999 issue of Catholic Dossier. The senator added that he would take a closer look at Conrad's article."

Here's what Conrad wrote in 1999. He criticized a particular book by a particular author.

He did so years before becoming a judge, and in the same year that Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him to be Chief of the Campaign Finance Task Force.

If Leahy doesn't like the book review, why not ask Conrad about it during a hearing?

If they won't act on Keisler, Conrad and Matthews, shut down the Senate. Plain and simple.