ConfirmThem

that he's younger than me ... that's good.. I'm not that old.

Let's see what the Dems do with this one.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

The nomination is about 2 years too late.

Here is a my comment from a previous thread:

If Rosenstein is nominated to succeed Murnaghan, I think it is pretty definite that the White House has made the decision that it is more important to generate an election year issue concerning Democrat obstructionism than to get more conservative judges confirmed. I am just not so sure that the singular issue of judges can create enough momentum to get a Republican elected as president in 2008. In my opinion, it would take the Dem obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee to garner the right amount of public outrage to help the Republicans at this point in the election cycle.

Per my previous comment, I don't think the White House is looking at the issue of confirmability anymore. The strategic decision has been made to to anger the Dems with choices that the White House knows will be viewed as overtly partisan. I think the White House's new philosophy on judges is that "the fewer that are confirmed, the better for the new Republican presidential nominee next year."

In which case, they should have picked a more controversial guy who would create more than this weaksauce criticism.

"Rod Rosenstein is doing a good job as the U.S. attorney in Maryland, and that's where we need him," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski said through a spokeswoman. "The White House should look at Maryland's federal bench for experienced jurists who have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support."

The Dems don't have anything on this guy.

Based on Mikulski's comment, let's see who's on the Maryland federal bench. There are ten active district judges, split five each by nominating party. Here are the five GOP nominated judges:
1. Roger Titus (b. 1941 - confirmed 11/03). White male.
Significant experience: City Attorney for Rockville (70-82)
Georgetown Law ('66)
2. William Quarles (b. 1948 - confirmed 3/03). African-American male.
Significant experience: Assistant US attorney (82-86), Associate circuit judge (1996-2003)
Maryland law ('76)
3. Richard Bennett (b. 1947 - confirmed 4/03). White male.
Significant experience: U.S. Army Reserve, 1969-1975, Maryland Army National Guard, 1983-1997, Assistant U.S. attorney 1976-1980, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, 1991-1993
Maryland law ('73)
4. Benson Legg (b. 1947 - confirmed 9/91). White male.
Significant experience: private practice
Virginia law ('73)
5. Frederick Motz (b. 1942 - confirmed 7/85). White male.
Significant experience: Assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1971, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, 1981-1985, chief judge 1994-2001.
Virginia law ('67)

Quick observations: None are young, although the three that 59-60 are still young enough to serve for a solid ten years. Did Quarles get any consideration? Is he conservative? As an African-American with prior judicial experience, he would be hard to block. Bennett bio certainly looks good - former U.S. attorney with army experience. His age (60) and bio might have allowed him to sqeak through as a compromise candidate (assuming he is converative enough to merit nomination).

Rod Rosenstein is only 42 and is held in high regard, but he was nominated from a state with two liberal and partisan senators (particularly Mikulski). I agree with the earlier comments that this nomination, if made, is not really about getting a confirmation. The Maryland senators can and will block it. And why not? They've held out this long, and in another two years there will likely be 3-4 more dems in the Senate and Hillary in the White House.

Bush should not be "flooding the zone" with in your face conservatives until the middle of next year. There is still some time to sure up some courts with people who will actually be confirmed.

Rosenstein was talked about almost 2 years ago for this vacancy, but at the time Mikulski and Sarbanes balked at such a nomination for no good reason - Rosenstein has been a very good and non-partisan US atty for MD. He is a solid conservative, and clerked for Douglas Ginsburg on the DC Circuit.

Either BoBo is right and this is simply to create an election year issue, or Sen. Cardin is more reasonable and is supporting the nomination.

I dont understand why it takes so long for someone who probably just had a background check when he became US Attorney. Can anyone offer an explanation?

I don't think it takes more than two months to properly vet a judicial nominee. I think the long time that it has taken this White House to nominate people since 2004 has to do with two factors: who has been White House Counsel and what their priorities have been. I think Harrier Miers was totally incompetent and didn't know the basics on how to vet someone. In addition, I don't think she had the necessary people skills to negotiate effectively with senators on possible nominees. I think Fred Fielding's problem is not one of incompetence but one of priorities. In general, I think he is more worried about fighting off Democrat oversight than dealing with judges. In addition, as I have already said, I think an executive decision has been made the confirmations are no longer politically necessary.

At this impossibly late date, finally an apparently unconfirmable prospective nominee for the Maryland 4th Cir. (along with the appallingly foolish S.C. and Vir. nominations last week). Those idiots should have nominated Quarles or Titus to this seat 2 or 3 years ago, when confirmation was feasible. Clearly confirmation is not achievable now. But who in the White House cares about CCA confirmations anyway, as BoBo pointed out?

This confirmation process over the past 4 years has been such a disgraceful and disgusting farce, I really don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

And do those White House fools really believe that CCA nominations could even remotely be a viable campaign issue next year? Answer: they may actually be stupid enough to do so. The American public could not care less about District or CCA judges. This has been ampty demonstrated again and again and again over the last ten years. The average "man in the street" not only has no idea of who CCA judges and nominees are, he doesn't even know what CCA judges are.

There's no good reason to block him. His credentials are outstanding. He should be confirmed without hesitation.

Outstanding credentials do not matter. The only thing that matters is if the two home senators approve of the nominee, unless of course the two home state senators are Republicans (MS and NC). Then the judiciary chairman has final say on who the nominee is, unless it is a GOP chairman. In that case the majority leader in the Senate is the final arbitar, unless the majority leader is a Republican. In that case the minority party leader has final say. Got it now. Those are the rules of the game that we play by. Tails Dems win; Heads GOP loses.

Also remember, most Republican Senators refuse to even flip the coin & most RPOTUSs refuse to provide the coin in any case.

Like Getchell, Rosenstein would be a superb judge. Like Getchell, he should've been nominated over a year ago. Like Getchell, he will quickly be placed in forgotten limbo & never come close to a hearing, never mind confirmation.

At least Mikulski is on record as saying he's doing a "good job" as US Atty, tho she'll w/o hesitation filibuster him for any other position, should we ever get another RPOTUS.

There is no question that the liberals deserve to take over the 4th. Why should they turn it down when it's being essentially forced on them? Same deal as the NE-SD playoff game last season.

Just add "not nominating Quarles two years ago" to the mind-boggling long list of tragicomic errors re: the 4th. Jaysus, a conservative black man who served in the Reagan Justice Dept. I mean, how...why...how...do you not nominate him, or Steven Smith(?)?

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles...

"Under current Senate practices, the Judiciary Committee generally needs consent from both home-state senators, through their submitting a form called a "blue slip," before advancing a nomination. When Webb was asked yesterday if he will submit a "blue slip" in favor of Getchell, he replied emphatically, "No way.""

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-...

"Last Thursday, President George W. Bush nominated Richmond attorney Duncan Getchell for one of two Virginia-based vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Getchell was not among the five candidates whom Virginia's senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb, had recommended on June 12. If Bush wants to fill the pair of openings, he must cooperate with the Virginia senators."

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings110.pdf

Robert Conrad of North Carolina got a unanimous WQ.

Shalom Stone of New Jersey got a Q(sm)/WQ(min).

You forgot to mention how Nan Aron and Ralph Neas each get honorary blue slip powers.

Did anyone really think that we could get Mikulski and Cardin to agree to a conservative pick? After a 7 year vacancy and 18 months before a Dem presidency (they hope, though I still have optimism otherwise)?

He seems like a reasonable pick, they will block him, nothing lost. One more pick from Virginia (hopefully from the Webb/Warner list), and they will have 5 nominations for 5 vacancies. They can pick their 2 confirmations that they will give us for that circuit.

on when the president will announce his nomination for Attorney General? Whether it will be our man Ted O.? The more I read of Dim opposition to him, the more I like him!

I hope the president has the guts to do so, and to recess appoint him if necessary. Do you think the president is waiting to make his speech tonight, then perhaps a Fri. afternoon announcement? Or next Mon.? Or this weekend? This is almost as much fun as speculation re a SCOTUS nomination. (Any further word from "Insider 2.0"?).

BTW, could president Rudy (remember I"m a Romney supporter) recess appoint him again, without the ridiculous $1 salary rule? Since, as of now the senate looks even bleaker in 09.

never responded to Bobo's appropriate comments and inquiries in the previous thread. Hmmmmmm.

I think Yawnsider dipped a tentative toe back in the pool here to gauge the reaction. I doubt we'll see him again.

I also doubt we'll ever see another conservative or originalist judge confirmed in this country again. It's still early, but the Dems will defo pick up a Senate seat in VA & probably Nebraska as well, at a minimum.

Rudy still has an excellent chance to win the presidency but Repub POTUSes always, always, ALWAYS cave in to Dem Congresses, and Rudy (or Mitt or Fred) is hardly in the mold of Reagan, Ike or even Poppy Bush. That said, Rudy has never shied away from fighting City Hall so to speak, and he appears to realizes SCOTUS sells at election time, so maybe between he & Olson we can maybe get something.

All we can hope for is that Iraq magically improves, Rudy & Huckabee get on like a house afire, that there are no more Craig/Foley types in office, and that Hillary stupidly picks Obama instead of Richardson and their respective entourages immediately commence a civil war.

But, it's as bad as it's ever looked for any party 13.5 months away.

In hindsight, the Harriet Miers fiasco may have been beneficial to our cause. After all, we did get Justice Alito when everything was said and done.

More importantly, however, the base revolted over Miers. Any republican president now knows that the base will not accept any more Souters and must forward a quality conservative pick. Although the base still supports him, I don't think Bush ever fully recovered from that fiasco. I know I have never forgiven him. Any president would be stupid to alienate their base like Bush did with the Miers pick. It might mean a fight, but the next president knows he better show up to fight for the court. The Dems might be able to knock off a couple of nominations, but the public would tire of their obstruction, especially for the right nomination.

This is common sense, so maybe I'm naive to think our politicians get it.

Of course that little bit of optimism assumes that Repubs can agree on a candidate that can win. I was leaning towards Fred, but I find myself leaning to Rudy now. His social positions aren't perfect, but those decisions are made by the courts not by the president. As long as he gives us our judges . .

You're probably right--and I like what you call him: "Yawnsider"! I'm glad AH id'd him, so we could know he was the same person.

I might have to support Rudy due to the fact that he may be the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary.

I think it's almost a given that Miguel Estrada would be his 1st SC nominee.

I see Rudy as naming Estrada his SG, giving him a perfect entry as his 1st SC pick.

Estrada is on Rudy's committee, is friends with Ted Olson from Gibson, Dunn, is well thought of in the conservative DC legal world, would represent a fight and energize conservatives, is young, uber-qualified, etc...

For additional picks it depends on who the vacany was as a woman would be named to replace Ginsburg and if say a Scalia was to step down that would lead to a more conservative pick.

The make-up of the Senate would also factor in. If the GOP loses 3-5 more seats(NE, VA, CO, MN, NH, OR aare all likely losses and only LA and SD possible pickups), it'll be tough to get a conservative no matter who's President.

I don't have the slightest problem with Sen. Webb blocking Getchell's nomination. Don't hate the player - hate the game. I want Getchell to be confirmed, but Webb is playing the game well, and we aren't. Bush's first mistake was not making the nomination while Vriginia had two GOP senators, but that ship has sailed. So Warner & Webb put their heads together and agree on five names. I think the consensus was that 2-3 of those names were solid conservatives (Lemons, Douglass & Conrad?), which is really better than we could have expected. So what does Bush do? He nominates someone else. Why should Webb take that? He knows he doesn't have to, and Bush knows it too. Would we expect a GOP senator to roll over if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was doing the nominating? I don't think so.
In my opinion, being a conservative means being realistic, particularly about human nature. You shouldn't expect people to behave in unnatural ways just because that's the way you think things ought to be. Sen. Webb is a democrat. He doesn't like Bush. He agreed to a list of nominees. Bush nominated someone else. I mean, what would any impartial observer expect to happen in that circumstance? That Sen. Webb would say "thank you sir, may I have another?"

You're mostly right. IMO if Bush has picked one of the 5 and Getchell simultaneously, the argument could be made differently.

is one-third vacant. An interesting question is how vacant the Fourth Circuit must become before the Senate will consider qualified nominees of the President, instead of making futile demands for nominees who are pre-selected by Senator Webb.

presumably one we won't have to worry about. I expect that the 4th Circuit will rapidly be brought up to its full compliment of judges, beginning somewhere around January 20, 2009. Getchell won't be one of them, of course, but we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that he sure was a great nominee.

Spencer Abraham pulled the exact same blue slip stunt 8 years back with the 2 Clinton Michigan nominees.

Plus, back then, Levin at least backed his cousin. Warner today doesn't care.

At this point we're going for singles -- as many as we can get. The homeruns were Roberts and Alito.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the White House nominate someone for each and every slot that is empty starting with the beginning of 2006.

Then the onus is on the Dems. They might claim one was a shill, but 35 or 45.

Even if we don't get the CCA slots, I'd take filling out all of the District Court slots with Republicans. Those people still make decisions.

And as some of you are no doubt tired of seeing me post, I'd REALLY like to see all the JUDICIAL EMERGENCY SLOTS immediately filled with nominees so we can stand and yell that the Dems are obstructing well qualified judges for JUDICIAL EMERGENCIES (especially in South Dakota and New Hampshire and Louisiana).

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Perhaps I am a little more cynical than some. As discussed above, most of the public really doesn't care/know about federal judges. Because of the lack of salience for the general public it seems counter-productive for the WH to nominate arch-conservatives (assuming that is what he is doing--I really do not know)--compromise would seem the more rational choice on that front. In other words, fill some positions with consensus candidates (presumably moderates)if for no other reason than to eliminate the opening for the next president.

However, if you are talking "Washington" politics it makes perfect sense to nominate polarizing judges (who have no chance of confirmation with a democratically controlled Senate). Think about it--how many times has Leahy used the last years of the Clinton administration as the as the measure of the number of judges that should be confirmed. If a democrat wins the WH and the republicans (somehow) regain control of the Senate, wouldn't the final years of the Bush administration become the republican measure? In that case, the fewer judges confirmed now, the fewer that will be expected under the next democrat.

I truly hope this is not the case because I believe (for democrat or republican) that the Senate's role of "advise and consent" is a narrow--basically to ensure that the judge is qualified and not merely a "crony" of the president (aka Harriet Miers)

It seems you are esentially saying that Getchell is acceptable & Conrad, Douglass & Lemons are not, almost SOLELY based on who thought of them first? Wasn't this the same mindset that caused all the delays & disasters since 6/05?

And are you also saying that if JPS & Ruthie both croak tonight (Heaven forbid & forfend), and Webb & Tester give Bush a list Monday morning with Easterbrook, JRB, Luttig, Cruz & E. Clement's names on it, he should therefore immediately pick Pryor & Jones?

Had Bush picked the two best names from the WW list, how is that a loss in any way, or a sign of weakness? Webb would've hailed him for bipartisanship, and plus now he owes Bush a little, in case the miracle pelican touches down. Oh, yeah, and we also get two important seats filled with solid judges. Guess that's kind of an afterthought.

I don't give a rat's about Bush showing Congress who the boss is, acting tough, exercising his prerogatives or getting his ego stroked. I want these seats filled with Levi & Keisler types, not the Paez & Berzon types that we have at least a 40% chance of getting from Hillary & her 54 pals in 2009. And if that's the case, EVERY vacancy will be filled by 2011, believe me.

The name of this site is "Confirm Them", not "Bush is The Deciderer". Get these seats filled and worry about who gets the credit later.

But this "in-your-face" & "til-the-bitter-end" strategy has been an abject failure, w/the exception of Southwick, and that's only because his two *Republican* home senators decided to fight for him.

Equating any compromise with weakness & surrender or any evaluation & change of the initial plan with admitting failure and dismissing out of hand any advice or data that comes from outside your tight inner circle is a recipe for disaster in any field. It's apparent to me that Bush learned some wrong lessons from his father's debacles with Souter & "read my lips".

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.rosenste...

""My experience is good lawyers, whatever their political persuasion, make good judges," said Mark H. Tuohey, a Democrat, who worked with Rosenstein in 1995 on the Starr legal team. "This appointment should not be based on ideological grounds."

Tuohey said the Justice Department contacted him about Rosenstein a couple of weeks ago and said the prosecutor is a terrific choice for the federal bench. The FBI vetting process was first reported in yesterday's Washington Post.

"He impressed me with his judgment, his sense of fairness, his scholarship and lawyering skills," Tuohey said. "I think he has done very good work through his career and will continue to do good work."

Rosenstein, reached at his home yesterday, declined to comment.

Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, who said she was contacted about Rosenstein's possible nomination, credited the prosecutor with increasing cooperation with local law enforcement. "He has been in the trenches," she said. "I think that's a good thing."

Gansler called the prosecutor, "somebody who really wants to do the right thing for the right reasons."

"He wants to be sure that justice is served," Gansler said. "Not necessarily to get convictions or the harshest sentences. He calls 'em like he sees 'em, in accordance to the law.""

If Bush wants to nominate Conrad, Douglass or Lemons to another open 4th Circuit seat, then that's fine by me, with one caveat: I have not done much research about these three, and so cannot rule out changing my mind based on further info.

P.S. This site is called "ConfirmThem" rather than "NominateThem."

Of course, I never meant to imply that the W/W list not be vetted. But at a glance, a couple of them appeared to be shockingly good.

As for Getchell, it's defies belief he wasn't nominated last June. Only explanantion I can see is that it was because he was suggested by Warner & Allen, i.e. "outside the ranch" types.

But, 17 months later, there's now a NEW list, so yeah, maybe that old list wasn't so bad after all. Craziness, esp. as Getchell looks outstanding, Warner & Allen coulda rammed him thru, and he's perfect for a recess if they couldn't. I just can't understand it at all, and I know this is a constant source of friction between the two schools of thought here.

Have a good weekend, everybody!

Touche'! ;)

If President Hillary takes over in 2009, is Mikulski going to demand that she not fire Getchell when she fires all the rest of the US attys since she says he's doing such a great job?

How can there be a "ConfirmThem" if there is no one who can be confirmed in a practical sense? If confirmability is not a criteria in the choice of a nominee, why not call this site, "NominateAsManyUselessNomineesAsPossible"? From 2002 until 2006, the Democrats were a minority party obstructing judicial nominees who had the support of the majority of senators. In the present Senate, however, can people like Rosenstein, Getchell, Matthews and Conrad really garner enough support? Why nominate people who might muster only 48-52 votes, when you could nominate less divisive (but still relatively conservative) candidates like those on the Warner/Webb list who could conceivably garner votes in the 75-100 range? Can you offer a good reason why not to try to confirm nominees to ALL open COA seats? To nominate "in your face" nominees like Getchell at this point seems counter-productive in the long run. In reality, "in your face' nominees only provide open slots for a Dem president to fill in 2009. Stop the Madness!

You must mean Rosenstein, and your answer is "no". No matter how good, all Republican U.S. Attorneys will be fired a Democrat president in 2009, and the act will be hailed by the Democrat majority in the Senate (including Mikulski) as a return to justice after years of a "politicized" administration.

I agree with those who say that both Getchell and Rosenstein should've been nominated last summer (preferably at the same time that Boyle, Myers and Haynes were withdrawn). I just want to cry at how much was lost in September and October of 2006 when all the concentration was on Boyle, Myers and Haynes. The useless promotion of those three at such a key point has proved devastating to any hopes of creating a really conservative federal judiciary. That failed effort seemingly sucked all the life out of the COA nomination/confirmation process, and unfortunately killed Peter Keisler's nomination as well as delaying several others. When I think back upon the stupidity of the White House Counsel's office back then, I want to scream. I warned that continuing to push the Fatal Five would cause huge problems, but no one in Washington was listening! Now the Dems are in control, and the White House still doesn't have a clue about how to win and influence friends.

The really sad thing is that there wasn't any "concentration" at all on Boyle, Myers & Haynes. No Republican senator had any intention of lifting a finger for them, due to the various deals that had been made.

Just some useless blather when all energies should've been focused on Keisler. I hope Keisler withdraws himself soon, so either Eid or Paul Clement can be nominated to it, or it just be dissolved entirely.

And to think that DiFi eagerly would've agreed to a deal that confirmed Keisler, gave Cali a few new seats (which they're going to get soon regardless) with one filled by Levi (now gone from the judiciary prolly forever) and the others by Ikuta/Callahan types with maybe one Neff type mixed in, established the Trott seat as rightly Idaho's, filled it with RSmith, & then filled the Nelson(?) seat with someone similar.

Same thing on the 6th, and the 4th situation will one day be looked at as a Souterian-level mistake. I just absolutely cannot understand what's wrong with thinking around corners or a little horse-trading & poker/chess playing. A lil' give n' take; stockpile a few chits for later on.

Can you imagine a business or sports franchise run with this blindly stubborn attitude in this day & age? I would sincerely love to talk to Bush, Specter, Frist, Harriet, Gonzo, Card, etc. off the record about it all one day. I just can't understand it at all.

Of course, Occam's Razor sez Bush doesn't care about the CCA because the public doesn't care about it, so there you go. Just so disheartening, as it was a historic chance to remedy fifty years of disasters and we're going to fall just short.

Lucky to get what we got. If it weren't for the Great Chief, we'd prolly have CJ Wilkinson (a decade older than JGR and not as conservative, tho pretty dang solid, to be fair) eating lunch every day with the entrenched institution known as Justice O'Connor.

Stevens & Ruthie's replacements likely won't be as bad as they are, but then again I can easily see McConnell laying down for Paez & Berzon types. It's happened every other time before. Pretty depressing.

Alas, for all the talking here the '05-08 game was decided last November, as some of us were warning last year. Basically, it's too late (it's almost amusing to read all the belated concern). We're now at the mercy of Schumer & Co., and 4-6 confirmations is the max to expect (and Keisler unfortunately won't be one of them).

The only salvation (mere semi-salvation if there's a Dem. Senate in '09) is electing a GOP POTUS next year. That is The Game, people--the only hope. And spare me this incessant defeatist "President Hillary" talk. That's precisely the helpless despair that the Dem-Libs and their MSM allies want you and others to fall into. DON'T FALL INTO THAT TRAP. The 14 months between now and the election is a veritable political eternity. The political situation a year from now is beyond prediction. The future of the Federal Judiciary for the long-term future will be determined by the outcome.

I was one of the people on this site as far back as late 05 screaming that we were going to lose Senate seats and that we needed to confirm as many people as possible then. I did not think we would lose the Senate, but it was obvious that we would not have 55 votes.

Rudy is, as of now, our only hope. I trust him on the COA nominations because I think he will use those nominations to impress conservatives to make up for his other problems. Do I trust him on the USSC? I have some doubts about him there, but what choice do we have?

It's not easy to get around entrenched liberal Dem Senators, and this administration has made tremendous progress with the 6th circuit.

Other than the 4th, the other circuits look to end up better than they were 7 years ago. Perhaps progress could have been made on the 9th if new judgeships were authorized, but nobody knows whether Babs Boxer would have allowed Bush to fill them.

be nominated? If so, when? Early next week?

Is it open thread time?

Discussion of the judicial repercussions of President Hillary is necessary now in the sense of forcing the White House and Senate Republicans to be wiser in how they handle what is left of the nomination process. Bush should NOT be openly antagonizing the Dems now with "in your face" nominations, and Senate Republicans should not let judicial confirmations take a backseat to fighting battles over legislation and executive branch nominations.

We have a limited amount of time to work with here. We should not whistle away what time is left before 2009 under the rose-colored illusion that we will have four more years to fortify the federal judiciary with conservatives. The time is now to get the task done, not some far off time in the future that may or may not be ours. If the Republicans do get another four years in 2008, then everything we accomplish now will be icing on the cake. Until then, however, we should be acting like this is the last chance we will ever have to confirm judges.

In reading some about Toobin's new book on the SC, he mentions that John Paul Stevens has a ticket stub from the 1932 World Series game at Wrigley Field where Babe Ruth hit his famous called shot home run. He has it because he was at the game.

It's amazing how old Stevens is and that he's still on the bench.

Justice Thomas' book comes out October 1 and he'll be doing a 60 minutes interview soon. That should be interesting.

All in all, a good month for SC information

Early predictions on the 2 big cases this term:
The Gitmo cases-The liberals probably will get Kennedy and reverse the DC Circuit. Although this case seems to clearly fall under Jackson's 1st category where the President is acting with the support of the Congress, which both Kennedy and Breyer mentioned was a reason for their decision in Hamdan. In this case, the act was clearly passed by both houses so it would seem that the tier 1 status is unassailable. They'll still find a way to reverse, though. After the race cases, I doubt Breyer will be looking to join the conservatives any time soon.

The DC Gun case-I think this ends up a narrow victory for the Respondents and the court affirms Silberman. Some variation of how while the ultimate contours and guarantees of the 2nd amendment, particularly as it applies at the state level remain for another day, the law at hand is just way to overbroad and restrictive.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1189760574371

"The list of issues that make Olson an especially controversial candidate to Democrats is long:

When Olson headed the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel in the early 1980s, he ran into trouble for testimony he and other officials gave to House committees about Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of the Superfund law. Democrats later accused Olson of giving misleading testimony, prompting the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate. In 1989, the independent counsel's office cleared Olson of wrongdoing, concluding that his testimony "while not always forthcoming, was in our view literally true."

Olson may be asked again to explain his role in the "Arkansas Project," an effort funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run by The American Spectator in the 1990s to dig up dirt on President Bill Clinton and then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Olson denied involvement but said he was aware of the project because of his role as lawyer for the magazine. His ambiguous testimony led the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay a vote on his confirmation for solicitor general in May 2001. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who is now chairman of the committee, criticized Olson's "sharp partisanship" at the time and said his answers were full of contradictions and discrepancies. Olson ultimately won confirmation by a narrow 51-47 vote.

In the 2000 Florida election debacle, Olson represented then-Republican nominee George W. Bush before the Supreme Court. With a forceful manner but novel arguments, Olson pulled off a Bush v. Gore victory that put Bush in the White House. Olson's victory earned him almost reflexive dislike from some Democrats, who may view the attorney general appointment as the ultimate quid pro quo."

[Be sure to check out the Wikipedia article on the 1980 senatorial elections.]

Contrast the posing on the Hill and the irresponsibility of Senators Clinton (D.-MoveOn.org), Obama (D.-MoveOn.org) and Biden (D.-MoveOn.org) with the blunt but upbeat reactions of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Four months before Iowa and a long year away from the presidential debates, we are already assured of the starkest choice on the most important issue. This clarity is a very good thing, and it will profoundly affect the down-ticket races, so much so that all those proclaiming Mark Warner a shoe-in in Virginia or Colorado's open seat a certain Democratic pick-up should reread the results of the 1980 election.

The Democrats are already committed to a Carter restoration and to accepting defeat in Iraq with all that entails. Both of the leading Republicans are taking Reagan's line on the Cold War as their approach to the long war: "We win. They lose."

The last chance for Democrats to repudiate a platform of retreat and defeat passed this week. MoveOn.org sealed the deal the Congressional Democrats have made with the hard left, and all the Democratic presidential candidates signed on as well. An extraordinary week, the events of which will be referred to again and again throughout the next year, and with good reason.

I just saw a brief "Breaking News" banner (now down) at CNN.com, saying that a retired judge named Michael Muzaskey(sp?) is a leading choice for AG.

I was wrong if I implied the WH was entirely or even mostly to blame for Kethledge and/or Murphy not being confirmed to the 6th. If anyone was, it was likely Brownback & his preposterous hold on Neff (Neff, Jonker & Moloney have all now been confirmed to the District seats, right?).

Agreed there's many years of bad blood regarding those two seats, Levin & Stabenow hate Bush, and there was never any clear evidence Keth & Murphy were part of the 'Neff Compromise'.

I think BoBo had suggested Bush swallow hard and accept a Kethledge-Helene White compromise. Hardly ideal, but prolly as good as we could do. Of course, Levin & Stabenow aren't going to allow anything to happen now, with the poll numbers being what they currently are.

is this the same hugh hewitt who was saying the GOP would hold both houses last year, how Santorum was going to shock the world, etc...

he's a cheerleader, nothing more

Yes, he's a cheerleader. He wrote a book called "Painting the Nation Red." He made it clear that certain things needed to happen to win in 06--the global war on terror,immigration and border security, judges and so on. He inveighed against Chaffee of RI. I don't think HH's is responsible for Allen losing by 7k votes.

He works very hard between elections. He is a realist. He tries to be an optimist as an election approaches.

I think he should be taken seriously as an analyst. Not that what he writes is holy writ, but that he has sources and a mind that he brings to bear on the issues of the day.

I haven't channel surfed news channels the past couple hours. I'll check soon. Any one else seeing/hearing anything else? I take anything with a grain of salt after Drudge reported the naming of Olson was "imminent." He might still be the one (I hope so!) but things really seem to be swirling on this particular nomination.

Open thread, pretty please?

On an individual level, I don't think any Democrat senator at this point in the election cycle will feel an incentive to compromise on a Bush judicial nominee. With the blue-slip procedure in place, each Dem senator knows he can actively block any and all judicial nominees he doesn't like with impunity. The only incentive to approve some controversial nominees now comes from a general realization that if too few COA judges are approved in Bush's last year then the Republicans will block a considerable number of Dem-nominated judges in the future. Basically that was Feinstein's reasoning in voting Southwick out of committee: if the Dems block well-credentialed Republican nominees now, then Republicans will block well-credentialed Democrat nominees in 2009. Unfortunately, I think Feinstein is in the minority in her party.

is being discussed right now on CNN as the leading candidate for AG. Announcement might come Mon. or Tue. Remember, this is CNN.

He served under Reagan in 88. I didn't catch the other stuff. Apparently doesn't have controversial (from the Dims perspective) publically stated views.

Michael B. Mukasey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Michael Mukasey)• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
Michael B. Mukasey (born 1941) is an American lawyer who was for 19 years a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mukasey attended Columbia and Yale Law School. He practiced law for twenty years in New York City, serving for four years as an Assistant United States Attorney and later was as a member of the New York law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.

In 1987, Mukasey was nominated as a federal judge in Manhattan by President Ronald Reagan. He served in that position for 19 years and was Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York from 2000 to July 2006. During his tenure on the bench, Mukasey presided over cases including the criminal prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair, as well as some of the proceedings against Jose Padilla. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

In June 2006, Mukasey announced that he would retire as a judge and return to private practice at the end of the summer. On August 1, 2006, he was succeeded as Chief Judge of the Southern District by Judge Kimba Wood. Mukasey's retirement took effect on September 9, 2006. On September 12, 2006, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler announced that Mukasey had rejoined the firm as a partner. [1]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/15/gonzales.replacements/index.html

As of now, while I would prefer Olson and some red flags were raised re Mukasey (though without any specifics I can see), it looks like he has an insider's understanding of the global war on terror, which I think is the president's highest priority.

I'd still love to see Olson nominated (and, perhaps, recess appointed?), but (again, as of now) I'm comfortable with Mukasey as AG through Jan. of 09. It would be interesting to see if the Dims fought the nomination of someone they said they liked.

On the other hand, maybe he's being mentioned so the Dims can think their views were considered when Olson is nominated. Could view it from the other perspective--that of conservatives, if Mukasey is nominated. Clearly, not everyone will be happy whatever the pick.

Of course, wouldn't an Estrada AG nomination be fun?

I think whoever the new AG is will basically be a caretaker for a year or so.

I see him trying to restore confidence and morale after Gonzales, running a tight ship and making sure no attorney scandals happen.

The AG is supposed to advise the President on SC picks but they're won't be any more so that's irrelevant. As we've seen, there'll be at most a few more Judges confirmed so the judicial selection aspect of things is moot.

This guy has a career's worth of experience in dealing with the legal aspects of terrorism and far and away the most experience that any AG will have ever had with the issue. That's why he'd be selected.

That the dems are ok with him and he'll be confirmed easily is a plus.

Apparently he had some case involving someone seeking asylum from China 15 years ago because his wife was forced to have an abortion. Big deal. That has nothing to with being the AG in this situation. He wouldn't be anywhere close to a good SC pick, but as AG, in this time and in this situation he's about as good as they'll come.

Mukasey would be great. He was a superb trial judge, and before that a superb AUSA. Andy McCarthy touted him as a replacement for AGAG the day AGAG announced his resignation. Based on my knowledge of Judge Mukasey and Andy McCarthy's sterling endorsement of him, I'm all for him. The Dems won't lay a hand on him.

If you're reading this now that the weekend open thread has begun, please enlighten me as to whom Andy McCarthy is and why his rec. is such a good thing. Thanks.

Go to National Review Online and peruse Andy McCarthy's writings. Here's fantastic.

Here's an AP article on Mukasey:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-exec/2007/sep/15/091509213....