ConfirmThem

He ain't gonna budge.

But...that would be foolish.

that she'll renominate a couple of these that were blocked as a show of good faith right? You know, like Bush did with Roger Gregory as a carryover recess appointment and with Barrington Parker as a Democrat to the liberal 2nd.

In addition to bitterness over the Republican treatment of White, Levin and Stabenow also have two other good reasons to block Kethledge and Murphy. First, when Bush became president in 2001, there were two open Michigan COA seats due to Republican obstructionism. Levin and Stabenow may get some comfort in knowing that at the end of Bush's tenure there will still be two open Michigan seats (albeit this time due to Democrat obstructionism).

In addition to this symmetrical argument, and much more importantly, Levin and Stabenow have every incentive to prevent a total conservative Republican takeover of the Sixth Circuit. The confirmations of Kethledge and Murphy would seal a conservative hold on that court for decades to come. After the 9th Circuit, liberals have held up the 6th Circuit the most as a prime example of the wonders of progressive precedent. They do not want to see it slide into "activist conservatism" like the Supreme Court has.

I do think that a Dem president is likely to renominate one or two of Bush's judicial nominees in order to appear conciliatory. The question then is, "which ones?".

Neither Gregory or Parker were as controversial as Helene White. The chances are that a Hillary or Barack would renominate the least conservative nominee still left unconfirmed during the last year of Bush's second term. That is why McConnell needs to act on Keisler now rather than wait for some uncertain conciliatory Democrat reciprocity in 2009.

How bout just fill the damn seats. To all you purists like bigskybob: This is not the time to be demanding hardcore conservatives for all the CCA - SCOTUS due to its visibility is a different story. Newsflash: THE DEMS CONTROL THE SENATE. You are living in a pre Nov 7, 2006 world. The time to act was then. Bush piddled around with Boyle, Haynes, and left other seats with no nominees. This is not to say conservatives were not confirmed. We had a real good run: Sutton, Pryor, Kavanaugh, JRB, Colloton, Shedd, Griffin, Cook, Griffith, McKeague, Gorsch, Holmes, and not to mention Roberts and Alito.

The list that Webb and Warner gave Bush was not bad. While none of the people on it are going to be the Federalist Society's person of the year, they were still mostly soild people. They would be better than nothing. Plus Leahy & Co would have no excuse to block them if they were preapproved by Webb.

Bottom line: If you want more terrorist opinions like the one written by Gregory last month follow bigskybob's strategy. If you want to keep the terrorists where they belong at Club Gitmo then nominate the people on Webb's list.

I have to say Kyl's nay vote surprised me. It makes me feel uneasy about the status of his "deal" with Feinstein concerning Keisler. Anyone else get bad vibes from that?

I too was surprised by Kyl's vote against Neff. Maybe it was just an attempt to re-establish some conservative credentials after his support of the Amnesty Bill fiasco rather than any comment on his relationship with Feinstein and the status of Keisler.

First: I am glad the Western MI 3 saga is now FINALLY over so we dont have to waste time talking about it anymore!

Second: I hope Sam "I wanna be Prez" Brownback is happy. You raised a fuss in October that delayed 15 or so DJs and maybe Keisler votes in the last Congress. For what may I ask? There was never any doubt Neff would be confirmed. You just wanted to score some cheap political points so you get to 0.2% in the polls instead of 0.1% Good job retard!

Third: This was a great deal all around. In addition to being a 2 for 1, Neff is in her 60's and Jonker and Maloney are in their 40's. Good play whoever negotiated this deal.

Fourth: There was talk of Dingell's son wanting to sit on the federal bench. If a deal is worked out for the 6th CCA seats or the two Eastern-MI seats, I would hope it includeds him and not Helen White. He would be great on 2nd Ammendment and other social issues.

What's up with mlEZFO? What's going on with all the sex talk? Is someone testing site filters, or is he just crazy?

I deleted it. Looks like the spam filter is less than perfect. Andrew

If I remember correctly, people here were generally pleased with the list of names that Webb and Warner threw out there.

If I were Bush, I'd go off that list and get the best he can and try to lock in a couple of more conservatives on the 4th circuit. I'm sure they are holding off now trying to get Southwick moved, but again, I'd personally just load up all the nominations and make the Democrats the obstructionists or let them pick which of Bush's judges move.

Conservative judges are conservative judges and at this point we should take what we can get even if it means letting the Dems pick which conservative judges they want to confirm.

Romney or Fred.

After reading jtp7's post I was thinking:

Last year one of the 15 (?) delayed judges was Southwick, who was nominated to a disctrict court seat, and would certainly be confirmed if the Neff-Brownback situation was resolved before the end of the 109th congress.

Do you think:
1) That Bush would nominate Southwick to a circuit court seat, after being a district court judge for just a few months?
2) It would be possible for the dems to block him for that circuit court seat, just after they have confirmed him to a disctrict court on a (likely) 88-0 vote or so.

At least a few of the names on the list are solid conservatives. Bush should nominate them ASAP and get on with it already. Agee, Lemons, Conrad, and Douglass are all solid. The plaintiff's lawyer may be as well, but I'd go with one of the above immediately. MOVE IT, MR. PRESIDENT.

I agree Bush needs to get moving. Although I really want Keisler confirmed, I think it is time to move on to getting some people confirmed to the Fourth Circuit before it is too late. I think Matthews of South Carolina is a no-go in this Dem-controlled Senate due to his ties to Fielding, the Reagan White House and Iran-Contra. That leaves the two Virginia seats as our best hope if Webb can be trusted. I bet the two potential nominees with the best chance of support from Webb are Agee and Lemons, the two Virginia Supreme Court justices. Their resignations from their state court positions would allow the Dems in Virginia to replace them. As far as North Carolina is concerned, I really am angry at Dole and Burr for being so clueless about what to do in order to replace Boyle. They and the White House have literally had years in order to consider and vet possible nominees to replace Boyle. What's up?

Confirmations of Bush’s judicial nominees hit the wall in June, several months before most observers including me expected it to happen. There were only three confirmations, all District nominees that the Democrats threw as bones at the very end of the month. On Circuit nominees there was no progress at all: no confirmations, no hearings, no nominations, no nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee. 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 somewhat less than dismal figures for June (Look at the zeros!):

Circuit Confirmations: 0
District Confirmations: 3 (1 future vacancy.)
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 0
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 1
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 0
District Nominees had Hearings: 4
No. of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 1 (6/20/07)
Circuit Nominations: 0
District Nominations: 3 (1 future vacancy)
Total Nominees Pending on 6/30: 28 (5 CCA, 23 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 6 (1 CCA: Southwick, 5 DJ)
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 6/30: 4 (0 CCA, 4 DJ)
New Vacancies: 2 (0 CCA, 2 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 5/31: 49 (13 CCA, 36 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 6/30: 49 (13 CCA, 36 DJ)
Change in Vacancies in June: 0

Not only did the Democrats and leftist interest groups stall the Southwick nomination into a virtual coma, they used this delay to avoid holding any CCA hearing at all in June. As a result, whatever happens to Southwick, it is extremely unlikely that Elrod or Keisler will be confirmed before the Senate recesses for August. The odds are far greater that there will be zero Circuit confirmations this month than that there will be two. Even one confirmation may not be achievable.

Since there were two new vacancies and only two confirmations of nominees for current vacancies, the number of current vacancies remained unchanged at 49. Keep an eye on this number for the rest of the term. The number of Circuit vacancies remained unchanged at 13, but rose to 15 on July 1st when Wilkins (4th Cir.) and DeMoss (5th Cir.) moved to Senior status. Progress on CCA nominees was of course at a standstill and apparently remains so.

Three District nominees were finally confirmed after months on the Executive Calendar. The Michigan Three were bypassed and remain on the Ex Cal. Four nominees had hearings but have not yet been voted out of Committee. New York nominee Mauskopf remains in limbo for some reason (Feingold’s opposition?) since her hearing in April. Progress on DJ nominees remained at a crawl.

OUTLOOK: There will probably be only one hearing this month, as has been the case for the past four months. The major question is whether it will include Elrod or Keisler plus 3 District nominees, or be another dismal DJ-only hearing. The other big question is of course the fate of Southwick. There are rumors that the GOP is going to open a general offensive when Congress returns on July 9th. Hopefully that would include forceful action at last by McConnell, Lott et al., including shutting down the Senate if Democrats continue to stall Southwick and other nominees.

{For reference, my April “Judicial Nominee Progress Report” appeared on Tuesday, May 1st, as post #1 in the thread “Zero in April, Two in May”. The May report appeared on June 1st as post #11 in the thread “Weekend Open Thread”]

P.S. This is corrected from the one I posted about a week ago. Jtp7 pointed out that there were 5 District nominees with hearings still in Committee (the 4 with hearings on June 20th plus Mauskopf), not 4, and thus 6 nominees total in this category (including Southwick), not 5. I have corrected it in this version; sorry for the error. Also, the Michigan Three and O’Grady were confirmed yesterday, so no one is presently on the Executive Calendar.

aren't they being blocked at a faster pace than they are being confirmed? Even with Smith relocated per Dem demands and Boyles and Haynes and I don't recall who else pulled, don't we still have more blocked than have been confirmed in this Congress? I think there are 5 who are blocked so far and only 3 have been confirmed. When you toss in the ones who were already yanked at the start of the session, the Dems are confirming about 1 of every 3 nominees. And we are being told to expect the pace to slow down. Could it get much slower?

I agree with you completely about the NC seat. Why is it so difficult for Dole and Burr to come up with ONE person? Let's go already.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200705/050907.html

Just for clarification's sake, the only COA nominee that the Dems admit that they are blocking is Southwick. Leahy, however, has made a speech (at the time of Livingston's confirmation) stating that Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy have serious problems associated with their confirmations but not directly saying that the three would be blocked. The only one who seems thus far to be free from attack is Jennifer Walker Elrod.

"All three of the other Circuit nominations are renominations that were not considered last Congress with a Republican majority. [The nominations of Kethledge and Murphy] are renominations that the White House made knowing full well that they did not yet have the support of their home-state Senators. When I previously chaired the Committee, I was able to break the blockade of Sixth Circuit nominations that was established by the Republican majority when it pocket filibustered several of President Clinton’s outstanding nominations to the Sixth Circuit. Once we broke through with two Sixth Circuit confirmations in 2002, President Bush was left with seven appointments to the Sixth Circuit during his term in office. Given the White House’s unwillingness to work with the home-state Senators of the two current nominees, however, it will be very difficult to make more progress.

With respect to the nomination of Peter Keisler, that renomination is controversial. He was previously nominated in June of 2006 but was not considered by the Republican majority then in control. The Republican majority did not seek to proceed with this controversial nomination at that time. In fact, the President and the Republican Senate majority insisted, instead, to proceed over the last several years on other nominations to the important D.C. Circuit, which were, themselves, highly controversial. The nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh were each apparently a higher priority for this White House and the Republican majority than the nomination of Mr. Keisler. The others have each been confirmed to lifetime appointments on this very important court. At the end of the last Congress, the Keisler nomination was returned to the President without action in accordance with Senate Rules."

though they don't claim credit for the three they helped block last term.

Is it only a matter of time with Elrod? She was nominated >3 months ago. Here is something you posted at the time.

Now that the Libs have buried Southwick (and Keisler and Murphy and Kethledge), they'll set their sights on Elrod and we'll soon be hearing that she's "controversial", "troubling", "a Bush crony from Texas", "yet another white on the 5th Circuit", "a person who'll turn back the clock", etc.

Haven't these jerks only confirmed 3 in six months, and we're pretty much done until Labor Day?

Well, at least one's on the calendar now, but no nominees are designated at this point.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2871

We'll see.

Freshman Senator Cardin of Maryland is chairing the meeting. I fear that bodes ill as to whether anyone "controversial" (in other words, any Circuit Court nominee) will be considered.

On the other hand, many of us took it as a good sign (lack of controversy) with Whitehouse chaired the Southwick hearing, but look how that's now turning out.

A real fear I have now is that there will be NO more COA confirmations during Bush's last 18 months. I see an unfavorable confluence of events here that could cause the 110th Congress to have the lowest number of COA confirmations in modern history. First, Bush and the Dems are at each others' throats. Some could say that this situation is no different than during Clinton's last two years, but I would point out to them that the politics concerning judges is much more partisan now than then because of the bitterness engendered by both sides over using the filibuster and the nuclear option.

Secondly, because of Bush's low popularity numbers and their control of the Senate, the Dems see a real chance now of saving all 17 open COA seats for a Dem president to fill in 2009. They feel confident that they can win the next presidential election easily. With such a sense of domination, there is little reason for them to compromise over judges. They figure that if America hates Bush as much as their polling suggests it will be easy for them to make America hate his judicial nominees as well.

Thirdly, as evidenced by the potential nomination of Matthews to the 4th Circuit, Bush seems to have decided that it doesn't matter if his nominees are confirmed or not as long as he can rally his conservative base in order to increase his miniscule legacy. In this scenario, Bush will send up only nominees bound to irritate the fire out of the Democrats. Some may like this "dying with your boots on" stand, but personally I think it will result in a huge missed opportunity to cement a more conservative federal judiciary for decades to come. After all, I think it is highly likely that if a Dem is elected president in 2008, a Dem-controlled congress will radically increase the number of judgeships to erase any progress the conservatives have gained under Bush. Bush needs to get as many new judges confirmed as possible in the next 18 months in order to temper this likely increase in federal judges after 2009.

Bobo,
I wish I could say that I think you're painting a scenario that is WAY too negative, but I really can't.

While I truly don't believe there will be zero, I guess that wouldn't shock me any longer. And, that the unthinkable has now become something we can rationally contemplate is not a good thing.

I have found in the past that your analyses are generally pessimistic, unalloyed by hopeful illusions, and often quite dispiriting. They have also almost invariably been right on the mark. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Dems stop confirming CCA judges entirely now, although they may confirm a very few moderates as politically useful bones to throw. Things are already virtually at a standstill; there has been exactly ONE CCA confirmation since March (by the way people, it is now July, so add that up on your calendars and draw some conclusions).

As I've written times too numerous to contemplate with equinimity, the game for '07-08 was virtually lost last November when the GOP achieved the virtually impossible by losing the Senate majority from 55. There are now only two events that can redeem the situation: 1) a fortuitous change in the Senate majority, OR 2) a GOP presidential victory in '08. Otherwise, the Dems are dealing the cards. As in '04, a conservative non-activist judiciary is now hostage to the next election.

[Note: since some others have adopted use of a "signature", I will now use a 'changing' one as an incessant reminder of the bitter reality of the present situation]:

Days elapsed since last CCA confirmation: 62
Number of CCA confirmations this year: 3

I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but I do try to analyze things as realistically as possible. I truly wish that the present situation was different. I wish Bush would be more pragmatic, and the Dems more cordial and less ideologically confrontational. More than anything, I would love to see Peter Keisler confirmed. I would also love to see the 4th Circuit remain conservative. All of this seems totally dependent upon McConnell. Here's hoping that he has the guts to force the issue of judges in a much more aggressive way than his predecessor Frist did.

http://www.slate.com/id/2170029/

"All of which leads me to my own hypothesis about the legacy of swing voters: Their long-term influence on the high court may simply require the presence of yet another swing voter to be sustained. Powell's vision in Bakke survived Powell's retirement from the high court only because O'Connor was there to grab his baton in the 2003 University of Michigan cases."

Everyone should read Dahlia's article on SDO, just for the reader comments at the bottom alone. And the linked Krauthammer article inside it is excellent, too.

Man, once again all I can say is, "God Bless The Chief!"

I do think SDO is a good person, (and by all reports Powell was universally beloved), but power doth corrupt.

It will be very sad if Sandy becomes an embittered, lonely widow, who constantly & publicly complains about the Court & bemoans her decision to retire. It would go against everything in her life to become a whiner ("Ruthie, just do it, and get it down before the next cases come down") but I can see it happening.

As for the glassy, nuclear blasted plains that were once the 4th, lol at the decision to keep Haynes & Boyle twisting for years. For God's Sweet Sake, the Webb-Warner list is fine, pick two and MOVE!

As for NC, it just beggars belief.

I'm going to leave now, to go raise a frosty stein in honour of the tactical genius that is Samuel Brownback.

And the succeeding two will be for the great Bill Rehnquist. How do I make the following MY signature? :)

"Christ, we've got to be able to do better than this." - Asst. Atty. Gen. Rehnquist, Fall 1971, upon seeing the White House list of potential nominees to replace Justices Black & Harlan

In her book The Majesty of the Law, O'Connor noted that Powell "was concerned in every case about the equity at the bottom line—about reaching a fair and just result." In her view, he was the quintessential common-law judge, and that was the tradition O'Connor most admired and the role she went on to embrace for herself. But now, there's no one to be their heir.

It's this idea of having to reach a "fair" result that leads to judicial activism. They are supposed to interpret the law, not twist it because they think it's not "fair". If the law needs to be fixed, that's a legislative duty.

its simply another clumsy, bald attempt by the unhinged left to overstate the court's small step to the middle (not the right), to harm the confirmation chances for a 3rd Bush nominee if a vacancy occurs.

I also think, as unfair as it is to Roberts and Alito, its probably unfair to O'Connor as well. Lithwick simply beats her down so she can pin the deed on Alito (and Bush, Roberts, Kennedy, men, catholics, whatever). It's just that O'Connor's most unserious majorities, the ones that are being (rightly) diminished by the Roberts court, are the ones the desparate left is so very serious about. And while AMK is certainly a different animal than SDO, its more overstatement to say he's not in many respects "taken the baton" from her.

I fully agree that there is nothing wromg with pessimism when it's accurate, and it almost always is when applied to the CCA confirmation situation. BTW, my characterization of your analyses was actually intended as an ironic compliment. Though they seemed pessimistic and dispiriting at the time, they in fact have turned out in retrospect to be too optimistic if anything.

Recall our discussions here in April and May. Some here were predicting 16 or 17 confirmations for '07-08. I was more cautious and predicted 13-14. You were the utter pessimist and said 10-11. Three months later the confirmation count is still stuck at 3, with prospects of few or conceivably even none for the rest of this Session.

A major lesson here is that one should never, EVER, underestimate the lengths that Senate Democrats and their leftist interest group allies will go to sabotage conservative federal appellate nominees, no matter what degree of flouting historical practice and precedents that involves. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred. I, for one, resolve never to make that mistake again. The refusal of many on our side to fully understand this has led to successful ambush and defeat time and time again (Southwick is the latest example).

In light of this, I will venture the following prediction: If a conservative Republican President and a Democrat (or narrowly GOP) Senate is elected in 2008, Democrats will go all out to stall his CCA nominations (and carryover vacancies such as 4th Cir-Maryland and N.C., 5th Cir-Miss, and 6th Cir-Mich) all the way through 2012. They've done it for 8 years so why not another 4? Complacent Republicans would probably fall into the trap--again.

Days elapsed since last CCA confirmation: 63
Number of CCA confirmations this year: 3

Clinton got 7 confirmations in 1999, and Clinton and Bush 41 got more confirmations in year 4 (or 8) than year 3 (or 7).

Reagan, of course, stacked nominations in 85-86, then got cut down harshly by the new Dem Senate in 87-88.

To be honest, I don't know how much interest there is in the Bush White House in Circuit nominations anymore. He's under fire from every direction.

When it comes to pharmaceuticals and drug prices, they go to the mat. Why can't they show some damn interest in their own home state nomination?

Just get us the 10 open CCA seats with GOP senators, leave the MD/NJ/RI stuff, and call it a day.

i agree ball honeys pic bang bus com blowjob ninjas boob squad girl milf lessons gallery moms anal adventure publicinvasion pic