ConfirmThem

This is all old news, but thanks Alexham. I wish the administration would just pick someone already. Who cares what Graham thinks? Is he going to blueslip or filibuster a nominee from his own state? I don't think so.

I'd love to see Lloyd, though I'm concerned there are questions about his politics and judicial philosophy. I'm curious as to how he ever became US atty in such a conservative state as SC without anyone knowing whether or not he's a conservative.

That being said, the surefire conservatives are Matthews and Coates. As I detailed here a few months back, Matthews has a stellar resume, particular from a conservative's point of view:

http://www.hsblawfirm.com/listdetail.asp?dl_key=1E0D431ABBFC488E9EB752D3...

A concern with Coates is that he would be subjected to the same sort of treatment as Wallace for the 5th Circuit. Coates is a protege of Strom Thurmond as Wallace was a protege of Trent Lott. In this Congress especially, someone like that is going to get demolished. Unfortunately, we probably have to go relatively safe with the remainder of nominees under Bush if we want them to be confirmed. So, we're probably looking at Floyd, Lloyd, or Wooten.

My answer would be "yes". He would want to prove to the Dems that he isn't a slave to the White House. He wouldn't necessarily lead a filibuster on the person, but he might make sure the nominee never gets a committee hearing or vote. Look at what he was willing to do to Haynes, and Haynes wasn't even from his homestate.

Does Lindsay Graham get all the say over who South Carolina's judges are going to be? Last I checked, they had another Republican Senator who is in much better standing - Jim DeMint.

DeMint needs to tell Lindsay where he can shove it.

BoBo, I know what Graham did with Haynes - it was despicable. I don't think he could get away with that with a Bush nominee from his own state, particularly with no good reason other than "I like this guy better - he's my buddy." At least with Haynes they were able to manufacture a reason that appeared to have some potential legitimacy. There's nothing here.

Now here's the guy I want Bush to nominate for one of Virginia's Fourth Circuit vacancies - Professor Stephen Smith of UVA Law School:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkwNzRiZGE3NzFmOTE3OTlmODA1YTBmYjB...

Stephen Smith - Dartmouth/UVA/Thomas Clerk. He's a black male Laura Ingraham! LOL. Get him on the 4th Circuit and then on the Supreme Court along with fellow Thomas clerk Allison Eid. :-)

From the "On The Issues" section of the Giuliani website under "Judges":

"The kind of judges he has said he would appoint are strict constructionists like Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito– principled individuals who can be trusted to respect the Constitution as it is written, rather than attempting to legislate from the bench."

But no Thomases. Does he not think that Justice Thomas fulfills the description he attaches to Scalia, Roberts, and Alito? Now, I am very happy with Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, but I find it a little unsettling that Justice Thomas was obviously intentionally left off of this list - which is written out on his website. On other occassions, I kind of chalked it up to him just possibly speaking of those justices off the top of his head because he said he worked with them all in the Reagan Justice Dept. But here on his website, the slight is clearly made out to be intentional and not at all a case of just leaving him off the list accidentally or for brevity's sake.

Interestingly, leaving Thomas off kind of makes one wonder if perhaps Giuliani just likes Italians since 2 of the 3 he praises are, like him, of Italian heritage. But then again, Italian justices have been very good for us, so I wouldn't exactly complain, either, if we got more Italians in the mold of Scalia or Alito - but especially Scalia.

Or has Rudy left Thomas off because he has bought into the meme, which is finally being rebuked rather forcefully, that Thomas is stupid? Or maybe he wants a Supreme Court justice who asks questions and grills parties in oral arguments before the court, and he doesn't like it that Thomas doesn't. Does he prefer Scalia's courtroom, laugh-getting humor and his biting and witty prose in his many colorful dissents?

If Giuliani is going to continue to leave Justice Thomas off of his list of justices that he would nominate, I would like to know why. It makes me fear for the careers of Allison Eid and, now that he's been brought to my attention, Steve Smith - and the many other Thomas clerks whose careers on the federal bench I'd like to see blossom and certainly not stifled.

If another presidential candidate starts harping on a list of justices that he likes that includes Justice Thomas, I would certainly welcome it.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

red oakster thinks it might be a good idea, over at RS. Sanford could pick his replacement, and then if McCain wins the WH and picks Graham to serve in his administration he can help pick his own replacement (maybe he'll get his way and get the terrorist lovin' judge then)

I doubt that Sen. Graham would accept such a nomination, and everyone knows that I'm very much opposed to anyone with a legislative background, on general principle, being on the federal bench. However, I think it might be smart to put an Anthony Kennedy-ish judge on the 4th Circuit if it allows us to clear the way for other, better 4th Circuit nominees to the court.

My biggest fear is that putting Lindsay Graham on the 4th might inadvertently set him up to get on the Supreme Court, which makes me shudder! My second biggest fear is that Graham might end up being an Earl Warren on the 4th Circuit.

Plus, one reason that I doubt that Graham would accept is that he is still holding out for Vice President position on a McCain ticket, I believe. And while I'd gladly vote for a ticket with Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown as the VP, it's not a common route to the Vice President's office.

Hopefully Gov. Sanford would choose Thomas Ravenel as Graham's replacement in the unlikely event that Graham could be offed with a 4th Circuit nomination.

that he'd take it, but I thought it was a novel idea :)

Is still to try and recruit Thomas Ravenel to knock off Lindsay Graham in the 2008 Republican Primary. :-)

As discussed before, I don't think Rudy's been slighting Thomas at all. I think he knows JGR, Scalia & Alito personally and that's about 98% of it.

The other 2% may well be on the part of Rudy staffers who fret about lightning rods & such. And Thomas himself prefers a low profile. But 40+ years of SCOTUS clerks will keep him in the news long after he's gone.

The vast majority of the public, both pro- & con-, considers Thomas & Nino Siamese twins anyway, so I think it's a moot point.

Steve Smith may well be a male JRB more than a male Ingraham. Life story and all. Let's get him something. I'd love to 'test' Webb, see if he'd block him for the 4th.

And Eid has to be the nominee for the DCC, if the Powerball hits, and JRB ascends. Or maybe AG or SG in 2009? But we've gotta get her out of the ColSC. Just a complete waste of her time, unless like Corrigan, she has no interest in DC, which would be entirely understandable.

If there is another vacancy on the Court Bush should unquestionably pick Chris Cox. Luttig, unfortunately, is probably out of the running. (Much to my chagrin.) The president obviously trusts Chris Cox because he appointed him SEC Chairman. Chris Cox was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to his current post. (As were John Roberts and Samuel Alito to their respective judicial posts prior to being elevated to SCOTUS.) Chris Cox is brilliant; he was editor of the Harvard Law Review!(He also did his J.D. and MBA simultaneously at Harvard University.) He's well liked Congress and would have made one hell of a Judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (No thanks to Barbara Boxer who put a hold on his nomination in 2001.) He's only 54 (will be 55 in October.) He would tie the Democrats in knots during the SJC hearings. He would NOT be the next William O. Douglas (except hopefully in tenure.) I too usually have reservations about putting legislators on the Court but I have no doubt that Chris Cox would faithfully interpret the Constitution and be a true judicial conservative. He would make an outstanding Justice if Bush were to get another vacancy.

We can ill afford to have Lindsey Graham as a judge on any Court in the land. Remember he wants to give terrorists constitutional protections; he would no doubt violate Johnson v. Eisenstrager (1950) in which the Court said that enemy combatants did NOT have habeas corpus rights. Se. Graham certainly should be challenged (and defeated) in the GOP primary in 2008. He is certainly no Strom Thurmond. (Plus I have no respect for a male with an effeminate name like Lindsey.) We certainly cannot afford McCain to be elected president. (Which I think is increasingly unlikely.)

"As discussed before, I don't think Rudy's been slighting Thomas at all. I think he knows JGR, Scalia & Alito personally and that's about 98% of it."

so if Rudy appoints someone he knows personally, do you think George Will et al. will be calling them cronies?

I doubt that the Dems could block him at all.

He's a top professor.

He's black.

He was top of his law school class.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich

Cox is also the only current or former legislator at the moment I would want on the Supreme Court. He has excellent credentials.

As far as any discussion of Eid goes, the seeming reason why Eid chose to be on the Colorado Supreme Court rather than the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is that her husband, Troy Eid, was in the running to be a U.S. Attorney in Colorado at the time she had to choose between the two jobs (he later got the job). She did not want a conflict-of-interest. If she was on the 10th, she would've had to recuse herself from a lot of cases if her husband was prosecuting them. I doubt she would accept a COA or SCOTUS nomination until her husband resigns.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/eid_bio.pdf

A former clerk to Edith Jones, he might be good judge material himself.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_co...

Vanessa Bryant, who was initially given a NQ (sm)/Q(min) ABA rating in the 109th Congress, was confirmed yesterday by the 110th Congress. The ABA upgraded her rating to a Q(sm)/NQ(min) this year when it became apparent that the support of her Dem homestate senators Dodd and Lieberman would allow her to be confirmed. Interestingly enough, her confirmation was not by rollcall vote, rather it was by voice vote or unanimous consent (I don't know which). I am sure this was done so that the Dems who decried Michael Wallace last Congress as "unqualified" due to his ABA rating wouldn't look foolishly partisan voting for another, similarly "unqualified" nominee this Congress simply because she had Dem support.

According to How Appealing and the AP,

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUDICIAL_POLITICKING?SITE=AP&SECT...

A Clinton-appointed South Dakota district judge is forestalling his retirement by having two other Clinton-appointed S.D. district judges assume 2/3rds of his caseload. Apparently the reason is to prevent Bush from naming his successor. Sounds like a devious plot the SJC should investigate, not that Leahy will do it.

What I've read about Chris Cox is that he's not exactly been everything conservatives had hoped he would be as SEC Chairman. If he's not going to pan out as SEC Chairman, I don't know why I should have confidence inspired that he'd be the type of Supreme Court justice we'd hope for, either.

Send Chris Cox to the 9th Circuit.

1. Clarence Thomas's opinions are out there for everyone to read. Rudy either agrees with them or doesn't agree with them. If you're going to leave one of the four conservatives on the court off of your list - in campaign literature, not just in a passing conversation - then I want to know why.

2. That he says he likes Scalia negates the "lightening-rod" theory for why he doesn't mention Thomas.

3. I doubt that Justice Thomas called Giuliani and said, "when you're going around telling people what kind of justices you want, please don't mention my name with Scalia, Roberts, and Alito because I like to keep a low profile. Thanks."

4. There is a reason that Thomas is being left off. If it is that he personally might know Scalia, Roberts, and Alito - then I find that disturbing because I think that Giuliani probably knows a lot more liberal lawyers and judges than conservative ones, given where he's lived and his positions on a lot of social issues. Plus, you might not always go way back with the one who would be best suited for the court. I'm sure that Maureen Mahoney would be his first nomination to the court. After all, wasn't she there at the same time as Roberts? Oh well...I guess then I'd at least get to see if everything I think about her is true or not. I'd perfer to not have to hold my breath like that, though.

There are only a few other district nominees who've already had Committee hearings, including 3 in Western Michigan.

After the 4th and 6th Circuit nominees, the W.D. Mich. nominees should be our priority. That district is entering its 16th month with only ONE active-status district judge.

Cox for the 9th Circuit has been tried, and Boxer blocked him. That ain't gonna change now.

Cox's conservative bona fides are unquestionable. Whether people have liked his tenure at the SEC has little bearing on his suitability for SCOTUS. He would be great, and conservatives would rally around him.

FYI, Jennifer Walker Elrod was nominated today for the Higginbotham / Texas seat on the Fifth Circuit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070329-3.html

Anyone know anything about her?

I heard Salazar blocked her for the 10th, so she 'settled' for the ColSC.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.baylor.edu/buaa/baylorline/news.php?action=story&story=41740 (scroll down)

"Jennifer Walker Elrod '88 is judge of the 190th District Court in Houston. Following her victory in a contested primary for a vacant bench, Governor Rick Perry appointed Elrod to the position. She is unopposed in the November election.

Elrod graduated from Baylor magna cum laude, was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and was the Outstanding Graduating Senior in the Honors Program. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was senior editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy. She completed a two-year federal clerkship before joining the law firm of Baker Botts. Honored for her pro bono work by Baker Botts, she also received awards from the Houston Bar Association and Houston Young Lawyers Association."

From Abovethelaw,

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/11/some_fifth_circuit_scuttlebutt.php

"1. There are two Texas seats on the Fifth Circuit to fill: those of Judge Patrick Higginbotham and Judge Harold DeMoss. (For the vacant Mississippi seat, Michael Wallace is the White House's pick; but he doesn't seem to be going anywhere right now.)

2. A package deal of two nominees is likely. One would be a so-called "diversity pick," i.e., a minority or a woman, and one would be a "regular" pick.

(Some Senate Republicans are not thrilled about the idea of a diversity pick. But the Democrats taking over the Senate next year, diversity picks will probably only increase.)

3. For the "diversity" seat, the leading candidates are two Texas state court judges: Justice George C. Hanks, Jr., an African-American appeals court judge; and Judge Jennifer W. Elrod, a well-regarded trial court judge.

(Yes, Judge Elrod is quite attractive -- in a perky, "Jennifer Aniston" sort of way. But please do not confuse her with Jennifer Elrod, "Famous Centerfold and Celebrity." Judge Elrod uses that middle initial for a reason.)"

http://www.justex.net/Courts/CIVIL/CIVILCourt.aspx?crt=16

woot! another Baylor alumna on the 5th circuit!

I would say that Greg Coleman might be the other, but if he thought he was going to get the nomination, I'm not sure he would have just left Weil Gotshal & Manges for Yetter & Warden.

can we get some nominees for the 4th please and thank you?

White House just announced it.

so she got her B.A. in 88? That would make her what, only 40 or 41? Wow, I'm surprised Bush is still nominating people much under 50.

Although not a desperately needed 4th Circuit nomination, this nomination for the vacant 5th Circuit (Texas) seat is high-priority and very welcome.

More information on Jennifer Walker Elrod would more than useful. Is there any truth to the rumor that she is related to the Walkers of the late Dorothy Walker, Walker's Point Maine, grandmother of President George Walker Bush?

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/othercourtaddr.s...

That fact that Elrod was nominated as a "diverisity" pick tells me that, although she may be conservative, she is not a Scalia or Thomas-style conservative. She probably is a nominee like Debra Livingston, conservative but not rigidly so.

Don't know where that spelling came from.

As to who the other pick might be? Ted Cruz? Coleman? I doubt it will be another Houston based district judge (read Rosenthal). Maybe a Dallas based judge?

Elrod probably knocks Lee Rosenthal out of the other spot. I don't think we'd get 2 Houston female judges sent to the 5th Circuit at the same time.

Interesting that, at least in one case, Elrod thought that attorney-client privilege outweighed the First Amendment. I would agree that attorney-client privilege should have kept the attorneys from sharing their 15-page memo, but not from Channel 13 airing it once they did. She got overruled by another state District Judge.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10453/judge-says-ktrk-can-air-informatio...

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10435/judge-blocks-ktrk-report-on-evange...

For the diversity pick, I think it would have been better to nominate Lee Rosenthal to the 5th and Jennifer Elrod to Rosenthal's federal district court seat.

Oh well...I hope the Administration knows what they're doing better than I do. :-)

Well, Cruz and Coleman are both Austin-based. If he goes with a Dallas-based judge, it will almost undoubtedly be the guy that George P. Bush clerked for after law school.

As long as there is a "conservative" or moderate-conservative judge appointed to the CCA, it doesn't matter how "pure" they are as long as the Supreme Court is not dominated by liberal judicial-activists. Such judges will, in their inferior judicial capacity, generally follow precedent and not impose their own subjective policy preferences (like a super-liberal Reinhardt or Paez).

The key now is to fill as many CCA judgeships as possible with acceptable judges who will follow, and not flout, Supreme Court precedent.

The other key, of course, is a new Supreme Court Justice (vice Stevens, Ginsberg or Souter) this year. Let us hope and pray.

I think that we can also fill most of the Circuit Court positions with as many mild-mannered extreme right wing lawyers and judges as we can find. :-)

So...no Scalias, but maybe Alitos. :-)

...for the state District Court, at least.

http://www.dataheaven.com/elrod/endorse.htm

If Coleman just switched law firms, I doubt he will be the next 5th Circuit pick. At this point, I can't see a controversially conservative person being nominated to replace DeMoss. DeMoss doesn't take senior status until 7/1/07. Just to be difficult, Leahy probably will refuse to even have a hearing for his replacement until July. After the annual August recess, as time marches on toward the probable COA confirmation shutdown in January 2008, it will become near impossible to get Scalia and Thomas-style conservative out of committee. Elrod probably won't even be confirmed before July, and she is supposed to be the more palatable "diversity" pick.

even a couple more Prados are ok on the COA level, once we get that 5th (and hopefully in the next administration 6th) vote on SCOTUS.

We probably will need 55 more GOP Senators and an EFFECTIVE Majority Leader like we have now in Mitch McConnell to get great nominees like Greg Coleman and Ted Cruz on circuit courts and start prepping them for the Supreme Court.

Although, it would be interesting to see what McConnell could do with just 51 Senators. If we're lucky, we can give him that advantage in 2008 if we can oust Landreiu and another senator. Maybe Baucus, Harkin, or Tim Johnson.

After all, you have to remember that most opinions aren't even heard by the Supreme Court. This is the court of finality for the vast majority of legal disputes. I don't know if more Prados are really acceptable for Texas, South Carolina, and other deep red seats.

...and we need a more partisan and effective Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman who isn't so eager to compromise with Patrick Leahy as Specter was. Make John Cornyn the SJC Chairman.

but I get the sense that Prado is an acceptably conservative judge providing he has acceptably conservative guidance from SCOTUS. of course he belongs nowhere near the high court (unless nominated by a Dem), but that's a whole 'nother thing

Not likely. I knew Jennifer in the 90's when Bush was running for governor of Texas and she never mentioned any connection to any of the Bush family branches - either then, or when she began running for state judgeships. Not sure where the rumor originated, but her family always seemed to be middle class, down-to-earth types.

Can you vouch for Elrod's conservatism?

I agree with Ez. This probably means Rosenthal is staying on the district court. Too bad, because she'd be an awesome circuit (and SCOTUS) judge. I also agree Coleman is probably out of the running if he changed firms.

I'm thinking perhaps Wainright or CJ Jefferson from the TX Sup Ct (both black males and conservative), Hanks from the TX App Court (black male, supposedly fairly conservative), or one of the fed district court judges down there: Godbey, Boyle, or Fitzwater. All would be solid.

My favorite is Professor Ernest Young from UTexas Law School. He's brillant, and he's undoubtedly originalist and conservative.

Of course, I'd love Ted Cruz, but he may be too difficult to confirm in this Senate and he has said he'd prefer elective office (perhaps Texas governor, Congressman or Senator?).

I'd guess Senate is a likely gig Cruz if he goes the political route, to replace KBH after she becomes governor. though I thought the same thing about Bonilla, who I believe has now been nominated to be an ambassador or something.

as far as black male Texans, another possibility is Absent's old favorite, Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams. I don't know what type of confirmation fight he would face (or even if he'd be interested, though that's true of most everyone we speculate about, I suppose).

how giddy we get when we learn the name of a new nominee :)

I knew Jennifer well in the early 90's when we worked together as law clerks in different chambers in Houston. She is extremely bright and articulate, and very conscientious. She is definitely a conservative, but is also free-thinking enough not to let ideology get in the way of following the rule of law. I think she will be a fine addition to the 5th Circuit.

Michael Williams is awesome, but I'd like to keep him in electoral politics. I'd really like to see him parachute in and take TX9, TX18, or TX30 if Al Green, Sheila Jackson Lee, or Eddie Bernice Johnson ever vacate their seats. We also need a strong latino Republican to take out the white liberal Gene Green in his majority Hispanic district, TX29, Carole Keeton Strayhorn to knock out Lloyd Doggett in TX25, and U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, to take out Solomon Ortiz in TX27.

While I would love to see Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court, I also would very much like to see him take the Attorney General to Governor to (President or Senator) route, too. But as many of you know, in my book, that route should be mutually exclusive of the path to The White House.

though Bonilla may be interested in other things now, and I don't know if there's another Republican that could successfully run in that district

possibly for Williams, since I think it should be the district just north of Austin/Travis county, if Chet Edwards ever leaves, though I imagine almost any Republican could win there against a not-Edwards Dem

Henry Bonilla needs to come back and take out that little Hugo Chavez clone called Ciro. In a presidential election year and with the DCCC not able to run the entire Rodriguez campaign, I think he can do it.

But I just don't think that the Baylor/Aggie alumns will vote for a black Republican over a white Democrat who waxes centrist concervative.

As a statewide elected official, I think he could successfully parachute into a majority black district, though.

if I lived in Waco (I'm not sure how many Baylor alumni really live in that district anyway, and I imagine most of the students probably vote absentee in their home districts. might be more the case for TAMU alumni though). instead I'm forced to vote for tier 3 candidates against Charlie Gonzalez, sigh.

Well, one other reason Rudy might not be mentioning Thomas is that three names roll off the tongue easier than four, like Tinker to Evers to Chance.

"Scalia, Roberts, Alito! Da-da-da, da-da-da!" :D

Of course, that wouldn't matter on the website. Wasn't Rudy asked about all four in South Carolina, and he didn't flinch?

I can understand the concern; we're all jumpy post-Souter, which is why I'm so leery on Sykes and adamant about Mahoney.

But frankly, I think Olson is the only member of Rudy's crew (inc. Rudy), who could offer the remotest substantive details on the differences between Thomas & Scalia.

Thanks to W's famous (but oft misquoted) "in the mold of" from 2000, 95% of the public considers them one and the same.

It would be nice if someone at a townhall specifically asked Rudy about Thomas.

Again, I understand the concerns completely. Hey, I'm all, "Sykes is from the Midwest w/no DC experience, so were Stevens & Blackmun".

Speaking of which, some guy from American Idol was quoted in USA Today yesterday listing things that have stuck around too long, a la Sanjaya, and he included Stevens! :)

Bill, but there was a young kid on AI a few years ago named John Stevens who, like Sanjaya was a nice kid with a decent voice, but was in way over his head, routinely offering up dreadful performances (though even he wasn't as unspeakably bad as Sanjaya and had an imaginable fan base of grannies longing for the Rat Pack whom he emulated). I imagine that's who the USA Today guy was talking about.

I was about to be totally blown away that someone that aware of the judiciary was associated with American Idol before Dienekes's explanatory. LOL. Alas, my worldview remains in tact. :-)

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a critical mass of support for Michael Williams in TX17, but I think he would underperform Van Taylor, unfortunately.

And I'm in the same boat you are. I live in the wealthy liberal section of Sheila Jackson Lee's district. I always think it's funny that her district encompasses the most expensive real estate in Houston (downtown down through The Heights) and whatis probably the cheapest real estate in the city as well. Well...it's included in her district anyway. She doesn't actually represent either very well in DC.

Yes - she's conservative (Federalist Society member, etc.), without being offensive to Middle America. She has a tremendous respect for the integrity of the process, which may explain why she held in the KTRC case that if you improperly obtain privileged information -- a violation of ruled designed to protect the legitimacy of the process -- you can't use the information as if you obtained it legally. I think this respect for the judicial process will keep her safely out of the pool of judges you have to worry about.

I'm in awe.

Actually, there's a strong possibilty that *I'M* the loser on this one. :D

Think about it; at least 50% of the population could name nine current or former AIers. Could even 5% name nine current or former SCOTUSers?

and 48% of the population voted for Kerry. I'm sure there's at least 2% of ours that could bump that to 50, so that number's far from a stretch ;)