ConfirmThem

At least according to David Savage of the L.A. Times (courtesy of How Appealing),

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-judges2jan02,1,7304...

"After nearly seven years in the White House, President Bush has named 294 judges to the federal courts, giving Republican appointees a solid majority of the seats, including a 60%-to-40% edge over Democrats on the influential U.S. appeals courts.

The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges -- including his two Supreme Court appointees -- may serve for two more decades.

And despite the Republicans' loss of control of the Senate, 40 of Bush's judges won confirmation this year, more than in the previous three years when Republicans held the majority.

"The progress we have made this year . . . is sometimes lost amid the partisan sniping over a handful of controversial nominations," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a year-end statement."

I basically believe this to be Democrat hogwash. Why?

First, Bush will most likely NOT get as many COA judges confirmed as Clinton. He only has 57 confirmations now compared to Clinton's 65. There is no way I can see for Bush to get the 8 confirmations in 2008 he will need to tie Clinton's number.

Second, this already low number of COA confirmations for Bush will no doubt be diluted in the near future by the addition of 15 new COA judgeships under a Dem president in 2009.

Basically, it doesn't matter if Bush gets 100% of his district court nominees confirmed, if liberal courts of appeals won't affirm their decisions. IMHO, the Dems are simply misleading the public about the true impact of Bush's conservative impact on the federal judiciary with this constant talk about confirmation numbers involving Bush's distict court nominees. The impact will actually be much less than supposed if a Dem president is elected in 2008. Conservatives will be fighting to maintain parity in that case. All those Republican COA majorities highlighted by the Dems will rapidly evaporate.

than you put it, IMO. I do think Bush has done a lot of good, but in large part it is just resetting the balance to an acceptable level after 8 years of lefty Clinton picks. on the other hand, the total should really be 56 to 66, not 57 to 65. Gregory is Clinton's. and the dilution coming because of the soon-to-be-created seats which you point out is precisely why the percentage metric you and Leahy insist on using is a hideously ugly lie, unless they are added to the denominator.

the judiciary will barely survive if the Dems (God forbid) get 4 years in the WH. if they (God strike me dead instead of allowing me to see it) manage 8 years, they'll destroy the judiciary beyond repair.

1. At 50, Roberts was a whole decade younger than Ginsberg when she was appointed, plus he was for the Chief Justiceship. If we somehow get a 3rd pick in (a near impossibility at this point, I admit), there's clearly been more change on the SCOTUS, and for a longer duration.

2. Similarly, on average, it appears that Bush nominees to the CoA courts to lower courts are younger than Clinton's. I don't have the numbers to support this, though.

I just want to point out that the "hideously untruthful" percentage metric that you imply I am forcing upon Bush and the Republicans is not of my creation. It is an objective criteria that through careful analysis I have observed the Dems using. I use it only to make predictions of what the Dems will allow in 2008. That in no way means I either support or condone its use. It only means I want to be accurate in my predictions.

Ludicrous source, but

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4135

Bush is reportedly “livid” that Makasey went ahead with the investigation and even discussed firing the attorney general but senior administration officials talked the President out of taking an action that would add fuel to suspicions of a cover-up.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzBiMjdkZjcyYmQwMjYxZjM2NTg3MDc1...

"...the article’s prognosis is severely flawed, and its statistics are misleading.

Of the 98 sitting federal appellate judges appointed by Republican presidents, nearly half (46 of the 98) were appointed by President Reagan or President George H.W. Bush. There is ample reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of these judges will step down from active service at some point over the next eight years. So a Democratic president would rapidly transform the appellate courts from majority Republican appointees to majority Democratic appointees."