ConfirmThem

but for God's sake can we get them to actually CAST a vote???

I think Graham is becoming totally unhinged due to this situation involving the JAG corps and military tribunals. I'm sure Graham views Haynes' recent negotiation with several senior JAG lawyers over a letter supporting the Bush plan as an unconscionable act of White House aggression. I bet Graham would love now to send Haynes out of committee with a negative recommendation as form of sweet payback.

that's a really nice name.

CRS RL-31635 (something linked somewehre at confirmthem - title is "Judicial Nomination Statistics") has a chart that shows the outcome in the scenario where the nominee is reported out, other than favorably. The page is CRS-40. Once "no opinion" report ws passed by the full Senate. All the others were withdrawn or returned, including Priscilla Owen who was renominated and later confirmed.

So an unfavorable report is powerful, but not determinative. I'd prefer for the Senators to go on rcord and vote, to this "silence isn't really rejection" approach they are presently pulling off.

There have been some judicial nominations that were reported unfavorably by the Judiciary Committee, and yet confirmed by the full Senate (without filibusters). That was the case for Supreme Court Justices Stanley Matthews and Lucius Lamar. Details are here.

Even for judicial nominations that were rejected by the full Senate after being reported unfavorably, there were no filibusters.

Andrew, your research is superb, as always. Thanks for the correction.

Graham is not obligated to vote for someone simply because the President of the same party as Graham made the nomination. I want our Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike to exercise independent judgment. I do not want the Senate to become what Democrates say (right now without foundation) it is -- a rubber stamp. All I want is a vote. Any vote. Graham is giving this to us. That is what we demanded. I will not criticize him for opposing 1 nomination out of more that 200 that he supported. As long as there is a vote he lived up to his duty and obligation.

All I want is a vote. Any vote. Graham is giving this to us.

Graham has SAID he will give it. But if for example they never achieve a quorum for upcoming SJC meetings then he won't ever have to prove whether he was truthful or not.

Right now I take him at his word. If events do not bear it out, we shall see. In any event, even if he had shown up, there is no quorum without at least 2 Democrats.

that the GOP believes they don't need any dems to show up for a Judiciary Committee meeting if they have 10 GOP Senators who show up to report a nominee. There may have already been occasions where this has occurred, under the present rules (I'm not sure). In any event, a discharge petition is always available to extricate nominees from committee.

P.S. Thanks Quin.

Wouldn't more than just Lindsey Graham have to vote against Haynes in order for there to be a negative recommendation? If Graham votes no, that should tie the committee and report Haynes out with no recommendation.

That said, Cornyn should report to Frist if he believes that Haynes will be voted out with a negative recommendation, and Frist should pre-empt it by getting Haynes discharged out of committee before a negative recommendation can be made.

Then, lets vote. Elizabeth Dole had better be going to Chafee and reminding him about how much money she spent on his primary re-election campaign, too!

We can lose McCain, Graham, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe and still get Haynes confirmed with Dick Cheney's tie-breaker.

But that has been clear to me for a long time. Once Graham came out and publicly blamed Haynes for ignoring the JAG and somehow leading military down the path to torture, I knew there was no way Haynes would be confirmed. Graham was never going to backtrack on that and no other Republican was going to challenge him on it. That's that.

I try not to think about the Haynes nomination because it just depresses me. I try and stay positive and think about the confirmation of Keisler and Jordan and Smith.

I personally believe that the ambitions of Graham and McCain are to blame for just about all of the problems of the 109th Congress. They have consistently broken ranks with Bush and leadership on issues of judges, immigration, and the war on terror. Only the three most important issues for the party and the country. They are tapping into the anti-Bush fever of the left and directing it their way by positioning themselves as the "Not-Bush Republicans." In this way, they hope to ensure McCain's nomination for the Presidency in 2008 by making him necessary--- the only one who can guarantee victory. If that occurs, the White House may indeed be occupied by a Republican, but not a conservative.

In fact, the conservatives will be cast into the wilderness. McCain has become so used to playing Republicans against the Democrats to get what he wants, that there is no reason to believe that will change if he is in power. He will frequently ally himself with Democrats, in order to make himself the Great Moderator and keep the GOP from gaining strength independent of him, and in that way will draw the GOP more to the left. It will be center-left governance, somewhere between Clinton and Bush.

There's a lot of people who want that, but I'm not one of them. McCain, with the assistance of Graham, has placed the future of the Republican party and the security of this nation in jeopardy in his long game for the White House. It's masterful and Machievellian. It's also disgraceful.

..shocked, SHOCKED, that Graham would do this?? He & "Jennifer" McCain haven't hid their feelings on Haynes from day one. Sure, they're trying to twist themselves into pretzels, but this is hardly a surprise.

any thoughts about Romney?

That's my thought on him. He's on his way from dark horse candidate to legitimate contender. I don't think he's quite there yet, but he has had a very impressive 2006, winning over skeptics and doubters left and right it seems. My impression is that every time he has publicly confronted an issue he has left more and more people coming away impressed by him. I think Romney radiates smarts, articulateness, integrity, leadership, and courage to confront issues. So, his campaign is an unqualified success so far.

That said, he's still under the radar and has yet to face any real waves yet, from either the Dems, Dem-centered media, or the GOP. I think they don't see him as a threat yet, the way they have with George Allen. Allen's 2008 bid has been badly rocked though, which has led in part to Romney's ascendancy. We'll have to see how Romney reacts to adversity when McCain and the media begin to perceive the threat of another conservative President. Will they be able to sweep the leg?

I'm keeping my eye on Romney. He's starting to look legit.

And Romney's religion should have nothing to do with anything, so I hope it won't. While Romney has expressed some pro-choice sentiments, he's also said that he believes these are decisions for legislatures rather than courts, which is the key point that people like Justices Scalia and Thomas have made. If the election were today, I'd probably vote for Romney, but of course it's a long way off.

An excellent post, and one that shows what the "Gang Deal" really was:

1. An excuse for Democrats to get away with as much as the Republicans will allow by killing or stalling nominations (all the while waiting until there are more Democrats to do greater damage!); and

2. An excuse for weak Republicans to blame both the Democrats and the system as a whole while slinking away from a necessary fight.

Long ago, I would quote from the "Deal" as more binding on Rs than Ds (and ruling out the nuke option) but have realized it is what the Gang members claim it is, not what the document says, that really matters. It is not a legal document.

Instead, it is a horrible mess, made possible by the likes of Graham and others, and a missed opportunity that we will all pay for after November if too many conservatives vote third party or stay home.

how the icing on the cake was Frist declaring victory over filibusters. He's worse than the others as far as I'm concerned.

Have been lock, stock and barrel with President Bush on immigration.

____________________
They have consistently broken ranks with Bush and leadership on issues of judges, immigration, and the war on terror.
____________________

Any differences between McCain and Bush regarding illegal immigration have not been very noticeable.

The House has just approved building 700 miles of fencing at the border, but Bush and McCain will probably both oppose it. I wish they would both support it, and provide funding for it. Other aspects of the problem could be dealt with later.

Here is the NYT's take on the letter that Haynes helped to negotiate with the JAG Corps that has Graham upset:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16jags.html?hp&ex=115846560...

At the moment, I do wonder where Romney would draw the line on some of the issues related to the war on terror and Iraq. He is working hard to establish a firm hawkish political position, which is understandable. So is McCain, who is a hawk.

Associated with some of these issues are serious questions about executive power and the rule of law. I could not fully support any nominee who does not distinguish himself from Bush's position and practice, which I find unacceptable and anti-constitutional. He has lost my vote for the party in 2006, because of where he and the national party have chosen to drive their wedge. I am interested to see whether there is a place for people like me in the 2008 tent.

McCain has gone to the mat over the torture/interrogation matter before, which is a core issue for him. But he has trouble dealing with Bush's view of unilateral legal power. McCain thought his amendment that passed the Senate 90-9 last year settled the matter, but that was before Bush issued is famous signing statement and the ethically malleable lawyers in this administration's OLC secretly interpreted the enacted statute to mean something else.

McCain will have to reconcile that somehow, and I will be watching him closely on this second round. Until Bush, with a motivating boost from the Hamdan decision, forced the issue recently, McCain was not publically rocking the boat. So far this week, he has held to principle. Obviously this hurts him with many Bush supporters among "the base," whom he has been courting.

Romney so far is keeping his head down. Sooner or later, I want to know where he stands on executive power and the rule of law.

The man has no credibility with me. If we had followed his advice last year, we would not have Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court today. We would have Harriet Miers.

Hewitt = "Yay Bush," nothing deeper.

i think hugh has redeemed himself with his grilling of Graham. forgive but dont forget. if he does it again, then we can be angry.

life is worth living

I think you might attack Hewitt's judgment regarding the Miers nomination, but I see no reason to attack his credibility. Hewitt was entirely honest about his feelings during the whole thing, and the reason he disagreed with critics of the nomination. He wasn't working for the Administration, so I don't see how his credibility comes into play. Hugh was honest. Most likely mistaken, but honest.

And as to that, Hugh has said on his show that he may have been entirely mistaken about it, and he has noted that he was pretty much alone during the whole thing. But Hugh has also said that he doesn't think we'll ever know for sure whether he was right or wrong because Miers never made it to the Court.

But that's the beauty of Alito. With his nomination, nobody had to worry whether he was right or wrong for the Court like we did with Miers.

EZ I bet Warner for one also would vote against Haynes. Frist has to know there aren't 50 votes to confirm Haynes(or Myers, and likely Boyle), let alone to go nuclear over.

Haynes & Myers are 100% gone, and Boyle is about 98% gone. We just keep around the same ol' mulberry bush. Speaking of which, I stand by my prediction that no more judges get confirmed this year, save maybe moderates like Livingston. I'll further add that Bush will renominate Boyle, Haynes, & Myers(and no switch with Smith) in January & the Senate will have 53 Repubs, including Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Warner, McCain, & Graham.

Sad, it really is.

I do predict Keisler will eventually get confirmed, tho.

"I'll further add that Bush will renominate Boyle, Haynes, & Myers(and no switch with Smith) in January & the Senate will have 53 Repubs, including Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Warner, McCain, & Graham."

Are you saying that Boyle, Haynes and Myers have a longer -- no matter how uncertain -- political future than Mike DeWine?

I agree Hugh has no credibility. He said on his blog on October 15, 2005 that the momentum was changing in Harriet Miers' favor, twelve days later she withdrew. He also said on his program on October 26, 2006, that Republican Senators had no choice but to support her and he said many times that she ABSOLUTELY wouldn't withdraw. She did.

He compared the tactics of Republicans opposing Harriet Miers to liberals who opposed Robert Bork in his October 27 or 28,2005 New York Times article "Why The Right Was Wrong." This is a disgustingly false assertion.

He also predicted that Bush would carry AT LEAST forty states in the 2004 election. Bush carried, what, 31 states?

Hugh said in his Weekly Standard article a couple years ago that Republicans would retain control of the House of Congress until at least 2012 and probably 2022. The Republicans MAY very well lose control of the House this November. Hugh hasn't been proved wrong yet on this prediction, but he probably will be.

Hugh also predicted that John Campbell would win handily without a runoff in his run for California's 48th Congressional District. Fortunately, Jim Gilchrist caused a runoff. (It's surely a travisty that Gilchrist lost.)

Hugh's is just an unprincipled Republican sycophant.

"Are you saying that Boyle, Haynes and Myers have a longer -- no matter how uncertain -- political future than Mike DeWine?"

Yep. They will never receive floor votes, Bush obviously will never withdraw them, and they show no sign of withdrawing themselves.

As for Hugh Hewitt, it appears he like Orrin Hatch is just simply a cheerleader for whatever a Republican White House puts out.

He lost tons of credibility on Miers, tho he's seemed OK since.

I disagreed with Hewitt on Miers and on some other things, but I think he is a straight shooter in a world of Machievellians, and a gentleman in a world of louts. I also think he did a good thing by getting Graham on the record. In short, Hewitt is an asset to the cause, and a very good man.