ConfirmThem

If he was going to do it, it should have been months ago. Doing it now would shut down whatever few nominations might still make it through.

I believe that the argument presented in this article is not for President Bush to follow this course, but rather for the next president elected this fall to undertake such a policy.

If the Senate would set up some decent rules for processing nominees in some reasonable timetable, then there would be no need to try to get around it. And having chosen not to done so, it's clear that the Senate would therefore take offense at any attempt to get around the incredible obstacles set up by the world's greatest deliberative body and would make sure that they can continue to do nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&or...

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring

Funny how the fact that Spitzer is a Democrat never finds its way into the title or opening paragraph.

Do you think the Republicans in Congress are going to allow the obstruction of the past 7 years to just stop? If, God help us, a Democrat is in the White House, it will be similar to Sherman's march to the sea. No tactic of obstruction will be off limits. This is only going to escalate.
What judge of any value is going to accept a recess appt. with no hope of actually getting confirmed? Give up lucrative law practice for a year or so on the bench--I think not.

will there be a discussion at this site re the legal and judicial ramifications of the Gov. Spitzer situation? Even as our hearts go out to his family.

Now that Bush's term is nearly over and a Democrat-Socialist takeover may be imminent in 2009, we will doubtless hear incessant proposals to bury the hatchet and restore cooperation and comity--in 2009! How convenient for Dem-Libs.

I have an alternative proposal. Comity and order in the judicial confirmation process can be restored: IF AND ONLY IF the Senate confirms virtually all of Bush's nominees, and EVERY CCA NOMINEE. Otherwise, NO DEAL!

And a scorched-earth policy on judicial nominations in the Senate from 2009 onwards if Clinton(s) or Obaminable is elected.

Although I think judicial filibusters are unconstitutional, I think the Senate Republicans should use them against the most liberal COA nominees of a Dem president in 2009. The use of the judicial filibuster should not, however, be used indiscriminately against any and every Dem nominee. That would make it lose its public relations value. Rather, it should be used to highlight the deficiencies of particularly partisan and ideological nominees. If the Dems decide then to use the nuclear option to get rid of judicial filibusters, then so much the better: an unconstitutional tool of obstruction will have been eliminated.

The Republicans just need to be honest about why they are using the judicial filibuster. Because the Dems used it to avoid confirming "ultraconservative" nominees, the Republicans need to point out that they are just using it to avoid confirming "ultraliberal" nominees.

In general, the one exception in my mind would be if the nominee is up for the Supreme Court. In the case of qualified nominees like Diane Wood, Merrick Garland, Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan, the Republicans need to allow the nominee to be processed, but all the Republicans in the Senate should vote against him/her in the final vote.

I might change my mind about using a filibuster against a Dem nominee to the Supreme Court who is not qualified either professionally or by temperament. Kathleen Sullivan in my opinion is not qualified because she failed the California Bar Exam. Harold Koh is not qualified because he is a bitterly liberal partisan. His tenure at Yale Law School proves this. I am not sure about politicians. It would depend on who the nominee is. Elliot Spitzer now would be the perfect example of a Dem politician who should be filibustered.

Even the most liberal nominee should not be filibustered, but I would support a filibuster (though I am fundamentally opposed to it) until a permanent rules change is made to the Senate.

The Senate should make a rule stating it has 90 days (just a suggestion, but make it some reasonable amount of time) to hold hearings on a nominee. Then the Senate has another 90 days to give an up or down vote in the chamber (not the committe - the committee would need to do it faster). If the senate fails to do that, the nominee is automatically confirmed.

The filibusters and obstruction MUST STOP. But it can't stop for the next admin if it is a Democrat, and then start again with a Republican gets in.

Also, some type of reasonable 'compensation' must also be given to those filibusters. For example, a President Obama should be required to renominate two of Bush's COA nominees (similar to what Bush did).

Thanks to the decades-long judicial noninee wars of endless retribution and revenge, I'm finally beginning to understand the blood feud cycles and revenge mentality of the Balkans and the Middle East.

With very few more Bush nominee confirmations to come, a peace deal this year or next would be tantamount to SURRENDER. It would reward the Democrats for 8 years of atrocious and despicable obstruction, and allow a Democrat President in to roll through dozens of nominees in 2009 to vacancies that should rightfully have been filled by Bush. This would be REWARDING Democrats for their years of obstruction and destruction.

If McCain is elected this year, then the time would be ripe for a deal to resolve this endless impasse. However, does anyone here seriously believe that the Democrats would sign on to a deal (unless we virtually surrender the nominating power) in those circumstances? Perpetual check. An end will only come if conservatives surrender and allow themselves to be checkmated.

Expect the Liberal media and academia to suddenly be full of ideas for ending the confirmation wars in the next year or so (after it's too late to confirm more than a handful of Bush nominees. Don't fall for these conveniently-timed liberal "peace proposals."

they figure they've got a shot at 60 seats and then they can cram dozens of the most leftwing judges in in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency.

The judicial filibuster is a Pandora's box. It never should've been opened. However, since the Dems insisted upon opening it, they should be made to feel some of the misery and sorrow that comes with it. If there are more than 40 Republican senators in the 111th Congress, they should strategically use the judicial filibuster to wreck havoc with the most liberal of a new Dem president's judicial nominees. No liberal nominee should get a free pass just because there is a Dem president with a Dem-controlled Senate. After all, the Dems didn't give any conservative nominee a free pass when there was a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate in the 108th and 109th Congresses. I say fight fire with fire. Maybe the Dems might even be pressed into getting rid of the unconstitutional procedure with the nuclear option.

Both in New York.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080311-6.html

"President Bush continues to stonewall the judicial nomination process by failing to nominate qualified people for X number of open seats, including N that are considered judicial emergencies."

Both of today's new district court nominees are from New York. In the past, with the possible exception of Mary Donohue, the White House has worked well with Schumer and Clinton in finding district court nominees. The last one, Duddaby, was praised by Schumer.

The two new nominees are:

Kiyo A. Matsumoto, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, vice Edward R. Korman, retired.

Cathy Seibel, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Richard Conway Casey, deceased.

Casey's position is a judicial emergency.

Matsumoto appears to be a judicial rising star. She is currently a magistrate judge:

http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/General_Information/Court_Phone_Book/Magist...

"Kiyo A. Matsumoto is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York. At the time of her appointment in 2004, she was a Senior Trial Counsel at the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York, Civil Division. Judge Matsumoto is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and the Georgetown University Law Center, where she was a legal research and writing fellow.

Following her graduation from law school, Judge Matsumoto was a litigation associate at MacDonald, Hoague and Bayless in Seattle, Washington. Thereafter, she joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, where she was appointed as a Deputy Chief, First Deputy Chief and Chief of the Civil Division. She also served as Chief of the Financial Litigation Unit, Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator and Senior Trial Counsel. During her tenure at the United States Attorneys Office, she also served as an instructor in civil litigation, financial litigation and trial advocacy at the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute, the National Advocacy Center, and Office of Legal Education of the United States Department of Justice."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040621/ai_n14578219

"KIYO MATSUMOTO, who grew up in Oakland and graduated from Skyline High School, is a rising star in New York judicial circles with her appointment to the federal bench as a magistrate judge in Brooklyn.

She was sworn in at an impressive ceremony attended by up to 20 judges in her district, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk and Staten Island, known as the Eastern District of the New York Federal Court."

"Kiyo is proud of being the first Japanese-American woman on the district's bench but is quick to add that women outnumber men as judges in the jurisdiction of 8 million people."

As a Japanese-American female, Matsumoto might be very difficult for Schumer and Clinton to oppose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/nyregion/16mbrfs-NOMINEES.html?_r=2&bl...

"Senator Charles E. Schumer announced yesterday that he had recommended two women to the White House to fill vacant posts on the federal bench in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Mr. Schumer recommended Kiyo Ann Matsumoto, a United States magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York, for the opening on United States District Court in Brooklyn. If nominated and confirmed, Judge Matsumoto would become the first Asian-American judge in that court. He also recommended Cathy Seibel, the deputy United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the district court posting in Manhattan."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January08/executivestaffchan...

"Mr. Dassin replaced Cathy Seibel, who has been recommended by Senator Charles Schumer for a position as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and who will serve as First Assistant United States Attorney while she is under consideration. Ms. Seibel joined the office as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Criminal Division in September 1987. She also served as Chief of the General Crimes Unit, Assistant United States Attorney-in-charge of the White Plains Branch, and Senior Trial Counsel, prior to becoming Deputy United States Attorney in September 2005. Ms. Seibel is a 1982 graduate of Princeton University, and a 1985 graduate of Fordham University School of Law. Prior to joining the Office, Ms. Seibel clerked for United States District Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin in the Eastern District of New York."

From last week:

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/remote-page.jsp?itemID=33711741

"Majority Leader Reid said the Senate would fall short of confirming about 15 judicial nominees before President Bush's term is up, the average number Republicans argue are confirmed during a president's final two years when the opposing party controls the Senate.

Reid gave a flat-out "no" Tuesday when asked if the Senate would come close to 15 nominees. Senate Minority Leader McConnell said earlier in the day he was optimistic."

Can we expect our Democratic friends in the Senate to stonewall them while demanding more "paper" and "answers" re firings of other US Attorneys? Nothing would surprise me any more.

...the clarification they printed the next day:

CLARIFICATION
In a story in Wednesday's CongressDailyAM, Senate Majority Leader Reid was quoted as saying "no" when asked if the Senate would be able to confirm 15 of President Bush's judicial nominations before Bush left office. While a transcript reflects that Reid's answer was offered to that question, an aide said Reid was actually responding to another part of a multi-pronged question about whether he was close to reaching a deal with Bush over stalled nominees

Wow. Two racially and gender P.C. nominees from New York. Forgive me if I fail to instantly leap from my chair in wild bursts of unbridled enthusiasm. Meanwhile, no nominees for longstanding vacancies in states with 1 or 2 Republican Senators (PA-West, Miss., Missouri). And by the way, has ayone else noticed that the 10th Circuit is suddenly riddled with District vacancies.

It's all rather moot anyway. Leahy & Co.'s failure to hold even a miserable District nominee hearing this month breaks the one-hearing per month pattern of 2007-08, and clearly indicates that a District nominee slowdown is now in full swing. So these nominees probably won't get confirmed anyway, or if so it will be in place of more important nominees.

I agree with you that it would be nice if the White House hurried up and nominated a lot more district court nominees from states with one or two Republican senators. I don't know why the White House vetting process has fallen apart so completely after the confirmation of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Initially, I blamed the White House's unnecessary slowdown on the incompetence of Harriet Miers as White House Counsel, but the delays have continued on long after her resignation. I guess Miers initially broke the system, and the White House has been too bothered fighting off the Democrats since the 2006 election to try to fix it. But I must say, two new judicial nominees is better than no new judicial nominees, even if those two are from New York.

It is not necessarily better to have these two nominees than to have none. From what I've read these are Schumer nominees. For that very reason they may indeed be confirmed. That would come at the cost of displacing 2 presumably more conservative previously-nominated district nominees from other states.