ConfirmThem

Thank you for writing such a fine article that focuses us all on keeping the main thing the main thing!

Liberal online petition to Leahy asking for no more judicial confirmations: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_more_bush_judges/?rc=kosad

Mathews, Puryear and Keisler prominently mentioned. Did you know that Keisler is a "well-connected conservative" because he "clerked for Anthony Kennedy"?

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Hoo, boy!

Quin, as always, we're with you 100%. Judges are a goldmine for conservative voters. Sadly, it's alot of sound and fury signifying very little. McCain has shown no inclination to make this a prime topic of his depressingly shoddy campaign. Even worse, none of our Republican Senate and House members seem willing to make it a campaign issue either.

I apologize for my forceful support of McCain in the primaries. It would have been better to see Romney win, even if it meant a sure November defeat. At least conservative ideals would be on display. Watching McCain and his campaign in action leads me to believe he wouldn't even be a good president. Sigh.

The Bush administration is where leadershio goes to die.

Thanks for your mea culpa. You are forgiven, my son.

Jn. McCain still has an opportunity to revitalize his campaign--by having the wisdom and guts to pick Romney as his vp nominee!

No rush to retire black robes on Supreme Court By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - John Paul Stevens still plays tennis at 88. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, works out regularly in the Supreme Court gym.

The oldest two justices — half the court's liberal wing — top the list of those considered likely to retire during the next presidential administration. Despite Stevens' and Ginsburg's apparent vigor, change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years.

"One would think that over the course of the next four years the actuarial tables would catch up with the oldest members, as they do for us all," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec.

With five justices 70 or older by the time the court meets again in October, interest groups and commentators have been talking about the court's role in the presidential election. One change on a court that divides 5-4 in key cases can alter the results.

But their forecasts depend on three factors: Who wins the presidency, who leaves the court and who is appointed.

Democrat Barack Obama would most likely be replacing liberal justices with like-minded successors. Republican John McCain could get the chance to fulfill a campaign pledge and put a conservative justice on the court in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito, among President George W. Bush's two selections, repeatedly has demonstrated the difference one justice can make on a closely divided court. The result in disputes over abortion, religion and school desegregation almost certainly would have been different had Sandra Day O'Connor not retired in 2006.

"Given the likely retirements, the next election probably will determine whether the court gets more conservative or stays ideologically the same," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Irvine.

The Supreme Court rarely becomes a big issue in the presidential campaign and this year — with $4-a-gallon gas, steep declines in the stock market and two wars — appears to be no exception.

The one case decided recently that could have elevated the court's importance in the campaign came out in favor of Americans' gun rights, placating the highly energized and politically effective gun rights groups.

If the case "had come out the other way, we'd be having a very different conversation," Thomas Goldstein, a Supreme Court watcher and advocate, told a Federalist Society meeting a week after the guns decision.

The unpredictably of Supreme Court retirements is another reason why the court rarely becomes an issue in presidential campaigns.

What if the justices decide to grow even older together?

It has happened before. Nine of the last 10 justices who retired or died in office were at least 75; six of those were 79 or older.

No one left the court during President Carter's four years in office, President Clinton's second term or Bush's first.

On the other hand, six justices ranging in age from 76 to 85 stepped down between 1986 and 1994, spanning three presidencies.

Bush had two appointments in the space of three months in 2005. He filled them with two men in their 50s, Roberts and Alito.

Goldstein predicts only Stevens will retire during the next four years and not before he surpasses Oliver Wendell Holmes — who stepped down two months shy of his 91st birthday, in 1932 — to become the oldest sitting justice. That would happen in February 2011.

Goldstein's views shifted as he watched the court over the past year. He used to expect the retirement of three justices — Stevens, Ginsburg and Justice David Souter. Though only 68, Souter has made no secret that he prefers New Hampshire to Washington and intends to return there someday.

But justices find it hard to leave the court unless they're in poor health, Goldstein said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist didn't retire even after he was diagnosed with cancer. His death in 2005 created the second vacancy for Bush.

___

the latest Newsweek poll has Obama only up by three points. If they used the same demographics as the previous one (that had Obama up by double digits) then McCain would actually be ahead!

It covers those saying they are registered to vote, not those saying they are likely to vote.

This time, there are only a few more Dems in the sample than GOP. More independents than Dems.

Minority voters are represented by less than 10% of the sample.

Therefore,
registered voters would be favorable to Obama.

independents might be a wash, slight edge to McCain?

smaller minority sample favorable to McCain?

It's not necessary to analyze Newsweek or CBS polls. They are inherently worthless and not to be taken seriously. I always deduct 10% before even considering them. This year I've upped that to 14%.

As to the internals, no doubt a significant portion was composed of illegal aliens, felons, 14-17 year olds, and foreign terrorists and their sympathizers. After all, these are important elements of the Democratic coalition and Messiah Hussein Obama believers.

Here's an interesting review of Dean Chemerinsky's latest dismal effort to write intelligently about the law, in this case federalism:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121607859603852623.html?mod=opinion_main...

I suppose someone here should comment on yet another Republican attempt to talk Democrats into submission on the confirmation wars. Here it is: (yawn)

I take the silence here at this site as full agreement.

I take the silence here at this site as full agreement.

How many times can we beat our heads against the wall before we are no longer able to raise our voices? It's obvious that the Democrats have the staying power to ride out any attacks that come from the Republicans, and that the Republicans eventually give up (which only further emboldens the Democrats).

If McCain's elected, then we will get going again full steam.

continue to be active now. I say load all the torpedoes and fire them! In other words, make nominations for every vacant federal judicial position.

Unless age somehow catches up with Stevens and a SCOTUS vacancy becomes a reality, what else can really change between now and the election?