ConfirmThem

The story of the 4th CCA is a sad one. It is frustrating to know that Warner and Allen had Getchell on their list back in 2006 but Bush never moved on it until after Allen was gone and Webb had taken him off the list. George, come on, you tried to force this one down Webb's throat but it went no where except wasting more time of what is left of your administration. The balance of power hangs in the balance on the 4th CCA. Make two nominations from that stupid W-W list and get it done. You have made this sooooo much harder than it need be. If you are trying to pick a fight with the Dems for an election issue, you may be hurting rather than helping. It is you that seems uncooperative and against compromise. W-W gave you a good list. Picking from that list is as Michael Scott would say a win-win-win. If the nominee gets confirmed, that is one more good judge on the bench. If he is not confirmed, the Dems look foolish for not listening to their own homestate senator and can be hammered on that in the election.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/19/fourth-circuit-nominee-getchell-wit...

"It appears that the Fourth Circuit may remain with five vacancies until the next president. Richmond lawyer E. Duncan Getchell Jr. has withdrawn his name from consideration after a long controversy and objections from key senators."

"His chances were not helped when he was sued for being sued for defamation stemming from an appeal dismissed for malpractice. According to the lawsuit, Getchell was in charge of an appeal when the failure to file the trial transcript resulted in its dismissal. The lawsuit was brought by Christopher C. Spencer who says that Getchell conspired with his law partner, William R. Allcott to blame Spencer for the failure when the nomination ran into trouble."

Thompson would be a nice AG pick for McCain (although it would shock me if he chose someone like Graham). He understands how the Senate works, and might have some good will built amongst some of hte members, which could go a long way early in a new administration. A McCain-Thompson ticket also wouldn't be bad, but Thompson is a bit old for VP. It would be nice get get some young blood in the VP position to position for the next run.

Thompson would be solid, but I agree that a younger, dynamic conservative - someone who could eventually be a standard bearer for conservatives - should be the VP pick. I especially like Mark Sanford and Christopher Cox in that role. There are of course others - Pawlenty, Michael Steele come to mind.

The Michigan Supreme Court is getting its first "report card." Any surprise that the originalists on the Court would get hammered by the Michigan Bar?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/COL04/801200603...

Picking a former one-term Lt Governor (Steele) of a small state (Maryland) as Vice President of the US is a no-go.

Are you really advocating that a POTUS should set the precident that his judicial picks should be from a list compiled by a few senators? That's an abdication of a presidential power, if I'm reading you correctly, for a short term gain.

I think we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists nor should we negotiate with senators that hold nominees hostage. I also think a president should keep his perogative to choose from among his own lists, and senators should just vote up or down on those choices. I appreciate the president's stand on this principle. Without this stand, we'll have presidents beholded to senators for choices that are constitutionaly his own.

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

That's the position where I think his gravitas, common-sense plain talk, unapologetic patriotism, and strong backbone would come in very handy.

He would be good at dealing with foreign diplomats, and also at disciplining the State Dept a bit (remember those constant leaks under Powell?)

Finally, he would be good at showing many skeptical conservatives why the Dept of State is both necessary and useful.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

on the basis of expediency, not principle. sounds as if he's right, too.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Like Saad, Getchell got a raw deal. Like Saad, he was placed in an impossible situation by the White House & GOP Senators on the JudComm. Like Saad, he put the greater good ahead of personal interest and gracefully withdrew. Can't commend both Getchell & Saad enough. About the only heroes in this whole tragic mess.

Now, for Christ's Sweet Sake, make Webb a very unhappy man and nominate the best name on his list at 8am Tuesday morning.

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

So, you approve of Bush not considering Getchell in 2006 (when he could've been confirmed), apparently for the sole reason that he was on a list, but then picking him in 2007 (when he had no chance of being confirmed), apparently for the sole reason that he no longer was on any list?

Would you like your favorite sports teams to make personnel & play-calling decisions with that mindset?

If Stevens croaks tomorrow & Reid somehow hands Bush a list with Luttig, Easterbrook, JRB, & PClement's names on it, should Bush reject it out of hand?

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

hoosierteacher = bigskybob = moronic

Who cares who made the list??? My point is if the list is good, I dont care who gets credit for it. Obviously if Warner-Webb handed W a list with bleeding Reinhardts on it you tell them to whipe their butt with it. They did NOT though. Their list is very good as we have talked about here all last year. The POTUS ultimately is the sole decider on who gets nominated. It seems W and hoosier are just against the judges on the list for the simple matter they are on a list! The history of the Senate is a story of horsetrading to get things done. This is just the way the world works in DC, hoosier. You try to get the best deal you can. It is soooo stupid to argue these asoteric arguments about the constitutionality of lists. You are sacrificing good judges like Lemon and Agee for some theoretical BS.

PS Andrew what is your email addy again.

First, I think calling me moronic or comparing me to BSB is below the belt. I'd expect more from you. I've always found your comments to be reasoned, and I agree with almost all of them. I'm surprised at the hostility simply because we have a rare disagreement. I saw no ad hominem im my remarks, and my tone was cordial. I hope your remark was based on an overquick reading of my comments, rather than some past offense I may have made that I'm unaware of. I hold no animosity towards you, and ask your forgiveness if anything I wrote (past or present) attacked you.

After all, moron I can take. Being compared to Big Sky is a little over the top! : )

I refer you now to Sen. Salazar (dem, CO), who just this past week came out with a public statement. He now says that only judges selected from a list he creates will be eligible for confirmation (in federal courts that cover Colorado). He also states that the president must directly speak with him before making the nomination from the list, or he will not get any of his (the president's) judges. With respect jtp7, is this the kind of audacious behavior from senators we want spreading like wildfire?

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

There already is a new standard bearer after this election if the R's lose. His name is Bush. Jeb Bush. Does anyone really doubt he'll run and sweep through to the nomination should the R's lose this fall? He is a true conservative who can clearly articulate his point of view and one who does not "scare" people in the burbs.

Also, I saw on a TV show where one pundit guaranteed that the R VP nominee will be Tim Pawlenty.

Now that Fred is out as a presidential candidate, how about Fred for the next SCOTUS nomination. Yeah, I know he's too old, but he'd be a great one with his take on federalsim.

Sorry, Oz. I think you're dreaming. These are lifetime appointments. Take advantage of them. Paul Clement.

Im sorry if i was a little harsh in my comment. I have been having a rough week. I was more upset that you were bigskybob under a different name. No offense you just seem to have a lot of similarities: nickname of a conservative state in your screen name, that repeated line you have at the close of all your posts, your position on this issue, your prose and phrasing ("ad hominem attack" is something bsb said like every other post). That is why I wanted Andrew to check to see if you were Bob in Hoosier clothing.

As to your point about judges: I have no problem if senators get input on judges. It is not a bad thing to have communication between the executive and legislative branches. The fact Bush doesnt even consult or give senators the courtesy to let them know in advance who he will select is counterproductive. Likewise, I would want a conservative senator to have some imput on judges President Hillary/Obama would be making in their state. In the 1990's Santorum/Specter and Bill Clinton set up a system where Rick and Arlen made lists and vice versa. They got good judges who were not too extreme on either end of the spectrum. I think the founders would be pleased with that. Remember the GOP always wont be in charge of the White House. Your thoughts.

No worries. I've been with RedState for 3yrs and 8wks, and trolled ConfirmThem since its inception. The signature line at the bottom is common amongst RSers. BSB's use of "ad hominem" is probably because his comments are so poorly thought out that he takes any digression in views as a personal attack. Beyond that, I don't think I share BSB's views on much (if anything).

I agree that input (on nominees by senators) is helpful, and realize that give and take is a part of the process. My concern is that a small group of senators wish to coerce this (or any) president into choosing from their own short lists, and holding the threat of blue slips over not getting their way. My concern is that if a president succumbs, he gives the go ahead to other senators riding the fence (like Salazar from my previous comment) to enacting the same usurption of executive priveledge to make judicial nominations.

I think any president (GOP or dem) should have the intial list, and it is reasonable for him to consult with members of the senate from both parties as to his final decision on whom to nominate. I also feel that the nominee deserves an up or down vote. That up or down vote is (in my opinion) the advice and consent the president should receive.

I understand your point about the Rick and Arlen consultations, but it wasn't perfect either. We played games with getting Clinton's judges confirmed (though not to the extent that the dems are giving it back). We also got the lead counsel for the ACLU on the SCOTUS with an overwhelming vote, but Alito and Roberts didn't get the same respect in their confirmation votes. I hate to add senatorial lists to their (senators') quiver (and don't believe we should use the tactic either). That's just what I think.

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