ConfirmThem

while Webb spouts constant populist, anti-war, anti-Bush nonsense, I had initially counted on him not being a completely unreasonable liberal like Schumer on judges (but like everyone else, I found those hopes seemingly dashed the past few months). perhaps Warner is undertaking the taming of Senator Jackass, which can only be to the good. Warner isn't a strong conservative himself, so it's unlikely we'll get more than a moderate conservative for the Virginia seat, but that's fine if we can get 3 of the 5 seats filled without completely selling one to the libs. someone like Duncan in that seat and two solid conservatives for the 2 Carolina seats will be excellent progress.

That's terrific.

The White House has finally ceded the responsibility of nominating judges to the Senate. I can't wait till Schumer and Lindsey Graham start jointly interviewing future potential Supreme Court nominees.

"Next on your schedule Ms. Brown, is your interview with Senator Schumer. You'll need to repudiate your prior beliefs and promise to uphold all his precious liberal precedents to have a chance to be approved to be on the list for nomination."

LMK,
I really think that the Virginia process is consistent with long time practice. The home state Senators have generally had a role (sometimes weaker, sometimes quite active) in making initial recommendations to the White House for nominees for court seats from their state. That's the way it's worked in my state for years, at least since I can remember - which goes back to Carter.
Of course, the President may then nominate whomever he (or she) wishes. However, given the clubbiness of the Senate, it has always made sese to try to not poke a finger in the eye of the home state ones.

From the Richmond article:

"Yet it is not certain that Warner and Webb would agree on a candidate or candidates and make a joint recommendation to President Bush."

I think this statement reveals the likely opinion of the author that he doesn't think Warner and Webb will agree. Why put the qualification out there if it is assured that Warner and Webb will agree? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Warner and Webb do agree, the new nominee will NOT be a conservative. Since neither Warner nor Webb are conservatives, I doubt seriously they would jointly choose a conservative nominee - especially since Webb would likely face a lot of difficulties from his Dem peers in the Senate for such a decision.

In conclusion, I think this article sugar-coats what should be a very nasty debate if Bush nominates a real conservative for either of the open Virginia seats

A moderate-conservative to the Virginia 4th Circuit Seat would be fine, as long as he's confirmable. There's a desperate need to fill at least 3 4th Cir. seats after the fiascos of the past six years (Shedd excepted). In fact, Bush's next three CCA nominations, and the ONLY ones until September, should be to the 4th (N.C., S.C., and Virginia if possible).

Reading the tea leaves on the SJC today, maybe it's a good sign that Leahy didn't mention judicial nominees in his Statement. He devoted the whole statement to the Liberal's dangerous project of guaranteeing habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorists and alien subversives/criminals. Little or no mention of nominees up for a vote is usually a good sign.

I still think there's a significant chance that Southwick will be held over for two weeks. Does anyone have information on the results of today's meeting?

Mr. Senator Gun-tote should want strict constructionists of the highest caliber. He may be an anti-war, economic populist, but he seems like the kind that would be happier with Scalias on the bench than Stevenses.

I don't understand why most other committee hearings/meetings are available, but never the SJC business meetings.

Was Southwick reported out of committee this morning or was he held over until the next business meeting per Democrat request. What about Neff, Maloney and O'Grady?

His son is still in Iraq. It doesn't seem political for him; its personal.

I just talked to an SJC staffer. The three DJs were voted out on a voice vote. Southwick was held over for a week. Big surprise there.

I just talked to an SJC staffer. The three DJs were voted out on a voice vote. Southwick was held over for a week. Big surprise there.

to be confirmed by the full Senate tomorrow? or will they be held till after Memorial Day recess?

Nomination Observer,

While I see no problem with trying to get the home state Senators to support the president's nominee, I don't think it makes sense to give them the right to choose that nominee.

This sentence:
"According to the latest news reports, Virginia Senators Webb and Warner are now jointly interviewing potential candidates for at least one of those five seats."

certainly makes it sound like the Virginia senators have been given the power to both choose and confirm Luttig's replacement, and whether or not "that's the way it's worked for years", it's a big mistake. Somehow I doubt President Clinton was/will be nice enough to let Republican Senators choose their state's judges.

No surprise there indeed. I don't think it has anything to do with Southwick per se. This accords with a general Democrat strategy, which I think has been operative since at least early March, to ensure that Keisler will still be in Committee as of the end of June. Does anyone else see the possible significance of that timing?

I really doubt that Souter, Stevens, or whoever would give ANYONE a heads up to their retirement, just like Sandy. They may be thinking their MAY be a retirement. Or maybe they just keeping putting off Keisler because they have no intent to confirm him. I would trade a SCOTUS pick for 5 Keislers.

The 1987-88 Senate processed 2 SCOTUS nominations along with the 15+ circuit nominees.

Senator McConnell needs to continue to push the donks, partially in private, but publicly too, to keep up the confirmations. He should insist on Keisler and Southwick in June to "catch up", then move to the Michigan COA nominees and get them freed up. As we've discussed before, throw Levin an extra bone if needed, but move those boys along.

McConnell has a fair amount of leverage - the public is starting to perceive this as a "do nothing" Congress, so Reid & Co are pretty desperate to get something done. Make them pay a price for not facing continuous amendments and other slow walking techniques. Make them pay in judges.

Agree with your first statement, especially as to Souter and Stevens.

Agree with your second and third sentences. The Dems are fully capable of pursuing a multi-pronged strategy, and almost surely are doing so.

Strongly disagree with your last statement, as excellent as Keisler is. I would readily give up every outstanding CAA seat for the rest of the term and take a chance on the '08 election, in return for a top-notch Supreme Court Confirmation (not nomination) replacing a liberal this year. Control of the Supreme Court is more important than everything else put together, including even the Circuit Courts.

Fortunately we wouldn't be faced with this stark choice. A Supreme Court confirmation this year would probably cost 2-4 Circuit seats (although Keisler might well be among the casualties).

The MI COA are dead dead dead. We need to not even think about them. Keisler, 3rd, 4th, and 5th is where the attention should be for the rest of the year. Stay focused!

You are 100% right. As it went from my brain to the computer I accidentally reversed what I wanted to say. It should have read "I would trade 5 Keislers for a SCOTUS pick."

The uscourts.gov site has corrected the names of Jennifer Walker Elrod and Emory Widener on its vacancy websites:

1) Elrod

http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=...

2) Widener

http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=...

Thanks for your help.

I agree that they are dead. As long as any nominee doesn't have the approval of his homestate senators, there is no way the Republicans can get him out of committee due to Leahy's blue slip policy. What is keeping Keisler's nomination alive is the fact that his confirmation isn't contingent on the approval of any homestate senator.

Give one of the COA seats to White, the other to Kethledge. That eliminates the vacancies, and locks in a two seat edge for us. As part of the deal, Keisler (and maybe a second COA nominee) go through at the same time. I'll bet Levin would bite on that, and it solves one problem, that the donks would fill both seats in 2009.

I agree that Levin and Stabenow would probably bite on a Kethledge/White deal, but I don't think the White House would. I also think certain conservative Republican senators who balked at even giving Helene White a SJC hearing in the late 1990's would balk again. How could Hatch, for example, the SJC chairman who initially blocked White, explain an about-face concerning White without admitting he was playing politics with Clinton judicial nominees during the 105th and 106th Congresses?

A couple new District Court nominees today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524-3.html

No Problem. As to the new nominees: I find it perplexing that once again they are moving on a seat that won't be vacant until mid October and a seat with probably one of the lightest caseloads. Why not name someone for that DC DJ spot instead? This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone want to take bets if the WH even names nominees for the SC and TX seats that will be vacant starting July 1 by that day? I bet NO. My only hope is that some more judges will be nominated in the coming days, particularly for the CCA. Elrod was nominated a few days after Bush nominated a bunch of DJs in March. Note to Bush: The Senate can't confirm if you don't nominate.

As for the WD MI judges: I would hope that they could be approved tomorrow but seriously doubt that. Reid wants to push on with McCain-Kennedy II and finish that Iraq $ bill before their week long recess. I know Brownback is going to want Yeas and Nays and that takes too long. If they could be approved by voice vote they might have a shot at tomorrow but Sammie will never let that happen. Sam Brownback - the gift that keeps on giving.

No judge is going to end the War in Iraq.

I have the 2 Michigan seats at #14 and #15 on my CCA nominee priority list, ahead of only 4th Cir. (Maryland) and the twelfth D.C. seat. Hopefully, these vacancies will eventually be filled by Romney or Thompson, not by Hillary. I wonder whether the Maryland CCA seat could be filled even then, since that seat now seems to be regarded as a permanent Democrat judgeship.

June timing is probably due to Supreme Court vacancies typically happening at that time.

If Schumer is forced to deal with a 3rd Bush Supreme Court pick, his consolation prize is torpedoing a few circuit picks.

If someone like Keisler was scheduled for May, he's stuck there. If you schedule him for July, you can sink his nomination due to the SCOTUS vacancy.

On another note, I don't think the White House is at fault here. There are 3 clearly confirmable nominees (Southwick, Elrod, Keisler). Flooding the Senate with nominees for the 4th and 3rd probably doesn't do any harm, but it doesn't do anything beneficial, either.

With an unpopular President, an unpopular war, and an unpopular immigration bill, I'd guess Bush doesn't want to put the time in to vet unnecessary circuit nominees.

The new Iraq Funding Bill just passed the Senate 80-14. The House passed it earlier today. Bush will probably sign it soon. That leaves the Senate workload in June slightly less burdensome. Reid wants the Amnesty bill passed by June 9th. That leaves the rest of the month to hopefully confirm some judges.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/former-justice-oconnor-defends-and.ht...

"One might well agree that the law “shouldn’t change just because the faces on the Court have changed,” but it seems rather late in the day to make such an assertion. Absolutely everything about the contemporary Supreme Court, from the ideologically infused appointments process, to the many split decisions along predictable political lines, to the politically driven parsing of opinions, is premised upon the fact that the faces matter at least as much as, and often more than, the words of the Constitution. Anyone inclined to deny this—does anyone deny this?—need merely recall the monumentally consequential Bush v. Gore decision, which was all about the faces on the court.

Apart from this evident reality about the Court, it is especially odd to hear Justice O’Connor voice this objection. As the proverbial swing Justice during the last few years of her tenure on the Court, it might be said (with some exaggeration) that her face was the Court, at least in many pivotal cases. And it is not clear that Justice O’Connor adhered to a consistent supra-personal approach to constitutional interpretation. Her constitutional interpretation compass, whatever it was, was uniquely hers. Given her swing position and her particular approach, it was inevitable that her departure would result in a number of changes in constitutional interpretation."

You may well be right about the White House not liking a Kethledge/White deal, but if Keisler is packaged along with it, it is a net win for us. But then again, I have never had much respect for the WH ability to think strategically and horse trade effectively; it may cost us both seats on the 6th.

As for Hatch, if this did happen, he just needs to keep his mouth shut and say nothing. All this could be done by voice vote with minimal embarassment, if that's a stumbling block.

Confirm the two nominees, or White never serves as long as there are forty-one Republican Senators.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.

Say Leahy plans to only confirm 10 nominees this Congress. Even if the GOP tries to duplicate that effort under a Democratic President, it's tough to say how much lower than 10 we can go.

Your plan assumes that the Republicans will have enough members in the Senate to enforce a ban on Helene White over a long period of time. That is making a huge assumption about the future. Why rely on a plan that could so easily become unenforceable in the future, when you could rely on a plan right now that would guarantee some quick confirmations. After all, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

The Dems will never accept a plan like yours because they know it is basically unenforceable. With the control of the 110th Congress, they know that they can both successfully block Kethledge and Murphy at the present time AND save a seat for Helene White in 2009.

Even if a Republican wins the presidency in 2008, the Dems know that they will likely have a Dem president who will renominate Helene White in the next ten years. The Dems also know that due to the nature of politics they might also have the numbers in the Senate to confirm her. I am not saying that the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority in the near future, but I am saying that they might have high enough numbers to force the Republicans to capitulate on White in order to trade off on legislation. Under these circumstances, an unenforceable Republican ban on White will be useless and rejected by the Dems.

Presently, there is a much higher chance of getting the Dems to confirm one of Bush's two Michigan COA nominees IF White replaces the second. It would be better to get Kethledge confirmed now with the price of White attached, than to get neither Kethledge nor Murphy confirmed in the 110th Senate, followed by the confirmation of liberals like White and fellow Clinton nominee Kathleen McCree Lewis at some future point down the road after 2008. Again, a bird in hand (Kethledge WITH White now) is better than two in the bush (Kethledge and Murphy in a deal in the Dems will never accept).

This situation in Michigan was completely avoidable, if Frist had enough nerve to force the issue. We should have had another 15 judges approved in the last session, and now we are paying for it.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "I don't belong to a party with any kind of effective leadership.....I'm a Republican."

If what you say is true, namely, the Democrats believe they can stop both nominations and confirm White in 2009, then the deal you are proposing is that the Democrats offer the Republicans something for nothing. They would have absolutely no incentive to accept that deal.

Logically, to the extent your argument is a criticism of my plan, it is a criticism of your plan. To the extent that the facts and circumstance support your plan, they, also, support my plan. If there isn't leverage, you are going nowhere. To the extent there is leverage, we have competing visions of how to use our leverage. But, don't tell me with a straight face you have leverage, but I don't.

Look, if the Democrats reach 60, they will be able to work their will on the Courts. But, the prospects that they gain ten Senate seats in the next election, or next two elections, are minimal. They, presumably, could go nuclear. If they do, the wrong party will have done the right thing at the wrong time.

Again, your last statement is utterly false. While it is true that the Democrats can stall the two nominees, it is not true that they can, "save a seat for Helene White in 2009." They can reserve a seat for her, but assuming they don't win sixty seats, or go nuclear, and assuming a Democrat wins in 2008, it is still problematic to confirm White if forty-one Republican Senators have the fortitude to go tit-for-tat for Levin's obstruction.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand more courageous leadership.

She's married to Levin's cousin, born in 1926, and apparently they had kids in the 96, so I'll go out on a limb and say she can't be much older than 55.

If I recall, the GOP Senator at the time sunk her nomination. So much for Leahy's home state senator support nonsense.

White was born in 1954

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1157519_1

55 years old, liberal, female.

The Democrats already have a major shortage of young circuit judges to choose from. I'm not sure that we should add to that number unless we get something formidable in return.

That last post should be "55 years old in 2009"

The Democrats would bite on a Kethledge/White deal, because there is always uncertainty in the political process, and Levin has wanted to get her on that court for 10 years. And if they don't go for it, what have you lost? As you, I would love to get both Murphy and Kethledge confirmed, but it's not happening, and I'm willing to take a half loaf and move on. Not ideal, but probably the best we can do. I think it would happen quickly, and as part of the deal, only Kethledge would count towards the overall COA approval "target."

My plan offers the Dems a huge incentive that your plan doesn't: the certainty of knowing that White will definitely be confirmed now as compared to the uncertainty of a future White confirmation under an as of yet unelected and undetermined Dem president. Why should they wait for their cake when they can eat it now? This dessert could also satisfy the Republicans by making sure Kethledge is confirmed now as well.

Again,

My "huge incentive" is to state that the GOP will not filibuster White if the two are confirmed.

White shouldn't be appointed by a Republican president because she is unfit to serve.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership.

I can't believe that you actually think that your plan has any incentive at all in it that the Dems might bite at. For the reasons I have already stated, the Dems will never accept your plan. You seem to refuse to admit that the Dems are in control now. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Until the Republicans can regain all the Senate seats they lost in 2006, they must to a certain extent kowtow to the powers that be, just like the Dems did under Frist. Our problem then was that Frist was such a wimp. As a result, the Republican Party has not as much to show for its four years of power from 2002 to 2006 as it should.

I see no reason to horsetrade with Levin until June 2008.

1. We can fill up to 10 vacancies on the 3rd/4th/5th/DC/7th without dealing with 2 Dem senators.
2. Once June 08 rolls around Bush isn't getting any more picks without some sort of deal. Before then we still can.
3. June 08 is long enough before the Presidential election, so the outcome will be unclear. This provides Levin an incentive to deal rather than chance a President Romney sinking White's chances for another 4 years.

Bobo wrote:

"I can't believe that you actually think that your plan has any incentive at all in it that the Dems might bite at."

Excuse me, but you are the person who is negoiating with himself! If you believe that the Democrats are "the hand that feeds you" you have taken a break from reality. In case you have forgotten, it is the Democrats that are "the hand" that is giving you a clinched, five-finger prostate exam.

In case you have forgotten, Bush had this arrogant delusion that he could bring bi-partisanship to Washington. He reappointed Parker Barrington and Roger Gregory. In response to this magnanimous gesture, the Democrats promptly confirmed those two gentlemen, and proceded to kill every other one of Bush's initial eleven appointments. The carrot has been tried, and it has utterly failed. If the carrot didn't work when the Democrats knew they would have to stall three years , possibly seven years, why do you believe the carrot will work when the Democrats know for a fact that Bush will be gone in seventeen months plus recess?

That leaves the stick.

My plan is to use the stick: we will go tit-for-tat until you capitulate to our demands, or you go nuclear. Either way, we win. And, yes, that is a genuine incentive for the Democrats to take. A smart Democrat might realize that confirming twenty, or so, Bush CCA judges is small price to pay for allowing his Democratic successor to appoint seventy to eighty, or so, CCA judges without the threat of a filibuster.

Not only is your plan a turkey, since Levin "won't bite," as you put it, but, it, also, needlessly, and stupidly, surrenders the principle that the President has the Constitutional prorogative to name justices. The Senate shall "advice and consent." It is not the place of a Senator to appoint his cousin! Bush won't receive one judge in Michigan, but he will have to negoiate every other judge in the county. Your plan isn't just ineffective, it is outright self-defeating.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principled conservative leadership that wishes to fight liberalism, not accommodate it.

Once again, your basic assumption is false. At the present time, the Republicans don't have a big stick that they can beat over the heads of the Democrats. They have a twig. Twigs usually don't hurt too much when you try to hit someone with them.

Since the Democrats have created the principle that a determined minority can grind the judicial confirmation process to a halt, and, in all probablity the GOP will have 41+ seats for the forseeable future, the GOP appears to have exactly the same "stick" the Democrats have welded for five of the Bush's eight years.

You may not want to embrace the tactics the Democrats have used, but don't have the audacity to say they were ineffective.

You, Bobo, are the person whose "basic assumption is false." Namely, you are just assuming that Levin is willing to deal when you are on record as stating that if he stalls for just two more years he can have White, and the other seat, without any credible opposition to his plan.

Asking a Democrat for something for nothing is pointless!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand more principled and effective conservative leadership.

You don't get it. We don't have 41 Rs that would embrace your hardline tactics. Do you really think Specter, Snowe, Collins, Warner, McCain, Graham, etc. would allow a perpetual filibuster of most Dem nominees or even just White. NO WAY!

Nothing in politics is a sure thing. Anything can happen in an election. Hillary is not assured to be the next president. Neither is any of the Republicans. Heck who knows, Candice Miller may run against Levin the next time he is up and beat him. Levin could wait out and hope to get both seats. Or he could take the sure thing NOW and get one. I don't get how you don't see this. It's called GAME THEORY. Why don't you use that 180 IQ and read up on that topic. Here's a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

I will say I am at least glad you came up with a plan, all be it a crappy one, this time. Usually you just bloviate with out really saying how you would do things differently.

When dealing with uncertain outcomes there are several factors to consider. Two of the most prominent are expected value, and the standard deviation.

In this case there are three eventual hypothetical outcomes, two Republican picks, two Democratic picks, and one Republican and one Democratic pick. Each has its own probability. The first, two Republicans, is predicated on the Republican winning in 2008, the GOP retaking the Senate, and both Michigan Senators losing their reelection bids, or the GOP going nuclear. The second is predicated on the Democrat winning in 2008, the Senate remaining in the hands of the Democrats, and the Republican minority being spineless. The third possibility, is the possibility of the "deal."

The key point is that the second scenario is significantly more probable than the first scenario. That is because the likelihood of the GOP having 60 Senators, or 50 nuclear votes after the next election, or two, is minimal.

Calculating the relative expected value of three scenarios is simple enough. The expected value of the "deal" is one for both the Democrats and the Republicans. The expected value of refusing the "deal" is greater for the Democrats and lower for the Republicans. The very reason you are so gung-ho about the "deal" is the very reason that it is irrational for the Democrats to take it.

Appealing to risk aversion might convince yourself, since you want to believe that Levin would take that "deal," but you aren't going to convince the Democrats. Every politicians must take calculated risks. And, you have done everything in your power [waive the white flag, announce you won't retaliate, etc.] to minimize that risk.

Your strategy is a loser because it assumes that the Democrats will take an irrational decision due to risk aversion. My strategy makes sense because it predicated on premise that the only way to deal with the Democrats is to lower their expected value sufficiently to make them accept some sort of genuine compromise like Frist's proposal, or the nuclear option.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives realize they are entitled to effective leadership.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives d