ConfirmThem

Block block block block. Don't stop in August.

If these moderates are going to go squishy on Iraq, they can at least bargain ALL of the Bush judges in exchange for their support post-September.

Republican Senators have been in discussions for weeks about how to get political mileage out of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but sources say talks in recent days have honed in specifically on the possibility of shutting down Senate business if Southwick fails to make his way out of committee to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote this month.
...
"Mitch really wants this," noted one senior GOP Senate aide. "Not only is he intellectually pure on this, but the fringe benefit is that it's exactly the kind of issue that gets us to unite and it energizes our base, which is badly fractured in the aftermath of the immigration debate."
...
"We have more to lose because we have the rest of our agenda to pass, but if they want to pick a fight over this judge we are more than willing to do so," argued one senior Democratic aide. "Sen. Reid is anxious to move judges as quickly as possible, but that doesn't extend to judges whose rulings are outside the mainstream of traditional jurisprudence."
...

"Let the full Senate vote on it," Specter added. "That's what the Constitution says - the Senate, not the committee, has the power to confirm or reject. If he loses, I'll abide by the will of the body, but I'm not going to sit still and allow him to be bottled up in committee."

Andrew,

With all due respect, I think this could be a great move. Let's turn this into a bumper sticker issue and get the base back into the game. With the Donks in charge, only bad things can come out of the Senate. So let's figure out how to gum it up and blame the D's at the same time. That's a win/win in my book. Bring it on!

I agree it's a great move, and didn't mean to imply the contrary. I slightly corrected the post, by deleting the word "mindless."

When is McConnell going to do this? It doesn't appear that the Iraq appropriations bill is being stalled at the moment. How long is Reid planning on debating it? The Senate is set to adjourn Friday, August 3rd. That leaves only three more weeks. If the Iraq appropriations bill must be passed before McConnell considers shutting down the session, I think the Dems get to eat up two at least a week or two there. In addition, it looks like the Dems will pass five district court nominations out of committee by Thursday that the Republicans will not block votes on. Then possibly on Thursday, July 26th, the Dems will pass Elrod and two more district court nominations out of committee, all of whom will require Senate votes in the week after that. Will McConnell block a vote on Elrod?

Basically, all this means is that McConnell won't dare to try to shut down the Senate until AFTER the August recess, and by that time the Dems could've potentially confirmed one COA nominations and seven district court ones. If that happens, the Dems will have effectively won any spin campaign to get Southwick confirmed because they can honestly tell the American people that they have worked hard recently to get Bush's nominees out of committee. That totally undercuts a shutdown of the Senate in September. In addition, will Specter and the RINO's really stop debate on their favorite bills (restoring GITMO habeas corpus rights, stem cell research)?

I see some big IFs in this strategy if McConnell actually tries it, mainly due to timing and RINO priorities. We have been burned by lip service before, and I am not sure we aren't being burned now.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070716/D8QDVRDG0.html

"The Senate this week will pull its first all-night debate on the Iraq war in advance of a vote on whether to bring home all combat troops by next spring, Democrats said Monday.

The rare, round-the-clock session Tuesday night through Wednesday morning is intended to bait Republicans into an exhaustive debate on the politically unpopular war, as well as punish GOP members for routinely blocking anti-war legislation.

"How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had?" said Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democrats are trying to ratchet up pressure on Republicans who have grown uneasy with the lack of progress and begun questioning President Bush's military strategy.

Republicans shrugged off the planned marathon debate as political theater. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans "welcome further debate" but that there was no reason why the Senate couldn't vote sooner."

I disagree with you on this one. If Republicans handle this skillfully and keep the focus on the Dems' blatant unfairness to an honorable and well-qualified Circuit nominee, Southwick, the Dems won't be able to slide out from the political onus by saying they passed some other judges. Confirming nominees x, y, and z doesn't absolve them from blame for shafting nominee S. That's another issue. McConnell and Co. will need to keep the issue mainly focused on Leslie Southwick, southern conservative and Iraq war veteran, and what the despicable Washington Democrat-leftists are doing to him.

And besides, with Elrod Democrats will have confirmed only one Circuit nominee since May 9th. District judge confirmations don't really count, although the Dems try to conflate the two. I know, the public is too stupid to know the difference. But I think the more cognescent group that follows this debate can be educated.

Here is a very long article in Judicature Magazine. It is full of wonderful minibiographies of Bush appointees in the 109th Congress who were rated WQ by the ABA. Otherwise it is too long to accurately summarize.

http://www.ajs.org/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/906/Goldman_906.pdf

I just read the above article. I have 2 points to make:

1. About mid-point in the article, it makes the point that the 5 or 6 controversial nominees in the last Congress took up all of the Senate's time and there was no time left for other nominees. One Democrat Senate aide even said that those nominees took up time that could have been used, but was not, to confirm other nominees. Could he mean Keisler?

2. In the part about the 6th COA, the article states that the 2 current 6th COA nominees are back on track. This contradicts everything else I have read about this situation.

As soon as almost all the "fatal" ones were out of the picture in January, the Dems replaced them with other "troubling" "turn back the clock" types. I'd say it's pretty much a given that regardless of how many slots there are to fill or how many people are nominated that Ralph Neas and Nan Aron and their puppets on the SJC will have a top five list.

I agree that the article is inaccurate in its conclusion concerning Kethledge and Murphy. I wonder when this article was actually written. In order to get to press by July, I would assume it had to be turned in before May, when Leahy made his speech saying that Kethledge and Murphy did not have the support of Levin and Stabenow.

Since the end of the 109th Congress, I have argued that Bush likely will only be able to fill 50-55% of the available COA seats in the 110th Congress. Although I really had high hopes about Keisler, now I am much more pessimistic about his chances for the reason you bring up: in order to make a display of their power in this Senate, the Dems will always have an "obstruction" list of nominees they wish to pummel.

We are not the only people confused by Specter's comments:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/specter-walks-tightrope-on-southwick...

but what's up with the repeated reference to "W. Bush"? Never once "President [George W.] Bush", "George W. Bush", or even "Mr. Bush" or just "Bush". It's "W. Bush" every time. I don't find it to be offensive or belittling (though its possible that's the intent), just a bit strange and perhaps unprofessional.

and BoBo, I once again must protest your percent rule, it being totally unconvincing. the Dems may be disingenuous and stupid enough to try and argue that line of reasoning, but that dog won't hunt with the public, and we shouldn't be trying to make that argument for the Dems.

the entire article has a bit (only slightly noticeable) of a stilted, ESL cadence. perhaps that's the explanation to my musing above.

is the quickest way to contrast him with his father, I suppose.

Interesting article about Specter. So Sen. Specter is now equivocating, how surprising! It will be interesting to see how much talk there is about Southwick leading up to Elrod's confirmation. If there is none, I think it will be a sign that Specter's recent passion was just more smoke and mirrors to deflect the criticism of conservative special-interest groups concerning the obstruction of Southwick.

Someone earlier questioned whether or not Specter would lie to the conservative special-interest groups he talked to in private on Tuesday. I think this article may answer that question in the affirmative.

I'm not a big Specter fan, but I disagree with your take on Specter's motivation here. Specter is the one that called the meeting with conservatives last week. There was no criticism of Specter by conservative groups that preceded it. The Hill article doesn't convince me that Specter is waffling, only that his tone is different when Leahy's in the room.

I do agree with your observations that the timing of Specter and McConnell's "fight", if there is one, is not very good.

Clik here man matura sex Porno Exibition sesso orale video porno amatoriali

excellent buy Paxil online buy cialis now buy zoloft now

Hi, ;-) buy levitra 10 mg online buy phentermine 37.5 mg online buy prescription viagra online what is vaigra online