ConfirmThem

Feinstein just confirmed: "I am going to vote in favor of" sending Southwick's nomination to the floor.

Yea!!!!

Quin Hillyer

Good for her.

I've always had a bit of a soft spot in my heart for Difi. Of course, since my other senator for several years was Barbara Boxer, she couldn't help but benefit from the comparison. Southwick still has a ways to go, but this is huge. Thank you senator Feinstein - you've done right by a good man who deserved much better than he was getting.

One has to wonder what deal was made with the Dems to get them to vote Southwick out of committee. I am not naive enough to believe that this was out of the goodness of DiFi's heart or that it was done without the silent approval of the Schumer, Leahy, Reid et al. We also still don't know if Reid will give him a floor vote. The Dems can easily filibuster him if they want.

I am guessing that the Dems got
1) a deal to have their favorite bills not filibustered

and

2) the green light to allow Keisler and the Michigan guys to never see the light of day.

From a previous thread

Southwick was just voted out of committee 10-9 with Feinsten casting the deciding vote. She gave a very sympathetic speech which I think was partially inspired by a desire to see that controversial nominees of a future Dem president were not blocked by Republicans.

I don't know what Reid is going to do now. Earlier, he said that he wouldn't bring Southwick up for a full Senate vote just because the nominee was on the Executive Calendar. Reid must be tearing out his hair now. Not only does he still have to handle McConnell's "sense of the senate" amendment, in addition he may have to deal with the Republicans filing a discharge petition if he doesn't voluntarily bring Southwick up for a full floor vote.

Oddly, prior to the vote, Leahy claimed that Bush promised in 2001 to appoint an African-American from Mississippi to the federal judiciary and is now reneging. I have never heard of this promise before.

BTW, Jones, Aycock were held over.

I certainly hope that you are wrong about a deal ditching Kiesler.

The nomination of Peter Keisler will indeed likely be the next big fight, and it is the most important remaining unless a Supreme Court justice retires. I hope the GOP senators will fight just as hard for him as for Southwick.
Quin Hillyer

I also hope I'm wrong. But I would be willing to bet a lot of money that a deal was worked out with the Dems, and that this wasn't a last minute change of heart for Feinstein.

And since future judges and the filibuster power are all the cards the Republicans hold, those must have been traded in exchange for Southwick. We'll never know for sure but we should probably be able to discern the terms of this deal in the next few months.

1) Unless McConnell withdraws his "sense of the senate" amendment, Reid still has to find a way to deal with it.

2) Reid has said openly that even if Southwick was voted out of committee he would NOT bring his name up for a vote. How can he go back on that pledge now? What type of pressure will the Republicans have to bring against him in order to get a vote? A discharge petition is not an option now. Is there any other procedural methods that can be used against Reid. Can the Republicans force a vote without the Dems' participation?

I don't think Southwick will have any problems with a floor vote. If the Dems wanted to kill his nomination, they wouldn't have given him a vote in committee, or they would have killed him in committee.

As for Reid going back on his pledge, I'm sure he'll make something up. Every other word out of his mouth is a lie so this shouldn't be a problem.

All you had to do is take one look at Leahy's face after the vote to realize there was no deal that he was part of.

I agree with LMK on confirmation on the floor. The Dems need to save their filibuster ammo in case there's a SCOTUS vacancy.

Although I like Keisler as much as the next man, I disagree on priorities. The priority should be to fill Luttig's seat on the 4th Circuit (and the other open seats on the 4th). I realize we have a problem in the form of Sen. Webb to deal with, but really we cannot allow the 4th Circuit to slip away.

Keisler, I'm afraid, has a very low likelihood of ever being considered. Scandalous, certainly, but given the way the Republicans treated, e.g. Elena Kagan when she was nominated for a DC seat, we're not in a position to complain that much.

We still have a good majority on the DC Circuit, but the 4th, a very important circuit, may slip away. We have to recognize we're only going to get a limited number of COA judges confirmed in the remaining Bush time.

4th Circuit first, then Keisler I would say. And the 6th Circuit is also very important.

The ground from under Sen. Reid is sinking fast. I think that maybe the Michigan candidates were part of the deal (they'll never get blue slips anyway). Keisler was not because the WH would not go along. Although, I think that Keisler will have to have the same kind of all out offensive to get him out of committee. Sen. McConnell played this well. He has been slowing the Senate down from time to time this month. They were shots across the bow and Reid threw a tantrum after one episode and had to apologize to Sen. Cornyn after another. Not a complete slowdown or shutdown but enough of a tweeaking of Senate procedures to get the Dems attention. Southwick made the rounds in DC meeting with the Senators. Finally, the obstruction of an honorable vet willing to serve his country yet again does not go over well at the ballot box.

Final note: LMK, I find your lack of faith in the integrity of Sen. Reid's words disturbing.

OK, if Bobo's report is accurate that Reid says he wouldn't bring Southwick up for a vote even if he was placed on the executive calendar, what're McConnell's options? Isn't a discharge petition only for when a nominee is still in committee? And how does the SoS resolution on Southwick play into this?

I don't see how we can concentrate on the Fourth Circuit yet because there are no Fourth Circuit candidates who are eligible for a committee hearing for awhile. Conrad won't get an ABA rating until late September at the earliest. That means his hearing won't be scheduled until October or November at the earliest. In addition, there are no nominees for the four other open Fourth Circuit seats. Even if Bush was to nominate some today, they probably couldn't get an ABA rating until late October. That means in all likelihood no new Fourth Circuit nominees could get hearings until January when Leahy will start implementing the Thurmond Rule.

What does all this mean? Basically, unless the Dems create some new fiction about Elrod, Tinder and Haynes, it means that there are no more "controversial" nominees to consider before January except Keisler. In my opinion that means that Keisler by default has to be the nominee the Republicans highlight in the coming months.

Cubsfan, I'm really not a general expert on Senate procedure. I investigate particular issues from time to time, but unfortunately have not researched the particular one you mention. I could for a fee though. :-)

When did Reid say he would not bring Southwick up for a vote if he passed committee?

I look at the speech from the 21st on this site:

The members of the Judiciary Committee will decide whether to report this nomination to the full Senate. If they choose to report the nomination, I will schedule action as quickly as I can. If they reject the nomination, that action will also be on the merits.

I don't see why Feinstein would make a deal with Kyl to allow him through, then make another deal to sack him for Southwick.

If there is a deal, it probably involves authorizing some 9th circuit judgeships, if it is related to the Judiciary at all.

1) A discharge petition can be requested at any time.

2) A Sense of the Senate is nothing more than a non-binding resolution. It does carry political pressure, but procedurely it has no weight.

3) There are really two classes of procedures available to McConnell, even though Reid "completely controls" the agenda.

A) "Completely controls" the agenda is technicaly correct. The minority leader has no obvious recourse in the rules. However, the first approach is still parlimentary. It is not unusual for a senator to use rules to his advantage even when the rules don't support him/her. In this case, it wouldn't be out of the question to use a typical tactic such as:

a. A poorly worded or vague rule.
b. An obscure rule tailored to an unintended usage.

B) The real strength of the minority leader is leverage. He has the power to hold up legislation and a decent public platform to rally public support.

Cubsfan, I am unaware of a rule that supports McConnell on this one. However, the rules are often twisted (as in the dems using filibusters for judicial appointments even though the rules clearly do not intend such) or leveraged (happens at least weekly, if not daily). This by no means locks out McConnell from having options "around" the rules.

With DiFI on board McConell's fight is easier but not smooth. I put Southwick at 50/50 now that he won a favorable vote in committee. I wouldn't have given him a chance at all without Difi. (I know two staffers for Sen.s on the committee. I was only able to get ahold of one, and he/she claims he/she didn't see Difi's support coming).

Reid's biggest ally is time and the Helms (informal) rule. McConnell's biggest ally is the number of votes he can muster if the senate goes to war on this issue.

I don't believe Southwick is a major issue outside of the beltway (or outside of political/legal hardcore fans like found here at ConfirmThem). So public sentiment shouldn't play a major role.

Bottom lines:

1. How bad does Reid want this fight, and
2. How much does McConnell want to spend on this fight compared to other issues on the agenda?

Difi isn't a death blow to Reid's side, but it IS a major injection of life for Southwick's chances. From dead in the water to even odds in my estimation.

FWIW, I think DiFi voted on principle and without a backroom deal. I'm no DiFi fan, and I have nothing hard to back up my guess. But DiFi IS a reasonable (albeit liberal) senator, and I can see her voting her mind much easier than I see her caving to pressure. I don't see anything coming up on the agenda where McConnell has any incentives for her either.

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

Sen. Feinstein is a liberal, but a reasonable and honest one, and I can deal with that.

Thank you Senator Feinstein!