ConfirmThem

Is he on the Warner/Webb list?

Yes, Glen Conrad is on the Warner/Webb list. Leahy, Warner and Webb have already made announcements that they support him, so it seems that he is likely to get confirmed. The confirmations of Agee and G. Conrad, though, will likely doom the nominations of R. Conrad and Matthews.

Courtesy of How Appealing, here is the video of the White/Kethledge/Murphy hearing from last Wednesday:

http://howappealing.law.com/050808.html#033636

Last night, I watched the first half of the hearing (which is about 2 1/2 hours long. Here are my initial observations:

1) Several Republican senators mention in the hearing that Leahy has told them that the Kethledge/White hearing is the last COA hearing he will hold this year (i.e. he is refusing to process Keisler, Conrad, Matthews and Pratter).

2) White comes across as an unprepared nervous wreck. Maybe the Dems told her in advance that the Republicans would come after her, but I don't get that impression. I think she was just nervous to begin with and that nervousness turned to horror when Specter began tearing apart some of her previous opinions. Then Kyl began making innuendos that she wasn't a law abiding citizen because she was constantly late paying her bills and enjoyed speeding. She seemed ill-equipped to answer the accusations against her, so I don't think she had been previously notified of the Republicans' scorched earth policy toward her.

3) Kethledge came across very well. He was calm under pressure and gave articulate answers.

4) Murphy rarely spoke as most of the questions were directed towards Kethledge and White, but he too seemed calm and collected.

Doom the others if we have to.

If we can add two pretty conservative judges onto the 4th, I'll take it. Right now, our Senators don't seem to have a clue as to what they are doing.

I think, just this once, you aren't giving the GOP senators on the judiciary committee enough credit. Reid promised three circuit court confirmations by Memorial Day. Leahy is undercutting the spirit, if not the letter, of that deal, by speeding along Agee (himself a compromise candidate), White (essentially a Clinton nominee) and Kethledge. The White hearing is particularly egregious, considering that she has not received an ABA rating, and the fact that much longer processing times in the past provoked howls of outrage from Leahy that the process was being rushed. The Republicans, for once, are choosing to call the Dems on their rank hypocrisy. The goal, I assume, is to force the dems to slow down on White, and instead move forward with a nominee who is much further along in the process (i.e., Kiesler). They are admittedly playing a weak hand, but at least they are making an attempt to advance a very fine nominee who has been treated very shabbily by the committee.

I do agree with you that a second confirmation to the 4th Circuit (after Agee) is a desperate need - but I'm very happy to see one more push being made for Kiesler.

It appears that the White House is making a dramatic shift in its nomination policy. Last year, it seemed that the president wanted to antagonize the Dems by not consulting with Dem senators and nominating rigid conservatives like R. Conrad, Getchell, Matthews, Rosenstein and Smith. While I didn't like such an in-your-face approach, I understood it for what it was: a political strategy designed to simultaneously energize Bush's conservative base and create an election year issue for the Republicans in 2008.

After many delays, only recently have the Senate Republicans apparently realized the White House's strategy and begun to strongly press the issue of judges in the Senate. Now, however, the White House appears to be back-tracking. Bush has acquiesced to Dem pressure by nominating Agee, G. Conrad and White. In my opinion, this severely undercuts the recent rhetoric on judges from McConnell, Specter and other SJC Republicans. Why is there a White House turnaround just as its original strategy is beginning to bear fruit? I don't get it.

"1) Several Republican senators mention in the hearing that Leahy has told them that the Kethledge/White hearing is the last COA hearing he will hold this year (i.e. he is refusing to process Keisler, Conrad, Matthews and Pratter)."

I thought Keisler had a hearing, just never a vote. If the above is true, then G. Conrad is also out of the running, right?

1) Keisler had a hearing in August of 2006. Theoretically, the Dems could still confirm him without a new hearing, but this seems unlikely. With other controversial nominees, like Kavanaugh and William Haynes, the Dems demanded second hearings before processing them.

2) The Kethledge/White hearing was a day before the Glen Conrad nomination. Since the Conrad nomination was announced, Leahy has stated his support. So it appears that Leahy will make an exception to his previous announcement and allow Glen Conrad to have a hearing.

So Leahy will break Leahy Rule #326 and find time for a hearing after it was too late. But there won' be time for hearings for people who've already had hearings two years ago.

lets just accept that this is all politics. If we can get 2 VA COAand one MICH COA by giving them White that is what we may have to do until McCain is elected

McCain can renominate Keisler, Conrad and Matthews

If this country elects OBAMA god help us

It looks like Justice Agee may get a committee vote on May 15th. (Note - one date on the page says May 8th, but every other date on the notice is listed as May 15th)

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3353

Agee was carried over without a vote on May 8th so I think its likely that is the date problem

where the slave who knows he is about to be fired goes to his masters debtors and has them cut their debts and be paid off so that he has some friends when he gets fired.

In Bush's case, he doesn't need friends, but he may be trying to close out as many openings as he can get.

Now, depending on how bad of a "compromise," a given judge is, having Bush compromise with some home state Senators at the end of the term may not be terrible.

Yes, it's bad for Keisler and R.Conrad, but again, it's about control and especially about control of as many circuits as we can get and keep.

The odds are in favor of Barak being President just based on the President's numbers and while that seems unlikely to us (we can't imagine that many Americans being that crazy), it's not unlikely at all.

I think the White House senses this (or maybe they just have someone smart in there now).

BoBo,

In number 6 above you say "rigid conservatives." What the heck is a rigid conservative?? Let's not feed into the liberals' demagoguery by using their pejoratives for people who believe in the actual Constitution.

In a recent comment (#18 in the previous thread), BoBo wrote in regard to a Democrat CCA pawn that "it used to be Pratter, but it looks like Casey has killed that nomination". Very possibly this is true. But I am baffled that a very junior Senator like Casey would and could successfully swat Specter like that.

Bob Casey is one of the most junior in the Senate. He has been a Senator for just over 15 months. He is a relatively undistinguished and uninspiring 'empty suit' who lost previous races in Penn. and was elected mostly on his father's name and Santorum's weakness. Two weeks ago he was embarrassed and somewhat humiliated by Gov. Rendell in the Penn. primary. He could not deliver for Obama. His record in the Senate is all but invisible. In classic Senate power calculations he is a virtual cipher.

So how is it that Casey can successfully defy and stiff Specter, an 27 year Senator, former Chairman and current ranking member of the SJC. Why and how could he do this? It seems to me that Leahy and the Dem. Senate leadership are using Casey as the pawn to blue-slip Pratter. But why?

Almost nothing the current Senate Dems do to flout Senate tradition surprises me, but I will be amazed if they deliberately scuttle Pratter (and thus Short), thus directly poking a stick in Specter's eye. It goes against a centuries-old Senate tradition of courtesy and deference to senior Senators on nominations. Why would they do this for a single 3rd Circuit nominee? It could rebound on them sometime when they're in the minority. The outgoing majority Dems even confirmed Shedd to the 4th in November 2002 as a 'going-away present' to the retiring Thurmond. Thurmond was also a former SJC Chairman but was by no means on as good terms with Dems as Specter is.

I still think they are using Pratter as a pawn and will ultimately let Specter have his nominees, but maybe I'm again underestimating the Dem's ruthlessness. It's still hard to believe they would do that to Specter. Courtesy to senior Senators on their nominees is one of the oldest and strongest Senate traditions. I am really baffled about this and request responses from anyone who has ideas to offer.

Pratter gets scuttled, and then Short gets nominated to a district court seat by Pres. Obama. Specter is happy - his protégé still gets her seat (I don't think Specter has any particular interest in getting Pratter confirmed, other than to open up the seat for Short). The dems are happy because they get to fill the Circuit seat. Conservatives aren't too happy, but taking the world as it is, we move on.

Anything is possible in the Byzantine world of the Senate.

Dems tell Specter and Administration they definitely won't confirm Pratter. But they would confirm Short to one of the 3 recently-vacated Pennsylvania East DJ seats. Leahy has already complained about Short being nominated to a non-vacant DJ position (Pratter's). Bush withdraws Short's nomination to Pratter's DJ, then renominates her to one of the other 3. Short gets confirmed rapidly and Pratter goes to Limbo. Specter and the Dems are happy. I am not.

Maybe the Senate Dems are furious with Specter for playing "footsy" with people like Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, Brownback and Coburn. They may think he has betrayed them and needs to pay a price. Admittedly, this goes against Senate tradition, but the atmosphere in the Senate is so toxic now. If you watch White's hearing, you will notice that Specter on several occasions is very snippy with Leahy. They don't appear to be on such good terms now.

In general, I have always though Specter was a lot of hot air. Periodically, he would rant and rave about a blocked nomination (like he did with Keisler and Wallace) and then do nothing to back up his rhetoric. I don't think he was helpful at all with Southwick's confirmation crisis. He let Lott and Cochran do all the heavy lifting.

Why he is so aggressive with Leahy and the Dems now is a mystery to me. It might have something to do with Pratter and Short. Either Leahy told Specter that there was too much Dem opposition to her to allow her to be processed, or Specter just doesn't care about the nomination anymore. It all comes across as odd to me. Maybe the return of his cancer has caused him to re-evaluate his position on judges?

It seems as if Specter and Leahy are engaged in an old grudge match and neither one is going to budge. Even Read appears to be making statements about Senate legislation and judicial nominations without consulting with Leahy. Now Leahy and Casey are ganging up on the now twice cancer striken Specter by ignoring Senate courtesy on his meager request for Pratter/Short. But the old dog still has some fight left in him as displayed in his questioning of White. More interesting is Specter's request for a closed session for additional questioning of White. Perhaps Specter has some real dirt on White which will torpedo her nomination and scuttle Leahy's pledge of 3 COA confirmations by Memorial Day. Leahy, in turn, may have pressured Casey to blue slip Pratter/Short.

From a jaded point of view, perhaps Leahy and Casey are trying to purposely aggravate Specter so that Specter's cancer turns fatal. Then the Democratic Governor of PA can name his replacement and Leahy/Casey can name the next nominee to the Third Circuit. I put nothing past these bastards.