ConfirmThem

I am relieved to see Judge Pickering is with those of us who think the "deal" was a good idea. Who knows, maybe some kind of deal can be reached this summer regarding other CCA vacancies. Too many commenters have this "all or nothing" approach that may feel good (purity uber alles), but in practice accomplishes little.

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

What is up? Are the Dems mad at the Republicans? Is this retribution?

It's a pretty impressive list. No doubt, some of those names would end up as COA nominees in a McCain administration.

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/senate-judiciary-committee-c...

"Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on two Sixth Circuit nominees, Helene N. White and Raymond M. Kethledge. Along with G. Steven Agee’s hearing last week, theirs will put the number of President Bush’s circuit court nominees who have received hearings over the past week to three. It is clear that Sen. Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is working to fulfill an agreement made last month by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to move three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day recess.

Sen. McConnell, however, is not satisfied with the candidates Sen. Leahy has selected. Despite the facts that Virginia Supreme Court Justice Agee comes with bipartisan support from both of his home-state senators and Mr. Kethledge has been awaiting a hearing for almost two years, the Minority Leader would prefer that the committee consider more conservative nominees."

http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/gingrich-mccain.html

"Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in the midst of a campaign to cast himself as a serious voice for meeting the challenge of global warming-- see Joe Romm and David Roberts for some skepticism on this-- is wading into the climate and energy debate big time with his latest strategy memo to fellow Republicans. Several of these proposed congressional gambits relate directly to the climate crisis, and he promises that next week's newsletter will contain an alternate proposal to contrast with the climate change bill that the Senate will debate next month. But another one of today's proposals-- one that exists in a broader context-- should not go unremarked upon:

Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House...

Gingrich's proposed aggressiveness on judges isn't happening in a void. John McCain is working hard to placate internal partisan critics on the issue, while prominent activists simultaneously work to make sure that the Republican platform contains a virtual litmus test for committed judicial "conservatives.""

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

I sense some infighting and negotiation going on here behind the scenes.

Isn't it fallacy to accuse those who disagree with you of being "all or nothing" proponents? Perhaps you feel that accepting table scraps from the democrats (whether we have the majority or the minority in the senate, and with a GOP president) is acceptable. When there is a dem president, we will have nominees shoved down our throats. When there is a GOP president, we have to "compromise". And that's how Reid likes it.

Those who liked the gang of 14 (the 7 liberal senators included) may think they weren't appeasing anybody. But given the current mess of vacancies and democrat tactics, it is clear the gang didn't help the originalists or textualist cause much.

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

Fallacy? I expressed an opinion regarding the Gang of 14; many people have opinions, even you. Happily, my opinion on the deal is shared by Judge Pickering, whom I respect a great deal. And because of the deal, we have solid additions to CCA benches. I will be interested to see how the "purist" commenters react if Obama becomes President and starts nominating his liberal professor pals; will they then still oppose the filibuster?

I don't know how "purist" or "hypocritical" you may think this theory is, but I think that the judicial filibuster, while unconstitutional, can be used in a practical manner to create its own destruction. If Obama nominates a lot of far-left liberals, then the Republicans should filibuster his nominees until the Dems feel forced to use the nuclear/constitutional option to destroy the judicial filibuster.

Those two DJs that were at Agee's hearing should also be on the agenda. Those seats, AZ and S-IN are judicial emergencies. One more frustration!

I agree with you that this could be a solution. But unfortunatly it would happen when the dems are in power, once again giving them all of the benefit. It should have been nuked when it was.

We also need to get rid of the Byrd rule that makes fillibsters a matter of just announcing that one "intends" to fillibuster instead of actualy carrying it out.

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

"We also need to get rid of the Byrd rule that makes fillibsters a matter of just announcing that one "intends" to fillibuster instead of actualy carrying it out."

This is truly the answer and could be done in some other context than a judicial nomination. It is silly to allow someone to stonewall anything without having to actually stonewall it. I believe that the Senators would never ever agree to it though. Way too inconvenient for them.

You used a straw man argument. You call your opponents (the ones on your own side of the aisle) "all or nothing" and then map out your defense from there. The problem is, the conservatives aren't "all or nothing". Those who would seem to disagree with your approach of appeasment are advocating that we fight on an even playing field with the dems. That's not "all or nothing". If I believed in "all or nothing" I would favor silly notions like fillibusters, despite them being unconstitutional. All I do is express a desire that we should expect dems to keep their word, or stop negotiating when they don't. There is no point in negotiating with entities that continue to break their word.

But that's how it has always been done, and we will continue to let the dems run circles around us in the senate (majority or minority) because our senators would rather use shocked letters of disbelief that they've been hamstrung yet again.

So that I'm fully understanding you: GOP presidents need to appoint moderates dicated by senators, and DEM presidents can appoint who they want. I don't remember that in my text books, but ok. Got it. I must be "all or nothing" if I see something wrong with that picture.

"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=3330&wit_id=2629

"Today we witness a demonstration of the progress about which I have been speaking and for which I have been working. Today’s hearing moves us closer to confirming President Bush’s nominations to the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This completes the task I began when I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, when the Sixth Circuit was in turmoil and nominations had been road blocked for years. At that point there were four vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. When I scheduled a hearing and vote for Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, and then for Judge John Marshall Rogers, we were able to break an impasse that had lasted for five years. Confirmation of Judge White and Mr. Kethledge would complete the process by filling the two remaining vacancies on the Sixth Circuit.

I continue in this Congress, and I will continue with a new President [i.e. Obama]] in the next Congress, to work with Senators from both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent, and able to provide justice to all Americans, without fear or favor."

"In light of that cooperation, we have taken extraordinary steps to expedite this hearing. I thank all members of the Committee for their cooperation. I recently received a letter from Senator McConnell and Senator Specter in which they note the importance of our receiving updated ABA peer reviews for these new nominations. I agree that those are important. The ABA Standing Committee has been working diligently to provide reviews on the recent nomination of Justice Steven Agee to the Fourth Circuit as well as other nominations. They have been very helpful, and we appreciate their efforts. Given the ABA ratings we have received in connection with the prior nominations of Judge White and Mr. Murphy, I expect the new ratings will not present a concern about qualifications. As I have assured Senators McConnell and Specter, I will seek to ensure that we proceed in an orderly fashion, that all Senators have a fair opportunity to question the nominees and that we have all the materials we need in order fairly to consider these nominations."

"Last year a controversial Bush judicial nomination took five and one-half months of debate after a hearing before Senate action was possible. We also saw what happened during the last several months of the last Congress. There were 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. I prefer to make progress where we can and to work together to do so."

Maybe they were trying to sneak the removal of Agee past everyone, but you caught them and they paniced and put him back on.

Besides Leahy's bombast quoted above, does anyone know how the hearing actually went??

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020458.php

Among the tidbits: Olson thinks the Gang of 14 was a bad deal even if McCain thinks otherwise; the Haynes nomination scuttle was mostly Lindsey Graham's fault; and McCain's going to rely on Olson, Brownback and Kyl as to advice on judicial nominees.

Unless I missed it; just JGR, SA & WHR. Very deliberate, IMO, although ultimately harmless. Why wave a red flag, esp. this year?

McCain will be fine on judges, parsecs beyond Obama's Koh-ish horrors. "Share the depth & breadth of one's empathy", yikes!

I think it's fairly clear that Estrada & Mahoney will be near the top of McCain's SCOTUS list. Neither is perfect, but would be vast improvements over Stevens and Ginsburg.

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

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/NATION/805070...

"A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ended tensely Wednesday after two Republican senators questioned the qualifications, speeding tickets and tax-payment history of a Michigan judge nominated to the federal court of appeals that hears cases for Michigan and other Midwestern states.

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas asked for a closed-door session later Wednesday for Judiciary Committee members.

The dramatic step signaled that a deal worked out last month between Michigan's senators and the Bush White House to end a stalemate involving Michigan judicial nominations hasn't quieted simmering tensions between Republicans and Democrats over judicial nominees.

Testy exchanges between Democratic and Republican committee members during the hearing also suggested that the three pending Michigan judicial appointments may not sail through the confirmation vote ahead by the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor.

On the hot seat Wednesday was Helene White, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge..."

""Did you ever get a (tax) bill that you didn't pay for a protracted period of time?" Specter asked White.

She answered, "I paid what I believed to be my taxes at the time. And if it turns out it's not correct, then I'll pay whatever I'm supposed to pay."

Specter launched into White's driving record, which she said includes speeding.

Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy jumped in and said if no one could be a judge or U.S. senator because they've speeded "there's going to be a pretty darned empty chamber around here if that is the standard."

Specter also hammered White on rulings that were overturned by a higher court, and forced her to acknowledge she doesn't have direct experience on what Specter termed "front-line issues" that federal appeals courts are dealing with -- such as whether the executive branch has overreached in trying to combat terrorism.

"There's always a 'first time' with any subject matter. The question is how the judge approaches it," White said of her Michigan state-focused resume.

Leahy jumped in and questioned one of the other three Michigan judicial appointees -- Raymond M. Kethledge -- to make the point that White was not the only candidate without judicial experience on high-stakes federal issues."

"After the hearing, White declined to comment or expound on Specter's questioning.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond who specializes in the selection process of federal judges, said he was surprised by the tenor of the hearing.

"I thought it would be a lot smoother," Tobias said, adding that Republicans are angry that the Michigan nominees were leap-frogged over other nominees in the pipeline for federal judgeships. "But it's hard to imagine the Republicans will filibuster their own president's nominee. That will not reduce to a good sound bite.""

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8283862&nav=0Rce

"Senate Republicans are questioning the speedy confirmation process for three Michigan judicial nominees who were chosen by President Bush.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says holding a hearing only weeks after the nomination of Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White is "an unusual rush to judgment."

The committee's chairman, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, noted Wednesday that the White House's Web site described White as experienced and highly qualified."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjzqHOtSZdJXlEdvgnmgXrZZ0XEAD90H08701

"Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican, said holding a hearing only weeks after White's nomination "does not conform with the practices of the committee and is an unusual rush to judgment."

Specter and other Republicans said they had not been able to thoroughly review her record and noted that the American Bar Association had not had enough time to rate her qualifications. An FBI report and White's questionnaire were only completed late last month."

"Specter questioned the timing of the committee's hearing, citing other Bush judicial nominees awaiting consideration. They include Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general in the wake of Alberto Gonzales' resignation, to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and two choices for the 4th Circuit: Judge Robert Conrad of North Carolina and Steve Matthews of South Carolina.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said they wanted to expedite the hearing because of the judicial emergency on the 6th Circuit and the challenges of confirming past nominees to the Cincinnati-based court.

Even on the White House's Web site, Leahy said, White is described as "an experienced and highly qualified judge, who is known for her intellect, work ethic and demeanor." He said the committee would not vote on the nominations until the ABA ratings were available."

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-53/12101909...

"Specter asked White about several criminal appeals that she considered during her career that were later overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court. Frustrated by her responses, he asked if the cases were "characteristic of your work on the bench?"

White said she could not recall the specifics of each case, estimating that she has reviewed 4,300 cases during her time on the appellate court.

"Both the prosecutors and defense lawyers regard me as being fair and impartial. I think that lawyers on both sides are pleased to come in the courtroom when I am on the panel," White said. "In each of these cases, even the prosecutor would have felt there was a reasonable basis" for her opinion."

"Levin, who helped broker the deal with the White House, said he was hopeful that the nominees offered a "fair way to end this gridlock.""

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. 3 or 4 DJ nominees will probably be confirmed.

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.

The crucial fact that some here miss is that Democrats control the Senate, the SJC and the agenda, and can easily block GOP nominees with impunity. The game for 2007-08 was essentially lost in November 2006, as I warned at the time. All the threats and cries for dramatic action are so much sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing except frustration.

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.

3 CCA nominees and 1 DJ nominee had hearings in the first 7 days of May (Agee, White, Kethledge, and Murphy).

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

Make that 3 DJ nominees (Lawrence, Snow, Murphy) with hearings so far in May, not 1.

What an abomination this White thing is. What does the White House Web site say about Peter Keisler, Mr. Chairman?

Well, if she doesn't have an ABA rating yet, that means they are no longer necessary. Call it the White Rule.

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

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/senate-republicans-show-true...

"As was expected, Senate Republicans expressed their displeasure with Judge Helene White’s nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) said that the timing of her hearing “does not conform with the practices of the committee and is an unusual rush to judgment.”

In a statement released today, Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron observed “Judge Helene White, one of President Bush's two pending nominees to the Sixth Circuit, was nominated to the same court by President Clinton in 1997. For four years, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing on Judge White's nomination, and she continues to hold the record for the longest pending federal judicial nomination in U.S. history. Complaints by Senate Republicans that her nomination has been fast-tracked eclipse even a grand sense of irony, especially given their incessant footstamping at the slow pace of nominations in recent months.”

"Senate Republicans’ sudden commitment to vigorously examining Judge White's qualifications strikes an impressive contrast to their past role as a rubberstamp for the president's picks, illustrated even today by their lackluster questioning of the other circuit nominee, Raymond Kethledge.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/washington/08judges.html

"Senate Democrats and the White House moved ahead Wednesday with a compromise to break a years-long impasse over approving judges for the federal appeals court based in Ohio.

But Senate Republicans seemed markedly unenthusiastic about the plan as the Judiciary Committee held hearings on two nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit who are at the heart of the compromise. One nominee is Helene N. White, a liberal Democratic candidate originally put forward by President Bill Clinton, while the other is Raymond M. Kethledge, a conservative Republican chosen by the Bush White House."

"Senator Levin spoke in favor of Ms. White, who has been a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals for 15 years. Ms. White was once married to a cousin of Mr. Levin.

Mr. Levin said in an interview that it would “not be appropriate” to consider the political balance of the Sixth Circuit and delay filling the seats in hopes of a Democratic president’s moving into the White House.

Committee Republicans criticized the plan, saying it would allow the Democrats to shut down the confirmation process before other Bush appeals court nominees could be considered. They also made plain that they disapproved of Judge White, although their reasons for doing so were less clear. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, criticized some of Judge White’s rulings as a state judge."

The "White Thing" (I like that phrasing that aptly catches the essence of this deal) may well be an abomination, but it is a necessary evil. We get the better of Bush's 2 nominees confirmed, and finally end the ridiculous amd interminable Michigan 6th Circuit impasse. In historical terms, it seems like a relatively equitable solution. And Murphy does get a DJ, and can move up later if McCain is elected.

Snarlin'Arlen does little more than his nickname implies. What purpose does is serve to question White when it is already a 2 [really 1 and 1/2] for 1 [Helene White (D-MI)] done deal in Michigan. Sen. Levin previously extracted another 2 for 1 [Janet Neff (D-MI)] deal for three DC seats in the WD MI. Did you forget about that little Michigan compromise engineered by Levin?

If Obama wins in November, will Republicans get the same 2 for 1 deal with new openings on the Sixth Circuit for Michigan seats? The Levin Rule would then allow Murphy to be among one of the three next appointee to the Sixth Circuit from MI. Right?

If the 2 for 1 deal works in Michigan, will the Dem. Senators from the Fourth Circuit try the same approach after Memorial Day? Will they try to resurrect some former Clinton Fourth Circuit nominee who died on the vine in 2000, dust him or her off, and package him or her with Mathews and Conrad? Specter has a precedent to follow now. Funny, I can't decide if it is a Super-Duper precedent or not! Get ready to be tricked yet again.

Let's not forget that there have been a total of five (5) judicial confirmations in all of 2008 through May 7. [Insert cartwheeling cheerleaders here].

This year will go down as the worst year for judicial confirmations in modern history. But wait, there's more. We will now have to count former Clinton nominees as Bush confirmations.

Bush has come full circle with the nomination and confirmation of former Clinton nominee Roger Gregory in 2001 as a good will gesture and former Clinton nominee Helene White in 2008 as a good will gesture. I'm certain that Obama, if elected President, will give us a different gesture regarding former Bush nominees.

In order to protect the role of the ABA in the confirmation process, Leahy has promised not to have committee votes on Kethledge, White and Murphy until White and Murphy have received their new ABA ratings. The question then is: how quickly will the ABA act? I'm sure the Dems want the new ratings yesterday, but if the ABA acts too quickly it could now easily risk exposing itself to charges of political favoritism toward Dem-supported nominees. I wonder how the ABA will resolve this problem.

I think the Republicans' game plan is to force a delay in the confirmations of Kethledge, White and Murphy past Memorial Day. They are counting on the ABA delaying their new ratings until then because they hope the organization will not want their connection to the Dems on the SJC revealed with unnaturally quick ratings. If the Republicans succeed in this endeavor, they can then demand that Reid and the Dems confirm two other COA nominees before Memorial Day in order to fulfill their original promise. That would open the door for the likes of Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. If the Dems opt not to fulfill their promise in order to prevent confirmations they don't want, they will expose themselves as liars. Will they do that in an election year?

Can anyone direct me to an archived video of the hearing held May 7th, 10:00 am?

Thanks in advance.