ConfirmThem

This is one of those stories that demonstrate the dereliction of duty by reporters. They have not actually investigated and reported the facts. They merely repeat spin told to them by politicians. This seat is nearly 100 years old, and it was only once held briefly by a Californian and that was like 40 years ago. I'm not a reporter. I'm just a guy who can read Wikipedia, and I got to the bottom of this within 2 minutes. How hard is it to do your jobs?

That this story is repeated blindly by the press and, worse, given some credence by serious people is a total fiasco. Feinstein is trying to steal an Idaho seat! This is completely obvious to anyone who bothers to glance at which judges have held the seat. Trott never held the seat in California. Fact. Now it should go to a Californian? Wha--??

I continue to be outraged by the obstruction of Randy Smith for purely made-up and untrue reasons.

That was fast.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2415

for this prediction to come true did it?

The question now seems to be whether or not Frist will challenge Feinstein. My prediction is he won't. If I was a gambling man, I'd bet a million dollars that Frist will not bring up Smith's name for a floor vote next week. Why? He doesn't want any embarrassing filibusters that he can't stop next week.

The November election may change things if the Republicans are able to hold or increase their current 55-45 majority in the Senate. But as long as the seven Republican members of the Gang of 14 remain in service, nothing will change on Smith.

Frist will not want to test a filibuster on Smith with seven Republicans refusing to go along with him. At this point the relationship between Frist and at least three of the Gang members (Warner, McCain and Graham) is so strained, the Gang Republicans will have no problem embarrassing Frist by stopping the nuclear option dead in its tracks.

Do you seriously think that Trott occupies a California seat? It's laughable. The American people would laugh too, if the GOP makes an issue of it.

And just because Senator Feinstein says she'll filibuster doesn't mean that forty other Democrats will too.

Do we really think that this makes up an extraordinary circumstance? Will the Republicans really be so chicken they will let lady DiFi block this without making her actually filibuster? I say let her try, and then we run them absolutely into the ground over it. It's late in the game, we're trailing, and Dr. Frist has the ball. What's he going to do with it?

Do we really think that this makes up an extraordinary circumstance?
What we think doesn't matter. According to the "gang" deal, each member of the gang makes a personal decision as to what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. Do you really think any of the Dem gang of 7 - or any Democrat except maybe Ben Nelson for that matter - would buck DiFi on this one?

Will the Republicans really be so chicken they will let lady DiFi block this without making her actually filibuster?
When's the last time anyone's been "made" to filibuster? There's no such thing as "Mr Smith" any more. Either there's a cloture vote or not, and if there is one it passes or fails. It's pretty obvious Frist won't even hold a cloture vote if the Dems are united. And he can't go nuclear unless 6 of the 7 GOP gangmembers go along, and it's also pretty clear that ain't gonna happen.

All Senators would go on record. The GOP would have an additional issue in November. And, the next Majority Leader would know to do exactly what Frist did at the beginning of this Congress: announce non-acquiescence to Rule 22. I'm HOPING for a failed cloture vote on one of these nominees!

It doesn't matter if you lose the cloture vote - what matters is that you get an election issue. Force the vote on Smith, and if the Gang Reps wimp out, we lose, but we pick up an issue that may help in some close Senate races.

But first, get all the other judges approved.....

I can't wait for a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He would never be outmaneuvered the way Frist constantly is.

Neither Frist nor the rest of the Republican senators want their colleagues detrimentally exposed this close to an election. The Republican leadership of the Senate is desperately seeking to bolster an image of unity. Do you really think Frist wants any more cracks in that image exposed, especially after a mini-revolt on tribunals by Warner, McCain and Graham? Frist will do nothing now that reveals anymore Republican rifts. Did anyone notice how everyone recently is rallying around Chafee despite his past actions? No, Frist does not want miscreant Republican senators put on record at this critical juncture where control of Congress is in question.

Not one GOP Senator would vote against cloture on Smith. In all likelihood, the cloture vote would succeed, but no way would it fail due to any GOP votes against cloture, IMHO.

Here is the text of an email that I, a resident of California, sent to the (dis)honorable Senator Feinstein:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seat, for which Randy Smith has been nominated, is NOT a California seat. Please see http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/NEWS05... (all one line) to read quotes directly from Stephen Trott, the judge whose seat Smith would take.

After consideration of the information in that article (which I have pasted below), I would appreciate a response as to whether you still hold to the belief that it is a California seat. And if you accept that the seat is not a California seat, I would like to know if you believe there is any other justification for opposing his nomination.

Here is what the article, which is by Stephen Trott himself, says:

I then pasted in the entire article, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the seat is not a "California seat" (not that it should make the least bit of a difference anyway).

With the exception of DeWine, who appears to want conservative support in his re-election bid, none of the Republicans in the Gang would mind bucking Frist or the White House at this point. To do so would even ENHANCE their image in some eyes. Warner, McCain, Graham, Collins, Snowe and Chafee have never minded in the past striking out on an independent path. Why should they change now? Coming from blue states, Collins, Snowe and Chafee may actually gain a lot of respect in their home states by standing up against Frist. It is Frist who wants to maintain unity, not them.

Senator Feinstein's arguments against Smith are completely bogus. McCain and company are only giving a hard time to Bush on interrogations because it's a legitimately controversial issue. The idea that Judge Trott occupies a California seat is not a legitimately controversial issue. No GOP Senator is about to side with Feinstein, and I'll be surpised if a majority of Democratic Senators side with her on this.

As detached from reality as many politicians are, the article linked in the post leaves no room for doubt about the facts in this situation.

Andrew, I totally agree with you about Trott's seat. It has been occupied by people from several different states over the years. I agree that Feinstein's argument in regards to this seat is especially weak. However, that doesn't diminish Feinstein's possible power within her own party to consolidate a consensus in her favor. Such a move might not be based on any logical argument but on a unique ability on Feinstein's part to call in past debts from her colleagues. There is no doubt in my mind that she will have no problem convincing Reid and all the Democrats on the SJC to support her. With that done, I bet the Democrats in the Gang of 14 will fall quickly in line behind her and the leadership. We are talking about sheer power at this point and not logic.

Didn't think I would say this but I agree with BoBo. All logic has gone out the window. It has always been about who wants it more, and frankly the Democrats have been killing us on politics and messaging.

Hopefully, after the election Republicans will become unified, adopt a coherent strategy and message and give all the qualified nominees the only thing we have been asking- a fair up or down vote.

"..Do you seriously think that Trott occupies a California seat? It's laughable. The American people would laugh too, if the GOP makes an issue of it."

Exactly. The GOP won't make an issue of it.

Why hasn't ANYBODY interviewed Judge Trott in a major newspaper or on a major TV program? Why hasn't he been invited to testify before the SJC on this issue.

I mean, he blows Feinstein out of the water in about three paragraphs, in language any layman could understand.

The GOP really does deserve to have the Dems fill the Forgotten Five seats, as well as those of Luttig and the upcoming ones of Wilkinson, Stevens, Souter, RBG, & Scalia.

Just pitiful. Even a drunk high school football coach in Twin Falls is a better tactician-strategist than the current GOP.

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "ANDREW HYMAN"
Subject: URGENT: Error in Associated Press News Story About Feinstein
To: mbarr@ap.org

Hi Ms. Barr:

I just spoke with you on the phone about an erroneous AP story yesterday. The story is tited, "Feinstein Vows Filibuster on 9th Circuit Nominee." The erroneous sentence is: "Bush nominated Smith to replace Judge Stephen Trott, who moved to Idaho from California AFTER his appointment to the court in 1988" (emphasis added). Actually, Trott says he moved out of California BEFORE 1988. Here's a link to Judge Trott's statement:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/NEWS0503/604050314/1001/NEWS

Can you please let me know if Associated Press will run a correction? Or, please tell me the email address of the reporter who wrote the article, so I can point out the mistake to him or her. This is a very BIG mistake. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Andrew Hyman
Monroe, CT 06468
TEL 203-261-1234(w)

Way nice. I'll do the same when I get home.

"With the exception of DeWine, who appears to want conservative support in his re-election bid,"

Huh?

I live in Ohio. I read an Ohio paper. I see Ohio TV ads and listen to Ohio radio ads.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Mike DeWine particularly wants conservative support.

In recent days he has said nothing about the Judiciary Committee failure to more vigorously move judicial nominees. The logical deduction is that he is comfortable with the snail-like pace.