ConfirmThem

Great work as always, I'll be interested to see how it plays out since I live in Georgia and we've pushed similar laws here.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

our candidates are narrowing, aren't they?

What do you think of the estimates that Thompson will peak the day he announces? If that's the case, that would leave you with one candidate to support. Why not just get on the Mitt bandwagon and make a difference ASAP?

I appreciate the recruitment attempt, it implys that I might be useful to the campaign.

The answer to why wait is that I'd like some time to see the two of these guys go at it so that when I jump on the bandwagon, its one that will pick up enough momentum to stream roll McCain and Rudy.

I'd still vote for any of the big Four in November 2008, but I'd have to hold my nose to do it for Rudy or McCain.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

esp. the sharp and savvy writers at this site and thread. I'm strictly a part time behind the scenes volunteer. For me, part of the joy is picking the right person early and working for that person.

Some years (like 96) I go through 5 candidates before getting to the one I wind up voting for in the General. 00 I backed W. and didn't have to change.

People are just now realizing what a great organization (read, great people) the Romney campaign has on staff--in Iowa and elsewhere.

Yes, he's great at fund raising. Yes, that fund raising has helped with ads that have improved his poll numbers (in Iowa, for sure). But there's also a there there, that people are realizing and responding to.

End of soap box, for now.

I just don't understand why some people have a problem with presenting a photo ID to vote. What do those people have to hide? What is wrong with being identified by your picture? Hundreds of strangers see me at work and in my neighborhood everyday. I am not paranoid about them being able to identify me. As far as I know, neither money nor availabilty should be an issue with these voter ID cards. Most of the photo ID laws allow people to use a passport or state ID instead of a driver's license if the person doesn't drive. Most also make the state ID's free for poor people. Some people have complained about how far away the locations of the state offices which create the cards may be, but I view that as a frivolous response. Where there is a will, there is a way. An active, alert senior citizen or poor person who really wants to vote will find a way to go to the appropriate government office - just like the person who really wants to drive will find the closest Department of Motor Vehicles office in order to get a driver license.

The three legitimate cases of no photo ID are:

1) the elderly who no longer drive (of course, my grandma stopped driving when she was 23 so elderly is relative).

2) People over 21 who don't have a license yet (I know 2 myself)

3) People who are too poor to own cars and/or drive.

The Georgia legislature has tried to offset this issue by allowing for FREE photo IDs to be made available; however, a Democratic judge did not think the program was sufficient.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://pda-appellateblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html#8342161843...

Leahy and the Dems are planning to add a lot of new COA judgeships soon. The hitch is they only want the new openings to become available AFTER George Bush leaves office. Obviously, the Dems feel pretty confident that a President Hillary or Obama will be able to fill all the new slots. Just to be nasty, the Republicans should filibuster the bill until the 111th Congress so it will take a while in 2009 to work out the details of the plan.

The article contains a quote from Senator Kyle that indicates he understands just what the Dems are doing. Could this even be filibustered if it is placed in the budget, which is not subject to a filibuster? If this is allowed to happen, it could reverse the last 7 years of progress of the COAs. In the past year or so I have begun to notice more conservative rulings from COAs.

Does anyone think we will be forced to accept all of these new positions in return for Keisler? Is an 8-3 majority on the DC Circuit worth it?

when the last batch of judgeships was created in 1990, there were many that were left empty for Clinton to fill in 1993 and beyond. Even if they passed it today, they wouldn't need to feel pressured to let Bush fill very many of them at all, though it would lessen the argument to not let him fill the currently existing vacancies. McConnell could easily push for 20 or so in that case, and the Dems certainly couldn't get away with confirming less than the current goal of 15-17.

the knowledge that a bunch more are about to be created effectively nullifies the only remotely legitimate reason for slowing confirmations (leaving a suitable number for the next president).

Unfortunately, a lot of this problem with new judgeships would not have occurred if Sensenbrenner had not tied the issue of more judges to the issue of splitting up the 9th Circuit. Thanks, Jim, for a potentially very liberal judiciary in the future!

but he was, and is, right. the 9th circuit simply has to be split. I don't think you can blame him.

the judiciary won't shift too greatly to the left with a one term Dem, though the opportunity to set the courts on the correct path would be delayed yet again. especially since nearly half of the proposed seats would be on the 9th circuit which can't get effectively any more liberal anyway (though it's surprisingly not that far from becoming at least reasonably moderate, if we hold the White House in 2008).

I do fear that a Giuliani presidency would be at best a push regarding the judiciary, as I think he's liable to nominate as many libs (and if not libs, though I do think he'd appoint some, certainly a bunch of squishy moderates) as he does conservatives. considering most of the judges he'd be replacing are Reagan and Bush I appointees, it doesn't take long for that to turn into a net loss. and he'd probably split the new seats with the Dems.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges/2007recommendations.html

Here is the breakdown of what the U.S. Judicial Conference is recommending in terms of new COA judges:

1) First Circuit - 1 new permanent judgeship to add to 6 old ones
2) Second Circuit - 2 new permanent judgeships to add to 13 old ones
3) Third Circuit - 2 new permanent judgeships to add to 14 old ones
4) Sixth Circuit - 2 new permanent judgeships to add to 16 old ones
5) Eighth Circuit - 1 new permanent judgeships to add to 11 old ones
6) Ninth Circuit - 5 new permanent and 2 temporary judgeships to add to 28 old ones.

A close examination of the circuits involved reveals that almost all the new judgeships will be created in circuits already controlled by Democrat senators. Only one of the six involved circuits is controlled by enough Republican senators to make a differenc: the Eighth.

Kennedy will not allow any more conservatives on the First Circuit. Leahy, Schumer and Clinton will not allow any more conservatives on the Second Circuit. Biden, Reed, Lautenberg and Menendez will not allow any more conservatives on the Third, and Feinstein, Boxer, Murray and Cantwell will not allow any more conservatives on the Ninth Circuit.

The only compromise I think the Democrats would be willing to make is to allow Bush to fill the ONE new Eighth Circuit position. Basically, the First, Second, Third and Sixth Circuits would become solidly liberal if a Dem president is elected in 2008. The Ninth would remain the most liberal court in the land.

I do blame Sensenbrenner. He knew perfectly well that Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate would NEVER allow the Ninth Circuit to be split under a conservative Republican president. He knew that any such attempt would trigger a Democrat-led filibuster of the specific legislation that sought to do so. So why did he keep attaching a much needed increase in judgeships to a split of the Ninth Circuit? It is as if he wanted to deprive Bush of the ability of adding more conservative judges to the federal bench. A Ninth Circuit split would've only minimally reduced the liberalism of the new Ninth Circuit, but with an increase in judges, Bush could've made the First, Second, Third and Sixth Circuits solidly conservative. IMHO, the trade-off between reducing one's court liberals at the expense of the conservatism of FOUR courts was not worth it. No, Sensenbrenner had the wrong set of priorities in a situation where the Dems in the Senate were wielding the filibuster.

IMHO, the trade-off between reducing one court's liberalism at the expense of the conservatism of FOUR other courts was not worth it.

I am worried about 2008, but it is way too early to resign ourselves to defeat. Those seats may still be filled by one of ours.

I remember the overconfidence of the Republicans in 2004-2005 coming off a convincing Bush reelection and a 55-45 Senate election. There was unrealistic talk about a permanent majority and a fillibuster proof Senate. Alot changed in 18 months. The Dems have real problems and Hillary, while formidable, still has electability issues.

I am a Thompson fan, but I am willing to vote for any of the Republican front-runners in the general election, even though I may have problems with some of them. Any of them is better than any of the Dems. We can't let the perfect get in the way of the good and defeat of the terrible.

old circuit in parentheses for states with a proposed move:

1st (New England) Circuit: ME, NH, VT*(2), MA, CT(2), RI, PR**
2nd (MidAtlantic North) Circuit: NY, NJ(3), DE*(3)
3rd (MidAtlantic South) Circuit: PA, WV(4), MD(4)
4th (Southern) Circuit: VA, NC, SC, TN(6)
5th (Gulf Coast West) Circuit: TX, LA, MS
6th (Midwest East) Circuit: MI, OH, IN(7), KY
7th (Midwest West) Circuit: IL, WI, MN(8)
8th (Plains) Circuit: MO, AR, IA, OK(10), KS(10), NE, ND, SD
9th (Hippy Quarantine) Circuit: CA, HI
10th (Southwest) Circuit: CO, NM, UT, AZ(9), NV(9)
11th (Gulf Coast East) Circuit: FL, GA, AL
12th (Northwest) Circuit: WA(9), OR(9), AK*(9), ID(9), MT(9), WY (10)

*alternatively, DE could stay in the 3rd Circuit, with (if we're concerned about having at least 3 states in a circuit, in which case AK could be retained by the 9th) or without a retention of VT by the 2nd circuit

** it might make sense to move PR under the jurisdiction of the 11th circuit.

I'd keep the headquarters of each circuit the same, though there are reasonable geographic arguments to be made for moving the 4th and 10th circuits, from Richmond to Charlotte and from Denver to Phoenix or Salt Lake City, respectively. I would suggest Portland for the home of the new 12th circuit, though Seattle would also be a strong contender.

If Bush doesn't get to fill the seats, and the 9th isn't split, what exactly do we gain?

I too have often planned a reorganization of the circuits, but it is unlikely for practical reasons that Congress would allow as radical a reorganization as yours. The main problem is circuit precedence. For example, Tennessee presently uses 6th Circuit precedence which is much more liberal than the 4th Circuit precedence you would put it under. Literally thousands of lawyers would have to be retrained.

Basically, I would make three changes to the present configuration:

1) I would split the present 9th into a new 9th and new 12th.

New 9th - California, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, Marianas Islands

New 12th - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana

2) I would move Arizona to the 10th Circuit.

3) I would move Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guantanamo to the 11th Circuit. Guantanamo should only be moved AFTER its terrorist facility has been closed.

This was recommended several years ago. Is maddening that it was not passed 2 years ago when we had 55 Senators.

We should only allow it to pass only after all current COA judgeships are confirmed. And then require Bush permission to fill about 40% of the judgeships - equally distributed among DJ and COA.

Regarding Quin's post, a Sykes nomination to the Supreme Court may happen, but I would not look forward to reading what Catholic-phobes like Geoffrey Stone would have to say about such a nomination, especially if she were to join the Court's other Catholics in overturning Roe v. Wade. However, I doubt very much that Judge Sykes would do that, and not just because of the anti-Catholic anger it would arouse. Given her views about the Equal Protection Clause (in the case of Wisconsin v. Oakley), it seems like she views that clause as a very flexible guarantor of reproductive freedom.

Anyway, I still have to do some reading about Allison Eid at the library. She's written a lot of stuff, none of which I have read. (I also have no idea what religion Eid adheres to, if any, and am not even sure it's something worth finding out.) Priscilla Owen is also still looking very good as a SCOTUS nominee.

I made a post a while back, suggesting that she could get ~52 votes. I don't think the White House or the GOP senate has the fight in them, though.

We won't see any Robert Borks.

Your analysis of Sykes once again hinges on one single case where you disagree with her. IMHO, one obscure case does not tarnish a whole career. It is a similar situation to the White House blackballing Michael McConnell because of one his more obscure opinions. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. In addition, you don't even mention or give credence to the reason why the liberals are afraid of Sykes overturning Roe. As a local judge, she once praised some abortion protesters for their work before she sentenced them for their protest according to the law. That makes it pretty clear to me that she is not in favor of abortion in any form.

I don't know why you keep trotting out your dislike of Sykes without examining her judicial decisions as a whole, especially her opinions as a federal judge.

Why don't you read Sykes' opinions in the following 7th Circuit cases and give your analysis of them before you bash her again with Wisconsin v. Oakley?

Winkler v. Gates
Laskowski v. Spellings
Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Chao
Brooks v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents
Dunn v. Washington County Hospital

There is no way if anyone reads these cases that he could argue that Sykes would not make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court.

There is absolutely no way that Priscilla Owen can be confirmed to the Supreme Court in the 110th Congress. She is DEAD ON ARRIVAL for several reasons:

1) She has already been filibustered once for her COA seat. Reid, Leahy AND the Gang of 14 told the White House in 2005 that if she was nominated for SCOTUS that she would be filibustered again. In actuality, now the Democrats don't even have to filibuster her. They could easily wait her and Bush out for the next 18 months by simply ignoring her in committee.

2) Despite her credentials, she reeks of Texas cronyism. The Dems could easily tar-and-feather her with her status as a Rove protegee and presidential friend. She also in the past has had close ties to Harriet Miers.

3) She did not give a dynamic performance in her COA hearing. She came across as a scared school-marm. The Dems could easily twist her image in a confirmation hearing if they ever even allowed her one.

4) Her opinions are at times very dull and plodding. Sykes for one is a much better writer.

they're better, no doubt, but I seriously question whether anyone who got as much opposition as she did (which of course includes, only moreso, Owen, and Brown) has much prospect of confirmation for a SCOTUS vacancy in a Democrat-controlled Senate. that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a risk worth taking, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking she has more than an inch of an opening where Owen has a mere centimeter (at best). I'd throw a party if either were nominated of course, and two if they were confirmed ;)

I guess it must be pretty clear to you that Ted Kennedy is not in favor of abortion in any form. After all, Sen. Kennedy commented as follows about Jane Roberts's work at Feminists for Life: "I admire her for that."

Regarding the five cases you cite, I would be glad to read some of them. Please tell me which one of those opinions denies that the Equal Protection Clause protects reproductive freedom. After all, four dissenting justices wrote in Gonzales v. Carhart that the Equal Protection Clause does protect reproductive freedom, and that's also what Judge Sykes wrote in Wisconsin v. Oakley.

Even if I'm mistaken, and she would overturn Roe v. Wade, still I suspect that such an overturning would be made somewhat less likely or less durable, by nominating another Catholic to the Supreme Court. The same could be said of nominating another male to the Supreme Court. I don't like it, but there you have it.

You neglect to mention that Sykes used the equal protection clause in Wisconsin v. Oakley to say that government cannot prevent the CREATION of human life. On the other hand, Ginsburg in Gonzales v. Carhart used the equal protection clause to say that government cannot prevent the DESTRUCTION of human life. Are trying to imply that the creation of human life should be treated the same legally as its destruction? I don't think Sykes would agree with you.

I don't think the Equal Protection Clause makes any distinction between creation and destruction of non-persons. And no justice of the Supreme Court has ever said that a fetus is a "person" within the meaning of the Constitution.

Not for 18 months, anyway.

As much as we talk about it, the Judiciary is not the most important issue to the public. Effectively shutting down the Senate for an entire Congress is not only terrible precedent, it's terrible politics.

Sykes should be an easier confirmation. She got about 20 dem votes to the circuit courts, and I highly doubt she loses all 20 of them.

" Are trying to imply that the creation of human life should be treated the same legally as its destruction? I don't think Sykes would agree with you."

You know, this sounds a whole lot like the argument that the Seattle School district used:

Is the division of students by race to integrate our schools different than the division of students by race to segregate them?

Are you saying that the division of races for any reason is equal to or more important than the creation or destruction of actual human life itself?

I disagree with you. The Dems most certainly can ignore a SCOTUS nominee like Owen in committee. All they have to do is give out constant and continual misinformation concerning Owen's conservative jurisprudence and judicial activism (remember Gonzales' remarks about her?) in order to get the public on their side. Here is a prospective Leahy speech about Owen:

"It is with great sorry that we the Democrat members of the Senate Juciciary Committee announce our decision not to process the president's nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Supreme Court. A close examination of her past record reveals a nominee whose extreme views do not deserve consideration from this committee. We have no intention of allowing a person who has been called a judicial activist in the past by one of her conservative peers on the Texas Supreme Court to be confirmed to the highest court in the land . She would destroy years of precedents concerning civil rights. We hope that our actions today in blocking Ms. Owen in committee will force President Bush to realize what a destructive move for American society the confirmation of Ms. Owen would be. We hope he re-evaluates this situation, and we await his withdrawal of her nomination and the nomination of a person more concerned with the rights of everyday Americans."

I'm not trying to compare right to life stuff with affirmative action, no. All I am saying is that when dealing with something as broadly definable as "equal protection", we should be careful of the consequences and the flip side of the coin. A ruling like Wisconsin v Oakley does have a bad flip side.

On ignoring a nominee, I don't think even Warner, Collins, and Snowe would tolerate an outright committee rejection. They might be able to ignore a nominee 6 months before election day, or at most a year before. But 18 months before? If the Alito cloture vote told us anything, it's that half the Democratic caucus isn't insane enough to throw away 200 years of precedent on these confirmations.