ConfirmThem

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS/70...

What's the consensus on what this means? I really thought he would be voted out today.

The Southwick delay puts the focus on McConnell and the Repubs to respond quickly. We'll see what they're really made of. Time to make some phone calls.

The article from the first post states that Specter asked for the delay. That tells me that Southwick was actually going to be voted down.

I'd rather have a fight over a mid-forties Allison Eid or Margaret Ryan or even a late fifties Janice Rogers Brown than a 63-yr-old Alice Batchelder. That's just way too old.

What you are suggesting is the Frist strategy: prefer to be weak and ineffective as opposed to appearing to be weak and ineffective.

Hold the vote!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leadership with the intestinal fortitude to fight liberalism.

This is the same crap that went on with Boyle, Haynes and a host of others. Holding the vote=holding someone accountable for the outcome.

This stuff would never play in the real world, only in Washington.

If we're reading the tea leaves for a retirement, I'd still lean towards Stevens.

He has been not only on the wrong end of the key 5 to 4 decisions that have gone on, but many 7-2 and even a couple of 8-1.

All of the "the GOP left me" reasons that you site for Souter as well as the Bush weakness apply to Stevens as well. Souter I suspect would leave if conservatives didn't chant "No more Souters" ever morning as part of their daily prayers.

As for how to fight it, I like the "ram JRB down their throats and let a bunch of Democrats harangue and vote down a black woman" followed by Diane Sykes or Karen Williams (though Williams seems a non-starter for perceived reversal issues).

Romney or Fred.

So much for the Dems' good faith following Bush's withdrawal of Boyle, Haynes, Myers, and Wallace....

Quin:

I agree Batchelder would be a great pick. Andrew and I had said this some time back. I understand some do not like her age. Still, she'd most likely be on the Court at least 20-25 years, which is more than enough time in my book.

That said, this White House will never nominate her. It actively disparaged her last time there was a vacancy (remember Brit Hume's discussion of her?), so why would she ever be considered again by this White House?

What did Hume (who likely knew nothing about her) say about Batchelder?

She would certainly be confirmed, and would almost certainly serve 12-20 distinguished terms. Huge mistake, IMO to have a firm age cutoff; see Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Brennan JJ., for what happens when you're wrong about a younger judge.

The main deciding factor between Bork & Scalia was the ten year age gap, which turned out to have enormous unintended consequences.

That said, gotta lead off with JRB, who is 58, btw.

As for Southwick, ol' McFristconnell has pretty much shown what he's made of, hasn't he? :(

I totally agree with Banana Republican. 63 is absolutely too old. These are lifetime appointments. Make the most of it. Go as young as you can. Bill Pryor, Paul Clement, Miguel Estrada, Brett Kavanaugh. These people are all under about 45.

Are there any CCA judges who are conservative and young that most of us would be happy here who were confirmed in '01 or '02 when the D's had the Senate? If so, they are also definite possibilities. Made it through a D Senate once, can do it again a few years later.

Is all of the White House's silence on CCA appointments simply because they are too busy coming up with bad excuses for immigration or do they know something ?

Romney or Fred.

Not really much of a surprise, I suppose. This farce is getting more and more pathetic. Of course, this latest delay has the added benefit for the Dems of knocking another week off the calendar. The magic number is now 54 (weeks until June 30, 2008).

This also virtually assures that Elrod or Keisler (for sure) will not get a hearing next Wednesday, June 20th. The Senate jackasses will use this as an added excuse to make it a pathetic 3-District Judge-only hearing. This maneuver now puts a "July confirmation" in jeopardy, since a hearing for Elrod/Keisler would not happen until July 10-12 at the earliest.

Maybe the Administration should try to work out a compromise: a Southwick confirmation in exchange for a black conservative nominee for the vacant Distict Court seat in Mississippi. There must be some highly-qualified black conservative lawyers in the State. But then we all know how the leftist Washington politicos and interest groups (overwhelmingly white) smear, vilify and demonize black conservative nominees.

I wrote two days ago that if Southwick is delayed again today, it's over. Unless McConnell, Specter and others fight back and push hard for him, I'm afraid that may be true. The record of the last 5 years does not induce optimism.

Hume reported that the White House had looked into her opinions and found her to be a judicial activist. Take that for what it's worth....

It's been remarkably quiet today after Specter's move this morning re Southwick. McConnell used floor time today to introduce the "Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act." Nice press release too. Nada on judges. From anyone, as far as I can tell. Are they working a deal, or trying to convince the President to withdraw Southwick?

Frustrating.

Even though I don't live in Kentucky, I just wrote this letter to Senator McConnell on his web contact page:

Dear Senator McConnell,

I am writing to express my utter dismay at the stalling tactics that continue to be used against President Bush's judicial nominees. In particular, I am appalled at the smear campaign being waged against Leslie Southwick and the delays on giving him a vote.

One reason conservatives including me became so frustrated with the Republican Senate before the 2006 elections was the fecklessness they demonstrated in fighting back against the Democrats' obstructionism. It seems that Republicans still do not have the courage to fight for the principle of up or down votes on judicial nominees.

If you hope to regain a majority in 2008, FIGHT FOR SOMETHING your voters care about. The judiciary is a WINNING ISSUE for conservatives. I don't care if you have to shut down the Senate to prevail, but this issue ABSOLUTELY MUST PREVAIL against Democratic obstructionism. PLEASE do whatever it takes to restore sanity to the judicial confirmation process.

David Lat has the latest rumors:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/06/some_third_circuit_scuttlebutt.php#mo...

Not to beat Curt Levey at his own press release that he'll probably post in its entirety, but here's the opening paragraphs

Senate Inches Away from Shutdown over Judges

Southwick Vote Delayed in Face of Dems’ Vow to Kill Nomination

WASHINGTON, DC - The Committee for Justice (CFJ) – which promotes constitutionalist judicial nominees and the rule of law – commented on the Judiciary Committee’s decision today to delay a vote on Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick after Sen. Specter requested time to persuade Democrats not to kill the nomination in committee.

“Sen. Specter admitted that his attempt to get a fair up-or-down vote for Southwick on the Senate floor might well be in vain,” noted CFJ executive director Curt Levey. “But he is clearly trying to avert the ‘total shutdown’ of Senate business threatened by the Republican leadership if Southwick is defeated in committee.”

Southwick would be a great candidate for a recess appointment. His only current position is a visiting professor which he probably could keep while serving on the CCA. Then he could retire in 2009 to the law school job or be nominated again to the 5th circuit depending on who wins the 2008 election. Either way he could be a poster boy in the 2008 campaign.

The democrats have been sinking in the approval polls along with GWB because they cannot govern. The complete turnaround from Southwick's hearing (and Leahy's positive comments on the floor during the Livingston confirmation) to now just because the far left screams racist, etc. shows that the GOP cannot negotiate with them on judicial nominees. GWB should look for more temporary judges who would have good prospects on returning to the private sector in 2009 as recess appointments. I would say confirm Southwick by the 4th of July or shut the Senate down (not exactly but close enough for government work) in July with the threat of a multitude of recess appointments in August.

or fourth, or whatever, the motion for Batchelder. She'd be a superb pick IMO. its more realistic than JRB or the diaper dandies some keep bandying about. NO ONE UNDER 50 will get confirmed, unless its a bad pick, therefore no one under 50 should be nominated.

the delay on Southwick is utterly ridiculous. after this (third!) delay it will have been 4 weeks since he was first on the agenda for a SJC business meeting. its time for McConnell to play hardball with Harry "Incompetent" Reid. if he needs help coming up with appropriate actions to take against Reid, I nominate FrankJ of IMAO to devise the punishments }>

He looks like a reasonable pick for Alito's seat. Let's remember, we're talking about a NJ seat and a Democrat controlled Senate that is hellbent on stopping Bush's nominees. If he's reasonably conservative and has the backing of his powerful law firm to push the NJ Senators, he should be ok for confirmation.

Shalom Stone is a fact. He exists. He eats, breathes and thinks. Either he thinks conservative thoughts, moderate thoughts or liberal thoughts.

He is what he is, idealogically. There is no point in speaking in hypotheticals. If he conservative correctly characterize him as being conservative. If he is a moderate, correctly characterize him as being moderate. If he is a liberal, correctly characterize him as being a liberal. But, don't insult my intelligence by claiming someone who is both somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative should be described only as "reasonably conservative." Isn't that implying that he is somewhat "[ir]reasonably liberal," as well?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservatives lead their movement.

I don't know a damn thing about Shalom. I'm assuming that, since he's a Republican in deep Dem territory who is supposedly a Federalist Society member, he is very likely to be conservative.

What I do know, other than that you are a fool, is that it is preferable for this president to fill these vacancies than to risk a Dem filling them in 2009. I'm hoping and praying for a Rep president, but I wouldn't take the chance.

That is not a hypothetical!

Whether membership in the Federalist Society automatically makes that member a "conservative" is conjecture.

Is Shalom Stone conservative, or not?

I, for one, would withhold judgment until there is a definite answer to that question.

P.S.

One option is nominate conservatives, create a confrontation with the Democrats, and then take the issue to the electorate in 2009.

Another option is to have the weak and ineffective GWB negotiate with liberal Democratic Senators and support the result of that unholy alliance.

Either way there is a big risk!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.