Elrod Confirmed
By AndrewHyman Posted in Southwick — Comments (85) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Congratulations to Jennifer Elrod, confirmed today to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ten more circuit court confirmations to go, before equalling the number confirmed during the Clinton administration (when Clinton's party was in the Senate minority for 6 of 8 years). Let's have a vote on Judge Southwick, please.
UPDATE: Beldar approves of Elrod. Latest info on Southwick is here, and below the fold is the full text of Senator Feinstein's statement about the Southwick nomination on August 2, 2007.
I have given a lot of thought to this nomination. I have reviewed his record, his transcript. I've read the letters. I've had a full and very lengthy meeting with him in my office.
What emerged was an appreciation on my part that Judge Southwick is a qualified, circumspect person. That's hard to believe when I listen to the words of my colleagues. I don't believe he's a racist. I don't believe I'm a racist. I believe he made a mistake.
Now the question is, 'Does one ever overcome their mistakes?' I believe they do, perhaps some don't. But I believe he is a good person. I believe he is steeped in the law, and he's got 11 years of appellate experience.
Now I remember what happened to Ronnie White and, Mr. Chairman, I don't like that either. And my hope is that we can put these days behind us. And that we can give people a fair hearing, and that we can move them on.
I think what sometimes gets lost in our debates about judicial nominees is that they are not just a collection of prior writings or prior judicial opinions. They are, first and foremost, people. And in my conversations with Judge Southwick, I have gotten a sense of what kind of person he is, and the kind of appellate judge that I believe he will be, given that opportunity. Now can I be wrong? Sure, I can be wrong. Have I been wrong before? I don't know. But all I can do is give this my best judgment.
There is also the fact that he is nominated to a seat that has been vacant for seven of the past eight years. The vacancy opened in August 1999, and was filled for one year in 2004 by the recess appointment of Charles Pickering. Judge Pickering was not confirmed to the seat, and since the end of 2004 it has been vacant again.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has designated this seat as a 'judicial emergency.' And Judge Southwick is the third nominee to this seat. After Judge Pickering, Michael Wallace was nominated for the position. His nomination was not approved by this Committee.
I think one of the duties of our Committee is a duty also to the citizens who rely on the federal courts of appeals - a duty to ensure that the courts function properly and that vacancies on the courts are filled. And by any cut, seven years is too long for a vacancy to remain open.
Now I can go back years, and I can bring up Willie Fletcher, and he was delayed four years and I remember Senator Hatch helping to get him through when the Republicans were in control. But it's fair to say that the vacancy before us is a longtime vacancy on the Fifth Circuit.
I look at this judge as an experienced appellate judge. He sat on the state court of appeals in Mississippi for 11 years, from January 1995 to December 2006. As has been said, he heard roughly 7,000 appeals. Well, I know I sat on 5,000 cases on the California women's term and parole board. Just 5,000 over almost six years, and this is a lot of cases.
The concerns around Judge Southwick center around two opinions he joined. One of them was a child custody case involving a same-sex relationship, and the other involved a state employee's use of a very odious racial slur.
These were two cases out of the 7,000 in which he participated. He did not write the opinions; he joined them. One was a majority opinion joined by four other judges on his court and one was a concurring opinion in a case where he also joined the majority.
Ultimately, the case involving the odious racial slur was reversed by the state Supreme Court and remanded for consideration of a different penalty. And that is good.
The ruling of Judge Southwick's court in the child custody case apparently was not appealed to the state's high court.
I strongly believe that Judge Southwick should not have joined the opinions in those cases as they were written. That is my view. But I also believe that they alone should not disqualify him for a federal judgeship.
He has received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association committee that evaluates judicial nominees - a unanimous rating of 'well qualified' for this judgeship.
Ten years into his service on the state court of appeals, the Mississippi State Bar awarded him their Judicial Excellence Award. That award, given by the legal community that I hope knows him best, described him as 'a leader in advancing the quality and integrity of justice' and as 'a person of high ideals, character, and integrity.' You wouldn't believe that if you listened to my colleagues.
There is even more powerful evidence of his character. As a 54-year-old military reservist in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army, he volunteered in 2004 to serve in a unit that was going to be deployed to Iraq.
And by 2004 his new unit, the 155th Brigade Combat Team, had been called to active duty. Judge Southwick took a leave of absence from his job as a state court of appeals judge.
And from January to December 2005, he served in Iraq. He served as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at Forward Operating Base Duke, which is near Najaf, and later as Staff Judge Advocate for the 155th Brigade, stationed at Forward Operating Base Kalsu.
How many judges have done that? Now maybe that doesn't count in the views of some. But it should count, I think, as a kind of test of character of a man. Fifty-four years old and he volunteers essentially to go to Iraq, and he does go to Iraq for one year.
Now, add this. Last year, we approved him for a district court seat by unanimous consent. Ultimately the full Senate failed to vote on his nomination, but if we had, it is almost certain that he would be serving as a district judge today.
When we considered his district court nomination last year the ABA rating of 'well qualified' was not unanimous. As I have said, the ABA has now rated him unanimously 'well qualified' for this seat. In the view of the ABA committee, he's I guess more qualified for this seat than he was for the seat that we unanimously approved him for last year.
Now, let me say this. Again, if I believed he was racist I would not vote for him. But I actually don't. And it's very hard for me to put that kind of an appellation on someone if you don't believe that is true.
I spoke with him yesterday and I asked him: Please in writing address the concerns, particularly the odious slur, that have led to so much opposition on behalf of the civil rights community, the House, members on my side of the aisle.
And he responded with a letter, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record.
And I would like to read this letter:
'As you made clear to me today, one of your principal concerns is about an opinion that I joined which evaluated the use of a racial slur by a state employee. With your indulgence, I would like to give as complete an explanation as I can of my thoughts on the slur itself and how it was discussed in the opinion.
The court said that the use of the word "cannot be justified" by any argument. It could have gone far beyond that legalistic statement. Captured in this one terrible word is a long, dark, sad chapter in our history. This racial slur is unique in its impact and painful to hear for many, including myself. I said at my hearing that this is the worst of all racial slurs. Its use is despicable. All people of good will should make their rejection of the word clear. The opinion had an opportunity to express more fully and accurately the complete disgust that should greet the use of this word. Such a statement would certainly be consistent with my own beliefs that this is the worst kind of insult. As I testified, everyone took this issue extraordinarily seriously. I regret that the failure to express in more depth our repugnance of the use of this phrase has now led to an impression that we did not approach this case with sufficient gravity and understanding of the impact of this word.
Since this opinion has been considered by some to be the window into my own beliefs, a peek into my soul, allow me to give you some events in my life that reflect my strong beliefs in fairness and opportunity for all and my rejection of racial insults.
I always tried to treat everyone who came before me as a judge with respect. I gave a memorandum to each of my law clerks that they were to use no disparaging words towards anyone in a draft opinion, no matter what the appeal was about. From the bench and in my opinions, I followed that same rule. I believe that everyone whom I encounter, whether as a judge or in some purely private capacity, is deserving of my respect.
I took a broad view in looking for staff. I was one of the original ten judges on the Court of Appeals, taking office in January 1995. In my second year on the court, I became the first white judge to hire an African-American law clerk on that court. I could not have been more pleased with her work, and she went on to be a partner in a major Mississippi law firm. I was equally pleased with the two additional African-American clerks I hired before I left the court.
For several years - until funding problems caused its demise - I was the president of a local charity called the Jackson Servant Leadership Corps. This was a faith-based charity that provided a house in the inner city for five recent college graduates to live for a year, and to learn about working for charities. They were provided a stipend by AmeriCorps and worked at a local soup kitchen, for Habitat for Humanity, and for other charities. Every Martin Luther King Day we were the coordinators for work projects in the community, matching up volunteers with needs.'
And it goes on. And he concludes by saying this:
'Until the last two months, my fairness and temperament had not been subject to criticisms. The recent concern may have arisen from the fact that only one piece of evidence was being used, namely, the racial slur opinion. A much better explanation of my own abhorrence of this slur clearly could have been written. I have tried in this explanation to express my disgust for the use of that word and to present some of the evidence from my own life to prove my commitment to furthering the civil rights of all.'
Now, I am going to vote in favor of Judge Southwick going to the floor because I really think, based on this letter and on my own discussions, that he is not outside the judicial mainstream.
Now, could I be wrong? Yes, I could be wrong. I'll admit that. But all we can do is give this our best judgment.
I hope that future nominees of Democratic presidents will be treated in the same way. I think that we have had too much of this, over too many years. And I truly believe that the concerns outlined about Judge Southwick are outweighed by his record of service to the country, by the many cases that he sat on, by his long experience as an appellate judge, and by the temperament that I have come to know from my discussions with him.
10 more only if you count
by Dienekes
Gregory as a Bush appointee, as the Dems dishonestly do. It's really 12 more, or 11, if you count Gregory half for Clinton and half for Bush, which would be acceptable.
Numbers
by BoBo
From the previous thread:
http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj
After Elrod's confirmation, Bush needs 9 or 11 more COA confirmations to tie Clinton depending on how one categorizes Roger Gregory. If he is included as a Clinton appointee, the difference is 11 (Clinton 66 minus Bush 55). If Gregory is included as a Bush appointee, the difference is 9 (Clinton 65 minus Bush 56). At this point, it looks like only Tinder and Haynes will be confirmed from the present set of COA nominees. That means Bush will get 7-9 less COA confirmations than Clinton.
Articles on Mauskopf
by BoBo
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--judge-mauskopf1...
"New York Gov. George Pataki chose her to be his statewide inspector general in 1995, and his backing helped secure her selection as a U.S. attorney and later the judicial nomination.
Her office won convictions in several terror conspiracy cases and in the case of two retired police officers accused of moonlighting as hit men for the Mafia.
The office regularly handles mob, terrorism and white collar cases, but Mauskopf's tenure has been marked by an increasing willingness to seek the death penalty _ a priority of the Bush administration that finds far less public support in New York.
It was that increase in capital punishment cases that led one Democratic senator, Russ Feingold, of Wisconsin, to pause her nomination process. Under prodding from Feingold, Mauskopf denied she received any pressure from the administration to pursue more death cases."
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-liatty165378596sep17,0,397...
"Having grown up the daughter of Holocaust survivors from Czechoslovakia, Roslynn Mauskopf said she knew the "awesome responsibility" with which she had been entrusted five years ago when she took the job of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
"My parents saw the worst of what a government can do," Mauskopf said then. "That has always been in the forefront of my mind in terms of fairness and justice."
Now as Mauskopf, 50, prepares to depart her job as the district's top federal prosecutor to become a judge in an as-yet-undetermined federal court, she leaves behind a legacy of bringing down several organized crime rings and corrupt corporate executives. But she also has faced some criticism about her effectiveness, as overall prosecutions have dropped during her tenure."
Bush has only had 54 confirmed, no?
by Dienekes
1 to the 1st
5 to the 2nd
7 to the 3rd (2 no longer active)
2 to the 4th (not counting Gregory)
4 to the 5th (now including Elrod)
7 to the 6th (1 no longer active)
1 to the 7th
7 to the 8th
7 to the 9th
6 to the 10th
1 to the 11th
4 to the DC (1 now on SCOTUS)
2 to the Fed.
please tell me if I'm off on one of those numbers
includes the one who was only allowed to go in since she only had weeks to live. That one really shouldn't count either if we're being realistic.
Nielson does count
by Dienekes
the Dems' disgusting treatment of her notwithstanding. Clinton had one or two judges that died after short terms too (though he also got to replace them, something the Dems seem intent not to let Bush do; so too with the judges he elevated to SCOTUS, though I'm more sanguine about Stone's chances, and perhaps even Keisler's, than some).
BoBo, were you counting Pickering as the 55/56th? He wasn't confirmed, so he doesn't count.
Dienekes - clarification
by BoBo
Yes, the Federal Judiciary website includes Pickering as a Bush appointee. By removing Pickering, and counting Gregory as a Bush appointee, Bush has had 55 COA confirmations. That gives the difference between the two presidents now as 10 (Clinton 65 minus Bush 55).
Houston article on Elrod
by BoBo
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5189585.html
"The Senate has confirmed Harris County state District Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Jennifer Elrod is an outstanding jurist and will be an excellent addition to the 5th Circuit Court," U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said in a news release announcing the confirmation. "I am pleased that the Senate recognized her keen intellect and distinguished record of service, and confirmed her to this position in a timely manner.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR200710...
"The memos create an unwelcome complication for the Bush administration as it tries to win confirmation of former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey as the next attorney general. He would replace Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned last month after months of conflict with Congress over his credibility and management abilities. Gonzales led the Justice Department at the time that the newly disclosed memos were written.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vowed to question Mukasey closely about his views on interrogation policies during confirmation hearings this month.
"After telling us and the world that torture is abhorrent . . . it appears that under Attorney General Gonzales they reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret," Leahy said, referring to administration officials."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05interrogate.html?ex=13492...
"Mr. Leahy also said his panel would hold confirmation hearings on Oct. 17 on Michael B. Mukasey’s nomination as attorney general. Several senators said they would closely question Mr. Mukasey, a retired federal judge, at the hearing about his views on interrogation."
There's not much you can do about entrenched Democratic zealots in states like Rhode Island.
At least Whitehouse admits that he's stalling the seat (which is his state's only seat, so it loses en banc represenatation) for 15 months (more like 21ish by the time new nominees come down).
The way I see it, we definitely should have had 4 more confirmations last Congress (DC, NC, and 2 VA) if not for Senate/Presidential ineptitude. That still leaves about 5-6.
We might get the token Gregory renomination. The question is where.
District court nominees
by Mose
If someone knows which district court nominees were confirmed with Judge Elrod, could you please post the information? Thanks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175318/
"Washington: Quick question: who is the next Justice to leave the Court and what line would you put on that particular person leaving? Hurry, I'm calling my bookie in Las Vegas!
Dahlia Lithwick: Odds are on David Souter leaving soonest.
Tell your bookie to put $20 on red for me too!"
Dow
by jtp7
Did Dow make it out of committee yesterday? Someone said he did, but I looked at the EC and did not see him listed on it. The only judge on it was Southwick.
Judicial Nominee Progress Report: September 2007
by Outsider
September Nominee Report
As of 9/30/07
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 September:
Circuit Confirmations: 0
District Confirmations: 3 (Osteen, Reidinger, Sammartino)
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 1 (Elrod)
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 2 (Aycock, Jones)
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 1 (Tinder)
District Nominees had Hearings: 1 (Dow)
No. of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 1 (9/20/07)
Circuit Nominations: 2 (Getchell:4th, Matthews:4th)
District Nominations: 2 (Mendez, Anderson)
Total Nominees Pending on 9/30: 28 (11 CCA, 17 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 2 (1 CCA: Keisler, 1 DJ: Dow)
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 9/30: 5 (2 CCA: Southwick, Elrod, 3 DJ)
New Vacancies: 1 ( 1 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 8/31: 49 (17 CCA, 32 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 9/30: 48 (17 CCA, 31 DJ)
Change in Vacancies in September: -1
OUTLOOK: Present Nominees:
Probable confirmation in November: Tinder (7)
Hearing in November, possible confirmation this year: Haynes (5)
Possibly the first 2008 confirmation: Stone (3)
Who knows? Maybe this year, maybe never: Southwick (5)
Wild Card. Seems dead, unless an unlikely deal gets him through: Keisler (DC)
Nominations long dead: Kethledge (6), Murphy (6)
No hope this year, probably never: Conrad (4), Getchell (4), Matthews (4)
Vitter's 2nd letter
by AC1
http://www.thedeadpelican.com/100507%20Letter%20to%20Senator%20Landrieu....
I am searching for the letter that Landreau wrote to Vitter.
Landrieu
by AC1
I think I spelled it correctly that time. We need her out of the Senate because I can't spell her name. Anyway, this article lays out her objections to the nominee.
http://www.thedeadpelican.com/100507%20Letter%20to%20Senator%20Landrieu....
wrong link
by AC1
Anti-Southwick website
by BoBo
My, someone has enough time and money to set up a whole website against Southwick:
A few hours and few hundred
by SOP
A few hours and few hundred dollars is all it takes to put a website like that together.
I really doubt many citizens in the 5th CCA states care what Californians have to say about this issue.
Bush count
by skippy1
I wonder if Southwick is not confirmed by the Senate, if President Hillary would nominate him as an act of good will.
comedy show
by skippy1
I figured we all needed a good laugh!
I'm going to spend the rest of the weekend enjoying Elrod + 3 district court judges.
Justice Thomas' book is
by BillM
Justice Thomas' book is apparently sold out entirely in Salt Lake City. Store clerk told me a rush reprinting is being done. LOL at how the publisher was supposedly worried about the 1.5 mil advance they gave Thomas years ago. LOL at how Republican politicians still refuse to fight for judges.
And LOL at the jacket of Laura Ingraham's new book, which blurbs about "how !!**SHE**!![emp. mine] derailed Harriet Mier's nomination to the Supreme Court".
John Ashcroft also has a new book out that looks interesting, but a quick glance appears not to talk about judges much, if at all.
Thomas' book
by helveticus
If anyone can catch it, CSpan did an hour at a party for Thomas as Armstong Williams' house in DC. Williams is one of Thomas' best friends going back to his EEOC days. He was also a great guest on the old Charles Grodin show.
Anyway, it was really interesting as the cameras basically just roamed the party. It was neat to see Thomas, Scalia, Robert and Alito all there hanging out and talking. Breyer and Ginsburg were there as well. I caught Arlen Specter (who say what you will about him fought like hell for Thomas and whose cross-examination of Anita Hill quite possibly ensured his nomination), Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham from the Senate.
Dick Cheney was there and I think it was the most I've seen him smiling and having a good time in the past 7 yrs.
There was an interesting moment when Sen Graham and Thomas were talking about how Steve Spurrier has revived South Carolina football and Graham exclaims to him "Go Cocks!"(in reference to the football team the gamecocks). For those who have heard the rumors about Sen Graham, it was funny to see.
Thomas came off really well and it was just nice to see the Justices and others in an off the bench social setting.
I also really enjoyed the C-SPAN 2 coverage of Clarence Thomas' book signing party at Armstrong Williams' home. Scalia and Souter looked as if they came together. Roberts and Breyer chatted at the food table (my favorite place at a party as well), and Alito came late because he was watching a Phillies game on television. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was upfront when Thomas gave his appreciation speech. Oddly enough, she was in close proximity to Cheney and his wife when they arrived. I can't imagine that she felt very comfortable about that. Both Alito and his wife spoke to the camera, as did Michael Chertoff who spent some time talking to Roberts, whom he has known since law school.
Latest on Southwick
by BoBo
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS/71...
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who promised a speedy vote on Leslie Southwick's nomination to the federal bench, has agreed to give the Mississippi judge's supporters more time to round up votes.
Reid press secretary Jim Manley said Southwick's major supporters, Mississippi Republican Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, have not asked the Senate's leader to move forward on the controversial nomination."
""Sen. Reid said, 'I'll call him up when you want me to call him up,' " Cochran said.
But Cochran said a vote on Southwick now might fail."
"Southwick's confirmation is not assured because it's expected one of his Democratic opponents will filibuster the nomination - a tactic that stalls a vote through extended debate.
Since it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, Southwick's supporters, especially Cochran and Lott, have been lobbying their Democratic colleagues to help them reach that number.
"We think we have some firm commitments from Democrats, but we don't know that we have enough," Cochran said."
Ruminations on Southwick update
by BoBo
The article implies or directly states the following:
1) At least one Democrat senator has told Lott and Cochran that they will filibuster Southwick. I anticipate that presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd will lead the challenge in order to score political points with the liberal special-interest groups.
2) Lott and Cochran know that at the present they do NOT have the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster.
These are two huge problems. For all those who thought the Dems would not want to shoot themselves in the foot by filibustering Southwick, think again! The most liberal Dems probably want a fight over Southwick in order to garner support from the members of PFAW, AFJ, MoveOn.org and DailyKos. In addition, these Dems know that the Republicans don't have enough support to overcome a filibuster so they can block away with impunity. That scares the Republicans so McConnell probably will not waste a lot of extra time on Southwick now. McConnell will only push Southwick if he can be guaranteed enough Dem support to succeed in a cloture vote. He will not want the "embarrassment" of a failed cloture vote or final up-or-down vote.
Just like a lot of Republicans have doubted the medical competency of South Dakota's Tim Johnson to serve out his term, now the NYTimes is questioning Domenici's mental competency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07dementia.html?_r=1&ref=washington...
"The announcement by Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico that he has a progressive brain disease and will not seek re-election has left unanswered questions about how the illness is affecting him and whether it could interfere with his plans to remain in the Senate until his current term expires in January 2009."
Bobo - please explain
by skippy1
Bobo, you state: McConnell will only push Southwick if he can be guaranteed enough Dem support to succeed in a cloture vote. He will not want the "embarrassment" of a failed cloture vote or final up-or-down vote.
How is a failed cloture vote an embarrassment for McConnell? Of course I would rather have a successful cloture vote, but I would prefer a failed cloture vote than no cloture vote at all.
cloture vote
by AC1
It is very upsetting that a cloture vote is going to be required for Southwick. I have a different POV as to why Senate leaders wait until they have enough votes to call for a cloture vote. The reality is that once a Senator is on record voting against cloture, it is 100x harder to get him/her to change their vote. If they say in private they are going to vote no, then it is much more possible to change their vote because they have not yet gone public.
Ever since the Gang of 14 Deal, the Republican leadership in the Senate has been afraid of judicial filibusters. It all has to do with the way the original Gang deal was marketed. Frist advertised the deal as a great victory for Republicans because it "permanently" ended the use of judicial filibusters in a way that didn't require destroying treasured Senate tradition (i.e. using the nuclear option). After the Deal was signed, Frist was loathe to expose it for the sham it actually was. Doing so would be an admission of his poor leadership skills.
In the 109th Congress, Frist refused to bring Boyle and Myers up for floor votes when he had the chance because he was afraid both would be filibustered, and then he would have to go back on his previous rhetoric concerning the deal. I think it is important to note that Frist never disowned the Gang deal. McConnell as his second-in-command never did either. In fact, McConnell was probably supportive and complicit in the deal. That means that now he is in the same position as Frist was before. To allow a new judicial filibuster which he cannot successfully challenge would serve only to showcase McConnell's poor judgment and weak leadership skills. McConnell will never allow such an "embarrassment".
If McConnell casts Southwick aside, chalk it up to another unintended consequence of the Gang of 14 Deal, a gift that just keeps on giving.
But ....
by skippy1
But Frist had nothing to do with the Gang of 14 deal. He in fact opposed it. So how would exposing the Gang of 14 as a Sham be a demonstration of Frist's poor leadership? (Please understand, I think Frist was a poor leader, but the Gang of 14 deal being a sham is not an indication of that.)
Dems for Southwick
by Dienekes
we need 11, who can we count on?
Feinstein
Ben Nelson
Landrieu
Pryor?
Lieberman?
Johnson??
Webb??
Casey??
Tester??
Bayh??
that's 10 potentially, but too many question marks (and double question marks). its depressing how overrun by extremists the elected Democrats are, and even the few who aren't who won't stand up to them.
The one wildcard is that Feinstein's support might be able to get some surprising others, perhaps one of the Washington senators.
skippy1
by BoBo
I don't think it has ever really been proven that Frist was opposed to the Gang deal. His rhetoric before the Gang deal can easily be interpreted as a bluff meant to energize conservative special-interest groups and nothing more. Frist was probably well aware that he didn't have the votes to force the nuclear option. Not only were the Republican members of the Gang against the nuclear option, but so was Specter. Frist most likely was secretly overjoyed by the Deal because it relieved him of the possibility of a public humiliation if the nuclear option failed.
In any case, I think it has been reliably reported on more than one occasion that once the Deal was a signed, sealed and delivered, Frist was totally scared to challenge it by forcing any new filibusters on Boyle and Myers. In fact, he openly supported the deal, and frequently brought it up as one of the victorious Republican accomplishments of his tenure as Majority Leader. He embraced the Deal, he did not repudiate it.
As far as McConnell goes, as second-in-command, he seemingly accepted the Deal. In fact, he has never made any comments against it. That tells me that he implicitly supports it. In such a case, he would be just as embarrassed as Frist if a new successful filibuster showcased his (and Frist's) failure to successsfully use the nuclear option when they had chance.
Dienekes
by BoBo
As I have mentioned before, only Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor of Arkansas and Landrieu of Louisiana are likely votes to end debate on Southwick. Casey, McCaskill, Tester and Webb are too beholding to Reid as a junior senators to vote for Southwick. In addition, Webb hates Bush and already has his own judicial nomination gripe with the White House. He would never vote for Southwick because it might undermine his position concerning Getchell. Bayh voted against both Roberts and Alito. He would never vote for Southwick. Lieberman also voted against Alito. The ONLY issue Lieberman regularly votes with the Republicans on is Iraq. He will not all of a sudden start voting for conservative judicial nominees. He still wants to be perceived in Connecticutt as a liberal. Only Johnson of South Dakota might vote for Southwick, and that is no sure thing since he had no problem supporting the ten Dem judicial filibusters during the 108th Congress. As I have said before, I am not sure that even Feinstein would vote for cloture now because of all the grief she got for her committee vote. The best McConnell could get at the moment to stop a Dem filibuster is four Dem votes (Nelson, Pryor, Landrieu and maybe Johnson). That is not enough to save Southwick.
Disagree on some
by Dienekes
Your argument with Webb, and why Getchell should have any impact on Southwick, makes no logical sense, but Webb's far from a rational man, so it is of course possible. And I did put double ?s next to him, Casey, and Tester. But Southwick being a veteran I believe will count for something with both Webb and especially Lieberman.
Yes, Bayh voted against Roberts and Alito, but at the time he was considering running for president, wasn't he? Without the need to kowtow to the far left, I think there's a decent chance he votes for cloture even if he votes against confirmation.
And I believe Feinstein is basically an honorable and honest person, as much as I disagree with her on practically everything, and will still support Southwick.
No, there still aren't enough firm committments, and as I said, its inexcusable that the Democrats are so unreasonable and dishonest, but there's still more reason for optimism than pessimism, I think.
Dienekes - Part 2
by BoBo
Both Getchell and Southwick are both conservative white Southern males. For Webb to vote for Southwick, he would have to admit that there is no reason why he shouldn't vote for another conservative white male like Getchell. I can't imagine that Getchell is less conservative than Southwick.
As far as Lieberman goes, he still considers himself a Democrat and will not doubt want to "rejoin" the party as soon as a Dem is elected as president in 2008 in order to keep all his committee seniority and assignments. If the Dems gain more Senate seats in 2008, then Lieberman becomes more expendable to them. Lieberman knows this and will not want to go out of his way to antagonize the Dems. He doesn't want to be marginalized. By voting against conservative judicial nominees, Lieberman maintains credibility with the Dem leadership.
tortured logic
by Dienekes
Getchell being a southern white male has nothing to do with Webb's opposition - most (all?) of the people on his list are southern white males, too. the situation with Getchell should have NO BEARING on Southwick for Webb.
as for Lieberman, keeping in good standing with his party does not require a negative vote on EVERY nomination. that's just silly. I believe most Democrats want some reason to approve of some judges so as not to appear too obstructionist. Southwick's military service is a good reason for the likes of Lieberman (I think a big reason for Feinstein too, and perhaps Cantwell if Feinstein pulls her in).
yes I know
by Dienekes
my analysis suffers from the significant flaw of assuming the Democrats will act with some semblance of logic and the tiniest scrap of decency, but maintaing some optimism is better than such pessimistic despair, IMHO.
Southwick will NOT be filibustered
by BillM
Repeat, Southwick will NOT be filibustered. An anonymous Dem senator will merely have a staffer pass on a threat to one of McConnell's staffers, and that will be that.
But again, Southwick will NOT be filibustered. I'm being a bit pedantic, of course. But does anyone here doubt that Hillary & Reid would hesitate to go nuclear or force real filibusters?
McConnell is actually almost worse than Frist on judges, IMO, even with the election results factored in. Didn't think it was possible, but the proof's in the pudding.
Lieberman
by zendari
He will never have good standing with the Moveon base, and thus will never have good standing with the party in general.
I'm guessing that he won't run again in 2012.
Southwick Timeline
by BoBo
McConnell, Lott and Cochran MUST get Southwick successfully through a cloture vote by Wednesday, November 14th. If Southwick does not receive a final vote by Friday, November 16th, all the Dems have to do to rebury his nomination is to send it back to the White House during the December break. That will certainly doom his nomination forever. Not only will Southwick's nomination have to go back into committee if he is renominated in January, Leahy can use the Thurmond Rule to make sure he never gets another committee vote.
I agree with BillM that under such conditions, Southwick's nomination will NEVER be filibustered. It will simply be laid aside by Reid and McConnell as if he had never been voted out of committee. That way, neither leader will have to risk resurrecting the potentially uncontrollable issue of judicial filibusters.
Lieberman and Webb
by jtp7
With regards to Webb: he hates Getchell because he was not on his list, PERIOD. It has nothing to do with him being a white male. Weren't all of the people on his list white males Bobo? If anything I think he would be more inclinded to support LS because of both homestate senators supporting LS. That is all Webb wants, just some respect and input.
Joe L will never be welcomed in the Dem party again, PERIOD. They are putting up with him for now to maintain control. The second his vote is not the deciding one for Senate control he will be eating in the bathroom before he eats in the Dem caucus room again. He will realize that soon or later. Joe is to the right of Chaffee and Snowe so we should welcome him with open arms. His Iraq stance is a total bonus.
Lieberman
by BoBo
Unfortunately for those who want Lieberman to change parties, I don't think he wants to change parties. If he did, he would have done so by now. No, Lieberman will do everything possible to stay with the Dems. The Democrat Party is in his blood. Except on Iraq, he will kowtow to Reid and the liberal elite to maintain what he perceives as his standing. People here may think he doesn't have any standing left, but I doubt that he looks at it that way. In fact, I am sure that he will want to participate in a Dem presidential victory in 2008. He will try to stay as liberal as possible until then to keep himself in Reid's good graces.
he can be as liberal as he wants
by Dienekes
he always has been. that does not mean he can stomach the smearing of a good man who has served his country with honor.
Good heavens, Dienekes, the
by BillM
Good heavens, Dienekes, the only thing Joe Lieberman can't stomach is not being in power. Has he ever voted for a "controversial" judge?
Here's Dahlia's laugh-a-minute review of Thomas' book: http://www.slate.com/id/2175305/
BillM
by zendari
He voted for John Roberts and against the Alito filibuster.
That was pre 2006 Lieberman...before the Democratic party threw him under the bus for Lamont. I think some of you misjudge him.
zendari
by BoBo
Besides voting against Alito, Lieberman voted against Diane Sykes, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Does this sound like a man who would vote to approve anyone as conservative as Southwick?
a nominee. an understandable consequence of the Dems' poisoning the well of confirmation politics, but it isn't entirely true and never has been. all of those other nominees lacked a characteristic in which this particular Senator has much invested.
bobo
by zendari
Perhaps not. But does Al Gore's Vice President sound like a man who will stand by the President and Iraq even as half the BOP is bailing?
Ideology is important, but not so much for ideology itself....its always been about appeasing Moveon.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071008/NATIO...
""Goldwater's message 47 years ago was that the conservative movement did not have the right to complain about not winning, because it had not done the work necessary to win — that it needed to 'grow up' and go out and earn its victories rather than griping all the time," said Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator."
Lieberman
by AC1
I predict he will vote yes on cloture but no on the confirmation of Southwick. This is exactly what he did with Alito. Many of the liberal websites blame Lieberman for the Alito confirmation because they say be blocked the filibuster behind closed doors.
The only way Southwick will make it is if the Republicans threaten to filibuster Dem nominees in the future.
Southwick
by resipsa
I am happy to admit when I am wrong, and I was definitely wrong on the Southwick vote. Although, based on the comments that have come out, Reid is waiting on the Republicans to call for a vote before it occurs--which means that a vote should still occur. I'm going to confess my ignorance of Senate procedure here, but if the Republicans tell Reid they are ready for a vote , Reid schedules the vote, and the Republicans do not have 10 votes to end the debate--what happens then? Would the Republicans be expected to pull the nomination to allow Senate business to continue? Why would they do that--surely the republicans wouldn't mind the last month of the year spent doing nothing but filibustering one judge--and then never giving the judge an up or down vote? Wouldn't that be a great "do nothing congress" argument (particularly when the republicans could point to the fact that Feinstein voted for Southwick to have a vote by the full senate)? What I am missing here?
Leahy 8 years ago
by zendari
What a fraud.
resipsa
by BoBo
You assume McConnell, Lott and Cochran would not mind a filibuster. I think they would very much mind and do not want to put themselves in that situation if they can help it. That is why they are not pressing for a vote now. They want to make sure that they have 60 firm votes which can block a filibuster. If they don't get those votes, they will allow Southwick's nomination to fall by the wayside. As I have said before, the Republican leadership wants no more filibusters because of the way they advertised the failed Gang of 14 deal as a Republican victory. New filibusters will prove that such marketing was false.
resipsa - Part 2
by BoBo
If a cloture vote fails, then the nomination is laid aside until the majority leader wants to resume debate. McConnell would not necessarily be a participant as to deciding when and if debate resumes at a later date.
BoBo re the deal
by bk
Wouldn't the GOP then blame the failure of the deal on the Democrats? If the GOP had any nuts they'd come out and say that being a white male should not be considered an extraodinary circumstance.
Southwick and Keisler: disquieting similarities
by Outsider
The status of the Southwick and Keisler nominations are similar in the following way. The present mix of Senate numbers, raw politics, Democrat obstruction strategy, and Senate GOP cowardice and ineptitude, make it all but certain that both nominations are doomed--in the normal course of events..
The only hope for either is some behind the scenes political deal. Otherwise, all the endless handwringing here about what to do is merely so much too-late Sound and Fury signifying ... Nothing (with the exception of BoBo's generally astute analyses).
Speaking of possible nomination-saving backroom deals, what's the staus of the Court Security Bill, which may or may not be tied to a deal on Keisler? Is that still on, or did the House or Conference strip out the circuit judge shift from D.C. to the 9th Cir?
Up-or-down votes
by BoBo
In general, I think both parties want up-or-down votes on judicial nominees from their party IF AND ONLY IF IT IS ASSURED THAT THEIR NOMINEE WILL BE CONFIRMED. Neither party wants the "embarrassment" of a failed cloture or final vote. The Democrats were horrified when Ronnie White received his ultimately negative up-or-down vote, and the Republicans (especially McConnell and Lott) would be horrified if Southwick ultimately received a negative up-or-down vote.
If it looks like a nominee will not be confirmed, I think the leaders of both parties would for political reasons prefer that the nominee NOT be processed, as appears to be the case with Southwick. That is also what happened with Boyle and Myers. Rather than face a filibuster or unsuccessful vote like what happened to Ronnie White, Frist let the nominations of Boyle and Myers fall by the wayside.
Outsider - bad news for Keisler
by BoBo
Both the House and the Senate have passed different versions of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. The Senate version contains the D.C. Circuit/9th Circuit seat exchange meant to aid Keisler's confirmation. Under normal circumstances, the different versions would be reconciled in a conference report. The Senate Democrats have chosen, however, to submit the House version to the Senate. The House version of the bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee right now. When the committee votes it out, Reid plans to give the House bill a floor vote. Why aren't the Senate and House bills being reconciled? I think the reason is obvious: the Dems are trying to renege on the Feinstein/Kyl deal about Keisler. By passing the House version only, the Senate Democrats avoid the change in circuit court seats and avoid any obligation to confirm Keisler.
If Keisler and Southwick are denied floor votes before November 16th when this session of the Senate ends, then Bush should recess-appoint both of them. He should not, however, recess-appoint anyone else. This is because Keisler and Southwick are the two nominees who have been most obviously obstructed by the Democrats. Both have ABA ratings and both have had committee hearings, yet both have been denied floor votes. Keisler has been blocked for 15 months so far, and Southwick has been blocked for 10 months.
None of the other nominees should be recess-appointed, though, because none of them have had hearings yet and some do not even have ABA ratings. The Dems will claim that they haven't had ample enough time to process them, most notably the Fourth Circuit nominees.
Jennifer Elrod Could Be An Attractive SCOTUS Nominee
by BananaRepublican
She has the academic pedigree, she first was appointed for the judicial seat that she subsequently won election to by Gov. Rick Perry by basically being a movement conservative political activist in Texas before joining the bench, and she has a rather sparse track record.
I really hate stealth nominees, but I think that Jennifer Elrod would basically be a known quantity stealth nominee.
Figures. One must admit that the Dem/Libs are professionally competent and very very thorough. I expect an unrelieved litany of bad news for the next year, with the small exception of an occasional Elrod, Tinder, or DJ confirmation.
The process over the last few year bears an uncanny resemblance to pre-WWII Europe. 2004 as the Allied victory in 1918. The resubmission of nominations in 2005 as Versailles. Successful early Dem obstruction as Hitler's Rhineland occupation in 1936. The Gang of 4 Deal as Munich in 1938. Subsequent thwarting of "controversial" CCA nominees as the occupation of Prague/Czechoslovakia in early 1939. Frist as Chamberlain. The November '06 elections as the destruction of Poland and fatal compromise of the Allies' strategic position. Now we are in the "Phony War" stage, a seeming lull: no initiatives, no victories but no ultimate defeat as of yet. McConnell as Gamelin. If Hillary and a Dem Congress are elected next year, 2009 will be a Democrat Blitzkreig of radical activist-socialist confirmations.
Senate Democrats against Senate Republicans is analogous to the German Wehrmacht versus the French Army in 1940. The sight and results are not pretty.
re: BoBo; Maybe DiFi Will Save The Day Again?
by BananaRepublican
Perhaps DiFi be upset with her Democratic senate colleagues and, if she secures a promise from Kyl to continue to back the switch, vote Keisler out of committee anyway the way she did Southwick.
Maybe that's asking for too much. I don't know.
why would McConnell et al
by Dienekes
be afraid of forcing the Democrats to filibuster from the MAJORITY? they should relish that opportunity almost as much as getting Southwick confirmed. Goodbye Pryor, Baucus, Rockefeller, etc if the Dems try such a stupid stunt!
Courtesy of How Appealing,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6239.html
"All too often, President Bush’s previous and current nominees for lifetime federal judgeships have been chosen precisely because their extreme records will reignite ideological battles, ensuring they will not be confirmed at all or without a major fight.
President Bush is appealing to his right-wing base by throwing gasoline on the simmering embers of the judicial nomination wars."
I agree 100% with Glenn
by AndrewHyman
I agree 100% with Glenn Sugameli of Earthjustice that if Bush was seriously interested in filling judicial vacancies then he would let Senate Democrats select judicial nominees. Obviously, Bush is an obstructionist.
Just kidding! :)
Seriously, though, Andrew, you have to admit that you expect the Senate to do all the compromising and not the White House. Did you have the same opinion during the 106th Congress? Should Lott and Hatch have been more compromising with Clinton's liberal judicial nominees?
To be fair
by zendari
I can sort of understand Webb's gripe....unlike Levin, he submitted what is by all accounts a reasonable list. I'm not sure what advice and consent is exactly, but home state Senators should have some input into the process.
I can sort of understand voting nominees down in committee if the Democrats didn't pack it Northeast partisans. If the Judiciary Comittee somehow resembled the Senate Democrats as a whole and had a couple Nelsons, Johnsons, or even Byrds, it would be more tolerable.
But this 60 vote filibuster has no basis whatsoever, especially now that the nominee has passed a Democratic committee and obtained at least 1 Dem vote.
Courtesy of How Appealing:
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=134267&ran=113533
"Two years ago, someone made a huge mistake at the Virginia Supreme Court – a clerical error that cost a client a chance to win an $8 million appeal."
"It was a simple goof – someone forgot to file a trial transcript – but it caused the Supreme Court to throw out an appeal of an $8 million jury verdict.
The lead attorney for that appeal was E. Duncan Getchell Jr., who has been nominated by President Bush for a judgeship on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond."
"Was he responsible for the mistake?
It is not clear who was supposed to physically deliver the transcript – Getchell, another lawyer or a paralegal – but court records show that Getchell took over as lead attorney after the verdict in July 2004. Another law firm handled the trial.
Getchell’s firm filed the first post-trial motions three weeks after the verdict, and Getchell personally argued those motions. He also signed the notice of appeal that stated, incorrectly, that the trial transcript had been filed.
Every document after that was signed by Getchell. He was the lawyer in charge when the error was made."
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=27514
"A coalition of activists will rally outside Senator Feinstein's San Francisco office on Tuesday to present her with a petition opposing the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They remember that Southwick’s confirmation wouldn’t be an issue had she not been the lone Democrat to vote with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s nine Republicans in early August to move the nomination to a floor vote."
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_67454.shtml
"Working Assets, a mobile and long distance company, along with Californians for Fair and Independent Judges, is holding a rally and press conference to present Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) with a petition signed by her constituents opposing the confirmation of Judge Leslie H. Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Leaders from business, civil rights, gay and law organizations will speak at the rally about the issues at stake.
As part of its efforts to defeat the nomination of Southwick, Working Assets set up an online campaign in June to encourage their customers (who are constituents of the Judiciary Committee Members) to send emails to these Members asking them to oppose the Southwick nomination. As a result, more than 20,000 emails were sent to the Members; of those emails, more than 6,900 were directed to Senator Feinstein."
Just FYI, here's an excerpt
by AndrewHyman
Just FYI, here's an excerpt from Why the Senate Should Confirm Judge Alito: The Democrats Liked Him Before, and They Don't Need to Love Him Now, by Scott Gerber (Findlaw; Thursday, Nov. 03, 2005):
The Constitution establishes a merit-based confirmation process. The confirmation processes involving the last three nominees confirmed to the Supreme Court--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and, most recently, John G. Roberts, Jr.--focused on the merits of the respective candidates. The processes for Bork and Thomas were political, in the partisan sense of the word. And much more recently, the opposition to Miers also was partisan, although it was the right-wing of President Bush's own party that is to blame for her unfortunate withdrawal: It feared that Miers, though conservative, wasn't conservative enough.
Which type of confirmation process is the correct one isn't just a matter of taste, or policy; it's a matter of constitutional law. The Constitution envisions the sort of process that Ginsburg, Breyer, and Roberts experienced, and rejects the sort of process to which Bork, Thomas, and Miers were subjected....Hamilton, who saw a limited role for the Senate in the appointment process, believed that the Senate would, and should, reject a nominee who was lacking in objective merit. "Thus it could hardly happen," Hamilton wrote in Federalist no. 66, "that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency toward the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire and the proofs of the want of it destroy."
....
Although many Court watchers believe that a merit-based appointment process is "not realistic," given the realities of constitutional politics, others disagree, including Professor Henry J. Abraham, the leading authority on the Supreme Court appointment process. According to Professor Abraham, "merit need not, indeed it does not, 'lie in the eye of the beholder.' It is eminently identifiable and attainable."Professor Abraham identifies nine factors to consider when making a merit-based evaluation of a candidate for the Supreme Court:
(1) demonstrated judicial temperament; (2) professional expertise and competence; (3) absolute personal as well as professional integrity; (4) an able, agile, lucid mind; (5) appropriate professional educational background or training; (6) the ability to communicate clearly, both orally and in writing, and especially the latter; (7) resolute fair-mindedness; (8) a solid understanding of the proper judicial role of judges under our Constitution; and (9) ascertainable good health.
Conspicuously absent from Professor Abraham's list is a particular nominee's purported position on abortion--or any other hot button issue of the day. And fulfillment of each of his factors can be assessed in a way that puts partisan politics aside.
For example, Democrats can surely agree that some Republican nominees are fair-minded and appropriately educated. Republicans can surely admit that some Democratic nominees have integrity and write well.
I agree with Gerber. The text of the Constitution creates a strong presumption in favor of a nominee, by giving the sole and entire power of nomination to the President. Only the appointment power is shared with the Senate, and this must mean that a nominee is entitled to deference, and should only be rejected for lack of merit, rather than for lack of political conformity.
Andrew
by BoBo
You may be theoretically correct, but in a practical sense your theory will not accelerate the confirmation of any documented conservatives to COA positions right now. I think there are two mutually exclusive possibilities right now:
1) nominate conservatives who have records that it is known will anger the Democrats, and then fight long, drawn-out confirmation battles that will ultimately fail, or
2) nominate as conservative as possible consensus nominees who will eventually be confirmed.
I personally do not want to leave any open COA seats available at the end of Bush's tenure for President Hillary to fill (with the consent of a Dem-controlled Senate) in 2009 with raging liberals. Does anyone remember Elena Kagan, Harold Koh, Seth Waxman or even Helene White? Those are the people who will be our future judges if Bush refuses to nominate consensus nominees now. That's what an ideological battle over judges will get us at the present moment with a Dem-controlled Senate
While I understand that this site
by Classic
is about nominations and not cases heard before SCOUTS, I would like to see a thread on the case heard today with regard to a Mexican national already found guilty of murder. His case is in front of SCOTUS for the second time (first time was garden variety death penalty appeal)--this time for a treaty/agreement that says any Mexican national has a right to an attorney paid for by the Mexican government.
As far as I can tell, the court finding in favor of this defendant would have appalling long term consequences for our constitution and nation. My impression is that the vote will come down to Kennedy (surprise, surprise).
Again, I know about SCOTUS blog, but I greatly appreciate the legal minds at CT.com, who help set me straight, explain things to me in understandable depth, and do so with a clear eye and a wry smile.
So, Andrew, do you think we could have a post and thread on this--with you or someone else providing the name of the case, a link, and so on? Many thanks for considering it.
Bobo - The time may have passed...
by Robert1
I agree with your basic framing of the issue, and also agree that if we were still able to confirm consensus judges, I'd do that rather than leave them open for Hillary. But my question now is whether we have passed the point of no return - will Leahy just confirm 1-2 more this year, then shut the door in 2008? If that's the case, then there is no point in going for consensus judges; we should instead declare full-scale war, even if it means fighting losing battles over nominees like Southwick to fire up the base. As I've said before, this is a good issue for us, and because of incredibly bad (and slow) staff work to this point, the WH may have forced us to the point where this is the only path left.
David Lat's take on Getchell
by BoBo
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/10/lawyer_of_the_day_e_duncan_get.php#mo...
"It's tough being a federal judicial nominee. Your entire legal career is gone over with a fine-toothed comb, and every mistake or misstep brought to light.
From the ABA Journal:
A lawyer nominated to a federal appeals court was lead attorney on an $8 million appeal that got tossed because the trial transcript was not filed by the deadline.
E. Duncan Getchell Jr. of McGuireWoods asked the Virginia Supreme Court to hear the appeal anyway, but the judges refused, the Virginian-Pilot reports. Getchell’s five-page brief did not explain the reason for the failure, except to say there was a “miscommunication or misunderstanding.”"
Article
by resipsa
I apologize is someone has already posted this (I'm just now getting through some old blog postings), but this article from D. Lithwick--trying to decipher Bush's nomination "strategery" sounds similar to some of the speculation on this and previous threads:
Classic
by AndrewHyman
I really haven't been following that case, but will try to learn more about it if I have time. Things are really stressed at my job, so not much time to blog right now.
Classic
by BoBo
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_07-2007_10_13.shtml#119205783...
Over at Volokh.com, Orin Kerr seems to think that the Fab Four will vote against Bush and Medellin. In addition, he thinks Roberts has drawn in Kennedy to join them.
Thanks to
by Classic
Andrew and Bobo for responding to my inquiry. Andrew, I think you're off the hook, thanks to Bobo. I hope work smooths out soon.
I certainly hope Roberts does draw Kennedy in. I didn't hear what Kennedy said in oral. I tuned in to Glenn Beck after a Texas Congressman might have mentioned what Kennedy said.
I had concerns, given his aversion to the death penalty and an apparent increased flirtation with international law.
Courtesy of How Appealing,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aO_sHLemPSMA&refer=h...
"Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last month that only nominees with the support of both Republican and Democratic Senate leaders will be confirmed.
That means probable approval for John Tinder, 57, a 20-year veteran of the federal trial bench who was picked for the Chicago-based appeals court and has bipartisan backing. Catharina Haynes, 43, a nominee for the New Orleans circuit, may also win approval. Conversely, Peter Keisler, 46, Bush's acting attorney general, isn't likely to make it onto the Washington, D.C., appeals court."
Leahy said in an interview that by restricting confirmations to nominees with bipartisan support, he's just ``trying to follow Republican tradition.''
Keisler's nomination is threatened by a decade-long fight over filling vacancies on the District of Columbia court of appeals. Republicans, citing the court's low workload, refused to let Clinton fill two seats. Leahy and other Democrats have turned the argument against Keisler, last year questioning whether filling the vacancy is warranted by the workload."
" While Tinder is the only one of the nine Bush nominees on a fast track for approval, Haynes, a former state court judge in Texas, is likely to get the same support as a former colleague confirmed last week, said Curtis Levey, a director of the Committee for Justice, a Washington-based group that pushes for the appointment of conservative judges."
"In other cases, senators have threatened to block some home-state picks because they weren't consulted by White House officials.
``We're looking forward to a Democratic president,'' said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. Bush has yet to nominate anyone for a vacancy on the Boston-based appeals court that covers Rhode Island; Whitehouse said he's reluctant to give Bush an ``opportunity to put a lifetime appointee up in New England.''"
"
THIS IS HILARIOUS!
by BananaRepublican
On the Volokh Conspiracy link that BoBo gives regarding the Medellin v. Texas case, Kerr said that Dahlia had a funny take on the case. So I clicked on it, and...omg...I think it might be the best thing that she has ever written. It's just absolutely hilarious. I was laughing out loud! haha
http://www.slate.com/id/2175648
Looks like the justices are going to side with Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz over Paul Clement and over the pinhead former Harry Blackmun clerk Donald Donovan, who is representing the double murderer Medellin.
If R. Ted Cruz had been the Texas Solicitor General when Roe went to the Supreme Court, I don't think we would HAVE Roe today.
http://www.afj.org/check-the-facts/nominees/fact-sheet-on-jennifer-elrod...
Another reason I post this is I found it interesting that lower in the article, the author calls Edith Clement deeply conservative. I know some here thought she could be a bipartisan nominee to the SC.