ConfirmThem

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.4thcircuit18jan18,0...

"We are now in an election year, when presidential campaigning slows the judicial confirmation process. If Mr. Bush hopes to fill the Luttig vacancy in 2008, he should work with Virginia's senators to find a consensus nominee. The place to start is the five highly qualified consensus candidates designated in the careful, bipartisan approach that Sens. Warner and Webb employed.

What is Mr. Bush waiting for?"

In this case, I have to agree with Tobias. There is no excuse for Bush not having nominated someone to replace Luttig by now. He should've named someone in the 109th Congress. If he had done something then, he probably wouldn't have the problem now that he has with Webb. He only made the problem with Webb worse when he nominated Getchell.

What more is there to say? Bush has absolutely botched filling the vacancies on the 4th Circuit - there no other way to put it.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5464346.html

"The Harris County District Attorney's office this morning dismissed the indictments returned Thursday against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with the fire that destroyed their home in Spring last summer.

A grand jury handed up the indictments despite objections from Rosenthal's office. Today, the district attorney's office said it would continue to investigate the fire in relationship to the Medinas but not in a prosecutorial mode.

In a rare move for a body that typically operates in secrecy, two grand jury members Thursday night publicly denounced Rosenthal's unwillingness to prosecute as politically motivated."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUDGE_HOUSE_FIRE?SITE=AP&SECTION=...

"A judge dismissed grand jury indictments Friday that accused a Texas Supreme Court justice and his wife of involvement in an arson at their home, but prosecutors noted the couple had not been absolved and the investigation was continuing."

Fascinating piece about a recent book on Judge Bill Clark, Reagan's first choice for the Supreme Court.

part one:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/12/12/what-might-have-been-the-man-who-cou...

part two:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/01/18/what-might-have-been-the-man-who-cou...

Very interesting interview. Judge Clark sounds like a great man who did great things, and would have also been instrumental on the Supreme Court. However, Kengor is wrong in suggesting a Justice Clark would have later influenced Justice Kennedy once he was on the Court, and would have influenced the Casey decision. There would never have been a Justice Kennedy if Judge Clark was appointed to the Court, as the Left's need to destroy Bork would have been moot in 1987. Similarly, there would likely have been no Casey decision with a Justice Clark on the Court for a decade before 1992.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/judicial-nominee-withdraws-amid-demo...

Thanks for the update. Getchell has made the right decision. With the civil lawsuit against him, even if Webb wasn't against him, Getchell had no choice. Now it is up to Bush to nominate two people from the Warner/Webb list if he really wants to maintain conservatism on the Fourth Circuit.

I fully anticipate, however, that the Dems have already decided on a particular number of Bush COA nominees that they will confirm. Due to my previously stated statistical analysis, I think that number is 3-4. With that said, Haynes and Pratter appear to be shoo-ins. If the Warner/Webb two are confirmable, that means that Keisler, Conrad and Matthews may be shunted aside to accomodate the inclusion of the two Virginia candidates.

If McConnell is smart, he should manuever the Dems into confirming as many COA nominees as possible. I just don't see, however, the Dems giving the Fourth Circuit away by confirming Conrad, Matthews AND the two Virginia nominees.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/4d9a78aa-0912-4ba3-bb92-c95ea5cda539

"Thanks to John McCain, the GOP lost the chance to confront the Democrats over their hyper-partisan destruction of precedent. They lost many fine nominees as well. And the confirmation machinery didn't even improve for the rest of the session. Numerous judges were left dangling at the end of 2006 when the Gang of 14 "deal" expired, and most of them like Peter Keisler, nominated to the second most important court in the country, the D.C. Circuit, are hostage still to the Democrats."

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/richmond-lawyer-pulls-out-bid-federal-ap...

"A lawyer in Richmond nominated to the federal appeals court based there has withdrawn his name from consideration.

President Bush nominated the lawyer, E. Duncan Getchell Jr., to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in September.

Since then, the nomination has faced an uphill fight in the Senate. Getchell has not been supported by either U.S. senator from Virginia."

Did Getchell withdraw after a disastrous ABA interview? Did he know in advance that the ABA was about to crucify him with a NQ rating?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR200801...

"Yesterday, Webb issued a statement commending Getchell on his willingness to serve and urging Bush "to seize this opportunity to nominate a candidate who can garner bipartisan support here in the Senate.'' Warner said in a statement that he has "the highest personal regard" for Getchell, and he called on Bush to nominate someone from his and Webb's list."

Bush would be a fool not to recommend two names off the Warner/Webb list now.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-200...

"Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods, said yesterday that the suit had nothing to do with Getchell's request to have his nomination withdrawn.

"It was clear that Senator Webb didn't know him well and was not comfortable with his nomination," said Cullen, a Republican activist and former U.S. Attorney. Cullen said that, "since he wasn't going to get a hearing it really didn't make much sense to continue."

"While we're disappointed for him because he would have been such a fine appellate judge . . . we're pleased he'll continue to be a very valuable and productive partner," said Cullen."

Webb is such a phony. If he found it commendable for Getchell to be willing to serve and also had the highest personal regard for Getchell, then why not support his nomination?

I know why: Webb is a lying phony and his words mean nothing.

That being said, it's time for Bush to nominate Douglass and Albro FORTHWITH and for the Republicans to fight for them (and all of the pending nominees). Come on - let's get pumped up again - we need some judge fights!!!

right. 3 is the absolute maximum on the 4th the Dems will allow, but 2 is more likely (given the vileness of the Dems, just 1 would not be unexpected). That could be Conrad and/or Matthews and one of the VA nominees, or both VA nominees and Conrad/Matthews, or, if just two, one from each group or just the 2 VA nominees. the best chance for 3 would likely be the 2 VA and Leahy's pick between Conrad and Matthews.

personally, I'd rather see a deal with Mikulski and Cardin to put Keisler in the MD seat on the 4th and leave the DC seat open for a potential (may it never happen) Dem president, and get Keisler, Conrad/Matthews, and one for VA seated. you'd think that Keisler on the 4th would be preferable to him on the DC for the Dems.

Would you prefer Webb take parting shots at Getchell as he withdrew?

Webb and Warner gave several names to Bush, including more than one highly qualified conservative. Bush was a fool to ignore it.

Thank goodness he lost in S.C. It now looks like McCain, Romney, and maybe Rudy. I have to think it will come down to Rudy or McCain. Either would be excellent, especially compared to the alternative. The first question in my mind is who would they pick for SCOTUS. The first pick will likely be a omwna, so who do we have out there? Here are the ones I can come up with that have a chance at conrfirmation (read no JRB): Maureen Mahoney, Diane Sykes, Edith Clement, Reena Raggi, Debra Livingston. Any others come to mind?

So many others come to mind it's hard to know where to start. If we're talking about women, here are some more (I agree with you that Livingston would definitely be near the top of the list, particularly for Rudy. Mahoney as well, especially if there's a larger Dem majority.):

Alison Eid
Sandra Segal Ikuta
Kimberly Moore
Lee Rosenthal
Margaret Ryan

I've been impressed with Ikuta since she joined the 9th Circuit. She has proved to be considerably more conservative than we had originally guessed, certainly more so than Callahan and most others on the 9th Circuit.

I love Eid, but I think she would be DOA. Thomas/Smith clerkships would be viewed negatively by many (not me, but many no doubt), and I doubt she would get the backing of her home state senators, which could be the death knell for her nomination. The fact that she is a woman would make it more difficult to stop her though, so it might be worth a shot.

Moore isn't qualified, IMO. She has little to no experience outside patent law and related disciplines. Plus, I find her CV hard to judge re: conservative bona fides. The one thing she has is George Mason, which is a good sign, but I don't think she is quite to the level of many of the others.

Ikuta might be a diamond in the rough (would she get the support of her home state senators?). She could also turn out to be more like O'Connor. Even that would be a welcome change from Stevens or Ginsburg though! I also hear she is less than personable, which might be a problem in the interviews and hearings.

Rosenthal is too much of a blank slate. Plus her background is unspectacular. No reason to put her on any list.

Ryan looks great on paper, but I wonder if her experience would handicap her. She appears to have little to no exposure to legal issues outside the armed forces context. Plus, the Luttig/Thomas clerkships won't help perception. She also might be a bit young.

I think Ikuta and Livingston would be the easiest to confirm, and both would be welcome additions. Eid would be great too, but I wonder if she could survive the hearings.

Unlike with COA nominations, homestate senators do NOT control the future of a Supreme Court nominee. There is no blue-slip policy for the Supreme Court. Therefore, Colorado senators could not procedurally block Eid, and California senators could not procedurally block Ikuta.