ConfirmThem

for the request for an open thread. Not bad from the man behind the curtain!

Fox News had Luntz do real time evaluating of today's GOP debate. They showed the conservative and moderate lines during the debate.

Right after the debate, Fox News went to where Luntz was with his 25 Republicans. He said something remarkable had happened. He first asked for a show of hands as to how many came in to the debate supporting Romney. 8 raised their hands. He next asked how many were now supporting Romney. The initial 8 raised their hands and at least 8 more raised their hands. All Iowans. All Republicans. Hmmmmmmm.

Fred also did well and I'm hoping that there is a shift away from Huck.

Romney is my #2 behind Fred.

I'd love a Fred/Romney or Romney/Fred ticket.

Oz

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_suga13_12-13-07_168...

"President Bush is misusing nominations for lifetime judgeships to provoke unnecessary fights He has refused even to consult with home-state U.S. senators on a series of pending nominations, including trial Judge William E. Smith for the only Rhode Island-based seat on the six-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, and Lincoln D. Almond to be a federal trial judge in the state. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D.-Vt.) suggested that this failure to consult with Rhode Island’s senators was “playing politics.”

Indeed, the overall pattern reveals that President Bush is pandering to his right-wing base by turning judicial nominees into political pawns chosen because they will not be confirmed by the Senate. Creating unnecessary vacancies provides fodder for unjustifiable “obstructionist” charges against senators who have confirmed hundreds of Bush judges."

Although the author of the piece neglects to point out that Bush's COA nominees are all professionally qualified, he does a pretty good job of reviewing the liberal case against almost all of Bush's white male COA nominees. Interestingly, he doesn't mention either Catharina Haynes or Gene Pratter. FWIW, the author is the senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice, not exactly a conservative organization.

If Romney is the nominee, I have one problem with Fred being the VP - and that is that it will leave the GOP in 2016 without an heir apparent again because Fred will be too old (and I hope he will recognize it, too.)

I think that Henry Bonilla would be an excellent selection for Mitt Romney to make, and he's a big Romney supporter.

President Mitt Romney
Vice President Henry Bonilla
White House Chief of Staff Newt Gingrich
OMB Director Ken Blackwell

Secretary of State Fred Thompson (or Phil Gramm)
Secretary of the Treasury Meg Whitman (or Phil Gramm)
Secretary of Defense Rudy Giuliani
Attorney General or Solicitor General Miguel Estrada
Secretary of Homeland Security Bob Beauprez
Secretary of Agriculture Dick Armey
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tommmy Franks

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bruno-prosecuto...

"The federal prosecutor investigating state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has been nominated for a position on the federal bench.

The White House announced the nomination of Glenn Suddaby Tuesday.

Suddaby has been investigating links between Bruno's business associates and their dealings with the state."

"Suddaby's nomination is supported by Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator and an influential Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Schumer called him "an accomplished professional with an impressive career in law enforcement."

He's fine. Bruno's been a dirty politician for ages, as are most of the politicians in Albany. Nothing new there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR200712...

"Christmas is usually a time when controversial nominees for top federal jobs wait for Santa, in the form of the president of the United States, to come down the chimney with their recess appointments.

Maybe not this year. Word is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in order to prevent President Bush from handing out those goodies, is now thinking about keeping the Senate in session during the Christmas-New Year's break, which starts at the end of next week and continues until the Senate returns in mid- to late January.

The unusual maneuver, which Reid first used during the recent Thanksgiving vacation, would block Bush from using his constitutional power -- derived from the days when the Senate could be out of session for months -- to fill vacancies. Such appointments made now would be valid through the end of Bush's presidency."

There was actually a judicial confirmation yesterday - Thapar in a District Court seat in Kentucky.

I've no clue why he was confirmed and not the three others who are pending on the Executive Calendar (including Tinder for the 7th Circuit) or whether there's a schedule for the others.

http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/258804.html

"Federal prosecutor Amul Thapar has won Senate confirmation to become a federal judge in the eastern half of Kentucky.

Thapar replaces Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood, who took senior status in October and will handle a reduced caseload. Thapar was nominated by President Bush for the judgeship in May.

Thapar has served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Before that, he worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Ohio and in the District of Columbia.

He is a graduate of Boston College and earned a law degree at the University of California.

Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says Thapar will make an outstanding federal judge. He says Thapar is a man of "unquestionable ethics and integrity."

Thapar's confirmation was by voice vote, not yeas and nays.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/kye/usattorney/index.html

"Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Thapar served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Ohio. During his tenure, Mr. Thapar assembled a team of agents and investigators to serve as the Southern Ohio Mortgage Fraud Task Force, and successfully prosecuted approximately 40 defendants engaged in mortgage fraud. In 2005, Mr. Thapar successfully prosecuted the owner of the Florence Freedom for, among other things, bank fraud and election fraud. Also, in 2005, Mr. Thapar led a successful investigation and prosecution into a conspiracy ring that provided illegal aliens with state-issued driver’s licenses."

Lapante and Schroeder were confirmed today. Both by unanimous consent.

The only judge left on the executive calendar is Tinder. I guess he will be confirmed next week.

Here's a request from a layman who often lurks silently at COnfirmThem (and has from day one).

I would appreciate any stories on SCOTUS cases upcoming for the year and predictions, as well as reviews on arguments when they get made.

I understand the value of confirmations, but they are the offseason "drafts" to the regular season "games" (court decisions). Those of us in the lay universe (or at least I) would appreciate any education we could get in these areas. The confirmation discussions are terrific! I just feel the other sites I can go to for SCOTUS news are either to leftist and/or too much legalese for the common man, and I would love to read more on SCOTUS cases current and pending right here.

Thanks in advance,
HT

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

They have a lot of what you are requesting.

On the whole recess thing in Andrew's update above, I think that they quorom call approach should be done.

Or, if they could keep it secret, fly in all the Republicans and take over for a week :-)

I love your last idea above. Wouldn't that be delicious? Any lurking Dims, please don't take note.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

An agreement on the debate before Tinder's vote has already been placed on the Executive Calendar. That normally happens one day in advance of an actual floor vote, so I assume Tinder will be confirmed sometime on Monday.

Do you feel they represent a federalist or strict constructionist/originalist view of law at ScotusBlog, or at least an even handed view? I've noticed in the past a lot of blog links to articles from Salon (Mike Kinsley's baby), as well as news links to the NYT and WAPO. I also don't find as much (some, but not as much) in the way of predictions and "layman's speak".

Right now I rely a lot on our friend over at ABCs Legalities. Jan does a great job, but I can't get enough. (I raced out to get her book and found it to be the best book on SCOTUS inside stuff I've ever read, and without the lefty garbage).

I guess my request for more such articles here is that I trust the views of the current membership, and enjoy (and understand) what I get at ConfirmThem.

Thanks again for the advice on where else to look.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

IMO, the commentary on SCOTUSblog leans a little left, but not too terribly bad (for instance I think its clear Lyle and Tom have their biases, but that they work very hard to be evenhanded in that forum. and a lot of the content is bias free because the subject is pretty much bias free (compiling term statistics, watching petitions, reporting on grants, etc). most of the bias that creeps in comes in commentary pre-argument and sometimes post-opinion, though I think there, and especially in reporting on the oral arguments and the opinions themselves themselves, they're generally pretty straight). they do link to some lefty stuff elsewhere (slate, balkinization, nyt, etc) but also pretty regularly to more neutral and occasionally righty perspectives too. the things I find it most useful for are their stat packs (esp. the end of term compilation) and the very quick opinion day lowdown.

I assume you've been to Bench Memos too? they can sometimes go a while without much content, but on major opinions or other happenings, Ed Whelan and co. will always have something interesting. I can hardly stand NRO anymore (though I check on occasion because there are a few commenters I do like (and its a shame to miss the rare gem by the likes of VDH and others), but I go to Bench Memos frequently.

Yes, I enjoy Bench Memos quite a bit. But still, neither site really says the following (in a nice way that most non-lawyers can understand):

1. Here are the upcoming cases.
2. Here is what is at stake.
3. Here are the arguments, pro and con.
4. Here is how we expect justices to vote.
5. Here's some analysis of the arguments and questions.
6. Here's the update on predicting votes based on questions.
7. Here is a breakdown of the ruling, who voted which way, and what the results mean for the country.

There used to be a site I went to (run by a prof or an attorney) that someone here at ConfirmThem recommended, but the site changed (because of time constraints on the authors time) and now only deals with issues narrowly confined to (I think) issues of property law. It used the steps above, and placed a heavy emphasis on predictions.

Someone would have a major blog or site if they addressed this need (the seven steps above).

Thanks again. I love Bench Memos, but it really doesn't address what I'm looking for.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

was probably me who recommended that too. I just checked it a week or so ago and was also disappointed to see that it was no longer the same :(

can't think of another suggestion off the top of my head. SCOTUSblog does offer scotuswiki, which looks like it offers a lot of what you're looking for, though I don't think they've got it completely up to speed yet (after a brief look, it does seem to have come along a lot further than the last time I had checked though).

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Senate+approves+Nashuan's+nomination+to+district+court&articleId=b8b40a48-4d9b-4d2c-8139-24f075621f16

"'I think the people of Nashua, and especially the state, can be excited that somebody of Joe's talent and ability is willing to take on this job,' said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH.

According to Sen. John Sununu Laplante offers a wide breadth of experience.

'From day one, I have been proud to support a nomination that combines both a strong professional background and a commitment to public service through the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation and other civic groups,' he said."

What does everyone think about Robert Bork's endorsement of Mitt Romney? Link: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/firststate/2007/dec/15/bork_endorses_romne...

Is it time for legal conservatives to unite behind Romney?

To my mind, it's either Romney or Thompson if you're a legal conservative. Agreed?

Yuck. Look at the entry today under Bench Memos on National Review Online.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/

Bill Clinton will never allow himself to be appointed to the Supreme Court. He is an international jet-setter now. He flits from one political or charity event to another. He schmoozes and hobnobs with the rich and famous without a care in the world. There are no more restrictions in his life. No one cares about his private life, and he can wheel and deal with it as it he pleases.

IMHO, there is no way that Bill will want to exchange such an anonymous and hedonistic lifestyle for boring brief-reading, oral arguments and opinion-writing under the watchful eye of conservative groups. He is finished working hard in this life, and he doesn't want every detail of his private life scrutinized ever again. If Hillary wants to marginalize him, she will likely not send Bill to the Supreme Court. Rather, she will send him around the world as a roving ambassador, where he can continue his jet-setting lifestyle far away from the prying eyes of the Washington media.

BoBo,
I can't say that I disagree with you. But, still, the blurb in Bench Memos even speculating about such a thing was enough to induce nausea.

Another good article on judicial pay legislation:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?hubtype=TopStories&id=11974...

There are some good (albeit sarcastic) reasons to think Bill would like it. He wouldn't do any of the work; he would leave it to his clerks. His clerks, by the way, would all look like they came from the local Hooters franchise.

In reality, the war that would erupt in the Senate would be massive. Many of us on the right would have to swallow our aversion to fillibustering judges. Still, I don't think Hillary (or even Bill) would want his past behaviors dragged out again.

I wouldn't be surprised if he got another apointment though. Probably something with State.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

If I recall correctly, Bill Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court after the Arkansas Bar disciplined him. That would make his presence on the Court awkward, to say the least.

Additionally, his close advisory role with Hillary--if she were to be President--would bring back too many memories of Abe Fortas giving Lyndon Johnson policy and legal advice from his Chambers at the Court.

Finally, why would Bill accept it? Barring some tragedy, he would not be joining as Chief Justice since Roberts is so young. Bill would come on as an Associate Justice, and the junior one at that until the next vacancy. So, it wouldn't be like former President Taft becoming Chief Justice--essentially going from head of one branch to head of another. It would be more akin to John Quincy Adams becoming a member of the House of Representatives--one of many with similar titles. I think Bill would have to swallow alot of pride to go with this scenario. I don't see it happening.

that Bill gets a SCOTUS appt if Hillary wins. he'll be in his mid-60s, with a history of health problems, and probably a heckuva lot more moderate than most of the people Hill would nominate. and its quite conceivable he'd have to recuse himself in some instances (probably not too many (I think the calls for justices to recuse themselves are usually wrong anyway), and that he'd actually do so in fewer still, given his ethical lapses, I don't doubt, but I'd still take Bill in black robes over Harold Koh or some other insane far-leftwing hack)

and justiceship has become a pretty jetsetting lifetstyle, just ask O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. that argument won't work.

Surely you jest! I can't believe any good conservative would actually champion Bill Clinton as a Supreme Court nominee.

In addition to his dubious presidency, IMHO, Clinton wouldn't be appropriate based solely on his lack of judicial experience. You may not like the judicial philosophy of Diane Wood, Merrick Garland or Sonia Sotomayor, but all of them have the correct professional qualifications. Unfortunately, elections have consequences. If Hillary decided to nominate one of them, I would be hard-pressed to deny any one of them confirmation.

Elena Kagan would be easier to oppose since she also has no record as a judge. I assume Hillary would remedy this potential problem by nominating Kagan to the D.C. Circuit ASAP after she is elected.

BTW, you won't have to worry about Koh. He has no chance. Not only does he have no judicial record, he has made many enemies as the dean of Yale Law School. He would be the easiest nominee for the Senate Republicans to filibuster. Hillary knows that.

Bill doesn't want it, and Hillary will hardly want to use up her 'honeymoon' period getting him confirmed.

Like BoBo said, Sotomayor, Wood, McArdlaw etc will be easy enough, esp. as the Dems will likely have at least 53 senators in '09.

Of course, I still predict there will be a lot of stunned, silent disbelief in Hilly's House in the summer of '09 when JPS cuts some snoop from the NYT off at the knees and says he feels fine & he's not going anywhere.

Remember, Hillary is hardly liberal enough to make Stevens comfortable. Plus, he's been locked in pure Gollum/Rumsfeld mode for quite awhile now. He'll be carried out.

Do we really want to fillibuster SCOTUS nominees? I think we should give the dems double what we get, but that line hasn't been crossed yet.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I have no issues filibustering nominees. They tried to.

As an aside, liberals always whine about stare decisis and precedent. Setting aside the obvious situation in which only Roe and Casey count, how easy will it be for Stevens to handwave ex parte McCardle?

Although I think judicial filibusters are unconstitutional, what use is that if the Dems can continually use the threat of them to block well-qualified Republican nominees with impunity? I think the Republicans should use the judicial filibuster under Hillary for three reasons:

1) to force Hillary to choose more mainstream judicial nominees.

2) to block the Senate Dems from confirming any really outrageous nominees Hillary may nominate anyway.

3) to make the Dems so mad, they will use the nuclear option to rid us all of the unconstitutional judicial filibuster.

I do not suggest using the judicial filibuster willy-nilly under a Dem president. Rather, only the most egregious examples of liberal politicsm, judicial activism and poor qualifications should be threatened. Although I don't like their judicial philosophies, Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Sonia Sotomayor possess good professional qualifications and sound judicial temperaments. Only the unqualified like Bill Clinton, the judicially active like Marsha Berzon and the hotheads like Koh should be threatened.

Sam Alito wasn't anywhere close to being unqualified, judicially active, or hotheaded.

I really like this fantasy newspiece:

http://thegoreyears.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/a-review-of-the-sotomayor-s...

That piece really is funny. Glad that it is just a fantasy piece!

As for Sam Alito, I agree with you. Using my philosophy, if I was a Dem, I would never had suggested a filibuster. I think it is necessary to point out, however, that Kerry's suggested filibuster was just grandstanding. The numbers in the Senate at that time would not have allowed an actual filibuster. Kerry and his liberal allies knew that but still wanted to generate some buzz with their liberal constituents in order to enhance their progressive credentials. I think the majority of Dems, though, knew that a filibuster of Alito would've backfired on them with their constituents. Republicans under Hillary should be just as wise. They shouldn't filibuster just because the person is liberal (does anyone actually think Hillary would nominate anything else?), rather they should state defined criteria from the beginning of Hillary's term: qualifications, judicial restraint and calm temperament.

they were just a vote or two short. just because they didn't have the votes doesn't mean they didn't try, or wouldn't have had they had them. they were very serious in their unseriousness.

There you all go again with the President Hillary hypotheticals! Not productive or uplifting at all.

BoBo, I think it would be hard to claim Elena Kagan is not qualified for the Supreme Court: outstanding legal education, SCOTUS clerkship, asst or deputy AG (not sure which), respected Harvard law professor and Dean. She has enough. Certainly, plenty of SCOTUS justices have been less qualified.

It is all about setting standards up front. If the Republicans state repeatedly at the beginning of a Democrat presidency that only nominees with certain specific qualifications such as judicial experience will be considered, they define the argument and set its parameters. That way, if Dem President X nominates a person with no judicial experience anyway, the Republicans will appear perfectly justified in blocking the person - even if she is Elena Kagan.

The precedent of Harriet Miers actually works in the Republicans' favor in this scenario. The Republicans can honestly say, "look, we wouldn't even confirm the nominee of a president from our own party because she didn't have any judicial experience. Without that experience, we don't think any nominee is qualified."

They can also use the fact that all the present justices are former federal judges to bring home the point: because law has changed, and it is now more complicated than ever, judicial experience is a must even if in the past it wasn't.

I think this is an honest, straightforward way of blocking many undesirable nominees to the Supreme Court.

I don't think judicial experience is an absolute must have. and if a Dem were to nominate Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Garland, I think Republicans should confirm them (barring an unexpected revelation) without overmuch fuss, but while repeatedly noting how differently they treat the opposition. Not so certain about Wood or Wardlaw.

There are plenty of Berzons available with judicial experience, and plenty of reasonable nominees without it who still have a stellar legal background.

As Chuck Schumer says, its all about philosophy...I don't see much of a correlation between that and circuit court experience.

Rehnquist did not have CCA experience and yet was a stellar judge.

I can sort of see how it might be used as an 'excuse' not to vote for Kagan or a similar nominee. But the Democrats were able to come up with plenty of bull to oppose Alito, I'm sure the Republicans can do the same.

If we have the Dems in control, what if the R approach was to use filibustering as a club to get rules changed to something reasonable for nominees (preferably all nominees, not just judivcial ones)? This would be helpful IF rules carry over from session to session unless changed by some supermajority so the Dems couldn't just renege on the deal the next time they're out of power.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.projo.com/news/content/SMITH_WHITEHOUSE_12-17-07_2189BVJ_v17....

"Even if U.S. District Judge William E. Smith pledges to follow judicial precedent as a member of a powerful federal appeals court, he could go back on his word once he gets the lifetime job, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse suggested last week.

“You’ve got to make sure that the guy’s not a stalking horse for Bush ideology,” Whitehouse said of Smith, whom the president has nominated to a vacancy on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “That’s an issue that needs to be put to rest,” said Whitehouse, who could play a decisive role in whether Smith is elevated to the Boston-based court."

"[Whitehouse charges] that Mr. Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court have violated pledges, made prior to their confirmation by the Senate, to honor judicial precedents. Therefore, Whitehouse reasoned, there is an argument for rejecting Smith’s nomination, no matter what Smith says as the Senate considers whether to elevate him to the appeals court."

This is a new low. I knew Whitehouse was hard-pressed to find a way to block a nominee with popular support at home, but this is incredible. The nominee should be blocked not because of anything he has done, but because of who nominated him? In that case, none of Clinton's nominees should've been confirmed!

Haven't Kennedy Schumer et al been saying for months that Alito and Roberts lied in order to win approval, and therefore no more top nominees should be approved because this is proof they are liars as well? Their argument seems to be "He said he'd rule without bias on the merits of a case and I didn't like the fairness/outcome of case X, ergo he is lied and should be impeached and we should block all others."

Whitehouse: In that case, why wouldn’t Whitehouse oppose Smith no matter what the judge says as a nominee? Whitehouse said he wants Smith to declare that he recognizes the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as the law of the land.

“There’s an argument for that,” Whitehouse replied. He said there is also an argument for waiting until a new president takes office before allowing the appeals court vacancy to be filled.

Schumer: “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

At least they're better than Leahy who tries to muddy the picture with rehashed statistics.

We could start having shorter Q&A sessions.
Senator: Are you a liar?
Nominee: No sir I am not.
Senator: Well that's the answer a liar would give, so I cannot vote for your confirmation.

Remember when the Senators accused Alito of bigotry?

They might as well make it as short as possible instead of this game where the Senators give five-minute speeches laced with a few attempted "gotcha" questions. Then if the nominee didn't fall into one of the traps, the Senator says it proves he's too slick a liar and so will never get the Senator's vote. Let's cut to the chase and end it with one ten-second answer.

I'm offering this as a compromise as opposed to a fully open Q&A session which would consist of the Senator saying: "I don't plan to vote for this nominee under any circumstances, so I yield my time."

Looks like a district fight may be brewing...

Pro-Abortion Group Opposes President Bush's Pro-Life Court Pick Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 17, 2007

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading pro-abortion organization is asking its membership to contact their U.S. senators and urge strong opposition to a pro-life federal court nominee President Bush has sent for confirmation. The president wants Wyoming pro-life advocate Richard Honaker to be a federal district court judge in mountain state.

Bush nominated Honaker to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming over the summer and the nomination drew the immediate opposition of abortion advocates.

Now, top abortion advocacy group NARAL is spearheading a new push for pro-abortion calls to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to urge a no vote on Honaker's nomination.

Honaker is a well-respected attorney who has practiced in Wyoming for over 30 years and served as a member of the Wyoming State Senate.

He is known in pro-life circles for proposing the Human Life Protect Act in the state legislature in 1991 and was behind the subsequent state ballot vote in 1994. Voters defeated the ballot measure that year.

That's what has prompted NARAL president Nancy Keenan to issue an alert last week to her members.

"President Bush nominated yet another staunch anti-choice activist for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench," she said. "Richard Honaker is one of Bush’s most unapologetically anti-choice nominees to date."

"This nominee doesn't deserve consideration, and most certainly doesn't deserve confirmation," Keenan added.

Sens. Craig Thomas and Mike Enzi, both Republicans from Wyoming, both previously said they support Honaker's nomination and will urge their colleagues in the Senate to support him because he would be a judge who wouldn't legislate from the bench.

Thomas submitted Honaker's name to the president in January and Bush appointed him after a thorough review. He has since passed away and been replaced by pro-life Sen. John Barrasso, a physician from Casper.

Honaker would fill the seat vacated by U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer, who is retiring and taking on senior status.

ACTION: Contact your senator and urge support for Richard Honaker's nomination by calling 202-224-3121 or going to http://www.senate.gov

continues to astound and amaze. This, from a Rudy supporter:

Sunday, December 16, 2007
Romney's Race to Lose
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 11:55 PM

I never thought I’d write that. Here’s an Ambinder-inspired numbered outline with my thinking.

1. The surging candidates (Huckabee and McCain) are flaky and/or can’t win. This empowers the institutional frontrunners, Rudy and Romney. And Rudy is in trouble.

1a. Huckabee has solved Romney’s expectations game in Iowa. A win for Romney out of the Hawkeye State translates to a big win and momentum. A narrow loss is within expectations. Only a double digit loss or third would significantly damage Romney.

1b. Huckabee’s momentum out of Iowa isn’t actionable in New Hampshire, so some other external force would need to rise to kill Romney’s lead in NH.

1c. McCain could be that force, with Rudy incredibly “pulling out” of NH after running ads exclusively there for a month. There is the Lieberman endorsement. And his embrace of Al Gore’s global warming song and dance. He is “recapturing the magic” by going even more explicitly center-left in the Granite State than he did in 2000. If he succeeds (dubious with Obamamania sucking up all the indie oxygen), expect the same frenzy that rose to stop him in 2000. To do this, the GOP will need to rally around a safe, establishment-minded candidate to go in for the easy kill.

2. Enter Mitt Romney. He hasn’t been Mr. Excitement, but he has succeeded in positioning himself as the acceptable default — the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” guy. His cornering the market on “undecided (non-evangelical) conservatives” is the beginning of this consolidation. The blue-haired ladies who sit on the county committees won’t make a fuss over him. There will be no “Stop Romney” movement should he vault to the top of the polls, as he almost certainly would after Iowa-New Hampshire wins. (Indeed, the way he has muscled himself into the mold of GOP establishment frontrunner will be studied for decades to come.) Now at 15% in the national polls, he has demonstrated an adequate-enough base of national support to be able to leverage big wins into the nomination.

2a. Even if the challenger isn’t McCain, but Huckabee, a safe, brand-name Republican will still be needed to counter him. Rudy is trying (with party line stances of immigration, taxes, guns, etc.), but has not made a comprehensive case as to why Romney as the nominee would be risky.

The race began as McCain-Romney. After, Rudy! Fred! Huck! it would be a particularly cruel joke on the punditocracy should it end that way. But given the depths to which McCain has had to sink to rekindle the flame, he would face Romney in a much weakened state. Indeed, it would be deeply ironic if McCain manages to weaken his good friend Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire, only to be hand the nomination to Mitt Romney, his arch-nemesis. In this way, a vote for McCain in New Hampshire is a vote for Romney.

So, unless Rudy manages to turn the election into a referendum on leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis in the next three weeks, at least how it stands now, say hello to Mitt Romney as our nominee.

I've been wondering what's holding up his nomination. Now we know.

The article is correct except for stating he was nominated over the summer. In fact he was nominated last March.

I guess, but Democrats have effectively done that anyway. Half of the judiciary committee has whined about the ineffectiveness of hearings, and the 2 stooges Schumer and Whitehouse's comments are above.

I wonder what will happen if Stevens bites it in the coming months.

I can't make head nor tails of that gibberish, either.

Here's some gibberish that, unfortunately, is ever so clear (and I usually don't mind Wickham):

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/wickham/index.html

--------

"LDF is extremely fortunate to have the leadership and service of John Payton. He is a first-class lawyer, with experience and commitment to the cause of equal justice. (His selection) is an enormous coup for LDF," board member Vernon Jordan said in a press release.

How ironic. It wasn't too long ago that the LDF and Payton were on different sides of a major issue. Shortly after President Bush selected Samuel Alito to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the civil rights group issued a blistering, 69-page report on Alito's positions on affirmative action, voting rights, criminal justice and employment discrimination issues.

In the December 2005 report, the organization concluded that Alito's confirmation "would cause a substantial shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on civil rights and that his confirmation would be to the detriment of the nation."

The following month, Payton testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the "well-qualified" rating the American Bar Association gave Alito. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Payton whether he had "heard anything in these hearings that would cause you any concern or reason to change any of your views" on Alito? Payton responded: "I'm still comfortable that we understood the judicial and legal profile of Judge Alito when we reached our rating."

To be fair, Payton's supporters argued that as a member of the prestigious ABA panel that rates judicial nominees, he could judge Alito only on the basis of three criteria: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Even so, it's hard to image that Marshall, the legendary civil rights lawyer and Supreme Court justice, would not have quit that panel instead of going along with the rating it gave Alito. That Payton didn't do that suggests he puts position ahead of principle — and shrouded him with a moral 5 o'clock shadow.

---------------

Guess Wickham doesn't know (or want to remember) that Marshall supported the Thomas nomination, was appalled by the Anita circus, and warmly welcomed Thomas into his chambers after Thomas paid him a courtesy call, for a three hour chat that ended with the memorable statement-"I had to do what I had to do in my time; you have to do what you have to do in your time."

Boy, how much would you pay for a transcript of THAT conversation?

Not even Aron or Neas could consider Marshall a great Justice w/a straight face (he never wanted the job, for starters), but he was certainly a great man & lawyer, and by all accounts a tremendous ranconteur & pal to hang out with.

Speaking of gibberish, I was flipping thru a John Dean book yesterday, and came upon a passage where he was musing if a Democrat POTUS & Congress "would disobey a SCOTUS ruling *requiring* a morning prayer in every public school in the country".

...sigh...

Speaking of non-gibberish, the section on Clinton's nominations of RBG & Breyer in The Nine is fascinating, especially the part dealing with Clinton's pining for 8th Circuit COA judge Richard Arnold for the Blackmun seat.

I won't spoil it (there's a wonderful anecdote about a call Nino placed to Arnold), but suffice to say, had Clinton not done proper vetting, or had Arnold been a man of lesser character & integrity, no one would've ever heard of Steve Breyer.

Arnold died at age 68 after a nearly twenty-year battle with cancer, on 9/23/04. Think about that date for a minute or two.

Here's his obit: http://nonpublication.com/arnold.htm

One never knows what tangents will develop in an open (or other) thread.

a;sldkj [oapir upoiurtcoinriuvas, cvmno-298b7 zpodfgjse,m rtiu8cp w,

Has anyone heard anything new regarding a Senate vote on Judge Tinder's nomination to the 7th Circuit?

note is still on the executive calendar.

this is ridiculous. Tinder is a COMPLETELY non-controversial nominee and he's been languishing on the exec. calendar for a month and a half.

I've always assumed that they will confirm Tinder on the last or next-to-last day before getting out of town for the holidays. So look for confirmation at the end of the week, unless Dems. decide to be gratuitously nasty (admittedly their S.O.P.) and delay confirmation to next year.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://howappealing.law.com/121807.html#030748

"The U.S. Senate approved the pending judicial security legislation last night, and approval from the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to occur today..."

Effective January 21, 2009, the legislation will eliminate the twelfth seat on the D.C. Circuit and add a twenty-ninth seat to the Ninth Circuit."

If the Kyl/Feinstein deal still stands, Keisler may be on his way to confirmation next year. I bet, however, that if he does get confirmed, it won't be until June or July. Most likely he will be the last "controversial" COA nominee the Dems allow to be confirmed. My prediction is that Haynes and Pratter will be confirmed in the spring, and none of the other nominees will even get hearings (including all the Fourth Circuit nominees) before the end of Bush's administration.

Just read the news about the legislation containing the transfer of the seat from the DC circuit to the 9th Circuit. It's a good decision on the merits. Judges on the DC Circuit have some of the lowest caseloads in the country, while the reverse is true on the 9th Circuit. I believe the last evaluation of the Circuits reccommended added 7 more seats to the 9th. I'm sure President Obama and the democrat controlled Senate will get right on that in 2009 (sigh).

I guess now we can just wait and see whether there really was a Kyle-Feinstein deal on Keisler, and whether it holds up. Perhaps my crush on DiFi is blinding me, but I'm optimistic that it will.

Also, while I acknowledge that a healthy degree of pessimism is the order of the day regarding the confirmation of President Bush's circuit court nominess, I think BoBo's prediction is excessively pessimistic. Simply put, three would be too few. The contrast with the confirmation for Clinton's nominees would be too extreme (7 of Clinton's circuit court nominees were confirmed in 1999, following 13(!) in 1998). It would make it too easy for the GOP to make the case for obstruction in the (likely) event that a democrat is making nominations in 2009. So I think they will likely allow at least two additional confirmations, for a total of five in 2008. Your guess who the additional two would be is as good as mine (perhaps Stone plus a consensus VA nominee). It could even be Matthews (despite his apparent conservatism) if Lindsey really goes to work on his behalf. I do agree with Bobo that the dems are "saving" the 4th Circut seats for a President to be named later.

Have predictions on the 2nd amendment DC case, and/or the Indiana voter photo-ID case?

When might we expect a ruling(s), and how does anyone see each justice voting?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

So can Bush go ahead and nominate someone for the seat? Someone from CA obviously - doesn't matter where he's from as a DC seat presently, but does as a CA seat. Get a jump on the confirmation process....

Neither the Indiana voter I.D. case nor the D.C. gun rights case have been argued yet. Neither has the lethal injection case. On January 7th, the lethal injection case will be heard. On January 9th, the Indiana voter I.D. case will be heard. Based on his previous voting record, Justice Kennedy is likely to vote with the liberals to reject death by lethal injection, but join the conservatives to uphold voter I.D. laws.

The gun rights case probably won't be heard until April or May. Again, based on his record in the recent Rapanos v. United States and Parents v. Seattle cases, Kennedy is likely to join the conservatives to reject D.C.'s gun law but write a concurring opinion that will water down the majority opinion and still allow some forms of gun control.

The results of all three major cases will probalby not be revealed until June when the court by tradition releases the decisions of all "controversial" cases.

I doubt Bush can nominate someone to a seat that doesn't exist yet. I'm sure the date of "January 21, 2009" was included in the bill on purpose to make sure that Bush could NOT name a person to the new seat.

Personally, I don't care about the two seats on the 9th Circuit. It isn't as if they will change the ratio of liberal to conservative judges on that court too much. Especially considering that any judges Bush could possibly nominate to those positions would have to be pre-approved by Barbara Boxer if they were to have any real chance of confirmation. Anyone here think she'll allow even a moderate at this stage of the game? I would rather we get some solid conservatives confirmed to other courts than waste time on getting moderates on the 9th Circuit.

Filibuster the bill adding seats to the 9th until some additional number of COA nominees are approved.

Bush could put the Dems in a real bind by withdrawing Getchell, and nominating the two best names on the JWarner-Webb list.

I know he doesn't think this way at all (nor give a rat's about the 4th, or any other Circuit), but that list is a helluva lot better than the MWarner-Webb list is going to be for Hillary to pick from.

Prediction: If Hillary wins, every COA & District vacancy will have a nominee by 2/28/09.

I am watching C-Span right now, and Reid has repeatedly said that there will be a vote on a judge before adjournment tonight. He also is implying that the Senate will adjourn tomorrow til January. He has not mentioned pro forma sessions.

Just prior to Tinder's confirmation, Leahy made a statement that in 2007, this Dem-controlled Senate has confirmed more judges than in at least five of the last ten Republican-controlled senates. It's amazing how district court confirmations can be used so disingenuously to prove that the Dems are hard at work processing judges. This is one of the reasons why I am not as anxious as some on this site to waste a lot of time and energy in the next year on district court nominees. Confirming them will aid the Dems too much in their nefarious spin. Rather, we need to really concentrate on the Dem obstruction of COA judges.

Given my prediction that the Dems would confirm Tinder on the last or next-to-last day of the this Session, it appears that the esteemed Senators won't wait until the end of the week to adjourn--maybe tomorrow if they can manage it. They just can't wait to get home to their version of Christmas Cheer: fundraiser parties.

I predict 2-4 CCA confirmations next year, with 4 being the most unlikely and 3 being most likely (that probably indicates that the result will be a pitiful 2). Who knows what will happen after Pratter and Haynes? The 2 big questions are:
1. Can the GOP somehow get Keisler confirmed to DC?
2. Can 1 of 5 4th Circuit nominees get confirmed?

By no means should Republicans waste an ounce of time or energy on 1st or 9th Circuit nominees. That diversion would be playing into the Dems' hands and falling into a trap.

Nice reporting, BoBo! The Roll Call totals just came up on the Senate site.

And to amplify my final comment in #70 above, I agree with your reasoning in #65. The same goes for the 1st Circuit seat. The Dems would love nothing more than wasting 2 months processing a useless moderate for the 28th or 29th seat on the 9th.

How about this "libel tourism" decision?
http://www.nysun.com/article/68446

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/court_refers_porteous_for_imp...

Court refers Porteous for impeachment
Thursday December 20, 2007, 7:38 PM
By Richard Rainey
East Jefferson bureau
Gambling debts, false statements under oath, bank fraud and secret gifts from lawyers form the heart of an extraordinary impeachment referral that was lodged Thursday against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous Jr....