ConfirmThem

Does anyone know if Agee was voted out?

He was voted out of committee this morning on a voice vote. Hopefully, Senate confirmation to follow later this month.

Give 'em hell, Curt!

Has anyone read the various opinions in the Ca Sup Ct gay marriage case? The majority opinion is an abomination. The dissenting opinions are very impressive. Since we'd like to see Bush nominate someone to EVERY present vacancy, even where confirmation is unlikely, I suggest Bush nominate one of the dissenting Ca Sup Ct justices immediately. They are: Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan. Baxter and Corrigan's dissenting opinions are great. Since Baxter is the youngest, I would suggest nominating her, though Chin might be a good move as he is Asian American and thus might stand a chance at confirmation, since Reid previously chastised Bush for not nominating enough Asians.

Interestingly, Corrigan is the justice who replaced Janice Rogers Brown on the Ca Sup Ct. Her opinion reads like a JRB dissent.

As I understand it, Boxer and Feinstein have already told Bush they will blue-slip Chin. Bush may still want to nominate him, though, to make sure his confirmation statistics accurately reflect the amount of Dem obstruction.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=3353&wit_id=2629

"I have commended President Bush for his nomination of Justice Steven Agee of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit. Justice Agee’s nomination to a long vacant Fourth Circuit seat from Virginia is the result of a breakthrough with the White House that affords us the opportunity to be productive, even in an election year, after years of contentiousness. This nomination is a result of the good work of Senators Warner and Webb."

"We stand poised to reduce circuit court vacancies even lower and possibly reducing it to single digits for the first time in decades. Last week, we held a hearing for two nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, Judge Helene White and Ray Kethledge. As with the Agee nomination, these nominations provide an opportunity not only to further reduce vacancies, but also to end a longstanding impasse."

"We have wasted too much valuable time that could be spent on the real priorities of ordinary Americans in disputes over a handful of controversial nominees. I am determined to prioritize progress and focus the Committee on those nominations on which we can make progress and, in particular, on those in which the White House has finally begun to work with the Senate."

Interestingly, Leahy doesn't mention Glen Conrad's nomination.

Corrigan was widely praised as a "moderate, consensus builder"; the anti-JRB, at the time of her nomination. Google reveals her favorite SCOTUSJ is O'Connor.

Be interesting to see what happens in the next round of elections in Cali, esp. for these seven judges.

Good issue for McCain, just don't overplay it. Leave that to Rush & Anniebelle, then just calmly say stuff about "matters better left for the people to decide".

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

In a previous thread there was an outstanding discussion of whether such a Cal. Supreme Court could go to the SCOTUS. Does anyone have any input on that now that the decision has been announced?

Also, do you think this will finally get McCain off his misguided states' rights position on this issue?

If he's willing, he could possible ride this to an electoral victory in California. A constitutional amendment will be on the state ballot. Don't know if it'll pass--I think it needs two thirds instead of the 50% plus one needed for a proposition.

Coming from California (moved there when I was 3 months!) I grieve for my state.

Can a stay be brought in the next 30 days to prevent the "weddings" from beginning?

Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Damage Done By Courts
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 1:49 PM

Today's decision by the California Supreme Court is yet another judicial puscht. It is appalling. Incredibly, a feverish will to power on the part of small numbers of judges is rapidly eroding a citizen's standing as the ultimate lawgiver. Courts unbound by any sense of limits, by any sense of restraint, threaten the basic understanding that has long undergirded the Republic --that the laws proceed from the open consent of the people, and that the ultimate laws, the federal and state constitutions, are documents of fixed meaning and structure, not merely window dressing on the rule of judicial elites or empty phrases waiting for elites to fill them with meaning.

Today's ruling framed the question before the California Supreme Court this way:

The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

That was not in fact the central question. The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld.

They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.

Perhaps a "moderate, consensus builder" is the most that can be expected for the COA vacancy in CA. I think that's a positive for her, not a negative. Just look at what happened to out-and-out conservative nominees in CA (even with a GOP Senate): Chris Cox, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown (Cox and Brown were ultimately were not nominated because of threatened blueslips).

Based on Corrigan's dissenting opinion yesterday, I'd happily take her on the 9th Circuit any day! And so-called moderates Sandra Segal Ikuta and Milan Smith have been pretty darn good on the 9th Circuit so far.

BoBo, that's interesting news about Chin and the CA Senators. You're right - Bush should nominate him anyway so that the final nomination numbers are more accurate. It would also be a way to show the Dems' hypocrisy: they want minority nominees (and according to Reid more Asian ones) only when they toe the liberal line.

Come on, Bush - nominate Chin.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled another executive committee meeting for May 22nd. Two district judges are on the agenda.

William T. Lawrence to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana

G. Murray Snow to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona

Courtesy of How Appealing

http://washingtonbriefs.blogspot.com/2008/05/senate-panel-approves-judge...

"This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 14-5 to approve a bill that would create dozens of new federal judgeships for the first time since 1990.

The bill would add 38 district court judgeships and 12 circuit court judgeships...Not surprisingly, California will get the most.

The committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., didn't get it all his own way, however. He had to agree to hold a hearing on the issue before bringing up the bill on the Senate floor due to concerns raised by several members, including Sen. Jeff Session, R-Ala., and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

"I just don't think this is something the committee should be doing," Cardin said of the hasty vote. "I don't feel comfortable at all."

Neither of them is convinced that adding new judgeships is the best use of resources."

Do you have any specific support for your statement that Judge Ikuta has "been pretty darn good so far?" I'm not questioning the statement - I'm just genuinely interested. If McCain gets elected (big if) and if Stevens retires (small if) and if the GOP loses a bunch of senate seats (virtual certainty), McCain is going to have a very hard time getting a decent nominee confirmed. Provided that she really is good, someone with her profile (great pedigree, recently confirmed, female, minority, moderate reputation) will likely get very serious consideration.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI2NDM1ODAwOTBjNDk1ZmU4NmNhYzhh...

"From associate justice Baxter’s dissent (joined by associate justice Chin): “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage … is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.

From associate justice Corrigan’s separate dissent: “The principle of judicial restraint is a covenant between judges and the people from whom their power derives.… It is no answer to say that judges can break the covenant so long as they are enlightened or well-meaning.… If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”"

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/va-justice-agee-clear...

"Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee won unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday on his way to becoming a federal appeals judge.

Agee, 55, now awaits approval from the Senate before joining the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republican Sen. John Warner and Democratic Sen. Jim Webb recommended Agee to President George W. Bush last year.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said in a statement that Agee's nomination "is the result of a breakthrough with the White House that affords us the opportunity to be productive, even in an election year."

Republicans have criticized Democrats for not moving faster on judicial nominees. Agee is the 49th nominee reported out of the committee this Congress, according to spokeswoman Erica Chabot.

Agee represented Salem in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1982 to 1993. In March 2000, the General Assembly elected him to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Three years later, the assembly elevated him to the state Supreme Court."

"Has anyone read the various opinions in the Ca Sup Ct gay marriage case? The majority opinion is an abomination."

If the Senate Republicans don't have the nuts to hold that bill hostage in exchange for some votes on judicial nominees then it's clear they completely caved to Leahy. Maybe they'll do it on the floor, but if it wasn't a party line vote in the SJC then I don't see a filibuster happening.

As much as this disgusts me to approve of encouraging a RINO to pursue higher office, i have to say that we could pick up a Senate seat in CA if Arnold Shwarzeneger ever decided to run. He's really our only chance in CA at a senate seat, and even though he's a liberal, he could be quite useful in helping conservatives get some solid judges on the bench out there.

Does anyone know how he is doing as far as his judicial appoinments as GOV? Is he appointing liberals, conservatives, or squishy moderates?

Wouldn't it be great to swipe a senate seat from the heart of liberalism?

I couldn't point to any specific cases off the top of my head, but I recall she's been involved in some cases where she articulated a decidedly conservative position. I think she might very well be high on a Prez McCain's short list.

I'd love to see the Dems squirm if Corrigan were nominated to the 9th. Actually, Boxer would quietly blueslip her, what am I thinking about?

Ikuta's record needs to be examined closely, as she has a powerhouse resume (Kozinski-O'Connor clerk - eek!), and has all the diversity 'requirements'.

Corrigan certainly has a fine resume for the 9th. Great excerpt from her dissent. JRBish, even, which is LOL considering what everyone said at the time she was nominated. Let's see how she does in November.

Deafaning silence so far from Barry Hussein? :)

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

I just learned that California doesn't have a residency requirement. That means the contagion can spread throughout the country. I would hope this would fast track to the SCOTUS. Also, wouldn't you think that McCain would all the more support the Cal. amendment, as well as finally come on board with the federal one?

Thursday, May 15, 2008
ProtectMarriage.com
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:53 PM

A constitutional amendment to the California Constitution will almost certainly qualify to be on the ballot in November as more than a million signatures had already been turned in even prior to the Caluifornia Surpreme Court's putsch today. You can contribute to the effort and volunteer to help pass it and thus rebuke the out-of-control California Supreme Court at ProtectMarriage.com.

See Justice Baxter's ringing denunciation of the majority's usurpation of the People's rights below. Then get involved. You don't have to live in California to help deliver this message. Advocates of judicial imposition of same sex marriage will be pouring millions of dollars into defeating the amendment, and it will require an enormous effort to send the message that despite the ambitions of judges and cultural elites, majorities do matter in a Republic built on constitutional majoritarianism.

This will be an enormously important election for the future of the country. Marriage is of course a central institution that society must protect and nurture, but the idea of separation of powers and accountability for courts is also a bedrock principle of the rule of law, and it is eroding before our eyes. The California electorate will be asked to decide if it is willing to be ruled by judges, whether it will simply accept being told what they will do and when they will do it. I hope every interested citizen in the country, every religious leader fond of religious liberty, every legislator who takes his or her job seriously will grasp that the vote on the marriage amendment on the Califoria ballot is really much much more than just a marriage amendment and concerns far more than just California law --it is a vote on who rules, judges or the People, and its result will mark a decisive beginning of a rollback of judicial imperialism or a capitulation to the courts on this and on any other issue the courts decide to impose their will upon.

On Monday, Burr went on the Senate floor to promote the confirmation of Robert Conrad:

http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/623048.html

"U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., took to the Senate floor Monday to urge his colleagues to consider the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Robert Conrad for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Monday was the 300th day since Mr. Conrad, at present the chief judge for the Western District of North Carolina, was nominated for the job.

That the Senate hasn't acted on the nomination is a disservice to the citizens served by the court. It should be an embarrassment to the Democrats who run the Senate."

"Neither party has clean hands in this matter. For years, Jesse Helms, a Republican, blocked nominations by President Bill Clinton. Then Democrats blocked nominations by President Bush. Now, as the presidential election approaches, Democrats are dragging their feet in hopes of regaining the White House and enabling a Democratic president to fill the posts."

"Judge Conrad has earned praise from lawyers in both parties. If the senators who refuse to act on his nomination think he shouldn't be on the court, they should make their case and let a Senate vote decide the matter. Holding nominees in political limbo is a shameful dereliction of duty by the Democrats who control the Senate."

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2008/05/gay-marriage-decision-sh...

“Today’s decision invalidating the gay marriage ban enacted by California voters is a quintessential example of judicial activism that should disturb all Americans, while reminding them of what’s at stake this November when they go to the polls to elect the politicians who appoint and confirm state and federal judges. The California decision also serves to remind Americans that the threat posed by judges who defy the constitutional limits on their authority is hardly limited to the federal courts. Indeed, as the U.S. Supreme Court has become less hospitable to the advocates of judicial activism, they have increasingly turned to state courts to enact the political agendas they have been unable to implement democratically."

“This blatant act of judicial activism should disturb all Californians – indeed all Americans – regardless of whether they favor or oppose gay marriage as a matter of policy. After all, a court powerful enough to invent new constitutional rights is a court powerful enough to take away any constitutional right. Barack Obama ought to keep that in mind before he opines again that a judge should 'bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.' At very least, he should explain to voters why his view is not a prescription for limitless judicial power."

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/changes-at-the.html

"I don’t know what his plans are, but Clement will be a huge asset to wherever he lands. As for his successor, I obviously can’t be sure, but I suspect that Greg Garre, who is the current principal deputy, will become the Acting SG.

I don’t think it is surprising that Clement is leaving now instead of waiting until the change of the administration. The administration change comes in January --- right in the middle of the Court’s term. Staying until that time would mean that Clement would file briefs in cases that he would not be able to see through to oral argument.

On a related note, word on the street is that deputy SG Thomas Hungar is also planning to leave this summer. That’s going to leave the office with two of its four deputy spots open (that’s assuming Garre gets bumped up)."

Hopefully nobody is still waivering in their support of McCain. If so, please read:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-scotus19-2008may19,0,4169081....

Hussein Obama's rant is the typical hyper-liberal endorsement of lawless judicial activism supposedly based on "feelings" and "fairness". But then, who are we to argue with the Annointed One? If we oppose the New Messiah, the Kool Aid legions will brand us with heresy.

I for one am not intimidated by this leftist stalinist claptrap. Many people are getting fed up with Obama's arrogant and empty tripe. This man (not deity after all) is going down big-time in November.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/05/26/080526taco_talk_toobin

I read Jeff Toobin's article in the New Yorker earlier today and it sounds very much like his most recent book. Namely, conservatives and their judges are pulling a fast one on the country and it's not fair. I hate to put it that way, but that's the jist of his book.

Toobin's book oozed with contempt for the idea of originalism. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are out of the mainstream jurists while Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer are only liberal when compared to the right wing reactionary extremists. Toobin wrote in his book that the Court's left wing really isn't all that liberal, conservatives have just succeeded in smearing them as that.