ConfirmThem

In his closing speech, Reid said that earlier today he and the White House had agreed to confirm 80 people, including one cabinet secretary, 18 ambassadors and many military officers. But he said, the deal was scuttled at the last minute by the Senate Republicans, not the White House. In this case, it appears that one Republican senator who opposed a single Democratic nominee put forth by a particular Democratic senator. While I don't know the actual details, I really think blocking over 80 nominations because of 1 is very petty.

I have a real problem with the White House and/or any Republican senator who blocks dozens of confirmations simply because of one or two executive nominations. I think the White House has really hurt itself over the last six months by concentrating on Steven Bradbury and Hans von Spakovsky. At a time when a multitude of executive officials are jumping ship (like Clement) and the ephemeral amount of time any executive nomination can now last (eight months), any fight over executive nominations seems to me to be completely useless and counter-productive. Why can't the White House and the Senate Republicans see that they should be concentrating on the nominees who really count - life serving judges!!!! They are the ones whose legacy will last a long time.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy for a second that opposition to one nominee should logically lead to the failure of 80 unrelated confirmations. Reid is full of it - he never intended to confirm those nominees.

Reid also announced several pro forma sessions in his closing remarks.

If you are right, why doesn't McConnell deny it and give evidence to prove otherwise, like he has done with Reid's broken "three COA confirmations by Memorial Day" promise?

Here is an update on Helene White's SJC questionnaire:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-judicialnominee,0,7886355.s...

"A federal judicial nominee from Michigan gave the maximum individual campaign contribution of $2,300 to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama last year, records show.

Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White, who was nominated by President Bush last month to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was asked about the June 2007 contributions to Obama and Clinton in written questions submitted by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her responses were released Thursday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23memo.html?ex=1369195200&en=10298d...

"Where have all the 5-to-4 decisions gone?

And whatever happened to the “Kennedy Court”?

"Something is happening, clearly. The question is what."

"It would be too simplistic an explanation to say that the liberal justices, at least some of them, have simply given up. Something deeper seems to be at work."

"So perhaps there was a bit of movement on both sides — not simple liberal capitulation, but liberals using their limited leverage to exact some modest concessions as the price of helping the conservatives avoid another parade of 5-to-4 decisions.

With the conservative bloc so clearly in control, what leverage could the liberals possibly have? Recall the pledge that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made, both in his 2005 confirmation hearing and in the early months of his tenure, to seek consensus and to lead the court in speaking in a modest judicial voice. That was not how the last term looked, as the majority took aim at precedents and appeared to have in mind an agenda much more ambitious than simply calling balls and strikes."

"The court’s modulated tone may also stem from the fact that this is an election year. Lee Epstein, a political scientist and law professor at Northwestern University, said that political scientists have long observed an “election effect” on the court that results in more consensus and fewer 5-to-4 decisions during an election year than in the preceding term.

“Of course, lots of things could explain this, but the pattern is pretty interesting,” Ms. Epstein said in an e-mail exchange, adding that the justices “probably don’t want to provoke controversy, or become an issue, during the election — especially an election with a highly uncertain outcome.”"

"None of this is to suggest that whatever strategic decisions the justices are making are being made collectively. The court is by its nature an atomistic institution, its actions the aggregation of determinedly individual decisions. But if any one individual is smiling, it is no doubt Chief Justice Roberts. By this time last year, he had cast seven dissenting votes. So far this term, he has dissented only once."

It's a play by Stevens and Breyer for Kennedy.

They're trying to show him that they're reasonable and moderate so that in future cases, they can say "look, we agreed in Baze or Williams, or what have you, but this time the Chief has just gone too far".

They might have felt that they came off as too reflrxively liberal last year and are trying to show Kennedy the way to a more centrist bloc.

But any term in which Roberts issues only one dissent and is in the majority 99% of the time, is a term tah the conservatives can feel very good about.

I predict the conservatives win Heller, Kennedy, and Boumedienne. All 3 will be 5-4. Although, I would not be shocked to see Breyer as a 6th vote in Heller with a concurrence of some sort. I predict Roberts writes Heller, Kennedy writes Boumedienne, and Alito writes Kennedy.

All in all, a dominating term for the conservatives.

And with a big win the VA abortion case next year, things are only looking up.

If McCain manages to win, the Court will see a conservative dominance akin to that of the Warren era. One more conservative appointment will be the culmination and fulfillment of everything conservatives have sought.

Didn't Leahy say long ago that he was blocking 60 nominees because he didn't like Bradbury?

Although this may be slightly off-topic, I think it's important and would appreciate an answer from someone here with detailed knowledge of Senate procedure.

Yesterday, Senator Obama attacked Senator McCain at length and by name in a speech on the Senate floor. McCain was not on the floor nor indeed even in Washington at the time. It is my understanding that it's a gross breach of Senate protocol for a Senator to mention another Senator by name in a Senate speech unless that Senator has been informed beforehand and/or is on the Senate Floor with a cnance to respond. Cowardly Obama clearly didn't inform McCain before of his sneak attack, and McCain was not present with a chance to respond. Specter several days before chastised Leahy for a similar but much lesser breach.

Was this not a gross breach of Senate protocol and tradition? Shouldn't Obama be rebuked or punished by the Senate for such a breach? I'd appreciate any answer, and meanwhile am contacting McConnell's office about this matter.

Out of curiousity, what were some of the specific issues surrounding Paez & Berzon?

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

2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

Rule XIX. That's it. One has to go pretty far to cross that threshold.

And here are Obama's words from yesterday (scroll down to S4741) ...

I respect Senator JOHN MCCAIN's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I cannot understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue.

There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them. I am proud that so many Democrats and Republicans have come together to support this bill. I would also note that the first GI bill was not just good for the veterans and their families, but it was good for the entire country. It helped to build our middle class. Whenever we invest in the best and the brightest, all of us end up benefiting, all of us end up prospering.

Accusing the other side, or even an individual Senator, of taking a position on partisan grounds, is pretty common.

Senator McConnell Remarks on May 22nd on the subject of judicial confirmations. The comments include a news article from the time of the Paez nomination, that explains at least part of the reason for contention.

The "fighting words" of the Republicans?

Which brings me back to the question I and my Republican colleagues are asking: Is it consistent with a commitment to do `everything within your power'' to confirm three more circuit nominees by Memorial Day, to then choose the one nominee who, for logistical reasons alone, is the least likely to be confirmed in time to keep the commitment? Mr. President, chasing the impossible, and then blaming others or expressing surprise when it eludes your grasp is not a good excuse, and will be remembered for a long, long time.

So today is a sad and sobering day for me and my colleagues. There are now well-founded questions on our side about the majority's stated desire to treat nominees fairly and to improve the confirmation process. And there is frustration that will manifest itself in the coming days, and will persist until we get credible evidence that the majority will respect minority rights and treat judicial nominees fairly.

Tepid. "Will be remembered for a long time," and "frustration that will manifest itself" (until there is credible evidence that nominees are being treated fairly).

May "tepid" is too strong. Milquetoast more like it.

OK. So "The Blessed One", as he now refers to Himself in speeches (see yesterday's in Florida), now gets off scot free again. Presumably he alone can now name and attack absent Senators from the Senate Floor to his Heart's content. Please do not take this as a criticism of our new Magical Messiah, since I fully realize that any such criticism is ipso facto unfair, racist, and proscribed.

http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/04/24/New...

Very interesting; don't recall seeing it posted before. Perhaps we were too dismissive of M. Smith when he was first confirmed?

Oh, and LOL at Barry trying to explain Paez' "Panhandling is free speech" decision or his lobbying from the bench against Prop 209, if he nominates him to replace Stevens, tho God help us, he'd likely be confirmed (albeit via nuke).

My boy Borin' Orrin better get a "In Richard Paez' America" speech ready.

Have a good weekend everybody.

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

Speak for yourself, BillM. Some of us thought Smith and Ikuta would be solid from the beginning, and they have been.

"Magical Messiah" and "Blessed One" are okay. I use just plain "Messiah," myself, but had a worm in my brain that wanted to do something with "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," ... what with the fairly obvious wordplay "Lyin' Witch" to refer to Hillary!

I can't take credit for it, other than wondering aloud about soundalikes that might work.

The end result was "The Lyin' Witch and the Wordy Rube."

Fits my opinion of those two. He's an empty suit. I wonder who's propping him up?

Thanks for the link, BillM. I was just lamenting the 9th Circuit to a friend in my driveway not 20 minutes ago, and now my day is brightened. And I agree with your observation that many of our absolutist commenters decried the picks of Bush in the 9th; fight to the end, they wailed! Keep nominating Kuhl !(and Haynes, and Boyle, etc.) No compromise, ever! 100% purity or nothing!!

As Judge Smith notes, more 9th CCA judges means less impact, and therefore less harm from the Carter appointees. Sometimes pragmatism can be a good thing.

IIRC, the obj-, err, 'hesitancy' here to Milan Smith on the part of some (and I was among the hesitant) stemmed primarily from his somewhat modest resume, fast track to confirmation due to possible nepotism concerns due to his brother Sen. Smith, and most of all frustration over the Randy Smith-"Idaho seat" mess. And of course the landscape looks a lot different now than it did in 2005.

Obviously, the GOP isn't going to get too many JRB/Pryor types on the 9th. And if that article is any indication, Milan Smith has been a fine choice indeed.

As for Ikuta, I believe the only concern was about her being a Kozinski/O'Connor clerk if she were ever nominated to SCOTUS. I have asked a couple times, as have others, how Ikuta was doing on the 9th; good to hear she's solid.

In a vacuum, I might well prefer Ikuta to Mahoney should Stevens somehow leave under Bush, or McCain survive what is just going to be at best a very tough November for the GOP. But as I've said in the past, I don't think a GOP POTUS should elevate a 9th judge, for reasons that article makes abundantly clear.

Ikuta, Callahan, O'Scannlain, Kozinski, the Smith boys, not bad at all, unless Obama gets to fill a gunnysack of new 9th seats.

Another poster said recently that it's not impossible (but is unlikely) Stevens is preparing a swan song. He could retire under a (badly crippled lame-duck) GOP POTUS, but a Dem Senate.

His brother's recent death (and that of Pres. Ford) had to have crystallized the hourglass for him. I see where one of his former clerks (lib Slate writer) is writing a biography. He can still write his own ending, although he should've retired in '06 if he wanted the full tickertape from conservatives.

I know he despises Bush on every level, but he won a lot of battles the last seven years (with history to decide many more) and now he has the opportunity to take the high road at the end. And regardless of November, he knows it's highly unlikely his replacement will, uh, share his judicial philosophies.

So, just for fun on a three day weekend, s'pose the ol' One-eyed Jack shocks the world in July. Who does (not should) W pick? Does he care more about principle (JRB, Estrada), or pragmatism (Mahoney, Ikuta)? What does he think would help McCain more (or his own legacy more), a bloody fight or a painless confirmation?

My guess is he'd yearn for JRB, ask (and be turned down) by Estrada, and then go w/Mahoney after consulting w/McCain. Hell, she's been pre-approved already by Reid & Schumer, they could hardly backtrack now in the Internet Age right before an election.

She'd be far from perfect, but a vast improvement, tho I still have deep reservations she could turn into a "Spotlight Mo", who was very attuned to her media coverage, a la AMK & SDO.

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

First off, you'd have a chance to get JRB through because the Dems (having just rejected Hillary) don't want to be seen now attacking an African American woman on national TV.

Secondly, you don't follow that with Mahoney, you follow it with Corrigan or Williams or another conservative woman.

You think the Dems want to be seen on TV dissing an African-American woman and then a white woman for a solid month?

On the other hand, Bush could go with a Hispanic American and given Hispanics lack of votes for Barak and Hispanics generally good attitude toward McCain, it could swing a large chunk of the Hispanic voting population into the GOP camp just in time to avert disaster in 2008.

the word "magic" was first used for Obama by an LA Times writer. Rush Limbaugh picked up on that article and spoofed it with a parody song, based on "Puff, the Magic Dragon." Any more than that, I dare not write here or anywhere else.

Here's a great article by Stuart Taylor on the CA gay marriage decision, and the larger issue of judicial supremacy/activism vs. judicial restraint:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20080524_4694.php

So we've learned from Reid's behavior that, absent some bold action on the part of Senate Republicans to push through Keisler et al, the only remaining confirmations this year will be Kethledge, White, and Glen Conrad. The others are doomed unless McConnell and crew do something of consequence, something they've been unable to do over the last 8 years of Democrat obstruction.

There is no way that any SCOTUS Justice would leave the bench in the summer before such a widely open Presidential Election short of death. They dont want to make the court an issue. So please let us refrain from discussing such an unlikely fantasy.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal says about Reid/White House confirmation deal failure:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121156907987417971.html?mod=googlenews_w...

"As lawmakers look to piece together a housing-rescue package that President Bush can sign, a partisan feud has delayed the Senate confirmation of Steven Preston to be housing secretary.

The White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) are accusing each other of reneging on a deal that would have seen Mr. Preston confirmed Thursday as head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

With lawmakers now in recess, the earliest Mr. Preston could be confirmed is in early June.

"This is pretty appalling given the situation we're in with housing," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday. "We had a deal."

But Sen. Reid's office said the White House's failure to keep a Republican senator in line is to blame for the collapse of an agreement under which the Senate was to confirm Mr. Preston and 79 others. "This is what we get for trying to act with unusual speed and haste," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said, noting that Democrats agreed to move forward on Mr. Preston without a vote by the Senate Banking Committee.

The dispute, which emerged late Thursday, has an unlikely source: the Tennessee Valley Authority. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), angry that Sen. Reid is blocking the reappointment of William H. Graves to the TVA board, put a hold Mr. Reid's choice for the board of the Institute of Peace, Ikram U. Khan. That brought down the Reid-White House agreement. The institute is an independent, nonpartisan organization funded by Congress."

Thanks BoBo. No one ever accused Alexander of being too bright, that's for sure. The TVA Board?? Give me a break.