ConfirmThem

Hey I found your blog today linked from Human Events. I really like what I see. I'll be sure to regularly stop in.

I have a humble little blog of my own (A Voice in the Wilderness) and here's my latest piece:

rjmoeller.com...et-it-obama/

Keep up the good work. Thanks and God bless!
-RJM

There's not been a whole lot going on here lately, and probably won't be for the foreseeable future. But, our excellent commenters are always providing interesting news and info about judicial vacancies, nominations, confirmations, and the like.

There's virtually nothing new in this article, but somehow, Carl seems to have missed that there actually will be *four* vacancies on the 2nd Circuit by October 10, when Barrington Parker takes senior status.

Tobias also doesn't suggest nominees for the other vacancies, and only briefly touches on Denny Chin's likely nomination. I still think that Obama ends up picking District Judges Laura Taylor Swain, John Gleeson and/or George B. Daniels to the remaining vacant NY seats as I've predicted in the past: http://www.confirmthem.com/sotomayor_confirmation_vote_will_probably_be_...

In fact, the one area my 2nd Circuit list lacks is Hispanic candidates. I could envision Obama picking either Swain or Daniels (both are African-American) plus some Hispanic lawyer who is not currently a district judge for the "Sotomayor seat" on the 2nd.

Still and all, here's the link to Tobias' article, with an excerpt below:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090923_tobias.html

"Too many judgeship openings can undermine the delivery of justice by any federal appeals court. Moreover, Second Circuit openings are especially worrisome. The tribunal is the court of last resort for 99 percent of appeals pursued from Connecticut, New York and Vermont. The court decides more important business cases than any other among the 12 regional circuits, and it often resolves highly controversial questions relating to issues such as abortion, gun control and terrorism.

"Currently, vacancies seem to be slowing the workings of this vital court. Among all the federal appellate tribunals, the Second Circuit ranked second to last in the time it took to conclude appeals by issuing an opinion – a valuable metric of the quality of appellate justice. Last month's loss of two active jurists will surely exacerbate the situation – and, troublingly in this recession, the vacancies will likely further delay the resolution of many appeals that are quite significant to the nation's economy.

"A few reasons explain why the court currently lacks nearly 25 percent of its judges. To begin, Judge Chester Straub assumed senior status on July 16, 2008, and President George W. Bush nominated U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska on September 9 to take the open seat, after he minimally consulted with New York's Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton. However, that was too late in a presidential election year for confirmation, and the 110th Senate adjourned without granting the nominee a hearing.

Moreover, no one has been nominated to fill the Calabresi or Sack vacancies, even though each judge announced his intention to assume senior status this March. In fairness, however, Judge Calabresi actually took senior status in late July, while Judge Sack only went senior and Justice Sotomayor only received confirmation last month."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/09/sotomayor-joins-the-cert-pool....

"At her confirmation hearing in July, Sotomayor was asked her intentions regarding the pool. It was clear she had already given it some thought, and she indicated then that "my approach may be similar to Justice Alito's." Samuel Alito Jr. joined the pool when he joined the Court in 2006, but he jumped out after the 2007-2008 term. In an interview last October, Alito told us that he "just wanted to see what it would be like" to quit the pool and screen petitions in his own chambers. So far, he was pleased. Alito thus became the second justice on the current Court -- the other is John Paul Stevens -- to stay out of the pool.

Sotomayor said at her confirmation hearing that she wanted to "experience the process for awhile" before deciding what to do for the long term."

Sounds like she'll be OK -- it was probably related to treatment for an iron deficiency:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009937806_apusginsburgho...

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Thursday after becoming ill in her office at the court.

A statement from the court said the 76-year-old justice was taken to Washington Hospital Center at 7:45 p.m. EDT as a precaution. The statement said Ginsburg had received an iron sucrose infusion at 4:50 p.m. to treat an iron deficiency that had been discovered in July.

About an hour later, she "developed lightheadedness and fatigue," the statement said. She was found to have a slightly low blood pressure, which the court said can occur after the type of treatment she received.

Although an examination found her to be in stable health, she was given fluids and taken to the hospital as a precaution, the court said.

The July evaluation found "that she was in completely normal health with the exception of a low red blood cell count caused by deficiency of iron. Intravenous iron therapy was administered in a standard fashion," the court statement said.

Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February but returned to work quickly.

Two months after her surgery, Ginsburg told law students at a symposium at Ohio State University that serving on the Supreme Court was "the best and the hardest job I've ever had." She said at the time that she wanted to match the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis, who served for more than two decades and retired at age 82.

After the retirement in January 2006 of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ginsburg was the only woman on the nine-member court until Sonia Sotomayor joined the court last August.

Nominated by President Bill Clinton, Ginsburg took her seat on the Supreme Court on Aug. 10, 1993. She had been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1980."

Спасибо за статью!

The Senate has scheduled a vote for 5:30PM Eastern time on Tuesday (the Senate is off Monday for Yom Kippur) on the nomination of Jeffrey L. Viken, whom Obama has nominated to the federal trial court in South Dakota. Viken is not controversial and will of course be confirmed. For those who might wonder why Viken is going first among all of Obama's district court nominees, Viken was one of Obama's first two district nominees (the other is Charlene Edwards-Honeywell), back in June.

One wonders whether *every* Obama district court judge will get a Senate roll-call vote, complete with prior "debate." If so, that would in theory end up consuming a large amount of Senate time (even with unanimous consent), particularly since few district-court judges end up being all that controversial, given how handicapped district judges are by caseload (mostly drug cases) and sentencing requirements. Who were Bush 43's most controversial district-court nominees? Honaker, sure. Who else? It's hard to think of many others -- district-court nominees just aren't on pro- and anti- groups' radar screens the way COA nominees are. I guess under Clinton, a lot of district-court nominees were blocked (and one, Ronnie L. White, was outright voted down by the Senate after opposition from Ashcroft). And of course, who could forget Sen. Sessions' failed nomination to the district court in 1986, which was rejected in committee (entirely because of Specter!).

Kathleen Sullivan just won a rare victory for her (bizarre) client, NY Gov. David Paterson, before the New York Court of Appeals earlier this week, when the court ruled that his appointment of the state's Lt. Gov. was legal.

The article below on this issue labels Sullivan a "big winner" who successfully defended Paterson's "unorthodox decision." The piece also tells readers not to be surprised if the win "catapults" Sullivan into consideration for a U.S. Supreme Court seat. I think that's a little strong. Having said that, I do still think Sullivan has some kind of future ahead of her either as a federal appeals court judge or as solicitor general (recall that she was reported to have been the runner-up to Elena Kagan for the job). I could see Sullivan getting nominated for solicitor general if Kagan gets tabbed for the next SCOTUS vacancy. And, I could envision Obama placing Sullivan on the DC Circuit or at a minimum on the 9th Circuit (if she'd even want a seat on the 9th). As controversial as Sullivan might be (bar failure, lesbian), she must not be *that* controversial to Obama and his people if she was the other contender considered for the SG job. And, I suspect any controversy regarding her would be irrelevant to her getting a seat on the 9th.

Anyhow, here's the article, written by the former mayor of Auburn, N.Y.:

http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2009/09/25/opinion/guy_cosentino.txt

"Besides Paterson, one other big winner is this decision is the governor's lawyer, Kathleen Sullivan, of Stanford Law School, who took the risk of defending Paterson's unorthodox decision. The professor has been much talked about as a possible Supreme Court nominee. Don't be surprised if this win catapults her into consideration for a U.S. Supreme Court seat, especially with talk that Justice John Paul Stevens may be the next justice to retire."

I feel pretty confident in predicting Kagan for the Stevens vacancy, so Sullivan would be certainly a serious choice for SG. Being a lesbian isn't going to be a disqualification for SG, although it could be for the Court itself as it would bias her decisions on gay marriage.
OTOH, will some of the left howl about her position on campaign finance especially after the Supreme Court delivers a decision on that issue?

On another note, I think that the Supreme Court will take up DOMA and gay marriage within a decade. And as Justice Scalia said in a speech, he has no idea how such a case would play out, and I would agree with that. I'm just glad that Ted Olson was never appointed to the Court, and I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts privately shares the same views that Olson does.
We made a big mistake by not pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment harder in the last decade. With Obama likely replacing three liberals, I think DOMA will be struck down eventually.