ConfirmThem

FINALLY!!!

LET'S GO TO BATTLE ALREADY! WE WANT THIS FIGHT.

Here's Haynes's bio:

http://www.bakerbotts.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?id=ffe5c25f-3abd-4ffe-a630...

Catharina Haynes, former judge of the 191st Civil District Court in Dallas, rejoined the litigation department of Baker Botts after serving eight years as a state district judge. As a judge, Ms. Haynes presided over hundreds of trials and thousands of hearings involving the full range of civil (non-family) topics including complex commercial disputes, disputes involving lenders, consumer litigation, insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, personal injury, trade secrets and other intellectual property matters, and employment disputes. She brings the insights gained through her judicial experience to the representation of her clients.

In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court appointed her to serve as the Chair of the Court Reporters Certification Board that is responsible for certifying, recertifying, and disciplining Texas court reporters for a term ending in December of 2006. In late 2006, the Texas Supreme Court appointed her to the State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee. She became Board Certified in Consumer and Commercial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in 1997, and she continues to be certified.

Ms. Haynes has written and spoken extensively on the topics of civil trial practice, professionalism and ethics, and insurance law. She has also received numerous awards for her volunteer work in the legal community and community as a whole.

Before taking the bench, Ms. Haynes was a partner in the firm's litigation department, handling cases in the area of general commercial litigation, complex consumer litigation, and insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. For example, shortly before taking the bench, Ms. Haynes tried a three-week jury trial of an insurance case in a Houston state district court.

Honors and Awards

* Florida Tech Alumni Association Outstanding Achievement Award, 2006
* State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, 2006
* Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Foundation Award of Excellence, 2005
* Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, 2004
* Dallas Association of Women Lawyers Outstanding Board Member Award, 2003
* Dallas Bar Association Jo Anna Moreland Outstanding Committee Chair Award, 1996 and 2002

Law-Related Organizations and Activities

* Presiding Judge, Dallas Civil District Courts, 2005
* Judge, 191st District Court, 1999-2006
* Volunteer Judge, Pro Bono Clinics of Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas, 2003-2006
* State Bar of Texas: Insurance Law Section Council, 2002 to present; Professional Ethics Committee, 2006 to present; Supreme Court of Texas Jury Task Force, 1996-1997
* College of the State Bar of Texas: Member, 1991 to present; Fellow, 2001 to present
* Dallas Bar Association, At-Large Director, DBA Board of Directors, 2001; Co-Chair, Courthouse Committee, 2005; Co-Chair, Bench/Bar Conference Committee, 2002; ADR Section Council, 2001-2003; Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee, 1996
* Dallas Association of Women Lawyers Advisory Board, 2003 to present
* Fellow, Dallas Bar Foundation, 2002 to present
* Founding Fellow, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Foundation, 2002 to present
* Dallas Inn of Court, 1990-1991

Other Community Service

* Vickery Meadow Learning Center: Board Member, 2005 to present, and Volunteer Instructor, 2003 to present
* Attorneys Serving the Community, 2006 to present

Education and Honors
J.D. (with distinction), Emory University School of Law, 1986
Order of the Coif
Notes and Comments Editor, Emory Law Journal
National Association of Women Lawyers Outstanding Woman Law Graduate Award
B.S. (with highest honors), psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, 1983

Tinder's bio:

Tinder, John Daniel

Born 1950 in Indianapolis, IN

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 2, 1987, to a seat vacated by James E. Noland; Confirmed by the Senate on August 7, 1987, and received commission on August 10, 1987.

Education:
Indiana University, B.S., 1972

Indiana University School of Law, J.D., 1975

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Office of U.S. Attorney, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1974
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of Indiana, 1974-1977
Private practice, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1977-1984
Public defender, Marion County Criminal Court, 1977-1978
Chief trial deputy, Marion County Prosecutor's Office, 1979-1982
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, 1984-1987

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Leahy will use this opportunity to skip over Southwick, Keisler, and all 4th circuit judges to pad his confirmation number with the fifth and seventh circuit which are not up for grabs.

This shows she gave $250 in 2004 to the Bush re-election.

http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=loc&addr=1609+LAKELA...

I hope that Bush has gotten prior approval from Lautenberg and Menendez about Stone and from Bayh about Tinder. Otherwise, I think those two might have problems. In addition, is it a sure thing that the Dems would not block Conrad as another white Southern male? My guess, though, is that Catharina Haynes will not have a problem being confirmed to the Fifth Circuit. Her confirmation after Elrod's would further minimalize the need to confirm Southwick.

I agree with LMK that these four new nominees if all are found acceptable to the Dems have the possibility of reducing the pressure on the Dems to confirm Southwick, Keisler and any Fourth Circuit nominees. However, if nominated in a timely fashion, I do think that if Bush chooses two from the Warner/Webb list that those nominees might be confirmable as well. I think Matthews for South Carolina is nonconfirmable unless Graham is actively supportive.

If Elrod and Haynes are confirmed:

1) 6 of the 17 judges on the Fifth Circuit will be female. Is there a court with a higher percentage of female judges?

2) 4 of 5 judges on the Fifth Circuit nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate will be female (Edith Brown Clement, Priscilla Owen, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Catharina Haynes)

I think skipping over the 4th is a major concern. However, the 5th and DC circuits are mostly conservative while the 3rd is evenly split.

My guess is that the White House is still debating the Webb/Warner list, and hopefully those will come soon.

If Conrad is moved ahead of Matthews, that will be a signal that Matthews is done.

http://www.whbesqs.com/stone.html

"Mr. Stone graduated from New York University School of Law in 1987, where he was a teaching assistant in both legal writing and civil procedure. He has extensive experience in business litigation and criminal defense, including motions, trials, chancery proceedings, criminal sentencing proceedings, and appeals (including the New Jersey and U.S. Supreme Courts). His practice areas include business disputes, contracts, real estate, securities, insurance, RICO, civil procedure, and legal ethics. He has written articles about federal sentencing guidelines, insurance company insolvencies, rent receivers, and other topics, and is the co-author of "The Scope of Discovery in the Federal Courts," a report published in 1998 by the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation. In 1994, he briefed, argued and won an invasion-of-privacy case before the New Jersey Supreme Court. He is a member of the American Bar Association (including the Litigation Section and the RICO Committee), the Association of the Federal Bar of the State of New Jersey, and the Federal Bar Association. He is the former Chair of the Federal Practice and Procedure Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association (2002-2004). He is a former member of the Lawyers' Advisory Committee, United States District Court, District of New Jersey (2003-2004)."

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/06/some_third_circuit_scuttlebutt.php

"Shalom Stone's selection came as a surprise to some Third Circuit watchers. He's not extremely well-known within New Jersey legal circles. He also doesn't have any prior government service on his resume.

But that may be a good thing. Rumor has it that the Noel Hillman nomination was pulled because the White House feared that his confirmation hearings would be used as a grandstanding opportunity for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"Shalom Stone, in contrast, doesn't have such baggage. His background in private practice makes it less likely that he's been involved in any matters the Democrats could turn to their political advantage. He's also known as a very nice and genial fellow.

Stone is said to be fairly conservative (and rumored to be a member of the Federalist Society). But he may be able to muster support from the other side of the aisle. He's a partner at Walder Hayden & Brogan, and name partner Joe Hayden carries a lot of influence in New Jersey Democratic circles. If Hayden goes to bat for his partner, it's likely that the Garden State's Democratic senators will fall into line behind the nominee.

Despite this apparent lack of skeletons in the closet, one reader isn't optimistic about the chances of confirmation. It's not about Stone, just about timing:

"What chance is there of getting Alito's seat filled during the Bush Administration? First you need the background check on the prospective nominee, then after the nomination you need the Committee Hearing, then the Committee Vote, then the full Senate's vote. All that takes a substantial amount of time and Leahy has said no circuit court nominees will be confirmed in '08. So, unless the Administration is very close to settling on a new nominee, or has already started the background check on one, I'm very skeptical that any nominee will ever see a signed Commission.""

This is good news. They may have been waiting to see if there was a SC resignation - though I don't know why. Hopefully they will be confirmed. Why does it take 3 months to confirm a SC justice but a year+ to confirm at COA judge???

From the reader response to abovethelaw.com:

"Leahy has said no circuit court nominees will be confirmed in '08."

Actually this is not exactly accurate. Leahy's spokesman has said that Leahy will impose the "Thurmond Rule" concerning CONTENTIOUS judicial nominees starting in January. That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be no more COA confirmations next year. Rather, it means that there will be no more confirmations of CONTENTIOUS nominees.

Having said this, I suspect Leahy and the Dems will demonize as many Bush judicial nominees as possible next year to emphasize their CONTENTIOUS status. That way the end result may be the same: no more circuit court confirmations in 2008.

The answer is simple: SCOTUS nominations are highly publicized events covered 24/7 by the mainstream press. COA nominations on the other hand are rarely reported upon by major news organizations, and as a consequence their importance is little understood by the public in general. Basically, it is easy to stall a judicial nominee when no one is watching.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/LOCAL/707170...

"Tinder, 57, joined the federal bench in 1987 under an appointment from President Reagan.

Reagan had previously appointed Tinder to be U.S. attorney for Indiana's southern district."

Since Indiana senator Lugar seemingly supported Tinder's original judicial nomination in 1987, I guess it will be relatively difficult for Bayh to go against Tinder's nomination now.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770717095

"“Bob Conrad has a long history of public service and an excellent reputation as a knowledgeable and fair judge,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. “I look forward to Bob’s quick confirmation by the United States Senate and to having another North Carolinian on the Fourth Circuit bench.”"

I hope Burr's comments are a sign he and Dole will actively campaign to get Conrad confirmed. They need to do a much better job than they did with Boyle. Even so, I wonder if the Dems will allow a Republican North Carolina nominee to be confirmed after THREE of Clinton's nominees to that same position were blocked by Helms.

I admit i've only recently started taking notice of judicial appointments, but I'm curious why Bush appoints people that are already 57 years old - why not go with someone much younger? This is a lifetime appointment after all. Are there just not enough qualified candidates or is it too unheard of to confirm someone in their 30s?

It's very rare for a Circuit nominee to be under 40; Kozinski, Breyer & Potter Stewart all were tho, and Roberts would've been had he been confirmed in '92. Doug Ginsburg was 43 when he was nominated to SCOTUS; nine years younger than AMK.... :(

I think for the most part there's too much focus on age, within limits of course. If you know you're going to get at least 15 good years, than anything extra's a bonus, IMO. You have to keep winning elections. And neither side is going to allow the other to get away with much youth-packing.

Plus, an older person is likely more 'stable' with a longer record to examine. Less chance for 'growth'. Better equipped to stay cool under fire (see Estrada, M. c2001). When you're wrong about a youngster it's a disaster.

For starters, a youngster must be super-brilliant, a rare Roberts-level talent, not just pretty good. Obviously, someone like the 45 y.o. Bill Pryor has been thru so many wars already we wouldn't hesitate to put him on SCOTUS right now. Same prolly goes for Ted Cruz, at least for a Cicuit seat. But the 46 year old, never-been-in-the-spotlight Sykes......

And as wonderful as Allison Eid's resume looks right now at age 42, there's no way she should be picked by Rudy over the 60 year old JRB to replace Stevens in the summer of '09. She should however be the pick to replace JRB on the DCC, after Majority Leader McConnell invokes the nuke to get JRB confirmed 58-42 on a straight party line vote with Tester & Nelson crossing over for The Hammer.... ;)

Remember, Bork was ten years older than Scalia in '86, and it was sort of the tiebreaker. Best of intentions; best laid plans....

Great news, as long as they'll be fought for. Agreed that Bayh & that backstabber Menendez have likely agreed not to actively block anybody, else why would the WH bother? (wait, don't answer that)

Speaking of which, *DEMOCRAT* Senator and Pulitzer Prize winner/Nobel Laureate for Literature James "Jimmy" Webb has already APPROVED five people for the two open VA seats on the Fourth, couple whom look pretty dang good. Let's GO, George. Keep 'em comin'.

Crikey, Godfather Part II was on last night. Can ya 'magine what Bush could've done had he people with the wisdom & skills of Michael Corleone, Tom Hagen & Hyman Roth working on filling these seats the past six years, instead of Bill Frist & Andy Card?

Got give credit where credit's due, tho. Harriet was right; they SHOULD'VE fired ALL the US Attorneys on 1/20/05. Pure Godfather move all the way. :)

Conrad finally. Pity they didn't nominate him sooner to give him a head start on the others. Ms. Haynes seems quite professionally qualified from the info provided by Matthew Friendly. Apparently Matthews from S.C (4th Cir.) is not fast-tracked after all. Seems strange that they did the N.J. nomination before the Penn. one on the 3rd. This should get very interesting come October or November or so. And the 4th Circuit is still in deep do-do. What a surprise!

[ Reprinting this from the earlier thread today (“It Doesn’t Matter if Senator Leahy Lied … “), which doubtless no one read since it was the only reply. You really should read Andrew’s thread—it’s the most interesting literary allusion I’ve seen here in years and very pertinent as well, and As You Like It is forever fabulous.:
Well, I will be happy to give Leahy the Lie Direct, and Schumer of course virtually embodies it. And also an L.D. award to that scoundrel Webb, who lied directly on Meet the Press last weekend that Lindsey Graham had never visited Iraq. When Graham responded with the fact that he has gone to Iraq SEVEN times, Webb did not retract his lie but simply went on shouting and fulminating. Facts mean nothing to these people.
The Democrats think they're oh so clever and can get away with anything, such as blocking well-qualified nominees and staging their pathetic little all-night show tonight. It's nothing but a stage play performance to them. But the day is coming when they will pay dearly for their abominable and quasi-subversive behavior, which will be AS I Like It. They've evidently gone a bridge too far. If the tide turns on them soon, the GOP should be ready to pounce and push through Southwick and other nominees while the time is ripe.

Sorry Bobo - I was not 'asking a question' - I was ranting and raving when I said that.

I've been thinking about the Virginia vacancies. Bush should not simply cave in to Webb's/Warner's demands and pick from their approved list. Sure, show some deference and nominate one person from the list. But this is the president's prerogative, damnit. The other nominee should be whomever the president wants, period. Or, rather, who I want....

So: pick Professor John Douglass from Richmond Law School to mollify Webb and Warner and show them due respect. Then pick PROFESSOR STEPHEN SMITH from UVA Law School as Bush's homerun nomination. Do you really think the Dems will want to oppose an eminently qualified black nominee to the 4th Circuit, the Circuit they love to tell us has the most blacks within its boundaries of any circuit? Smith is awesome, and would be on the shortest of lists for SCOTUS once on the 4th Circuit:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/faculty.nsf/FHPbI/ef5c57abaa89c208852...

Do it Mr. President! Pick a true originalist like Stephen Smith. We want the Dems to fight that one.

you see how easy it is to make us happy?

Mr. President: give us a few names!
Dems: confirm a few names!

he will nominate Agee and Lemons. They are excellent judges and are steeped in VA Supreme Court tradition. That is no hotbed of liberalism. And they are the more conservative judges on that court. They are on pre-approved list. Put them up.

the 7th circuit's 4 of 11 is a slightly "better" percentage than the 5th's 6 of 17 (assuming Elrod and Haynes). the 6th and 9th also have greater than 30% female representation (the 6th is actually very slightly ahead of the assumed future 5th if you count only currently occupied seats). the 4th could also get up there depending on the nominees (though considering Warner/Webb's list was all-male, I think, and its very unlikely the Dems let Bush fill more than 3 of the 5 seats anyway with Conrad already slotted for one of them, those chances are slim).

that Haynes isn't a good pick, but I think not nominating one of the many superbly qualified black candidates (Michael Williams, Wallace Jefferson, etc) for the Texas seat is a missed opportunity .

we don't know that they weren't offered and declined, either.

overall, this looks like a good bunch, if not farm team material. but the chances of getting someone on to the farm team through this congress are small anyway.

I know white male conservatives are extremely disfavored nowadays, but let's not be as idiotic as the liberals. Why should we give them an affirmative action nominee just because they've been unconscionably trying to impose one on the 5th. And do you honestly think that would help Southwick in the slightest? Forget it. The Dems would just say thanks, confirm her (I assume it would have to be a female) and then continue to screw us on Southwick. I suppose a white female nominee (Haynes)is not sufficiently "diverse" anymore.

I swear, dealing with us for the Dems must be like shooting dead fish in a barrel. To hell with affirmative action, or your thinly disquised equivalent of it, on the 5th or anywhere else. If a Dem is elected next year we'll get nothing but that rammed down our throats anyway.

but it would certainly make the Dems look even stupider and more dishonest than they are/do.

they'd be spectacular judges (in Jefferson's case, he already is).

If there were a lot more conservative judges out there who were African-American or Hispanic out there, then the Dems might be less able to constantly play the race card in terms of litigation. If more cases against minorities were decided by minority judges, the Dems (and the plaintiffs) couldn't keep calling such decisions racist, and that might help race relations in the United States. Minorities might be more willing to accept the idea of an objective rule by law and start becoming more accountable in their behavior. I never heard of a white person saying that a white judge's opinion against him was racist.

Once again I am surprised at how quick the WH got a nominee for this seat. It is not even vacant, unlike 4th CCA seats, and Manion only made his intentions known a few weeks ago. Lugar must be doing magic. We need to sign him up for the SJC.

On other note: Lets go W. This is only a start. I wanna see some PA, VA, and SC nominees by the end of the week. Hopefully your NJ guy has a prayer. Lets get the 3rd and 4th shored up.

laughably titled, as Democrat talking points are laughable, but nonetheless: "Bush Sidesteps N.J. Senators"

this is part of the reason the pullback on Hillman seems to me inexplicable. while I'm sure Lautenberg and Menendez are making a bigger issue of their support to cause problems, and would have come up with something else anyway, I don't think they're completely lying when they say he was someone they'd (probably) support. of course the "consultation" bit in the article is idiotic garbage, since the president doesn't do much consulting with the homestate senators from the other party.

as I've argued, this is an absolutely crucial seat. the 7th circuit is a majority REAGAN-appointed court, and not getting any younger. no its not vacant yet, but it won't be vacant until a successor is confirmed, so there's no reason to delay a nomination.

my stated preference for the next trio was NC-SC-IN, but with the Warner/Webb list, I changed it to VA-NC/VA-IN, and I got 2 of the 3 (plus TX - and like the 7th circuit, the 5th has many Reagan/GHWB appointees, though W already has 2 nominees in queue for it - and NJ). We really need another nomination or two to the 4th pronto though!

I don't understand why Bush for a third time has chosen not to consult a COA nominee's two homestate Dem senators. He seems eager to fight losing battles. Apparently, Bush nominated Kethledge and Murphy without consulting Levin and Stabenow. Now he is nominating Stone without Lautenberg's and Menendez's approval. Reading the responses of those two senators today in Dienekes' linked article makes me think Stone is DOA.

As I have said before, it appears that Bush actually wants certain nominees to fail. He knows as well as anyone that with Leahy's blue slip system, there is no way for a Bush nominee from a state with two belligerent Dem senators to be confirmed without the prior approval of those two senators! This is not rocket science.

Bush also seems to be picking fights with Republican senators for no good reason. He seemed to choose Matthews on purpose against the choice selected by both South Carolina's Republican senators. Why? Matthews' resume seems to scream,"obstruction."

The one case where I agree with Bush blocking a Republican-approved candidate concerns Specter and Carolyn Short. There is no reason for Bush to go along with Specter and nominate to the Third Circuit a woman (Short) who supports Hillary Clinton.

Hopefully, Bush will be more conciliatory with his Virginia nominees and choose them from the Warner/Webb approved list. He doesn't need to alienate Warner.

All that said, I think Conrad, Haynes and Tinder appear to be good choices who can easily be confirmed (as easily as is possible considering that the process is controlled by the slow-as-molasses Dems).

What I see this doing is taking pressure off of the Dems on Southwick in particular, but putting pressure on them about Judicial Nominations in general.

Southwick's nomination likely dies while they confirm some of these others. Of course, that depends on what McConnell and Specter do as well.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Maybe I’m missing something, but I think Southwick’s fight is far from over.
For me, it will be over when he is confirmed.
What is taking place with his nomination and the character assassination plotted against him cannot be allowed to succeed.

We need more of the articles pasted below so be sure to put the phone, email, and snail mail to good use.

Black Group Calls Senate Leaders “Hypocrites”
Liberal Senators Complaining About “Obstructionism" on Iraq Legislation Use the Same Tactics They Now Condemn to Block Judicial Nominees

For Release: July 18, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11
or Project21@nationalcenter.org

Project 21 members say the liberal Senate leadership, which has embarked on an overnight session to "highlight Republican obstructionism" on consideration to legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, is hypocritical, as these senators have used the same tactics they now condemn to block the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominations over the past six-and-a-half years.
"The immoral duplicity of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his henchmen once again unambiguously shows there are no depths too low for liberal politicians to plumb," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "It is extraordinarily incongruous that, on one hand, Reid would complain about a conservative filibuster against an arbitrary and predetermined withdrawal date in Iraq while he and his gang have stalled on the confirmation of people such as Judge Southwick since the day President Bush announced his judicial first nominees."
Beginning on the morning of Tuesday, July 17 and scheduled to last through the evening of Wednesday, July 18, the Senate is expected to remain in session for debate on a plan to remove U.S. forces from Iraq by May of 2008. Democratic leaders want a simple up-or-down majority vote on the amendment, and are protesting Republican use of Senate rules to require a vote of 60 members to end the debate.
The last all-night session of this sort was held Wednesday, November 12, 2003 to protest Senate liberals requiring 60-vote majorities for confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Judicial obstructionism continues, with allegations this week concerning bad faith by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in scheduling a committee vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie H. Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler, a nominee to the D.C. Court of Appeals, has waited more than a year for a committee vote on his nomination.
Among major non-judicial nominations, only 66 of 229 of the nominations made since January 7 -- 29 percent -- have received Senate votes.
"It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black," added Project 21's Massie, who participated in media events in the U.S. Capitol related to the 2003 judicial all-nighter. "If Harry Reid wants an up-or-down vote on Iraq, he should at least be willing to come to the table with an offer of the same regarding the judicial nominees to our already overworked courts."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Here is the direct link to the article on the web:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR_Senate_Obstructionism_071807.html

There is a good post (I'm bias) about law clerks here:
http://www.confirmthem.com/what_pennsylvania_newspapers_are_saying_about...

I think the type of coverage you have linked to in the MSM is very good and informative. More people need to be aware of the Senate Dems' hypocrisy.

Concerning Southwick's nomination, this probably sounds jaded, but after seeing how the Dems attempted and in a large part succeeded in ruining the reputations of fine nominees like Terrence Boyle, Charles Pickering, William Myers, Henry Saad, William Haynes and Michael Wallace it is very hard to difficult to remain optimistic about Southwick's chances. To make matters worse, certain Republican senators have even been collusionary in the obstruction of these nominations. For example, it was Lindsay Graham who sank William Haynes's nomination, and Keisler was initially delayed by Grassley and Sessions, who were concerned about the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit. In addition, Lott was partially responsible for not supporting Pickering and Wallace enough just as Dole and Burr were partially responsible for not supporting Boyle enough. With friends like these...

I realize and appreciate the concerns you mentioned.
However, I also realize and appreciate how easily senators can be persuaded by disseminating facts that expose positional weakness.
Southwick’s situation seems to be a particularly easy to use in this regard.
The same was true with Pickering, but people now realize the attack on him was wrong and may be more willing to prevent it from happening again to a man like Southwick.

Spectoer's complete statement on the floor is reprinted in the article linked below.

Senator Arlen Specter Speaks About The Nomination Of Southwick
Wed, 07/18/2007
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48727154_arlen_specter_senator_arlen_...

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://southcarolinaappellatelaw.blogspot.com/2007/07/fourth-circuit-jud...

"

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/201332.html

"The nomination comes as a bit of surprise because Conrad was informed in May that he was no longer a candidate. Tuesday, he declined to comment on what might have developed since.

"He's a very good lawyer, he has terrific judgment, he's balanced," said Larry Thompson, former deputy attorney general under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Bob Conrad has a long history of public service, and an excellent reputation as a knowledgeable and fair judge," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

Burr and Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., said they would work to ensure a smooth confirmation process for Conrad."

Leahy was very critical of Conrad when he was nominated to be district judge in 2005.

"I am concerned about what some of the things he has written say about his ability to be a fair judge, and to give all who come before him a fair hearing."

Read the rest below.

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-nominee-criticised-for-contr...

Given that the Democrats want to keep the 4th circuit open for Hillary, I think the five vacancies on it will remain open until 2009.

Was the SJC Business Meeting held this morning, or was it postponed due to the Senate's All-Night Idiots Show? If it occurred, were any nominees voted out?

Days elapsed since last CCA confirmation: 70

There is a business meeting scheduled for Thursday July 19th with Jennifer Elrod on the calendar- does that mean Specter has given up on Southwick?

In addition to Estrada, Calabresi, Ted Olson, and Larry Thompson (who I'm skeptical of) is....MAUREEN MAHONEY.

Giuliani's first term may very well see an Estrada nomination to the Supreme Court for Stevens. His second term will almost certainly include Maureen Mahoney. I guess if this is for Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Souter, we'll have to settle for incremental progress instead of a home run like Allison Eid or Margaret Ryan.

In 2012, Mahoney will be 58.

Maybe it just means that Specter doesn't want the controversy over Southwick to hold up other judicial nominations.

Maybe there is a Dem vote that he feels he can win if he can keep Southwick alive for a while and then passed through when the liberal interest groups aren't paying attention later on.

He called the all-nighter a meaningless insulting waste of time that never should have taken place.

I think you're reading far too much into Mahoney's presence on Giuliani's advisory committee. Almost all of the people on it were in the Justice Department when Giuliani was the US Atty in the SDNY. They know each other.

Furthermore, it's a very impressive list of the upper echelon of DC lawyers. Most are Federalist Society members and undoubtedly conservatives.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11742

The SJC will meet twice tomorrow - once in the morning for an executive business meeting, and then again in the afternoon for a judicial nomination hearing with Elrod and two district court nominees. Elrod is not on the agenda for the morning business meeting. The morning business meeting tomorrow is to deal with any business left over from today's business meeting.

Youth tends to be overestimated, IMO. Yes, in theory, younger judges can serve for a longer time.

Look at Luttig, though. He was 37 when he joined the appeals court, and only served 15 years there anyway. Even if he was 55 back in 91, we still would have gotten about the same 15 years out of him, without the hissy fit over the SCOTUS.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/118473415194000.xm...

The White House, which ordinarily consults with a nominee's home-state senators, gave Lautenberg and Menendez no input, and informed them after the selection was made.

"Until this nomination, the White House has worked with us in a cooperative bipartisan fashion to pick good judges for New Jersey," said Dan Katz, the chief of staff to Lautenberg.

"For whatever reason, President Bush has decided to break from our cooperative approach and has veered toward a partisan political exercise," said Katz. "Right now we will examine Mr. Stone's record and qualifications, but given the way the president has moved forward on this nomination without consultation, we are skeptical that this a good-faith effort to pick a judge for New Jersey.

Menendez, through a spokesman, also voiced serious reservations.

"The sudden manner in which the previous consensus nominee for this vacancy was withdrawn and the uncooperative unilateral manner in which this nomination was made certainly raises serious concerns," said Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi.

The appeals court seat originally was slated to go to Noel Hillman, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. He was the lead Justice Department prosecutor in the Jack Abramoff Capitol Hill lobbying scandal and a number of other high-profile federal prosecutions.

Hillman, now a U.S. District Court judge in Camden, initially had White House support and the backing of Lautenberg and Menendez. But the Bush administration pulled the nomination earlier this year for reasons that remain a mystery, and without informing the two lawmakers.

Not sure where this idea of Hillman being 'consensus' came from. Now that he's been pulled, the NJ Senators can claim he was 'consensus', but it would probably be just the opposite if he had been nominated.

What do you think of a possible deal:

Give the dems their up-or-down vote on Iraq in exchange for an up-or-down vote on Southwick.

Good idea, or keep nominations and legislative work seperated?

The war is far more critical to the President. He'd sooner sink the entire judiciary rather than comtemplate an Iraq pullout.

The Dems would go for it in a heartbeat, though.

I doubt he's DOA. His law firm is pretty powerful among NJ Democrats, and it is alleged he is not a partisan figure, though he is supposedly a conservative. The NJ Senators may bitch a little over not having been involved in the process, but they'll fall in line in the end. Stone is surely preferable for them than some overtly conservative individuals Bush might have gone with instead.

Well...we may get the opportunity to see whether I'm reading too much into Mahoney's presence or not.

On another note...is it interesting that noted and prolific Supreme Court advocates get to be on a semi-official panel to advise a president/presidential candidate on who he should nominate to the courts that they will be appearing before? In other words, judges that they'd like to appear before? I don't really know what I think about that and am more ambivalent it than anything.

Olly,

Give the Donks this deal - an up or down vote on Iraq, in exchange for all the COA nominees: Kessler, Southwick, Kethledge, Murphy, Elrod, and the 4 new ones.

Then Bush will veto, and the Reps sustain the veto. I'd go for that.

"The NJ Senators ... [will] fall in line in the end."

good point....

Now that Widener has taken senior status, Bush should pick 2 from the Senators' approved list and pick one for himself. I like Stephen Smith, but there are many others. The argument of course is that it's the Prez's prerogative, and certainly all of the qualified possible nominees don't appear on that list.

Why do you think Lautenberg and Menendez will fall in line? There is absolutely no incentive for them to do so. Both they and the NJ Dem Party know that all they have to do is wait out Bush for 18 months and then Hillary can appoint a raging liberal that they'd love much better to the slot. With the Dems in control of the Senate and the SJC's blue slip policy, there is no reason why any nominee from a state with two Dem senators should be confirmed.

If Bush appoints ANYBODY not on the Warner/Webb list to one of the two open Virginia COA seats, Webb will be furious and will use it as an excuse to block BOTH nominees. It won't matter to him that the second blocked nominee may be someone of whom he initially approved. Bush should not give Webb (or RINO Warner for that matter) an excuse to block badly needed confirmations to the Fourth. Let's face it, none of the people on the Warner/Webb look terrible. With the exception of Ambro, all look solidly conservative. Why rock the boat when it's so unnecessary in this case?

Let's face it, the list provides Bush with good COA candidates which will get thru SJC, since Webb has signed off. If Bush really wants Stephen Smith, for example, he should vet it with Warner first, and then get his help to get Webb on board. That could probably be done, but don't take a ham-handed approach like he did in NJ, where Stone is DOA. Senators have huge egos - stroke them, play the game. The stakes are too high, and COA seats too important not to use every finesse in the books.

How does this monstrosity work? I thought the idea was that it was a way for home state senators to delay nominees (indefinitely apparently) but we've also see it with Brownback/Neff and Feingold with one or two non-WI nominees. What's the scoop? Could for example a single nutcase Senator blue-slip every nominee for four years?

Only a nominee's homestate senators can block him using blue slips. A single homestate senator can block a judicial nominee in committee by either returning a negative blue slip on him to the committee or simply not returning any blue slip at all concerning him to the committee. Presently, for example, Levin and Stabenow have refused to return blue slips on Kethledge and Murphy to the SJC. The only two circuit courts where this homestate policy doesn't apply to the nominees are the D.C. and Federal Circuits.

A hold is different from a blue slip. Any senator, homestate or not, can place a "hold" on a nominee in either committee or after they have been voted out of committee. A "hold" is merely the threat of a filibuster. If the Senate Majority Leader so wishes, he can bring the name of a nominee who has already been passed out of committee up for a vote at any time despite the fact that another senator has placed a "hold" on that nominee. But he runs a huge risk in doing so. Basically, he would be calling the bluff of the senator who placed the "hold". Before the actual vote, the holding senator can request a cloture vote on the nominee. If that senator is powerful enough he can filibuster the nominee by preventing the cloture vote from passing. Usually, the Senate Majority Leader refuses to bring up for a vote the name of anyone who has a hold placed against them. He doesn't want to be embarrassed if the threatened filibuster actually succeeds. Obviously if the Senate Majority Leader is opposed to the nominee, he wouldn't bring the person's name up anyway for a vote.

In Janet Neff's case, Brownback put a hold on her. During the last Congress, Brownback basically told Frist that he would filibuster Neff if Frist brought her name up. Being afraid of the result, Frist kowtowed to Brownback and didn't process her. That infuriated Levin and Stabenow, who in turn placed holds on Jonker and Mahoney, even thought they had earlier not blue-slipped the two in committee. The end result was that none of the Michigan three could get a confirmation vote in the 109th Congress.

In addition, Keisler couldn't get a committee vote last year because California's Feinstein placed a hold on him. That is why Kyl compromised with Feinstein in the Court Security Improvement Act I mentioned in an earlier comment. He wants her to remove her hold on Keisler. Recently, Feingold has placed two holds on judicial nominees. He just relented on New York's Roselynn Mauskopf but is holding firm on Mississippi's Leslie Southwick. Reid will never allow Southwick a vote as long as any Democrat senator is opposed to him.

See my comment in the next thread as to why the passage of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 is so important to Keisler's confirmation.

A district court judge in Ill:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070718-8.html

I thought the idea of a hold was similar to the now-automatic one-week delay, i.e. in order to give a Senator more time to look at the person. I guess the argument is the hold is not REALLY indefinite - it only lasts as long as the bluff isn't called. It's getting ridiculous with all these people never getting any sorts of votes either in committee or on the floor. We (wrongly) did our fair share of it and the Dems are escalating it. Force votes and if people get voted down they get voted down. How is that worse than leaving the seat open forever? If nothing else, maybe it helps fire up our base if the Dems vote down nominee after nominee instead of leaving them dangling forever with the full blessing of our side.

Sheesh the Dems spent all night crying let us vote - simple majority instead of 60. Heck it's bad enough when you can have 10 Senators in the SJC block nominees, which works out to needing 91 Senators supporting the nominee in order to get confirmed. Now we're getting to where if one Senator can block anyone indefinitely, you in effect need to have a unanimous vote for someone to get confirmed. Gee, needing 60 votes as compared to needing 91 or 100 doesn't seem so bad!

You are correct. A "hold" lasts as long as the Senate Majority Leader is willing to respect it. If the Senate Majority Leader wants to call the senator's bluff, then the "hold" ends when the final confirmation vote takes place. If a cloture vote on the nominee fails, then the senator who placed the original "hold" wins. The senator who places the original "hold" also wins if the Senate Majority Leader never brings the nominee's name up for a vote before the full Senate. Under the present situation, since Reid is a Democrat, a "hold" on a nominee by a Democrat senator permanently prevents that nominee from ever having a floor vote unless the offending senator first removes his "hold".

Although the surface reason behind the idea of the "hold" is to allow more debate on a nominee, its main purpose to derail a nomination. It can be used either against the nominee himself because the senator doesn't like him for a personal or ideological reason, or it can be used to force the President to do something that the senator wants as a form of political blackmail. Frequently, senators from both parties place holds on innocent nominees in order to force the President to address certain issues. For example, IIRC, Hillary once put a hold a FDA nominee because she didn't like one of the FDA's policies, not because she didn't like the nominee. She removed the hold when the policy was changed.

The dems will confirm him quickly. He's no conservative.

How can you be sure Tinder is not a conservative? This is disappointing if true, as Indiana is a conservative state, despite their pathetic Senator Bayh.

When he's confirmed quickly, you'll know why.

While I, like many others, am disgusted by the Democrats' treatment of Judge Southwick,one must be pragmatic. If shelving Southwick means quicker action on other nominees, particularly Stone, Conrad, Keisler, and the two Sixth Circuit judges, then I would be willing to tolerate Leahy's incomprehensible stalling of Southwick's committee vote. There is no proof that Haynes and Elrod are not strict constructionists, and the Fifth Circuit is in pretty strong Republican control anyway. It is the Fourth and Third Circuits that worry me the most-McConnell must really put the pressure on to confirm Conrad. I think now is the time for ultimatums- allow President Bush to appoint at least two judges on the Fourth Circuit, or pay the consequences in a probable Hillary Clinton presidency.