ConfirmThem

After reading your generally thoughtful comment (#22 on 4/24/08), I conclude that the differences between us are actually confined to two nominees: Conrad and Matthews. Before the “deal”, I thought that only Pratter and Agee, and possibly Keisler would be confirmed. After the “deal”, I think we’ll get Agee, White, and Kethledge (hopefully) this month and possibly Pratter in June, with a small chance of a Keisler confirmation later. You criticized me as “rolling over” and an “appease[r]” (I’m not offended) for not advocating that we charge up the bare slopes into the machine guns to secure the all-but-impossible nominations of Conrad and Matthews, even though I advocated fighting all-out for Keisler’s unlikely confirmation. Now even Pratter’s confirmation is questionnable, and Keisler’s is even more doubtful. Conrad and Matthews are lined up behind the 5 nominations listed above. Leahy is now trying to move up imposition of the Leahy Rule by another month. Therefore, both time (extremely short) and history (the well known and long running Dem strategy to keep 4th Circuit seats open), clearly indicate that confirming Conrad and Matthews this year is little more than a pipe-dream. I am definitely not trying to appease Democrats, but instead advocate going for the maximum possible, and in fact more confirmations (5) than we are reasonably likely to get.

My preferred strategy is to pocket Reid’s “promised” three confirmations (Agee, Kethledge and White) in May. Then have Specter apply maximum pressure to flush out Casey and get Pratter confirmed in June. Then, once Pratter clears the SJC or gets stymied, mount an all-out offensive to get Keisler confirmed without another hearing. That includes maximum pressure, including a Senate slowdown or shutdown. It’s hard to believe that there would be any time left after that for hearings etc. for Conrad and Matthews, but if Senate Republicans and people here want to charge those entrenched machine guns for them, I’ll be cheering you on from back at Brigade Headquarters (not as any kind of commander but as a lowly intelligence officer).

Agree wholly with you, hoosierteacher, about the nature of contemporary Senate Democrats but disagree about not negotiating with them.. They are fundamentally amoral, sociopathic and predatory, having been schooled in Liberal theories of the Relativistic Contingency of Everything. Thus having no principles, like Bolsheviks they cannot be trusted to honor any deal or agreement, no matter how solemnly they promise to do so. However, like Communists, that does not mean that one should not negotiate with them. With Democrats, however, Reagan’s “Trust but verify” dictum should be amended to “Do not trust and verify as you go”. With Kethledge and White, that translates to simultaneous hearings and confirmations, or else doing Kethledge first. If White is confirmed first, Dems might well back out on Kethledge or more likely delay him and hold his nomination hostage.

I really think the Dems will block Pratter by blue-slip if the Republicans are successful in getting Keisler, Conrad and/or Matthews confirmed by discharge petition. I think her confirmation is really in trouble at this point. The Dems will seek to punish Specter if he succeeds with Keisler, Conrad and Matthews. I think the Dems will force Casey to give her a negative blue-slip if things don't go their way.

I agree with your analyis regarding Pratter and Keisler. That is why I advocated in my #1 above not beginning a big push for Keisler until AFTER Pratter has either cleared Committee or been stymied in Committee. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats can effectively counter this strategy by at least slow-walking Pratter in Committee until near adjournment in July, when there's no time left to confirm another nominee. So it looks to me like Republicans are effectively checkmated from confirming a 6th COA nominee this year (after Pratter or Keisler as the 5th).

In fact, I think The GOP would be very fortunate to get a 5th confirmation after the three this month (and Haynes). That's one reason why I've been trying to dissuade the ardent fire-eaters here who want all-out war for hypothetical 7th and 8th confirmations (Conrad and Matthews).

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=news-000002714397

"Senate Republicans have been complaining that Democrats are going to be hard-pressed to fulfill Majority Leader Harry Reid ’s pledge to act on three appellate court nominations before Memorial Day.

But Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., announced Wednesday that the committee will hold a confirmation hearing May 7 for two Michigan nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Helene N. White and Raymond M. Kethledge.

The committee plans a confirmation hearing Thursday for G. Steven Agee of Virginia, nominated for a seat on the 4th Circuit."

"If Democrats can engineer confirmations for White, Ketledge and Agee before Memorial Day, McConnell and Specter would be hard-pressed to unite the Senate GOP caucus behind a new scorched-earth strategy over the issue anytime soon."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/showdown_loom...

"Storm clouds continue to gather in the Senate over federal judges. Republicans, eager to fill some key appeals court vacancies with conservatives before the end of President Bush's term are stepping up the pressure on Patrick Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Last month, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) secured a pledge from Senate chief Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to send three circuit court nominees to the Senate floor for a vote by Memorial Day.

Ah, but which three nominees? That's the question.

McConnell and Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking member of Judiciary, are pushing for two nominees for the Fourth Circuit: Robert Conrad and Steven Matthews and one for the D.C. Circuit, Peter Keisler.

But Leahy has shown no inclination those are the nominees he plans on bringing up before the committee. Instead, he appears to have zeroed on a pair of two Sixth Circuit nominees and a different Fourth Circuit choice."

"Civil rights groups such as People For the American Way believe both Conrad and Matthews are too conservative to be palatable. They have urged Leahy to invoke the so-called "Thurmond Rule," a Senate tradition of not voting on controversial judicial nominees during presidential election years."

http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/article/virginia_supreme_court_justic...

"Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee went before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in Washington – facing questions about his record on minority issues in his quest to become a federal judge on the Richmond-based appeals court.

After taking an oath before the panel, and several general questions about his judicial views, Agee faced scrutiny from Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin.

Cardin asked Agee about a 1990 editorial in the Roanoke Times in which Agee had criticized a state employment practice that favored minorities. Agee said his criticism was based on the policy being adopted by the state without input from legislators.

Cardin followed up with Agee’s membership in the 1980’s in the Shenandoah Club – which Agee said “probably discriminated” while he was a member.

Cardin: “Were you aware the club discriminated when you joined the club?”

Agee: “I can’t recall if I had specific knowledge of that. Certainly as time went on it seemed more likely than not that that occurred. Um, after some period of time I quit.”

The Shenandoah club in 1988 changed its membership policy, ceasing to discriminate based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, according to club manager Beverly Schlegel.

The fourth circuit court of appeals is said to have among the highest African-American populations in the country.

As a state delegate from Salem, Agee said he sponsored legislation to bar judges from being members of discriminatory groups.

Agee’s is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate later this year."

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/justice-agee-faces-qu...

"G. Steven Agee, on his path to become a federal appeals judge, faced questions Thursday from senators about his membership in a white-only club in Roanoke, Va., more than 20 years ago.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the Democrat who presided over the 40-minute questioning asked Agee, “Were you aware the (Shenandoah) Club discriminated when you joined the club?”

Agee, currently a justice on the Virginia Supreme Court, said, “I can’t recall if I had specific knowledge of that. Certainly, as time went on it seemed more likely than not that that occurred. After some period of time I resigned.”

On a 21-page questionnaire prepared for the committee, Agee wrote he was a member of the club from 1980 to 1987 and that it “probably discriminated in fact during the time I was a member.”"

"Cardin cited [the Fourth Circuit's high African-American]] population in asking about a 1990 editorial Agee wrote in The Roanoke Times critical of a state employment practice that favored minority job applicants.

Agee told the committee his concern was “not so much that the activity was done, but it was done without the knowledge of other parts of government.”

Agee was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1982 to 1993.

“I think he can argue that he was a politician protecting the general assembly’s prerogative,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias. “I don’t think that’s going to be a disqualifier.”

Cardin, filling in for judiciary chairman Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., said he was “impressed” with Agee’s answer on the affirmative action question.

On questions about judicial restraint, Agee said it was important to follow judicial precedent “in most all cases,”

The Virginia Supreme Court overruled lower courts on “very rare cases usually on very narrow points,” he said."

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/senate-republicans-still-not...

"...despite the good faith efforts of Senate Democrats to live up to their end of the bargain, their Republican colleagues remain dissatisfied. In a letter sent by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA), GOP senators complained that White and Kethledge couldn’t possibly be confirmed before this month’s recess and as a result, the Committee should consider the nominations of Peter Keisler (DC Circuit Court of Appeals), Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) instead. Their reasoning for moving Keisler instead of Agee is a mystery – particularly in view of the fact that they never claimed Agee’s confirmation couldn’t make the May 23rd deadline.

The fact that Senator Leahy is moving to consider three of President Bush’s nominees in the span of a week shows the willingness of Senate Democrats to cooperate with the president and his allies. The fact that Senators McConnell and Specter are still not satisfied shows that they are not truly concerned with the number of judges confirmed – as they are so fond of saying – but rather the conservative ideology of those reaching the bench. We believe that the American public will see through their partisan mischief and support Sen. Leahy’s bipartisan efforts."

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=3316&wit_id=2629

"By turning today to the Agee nomination, we can make progress. The alternative approach being urged upon us by some would lead, instead, to more contentiousness."

"...during the Clinton administration, Republican Senators argued that the Fourth Circuit vacancies did not need to be filled because the Fourth Circuit had the fastest docket time to disposition in the country. If the Agee nomination is confirmed as I expect it will be, the Fourth Circuit will have fewer vacancies than it did when Republicans claimed no more judges were needed."

"I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed to energize a political base during an election year, but I do not."

"Yesterday I noticed a hearing to be held next week for two nominations to 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.

The alternative is to risk becoming embroiled in contentious debates for months and thereby foreclose the opportunity to make progress where we can. The most recent controversial Bush judicial nomination took five and one-half months of debate after a hearing before Senate action was possible. We also saw what happened during the last several months of the last Congress, which was not even a presidential election year. There were many hearings on many controversial nominations. That resulted in a great deal of effort and conflict but not in as many confirmations as might have been achieved. I prefer to make progress where we can and to work together to do so."

It is terrible how the Dems demagogue every single Bush nominee they can. Agee was a Webb pick and a "compromise" candidate. Yet they still feel it necessary to slander him at every oppurtunity they can. I guess they are doing this to imply look how reasonable we are letting this racist through. Since we let racist Agee through we dont need to confirm other racists like Matthews and an anti-Catholic like Conrad. Totally sickening.

I hope McCain is called out on his hypocrisy. McCain has done nothing in recent history but obstruct 4th Circuit nominees (as evidenced by the mistreatment of Haynes and Boyle).

The 4th Circuit Court is weaker because of his "gang deal."

Just went to CBS's site and saw the first part of the Scalia piece from last Sunday. Worth it just alone for the picture of Nino & RBG on vacation riding an elephant over in Asia. Someone w/technical skills needs to 'capture' that pic.

Ruthie hardly looked & sounded like the picture of health on the show (tho her eyes were bright & she gave off the air of an extremely sharp, feisty yet lovable Jewish mother-in-law), but there have been many red herrings before about her that turned out to be jetlag or a lost shoe. Perhaps she had a cold.

Nonetheless, the next prez will 99% replace JPS & 80+% replace RBG, so there ya go.

FWIW, based on the recent 60 Minutes pieces on Nino, Ruthie & Thomas, as well as the PBS interview w/JGR, and Breyer on Larry King, I'd rather spend a transatlantic flight w/nine SCOTUSJ's than any nine POTUS candidates or senators.

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

I agree with you 100%. The Dems are trying to paint Agee in a negative light even though they know perfectly well that they will confirm him. Why? You got it, they want to show how "reasonable" they are. This will help them later block those "neanderthals" Conrad and Matthews.

To add a little insult to injury, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 is on the agenda for the Executive Meeting on May 8th. Hatch and Graham are both sponsors of the Bill, so I would hope that there continued support comes with a cost. I guess the bill isn't as bad a it could be if Obama wins (of course if McCain pulls it out)

-1 judge to the 1st Circuit, which has two old Republican appointments and will flip anyway, 2-4 becomes 2-5
-2 judges to the 2nd Circuit, which already has a Dem majority, 5-8 (counting Parker as a Dem) becomes 5-10
-2 judges to the 3rd Circuit, which kinda hurts, its now 6-6 with 2 open seats and maybe 7-6 if Pratter gets through, becomes 7-9
-1 judge to the 6th Circuit, which could hurt, it will be 9-7 under the White deal, becomes 9-8, if Boggs or Batchelder takes senior status in a couple of years, it then flips 8-9 or 7-10
-2 judges to the 8th Circuit, ain't so bad, currently 9-2 (although one active Repub is 72) becomes 9-4 or maybe 8-5
-4 judges to the 9th, so far gone-what's the difference, 11-16 with one vacancy and one future DC seat vacancy becomes 11-21

I think you're both right, but not to worry. For reasons I've delineated mant times (please see comment #3 above for the latest), neither Conrad nor Matthwews will ever get a hearing. In fact, they will never even get a hearing scheduled, unless Leahy & Company need to do so in July to create further delay and drive a final stake into Keisler's nomination. I doubt that will prove necessary.

If Reid promised 3 Circuit judges, maybe more, and he counts White as one of those judges - technically it would be 3 Bush appointments, but it would not be a good faith move. If he still wants McConnell's assistance for the rest of the year, he may want to give us another judge to honor that commitment. If so, who? I doubt they will want to give us Keisler, so I think Conrad or Matthews is possible. Graham is on the Committee and could press for Matthews, neither has blue-slip problems, and it would still leave 3 vacancies on the Circuit which could flip it in an Obama administration.

If they allow another confirmation after the "May Three", I think it will be Pratter, not Conrad or Matthews.

Courtesy of How Appealing

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/01/behind-the-delay...

"The Bush administration has pushed through 299 judges, 58 on appeals courts. But with 46 vacancies—only 31 for which the president had announced a nominee—Bush won't be able to reach the Clinton administration's 370 judges or Reagan's 373. In other words, there are not enough vacancies in the court system to match either president's record.

The question is whether this will diminish Bush's legal legacy in the courts.

The answer, most observers say, cannot be reduced to mere numbers. First, the bulk of Clinton appointees were district court judges, whose major task is overseeing trials and applying already determined law. The difference between appellate judges—58 so far by Bush compared with 65 by Clinton—is far fewer. And with 12 vacancies on the appeals courts, the White House has the potential to confirm at least as many as Clinton did."

http://joelbiebersblog.joelbieber.com/my_weblog/2008/05/justice-steven.h...

"...part of the confirmation hearings include examination of a candidate's club memberships. In this instance, Senator Benjamin L.Cardin (D-MD) questioned Justice Agee regarding his membership at The Shenandoah Club. Justice Agee was asked whether he knew that his club discriminated against African Americans when he joined in 1980. His response,"I can't recall if I had specific knowledge of that. Certainly, as time went on it seemed more likely than not that that occurred. After some period of time I resigned." This response was reported by the Media General News Service.

When I read that response, it made me want to know the dates of the Justice's membership. Amazingly, he was a member from 1980 until 1987. The club was founded in 1893. Shortly after his resignation, the club changed its membership policies in 1988. His response would lead you to believe that all of a sudden, the membership discrimination just dawned on him. Maybe he never looked around the golf course or the dining room!

It will be interesting to see if this has any bearing on this confirmation."

I hope this does not stall Agee's confirmation. I was surprised Cardin even asked the question. As stated above, one reason might be that the Dems want to look reasonable by approving Agee despite his membership in the club. Of course, that is ridiculous given their stonewalling of Leslie Southwick.

I guess the worst-case scenario is that they will try to use this against Agee, saying, "Well, we bent over backwards to work with you, President Bush, but even the so-called consensus nominees you put forward are very problematic."

In the end, it was probably just a cheap shot, and the confirmation will go forward.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFkZGMyYzU2MjkzZTM1ZjVmMDZhMDA3...

"I don't view Senator Leahy's announcement of hearings for Sixth Circuit nominees Ray Kethledge and Helene White as a "downpayment" on much of anything, and certainly not as evidence that he plans to move many appellate nominations, let alone meet the Democratic leadership's commitment to confirm three appellate nominees by Memorial Day. At best, as this story suggests, it's a sign that Leahy wants to fill this commitment by rushing through nominees that Democrats had already agreed to confirm — these two, plus fourth Circuit nominee Stephen Agee, who has a hearing scheduled for next week. Other nominees, such as Peter Keisler for the D.C. Circuit and Fourth Circuit nominees Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews have been waiting for months, and merit action forthwith."

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-meyerhoff-senate-should-wait...

"Meyerhoff: Senate Should Wait for Next President Before Considering Judicial Nominees
In an opinion piece in the Legal Times ($), attorney Al Meyerhoff suggests that the Senate should not confirm any judicial nominees until the next president takes office. He argues the Bush administration has had a large effect on the judiciary.

During the first year of the Bush presidency, the Democrats confirmed 59 appointments, twice the number confirmed in Clinton’s first year. Overall . . . 86 percent of Bush judicial nominations have been confirmed. . . . [At the same time,] the Bush administration and its allies have made a politicized judiciary into an art form.

He cites “real-world” consequences of this ideological shift.

It is [the circuit] courts that typically make final decisions about what is in the water we drink, the food we eat, the air we breathe; about the rights of the accused, the right to privacy, and the rest of our most basic liberties. And it is those courts that have shifted to the right, that are more likely to defer to executive power, favor big business, and protect the individual less."

Meyerhoff is a moron. Why look at the first years of Clinton and Bush's presidencies? They were both president for eight years. Don't the number of confirmations during those other years matter? When it's all said and done, Clinton will have seen 60-70 more confirmations for his nominees than Bush, including more circuit court appointments.

Meyerhoff is a goofball.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/05/fight-over-ju-1.html

"Erica Chabot, a Leahy spokeswoman, says the committee is "doing the best it can" to help Reid meet his goal of confirming three nominees by the Memorial Day recess. However, Chabot says Republicans can't dictate the pace or the selection of nominees. "There is no rule on what order nominations can be moved," she says.

At least one observer says Republicans may be on the losing end of the argument.

"I think the Democrats will have made good on their deal if White, Kethledge, and Agee are approved before they recess," says Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School. "Republicans may not be satisfied with that, but it seems like some progress.""

I can see two basic approaches here, both with some upside. Each starts as Outsider suggests, take the 3 in May (White, Agee and Kethledge). That at least protects the 6th for now, and helps a bit on the fourth. At this point, the approaches differ considerably:

1. "Soft" approach (I hate compromising with the donks!) - Do as Outsider suggests, press for Pratter and Keisler. Slow down, shut down, do whatever, but get those two. Pick up a third COA judge by appointing Lemons from the Webb list, in return for dropping Conrad and Matthews. Total COA gain = 5, because no one in his right mind would count White.

2. Air Coryell approach (San Diego Charger fans will recognize the creator of the modern day passing attack) - After taking the 3, turn this into a political issue. McCain will (should) come out assertively in NC for breaking the judical logjam, and he needs to lead the attack. After Memorial Day, file a discharge petition for Keisler, Matthews, Conrad and Pratter (Specter really cares about that one, I would sac her if I had to). Fight this battle in the press, and go all in. Shut down the Senate, do whatever it takes. Get the conservative blog going out there, make this a big unifying cause. Could lose a few net appointments, depending on how tough the donks are, but there is more at stake here than a couple of immediate COA seats. We need John McCain to get into the White House, and this gives us a great issue to rally around. Personally, this is the option I would select, because victory always belongs to the bold.

We're completely hosed because they stiffed us on the Keisler trade and snuck in White instead of a decent judge. So instead of gaining 4 as we should have, we're gaining 1 (White cancels out one of the others). And it's not even one that would have been at the top of the GOP list.

I read the Meyerhoff article yesterday, prompted by the daily come-on e-mail from law.com. Reading the title, and starting the article, I thought it was satire. Imagine my sentiment upon realizing Meyerhoff was serious.

"Shutting down the Senate" wouldn't be much different from status quo - the GOP has pretty well kept DEM legislative initiates bottled up by ... shutting down the Senate. Granted, the reason for slow walking isn't generally broadcast, so shutting things down and saying the action is being taken BECAUSE of judicial nominations would be a change from status quo, where the GOP says they AREN'T slowing things down (or that the slow down is justified because the DEMs won't permit amendments, etc.)

I think the GOP will take what the DEMs concede (which won't come close to being satisfactory), then will proclaim "Success! Vote for us, for even more success!" Frist proclaims "Success" after letting nominees languish out of committee for months with no floor vote.

And do we create another potential SCOTUS nominee for a Dem President by confirming White to the COA?

I'm glad that you aren't taking the talk of rolling and appeasing to be personal, and I hope you didn't think the remarks where meant to be so. I admire your writing and knowledge and respect your views. We ARE on the same team. Yet I remain unhappy with the "This is the way we've always let the dems treat us" approach.

My point is that we can negotiate with dems and get more of the same (broken deals), or we can finaly back up our words.

Consider game theory for a moment. We negotiate in good faith, our opponents don't. We write indignant letters, our opponents fillibuster or ram through (depending on their status). Thus, in the end, we always end up with one of two things: What the dems want or a compromise that leans to the dems.

So I ask you, what do we need to do to either get what we want or to have compromises that lean towards OUR nominees? Always settling for less than half a loaf gets you one thing: Less than half a loaf while the other side keeps racking up victories. It doesn't matter which party has the majority in the senate or has the presidency. The "less than half a loaf" always has to be played by our side, and I'm tired of it.

I know your intentions are honorable, and that we are on the same side of the issue. But in my mind we've been doing things the same way ever since Bork and Thomas, and the opposition wants us to just keep doing it the same way.

Part of negotiation strategy (I would imagine) is convincing the other side that one means what one says. The dems aren't concerned about our petty letters and stammering complaints. When they have the power they get their people (overwheling votes for Justice Ginsburg for example). When we have the power we get the Estrada treatment.

So do we keep compromising on the dems terms, or do we ever get to force negotiations (or actions) on our terms?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Is on the Tim Russert CNBC show this weekend. It is on now but will be replayed several times.

The Senate Executive Calendar for May 6, 2008 (next Tuesday) shows that a vote will be held on the following district court nominees:

Mark S. Davis, of Virginia, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia,

David Gregory Kays, of Missouri, to be United
States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri

Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of Missouri, to be
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

ConfirmThemFan,
I think you are reading the Executive Calendar wrong. All it means is that these nominations have been voted out of Committee, not that they will be acted upon. As you'll see, there are many there that were voted out long ago, even back to last year.
If there is an agreement to consider them on a particular day, that will appear as a Unanimous Consent agreement on page 2, which appears blank in the May 6 version.
Sorry.

Sorry

Nothing to be sorry about. It's not obvious how these documents should be read.

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2008/05/leahy-disregards-people-...

"A battle over judicial nominees is raging in the Senate, but yesterday the focus was on the House. All 21 GOP House members from Fourth Circuit states sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy decrying his committee’s “inexcusable” obstruction of 4th Circuit nominees, which is “negatively affect[ing] the lives of the people of Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.” "