ConfirmThem

Usually I am the pessimist around here, but this post makes me feel even more pessimistic. The fact that neither Haynes nor Pratt are getting a hearing this month really disturbs me. As far as I can tell, neither is "controversial". Yet, Leahy is not quickly processing them. I wonder if he is saving them until May or June so that he can officially close down all other COA nominations in July with a grand pronouncement about how quickly the SJC has been working with two fresh COA confirmations to crow about.

Again, actions (& elections) have consequnces. It looks like McCain is the nominee and although many people here may not like him, we still need to vote for him and the other R's on the ticket to stop this from happening.

I think most of us would agree on three things, at least! One is that we would dread the day Hillary and Bill came back to the WH, second is that John McCain may not be pure on all of our issues, and third, that McCain would appoint infinitely better judges than either Obama or the Hill. So, an idea that would both help McCain and get us a little more enthusiastic about him....

Fire up the obstruction issue. Although we may not like it, the mainstream view of the Gang of 14 is that it was a compromise to get some judges approved. This gives McCain the "standing" to blast the donks, especially Leahy, on obstruction, and force Hillary and big B to explain how they, uh, really do believe in treating all nominees fairly, at least if they were president. The base would love it, the issue clearly would help McCain, and might even free up a few more to be confirmed.

So if it's McCain, let's push our issues, but we will need to unite behind him.

Frankly, nothing that has happened (or better said Not happened) this month regarding judicial nominations particularly bothers me. I never expected anything to happen in January, as I wrote several times last month. So I am neither surprised nor particularly disappointed that Senate Dems haven't held a hearing since Congress reconvened. Dems have just wiped another month off the calendar according to plan, as expected. And I believe that BoBo and other thoughtful observers here also expected this inaction in January.

If Leahy & Co. go through February without a hearing, then I'll believe that Senate Democrats are acting worse than expected (which is usually the case, after all) and plan to confirm only 2-3 CCA nominees this year. I still expect 4, so it probably will be 2-3.

December Nominee Report
As of 12/31/07

Better late than never. If Senate Democrats can delay all month, then why can’t I? Not much happened anyway. Still my New Years Resolution: to post these Reports by the 5th of each month.

As a reference aid for other readers and posters on this site, I compile a monthly summary of progress on Article III federal judicial nominations. Following are the figures for December:

Circuit Confirmations: 1 (Tinder-7th)
District Confirmations: 3 (Laplante, Schroeder, Thapar)
*Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 0
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 0
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 0
District Nominees had Hearings: 0
No. of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 0
Circuit Nominations: 1 (Smith-1st)
District Nominations: 3 (Duddaby, Limbaugh, Snow)
Total Nominees Pending on 12/31: 28 (11 CCA, 17 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 1 (1 CCA: Keisler, 0 DJ)
*Nominees on Executive Calendar on 12/31:0
New Vacancies: 1 (1 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 11/30: 46 (15 CCA, 31 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 12/31: 47 (15 CCA, 32 DJ)
Change in Vacancies in December: +1

Outlook for February: Perhaps a hearing for 1 CCA nominee (probably Pratter). Otherwise in March. Probably a hearing for 3 DJ nominees so Leahy can claim that the SJC is doing something.

OUTLOOK for 2008: Present Nominees:

Kehledge and Murphy (6th): Not worth discussing
Smith (1st) Low priority
Prospective 9th Cir. nominee: Not worth pursuing at all
4th Circuit: 1 out of 5 would be good at this point. 2 would be excellent but extremely unlikely. 3 would require a virtual miracle. Only Conrad or a Virginia nominee from Warner-Webb list seem even feasible.
Pratter (3rd): Slam dunk
Haynes (5th): Very likely
Stone (3rd): Highly unlikely
Keisler (DC): Seems highly improbable, unless the “deal” can be consummated.

BOTTOM LINE: 3-4 confirmations seem most likely. Given my record, that means probably 2.

Huckabee refused to directly call Reagan's choice of O'Connor a mistake, so did McCain. Both Paul and Romney said they would've chosen someone else. Both McCain and Romney said they would nominate future justices in the mold of Roberts AND Alito.

Well, at the time Sandy sure didn't SEEM like a mistake; 30 year friend of WHR, Goldwater protege (to some extent), enthusiastically recc'd by Burger, historic/telegenic nominee, cakewalk hearings guaranteed; what more could you want?

Oh, might want some junior staffer to head down to the ol' main branch and dig thru a few reels of microfiched AZ newspapers, tho... ;)

And, yes, we're likely looking at a McCain-Graham/Barbour/Huck ticket. I've railed against McCain in the past here as much as anyone. Under any other circumstances he's completely unacceptable as POTUS, but Obama & 55+ Dem Sens are hardly any other circumstances.

It's all our own fault it came to this, but there's just no other choice at this point. Anyone who doesn't support McCain in Nov. full-throttle is simply committing political (never mind judicial) suicide. "Go Johnny, Go!"

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

Gang of 14 was catastrophic for the confirmation of many conservative judicial nominees. McCain's the guy who is on record for not liking Alito because he wears his conservatism on his sleeve.

I support him now and have for the last month or so. I will say this however. If he is elected and has the chance to replace Stevens and allows Warren Rudman, or someone of that ilk, to chose the nominee, I will be the first here to say I will never vote for him again.

A second point. If Romney had defeated TEd Kennedy in 1994, he would have been in the Senate during McCain-Feingold. How do you think he would have voted on that as a Senator from MAss? Does anyone here think he would have voted anything but yes? He pandered to that state on every other issue, so why would he not have on that? If he had been in the Senate for the last 14 years, his voting record would be to the left of McCain.

I feel sorry for people so foolish as to believe and vote for McCain because current polls show him with a lead against Hillary or Barack. These polls are designed to lead idiots to vote for McCain so that the NY Times and Democrats can wipe the floor with McCain like they wiped the floor with Bob Dole in the past.
Once McCain gets the nomination, the newspaper will come up with the Keating 5, Torture Bill, a bunch of other lies that will leave McCain crying in the corner wondering why the party deserted him.

Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.

I am debating weather I should even vote for McCain come the general elections... since after all he is the one who left the conservative principles that my family and I hold dear. He abandoned me and not that I left him.

If McCain is the nominee I might vote for him but there will not be a single dollar to the RNC ( I will need to save all the money for the recession that is sure to follow with McCain)like I did Bush, I will not post any stickers, banners or yard signs like I did for Bush and others. I will never bring up the name of McCain with co-workers to try to convince them to vote for him. No money for the RNC until Mel Martinez is out. If he is embarrassed by Republicans principles I am embarrassed by him.

Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.

William Barr: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGVhZDQ3ZTI2Y2Q3MzFiMTNhN2I0NmR...

I must say that, if Bill Barr will be acting as a legal/judicial adviser to McCain, I am made considerably more comfortable with a potential President McCain than I otherwise would have been. Barr is a sterling legal mind and a strong conservative.

McCain needs to surround himself with people like Barr (much like Giuliani did with Ted Olson, Steven Calabresi, et al). It is the only way he will gain the trust of conservatives who believe in the critical importance of nominating constitutionalist judges and justices. This is a good start.

McCain should make an offer to Ted Olson et al, pronto.

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