ConfirmThem

Maybe they have decided to play good cop, bad cop with Leahy taking the fall for a mutual decision, but I get the impression that Reid may have lost control over Leahy and others in his caucus. It may be Reid meant what he said, but that Leahy manipulated it for his own purposes. Why would Reid willingly set up a situation where he could be accused of lying later?

As far as Kethledge and White are concerned, there is no doubt in my mind the ABA will rush White's ABA rating and get it out before May 15th. If that is the case, my fear is then that the White House/Senate Republicans will cause the FBI to slowalk Kethledge's background checks. I think this might be a strategic mistake because such a delay might be spun by the Dems to imply that there is something nefarious about Kethledge (much as Reid did on the Senate floor to Saad).

I am glad, though, that McConnell and the Republicans are issuing a public response to Leahy's incendiary response to their earlier letter.

It's possible that Specter has already been told by Leahy that he won't process Pratter. If that is the case, then that might explain Specter's unusually energetic responses concerning Keisler, Conrad and Matthews.

http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsRelea...

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/04/senate_republicans_pu...

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, and Sen. Arlen Specter, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today urged Senate Democrats to approve three circuit court nominations before the Memorial Day recess next month.

Specter has threatened to stop Senate business if Democrats continue to refuse to address judicial nominations sent by President Bush.

Specter and McConnell sent a letter to their Democratic counterparts today on the matter."

President Bush has nominated two candidates for vacancies on District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Utah:

Paul G. Gardephe, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Charles L. Brieant, retired.

Clark Waddoups, of Utah, to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, vice Paul G. Cassell, resigned.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080429-7.html

In an effort to avoid reinventing the wheel every week, I’m re-printing on point replies to your points from previous posts of mine.

Reply to Comment #1, paragraph 1:
“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.”

Thread: “Justice Stevens Says the Fifth Amendment is UnConsritutional”, Comment #15 “Michigan deal O.K only if Pratter and Kiesler confirmed” on Friday 4/18/08

Reply to Comment #1, paragraph 2:
“There are compelling reasons for a joint hearing. Kethledge and White are a package after all, and neither side wants the other's nominee to get ahead in the confirmation process. On the other hand, Kethledge has finished the vetting process (they've had 22 months to do so!) while White has just been started next week. No doubt the Democrats have instructed their ABA ally-minions to rush White's evaluation through at lightning speed (won't it be amusing to see how fast they can do it when it's a Dem-Lib nominee), but there is also the FBI check. It will therefore be difficult to schedule a Kethledge/White hearing before the week of May 12-16 at the earliest.”
[See also point #4 from my post below: "5 observations"]
Thread: “McCain, Obama, and Clinton Respond”, Comment #7 “RE: BoBo: Something Odd” on Tuesday 4/22/08

Reply to Comment #2:
“Could it be that Specter is "downcast" about judicial nominations because Pratter has been shelved until at least after Memorial Day (and thus Short is shelved also). Maybe we won't get Pratter at all, though I still expect (perhaps naively) that she will be the final CCA confirmation in June or July. Maybe Kiesler too, but I wouldn't count on it. Leahy, Reid and Co. aren't about to start changing their spots now. With Pratter but not Kiesler, that would make 5 for the year, including White. Not so great, after all.”

Thread: “Kiesler Not Mentioned”, Comment #78 “Specter’s pessimism is well-placed” on Thursday 4/17/08

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 think Reid and Leahy are and have been on exactly the same page. The promise to try to move three by Memorial Day was made with a view toward the more recent nomination. The GOP, on it's own initiative, imputed the promise to somehow encompass action on long standing nominations.

Expecting something resembling "good faith" is naive. I'm not sure how the politics will play out. I'm sure there are plenty of naive voters who will see the GOP expression of frustration as substantive and timely. I don't see it as either, and think the GOP has "earned" whatever kick in the shins it might get from disgruntled conservatives.

Here's Gardephe's bio at Patterson Belknap:

J.D., 1982, Columbia Law School, Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar; Articles Editor, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems
B.A./M.A., 1979, University of Pennsylvania, magna cum laude, English; Phi Beta Kappa

After a clerkship on the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Mr. Gardephe joined Patterson Belknap in October 1983 as a litigation associate. He then served for nine years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and six years at Time Inc., where he served as Vice President and Deputy General Counsel in charge of the company's litigation. Mr. Gardephe then rejoined Patterson Belknap to lead its White Collar Criminal Defense and Internal Investigations Practice. Mr. Gardephe plans to devote a substantial amount of his time to appellate litigation. During his tenure in the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office—which is widely regarded as the premier U.S. Attorney's office in the country—Mr. Gardephe served for three years as the chief appellate attorney. In that capacity, Mr. Gardephe:

* supervised the more than 200 criminal appeals each year in the Second Circuit by that office

* personally argued more than 20 appeals, all of them successful

* authored or co-authored more than 100 appellate briefs.

While at Time Inc., Mr. Gardephe personally handled a number of publishing-related trials and appeals for the company and advised on all areas of law affecting media companies. Since joining Patterson Belknap, Mr. Gardephe has undertaken to represent one of the largest companies in the music industry in an appeal from a jury trial that resulted in one of the largest verdicts in the history of the industry, and one of the ten largest verdicts in 2003.

He looks like a strong nominee. With his extensive appellate experience, perhaps he eventually should be on the 2d Circuit?

"Paul Gardephe chairs the firm’s Litigation Department, White Collar Defense and Investigations group and is co-Chair of the firm's Subprime Mortgage Practice Team. His practice includes the defense of white collar criminal prosecutions and grand jury investigations, internal corporate investigations, and related regulatory proceedings. He also co-chairs the firm’s Appellate Practice group and has extensive appellate practice credentials. He often represents the media, particularly in libel and related matters.

Mr. Gardephe represents clients in criminal litigation, enforcement actions, and federal and state grand jury investigations involving allegations of health care fraud, securities fraud, tax, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and criminal antitrust violations. Health care fraud has been a focus of Mr. Gardephe's practice, particularly the areas of off-label promotion and alleged Anti-Kickback Act violations. Prior to rejoining the firm in 2003, he served for nine years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he tried more than 20 cases to a jury verdict. Mr. Gardephe also served for three years as Chief Appellate Attorney of the Criminal Division. In that position, Mr. Gardephe was responsible for defining the legal positions adopted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and for all briefs filed by the Criminal Division in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and worked closely with the Solicitor General’s Office and the Department of Justice on appellate matters. Mr. Gardephe has argued numerous appeals before the Second Circuit and other appellate courts.

Mr. Gardephe also has extensive experience in conducting internal investigations. On behalf of the Attorney General and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, he led major Department of Justice reviews of the FBI’s performance in detecting the espionage of CIA officer Aldrich Ames and FBI Special Agent Robert Hanssen. As Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Time Inc., Mr. Gardephe performed a wide variety of internal investigations and corporate audits. He also litigated numerous First Amendment-related cases in federal and state courts, personally handling both trials and appeals. He has taught trial advocacy at New York Law School since 1993. After graduation from law school, Mr. Gardephe served as a law clerk to the Hon. Albert J. Engel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit."

This will be a heck of a note if we end up gaining nothing by letting Leahy pick which three. We could end up with one conservative, one moderate, and one liberal. If that's the case, we might as well leave things as they are and try to use it to help McCain's chances.

The letter reads to me like they're giving the Dims one last chance. My guess is that if they either do not receive a satisfactory response or no response in a timely fashion, then the other shoe will drop and a follow up letter will explain slow downs, etc., in Senate business until the deal is followed through on.

http://www.pwlaw.com/attorney-profile-44.html

" EDUCATION
1973, J.D., University of Utah, Order of the Coif
President, Utah Law Review
1970, B.A., cum laude, Ricks College, Brigham Young University"

Clark Waddoups is a senior shareholder with the firm and is an experienced trial lawyer specializing in complex commercial litigation, involving antitrust, securities, labor and employment, banking, construction, environmental, and insurance claims.

Mr. Waddoups has represented clients in industries such as heavy manufacturing, broadcasting, banking and finance, automotive, oil, and real estate.

Mr. Waddoups practiced for a large California law firm for seven years before joining Parr Waddoups in 1981. Mr. Waddoups is admitted to practice in California and before all state and federal courts in Utah, and is a registered lobbyist in the State of Utah. He is an active member of the Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence and past President of the A. Sherman Christensen American Inn of Court I."

http://www.pbwt.com/gardephe_paul_bio/

http://erlc.com/article/time-shortens-on-agreement-on-judges

"Just as April showers bring May flowers, a pledge by the Senate’s top leader earlier this month could bring the confirmation of three judges by the end of May."

"Sen. Reid’s olive branch on judicial confirmations would barely put the Senate on par with the average number of nominees confirmed during the final two years of a presidency when another party controlled the Senate."

"If you believe Sens. Reid and Leahy should uphold their commitment to vote to confirm three circuit court nominees by Memorial Day, as well as exceed this minimum commitment for the well-being of our courts and our nation, please call them at the numbers below or send them an e-mail if you live in Nevada or Vermont.

Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader
(202) 224-5556

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Judiciary Committee
(202) 224-4242"

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356530/

"The Supreme Court’s decision Monday upholding Indiana’s voter photo identification law was another timely reminder, if any were needed, of how big the stakes are in November’s election.

The next president is likely to have the chance to nominate at least one justice.

The author of Monday’s decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, age 88, will almost certainly retire in the next few years."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlhMWFjMjIyNDEyNjNkMmVmMDY4N2My...

"Earlier today Republican Senators Arlen Specter and Mitch McConnell exposed the Democrats's latest bait and switch on judges. Two weeks ago Majority Leader Harry Reid committed himself — and Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy — to move on judges by Memorial Day. Reid said that he and
Leahy "would do everything we can do to approve three circuit court judges by Memorial Day...Who knows, we may even get lucky and move more than that."

Naive observers might think that Reid's and Leahy's promise to move three judges had to do with, well, a quantity of judges between two and four. But not according to the Democrats' new math. Senator Leahy now says that if two Michigan nominees he favors are not confirmed by May 23, perhaps no one will be. "If the White House slow walks [their] paperwork, we probably won't" make the Memorial Day deadline.

McConnell and Specter have called the Democratic leadership out. "The clock is ticking," they wrote to Reid and Leahy today. "It has been two weeks since your commitment to do 'everything' you could" to confirm three nominees by the upcoming holiday recess. Yet in that time the Committee has scheduled only one hearing. "More troubling still is the fact that [Leahy] strongly indicated last week that the Committee may refuse to honor the commitment, not because it is impossible for it to do so, but because the Chairman's preferred queue of nominees will not be ready in time..."."

Bobo has made a keen observation--Reid and Leahy are not on the same page. Previously, Leahy quietly blocked nominees from Bush hoping to go unnoticed until June or July. Sure, he would let a few noncontroversial nominees through time from time, but no real conservatives this year. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Republicans are now starting to block regular legislation on Reid's executive calendar. Now Reid is a little ticked off with Leahy since his obstruction on the SJC is spilling over onto Reid's agenda. Reid, in turn, has agreed to confirm three COA nominees in order to get regular legislation through the Senate. I believe, and Bobo has concurred, that perhaps Reid made this commitment without input from Leahy. The Senate Majority Leader trumps the SJC leader whether Leahy likes it or not. But Leahy is now resisting Reid's commitment for three COA nominees by Memorial Day.

I don't think this is some kind of contrived good cop/bad copy scenerio. Leahy is not playing ball with Reid and perhaps a discharge petition is the only answer here.

Bobo--what is Leahy's justification for implementing the "Leahy Rule" one month early this election year? I've seen no reason to implement it one month early. My hope is that Leahy will treat the nominees of Bush the same as the nominees of Clinton--65 confirmations in 8 years. That means that Leahy owes us 7 more COA confirmations this year. Otherwise, let's allow White to blow in the wind for the next 8 years and allow only 51 COA if a Dem controls the White House for 8 years. An elephant has a longer memory than a jackass.

Since last year, Leahy has constantly changed his tune as to when he would implement the Thurmond Rule. Last year, he said it would begin in January of 2008. Then he back-tracked. This year he has waffled between this spring and summer. Two weeks ago, Reid specifically said it would begin in June and Leahy agreed with him. Basically, I think the timing of the Thurmond Rule's implementation is totally dependent upon the Democratic legislative strategy du jour.

If we don't see the confirmation hearings by May 6th on Matthews and Conrad then they should put the Senate on full stop so that Leahy and the Judiciary Committee have ample time to hold the hearings.

Once the hearings AND votes are completed, the Senate can then begin work on other issues.

It's really that simple.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www2.nysun.com/article/75533

"The White House yesterday announced the nomination of Paul Gardephe, a partner at the firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, for a judgeship in the Southern District of New York. Patterson Belknap is the former law firm of Attorney General Mukasey.

Mr. Gardephe recently represented a former Viacom executive, Thomas Freston, in a suit against the city's Department of Education. Mr. Freston sought to force the city to reimburse him for tuition for his son' s private education. Mr. Freston claimed that the city could not provide his son, a special needs student, with an adequate education. The suit went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last October split 4-4. The tie meant a win for Mr. Freston because it upheld a lower court decision."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9103058

"The nomination of attorney Clark Waddoups for Utah's federal bench Tuesday was met with praise from fellow lawyers, who say the Salt Lake City trial attorney would be a fair and nonpartisan judge.
"Clark has a spotless background and should be one of the least controversial nominations that there could be," said attorney Rob Clark, who works with Waddoups at Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless. "He does not have a political orientation. He should be a really satisfactory choice to anyone who wants to see excellent judges on the bench without regard to any type of political issues."
The White House announced late Tuesday that President Bush had nominated Waddoups to take the place of U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, who stepped down in November to teach at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. The nomination must still be approved by the U.S. Senate.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said traditional labels of "conservative" or "liberal" don't apply to Waddoups, who he called "as qualified as they get."
"He goes above and beyond in everything he gets involved in," Shurtleff said."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1209459930161

"Political tensions are building with the approach of June, which is considered the demarcation for potential nominees to win approval before the approaching November election slows all but the noncontroversial or compromise candidates.

This cranked up the political rhetoric recently, with some Republican senators threatening to stall legislation until judges get confirmed.

All nine Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called on the committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to confirm three circuit court nominees by Memorial Day: Robert J. Conrad Jr. and Steve A. Matthews, nominated to the 4th Circuit, and Peter Keisler, nominee to the D.C. Circuit."

"Yet two backroom deals in the Senate may ease up the tensions, at least temporarily, and get a few candidates confirmed.

Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., agreed to try to confirm three appellate court judges prior to the Memorial Day holiday, which falls on May 26. But they did not specify who among the 10 appellate nominees might get the green light.

A second agreement produced a big breakthrough for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has had two vacancies, one dating back eight years.

Bush withdrew the controversial 6th Circuit nominee Stephen Murphy and resubmitted his name for a district court post in Michigan while nominating Helene White, someone acceptable to Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, for one vacancy. The other 6th Circuit nominee is Raymond M. Kethledge, who at 39 is one of the youngest nominees ever. He is known for his defense work in products liability class actions.

Appellate nominations attracting the most heat include three of the four 4th Circuit nominees: Matthews, currently the managing director of South Carolina firm Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd; Conrad, a North Carolina federal district judge since 2005; and Rod J. Rosenstein of Baltimore, the U.S. Attorney for Maryland since 2005."

Both Circuit Court Nominees and One District Court Nominee

2 Michigan and 1 VA Circuit Nominees

This how Leahy gets Three by Memorial Day.

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=May&ar...

"Editor: Peter, what skill sets does the firm look for in selecting a member of its appellate practice group? After a distinguished career at the DOJ, including serving as acting attorney general, any firm in the country would be pleased to have you join them. Why did you choose to come back to the firm after leaving the Justice Department?

Keisler: We look for excellent writers, excellent oral advocates and people with very strong analytic skills who can think about problems in a creative and fresh way. We seek people who put the client's needs ahead of their egos.

Coming back was actually a very easy decision to make. I had had 13 wonderful years at Sidley. I believe that Sidley has the premier appellate practice among firms today. The lawyers include some of the most brilliant and creative practitioners anywhere in the profession, and the breadth and depth of the practice are extraordinary. We are a collaborative group. It's a wonderful experience to get people here together to brainstorm about a new case or discuss a complex appellate challenge that we might be facing and then to walk out of the room with ten new ideas.

Editor: What is the relationship of the appellate practice group to trial counsel?"

"Keisler: There is no difference at all between how we relate to trial counsel from Sidley and how we relate to trial counsel from another firm. Ultimately, what the client cares about and what the lawyers involved are supposed to care about is presenting the best arguments to win the case. The last thing the client wants to see are competitive instincts coming to the fore when different firms are involved. When we are brought in to handle an appeal, it is not about us; it's about how to work with everybody involved to find and present the most successful arguments in the most effective way.

Editor: Within your appellate practice, it appears that a number of the members have expertise in handling particular types of matters; why is subject matter expertise sometimes desirable?

Keisler: Appellate judges want to understand the practical consequences of their decisions and an appellate practitioner who is thoroughly familiar with the subject matter can give them confidence that the legal rule they adopt will be an appropriate guide to lower courts and to private actors. Judges know that they may not revisit that same set of issues for quite a while and that in the meantime what they say is going to reverberate throughout the system. They want to understand how their decisions will play out in the real world. Having subject matter expertise helps the lawyer provide judges with that understanding."

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2008/04/judges-showdown-looms-as...

"The battle in the Senate over stalled judicial nominees moved closer to a climactic showdown Tuesday as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Arlen Specter made it clear that Democrats must include long-obstructed nominees Peter Keisler, Bob Conrad and Steve Matthews in the deal to confirm three appeals court nominees by Memorial Day. It is particularly important that the demand came from Minority Leader McConnell and Judiciary Ranking Member Specter, because McConnell negotiated the deal and because he and Specter are precisely the two senators who can make Democrats pay a price in the Judiciary Committee or on the Senate floor if the Democratic leadership attempts to gut the deal."

"Specter and McConnell emphasized that Democrats have less than a week to avoid a breach of the Memorial Day deal:
“The clock is ticking. … If the Committee does not hold a hearing for two circuit court nominees [in addition to Agee] prior to May 6, 2008, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Senate will be able to confirm at least three circuit court nominees prior to May 23, 2008 [the last day before recess], given the standard amount of time it takes to move a nomination through the steps in the confirmation process.”

This sets up a dramatic showdown as soon as next week, as we’ll know by May 6 if Leahy and Reid intend to break the deal. If the May 6 deadline is missed, there’s no reason for the Republican leadership to wait until Memorial Day to make Democrats pay a price.

We thank Sens. McConnell and Specter – as well as the other GOP members of the Judiciary Committee – for insisting that Peter Keisler, Bob Conrad and Steve Matthews be included in the Memorial Day deal. And we encourage you to thank them as well."

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3330

Leahy has scheduled a hearing next Wednesday, May 7th, on Kethledge, White and Murphy. Sounds like Reid and Leahy are scared! Why else would they schedule a hearing for White so soon? The Dem minions at the ABA must be working overtime to satisfy their senatorial leaders.

Reid and Leahy must've taken McConnell and Specter's May 6th deadline seriously. They are rushing White's confirmation at breakneck speed. If she has a hearing on May 7th, it is quite possible she could be confirmed by May 15th, just ONE month after her nomination. In addition to ignoring her ABA rating, which no doubt he will pressure the ABA for ASAP, he is ignoring the update on Kethledge's FBI clearance.

I bet Leahy scheduled Kethledge and White's hearing today so he wouldn't have to listen to his Republican peers on the SJC whine and complain about Keisler, Conrad and Matthews tomorrow at Agee's hearing.

BTW, notice how White's name is listed above that of Kethledge on the meeting agenda. Technically, she is a junior nominee compared to Kethledge and should be listed second. I guess Leahy is making a subtle jab at the Republicans just to remind them that White was first nominated 12 years ago.

It appears as if Leahy is going to do the the 2 from the 6th plus Agee and let the GOP take it or leave it. I hope McConnell and Spector keep this from happening, but the failure to specify the 3 nominees in advance looks like a big blunder in retrospect.

I hope I'm wrong.

White doesn't even have an ABA rating and Leahy pulls this obvious stunt.

Out of curiousity, does anybody have a comparison of the time for the ABA to rate White (assuming it comes this week), compared to other nominees?

I am almost positive that Mitch did mention Conrad, Keisler, and Matthews that night on the floor with Reid when the deal was struck. I would get Cheney to come tell Leahy what he did 5 years ago on the floor of the Senate, lol. This is no laughing matter though. This new "Leahy Compromise" is total bull crap and the GOP should not bite on it. Can you say boycott the hearings for White and Co? Hopefully this is all just a ploy to extract legislative blackmale from the GOP. Just tell the Reid the GOP will support adding $30 billion to the supplement for what ever program(s) they want if they let the 3 CCA pass. $10 billion/nominee is fair.

Boycott the hearing? Really? How stupid are you? Either we mean what we say about federal judicial nominees being of the utmost importance to our lives, laws, and values, or we're complete and utter bullsh*tters. Each and every hearing should be taken seriously, unless you think that this particular circuit has no value for the millions of people living under its jurisdiction. Can't we show some integrity here?

Reid didn't agree to specific names. That's the ambiguity McConnell accepted. If McConnell doesn't start fighting back NOW, the Senate will be gone for its break and the moment will be lost.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

You are a joke. You call me stupid and lacking integrity. What about the integrity of the Keisler/9th CCA swap? What about the integrity of the deal that McConnell worked out with Reid on live TV on the Senate floor? What about the integrity of every other promise that Reid and Co have backed out of? You are the one lacking integrity sir. Your talking points are something that I would expect from Leahy's speechwriter.

I think those are the 3 we'll get before Memorial Day. Then both sides will fight it out over Keisler et al. It's not ideal but it's better than nothing. We add a conservative to both the 4th and 6th in exchange for a liberal to the 6th.

There are roughly 31 million people under the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction. Instead of according them respect and putting forth a serious study of the nominees who will be having a huge impact on their lives, you concern yourself more with closed-door meetings, backroom deals, C-SPAN speeches, press releases, quotes in Roll Call, and other inner workings of Washington, DC. How very Inside the Beltway of you. Congratulations on not having a conscience.

to say he's withdrawing White's nomination until Keisler and a few others get confirmed.

It's clear now why Leahy et al have been blaming Bush for not nominating enough people, even though they were stalling on so many. They wanted to get deals and cherry-pick from the ones nominated so that the nominations end up a wash, but they can claim they passed all these Bush nominees.

Although I do not like the way Leahy (and probably Reid) gutted the deal, it is still a deal. The Republicans should honor it no matter what their qualms. After all, McConnell was a fool not to demand that Reid actually specify Keisler, Conrad and Matthews as part of the deal.

In June, however, McConnell should IMMEDIATELY file discharge petitions on Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. In order to facilitate their confirmation, he should shut down the Senate until they are voted on. If they do this, I am pretty sure Pratter is a cooked goose. In retribution, the Dems will no doubt have Casey file a negative blue-slip on her. The Republicans would be foolish to rescue her with a discharge petition because that would set an unpleasant precedent that a future Dem president could start using in 2009 to force liberal nominees from red states with two Republican senators onto the circuit courts.

I think that's the only way to go, and the only possibility for getting what we want.

SD California

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080430-7.html

NOMINATION SENT TO THE SENATE:

Michael M. Anello, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, vice Napoleon A. Jones, retired.

Beaten by a second!

Sorry...
Pure luck ;-)

What about according the people of the 4th Circuit respect; they have been missing a third of their needed judges for almost a year now. Furthermore, what about the respect for the people of North Carolina who have not had a judge fill that seat since 1994, 14 years ago! "Serious study of the nominees"?!? You are joking right. Do you thing anything is learned from judicial hearings!?! They are for show anyway. Most of the time there is only one senator at the hearing because they are so uneventful. I am not concerned with any kind of back-room deals. I am solely concerned with helping to confirm judges that will respect the text of the Constitution, period. I really dont get what your ax to grind is. I missed this verbal wrestling though. It reminds me of the good old days when bigskybob used to get on here and say ridiculous things. Ah I wonder what he is doing these days.

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1057194&_dad=portal&_sc...

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/043008c.html

"After weeks of negotiations, Leahy announced April 15 that the White House and Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow had resolved the longstanding gridlock in the Sixth Circuit, an impasse dating back more than a decade. The Republican-led Senate returned three Sixth Circuit nominations to President Clinton without action at the end of the Clinton administration, leaving four vacancies on that appellate court. Just two vacancies remain on the Sixth Circuit today, and Committee and Senate action on the White and Kethledge nominations could reduce vacancies on the appellate bench in that circuit to zero. In the agreement, the White House withdrew Murphy’s nomination for a seat on the appellate bench, renominating him for a district court judgeship, and sent the White nomination to the Senate for the second vacancy on the Appeals Court.

“I hope those who imply that we are failing to consider President Bush’s judicial nominations will attend the Committee’s seventh nominations hearing of the year,” said Leahy. “Some may be interested in angling for a political fight over judicial nominations, but I remain interested in making progress where we can rather than embroiling the Committee, and the Senate, in election year politics. If those political fights don’t hold us back, the Senate can reduce vacancies on the Sixth Circuit to zero, a far cry from where it was left by a Senate Republican majority at the end of the Clinton administration.”"

He attacked me a couple of stories ago, twisting my comments into a bizzare context. The remark was so hateful that I responded to set the record straight. While he didn't apologize, he chose not to even reply. Now that I've read that his very next comment is a personal attack on you, I've pegged him for what he is.

The Big Sky Bob comparison is dead on. Court watcher is out to attack posters on this site, and shouldn't merit any responses. Over at Red State we call this approach, "Don't feed the trolls". It only encourages further child-like behavior on his part. Let him grow tired of the intelligent discourse on this site. He'll end up going back to sites where intelligence isn't an asset or at some point his mother will call him away from the computer for dinner.

Regards.

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

dont the Dems hold hearings on all Bush's nominees and just vote down the ones they dont like killing them for good and forcing Bush to nominate someone else? They do have the majority. Are they concerned they would not be able to control their "moderate" wing?

You are correct. The Dems are afraid of allowing all of Bush's nominees to have full Senate votes because it would make it awkward for Dem senators from redstates like Johnson of South Dakota, Tester of Montana, Nelson of Nebraska, Landrieu of Louisiana, etc. A full vote might force those senators to approve the nominee, which in turn would make the liberal leadership of the Senate and special-interest groups like PFAW and Alliance for Justice mad.

It's simple. They don't want to go ON RECORD with their votes. All of this backroom finagling doesn't show up on their official records. Voting against nominees has a real paper trail that can be used against them in future elections. Remember, it's all about being (re-)elected, and of course then acquiring more and more power. MoveOn and DailyKos types aren't going to support them if they vote FOR conservative judges, and the masses are going to hold it against them if they vote AGAINST the judges. Obstruction, without actually voting at all, gets the best of both worlds.

After reading your generally thoughtful comment (#22 on 4/24/08), I conclude that the differences between us are actually confined to two nominees: Conrad and Matthews. Before the “deal”, I thought that only Pratter and Agee, and possibly Keisler would be confirmed. After the “deal”, I think we’ll get Agee, White, and Kethledge (hopefully) this month and possibly Pratter in June, with a small chance of a Keisler confirmation later. You criticized me as “rolling over” and being an “appease[r]” (I’m not offended) 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 questionnable, and Keisler’s is even more doubtful. Conrad and Matthews are lined up behind the 5 nominations listed above. Leahy is now trying to move up imposition of the Leahy Rule by another month. Therefore, both time (extremely short) and history (the well known and long running Dem strategy to keep 4th Circuit seats open), clearly indicate that confirming Conrad and Matthews this year is little more than a pipe-dream. I am definitely not trying to appease Democrats, but instead advocate going for the maximum possible, and in fact more confirmations (5) than we are reasonably likely to get.

My preferred strategy is to pocket Reid’s “promised” three confirmations (Agee, Kethledge and White) in May. Then have Specter apply maximum pressure to flush out Casey and get Pratter confirmed in June. Then, once Pratter clears the SJC or gets stymied, mount an all-out offensive to get Keisler confirmed without another hearing. That includes maximum pressure, including a Senate slowdown or shutdown. It’s hard to believe that there would be any time left after that for hearings etc. for Conrad and Matthews, but if Senate Republicans and people here want to charge those entrenched machine guns for them, I’ll be cheering you on from back at Brigade Headquarters (not as any kind of commander but as a lowly intelligence officer).

Agree wholly with you, 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.

Excuse me, but you used a forbidden word beginning with 'b' in the second-to-last line of your comment. You are supposed to say "You-Know-Who" or "He Who Cannot Be Named". Careful. Uttering people's real names might make them reappear.

I'm glad that you aren't taking the talk of rolling and appeasing to be a personaly, and I hope you didn't think the remarks where meant so.

My point is that we can negotiate with dems and get more of the same (broken deals), or we can finaly back up our words.

Consider game theory for a moment. We negotiate in good faith, our opponents don't. We write indignant letters, our opponents fillibuster or ram through (depending on their status). Thus, in the end, we always end up with one of two things: What the dems want or a compromise that leans to the dems.

So I ask you, what do we need to do to either get what we want or to have compromises that lean towards OUR nominees? Always settling for less than half a loaf gets you one thing: Less than half a loaf while the other side keeps racking up victories. It doesn't matter which party has the majority in the senate or has the presidency. The "less than half a loaf" always has to be played by our side, and I'm tired of it.

I know your intentions are honorable, and that we are on the same side of the issue. But in my mind we've been doing things the same way ever since Bork and Thomas, and the opposition wants us to just keep doing it the same way.

Part of negotiation strategy (I would imagine) is convincing the other side that one means what one says. The dems aren't concerned about our petty letters and stammering complaints. When they have the power they get their people (overwheling votes for Justice Ginsburg for example). When we have the power we get the Estrada treatment.

So do we keep compromising on the dems terms, or do we ever get to force negotiations (or actions) on our terms?

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