ConfirmThem

This Agee hearing is total BS. I am glad that the GOP on the SJC is finally drawing a line in the sand. I would not show up to another SJC meeting until Matthews and Conrad have scheduled hearings and Keisler is on a Business Meeting Agenda. The Dems have backed out on too many deals. We need to start showing some outrage.

She seems to be the only Dim Politician who wants to avoid all out war.

Perhaps Leahy is just realizing that it's not going to be Barak and is preparing to stall for four more years.

Please present a discharge petition for Mr. Keisler immediately. Please return to D.C. and take the lead on the vital battle for hearings and votes on judicial nominees. Confirm them!

Leadership aides and other Republicans said they expected to be able to deny backers of the bill the 60 votes needed to bring it to the floor in a showdown scheduled for Wednesday.
Democrats and some Republicans say that the bill, approved by the House last year after the court ruling in May, was necessary to give those who believe they were discriminated against a fair opportunity to challenge their employers in court.
Backers of the bill say the court overlooked extensive precedent when it dismissed the claim of Ms. Ledbetter, a worker at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Plant in Gadsden, Ala., because she had not acted within six months of the first instance of pay discrimination, even though she was unaware of it at the time.
Supporters of the legislation said the court decision did not reflect the reality that many people do not know how their pay compares to that of their co-workers.
“It is a critical issue for women, and it has been a longstanding, persistent problem and is all the more important right now,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine and a co-sponsor of the bill, referring to the current economic downturn. Ms. Snowe said efforts to derail the measure by her fellow Republicans were unfortunate.
Other supporters said the bill would simply restore the legal playing field to where it was before the ruling, with a two-year limit on claims for back pay. It declares that discrimination can occur each time a person is paid and that a challenge does not have to be filed within six months of the
first instance of bias.

An obvious direct response to the ruling last year. Decent bill to squash if the Democrats do not confirm more judges.

The minute I heard about the Agee hearing yesterday I knew that the Dems were going to try to gut Reid's promise of three COA confirmations by Memorial Day. Although it may cost Specter the confirmations of Pratter and Short, I hope Specter actively speaks out against the Dems and files discharge petitions to get Keisler, Conrad and Matthews out of committee and onto the full Senate floor.

After reading the whole letter the GOP on the SJC sent it was good that they finally suggested firm dates that stuff happen. Like having hearings on the April 29 and a Business Meeting on May 1. Hold Leahy to it or you will look like fools.

LEAHY SAYS HE WILL ONLY CONFIRM AGEE, KETHLEDGE AND WHITE THIS YEAR! KEISLER, CONRAD, MATTHEWS AND PRATTER TOO "CONTROVERSIAL" TO PROCESS!

http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/042308LeahyToRepublicans.pdf

"Earlier this year, I thought that Senator Specter had a personal interest in the current nomination of Judge Pratter to the Third Circuit, and I was making plans to expedite consideration of that nomination in deference to him. As our process requires, that nomination needed the support of both Pennsylvania Senators. I was assured for some time that that was imminent. Unfortunately, that apparently was not the case. Nor has the President sent nominations for four district court vacancies in Pennsylvania. It is strange that the President has proceeded to nominate Carolyn Short for a vacancy that has yet to occurred, rather than one of the four that has already have. That is something the White House will need to explain."

"As you will see from my April 16 statement to the Senate, I intend to proceed next to the nomination of Steven Agee to the Fourth Circuit. I have already noticed his hearing for May 1, and I thank Senator Cardin for his willingness to chair that hearing."

"I also have announced that I intend promptly to proceed to consideration of the nominations of Ray Kethledge and Judge Helene White to the Sixth Circuit."

"If we were, instead, to turn the Committee's attention to other, more controversial nominations, we run the risk of becoming embroiled in debate for months, and will be foregoing the opportunity to make progress where I believe we can. We will also, in effect, be rejecting the White House's recent efforts to work with us. I prefer to make progress where we can in this presidential election year, and to work together to do so. I hope you will join me in these efforts.

I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed to energize a political base, but I do not. I hope you will agree with me."

"I urge you to reconsider the course you appear to be taking. The last contentious judicial nomination was that of Leslie Southwick. The process of Senate consideration from the time of the hearing to his confirmation was five and one-half months. I urge you to consider what was not achieved in the last several months of the last Congress. The Republican chairman chose a different course, as was his right. He had the Committee hold many hearings on many controversial nominations. That resulted in a great deal of effort and conflict but not in as many confirmations as might have been achieved. You can pick fights over a few of the more controversial nominations or we can continue to make significant progress."

http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/042308LeahyToNCSC.pdf

"By moving our attention to more controversial
nominations, we not only risk a contentious debate, but we would, in effect, be rejecting the White House's recent efforts to work with us to resolve impasses in the Sixth Circuitand in your own Fourth Circuit.

With your cooperation in the years ahead [presumably under a Democratic president], I am confident we will be able to fill the remaining vacancies in the Federal courts in North and South Carolina. We have already made significant progress. I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed
to energize a political base, but I do not. I have tried to be productive.

We have seen the risk we run if we turn the Committee's attention to more controversial nominations that could embroil it in debate for months and foreclose the opportunity to make progress where we can. The last contentious judicial nomination was that of Leslie Southwick. The process of Senate consideration from the time of the hearing to his confirmation was five and one-half months."

Bush should withdraw White's nomination immediately, unless Leahy and Reid are willing to reconsider the decision not to proceed with Keisler et al. That is his only bargaining chip at this point.

After the Paez/Berzon crap in 2000, with 2 controversial nominations, its a shame that we can't get 2 out of 3 from Keisler/Conrad/Matthews confirmed.

What's the point really? After Agee, we aren't gaining a whole lot from Kethledge/White unless somebody else is included in the deal.

Absolutely! White was a compromise nomination, and if the Dems aren't willing to do any real compromise, Bush needs to withdraw her immediately. From what I've read, she's not all that great a nominee anyway, and was nominated only to break a logjam.

It's obvious that Reid is playing a bait-and-switch game, and the Repubs have to stand tall. Or, to borrow from the late Charles Schultz, Reid is Lucy, who keeps putting the football down for Charlie Brown, played by the Repubs, and then at the last minute, pulls the ball away just as Charlie is about to kick it. Maybe Charlie needs to kick anyway, but instead of kicking the ball, how about kicking Lucy directly in the butt!

As much as I hate to say it, I think we should play ball for the next couple of weeks, take Kethledge and Agee, and White. It's a small victory for our team. Then, shut down the Senate. John McCain should announce that he is leading the fight for a discharge petition to free Keisler, Conrad and Matthews from the SJC. Once that happens and each gets a vote, the Senate can resume its business.

Here are the necessary phone numbers:

Democrats on SJC: 202-224-7703
Leahy: 202-224-4242

Republicans on SJC: 202-224-5225
Specter: 202-224-4254
Hatch: 202-224-5251
Grassley: 202-224-3744
Kyl: 202-224-4521
Sessions: 202-224-4124
Graham: 202-224-5972
Cornyn: 202-224-2934
Brownback: 202-224-6521
Coburn: 202-224-5754

I was so furious when I read Leahy's letters on the SJC website (http://judiciary.senate.gov/) that I called the Democratic office of the SJC and Leahy and told them how hypocritical I thought Leahy's comments on the blue-slip were. How can one honestly say that they believe in blue-slips and then block nominees who meet it! I then the Republican office of the SJC, Specter, Sessions and my two homestate senators telling them that I wanted the Republicans to either close down the Senate now or file discharge petitions immediately on Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. A staffer at the Republican SJC number told me he thinks the Republicans will file discharge petitions, but I am wary of what staffers say. Too often I have found they give you platitudes and nothing else.

Robert1's point is well taken. Do we take the confirmations of Agee, Kethledge, and Murphy for White, and then shut down the Senate over Keisler et al, or do we demand Bush withdraw White but in the process jeopardize Agee, Kethledge and Murphy?

It's a tough call. I think Robert1 may be right.

Is anyone here truly surprised by this week's predictable developments? The capacity of people here to endlessly delude themselves about the current situation and the Dems' promises is truly breathtaking. I've said this so many times before it's getting tiresome and I'm tempted just to recycle previous posts, but here goes again:

1. Conrad and Matthews are impossible this year. Period. For reasons I've outlined so many times that it's boring and unnecessary to repeat them again. They are effectively in the same category as Rosenstein. Impossible, implausible, ain't gonna happen. Face reality and forget it. Dems will only use them as a diversion.

2. I said amidst the foolish euphoria last week that the "deal" was essentially just the status quo (Agee and Pratter confirmed) plus Kethledge and White. Except that Pratter was now probably deferred from May to June, and her confirmation soley dependant on Specter's clout. I still perhaps naively think Specter will be able to put Pratter and Short through, unless Democrats have concluded that he's a spent and dying force and have simply decided to stiff him completely. I wouldn't put that beyond those ghouls.

3 The program for GOP between now and July should be a) to pocket the 3 (hopefully) May nominees with hearings (Kethledge, Agee, and White (gulp)), b) work as hard as it takes to get Pratter a hearing and confirmed in June), c) go all out to get Keisler confirmed by mid-July (without the distraction of another hearing).

4. Elect McCain so we can start a long hard slog to get as many nominees as possible confirmed before the Leahy Rule is invoked in March or April of 2012.

Repeating-- Possible confirmations for 2008: AGEE, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, PRATTER, KIESLER. Confirmation of all 5 would be a relative success, given the adverse political circumstances. Trying for other nominees will only further jeopardize confirmation of Pratter and Kiesler.

Come on folks. This latest is typical of Leahy and Reid. Shame on anyone if they are really suprised. The letter by "shocked, SHOCKED" republicans is just that, a frickin letter.

Mark my words. Until the day that the GOP gives up playing the "high road" we will always lose. We play with "letters of outrage" while the opposition uses bats and knives. We need to fight like heck in the minority (fillibuster), and run roughshod in the majority (change the rules). We can hold to priciple and keep on losing the lower courts (and the country), or start openly voting like Schumer on outcome based judges. It's disgusting that we can't vote on a judge's merit (regardless of ideological tendencies). But if only the GOP plays the nice guy game then we'll just keep on getting squashed like bugs. I'm afraid it's come to that, and I'm disgusted with myself for feeling this way.

Am I going off the deep end here? Am I missing something? I really don't want to embrace this line of thinking. But I'm realizing more and more that the GOP senators are worthless and don't fight on the judicial committee. (The president, for that matter, made two good SCOTUS appointments, but doesn't fight for anyone he nominates at any level of the courts). Why should I bother wasting my time caring about working to elect them (senators)? I haven't participated on RedState in months (after being told that an inability to vote for now defunct Rudy meant I wasn't welcome as a republican). Having lost any interest in general politics, should I just resign myself to the fact that we will continue to lose the majority of court appointment battles over the years and decades until we have nothing left, and devote myself fully to other pursuits?

Really now. The dems don't have to ram anyone through, because we just cater to them. When we have the power we refuse to use it. When the power is balanced, we just roll over.

Ok, I got that all off of my chest. I feel better now. I can't wait for our next clever move (perhaps another angry denunciation of the democrat bullies with another "forceful" letter"). : )

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

I do believe the right strategy is to take the 3, and then fight like hombres to get Keisler, Conrad, and Matthews. Bush can help the cause a little by nominating a VA judge from the Webb list, which gives us some flexibility as we wage war, and an outside possibility for another 4th confirmation. But although Leahy doesn't want to consider ANY of our big 3, if the Reps hang together, McCain brings pressure, and we get a discharge petition put in play, good things may happen. And we have a great campaign issue, right Barrack?

IMO the correct strategy is to withdraw White & Agee immediately, for McCain to file discharge papers on Conrad, Matthews & Keisler (and start yapping about judges at every stop he makes henceforth) and tell Leahy & Reid that it's now those five PLUS Pratter, Short & (hopefully)Lemons, one right after the other boom-boom-boom, or else NOTHING gets done in the Senate and Obama will never get a judge confirmed should he win.

Gotta fight at some point and the spin is hugely in our favor right now. Can't "take the three" as they'll be the last confirmed, plus then the spin is entirely in Leahy & Reid's favor. "We just confirmed threeeee....."

But Agee must be withdrawn along with White for this to work. Sucks to use him this way, but it's pretty easy to spin, plus he's a big boy. And at some point you simply must fight.

I'd rather have no confirmations w/enhanced prospects for Nov along with a decent chance of up to nine confirmations, than two good/one bad confirmations plus the same mushy status quo. I repeat, if we "take the three", that'll be that.

This is an easy issue for McCain to absolutely gut Obama with; hoist him on his petard; hang him with his own words. But are their any chess or poker players in McCain's campaign, the Senate or the WH?

Also agreed that every entreaty about "fair play" needs to be soliciously made to DiFi.

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

The recent comments here would astound me, if I didn't expect such self destructive emotional responses. Give up the achieveable (including one 4th Circuit and one long-stalled 6th Circuit and probably one 3rd Circuit judge) and speed myopically ahead towards the impossible and unachievable). Sounds more than vaguely suicidal to me.

Again Again Again (from #17 above):

"Repeating-- Possible confirmations for 2008: AGEE, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, PRATTER, KIESLER. Confirmation of all 5 would be a relative success, given the adverse political circumstances. Trying for other nominees will only further jeopardize confirmation of Pratter and Kiesler."

...it seems that the "achievable" is ALWAYS on the dems terms. Rolling over and doing the achievable is just what they want.

They follow my line of thinking (fight) and get their way, we follow your solution (compromise) and they get their way.

Call my route suicide, but it certainly hasn't been suicidal for the dems when THEY implement my fight dirty strategy. I don't mean any of this in a snarky way. You and I are on the same team after all. I've just come to the conclusion that we consistently reward the dems for bad behavior, and then get shocked when they take advantage. As I see it, you want to continue to appease them, and I want to punish bad behavior.

There's a saying in clinical psychology: "Nice" doesn't get you anywhere with a sociopath. The dems act sociopathic on the committee. They are predatory and don't understand "fair" or "kindness". The only way to negotiate with them is the way you negotiate with terrorists; you don't. You vote as a block and vote for what you want. If you don't get your way you pull out every parlimentary trick in the book (and the ones that you just make up, as do the dems). It works for the dems, and causes us to go along with what THEY dictate will be achievable. That's just my opinion.

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

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=3297&wit_id=2629

"Finally, we have the opportunity today to report three more lifetime judicial nominations to the Federal courts, a U.S. Marshal nomination and the nomination of Senator Martinez’s brother to be a member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. The judicial nominees are from those who participated at the hearing that Senator Kohl chaired earlier this month. I thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin.

I have already announced our next judicial nominations hearing to be chaired by Senator Cardin. Now that we have received the ABA peer review and the paperwork is completed on the nomination of Steven Agee to the Fourth Circuit we will proceed to consider that nomination just as I have said we would since we received the nomination in March. In deference to Senator Lugar and Senator Kyl’s requests, I have included judicial nominees from their states at that hearing, as well."

That's absurd. He's a solid, conservative pick. It just so happens he's caught up in Leahy's political shenanigans, and is being expedited. Great! We need to solidify the 4th Circuit any way we can. Withdrawing Agee? The Dems would LOVE that move.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1358511~Senate_panel_approves_Missouri_judicia...

"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to approve the nominations of two judges for seats on the federal bench in Missouri.

Missouri Supreme Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. and Circuit Court Judge David Gregory Kays now await a vote in the full Senate.

Kays, of Lebanon, would fill a seat on the federal court in Kansas City, while Limbaugh, of Cape Girardeau, would replace a federal judge in St. Louis.

The committee vote - unanimous for both nominees - came just three weeks after the judges' confirmation hearing.

While neither nominee is controversial, there is some uncertainty over whether there is enough time for them to be confirmed in President Bush's final months in office.

It's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to set a vote on the floor."

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/senate-panel-gives-va...

"The Senate Judiciary Committee today unanimously backed the nomination of Mark S. Davis to become a federal judge for Virginia's Eastern District.

Davis still awaits confirmation from the full Senate, but the swift approval without discussion at the committee level bodes well for the Portsmouth judge.

"There is every chance he will be confirmed this year, and sooner rather than later," said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias. "There's just nothing controversial about him."

Davis is the chief judge on Virginia's Third Judicial Circuit in Portsmouth.

He and David Novak came highly recommended to President Bush by Sens. John W. Warner, a Republican, and Jim Webb, a Democrat.

Novak, a career prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney in Richmond since 1991, prosecuted Zacarias Moussaoui after the Sept. 11 attacks in a four-year investigation and case that resulted in Moussaoui being sentenced to life in prison.

A committee vote on Novak has not yet been scheduled because Novak has not yet responded to some questions from senators, according to committee spokeswoman Erica Chabot."

That's a great idea, comparing Democrats to terrorists. That's a good, solid, winning argument that the American people will surely rally around. You've made everyone in Indiana proud.

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/senate-republicans-pick-figh...

"It appears that last week’s attempts by Senate leaders to resolve the issue of federal judges peacefully were short lived. The McConnell-Reid agreement, which called for movement on three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day now seems to be falling apart. Why? No one can agree on which judges to move.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Senate Democrats have agreed to hold a hearing on May 1st for Fourth Circuit consensus nominee G. Stephen Agee, who was recommended by both Virginia Senators Jim Webb and John Warner. Republicans, not satisfied with Agee’s conservative bona fides would rather advance DC Circuit nominee Peter Keisler. Anxious still that a separate agreement between Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and the White House might fill the other two slots with Sixth Circuit nominees who have bipartisan support, Senate Republicans are pushing for hearings on conservative ideologues Robert Conrad, Jr. and Steve Matthews, both nominated to the Fourth Circuit, instead.

Feebly arguing that Conrad and Matthews have been waiting for hearings longer than Agee, Senate Republicans suggested that nominees be evaluated in the order they were nominated – certainly not traditional practice in the Senate. Besides, Raymond Kethledge, one of the nominees included in the Leahy-White House deal, was put forward more than a year before Conrad and Matthews, suggesting their actual concern is ensuring the confirmation of two more ultra-conservatives judges to the federal bench.

Thankfully, Sen. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has so far resisted GOP pressure to move only those nominees who meet their ideological criteria. In a letter to his Republican colleagues, Sen. Leahy wrote, “you can pick fights over a few of the more controversial nominations, or we can continue to make significant progress.”"

Please, Senator McCain, introduce very son discharge petitions for Keiser and the other two.

As I have recently stated, Pratter was never part of the deal. A commitment to three unnamed COA nominees by Memorial Day was just that--a commitment to three unknowns. Many on this website mistakenly thought it would be three other than Agee, Kethledge and White. When Agee's hearing was set, the identity of the three became clear. Today's letters by both sides clarified things for all.

AND INJUSTICE FOR ALL:

Traditional Senate rules and customs control here. [1] A judicial nominee who has no opposition from the home state Senators should be brought up for a vote. Keisler, Conrad and Matthews qualify here. [2] The DC/Ninth Circuit seat swap for Keisler should be honored. The first part of the agreement has been kept, but the second part has not. [3] The Senate should confirm just as many COA seats for Bush as it did for Clinton. To date, GWB has 58 confirmations to BC's 65. The Senate, who constantly laments BC's poor treatment, owes GWB 7 more confirmations this year. What is fair is fair.

Of these three points, the Dems have violated Senate rules and customs on all three counts. No doubt, I believe the three confirmations by Memeorial Day break will be broken as well. We simply cannot wait for more bad things to happen yet again without a fight.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE:

A. Close down the Senate until an agreement is reached and reduced to writing or put on the record that 7 COA nominees will get voted out of the SJC and get a vote on the floor. Six are mentioned above and a player will be named later. Let Leahy or Reid pick the seventh COA nominee--maybe Pratter.

B. File Discharge Petitions for Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. McCain could sure win some points with conservatives [and donations] on this one. The four Carolina Senators and others must delay, tie up and block any and all legislation on the Senate floor until the THREE ARE FREE. Today's action on the Senate floor was a good start.

C. Take Half a Loaf and Call It a Year. Some suggest that we grab the three pieces of low hanging fruit and wait until next year. This is what the R. party ususally does. Three is better that none at all.

This is an election year with the party conventions during the late summer/early fall. Starting in September, many in Congress will be running home for reelection campaigning. Now is the time to fight if people want option A or B. If you want C, nothing is to be done. I vote for option A without hestitation. If we don't fight for the injustices outlined in 1, 2 and 3, surely there will be injustice 4 right around the corner.

VOTERS SHOULD VOTE

I would like people to weigh on options A, B or C and the reasons why they choose as they do.

On the day that Leahy tells the Republicans that he will kill the nominations of Keisler, Conrad, Matthews and Pratter, RollCall has an optimistically titled article like this:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/latest_news/23245-1.html

"Three More Judicial Nominees Headed to the Floor
By Tim Taylor
Roll Call Staff
Thursday, April 24, 2008; 4:37 pm

Senate Democrats have made good on their deal with Republicans to release from committee another set of judicial nominations, breaking a bitter impasse that had divided the Senate in recent weeks."

Excuse me? I think the bitter impasse Taylor describes will be exponentially increasing, not decreasing, after Leahy's blatantly partisan response to the SJC Republicans today.

From the letter by Leahy, is she being blue slipped by Casey? It's not clear, and I haven't heard empty suit Bob rail against any PA nominees.

No one compared democrats to terrorists. Perhaps you should set aside your knee jerk reactions and read what I really wrote. Your reading is a fallacy and not helpful at all to the discussion, and your little ad hominem about me presuming to represent the state of Indiana somehow is just beyond reasonable discourse.

The way to negotiate with democrats on the committee is to do so in the way we negotiate with terrorists. That is to say, we shouldn't. The comparison is with an "approach", not a comparison of entities. You are welcome to disagree with my sentiment (and there are plenty of resonable minds here that do disagree with me, like Outsider), but you are not welcome to take my comments out of context.

While I don't know of any democrats that are terrorists, I certainly stand by my remarks that democrats on the committee act in predatory and sociopathic ways. They are sociopathic in that they don't respond to concepts like "kindness" and "fair play". They are also predatory, taking advantages of weaknesses and exploiting people who try to act within the rules.

I'll even go a step further and state that I believe many democrats hold to policies that weaken our military, and weaken our ability to protect ourselves here (homeland security) and abroad. Extending rights to foriegn terrorists when the Geneva conventions do not (more importantly - nor does our constitution) is certainly an aid to terrorism. But I believe this is because of poor judgement and a misplaced allegiance to leftism, not a willful desire for terrorists to be succesful. I don't believe democrats act with malice when they foolishly try to extend new rights to terrosits, they're just being stupid.

On the senate committee the actions are reprehensible, but for from terroristic. The closest thing to "terrorism" I can even fathom is that many good, decent, and competent people are "afraid" to even accept a nomination because of the assinine treatment they and their families will have to go through. But the actions of democrats on the committee are not terrositic, they are predatory and sociopathic. I believe that no negotiation is appropriate for people who do not negotiate in good faith.

Get it now?

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

A homestate senator can block a judicial nominee with the blue-slip policy in one of two ways:

1) The senator returns to the SJC a negative blue slip in which he states the reasons why he/she thinks the nominee does not warrant processing.

2) The senator simply does not return any blue slip on the nominee to the SJC. In this case, the senator is not explicitly saying why he/she is opposed to the nominee. The implication is that the senator is still reviewing the nominee's credentials and theoretically could return a possible positive blue slip at any time.

The second method is probably what Casey is doing - refusing to send in a blue slip on Pratter so that he can claim that her nomination is still under consideration. This way, Casey can block Pratter in committee without having to say anything negative about her.

This is the same method Spencer Abraham used to originally block Helene White. He never sent in a blue slip on her to the SJC.

I was referring more to Casey's attitude surrounding the nomination.

When Rosenstein was nominated, the MD senators came out and attacked him for no reason. Whitehouse did the same for the RI nominee.

Casey (AFAIK) hasn't said anything about Pratter, which I'm guessing is because Leahy was going to let her through. This statement seems to me like its a 'If you don't shut up about Keisler, Conrad, and Matthews, I'm gonna have empty suit Bob blueslip Pratter and you'll lose that nomination as well' sort of thing.