ConfirmThem

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/04/AR200805...

"Only a few weeks ago, the White House appeared pleased that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) agreed, under GOP pressure, to move three appellate nominees through the Senate by Memorial Day. Here was an opportunity, some conservatives thought, to finally approve the long-standing nomination of former Justice Department official Peter D. Keisler for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and provide reinforcements for the 4th Circuit, a conservative bulwark that handles some of the country's most sensitive terrorism cases.

But as Memorial Day approaches, it's becoming increasingly clear that the Democrats have other ideas. They do appear to be on track to fulfill Reid's promise of approving three Circuit Court nominees, but only one of the three can be fairly described as someone Bush wanted."

"White House aides are not complaining about the apparent plan to approve Agee, White and Kethledge, but they are also not squealing with delight, either. Bush's other nominees, such as Keisler, have been waiting for months with no sign that the Democrats will even hold nomination hearings. The White House would almost certainly prefer the Senate approve two different conservative jurists for the 4th Circuit, Robert J. Conrad Jr. and Stev e A. Matthews-- both of whom were nominated nearly a year ago."

"But how much trouble Senate Republicans will make for the Democrats? Reid agreed only to try to confirm three judges by Memorial Day after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatened to scuttle a highway funding bill.

The politics of the situation does not augur well for the White House. The administration is angry that the Senate is falling behind what officials argue is its historical pattern of approving 15 to 17 appellate nominations in the last two years of a president's term (seven have been approved), but Democrats are offering no indication that they plan to speed things up."

Would it be unplausible to withdraw our MD nominee and replace it with a Cardin pick in exchange for Matthews/Conrad? Bobo do you think the Dems would go for something like that and is it worth doing?

It might be worth some negotiation. My fear of course is that the closer we are to the November election, the less flexible the Democrats will be. Mikulski and Cardin know that the Dems have been able to keep the Maryland seat open for eight years and probably will be able to do so until Bush is out of office. Why should they make a deal now? Besides, even if the two Maryland senators wanted to, would Reid and Leahy allow them to enter into such an agreement, especially if the agreement prevents a Dem president in 2009 from changing the ideological make-up of the Fourth Circuit with new nominations?

I think Bush might get another Fourth Circuit confirmaiton if he dropped Matthews in favor of Graham's and DeMint's first choice for Wilkins' seat on the Fourth Circuit: South Carolina Court of Appeals judge John Kittredge.

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/appeals/displayJudge.cfm?judgeID=1129

Chances are Kittredge probably would have been confirmed by now if Bush had been smart enough to nominate him instead of Matthews. Instead, Bush nominated Fielding's man (from the Reagan admin) rather than DeMint and Graham's preference, and picked a fight with the Dems who never liked Matthews. This fight was totally unnecessary, as Kittredge is a strong conservative who would have been eminently more confirmable. Just another example of Bush and Fielding dropping the ball regarding judicial nominations.

I'm curious what everyone here thinks about McCain's chances of having more success than Bush in getting his judicial nominees confirmed. Will McCain's relationships with the various Senators in the Senate make it easier for him?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=94488

"Levey suspects that the leapfrogging style is indicative as well of a somewhat covert relationship between Committee members and the American Bar Association (ABA).

"It would also be evidence of what everyone has long suspected," he says, "which is that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee work very closely with the ABA. I don't think it's any secret that the ABA ratings committee is more tilted to the left than even the whole ABA ... and that they work very closely with Senate Democrats," the attorney continues. "And this would certainly indicate that connection is so close that Leahy can pick up the phone and [tell the ABA] do your rating in two weeks instead of the normal eight weeks.""

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2774:

The act would take effect on January 21, 2009 and add 12 permanent and 2 temporary COA seats. Should Bush sign such a law if it gives a Dem president in 2009 such an added advantage in transforming the judiciary?

I say Bush should sign the bill provided he get some concessions in writing for some current nominees. Honestly the bill is not all that bad. It adds seats to courts that are mostly from blue states (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 9th). If the residents from New England and the Pacific Rim want courts that dont legislate, start electing Republican senators and voting for the GOP presidents. If not they deserve what they get. (And I say this as a Pennsylvania resident.) The seats added to the 8th will have virtually no effect and the 6th should be okay thanks to the White deal filling two seats this year. Believe you me I would like to see Scalia clones put on every open seat around the country but I dont want to impose good governace on latte sipping, prius driving libs from the northeast and left coast. In conclusion, sign the bill provided you get Matthews, Conrad, Keisler, and Lemons/Pratter confirmed as a result of it. Thoughts?

There are a lot of courts that are severely understaffed right now, particualarly on the southern border. This bill helps to address that problem and should make us safer. Lastly, while having control of all of the CCA would be nice, I can deal with losing a couple more as long as we have a conservative SCOTUS to lay the smack down on any wacko liberal rulings that may come from them. And as of right now, we have a conservative SCOTUS, so I am not that worried.

After Memorial Day, it is definitely over and the R's on the SJC just don't know it yet. Leahy has threatened to implement the Leahy rule a month early without a legitimate reason and the R's do nothing.

First, the Dems double cross on the 12th DC seat to the Ninth in exchange for Keisler and the R's do nothing. Then, Leahy says that nominees who have home state Senate support will be voted upon by the SJC and the Carolina nominees drift for years. Again the R's do nothing. Next, the Dems promise three COA nominees by Memorial Day, the R's get giddy, but forget to get specific names. The Dems push one Bush nominee, one old Clinton nominee by the name of Lazarus and one compromise moderate candidate. The R's complain a bit, but do nothing about it.

In the end, Leahy has won. Oh sure, a few uncontested DC nominees will get through after June 1, but no more COA nominees this year. In an election year, no more quorums will be formed on the Dems side unless they want to do so. Leahy has won the war without a fight.

The SJC will approve the new Judiciary bill appointing new judgships starting in 2009. Most of this legislation is not needed if the SJC and the full Senate acted upon the 17 current Judicial Emergencies. This is a term the R's on the SJC have never uttered publicly. Nevermind the fact that there hasn't been a 4th Circuit confirmation in 5 years, even though there are 5 vacant seats on a circuit of 15. Nevermind the fact that Clinton, who was allegedly poorly treated by the SJC, will have confirmed more COA seats that GWB [65 to 58]. Nevermind the fact that Clinton will have more active COA judges still serving in 01/09 than GWB [59 to 53]. Nevermind the fact the GWB had a Senate majority for more years than Clinton, but got fewer COA nominees confirmed. The R's are not willing to fight and the Dems know it.

Now the R's are horsetrading two for one. Two DC nominees from the WD MI for liberal Neff. Two [really 1 and 1/2] COA nominees in MI for liberal White. These are the new rules. The R's are not willing to do a thing about it. It is pathetic.

I hope every single R on the SJC resigns so that new members can be selected in 2009. Boys, if you are not willing to use your guns, turn them in.

On this historic day of May 5, the R's are like the French Army in Mexico so many years ago. They marched right into an ambush and were slaughtered. If you don't know how to fight for the conditions then existing, develop a new strategy or retreat. Sadly, the war is over without a stinking fight. As to COA nominees after Memorial Day, the R's on the SJC can turn out the lights...it's over for 2008.

He should announce he's signing it right after the votes for Keisler, Conrad, Matthews, etc.

If we use the definition that "insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results," we could accuse the current GOP Senate of being insane.

Of course, it would apply to me since I keep trusting what they are doing to make a change.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTRmNWFhZTBlZGFjN2Q1MmJhYTc4YzE2...

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3336

A question: What is the status of the David Novak (Eastern District of Virginia) nomination? He got his hearing on April 3, together with Limbaugh, Kays and Davis.
Limbaugh, Kays and Davis have been voted out of committee, but Novak is not.

Supposedly Novak has not finished responding in writing to senators' questions after his hearing. Until he does, he likely won't be processed.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-courts-right-wing-2008-05-05....

"Seeking to overcome the right’s persistent mistrust, McCain will speak Tuesday on the importance of nominating conservative jurists to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Along with abortion, this is one of the few areas where the candidate agrees with leading social conservatives.

These leaders are coalescing around the idea that the GOP should pledge in its official platform that the president should nominate only judges with clear conservative records.

This demand is a response to President Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of former White House counsel Harriet Miers, a loyalist with scant experience of constitutional jurisprudence. Conservative opposition derailed her nomination.

Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it."

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-lambastes-judicial-activism-2008...

"Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on Tuesday strongly spoke out against judicial activism and sought to appease social conservatives by saying that John Roberts and Samuel Alito are the type of justices he would nominate for the Supreme Court.

“I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist — jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference,” McCain said. “My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”

McCain strongly criticized Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for opposing the confirmation of Roberts."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/give_em_what_th.html

"As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat.."

"As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election..."

April Nominee Report
As of 4/30/08

As a reference aid for other readers and posters on this site, I compile a monthly summary of progress on Article III federal judicial nominations. Following are the figures for April:

Circuit Confirmations: 1 (Haynes on 4/10)
District Confirmations: 4 (Miller, Mendez, Hall, Anderson on 4/10)
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 1 (Haynes on 4/3)
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 3 (Davis, Limbaugh, Kays on 4/24)
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 0
District Nominees had Hearings: 4 (Davis, Limbaugh, Kays, Novak on 4/3)
No. of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 1 (4/3/08)
Circuit Nominations: 1 (White on 4/15)
Circuit Nominations Withdrawn: 1 (Murphy on 4/15)
District Nominations: 4 (Murphy, Gardephe, Waddoups, Anello)
Total Nominees Pending on 4/30: 32 (10 CCA, 22 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 4 (1 CCA: Keisler, 3 DJ: Honacker, Puryear, Novak)
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 4/30: 3 (DJ: Davis, Limbaugh, Kays)
New Vacancies: 1 (1 DJ: Colorado)
Total Vacancies on 3/31: 51 (14 CCA, 37 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 4/30: 47 (13 CCA, 34 DJ)
Change in Vacancies in April: -4

Outlook for May: The accelerated hearings for the three designated nominees (Agee, Kethledge, White) all but ensure that these 3 nominees will be confirmed before the Memorial Day recess.

Outlook for rest of 2008: Some combination of Kiesler, Pratter or neither will be confirmed. Probably too late now for a second Webb-Warner list 4th Circuit Virginia nominee. Heroic cavalry charges for Conrad and Matthews against the entrenched machine guns of the Democrat majority Senate will have little or no effect.

Extended outlook after 2008: If McCain is elected: three years of hard trench warfare to confirm as many conservative to moderate nominees as possible before an Expanded Leahy Rule clangs down in early 2012.
If a Democrat is elected: a deluge of liberal-socialist judicial activists into the Federal Judiciary.

[For reference, my March 2008 Nominee Report appeared in the thread “Kiesler Not Mentioned” on April 15th.]

Kittredge instead of Matthews is precisely what several of us (including you and me, I think) repeatedly argued for in these pages and in phone calls to the White House in the Spring and Summer of 2007, before Matthews' ill-starred nomination last September. Check the archives. Now it is probably too late. How could these White House people have been so stupid (perpetual question)?