ConfirmThem

I have to hand it to Clinton and Obama - they have their talking points coordinated well regarding judges. The same person might have written both responses, they are so closely aligned in language. They also demonstrate a good lawyer's ability (which they both no doubt possess) of obfuscation - both letters sound like they say something when in fact they don't come close to addressing Specter's inquiry.

McCain should be able to have a field day with these two sophists....

Contrary to what some disgruntled conservatives seem to think, John McCain is actually a strong proponent of President Bush's judicial nominees. It's good to hear this and I think the conservatives should continue to make an issue out of it.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/dinan/2008/04/mccain_signals_he_gets_i...

"Sen. John McCain has sent a signal to conservatives that he understands what they're looking for when it comes to judicial nominations.

In a response letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, McCain said he wants to see three conservative nominations confirmed to the federal appellate courts by Memorial Day and would support Specter's effort to have the Senate Judiciary discharge the nominations of Peter D. Keisler, Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews."

"Clinton's answer is predictable, but as Curt Levey from Committee for Justice notes at ConfirmThem.com, Obama's response is intriguing since his campaign is based on trying to move past political divisions. If there's one area where pure partisan politics still controls, it's judicial nominations."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26097

"Liberals continue to block President Bush’s conservative judicial nominees, hoping they can pack the courts with liberal judges under a potential Democrat administration and a more liberal-leaning Senate. Two weeks ago on the Senate floor, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “The majority has stalled judicial confirmation votes longer this year than in any presidential election year since 1848 … This is the latest start to judicial confirmations of any presidential election year in 160 years.” This is no accident.

The federal courts are important, because they are the training grounds for future Supreme Court nominees. There are 12 circuit and 34 district court vacancies. The Senate would have to confirm eight circuit and 19 district court nominees by the end of the year to replicate the confirmation numbers in the last two years of President Bill Clinton’s administration. Last week, Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made a deal to confirm three appeals court nominees by Memorial Day. Yet further confirmations are in doubt.

Conservatives need to stay on guard to ensure that the table isn’t set for future nominees who would legislate a “constitutional right” of same-sex “marriage,” take away the right to keep and bear arms, and strike down any mention of God in the public square."

As I wrote in a previous thread, using the Dems' previous template on confirming judges, in order for the Dems to confirm three COA nominees in May, Leahy would have to have one hearing for the next three weeks - the weeks of April 21, 28 and May 5. So far, no hearings have been scheduled.

There are several possible reasons for this:

1) Reid was lying, and the Dems plan less than three COA confirmations in May.
2) The SJC Dems plan to hold hearings with more than one COA nominee.
3) The Dems plan to confirm nominees who already have had hearings.
4) The Dems plan on processing some nominees without hearings.

Reason #1 seems most plausible given the Dems' lack of honesty, but since Reid announced his promise in front of cameras on the Senate floor I think he will have to follow through with it.

Reason #2 could be likely. Unfortunately, the two that would most likely have a hearing together would be Kethledge and White, which would mean Keisler, Conrad and Matthews will continue to be blocked.

Reason #3 is the best chance for Keisler since he is the only nominee left who already has had a hearing,

Reason #4 seems the least likely because it would set a bad precedent. Although everyone realize most hearings are merely for show and offer no real new information, I doubt the Dems would give up the right to pointedly question a conservative nominee if for no other reason than to embarrass Bush.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/adam_c/2008/apr/21/ex_sen_santorum_endorse...

Excellent analysis. You laid out the possible scenarios very well.

I'm afraid next month will be some combination of #1 and #2. There are compelling reasons for a joint hearing. Kethledge and White are a package after all, and neither side wants the other's nominee to get ahead in the confirmation process. On the other hand, Kethledge has finished the vetting process (they've had 22 months to do so!) while White has just been started next week. No doubt the Democrats have instructed their ABA ally-minions to rush White's evaluation through at lightning speed (won't it be amusing to see how fast they can do it when it's a Dem-Lib nominee), but there is also the FBI check. It will therefore be difficult to schedule a Kethledge/White hearing before the week of May 12-16 at the earliest.

So Reid can either a) schedule a hearing for Agee or Pratter on April 29-May 1 or May 6-8 and then do Kethledge/White later in May; b) hold hearing for Kethledge on the above dates, do White on May 12-16 and stiff Agee/Pratter in May; or c) stiff Pratter/Agee in May and hold the joint hearing for Kethledge and White. For options b. and c., Reid could cover-up his lie about 3 May confirmations by claiming that there's a veritable mountain of vital Senate business to complete. Just look at the Committee hearings of paramount national urgency scheduled this week and next: "Living in the Streets" and "National Security Letter Disclosure" (presumably so quasi-traitors on the Democrat congressional staffs can leak them to the press and to enemies of the United States). I think option b. is most likely. Doing two hearings makes Dems' claims to be acting in good faith more plausible to naive and credulous observers.

Your reason #3 is very unlikely. Democrats are NOT going to confirm Keisler in May, nor will they do so before Agee and Pratter in any case.

I agree that chance of Reason #4 is almost nil. If nothing else, hearings are a great tool for delay and Dems will not sacrifice that. One exception: if it suits their purposes for confirming White super-expeditiously, Dems might waive her hearing.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/lilly_ledbett...

"Meanwhile. Republicans, too, are trying to make some political hay out of the judges issue. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter sent letters to Sen. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and McCain, asking whether they would work to push three three stalled GOP nominees through the Senate.

Clinton and Obama responded in strikingly similar ways, both deferring to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the management of court candidates. McCain, however, called for the Senate to approve the three frozen nominees, Peter Keisler to the appeals court in Washington, D.C., and Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews to the appeals court in Richmond, Va.

The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, have agreed to a floor vote on three appeals court nominees by Memorial Day. But it's unclear who those three will be. The slate pushed by Specter and others involve judges who would sit on the D.C. Circuit and 4th Circuit, respectively, crucial judicial power centers for conservatives

Although Clinton and Obama responded in similar ways to Specter's overture, Obama was singled out for criticism by Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for conservative jurists. In a statement, Levey said:

'Barack Obama has based his presidential campaign on ending the partisan gridlock McCain describes. Thus, it is disappointing that Sen. Obama did not take the opportunity presented by Specter's inquiry to practice bipartisanship.'"

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/the_eyes_of_the_law_a_starstud.php

"Judge Diane Wood (7th Cir.), [is] known for being "wicked smart.... In short, she is a liberal version of Nino; and that's what makes her so freakin' scary..."

"A digression on Judge Wood. If offered a Supreme Court spot, she obviously wouldn't turn it down. But we hear that she's not one of those types who has lived her entire life pining and planning for One First Street. She enjoys her life in Chicago, where she's a beloved (and highly esteemed) member of the legal community. She plays the oboe and English horn in the Chicago Bar Association symphony orchestra. She and her husband, a successful doctor, have a rather large house out in the suburbs, as well as a swanky apartment downtown. Her life is complete without being a SCOTUS justice."

Interesting piece about Wood. Given she's from Chicago and was a prominent professor at UChicago Law School (where B. Hussein Obama was also an esteemed "professor"), I wouldn't be surprised if she were a President Obama's first pick for SCOTUS.

Course, it doesn't matter, since McCain will be filling the next few vacancies....