ConfirmThem

Fantastic column, Quin. You nailed every point succinctly.

I reiterate, confirm White, Agee & Kethledge before the others only you if you want them to be the ONLY ones confirmed. That's why I recommended withdrawing Agee along with White. IMO, in this case three (two actually) is not better than one.

However, on second thought, withdrawing White alone probably works best. Agee has to be confirmed regardless of anything else. I sometimes get a lil crazy w/the hoss-trading.

White should definitely be withdrawn, w/the understanding that she can be renominated & confirmed (along with Kethledge and only along with Kethledge) this winter, providing the others get taken care of first.

Amazing how Leahy & Reid will get to trumpet Carl Levin's cuz as "confirming a Bush judge".

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

Sheesh folks, who knew Scalia was going to get 40 of the 60 Minutes tonight....^&#&^#*&$($*& came in halfway... :(

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

It was very well done, and about the best we could ever hope for from an airhead MSMer like Stahl.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Perhaps Roberts gave him the opinion to get him on board? Either way we are seeing an odd conservative bent from Stevens as of late.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Perhaps Roberts gave him the opinion to get him on board? Either way we are seeing an odd conservative bent from Stevens as of late.

Monday's Supreme Court decision regarding Indiana's Photo ID law resulted in an odd alignments of the justices. Three trios of justices formed this unconventional decision. To be sure, the concurrring opinion consisted of the conservatives and the dissenting opinion comprised the liberals. But the majority or primary opinion brought together Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy as moderates. Zendari may be right about Roberts giving Stevens the duty of writing the opinion to get him on board.

I have followed this en banc decision through the Seventh Circuit and it has gone down party lines with one exception. Stevens has now crossed over. A few weeks back, he pontificated about his personal views on the death penalty. Is he signaling his retirement?

Now that the Senate has flipped from 55R/45D to 51D/49R, the chances of Senate confirmation of a conservative have been reduced substantially. More likely, Bush will nominate a moderate to assure confirmation. The timing may be right for Stevens who a Repbulican, but who feels that the Republican party has left him years ago.

Where's Insider when you need him or her?

Curiously, Senator Leahy announced that the so called Thurmond Rule, n/k/a the Leahy Rule, would go into effect a month early. Why? If Stevens has secretly announced his intentions to retire in June to Bush, Reid and Leahy, perhaps they are clearing the decks in preparation of the same. Should we then grab the three COA nominees with bipartisan support and prepare for the bigger battle that lies ahead? In light of the current Senate, who could be confirmed now?

Stevens has hired all four of his law clerks for the next term. That tells me that IF, and that is a big IF, he retires, his retirement will be contingent upon the confirmation of his successor. That will take a lot of pressure off of the Dems to confirm anyone quickly to replace him. The only hope Bush has of getting one of his nominees confirmed would be to play a game of identity politics. I really think in this case Bush has to nominate a Hispanic or a woman. That means Ed Prado, Connie Callahan or Maureen Mahoney.

I'd take Livingston or Ikuta of the so-called moderate conservatives out there before Prado and Callahan. Not to pigeon hole them: I think they'd both be reliably conservative.

' Course, my preference is JRB, or Eid, or Sykes.

7th Heaven--you raise some intriguing possibilities. I think it's unlikely there'll be any SCOTUS retirements this year (barring death).

As far as Insider goes, I think most people don't want him/her back. The guess is that s/he won't be willing to come back anyway.

Re whom to appoint if the unexpected happens. I think Bush should nominate a conservative similar to Roberts or Alito. Let's see the Dems vote him or her down in an election year!

for the whole enchiladda.

I'd love to see the Dems spend the better part of the rest of an election year badgering a female African-American while trying to split between Obama and Hillary.

Here's Bush trying to get a 2nd woman and 2nd African-American on the Supreme Court and the mean Democrats won't let him.

I think Stevens will hold off till the end of the year though although there were rumors a ways back about him saying he wanted a Republican to replace him so maybe so.

As for Insider, (s)he was here only a few weeks back.

1. My rule about judicial confirmation reality always turning out one level worse than my most pessimistic prediction seems about to be borne out again. After the “deal”, I thought we’d get Agee, White, and Kethledge (hopefully) this month and Pratter in June. I was criticized as “rolling over” and an “appease[r]” for not advocating that we charge up the bare slopes into the machine guns to secure the all-but-impossible nominations of Conrad and Matthews, even though I advocated fighting all-out for Keisler’s unlikely confirmation. Now even Pratter’s confirmation is doubtful.

2. Did we naively overestimate Specter’s power to get Pratter confirmed? It had crossed my mind that Dems would use Casey’s blue slip power to thwart him, but didn’t think that even those scoundrels would go that far. There are at least two possible explanations. Either: 1. Senate Dems will eventually cede this nomination to Specter out of courtesy and respect, and after holding Pratter hostage to ensure there are no further confirmations, will finally confirm Pratter and Short before adjourning this summer. Or: 2. Dems have made the calculation that Specter will not be around that much longer, and that either a Democrat will be elected to succeed him or Gov. Rendell will appoint a successor Democrat. Therefore the have decided to bluntly stiff Specter and wait him out. Given the Senate Democrats’ coldly amoral character, I wouldn’t put option 2 beyond them, although Option 1 still seems more likely.

3. Some interesting discrepancies in Leahy’s April 23rd letter: 1. On page 3, while discussing Pratter’s lack of home-state Senator support (Casey), he mentions that Circuit nominees from Maryland and the District of Columbia also lack home state support. The last I heard, D.C. has no Senators. Who precisely is Leahy referring to, Eleanor Holmes Norton? 2. Leahy criticizes Specter for choosing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh instead of Kiesler to the D.C. Court of Appeals. One problem with that. Kavanaugh was confirmed at the end of May in 2006. Keisler was not nominated until June 29, 2006.

4. Agree wholly with hoosierteacher about the nature of contemporary Senate Democrats but disagree about not negotiating with them.. They are fundamentally amoral, sociopathic and predatory, having been schooled in Liberal theories of the Relativistic Contingency of Everything. Thus having no principles, like Bolsheviks they cannot be trusted to honor any deal or agreement, no matter how solemnly they promise to do so. However, like Communists, that does not mean that one should not negotiate with them. With Democrats, however, Reagan’s “Trust but verify” dictum should be amended to “Do not trust and verify as you go”. With Kethledge and White, that translates to simultaneous hearings and confirmations, or else doing Kethledge first. If White is confirmed first, Dems might well back out on Kethledge or more likely delay him and hold his nomination hostage.

5. Along the lines of #4, if there ever was a deal last year to trade Keisler for the DC-to-9th transfer, how could Republicans have been so stupid as not to insist on Keisler’s confirmation before passing the Court Security Bill containing that provision? I’ve always suspected that Feinstein’s vote for Southwick in the SJC was the actual quid pro quo (perhaps substituted for Keisler sometime last summer).

I disagree on Janice Rogers Brown. Her appointment with be blocked immediately, and if D's block her appointment it will not yield any political benefits. I like her a lot, but the African American community has made themselves irrelevant by voting 90% D every election. This will not change by a nomination of a black Jusitice to the High Court -- Any person appointed by a Republican will just be automatically dismissed as an Uncle Tom (e.g., Justice Thomas). I guess what I am saying is that there is no political advantage in nominating a black woman to the USSC.

However, the Hispanic community is very much in play (politically) and can be swayed by the appointment of a Hispanic to the High Court. Also note that there are 2 tough Senate races for Republicans in CO and NM this cycle, where the Hispanic community is large and growing. I would recommend Estrada given how well he is received on bloggers on this site.

On a related note, does anyone know why Estrada is so well regarded on this web site? I looked at his record and he clerked for a big liberal Judge in the 2nd Circuit (Judge Kearse appointed by Bill Clinton) and he then clerked for Justice Kennedy. This is not great evidence of a strong conservative.

I would be shocked if JPS (or any other justice) retires this year. If there is an opening, Bush will nominate a woman and/or minority. I don't think, however, he necessarily will have to settle for a moderate. He could go with an older conservative.

I disagree that Bush should yank any of the current nominees. Play ball in May, and get White, Kethledge, and Agee confirmed. Then fight for the others who are pending. At least that way we get a net gain of two conservatives on the CCAs. If he pulls nominees, he's going to mess around and get nobody. At any rate, there's no doubt in my mind Bush will not revoke any of the nominations, so it's a waste of time to even talk about it.

I wouldn't refer to Kearse as a "big liberal Judge" (whatever that means). She was more middle of the road, closer to a Kennedy or O'Connor than one of the real liberals. She was also highly regarded on both sides of the ideological divide, so a clerkship with her should be well regarded.

Those who know Estrada know him to be quite conservative, and his legal brilliance is without question - he is, as John Roberts was before appointment to the DC COA, one of the best Supreme Court advocates of his generation.

Damico,

No disagreement about his brilliance. Just wanted to know how to we know anything about where he stands on the issues.

By chance, if Stevens announces his retirement this June until his successor is confirmed, the Dems will use every trick in the book to delay a vote on his replacement until after January 21st. This is why a very moderate candidate must be nominated by Bush in the hopes a vote yet this year. Stevens wants to be replaced with a left of center moderate. That is why this may be the narrow window of opportunity for him to resign.

His older brother, an attorney, died last year. He does not want to wait another 5 or 9 years to announce his retirement. That is why he is writing opinions this year which are out of character for him. He is writing as if he is a ballplayer making his last rounds in the ballparks across the country. He is providing his personal testament to the death penalty in his opinions. He wrote an opintion upholding a Seventh Circuit en banc decision because it is imminently fair and will promote reliability in election contests. He is, after all, a product of the Seventh Circuit and has great admiration for its very fine judges.

Stevens is playing the violin deliberately and with great passion before the Titanic is about to sink to the bottom of the ocean. Listen to him as he has much to say now. With little notice, his grande finale has begun and his place in history has nearly ended. The time is at hand. Chief Justice Roberts understands the fickle timing of history and he is providing the path for Stevens' final act which is playing out before our very eyes.

I agree that the "90% black vote for dems" number makes their voting block irrelevent. But they aren't the issue.

White, moderate voters are the swing here. A JRB fight would peel off some white/moderate votes from both Hillary and Obama (in terms of white/moderate voters that don't want to see dems trashing a woman or black nominee). Watching the "race card" dems turn on a qualified black woman would cause a shift in some votes, even if they don't come from black voters (in my opinion).

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

I hear you on the point about negotiating, and it's a fair point. But to use your analogy, we HAVE trusted, and we HAVE verified. We've verified that we are being lied to and manipulated again and again and again. When do we choose to break the cycle?

Now it's time for force. A pledge to hold up dem nominees in the future to a worse degree than the dems are doing to us now would be a good start (seeing that they held up nominees to a greater extent than we did to Clinton).

We should match force with force. Words mean nothing to the dems. They just break their word anyway. If we must negotiate, we must back it up with actions. We backed off of the Constitutional Option, and we don't use fillibusters. Does anyone here think the dems wouldn't have pulled the trigger in our shoes? After the gang of 14 deal, I'm still seeing qualified nominees getting stabbed in the back by our big talking, letter writing, sitting on their hands senators.

When our senators actualy do something I'll reconsider donating to the NRSC, but until then I've become much less interested in politics and much less active. I've just grown tired of empty rhetoric by our guys and action by the opposing team.

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

The Democrats will not confirm Prado or Callahan or anyone who isn't already to the left of center (ie a Clinton CoA judge).

After Earl Warren, why would they?