ConfirmThem

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-13193sy0apr21,0,2365987.story?co...

Besides Meese, the eleven other names sent to Warner and Webb are:

"Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee; lawyer Thomas E. Albro of Charlottesville; lawyer H. Christopher Bartolomucci of Washington, D.C.; Glen E. Conrad, a U.S. District Court judge for the western district of Virginia; John G. Douglass, a law professor at the University of Richmond; lawyer Frank K. Friedman of Roanoke; lawyer E. Duncan Getchell of Richmond; Walter DeKalb Kelley Jr., a U.S. District Court judge for the eastern district of Virginia; Virginia Court of Appeals Judge D. Arthur Kelsey; and Virginia Supreme Court Justice Donald W. Lemons."

http://www.wm.edu/law/facultyadmin/faculty/meese-114.shtml

"Professor Meese graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Comment Editor on the Law Review and elected to Order of the Coif. After law school he clerked for Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was admitted to the Virginia Bar and practiced law at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom in Washington, D.C.

Professor Meese joined the William and Mary faculty in 1995 and was a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Virginia in the 2001-2002 academic year. He was the Cabell Research Professor of Law in 2001-2002."

I think it is important to note that it is possible that none of the twelve names sent to Warner and Webb may satisfy Webb. Would Webb really allow an Easterbrook/Scalia clerk on the Fourth Circuit?

What in the world has taken so long in getting Conrad nominated for the Fourth Circuit? A while back Drgrishka intimated that his nomination was imminent ( http://www.confirmthem.com/thursday_committee_meeting ), but the article sounds like his background check has been a slow-go. Whose fault is that? Miers? Gonzales? Fielding? Dole and Burr? Maybe judicial nominees just aren't a high priority with the White House under attack like it is? In any case, a North Carolina nomination should be an easy confirmation if Dole and Burr really press the matter. Unfortunately, they didn't do a good job with Boyle. I hope that portend anything bad for the future.

After the GOP squandered 2 4th Cir. (Va) seats when they had both Virginia Senators, maybe the only way to get one filled is to nominate a Warner protege and offer Webb some pro quid pork in return. Are any of the names listed in the previous post associated with Warner?

I hope that DOESN'T portend anything bad for the future [of the nomination]. In this partisan congress, I think Dole and Burr are going to have to take a more active and aggressive role in getting any North Carolina COA nominee through the SJC and onto the full Senate floor for a final confirmation vote. They can't just stand by the sidelines like they did with Boyle.

You are on to something. I think the only person on the planet that Webb would dare not cross is Warner. Someone associated with him is our only chance. Also, there is a chance that Webb does not care about judges at all and will just follow Warner's lead.

I would think that a gun-toting Webb would LOVE an Easterbrook/Scalia clerk. If he knows who Easterbrook and Scalia are, of course.

we'll probably get a couple 4th circuit nominees, I think.

Meese sounds truly excellent. If every major bar association in Virginia is recommending him, I doubt Webb's going to go out on a limb and block him.

Also on the list, Agee, Bartolomucci, Conrad, Douglass, Kelley, Kelsey, and Lemons are all very good. I don't know of the others.

This is quite promising. Let's hope a few nominations are made soon - before Memorial Day.

Sounds like conrad's more than just an idea if they are out there vetting him and given that Bush put him on the District court, I'm assuming he's conservative enough.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

D. Arthur Kelsey of the COA of VA is a Warner recess appointee. He also happens to be a brilliant conservative jurist. Kelsey has visited my law school for a few moot court tourneys, and I know his clerks. From everything I've seen, heard, and read from him, I have no doubt he would be solid.

I Googled D. Arthur Kelsey, and the following was the first hit -- a publication of the Virginia Bar Association which derives from a speech Kelsey made before the Portsmouth Bar in 2002. The title is "The Imperative of Judicial Self-Restraint." Here's a quote:

"When we are called upon to interpret the Constitution in order to adjudge a specific case or controversy, we must repress any political or philosophical view we hold that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the constitutional text or its historical context. If we fail to exercise this form of intellectual self-discipline, we will bumble down a path that, in the words of Justice Scalia, “proceeds on the erroneous and all-too-common assumption that the Constitution means what we think it ought to mean. It does not; it means what it says.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 499 (2000) (Scalia, J., concurring)."

http://www.vba.org/section/judicial/publication.htm

Sounds like a good alternative to Meese if Webb balks.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

Sounds great. Espousing textualism and quoting Scalia - can't argue with that.

According to this thread on the Virginia Lawyers Weekly blog, Webb asked the Virginia Bar Association for names of possible nominees. So, now that he got what he asked for, I'm hopeful he'll accept those individuals on the lsit, including Meese, Bartolomucci, Kelsey, and any other strong conservatives.

http://vlweekly.blogspot.com/2007/04/vba-recommends-11-for-4th-circuit.h...

I'd prefer to see what the Dims intentions are for Keisler, Kethledge, and Murphy first.

Since the Senate recesses in August, Bush can make the nominations in July, giving time for Leahy to have his precious ABA ratings by September.

Livingston, Southwick, Elrod, and 1 of the above 3 should all be confirmed by the end of July.

If we don't get any of them, it's a sign that the Dems are stonewalling and we can respond accordingly.

Evidence that be believes in "judicial restraint," is evidence that he should be nominated, or is even a good judge.

The question still remains, how will he vote on issues that are properly litigated? Will he cast a conservative vote? A liberal vote? Or a mixture of the two?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservatives lead their movement.

As usual, bigskybob, you ask the wrong questions and your analysis is wrong. Kelsey appears to adhere to a textualist approach to judging, which is Scalia's approach and which most of us here agree demonstrates the most fidelity to the original understanding of the Constitution.

That is the single most important consideration. Asking how he will vote on the "issues that are properly litigated" and whether his votes will be "conservative" or "liberal" shows fundamental ignorance of this whole endeavor. Proper statutory and constitutional interpretation does not and should not reflexively result in conservative or liberal votes. They should result in correct votes that are true and reasonable in light of the text. Depending on the circumstances, the results of such faithful adjudication may be "conservative" or "liberal," as anyone who has paid attention to Scalia's and Thomas's opinions over the years would know.

No, the 4th Circuit nominees are needed now. The 4th Circuit and its constitutionalist majority are reaching crisis mode because of all these vacancies. The condition of an entire circuit is more important than one or two nominees who have been delayed for a while, even one as exceptional as Keisler (and possibly Kethledge).

No, Bush should name the 4th Circuit nominees as soon as possible.

Matthew,

First, I have repeatedly stated that I'm referring to cases in which is there is genuine doubt, etc. I do not deny that there are cases that are destined to be nine-zip precisely because the Constitution, or the law, is clear.

Second, you are incredibly naive to believe that "the law," or "the Constitution" is a self-writing, and complete entity that only requires good faith to intrepret. Hard cases in which there is genuine doubt do exist, Randian crap about "Black and White" not withstanding.

One example was the case concerning the death penality for mentally retarded individuals. The Constitution does prohibit "cruel and unusual punishment." It is a reasonable understanding that punishments that are excessive are properly adjudiciated as "cruel and unusual." If a person is not a moral agent, then, I submit, it would be an excessive punishment to execute him for any offense. [On the other hand, forcibly institutionalizing or imprisoning such individuals for life, even for lesser offenses, is completely justified. A person who is not self-governing must be governed for the good of his neighbors.]

The entire case reduced to the question of what level of intelligence is necessary for an individual to properly be considered a moral agent. If that is specified in the Constitution, please refer me to the proper text. If the text is silent on that question, then it is up to Courts, or Constitutional amendment process to decide. Since the legislature did nothing to amend the Constitution, ultimately the Court had to decide the issue.

I believe that the Supreme Court took the wrong position in that case. I believe that borderline retarded individuals [IQ around 70] are in fact moral agents who, while lacking the capacity for profound moral insights, are capable of knowing that some things are right and some things are wrong and that they are expected not to do wrong things, like kill other human beings.

The Court came to wrong conclusion not because they were "activists," or such, but, rather, because they had inproper moral sensibilities. Culturally, they were liberals rather than conservatives.

Ultimately, I believe that decision was bad for both the country and the low IQ. Judging the low IQ to not be moral agents was an assault on their dignity, and, ultimately, their freedom. Offering "get out of the electric chair free" cards to the low IQ was a slap in the face of victims and their relatives etc.

To avoid repeating of such outcomes the proper solution is to appoint "strict constructionists" with conservative moral sensibilities!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives conservative action from conservative leaders.

I see you'll never get it. I suppose that is why most on this site no longer bother to engage you. My mistake!

If we can't get Keisler on the DC circuit, or K/M on the 6th, what makes you think we can get 2 nominees past Senator Asshole Webb?

If we stuck filling only 1 vacancy on the 4th (2 if Lindsey Graham shuts his trap), September-December is plenty of time to work with the 4th circuit's NC and SC seats.

Abstractly, your notion that the Constitution, and law, are self-writing documents is simply false. Properly enforcing the Constitution is not as trivial an undertaking as you suggest.
It is, in part, an art form as much as it is a mechanical science.

Practically, your position is part-and-parcel of the conning of conservatives. Moderate, establishment Republicans have sold conservatives a bill of goods that a judge is a good judge if he practices "judicial restraint." That is false. A judge is a good judge if he 1) practises "judicial restraint,"; and 2) consistently takes the conservative position in cases in which there is a genuine Constitutional doubt.

By deflecting conservatives from the second goal, and by controlling the process by which judges are selected, moderate, establishment Republicans are appointing moderate, establishment judges and "selling" them to conservatives as "conservative" since they practise "restraint."

Asserting The-Emperior-and-His-New-Clothes indignation that I don't "get" your position doesn't alter the fact that your theory doesn't pass the real world test.

Witness Scalia and Thomas.

Under the twin assumptions that,

1) both men consistently strive to enforce the Constitution with "restraint" in perfect good faith; and

2) Your premise that a "restrained" judge, acting in perfect good faith will, invariably, and almost mechanically, come to correct Constitutional judgment [a theory that incidentally leaves absolutely no place for precedent since it presumes that if they original decision was Constitutionally correct, it would be invariably duplicated anyway, whereas, a variation from precedent would presume that the original case was decided by "activists!"]

Then, logically, it would deduce that Scalia and Thomas ought to have a 100% concurrence. But, that simply isn't the case. The last analysis I read was that their concurrence was about 85% in cases that weren't unanimous.

Your theory can't explain that fact because it doesn't make sense.

Take flag burning.

Scalia was on one side, and Thomas was on the other. If the Constitution is a self-writing document, as you suggest, which one of the two gentlemen was right, which one was wrong, and why was he wrong?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand conservative action from conservative leadership.