ConfirmThem

I loved the comments on Kerr's prediction.

But what if big guns are how I define my own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life?

and

It would be some delicious irony if the Court recognizes an individual right and sets an "undue burden" standard. Not so far-fetched, actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html?ref=washingto...

"But Democrats appear dead set against allowing any more recess appointees, who would serve until the end of the next Congressional session — that is, essentially through the end of Mr. Bush’s term. So unless there is an agreement between the White House and Democrats, it appears likely the Senate will not be in formal recess any time through 2008."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071121_tobias.html

After reading this article, there is no doubt in my mind that Tobias is a liberal. He is opposed to an inspector general for the federal judiciary, praises Breyer's work on bringing lawmakers and the judiciary together and is opposed to a 9th Circuit split. Here is his laughable analysis of the current dynamics of judicial selection:

"Progress has been made on judicial selection, too. There are currently 47 federal court vacancies, for which President George W. Bush has nominated 27 individuals. Fortunately, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Democratic Chair of the Judiciary Committee, and the Democrats have cooperated with the Republicans on confirming judges. Although more judges could be confirmed if President Bush would work closely with Democrats, at least bipartisanship on this issue is off to a good start."

Excuse me? Leahy has been cooperative in confirming judges? Maybe we should ask Leslie Southwick about that one. Even better, let's ask Kethledge, Murphy, Keisler, Conrad, Stone, Getchell and Matthews. Somehow, I just don't think five court of appeals confirmations in one year is a good sign of "cooperation".

In addition, Tobias offers what I am sure will be the official Democrat excuse as to why they will select only a few Bush COA judges to confirm next year out of the current batch of ten nominees (excluding Tinder, who hopefully will be confirmed in December):

"The White House submission immediately before Thanksgiving of a large batch of nominees (seven for the bench, four U.S. Attorneys and two U.S. Marshals) will complicate approval, because the Committee lacks resources to investigate all of them expeditiously. Democrats should decide which judicial nominees will be very intelligent, independent and industrious; possess moderate ideological perspectives; and have displayed the balanced temperament suited to a judgeship, and work to approve those candidates."

http://www.projo.com/news/content/almond_nomination_11-21-07_U77URRT_v11...

It turns out that Bush's nomination of Lincoln Almond, the son of a former Republican governor of the state, to a district court seat has tied Rhode Island's two Dem senators into knots. Local politics are making it impossible to speak directly against Almond, so the two are left coming up with every vague and ambiguous reason why, although Almond deserves consideration, the next year might still not be enough time to get him confirmed:

"“As irritated as I might be at the Bush administration, there’s now a Rhode Islander involved,” Whitehouse said of Almond, 44, a U.S. magistrate judge since 2004, a onetime partner in a prominent Providence law firm, and the son of former Gov. Lincoln C. Almond. “He’s entitled to fair consideration,” Whitehouse said."

"Still, Democrats Whitehouse and Reed — who by Senate tradition hold great sway over federal judicial nominations in their home state — left plenty of room for uncertainty about the fate of Republican Almond. Whitehouse would not go so far as to agree, for example, that his preference would be to get Almond a Senate confirmation hearing and a vote on whether he should serve on the federal bench.

“The clock might run out” on Mr. Bush’s term before Almond can be seated, said Whitehouse, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over nominations to the federal courts. He portrayed the $165,200-a-year seat on the U.S. court as depending largely on a Senate process that is unfamiliar to him."

"After Almond’s nomination Thursday, Reed and Whitehouse issued a joint statement noting that Mr. Bush had been aware of the district court vacancy for almost two years. But they pledged to give Almond “careful and independent consideration.”

Asked on Friday whether he finds fault with how Mr. Bush handled the Almond matter, Reed would say only that it had taken place at “a very measured tempo.” Reed was asked whether it would be in the interest of Democrats to impose such a tempo on Almond’s confirmation, so that a new president — possibly a Democrat — could offer a different nominee in 2009.

“Our first obligation” is to review Almond’s nomination, Reed replied. “How long it takes” the Senate to consider the matter “is not our sole prerogative,” Reed said.

Whitehouse said it would not be fair for him to try to run the clock out on the nomination deliberately. He said the confirmation process, which includes hearings before his committee, is not under his control."

Interestingly, First Circuit Judge Selya, whose own Rhode Island seat is caught up in a similar battle, chimed in to support Almond's nomination:

"First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce M. Selya voiced concern that the Almond appointment is being treated “as a matter of politics rather than as a matter of responding to the real needs” of an important court.

Selya, a former federal district judge nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan under the patronage of Republican Sen. John H. Chafee, expressed hope that senators would focus on the traits of “a very qualified nominee,” as he called Almond, rather than on “who is making the nomination” — meaning Mr. Bush.

“In this state at least,” there is a long history of bipartisanship in the seating of federal judges, Selya said Friday."

I just love it when some self-righteous Dems are stuck in a sticky wicket!

it would make a lot of sense now for Bush to name an older (60ish), respected, moderate but loyal Republican to fill the appeals court seat, and perhaps s/he might take senior status soon under a Republican president and Almond would be available to be elevated as a ready replacement for at least a decade.

Formerly with the Center for Individual Rights, no?

I met you at Ted Olsen's Fed Soc barbecue a few years ago. You seemed surprised that I was familiar with your work for the CIR.

Thanks for giving us some insight on Kennedy. He's not too bad for a moderate, but honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing more judges on the Court who think like Justice Thomas. The newsmedia never refer to Justice Thomas as being "bright" or "intelligent" but I've never met his equal when it came to the kind of thinking that produces sound and lasting jurisprudence.

Romney/Thompson 2008

Yes, I'm the Curt Levey who used to work for the Center for Individual Rights. And I remember meeting you at Ted Olson's barbecue several years ago.

The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse wrote: “Because none of the justices on the court have ever confronted a Second Amendment case, any prediction about how the court will rule is little more than pure speculation.”

This invites pure speculation, so here is mine. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former in-house counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union will read the ACLU amicus brief, find it brilliant, logical and compelling and vote as it directs.

Justice Stephen Breyer will carefully study what the JP court justices of Zimbabwe and Mongolia have written on the subject and agree with Ginsburg. Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens will save a lot of work by reviewing Breyer’s scholarship and side with Ginsburg.

If we knew how Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote, the game would be over. Please check back in June 2008 to see how good pure speculation can get.