ConfirmThem

It seems like this question is asked and answered constantly, with those who want to use it against McCain conveniently (obstinately?) ignoring the reasonable answer. Making nominations as a president and voting on those nominations as a senator are two very different things. It is the president's prerogative to nominate, and the senate's to consider the nominee's qualifications. In each case, McCain believed the nominee was sufficiently qualified for confirmation, and on objective criteria each nominee was, not factoring ideology, which traditionally had not been an overt factor. Certainly with Souter, given he was nominated by a president from McCain's party and was ostensibly conservative, it's not unreasonable that McCain voted for him - so did every other Republican senator, including all the so-called conservatives in the senate at the time.

This is a silly question, a specious question, one that most reasonable people concerned over the judiciary have moved beyond.

Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to vote for nominees based on their credentials, and then later bemoan their highly activist voting records on the Court. There's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in it.

Teagan needs to think this through before sitting down to write again.

Although there is obviously a distinction between nominating and voting to confirm, there is a disconnect here between McCain's current hard-line stance on judicial nominations and his voting record in this regard.

We'll give him a pass on Souter but where Breyer and Ginsburg are concerned, it's odd that the Republican senators were so lenient after what the Democrats put Bork et al. through.

Deciding who to nominate is an entirely different exercise than deciding whether to vote on a particular nominee. There are all kinds of reasons why a senator might vote for a nominee that the senator would not have nominated as President. One reason might be that the senator concluded that a particular nominee, although "bad" for whatever reason, was the best nominee the current President was likely to put forward, particularly if a follow-on nominee had the potential to be worse (however defined).

What is also true is that times have changed. The notion that the President is due a certain amount of deference on his nominations is almost a thing of the past, but that tradition was still alive in the GOP of the 90's. If President Obama nominated the modern equivalent of Justice Ginsburg today, I'm pretty confident that nominee wouldn't get anywhere near 90 votes (more like 60 in the current senate).

Well, we'll see. If McCain picks Lieberman or Tom Ridge to be his running mate, we'll know how late it is.

I'm betting Portman. The announcement will be in Ohio, after all.

Really Andrew?? Hmm. There's been no talk about him lately, which probably means you're right.

I'll say McCain will pick Ridge. More "maverickism", from a swing state, and emphasizes national security. The idea that Ridge will sabotage McCain's SCOTUS picks is ludicrous. Cheney really forced gay marriage through, didn't he? If Tom Ridge is somehow a RINO, the GOP will never win another election or break 50% in either house of Congress.

Portman can easily be painted as a Bushioactive non-entity who's hardly ready to for primetime behind a 72 y.o. POTUS (I'm not saying that *I* agree with that), and isn't the Ohio GOP still reeling from the scandals?

Barry will probably go Bayh, Kaine or Biden (w/Richardson as the dark horse/dog that hasn't barked), in that order. PLEEEEEEEEEEZZEE pick Joe, Barry.

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

Is it any coincidence that General Petraeus leaves his position as the commander of forces in Iraq this week? I THINK NOT! He will be McCain's running mate - mark my words....

Damico...no, it's not a coincidence. He was confirmed by the Senate to run CENTCOM in July, and his new job is about to start. Personally, I'd much rather have him overseeing all our military operations in the Middle East and North Africa rather than giving a stump speech on a dusty road in Nowhereville, Ohio, wouldn't you?

No, no, no...forget CENTCOM. Petraeus is the man! You watch!

Actually, I'm with Andrew that it's probably either Portman or Romney.

McCain needs someone to make him look like a young whippersnapper by comparison. So, it makes sense that McCain will pick....George H.W. Bush! Or maybe his Mom, Roberta McCain (who is 96).

Sarbanes-Oxley case (from Redstate:

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/22/sox-survives/

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

correct. You express the view far more eloquently than I could. It is (or was) a time honored tradiation to provide advice and then consent to the president's judicial nominations, unless the nominee is found to be grossly unqualified or some other significant (non political) ground is found to vote no.

I'm NOT talking about the ABA!

From Redstate:

"A divided panel of the DC Circuit this morning, in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 07-5127 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2008), rejected a challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's appointment on separation of powers grounds; because of the lack of a severability clause in Sarbanes-Oxley, ***the challenge presented the possibility that the court would have had to declare the entire statute unconstitutional***."

I've hardly had time to read the NINETY-TWO page opinion. Seems at a glance that Kav may be right about the specific severability issue (dunno if he declared the whole Act unconstitutional); however, LOL at the idea of two recent W CCA appointees declaring SOX unconstitutional less than three months before an election where GOP prospects are murky at best.

I do wish JRB would've written a brief concurrence, but whatever, just more proof that she's hardly some wild-eyed lockstep conservative activist.

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

Is it time for an open thread, now that Obama's picked Biden? Rush'll be like a kid in the candy store. See also Hugh Hewitt's comments and links Sat. a.m.

And now it's on to McCain's pick. Wolf Blitzer said this a.m. that Time Magazine says it will be Romney. As a supporter, I certainly hope so. Though I've become more enthusiastic this past week for Pawlenty, for reasons I'll explain if pressed or he becomes McCain's choice.

It always helps to read. I see there's been some discussion of GOP veep possibilities. McCain supposedly is announcing the pick in Ohio, but I think that's because he recognizes the cetrality of Ohio (again), not because of a Portman pick (whom I think took himself out of consideration due to family concerns....).

you got your wish re BHO's veep pick!

Does McCain really have a shot at PA anyway? I tend to think he doesn't.

Obama/Biden will not win Ohio. Obama/X would not win Florida. Frankly it comes down to IA, NV, NM, and NH, and I think McCain can get 1 of those 4.