ConfirmThem

The Senate comes back in session on monday, and it's likely these will be the final three weeks of the 110th congress. Anybody have any info on what we might see vis-a-vis judges?

No clue yet on who is on the agenda, but Leahy has scheduled a nomination hearing for Sept 9.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3537

The Notice says only "nominations", not "judical nominations" nor "executive nominations". Don't know what that means.

Although I am not holding my breath on this, if previously assumed deals stick, I think it is possible that six judges - two COA judges and four district court judges - could get confirmed in September. The possible confirmations include Conrad and Trenga of Virginia, Diamond and Short of Pennsylvania, and Arguello and Goldberg of Colorado.

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings110.pdf

As of yesterday, the ABA has given ratings to five of the six possible confirmations I listed in my previous post:

1) Conrad - WQ(m)/Q(min)
2) Trenga - WQ
3) Diamond - only one without a rating yet
4) Short - WQ
5) Arguello - Q
6) Goldberg - Q

The only judicial nominations included in the hearing next week are three district nominees. CA (a commission); FL (Dem and Rep) and UT (Hatch).

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3537

With all due respect to the nominees (who, along with all the others, deserve a hearing and a vote), big whoppee...

Is anyone keeping track of which nominees have had a hearing? If so, could you share this information with the group?

Following on Bobo's post, I suppose it is possible that initial hearings could take place the week of Sept. 15th for those six nominees. They could then be voted out of committee the following week (the last week of the session), and then confirmed immediately by the senate. I'm not holding my breath or anything, but deals have been struck then it could happen that way.

FYI, the Department of Justice has a listing of nominations, hearings and confirmations. Here's the link:

http://www.justice.gov/olp/nominations.htm

It's not always 100% up to date, but it's usually reasonably accurate. There's not exactly a big backlog of folks who have had hearings and the Dems have deemed "non-controversial."

Nomination Observer - thanks, that website is a nice resource. Assuming they are up to date, Kiesler is the only COA nominee who has had a hearing.

There are three District Court nominees who have had a hearing, Honaker, Puryear and David Novak. Honaker, because of his pro-life views, and Puryear, for murky reasons ostensibly having to do with his work for a private incarceration company, have been deemed controversial by Leahy and will not be confirmed. David Novak's situation is unclear. Other posters on this site have said that additional questions were submitted to Novak following his hearing and that Novak has not responded to these questions. I still haven't found any explanation of why he would be more controversial than any other Bush nominee.

Thus, as noted by Nomination Observer, the list of non-controversial nominees who have had a hearing is basically one name (Novak), or perhaps none.

I wonder if McCain will re-nominate the stalled nominees after he wins the election, or whether he will start fresh with new nominees? Stop laughing - he could win. Might as well think positive.

Although in the past I have been quite pessimistic about McCain's chances, I now think that Palin might just provide his campaign with the right amount of excitement and intensity necessary to win in November. Here's hoping she does a bang-up job tonight at the convention!

It's gonna be tough, but not impossible. He & Palin have to run the table with the speeches & debates, and also prolly need Obama to stumble over a "pay grade" & for Biden to do more "she's good-looking" stuff.

But can't count 'em out yet. Obama has likely peaked, who'd ever have thought McCain would be here a year ago, and you underestimate people (esp. women) with backgrounds like Palin at your peril. Very easy to get caught up in echo chambers (esp. online) or have your head spun by the talking heads these days.

As for putative McCain nominees, I dunno if there's a remote precedent. Koskids & big city media types hate self-sufficient outsiders who can't be condescended to beyond rationality, as we've seen, esp if they're not straight able-bodied white males. Even if she flames out, Palin's been good enough to bring that back front & center. God only knows how they'll react to a McCain win.

McCain will almost certainly lose the popular vote, and barely squeak by in the swing states that get him over the top, which will unleash a lawsuit of moonbats. He will be looking at a Senate w/around 56 Dems & a HOR w/around 240, all embittered over the Messiah's defeat and under strict obstructionist orders from the looney fringe funding groups. Plus the MSM will be chirping about "results were a mandate for bipartisanship" nonstop.

Then again, McCain may say "fuggit, I won my way when no one thought I could plus I've only got a few good years left anyhow, I'm doing it my way again & fug'em if they don't like it."

Speaking of Biden, any serious SCOTUS fan should take the time to read the sections in his book on the Bork hearings. It takes awhile to find the beginning as there's no index (it starts somewhere before the photos and maunders haphazardly for awhile after them); it's horribly written, and the self-righteousness, self-delusion & idiocy require a sickness bag close by, but it's a good window into how the other side thinks.

I took a minute to try and find anything on the Thomas hearings in it--zip. No surprise, as Biden not only lost but may well have committed felonies in the course of doing so.

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

Palin hit a homeroom tonight. While it probably won't help her any with die-hard Democrats, I think she did a good job in dispelling the idea that she isn't qualified. I am so dumbfounded by those who want to argue that Obama is equally or more qualified than Palin. Who knows what the future holds, but for the first time I am truly excited about McCain and feel that victory is within our grasp!

She did a good job. I was and still am sort of hesitant about her.

The 55+ Dem Senate is going to start screaming about any nominee that's not off Schumer's short list. We've proven that someone like John Roberts can slip past the Senate pretty easily, and even that someone like Sam Alito can get 50 votes if given the chance.

More importantly, I'd guess McCain would do a better job of at least attempting to placate Senate Democrats rather than steamroll them the way Bush did.

The race is over. McCain and Palin have won. Why else would B. Hussein Obama go on O'Reilly tonight? He's terrified. Palin drew as many people to watch her speech as Obama had watch his.

OVER

Ok, maybe I'm not as much of an optimist as Damico, but I do think McCain is coming out of the convention in very good shape. So boys, let's say for a minute big John pulls it off, and there is a SC opening during his term. Who does he pick?

Until we know the Senate composition, it's difficult to say.

I'd like to see Pryor picked if only for my amusement, but I'm guessing it will be Sykes if the Senate is ~55D as expected.

How conservative is Estrada? I've heard some claim he's really not that conservative.

But if he is, he'd be my pick. With him being Hispanic, it'd be hard for the Dems to filibuster.

2nd choice has to be Sykes.

I admit, i wasn't overly impressed with his speech the other night. It was good, but not as good as Palin's.

Will the convention be enough to push the Repubs ahead in the polls? Drudge had the latest one I've seen - from CBS - showing a tie at 42%. I'd have to believe that means mccain is ahead.