ConfirmThem

But do you remember how many of George W. Bush's Circuit nominees were confirmed during the last Presidential election year of 2004? Answer: 5! And that was with a Republican majority Senate and an incumbent President. Let's get real, as depressing as it is.

Just watched part of the latest Obama Speech of Empty Vacuity. Doubtless the semi-literate <30 leftist zombies were totally entranced. But of course he merely said Nothing (as usual) for 25 minutes. This kind of empty though verbose orator can usually go only so far (spare Change anyone?) until it starts being thin gruel even for morons. William Jennings Bryan lost 3 times doing this kind of junk, although with more specific references.

This rhetorical hamburger should be pretty rancid by November, except for leftist idiots. Let's hope that the leftist morons aren't a majority yet. In a world with any semblance of rationality, McCain & Company should cut him to pieces and fry him in the next 8 months. But what is there of substance to cut? Meanwhile, he may have performed the service of ridding us of the Clintons once and for all.

But I must admit, I'm somewhat worried whether those youthful zombie legions combined with idiot traditional Democrats will be enough to send us into an "ObamaNation" (abomination) next year. Every rational fiber of my being tells me that Obama is a 39% loser in the general election. But is this nation still rational?

First, Leahy will process Catharina Haynes. With her hearing tomorrow, she should get confirmed by the end of March. Then he will process Pratter. She should get confirmed by the end of May. Specter will not allow the more conservative Republicans on the committee to be aggressively disruptive until AFTER Pratter and his beloved Carolyn Short are confirmed. That leaves just two months (June and July) to debate about how "controversial" Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees are before Leahy shuts the whole process down after August due to the Thurmond Rule.

This should come as no surprise. The Democrats were never going to treat Republicans with any respect. I hope all of the people who said a loss would be good for the party are watching what's happening. The loss did nothing but lead to disasterous results. We've lost our ability to confirm judges and now we're about to head out into the wilderness for 10-15 years.

Good point about Specter muzzling Senate Republicans until Pratter and Short are confirmed.

Another thought: Short is nominated to Pratter's District seat, which technically won't be vacant and available until she resigns after her Circuit confirmation. Leahy & Co. might use this as an excuse to delay Short's hearing until at least after Pratter gets out of Committee, if not after her confirmation. That could enable them to waste another 2-3 weeks on a District-only hearing including Short,and put off any Circuit hearing for Keisler/4th Circuit nominee until the end of June, as well as keeping the Republicans quiet.

On the other hand, Specter will probably push for Pratter and Short to go through together as a package. We shall see.

What happened to the threats to shut down the Senate? Being a big fan of "hope", I am trusting that our team can wait until the Dems really, really want some piece of legislation; and then trade off for a judge or two. Payback, for a "change".

Note: Use of trademarked terms "hope" and "change" is with express permission of Obama '08. Any other use is strictly prohibited.

Keisler and others will only be confirmed after they have been re-nominated by President McCain.

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

The ABA has given Rod Rosenstein of the Fourth Circuit a WQ rating and William E. Smith of the First Circuit a WQ (sm)/Q(min) rating.

It's good news only if President McCain gets the chance to re-nominate Rosenstein and Smith next year. And even then, if Mikulski/Sarbanes-Cardin effectively filibustered that Maryland 4th Circuit seat for 8 years, who's to say that they won't do so for another 4?

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/remote-page.jsp?itemID=33513763

"Continuing his determination to nominate controversial judges with unfavorable records concerning civil rights, President Bush has asked the Senate to confirm Judge Gene Pratter, his nominee to the Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit.

Civil rights groups are concerned about Judge Pratter's seemingly dismissive and even hostile attitude to the rights of the disabled and those claiming discrimination in employment. A number of civil rights groups have opposed his nomination, including the Pennsylvania NAACP, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), and several disability rights groups."

At the moment, since there is no way that Specter can get Carolyn Short confirmed without Pratter getting confirmed first, I am not too worried about Pratter. The article even implies that Pratter's nomination is being fast-tracked:

"A hearing on Judge Pratter is expected in the Senate Judiciary Committee within the next month."

Although there have been a lot of foul-ups in the nomination process lately (i.e. the two open Virginia seats on the Fourth Circuit), whoever came up with idea of nominating Short to Pratter's district seat did a great job. By doing so, they have forced Specter into fiercely supporting a known conservative like Pratter if he wants to get Short the judgeship he feels she deserves.

I do, however, see one down side. If the liberals can successfully paint Pratter as "controversial" even if she gets confirmed, then it gives more ammunition to Reid and Leahy in their search to find reasons to block Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees - "Look how generous we have been in confirming ultraconservatives nominees like Southwick and Pratter! We simply cannot in good faith confirm people even more conservative than that like Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews."

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=4406&type=UTTM

"Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin have opposed Rosenstein’s nomination as well, saying that he does not have enough legal experience in Maryland and that he was not a consensus candidate for the position.

Spokeswomen for Cardin and Mikulski said the senators’ position on Rosenstein’s nomination has not changed as a result of the ABA’s recommendation.

“The ABA merely looks at legal experience,” Cardin spokeswomen Sue Walitsky wrote in an e-mail. “The concerns expressed by the Maryland senators are more state specific.”

Even if Mikulski and Cardin changed their positions, it would be a struggle for Rosenstein to be confirmed since senators from the party that does not hold the presidency are not eager to confirm judicial nominees near the end of a president’s term, said H. Mark Stichel of Baltimore’s Gohn, Hankey & Stichel LLP, who often argues before the federal courts.

“It’s unfortunate for Rod Rosenstein that when they finally get around to finding a good nominee, it’s the end of the president’s term,” Stichel said."

Cutting through the verbiage and garbage of liberal sources regarding the Rosenstein nomination: This whole matter is a bad joke. Look at the record of the last 7 (SEVEN!) years on this seat. Sometimes I get tired of writing new stuff about old controversies, and am tempted to look through the archives to simply quote one of the 10-15 posts I've written on this matter, nearly all to the effect that this is hopeless.

But this time it's easy: I'll just quote from my #8 above in this thread:

"It's good news only if President McCain gets the chance to re-nominate Rosenstein and Smith next year. And even then, if Mikulski/Sarbanes-Cardin effectively filibustered that Maryland 4th Circuit seat for 8 years, who's to say that they won't do so for another 4?"

Bottom line: Senate Dems regard this seat as their party fiefdom. So to the devil with it. Concentrate on Conrad and Virginia nominees (if the idiot Administration ever deigns to nominate any).

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/...

"By nominating Catharina Haynes to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, President Bush has chosen a widely praised, longtime insurance defense lawyer with a particularly attractive quality – no record on controversial issues, such as abortion or the death penalty.

This quality could prove important as the former Dallas judge goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for her confirmation hearing. Of the 29 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation, she's among the few to get a hearing.

As a Republican civil district judge from 1999 to 2006, Ms. Haynes was regarded for her intellect and respected by plaintiff's lawyers and corporate defense attorneys alike.

"She's honest, very thoughtful, highly intelligent, someone who's seen to be a fair and balanced judge to both sides," said her former campaign treasurer John Martin, who first met Ms. Haynes when she was a law clerk at Thompson & Knight."

according to our good friends at the Alliance for Justice.

Ref: http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/catharina-haynes-report.pdf

Exceprts...

Confirmation of Judge Haynes, whose record provides no assurances of a commitment to equal justice under law, would further jeopardize the administration of justice in a circuit that contains the highest percentage of minority residents and is notorious for its hostility to civil rights and equal justice under the law.

Confirmation of another nominee whose chief qualification is loyalty to the political agenda of the White House would further decimate the Fifth Circuit’s commitment to equal justice under law and cast doubt on the independence of this court of last resort for many Americans.

After reviewing the documents submitted to the committee, Alliance for Justice does not believe that Catharina Haynes is qualified to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The committee should perform its constitutional duty and reject this nomination.

http://www.afj.org/for-nonprofits-foundations/resources-and-publications...

The Alliance for Justice also hated Jennifer Walker Elrod, and she was easily confirmed. Since the resumes of Elrod and Haynes are very similar, and Haynes has a better ABA rating than Elrod, I think it will be next to impossible for the Dems to deny her confirmation. The Alliance for Justice even admits that the cases of Elrod and Haynes are almost indistinguishable:

"Jennifer Walker Elrod: Judge Elrod lacks experience that qualifies her for a lifetime seat on a federal appeals court. The short orders she issued during her time on the Harris County District Court in Texas contained no discussion of substantive law, and she had no record on significant issues of constitutional and federal statutory law regularly confronted by federal appeals courts. She also attempted to buck the Senate’s advice and consent role in the confirmation process, refusing to provide materials, including speeches made to political groups during her time as a Republican judicial candidate, to the Committee. She was confirmed in 2007.

Catherina Haynes: Her nomination sparks a sense of déjà vu, given the similarities to Judge Elrod’s nomination. Judge Haynes also possesses a thin record, and the materials she provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee gave no insight into her legal views or judicial temperament. Judge Haynes has not affirmatively demonstrated her commitment to equal justice for all, nor has she shown sufficient legal experience to handle the docket of a federal appeals court."

After Cardin chaired Elrod's hearing last July, he parroted the Alliance for Justice's complaints about her. I fully expect the Dems to do the same against Haynes at her hearing but then allow her to be confirmed. At this point, the Dems need Haynes' confirmation to prove that they are not blocking Bush's judicial nominees. They don't want yet to give the Republicans an election year issue - especially with a female nominee where no outstanding evidence exists to prove that she is radical ultraconservative.

I expect the heat to rise dramatically with Pratter, who has a much more developed judicial record. After Pratter is confirmed, the real hurricane will occur with a battle over Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees, only one of which is likely to get confirmed after a heated debate this summer.

The Alliance for Justice would totally disagree with you. From the AFJ article I linked to in my prior comment:

"Though viewed as a moderate on criminal justice issues, Judge Prado’s record reveals a crabbed interpretation of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as a begrudging attitude towards civil rights actions."

Courtesy of How Appealing,
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/02/jailhouse-justice...

"[Dick Cheney] had a strong debate-preparation team made up of longtime friends and GOP loyalists. Among them was Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV, a legislative director for Tennessee senator Bill Frist, who was on contract with the Bush/Cheney campaign. Puryear apparently did such a good job prepping Cheney that he was called in again in 2004 to help him gear up for his debate with Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards.

Puryear's efforts on behalf of the Bush administration paid off last June when the president nominated him to be a federal trial court judge for the Middle District of Tennessee. Puryear certainly isn't the first judicial nominee selected primarily for his political service, but still, his resume is remarkably thin on the practice of law, a basic prerequisite even for the best-connected political hacks."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMkuTaCQAeSYevidmzDKhTbzTFYwD8UUMT900

"Convinced that the well-connected Puryear was unqualified to be a federal judge and might face a conflict of interest overseeing litigation involving his former employer, Friedmann began a public relations campaign against the nomination that led all the way to the Senate."

I second your analysis of the CCA nominee prospects this year. Request that you clarify a crucial ambibuity in your second paragraph, where you wrote "only one of which is likely to get confirmed after a heated debate this summer." Does "which" refer to "4th Circuit nominees" in the preceding clause, or to "Keisler and the 4th Circuit nominees".

In other words. are you predicting only one post-Pratter confirmation, or that the Senate will confirm one of the 4th Circuit nominees and possibly Keisler too?

The pessimist in me thinks that there will only be one, but there is an outside chance that both Keisler and Conrad (or a Virginia nominee) could be confirmed, if the Administration and Senate Republicans really go to the mat on this.

Given a two month delay between COA nominations, I think there is at best a chance for only one confirmation after Pratter. It could be either Keisler or a Fourth Circuit nominee. IMHO, two confirmations after Pratter would be a real coup for Senate Republicans.