ConfirmThem

This is just crazy. Why in the name of our sweet savior didn't Bush nominate Getchell a year ago? Either insanity, incompetence on an historic level or deliberate malfeasance.

Whatever the case, this news that Getchell was recommended by Warner & Allen FIFTEEN FREAKING MONTHS AGO only underscores both that Bush has no strategy, understanding or interest in the lower courts, and that he and his advisers are suffused with arrogance and contempt for anyone outside their little clubhouse, regardless of how good they may be.

Bush likely would not have nominated Roberts or Alito, had they been recommended by, say, Hatch & Sessions. In fact, he didn't WANT to nominate them. He wanted his pitifully unqualified lackeys, Gonzo & Harriet instead.

There's at least a 40% chance that we will have a dem POTUS along with a dem majority Senate (inc. both VA seats). And there's no evidence whatsoever that there won't be a whole gunnysack of 4th Circuit CCA seats for them to fill.

I feel bad for Getchell. There's every indication that he's a brilliant lawyer & would make a superb judge. Instead, he's probably been told a pack of lies by a WH that has neither the interest or ability to get him confirmed, and he'll either just be left to dangle forgotten, or used as whipping boy by all sides for their political advantage. It's just infuriating.

The only thing that makes sense in any of this is if he's recess appointed, but if so WTF didn't Bush do so back in December? Getchell's perfect for a recess. He's financially secure one would assume, and would be insta-hired by any law firm or law school in the country were he not re-nominated & confirmed once his term lapsed.

Instead we get more of this endless charade leading nowhere, like we've had ever since the GO14 was signed. Mindboggling, ludicrous, pointless, self-destructive, etc, ....

Why are you making reference to that odd quote from 1980 about the real purpose of blue slips? To give us some false hope? Let's ask Helene White what she thinks. Did the blue slip policy defeat or merely delay her confirmation? In addition, the same thing could be asked of Henry Saad and his confirmation. Did the blue slip policy help to ruin his confirmation chances? I bet Levin and Stabenow know the answer to these questions.

Not to mention, Bush has shown just how afraid he is of the blue slip policy many times in the past. First, he refused to nominate Chris Cox and Janice Rogers Brown to the 9th Circuit because he was very worried that Boxer and Feinstein would block both using blue slips. He also refused to nominate Peter Keisler to the 4th Circuit for the same reason. He was afraid of the response of Sarbanes and Mikulski. In addition, he was totally unsuccessful when he tried to get around the blue slips of those liberal senators by nominating people from other states. Boxer and Feinstein successfully blocked Randy Smith until he was renominated to another seat, and Sarbanes and Mikulski successfully blocked Claude Allen when he was nominated to "their" Maryland seat.

With all this evidence, please don't try to convince us with an outdated quote that the blue slip policy doesn't have bite. It most certainly does. In fact, it has bite enough to kill, and that's exactly what it will do to Gretchell's nomination. If you don't believe me, try contacting Helene White.

Although some might think of it as unconstitutional, the blue slip policy will never disappear because of one reason: senatorial power. No senator, Republican or Democrat, is going to willingly give up control of the judicial confirmation process that covers his or her state. Republican Spencer Abraham used it to his benefit under Clinton to block Helene White, and now Levin and Stabenow are using it to their benefit to block Kethledge and Murphy. Because both parties can use it to shape the makeup of the federal judiciary of their state, neither party has an incentive to get rid of it.

I referenced that quote from 1980 because, as of that time, blue slips were rarely used to delay nominations, much less to kill them. If John Warner is such a stickler for Senate tradition, then maybe he ought to think twice before joining Webb in using a blue slip to kill Getchell's nomination, especially since Warner already said that Getchell is "exceptionally well-qualified." Perhaps if Warner declines to use the blue slip to kill Getchell's nomination, then that might influence Webb's decision whether to do so.

The other reason I referenced that quote from 1980 is because it comes from a well-written article that provides useful background about the blue slip.

Didn't Brownback kill the Michigan deal and Feingold hold up someone in New York? What was the story on those - aren't blue slips for home state Senators to use for seats that "belong to" that Senator oops I mean that state?

It's amazing anyone ever gets through:
- Home state senator blocks with blue slip.
- Home state senators support, so blocked in committee.
- Home state senators support, so blocked by some other senator.
- Home state senators support, so blocked on the floor.
- Home state senators support, so blocked by filibuster.

It's just ridiculous that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" has voided much of the rest of the Constitution.

I agree with you. If Warner and Allen recommended Getchell in June of last year, why in the world didn't Bush nominate him ASAP for Luttig's seat? That seems like a real omission.

Unfortunately, Bush has really messed things up with Fourth Circuit nominees and lost a chance to keep the circuit conservative. It seems like a comedy of errors:

1) To begin with, he renominated Roger Gregory (I can somewhat forgive Bush for Gregory, though, because at that early point in his presidency he thought he could fill other Fourth Circuit seats with conservatives).

2) He unsuccessfully tried to do a run-around of Maryland's Sarbanes and Mikulski by nominating Virginia's Claude Allen, later a covicted criminal, for Murnaghan's seat (are there no conservative people in mainstream Maryland law?).

3) He didn't immediately withdraw the nominations of Boyle and Haynes when it became obvious that neither was confirmable in 2005.

4) He didn't vet any replacements for Boyle and Haynes between 2005 and 2006.

5) He didn't nominate anyone to succeed Michael Luttig within a month or two of his resignation (and still hasn't).

6) He nominated Conrad to replace Boyle when he knew that the Dems had already voiced strong opposition to him at the district court level and only allowed him to be confirmed because Conrad was at the district court level.

6) He nominated a person he knew Webb of Virginia would block to replace Haynes (Bush must've known Senator Jerk would not take kindly to anyone not on his approved list. In addition, he also should've figured out by now that Warner is no conservative and no friend of his.)

7) He nominated Matthews to succeed Wilkins when he knew Matthews was not the first choice of either of South Carolina's two senators, one of whom is simply not a consistent Bush supporter (Graham).

These shenanigans with the Fourth Circuit just seem ridiculous - one poorly thought out move after another. Does that mean that Boyle, Haynes, Conrad, Getchell and Matthews are bad nominees in terms of integrity and ideology? No, just bad in terms of confirmability and in some cases timing. Again, Bush needs to start looking at practical reality. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks that it is only the president's right to nominate and everyone else should just go along, or that the Dems need to be punished for all their obstruction, or that certain Republican senators should be counted on when they have shown repeatedly in the past that they can't be, it is a matter of transforming the federal judiciary. You can't do that if all you send up is nonconfirmable candidates.

I doubt Bush will withdraw Conrad, Getchell and Matthews, so I assume they will join the ranks of Kethledge, Murphy, Stone and, regrettably, Keisler in the land of permanent committee limbo. If Bush's plan is to create an election issue next year, he might as well nominate some hardcore conservatives to Trott's California seat, Selya's Rhode Island seat, Van Antwerpen's Pennsylvania seat, Luttig's Virginia seat and Murnaghan's Maryland seat. That will make his percent of COA nominees confirmed look much more impressively small.

We know the Dems love to make comparisons to past actions, so the idea is for Getchell to get blocked and then the Dem President in 09 will renominate him and he'll be confirmed, a la Roger Gregory.

The only thing that I might take issue with is that it wasn't clear that Boyle/Haynes were dead until 2006. The new Senate majority of 2005 gave at least an appearance of potential confirmability.

Matthews, though, looks to have a reasonable shot, and Conrad as well if the Keisler nomination is abandoned.

“Steve Matthews is an outstanding choice,” said Graham. “He has a keen legal mind and is a man of integrity. I fully support him and hope the Senate will give him a quick and fair hearing.”

“I’m proud to support Steve Matthews and I hope he will be confirmed quickly,” said Senator Jim DeMint. “Steve has the experience, intellect and integrity necessary to serve on one of our nation’s highest courts. He will be a strong addition to the Fourth Circuit.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html

"But it is beyond debate that interest in re-examining the wisdom of the Constitution’s grant of life tenure to Supreme Court justices, a lively topic at the time of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s illness and death, has continued to grow."

I personally think the NYTimes is just testing the waters to see if it can garner enough support to limit the tenure of relatively young conservative jurists like Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

"

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/OPINION...

By U.S. Sen. Trent Lott
Special to The Clarion-Ledger

WASHINGTON — As many Mississippians know, confirming federal judges has become mired in partisan politics, driven primarily by special interest groups who see the judiciary as a means to enact their agenda. Recent developments give hope that it may be coming to an end.

Liberal groups in particular have found their goals unpopular with most Americans, so without broad public or legislative support for what they want to do, they count on court rulings by activist judges.

There's nothing new about all this. It's been going on for decades. I've written about it many times, as have scores of others. What's new is the degree of partisanship we've seen in the Senate over judicial nominations in recent years.

During most of my 35 years in Washington, senators on both the right and left tended to be very careful when confirming judges. They routinely tuned out much of the partisan rhetoric advanced by outside special interests in favor of the inside considerations of day-to-day Senate operations.

Senators on both sides of the aisle knew that blocking a qualified judicial nominee on partisan grounds could lead to a taste of the same medicine when the other party was in control.

As long as nominees were qualified by education and experience, they tended to be confirmed, notwithstanding outside partisan pressures. Deference was given only to the opinions of a nominee's home state Senators.

The last five years have brought the successive nominations of several Mississippi judges who have been attacked viciously by liberal special interest groups, just because they were from Mississippi and conservative.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's vote of support for Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination, just before August, signaled a welcome return to bipartisan statesmanship in the Senate.

Sen. Feinstein is a staunch Democrat, but she concluded that Judge Southwick is qualified to serve.

I made a similar decision on Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton nominee for the Supreme Court in the late 1990s. I probably wouldn't agree with Justice Ginsburg on any philosophical issue, but she was qualified to serve by education, experience and temperament. Elections have consequences, and she had President Clinton's confidence. I voted for her confirmation.

After only days back in session, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 6 agreed to report the nomination of Judge Sharon Aycock to the full Senate for a vote. Judge Aycock is another outstanding Mississippi judge. When confirmed, she'll be the first woman to serve as a District Court judge on Mississippi's federal bench.

Another positive sign is the investiture or swearing-in of Judge Sul Ozerden to the federal court in south Mississippi.

Judge Ozerden is the son of a Turkish immigrant who came to America back in 1963 with only a suitcase and $100. He instilled in his son, Sul, the ideal that America was indeed a land of opportunity where hard work is rewarded and anyone with determination can be successful.

Sul took his father's advice and found the American dream. He served in the Navy as a combat aviator before becoming an outstanding attorney on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I'm confident he'll make a great federal judge, and I was proud to witness his swearing-in.

As the Senate approaches a final vote on Judges Southwick and Aycock, I'm optimistic and hope we are back on the high road in confirming judicial nominees.

It takes a special person to be a judge - to obtain the education, make the rigorous decisions and undergo the exhausting FBI background checks and tough confirmation process that all federal judicial nominees must endure.

The Senate may not confirm every judicial nominee, but we should confirm all who are qualified. Judicial nominees were once treated with dignity, before partisanship, and I hope they will be again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write to: U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, 487 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (attn: Press Office).

Local MS editorial calling for an October vote on Southwick.
They should have called for a vote in September!

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070909/OPINION...

Southwick: Judicial vote is overdue

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes in that body's time-honored committee system, he will set an October vote for Jackson lawyer Leslie Southwick's confirmation to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The nomination of Southwick, 57, had been bottled up in the Democrat-majority Judiciary Committee and likely would have died there had it not been for the statesmanship of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

She broke ranks with her party's purely partisan stalemating of GOP nominations last month to vote Southwick out of the committee because she believed him qualified.

Southwick has been attacked for two decisions as a Mississippi Court of Appeals judge: one supporting the rehiring of a white social worker who was fired for using a racial slur against a black co-worker and another upholding a decision giving custody of a child to the father instead of her bisexual mother. Both cases have been flogged by left-wing groups to wrongly smear Southwick as a racist homophobe.

To those who know Southwick, the portrayal is laughably false.

"These were two cases out of the 7,000 in which he participated," Sen. Feinstein, reasonably noted. The former mayor of San Francisco is now also getting flak from these groups.

With Democrats having killed the nominations of former U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering and lawyer Michael Wallace, it has become apparent that some will go to any lengths to oppose a Mississippi Republican as a judge, regardless of qualifications.

Southwick's nomination should go to the full body, as the U.S. Constitution requires, and senators would see his record as a judge, which has been one of professionalism, hard work and integrity. The senators would see his service to his community, his service in the military in Iraq, and the support of his peers, Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott. And they would have no other conclusion than that he is fully qualified, would make an excellent federal judge and would vote accordingly, confirming him.

The Denver Broncos are trying to recoup some of the money in a signing bonus from a former player. They are suing in federal district court to get the money back. How do you know in which court to sue?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

William Lindsay Osteen 86-0

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Janis Lynn Sammartino 90-0

The most likely place for the Broncos to sue would be in the district court which covers wherever their headquarters is located (which I assume is in Denver).

A third judge (Martin Karl Reidinger) was confirmed by voice vote today.

What I meant ws why in the federal court? Why not state court? What decides whether or not a case should be in federal or state court?

It is in federal court for one of three reasons:
1. The parties/entities have diverse state citizenship and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs;
2. It is a federal question
3. Opposing counsel has not filed to dismiss the case for lack of federal court jurisdiction.
How about some judicial confirmation questions…

Your question has mostly to do with Jurisdiction. States usually have jurisdiction in most matters. There has to be a federal interest for a federal court to have jurisdiction for the most part. There are ways to fudge this though. The Broncos then would venue shop to see where the law (state or federal) helps them the most. To a lesser extent they also look at potential judges. Some judges tend to favor plaintiffs, others defendants. With that knowledge, the Broncos would file where they thing they have the best chance of winning. The player will probably challenge the venue. I am not familar with CO law or any judges there - state or federal. Interesting side bar. We studied a case of a wealthy California man who married a trophy wife. They were talking about getting a divorce. CA law really favors the wife in divorces generally. Knowing this, the man asked the wife to go on a trip with him to Europe to try and work out their marriage problems. They got in his private jet and took off. After a few hours, the plane touched down in Houston, TX. Upon landing, the man served his wife with divorce papers - in Texas. Texas law is more favorable to men in divorce law. Even though, both he and his wife lived in CA, he got around CA's courts and filed in a venue more favorable to him. I am sure the Broncos's legal wizzes picked the venue that best advanced their needs.

You beat me too it. I couldnt remember the exact numbers you cited and couldnt find my Fed Civ Pro book right now. Thanks for the assist.

Thanks for the help. I figured this is the only place where I could get the answer so I figured why not. True, it's not judicial nomination issues, but it deals with the courts. Thanks.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3572143&page=1

I would take some of this with a grain of salt. As we discussed earlier, I doubt seriously Souter ever considered retiring under Bush.

1) Although O'Connor initially wanted Bush elected in 2000, she quickly soured on him due to his choice to surround himself with polarizing social conservatives like John Ashcroft. In addition, she though Bush made a mess of affirmative action, enemy combatant habeas corpus and the Iraq War.

2) Thomas's quick swearing-in saved him from a Washington Post expose about his love of pornography. In addition, even Scalia thinks Thomas is too extreme in his originalism. Thomas is more friendly with Breyer than Scalia.

3) Rehnquist had a low opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton

4) Both O'Connor and first lady Barbara Bush at various times tried to play matchmaker to Souter. In addition, Souter couldn't make Rehnquist's funeral because he dislikes modern technology. He couldn't be contacted in time because he has no answering machine, fax, cell phone or personal e-mail.

Justice Souter has strongly considered retirement every single year since 1998.

As for 1-4 above, they are all correct, except for one sentence in #2.

It's true that Justice Thomas is chummy with Breyer, just as Nino is Ruthie's best friend.

the NYT are stuck with Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. even in the 0% chance such legislation ever was approved, I'm sure all current (at the time the hypothetical legislation was enacted) justices would be grandfathered and retain life tenure.

of course, SCOTUS could just declare it unconstitutional ;)

Come on now....if he can't find a reasonably attractive spouse on his own as a wealthy SCOTUS judge, I doubt he is interested.

I'm sorry if I missed your introduction. I'm sure you know the great distrust of anyone by that name, even with the second part suggesting "new and improved." Many of us were burned because we wanted to believe.

Would you please re-introduce yourself to your humble servant,
Classic

I wonder when the President is going to wise up and realize that his counsel, Fred Fielding, is an ineffective panderer and Beltway insider whose best game passed him by 20+ years ago. Fielding, the vaunted "dealmaker" from the Reagan years, has not made a single dent in the Democrats' united front against judges during his entire time in office, and he has not made a single deal that has resulted in a single appellate confirmation. Livingston, Jordan and Brennaman were done deals well BEFORE Fielding ever took office. Fielding is obviously more concerned with what the liberal Georgetown crowd thinks of him than with getting quality judges confirmed.

The most obvious example of his failed service is that he let the Democrats run rings around him on a pointless, distracting, meritless, time consuming battle over Southwick (which still persists) while not making a deal/going to battle/insisting on blueslips or votes for Keisler, Murphy and Kethledge first. And now it looks as if a truly great man, Keisler, has given up.

Additionally, Fielding has completely mismanaged the WH response to the DoJ debacle, giving in to Schumer at every turn and trying to play nice with a bunch of sharks like Leahy and Specter, demonstrably failed strategies if there ever were any. If anything should cause the President to demand Fielding
to resign, it is the recent appointment of Craig Morford as Deputy Attorney General. Morford has never carried GOP water on anything in his career and his appointment was demanded by Schumer's judiciary counsel and easily acceded to by Fielding's staff. Morford -- with the total refusal of even GOP Senators to take Gonsalez's calls -- has no ability or political base of his own on which to throw elbows inside the Senate to accomplish anything on judges.

What a fiasco.

If we don't have Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, Southwick and Elrod ALL confirmed by the end of October, (which we won't), we can safely deem Fielding's tenure as WHC the worst ever -- since there will be ZERO appellate confirmations on his watch in either 2007 or 2008.

It's great to sit around and debate the historical merits of blueslips and all that crap, but at some point voters expect people to get things done. Sadly, Fielding is not doing it. He should be replaced ASAP.

Very Truly Yours, RS

Your email address checks out.

Insider, please tell us who'll be retiring at the end of this term. We are all anxiously waiting to hear your prognostications. What are your well-placed and omniscient sources telling you?

Although I have always enjoyed your commentary, you have some explaining to do. Many people became emotionally involved with your predictions. What happened? If you were testing everyone's gullibility, that's fine as long as you admit it. I just don't want some odd, strange anti-climatic story that further tests your trustworthiness. Even if you do have some more wonderful tidbits, they aren't worth it if they are interspersed with falsehoods.

Courtesy of How Appealing, Dahlia Lithwick starts in on Matthews, and to a lesser extent Getchell, in this new Slate article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2173655/

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDI3NmU4NTk4OGE1MTM5NTJlOWM2ZDg4NTZ...

"White House officials, who are understandably battle-weary, show an admirable resolve in their willingness to fight for the confirmation of a new attorney general. Anyone nominated to succeed Alberto Gonzales will face contentious hearings aimed at winning concessions on the multiple disputes between the administration and Senate Democrats. An attempt will be made to portray even the most accomplished nominee as an alarming threat to the rule of law. It’s a fight worth having, especially if it’s waged on behalf of a nominee singularly well qualified to handle both the ordeal and the office. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson would be the strongest possible attorney-general nominee."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2007/09/considered-in-o.html

"The White House could announce as early as Wednesday its nominee to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson has emerged as a leading candidate—despite initial concerns in the administration that he could face a tough confirmation hearing, according to sources close to the process."

about not allowing any more Bush nominations to the Supreme Court makes me wonder if Chuckie knows something we don't.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

If Bush nominates Olson, it will create a huge power struggle in the Senate Judiciary Committee which will sideline most COA confirmations for the rest of the year. Hopefully, Elrod will be passed out of committee this week. That gives the Senate the ability to confirm Southwick and Elrod in September and October. With five confirmations (Smith, Hardiman, Livingston, Southwick and Elrod), that leaves two more possible COA confirmations to match Clinton's seven confirmed in 1999. While I anticipate that those two will be Tinder and Haynes, it will be necessary for both to have committee hearings in the next six weeks. Will a confirmation battle over Olson allow this? With his ABA rating already done, I would hope that Tinder gets his hearing this month, and Haynes gets her hearing next month.

Welcome back. Do you have any insight on why the Stevens retirement that you touted the last time did not pan out?

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Oh please! No one has forgotten that Insider was wrong about everything he's said.

Don't pay any attention to him. He is a joke.

It's time for a new thread, based on this developing story at Drudge:

FLASH: Ted Olson becomes frontrunner for Attorney General, top sources tell DRUDGE REPORT; announcement could be imminent... Developing...

Implications for Rudy? Will Bush do a recess appointment of Ted if he needs to? This is a great pick. Can't wait to see the Dims rage in response.

that if he chose Ted Olson for AG, it would be great--symbolically--to announce it on 9/11 in honor of his wife Barbara who was murdered in the 9/11 crash into the Pentagon.

[From Drudge again. Was someone trying to manipulate the process? Force Bush's hand? I don't know. I was glad for a mention on 9/11. I still hope Olson's the one.]

Bush weighs Olson to replace Gonzales

By: Mike Allen
Sep 11, 2007 01:28 PM EST

President Bush has not yet chosen a new attorney general, but conservatives say they are ecstatic to learn that former Solicitor General Theodore B. (Ted) Olson is one of five finalists.

A senior administration official tells Politico that the president is not likely to make a decision this week. The official says there is “no clear frontrunner.”

The decision boils down to a choice between the star power and excitement that Olson would bring to the administration and its supporters, and the toll that a potentially tough confirmation fight could take on the White House.

“Democrats have expressed reservations, but conservatives would be ecstatic,” said a Republican close to the White House. “The calculation is whether a hard confirmation fight is the right way to go at this point in the game. It’s a decision whether the White House wants to get in the ring and get the gloves on.”

Friends of Olson say he would take the job if it’s offered.

And some Republicans close to the administration say he has the legal firepower and familiarity with the Justice Department to straighten it out after the messy tenure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned Aug. 27, effective next Monday.

Republicans said Olson’s stature would be a booster shot for a flagging administration, showing that Bush is still willing to take risks and is not coasting.

But the same Republicans recognize that Olson’s selection could draw flak from Democrats because he successfully represented George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the Supreme Court cases that decided the 2000 presidential election.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding met last week with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to get his input about qualities he’d like to see in the next attorney general. Some Democrats have even suggested specific names.

Officials tell Politico that the other finalists are former U.S. district chief judge Michael Mukasey of New York, the Democrats’ favorite on the list; Laurence H. Silberman, a senior circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; George J. Terwilliger, a former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush; and Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general in this administration.

Olson’s wife, Barbara K. Olson, 45, was among the passengers who died on American Airlines Flight 77 when it was hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001.

Olson’s supporters say that experience has removed some of the partisan edge from public perceptions of him.

He recalled the ordeal for a Federalist Society convention two months later as he delivered the inaugural Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, which is now a premier annual event for the group: “She somehow managed (I think she was the only one on that flight to do so) to use a telephone in the airplane to call, not only for help from the outside, but for guidance for herself and the flight crew in the battle that she was already undertaking in her mind.

“She learned during those two telephone conversations that two passenger jumbo jets had already that morning been turned into instruments of mass murder at the World Trade Center. So she knew the unspeakable horror that she was facing — and I know without the slightest doubt that she died fighting.”

Olson was a member of the President's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created at the suggestion of the 9/11 commission. He is chairman of Rudy Giuliani's Justice Advisory Committee.

Olson, partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, was Solicitor General of the United States from 2001-2005. The solicitor general argues administration cases before the Supreme Court. Under President Ronald Reagan, Olson was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1981-1984.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-leahy12sep12,0,1258...

Courtesy of How Appealing, Patrick Leahy has an op/ed in the L.A. Times basically outlining what type of person George Bush should nominate as AG. I love his subtle use of words to say that the new AG should support the Democrat agenda:

"Here is a checklist of qualities that help define the kind of leader the Department of Justice needs right now:"

"* A willingness to apply the law without fear or favor, without regard to partisan politics, and to stand up to the White House when necessary. The attorney general is the people's lawyer, not the president's.

* A commitment to restore vigilance and vitality to a civil rights division that has been run onto the rocks by misdirection and by shameful -- possibly even illegal -- efforts to replace dedicated career attorneys with applicants who were improperly hired for their political loyalty to the Bush administration.

* A respect for Congress' oversight role. At its best, the confirmation process can be a clarifying moment. It can also be a catalyst for resolving problems like the White House's refusal to provide witnesses and documents that are needed to answer questions about the U.S. attorneys scandal and the warrantless wiretapping program."

Courtesy of How Appealing again,

http://www.nysun.com/article/62428

"The White House counsel, Fred Fielding, is said to have sounded out Senator Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would hold hearings on the appointment.

Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's leading Republican, also has been consulted and is reported to have made clear his preference for Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson has given campaign donations to Mr. Specter."

I do not find a SJC business meeting this week. One more week down.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-viguerie12sep12,0,3...

Elrod is scheduled to be voted on during the next SJC meeting. By not having a meeting this week, Leahy effectively postpones her vote for another week.

I think everyone on this site is going to have a painful decision to make in early 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/gop.poll/index.html

Look at these poll numbers. Rudy is the only candidate who is even close to Hillary. Go to realclearpolitics to see more polls of this kind. If these polls look similiar in Jan of 08, I think it would be silly to nominate anyone but Rudy. Romney now borders on unelectable and Thompson is 13 points behnind Hillary in the CNN poll. If you don't trust polls, see the results of the 2006 elections. Can anyone here see a reason to nominate anyone but Rudy?

I read a report that the only reason Thompson isn't polling as well as Giuliani, against Clinton, is that Thompson is not yet as well know. Once he becomes more well-known, it's a different ballgame.

Where have all you pessimists been. Tomorrow is a Jewish holiday. The Senate has been scheduled to be off tomorrow and Friday for a long time.

To be really sneaky Leahy would have kept Elrod off the calendar of Sept. 6th knowing full well the next meeting would be the 20th. Hold her over another week and pass her out of committee on the 27th. Then they could let her languish on the Executive Calendar until after the October recess and maybe into November.

As it stands now, Elrod will be out of committee on the 20th and confirmed on October 4th or 5th. Probably with Southwick so Sen. Leahy can gloat.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/09/just-in-justice.html

"Legal Times has confirmed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has agreed to be interviewed by the CBS News show 60 Minutes later this month to kick off promotion of his new autobiography, set for publication October 1.

Knowledgeable sources say that Thomas overcame an initial reluctance about doing publicity for the book and is scheduled to appear on the top-rated news magazine show on Sunday, Sept. 30."

Reid says he will block an Olson nomination

Top Democrat vows to block possible Bush nominee
Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Congressional and administration officials have described Olson as a leading contender for the job as the nation's chief U.S. law enforcement officer, but Reid declared: "Ted Olson will not be confirmed" by the Senate.

"He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Tony Snow, amid word that Bush was nearly ready to pick a new attorney general, told reporters, "We don't have a decision yet."

Senator Kerry decided to whine about that Belgian ambassador, and a recess appointment is made.

Senator Kerry decided to whine about that Belgian ambassador, and a recess appointment is made.

Senator Kerry decided to whine about that Belgian ambassador, and a recess appointment is made.

As expected, Jennifer Elrod is on the agenda for the next SJC Business Meeting, scheduled for September 20. No other nominees are currently on the agenda.

The Toobin book sounds like a collection of half-truths, self-inflations & -delusions, semi-informed speculation, blatant rumor-mongering & fifth-hand gossip.

Kinda like Yawnsider's posts! ;)

the president does nominate Ted Olson and, if necessary, recess appoints him.

I am quite confident McCain would also beat Hillary. McCain may make super conservatives cautious, but he would appeal to the middle of the road group - the people who are cautious about Iraq but also feel we need to finish what has begaun. And McCain is awhole lot more conservative than Guiliani.

what if Gonzales had resigned effective with the confirmation of his successor?

No matter who Bush nominates, the Dems will demand he says he supports an Independent Counsel fish for stuff on AGAG. This is a total waste of time. Bush should just recess appoint him and let the Dems whine. Orrin Hatch said it best: "The White House just doesn't know who they are dealing with up here after 6+ years."

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR200709...

"U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein, Maryland's top federal prosecutor, is in the late stages of being vetted as a possible nominee to fill a long-standing vacancy on a federal appeals court in Richmond, law enforcement sources and people who have been questioned as part of the process said."

""Rod Rosenstein is doing a good job as the U.S. attorney in Maryland, and that's where we need him," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski said through a spokeswoman. "The White House should look at Maryland's federal bench for experienced jurists who have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support."

A message left late yesterday seeking comment from Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin was not immediately returned."

This seems to be quite a change in tune from before by Mikulski. IIRC, she and Sarbanes were initially opposed to Rosenstein. I would love it if Bush could nominate a conservative candidate to the Fourth Circuit whom the Dems wouldn't block!

I guess I was reading a little too fast earlier. Now that I have reread my own quotes, I recognize that I misinterpreted Mikulski's comments. I initially thought it sounded like Mikulski was supporting Rosenstein. Now I realize that she is still opposed. I guesss the idea that there could be a Fourth Circuit nominee that Dems wouldn't block overpowered me. See what happens when try to juggle a job AND comment at Confirmthem. :)

If Rosenstein is nominated to succeed Murnaghan, I think it is pretty definite that the White House has made the decision that it is more important to generate an election year issue concerning Democrat obstructionism than to get more conservative judges confirmed. I am just not so sure that the singular issue of judges can create enough momentum to get a Republican elected as president in 2008. In my opinion, it would take the Dem obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee to garner the right amount of public outrage to help the Republicans at this point in the election cycle.