ConfirmThem

Sorry, but I don't believe him. Let him say that from his own mouth and discuss it. THen let him explain how that squares with his public support of the Lawrence decision, and then let him explain why he thinks Lavenski Smith is a good choice for the Supreme Court when the Minnesota Bar officially rates Smith as being on the left side of his circuit court of appeals.
Huck wouldn't know a textualist if it bit him on the guitar he tries to play like Keith Richards, all while trying to explain why he gave Richards a pardon.

Quin Hillyer

Here's Huckabee's statement opposing Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm still rooting for Romney, and Thompson would be my second choice. But I'm glad to hear Huckabee saying stuff like this. The Supreme Court needs to divest itself of legislative power. The attempt by judges to invest themselves with legislative power has been incalculably corrosive, disastrous, and tragic.

That statement attributed to Huckabee sounds great, and if he wins then I hope he will make good on it, but I have to wonder how it is that he would have so misunderstood the case (Lawrence) when it came down after all the immediate intense publicity that it received. Even so, assuming that this new statement is an accurate reflection on how Huckabee really thinks about constitutional jurisprudence, there are other candidates (e.g., Romney) who do not share Huckabee’s weaknesses (e.g., immigration, vulnerability in the general election, etc.). So while this is a positive development, it’s not necessarily going to win over converts so much as it may relieve some discomfort with his candidacy.

Huckabee is actually polling better than Romney in general election matchups, against both Clinton and Obama. Perhaps he's not the one with weaknesses.

But regardless of who gets the nomination, a GOP win is crucial for the courts. If the dems had won in 2004, there'd be 6 liberals on the bench andconsrevatives wouldn't win another case until at least 2020. With Scalia and Kennedy both turning 72 this year, it's another important crossroads. It's why I thought Scalia should have retired last year or the year before and allowed us to cement his seat for another 25 years. He's gambling a lot on the Republicans winning.

Scalia is only 72. He could relatively easily outlast 3 Democratic presidential terms is necessary. I am glad he is staying on. And he is probably finally enjoying himself with a majority on the SC. He probably still has some 'goals' he would like to accomplish before stepping down, and now that is possible with Alito and Roberts.

If the GOP had hung on to the Senate in 2006, he may have, but if he steps down now, the SC may move to the left - depending upon who Bush could get confirmed by the Senate.

I am still hoping for a McCain presidential election with coattails large enough to restore the Senate to the GOP - and then a re-election in 2012 with coattaila to change the make up of the Senate class elected in 2006 with 24 Democratic (including the independents) senators.

Hopefully by then, several of the young Bush appointed judges will be mature enough to be considered for the SC to replace Scalia and join Sykes, and P. Clements and Estrada on the court.

That's a strong statement from Huckabee. He's not just saying he'll appoint conservative judges and the usual platitudes. He's explicitly advancing originalsim/textualism and promising to appoint known originalists/textualists to the courts. No other candidate has said anything quite so strong, and if true, I like Huck a whole lot more.

But...like much of what Huck does, they may be just nice words and no substance. We'll see....

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/146466

"...For several months, rumors have circulated that the White House intends to nominate someone who was not among the five candidates suggested on June 12. This action would mirror Bush's September nomination of Richmond attorney Duncan Getchell for another Fourth Circuit vacancy; Getchell also was not among the five."

"If Bush hopes to fill the Luttig vacancy in 2008 when the presidential election slows judicial confirmations, he should work with Virginia's senators to find a consensus nominee. The place to start (and end) is the five highly-qualified consensus candidates designated in the careful, bipartisan approach that Warner and Webb employed. If Bush ignores the five and the senators, the next president will fill Luttig's seat."

http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/439606.html

"President Bush has made a couple of tries at filling [Fourth Circuit] seats, but offered nominees who obviously were politically unacceptable to the Senate. His lack of energy or interest in filling the vacancies has been part of the problem. He needs to put more into it.

His most recent nomination, Judge Robert Conrad of North Carolina, was announced on July 17, 2007, but the Judiciary Committee has yet to grant him a hearing. That's outrageous. Judge Conrad is no stranger to the senators. He's a well-qualified judge who only three years ago received unanimous Senate confirmation for a seat on the District Court bench."

"Judge Conrad's nomination deserves a prompt and fair hearing. President Bush and North Carolina's U.S. senators should work to make that happen."

I have to agree with Tobias (never something I like to do) that it's pure folly not to go with someone on the "approved" list. Of course, it is not the Senators' prerogative to nominate judges, and in general the White House should not give in to such strong arm tactics. But Bush is in a weakened position on judges given this last year of his presidency, and excepts must be made if he is to be assured a chance at filling these vacancies.

Bush should pick any one of the people approved by the Senators. They are all solid. I tend to like John Douglass a bit more because Ed Meese chose to include him in writing a portion of the Heritage Guide to the Const, so my guess is he's an originalist or at least would apply some form of conservative jurisprudence. I'm hesitant to say Bush should choose one of the VA Sup Ct judges (Agee and Lemons), as he would then be permitting Gov. Kaine to replace them. Bush should pull Getchell and nominate Douglass and Albro, and consider it a job well done given his weakness and the despicable partisanship of the Dems.

I forgot about US District Judge Conrad (not the one in NC, but VA). He was also on the approved list. He'd probably be fine, but again, I don't want to create unnecessary vacancies that would have to be fought to be filled, so I'd just go with Douglass and Albro.

I have to agree with Tobias (never something I like to do) that it's pure folly not to go with someone on the "approved" list. Of course, it is not the Senators' prerogative to nominate judges, and in general the White House should not give in to such strong arm tactics. But Bush is in a weakened position on judges given this last year of his presidency, and excepts must be made if he is to be assured a chance at filling these vacancies.

So how do you draw such a line? We know how enamored all these Senators are over following precedent (at least when it benefits the left). Next thing you know the Senate takes it as a KnownFact®tm; that "advice and consent" means the Senators supply the list of five names for the president to choose from, and anyone not on that list is summarily ignored.

I think we're sort of hoping Bush will cave since there are some good names on the list from VA, but if it's good enough for VA seats to be done that way, then why not for CA, OH, PA, FL, etc.?

Because nobody really cares about a couple seats on the 9th or 1st circuits in CA or RI.

The 4th, on the other hand, is critical, especially with this number of vacancies. You'd think Bush would care more for his Guantanemo cases.

If Bush is given a good list of 5 to choose from, for CA, OH, PA and FL, then why not pick from the list if it speeds up the confirmation process?

Why poke the eye of Senators if you don't need to?

This guy is rightwinger on all social issues we have very little to fear from him.

Also, CA & RI have two Dem senators and will for the forseeable future. VA HAD two Repub senators, currently has one, and will have none from at least 1/20/09-1/20/13.

Insanity not to ram Douglass & Albro in there. Webb would have to get them confirmed; after all they're HIS candidates.

Hillary or Obama will have those seats filled with the two most liberal law professors at UVA or the two most liberal District or StSC judges in the state by 7/4/09. Be priority one for MWarner. Even if Rudy or McCain wins, the new list from him & Webb will be MUCH worse.

It's madness, complete madness. I bet Webb gambled by putting a couple of those names on there because he thought Bush wouldn't pick Scalia & Thomas Jr's if they came from "outsiders" lists. Good bet.

As for Mitt, anybody here think that if he gets the nomination he'll immediately swing to the center and start talking about "bipartisanship" and "ending gridlock"?

is crucial for the future of the judiciary. Even though Huckabee's a one legged conservative and McCain's far worse than Dole ever was (and don't count Mitt out just yet!), I'd vote for either of them against the Dem. candidate. In 96 I encouraged people to remember the two S's--signature (in this time it might be v for veto) and Supreme Court.

There was no foreseeable vacancy in the 1996 Supreme Court term like there is now.

Yeah, in retrospect '96 may have been just as well to lose. No Supreme Court openings, and Clinton didn't seem to accomplish all that much.

An interesting thought: had Dole won in '96 and been reelected in '00 he would have been the only two term president to have no Supreme Court appointments. That would have been pretty shocking for a two-termer not to have any. Of course, under this scenario there would have been no Bush v. Gore case, and perhaps Rehnquist and O'Connor would have left between 2001 and 2004.

Unlike '96, it looks like there will be a Court vacancy. Also, it look like in the next four years Iraq may be able to be wrapped up somewhat successfully, and it would be nice to have a Republican overseeing that. Plus, the Dems will likely control Congress, so it's even more helpful to control the presidency.

it occurs to me: what if the White House hasn't named anyone from the WW list precisely BECAUSE it cares about terrorism/detainee cases; that is, what if they have determined that all 5 of the WW list are unacceptable in this regard (and is that really out of the realm of imagination from Senators Warner and Jackass)? they may well feel their chances are better with the current 5-5 plus R Senior Judges to have an edge on panels, and then at worst a tie in en banc reviews.

Even assuming Huckabee is a rightwinger on all social issues (and I don't concede that point), the JUDICIARY is not a social issue. Given Huckabee's track record on judges (particularly Judge Lavenski Smith, who is Huckabee's gold standard), I don't have a whole lot of confidence in his ability to appoint originalist and/or conservative judges. Now, if he were to bring on Ted Olson, Steve Calabresi, Miguel Estrada, and Douglas Cox as his legal team, I might reconsider.

Oh, wait - Rudy already has brought on those people.

Does anyone know who is on John McCain Judicial Advisory Committee? A couple months ago I wasn't too interested, but now for obvious reasons, I am.

I know McCain has a committee, as I see it mentioned in press accounts. All else I can find is that Sam Brownback is a co-chair. Not that impressive -- I'd prefer to see a serious academic or someone who has worked extensively in relation to the courts and knows the ins and outs and that overturning Roe isn't about "saving lives" but about making constitutional law sound. Maybe I'm too dismissive of Brownback, though.

I'd appreciate more information about McCain's judicial committee if anyone has it. Who's on aside from Brownback?