ConfirmThem

Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish. A hearing this week:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3585

From a quick look, it's the PA and VA compromise candidates who the Democrats supports, but the Republican side of the compromise, and not the Court of Appeals candidates. Just will get Leahy's numbers up. Bleah.

I meant to say...

From a quick look, it's the PA and VA compromise candidates who the Democrats support, but NOT the Republican sides of the compromises, and not the Court of Appeals candidates.

The hearing tomorrow is for five district court judges - one from Virginia (Democrat Trenga), three from Pennsylvania (I think one is a Democrat) and one from Kansas (no doubt a Brownback protege). Although it looks like there will be a lame duck session of the 110th Congress after all due to the present Wall Street crisis, I still don't get when these five are supposed to get confirmed.

The five who were stalled last week should be voted out of committee on Thursday, just in time to be oonfirmed by unanimous consent on Friday, the day the Senate is supposed to adjourn until after the election. In my estimation, there is no way the five with hearings tomorrow can get on the Thursday calendar to join the previous five for confirmation on Friday. What gives? Is this some sort of hollow peace offering from the Dems? If so, I'm not sure it should be accepted.

If Obama is elected, I doubt seriously the Dems will want any more Bush judges, district or COA, confirmed even if there is a lame duck session. If McCain wins, Glen Conrad and Diamond/Short would be much better peace offerings than the five new district nominees. Why aren't Conrad, Diamond and Short getting hearings tomorrow? Even if Obama wins, the Dems could claim the highter ground in future confirmation battles by claiming that by giving those three hearings they treated Bush COA nominees in the 110th Congress better than the Republicans treated Clinton COA nominees in the 106th Congress.

In fact, the omission of Diamond/Short from tomorrow's hearing list seems like another huge Dem slap in the face to Arlen Specter. I don't see how such a move will heal any old wounds, rather it can only inflame them. Why in the world are the Dems allowing a Hatch protege (Waddoups) and a Brownback protege (Melgren) through, but not a Specter one (Short), especially a Specter one who is married to prominent Democrat?

All very odd if you ask me!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422708639

"Several sources said Jones was Casey's first pick for the Eastern District but that the deal was cinched only when Specter agreed to replace Pratter with Diamond for the 3rd Circuit seat."

http://thelegalintelligencer.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/cappys-replacement...

"[Jones has] got a good reputation and is well-liked and respected, and Gov. Ed Rendell made no secret this past year of wanting to see him on the [Pennsylvania Supreme] court."

http://www.thekansan.com/news/x997990271/Bush-nominates-US-attorney-for-...

"As the clock ticks down on his administration, President Bush has nominated a large bevy of judicial candidates to lifetime-tenured positions on the federal bench.

Among them is U.S. Attorney Eric Melgren of Kansas, a politically connected Republican stalwart with solid conservative credentials.

Nearly half of the 34 pending nominations for 42 vacancies in the federal judiciary were tapped in late June and July, government records show. Melgren — who was quietly nominated on July 23 — is slated to fill, if confirmed, the Wichita vacancy created with the semiretirement of U.S. District Judge Monti Belot.

On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) sent a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking him to schedule a hearing on Melgren’s nomination at its Sept. 9 hearing.

The Kansas senator argued for Melgren’s speedy consideration given that the Kansas federal judicial district is facing “a unique and difficult challenge” due to the extremely advanced age of several of its judges and its reliance on a temporary judgeship set to expire this fall."

1) Bush nominates person A.
2) He/She gets trashed and gets no vote, so Bush nominates person B who is less "controversial".
3) Dems indicate that liberal person C must be nominated to offset the right-winger B.
4) Dems pass nomination of person C and ignore person B.

Does that about sum it up?

Yup, bk, that about sums it up these days.

http://www.hdnews.net/wirestories/k1099-BC-KS-JudicialNominee-K-2ndLd-Wr...

"Melgren's chances for making it through the process are considered slim given how few days are left for Congress to deliberate this year and the need to pass last-minute legislation, including a $700 million bailout plan for Wall Street.

Even assuming his hearing goes well, the record typically remains open for at least a week before the panel votes on sending nominations to the full Senate. Lawmakers likely will go into recess before such a vote can take place."

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3585&wit_id=2629

"I am holding this exceptional hearing late in a presidential election year as an accommodation to Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican Member of our Committee and a former Chairman. The Thurmond Rule, established and followed by Republicans when there is a Democratic President in the White House, calls for Senate consideration of judicial nominations to stop in the last several months before a presidential election in order to await the outcome of the election. Senator Hatch followed that practice in both 1996 and 2000 when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. In fact, in 1996, no one nominated after June 6 was considered and there were no judicial confirmations after the August recess. In 2000, there were no hearings after July 25."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-extended-session-more-likely-20...

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he expects Congress will likely extend this month’s session or come back for a lame-duck session in order to finish its work.

In morning comments on the chamber floor, Reid said, "It looks like more every day that the Senate is going to have to return after this weekend." The Senate is juggling a Wall Street bailout bill as well as a continuing resolution to fund the federal government, among several other measures.

Reid specifically mentioned the debate over an omnibus of 34 bills that is being blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Coburn objects to the bills, criticizing some as excessive federal spending and others for moving through the chamber too quickly. Reid on Tuesday suggested Republicans were using Coburn as a "foil" and that the entire GOP caucus deserves blame for the delay.

"Sen. Coburn may be the person that made the objection, but we've attempted to move forward on this and he has been joined by his Republican colleagues," Reid said."

Courtesy of Bench Memos,

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080922/OPINIO...

"Arlen Specter and Joe Biden are both longtime members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

But the Pennsylvania Republican senator was able to win three of his state's nominees for the Eastern District a hearing before the committee this week.

Apparently, the Delaware Democratic senator was not able to get Delaware's sole nominee on the list.

That's odd because the Judiciary Committee is controlled by Democrats.

It's also odd because two of the three Pennsylvania nominees did not receive ratings from the American Bar Association, while Delaware's nominees, U.S. Attorney Colm Connolly, received a well-qualified rating.

This is bad for Delaware because Congress is poised to recess for the elections."

What exactly is news about Biden not getting "Delaware's sole (district court) nominee on the list"? Duh. Biden doesn't *want* Colm Connolly to get a hearing because he's a Republican president's nominee. It isn't exactly "odd." It's election-year politics. It's no different than other Dem committee members not pushing for hearings for Bush COA nominees from their own states -- Ben Cardin shunned Rod Rosenstein, Sheldon Whitehouse ignored William Smith, and Chuck Schumer disregarded the recently nominated Loretta Preska. The exact same thing happened in 1999 and 2000 when control of the WH and Senate was reversed -- Republican senators gladly barred hearings for Clinton's district court and COA nominees, even those from their own states. Actually the biggest news here isn't the presence of yet another pocket filibuster -- no, it's the rather quaint fact that Matt Franck over at Bench Memos actually bothers to try to muster up outrage on behalf of the good people of Delaware, wondering who Biden represents: "Delawareans or his party's national elites?" Given more than a decade of pocket filibusters by senators from both parties, that question was answered long ago, Matt. Nothing new here.

Since Reid has had pro forma sessions for many months on days the Senate was not in session so that Bush could not recess-appoint anyone, isn't it true as a matter of fact that there was no August recess or any other recess recently? So if the Thurmond Rule was supposed to kick in after the August recess then it never should have kicked in, right?

BTW I wonder if the RNC or anyone ever calculated how much taxpayer money these pro forma sessions wasted - travel/per diem for the Senator who had to be there for 15 seconds, extra security, extra paperwork, etc.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/09/paul-clements-s.html

"Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, likely to be one of the biggest catches for local law firms coming out of the Bush administration, said this morning he is talking to several firms, but has made no decision yet. Clement, who left the Justice Department in June, was a panelist today at the National Chamber Litigation Center's preview of the upcoming Supreme Court term, along with one of his predecessors Seth Waxman. Clement has taken a holding-pattern teaching position at Georgetown University Law Center — as Waxman did in January 2001 before he landed a top position at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr."

The 5 judges who had their hearing yesterday have been scheduled for a committee vote tomorrow.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3581

Things can go quickly, if Leahy wants....

The continuing resolution before the House today will fund the government through March. This might be a sign that there won't be a lame duck session.
I think it will depend on the bailout bill. If they reach an agreement on that bill, this week will be the last week of the year.

I'm with you on judges all the way...but we're about to pay $700 billion on a bailout, and you're wondering about the taxpayer money being spent on Senate pro forma sessions? I think the RNC has bigger fish to fry right about now.

but I never understood why the GOP was silent about a complete waste of whatever the cost is.

Thanks to Bobo's link, I made the mistake of reading Leahy's statement. I laughed when I read this:

"Despite our efforts to step way from the tit for tat of the nomination battles of the past, I have yet to hear praise from a single Republican for our fair consideration of this President's nominees. Despite our success in dramatically lowering judicial vacancies by approving the nominees of a President from the other party, those efforts have yet to be acknowledged."

Dont' worry, Senator, it's in the mail.

George Will - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR200809...

"On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with **Andrew Cuomo**, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.

"Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either."

Sigh. "Respect", "prestige", "bipartisanship". What more could one want in a judge? Sounds like what Arnie said about the mush he picked to replace JRB on SCOCali. Whatever Cox' (& Bernanke's) role in this disaster, I don't want him replaced by Andy Cuomo.

Obama hasn't done a helpful thing yet either, but McCain has just been horrible the last couple weeks, and esp. on this financial debacle, and the polls reflect it. He squandered the Palin bounce and then some w/those looney ads. And with Dole now down in NC, and Smith & Coleman in dead heats in OR & MN, a Pres McCain may be looking at *59* Dem Sens to get bipartisany with on judges.

What a disaster. At least this "suspend the debate" stunt is an idea, but McCain has GOT to show real leadership on this bailout crap or he won't get 220 EVs never mind 270. The public is livid; can't blame 'em, and judges aren't even on the radar of any poll asking likely voters what's important to them.

Whatta mess. Douglas, Brennan & Marshall sure got the last laugh, didn't they?

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Wow - I don't recall seeing that many judges on an executive business meeting agenda before.

I seem to recall that three of these judges are Democrats (compromise candidates). Is that correct?

The three are Trenga of Virginia, Arguello of Colorado and Jones of Pennsylvania.

All 10 judges were voted out today.

FYI

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080926-6.html

Of course, no chance of going anywhere, but all the better to have nominees so that the Dem's can, with a straight face, say how much worse the Clinton numbers were.

Of course, they frequently speak with their faces crooked.

The 10 District Judges were confirmed today by consent.

Unless a miracle happens, these were the last Judicial confirmations of this congress.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080926/NEWS05/80926...

"President Bush has nominated Indiana judge Philip P. Simon to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House announced Friday.

Simon has been a federal district court judge for Northern Indiana since 2003.

If confirmed by the Senate, Simon would replace Judge Kenneth F. Ripple who has retired.

The 7th Circuit is the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court for cases from Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin

Simon earned his law degree from the Indiana University School of Law in 1987. His professional experience includes heading the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Indiana and teaching at Valparaiso University School of Law."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31635.pdf

I don't think Bush can legally make any more COA nominations during the election recess of the 110th Congress. That means that his COA success rate for the 110th Congress will be 41.7% (10 confirmations out of 24 COA nominations received by the Senate, including the nominations of withdrawn nominees Murphy, Getchell and Pratter). In comparison, Clinton had a confirmation rate in the 106th Congress of 44.1% (15 confirmations out of 34 received nominations). The number would've been lower if Bush had bothered to make nominations to the COA seats of Trott on the 9th Circuit, Anderson on the 11th Circuit and Randolph of the D.C. Circuit.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2993

"Simon, Philip P.
Born 1962 in Pittsburgh, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 29, 2003, to a seat vacated by William C. Lee; Confirmed by the Senate on March 27, 2003, and received commission on March 27, 2003.

Education:
University of Iowa, B.A., 1984

Indiana University School of Law, J.D., 1987

Professional Career:
Private practice, Chicago, Illinois, 1987-1990
Assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Indiana, 1990-1997
Adjunct professor of law, Valparaiso University School of Law, 1996-1997, 1999-2000
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Arizona, 1997-1999
Assistant U.S. attorney, chief of criminal division, Northern District of Indiana, 1999-2003

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-to-come-back-next-week-2008-0...

Not that any new judicial nominees will be confirmed, but , "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday morning that Congress would be in session next week, barring a miracle.

But the Senate will recess Monday night and Tuesday in observance of Rosh Hashana.

Reid has planned a vote Saturday on a $630 billion continuing resolution funding the government through March.

Reid said he would like the chamber to take up a Defense Department authorization bill as well as rail safety legislation and a nuclear agreement with India.

Senate Democrats would also like to pass a $56 billion economic stimulus package. A motion to proceed to the package failed on a vote early Friday afternoon.

The biggest obstacle to adjournment remains a proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout, which has stalled because of House Republican objections.

'Next week is a little bit more complicated because we have a Jewish holiday starting at sundown on Monday and ending at sundown on Tuesday,' said Reid. 'So we won’t be working that period of time, that’s for sure.'"

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/09/justice-alito-c.html

"...today, the New York Times' Adam Liptak is reporting that Alito has decided to join Stevens and jump out of the pool. It was not officially announced, though the Court's public information office confirms the shift."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html?ex=1380168000&e...

"Todd C. Peppers, a professor of public affairs at Roanoke College and the author of “Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk,” said the importance of the pool memo could be overemphasized.

“Because of concerns about quality of the memos and the honesty of the analysis,” Professor Peppers said in an e-mail message, “former law clerks told me that some justices — such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell — have had their law clerks review the cert. pool memoranda prepared by other chambers, add their own written comments and suggestions, and occasionally write a new cert. memo.”

Justice Alito’s move reverses a trend lasting decades. The pool had grown steadily since it was conceived in the early 1970s at the suggestion of Justice Powell, who prized efficiency."

I think it is very likely that there will be pro-forma sessions through Jan. 3 (the start of the next congress).

During a pro-forma session, the Senate is (just a few seconds) in session. So it should be possible to send new nominations to the Senate.

Today there is 1 unfilled vacancy for a circuit judge (9th circuit) and 2 "future vacancies" (11th circuit and DC circuit).

I have no doubt that there'll be pro forma sessions through Jan. 3. And I think the president can still make nominations even when the Senate isn't in session (Clinton nominated people to the COA right up until the November 2000 election). I also still fully expect Bush to make a nomination at least for Randolph's DC Circuit seat, which will be vacated on 11/1. However, I'm a little unclear as to how the president could make a nomination for the 11th circuit vacancy. That vacancy (occurring 1/31/2009) doesn't even take effect until after Bush's presidency ends. I suppose he could make a nomination anyhow, and I guess the Senate could hold hearings on it (but they wouldn't). It'd be pretty unusual, though. It'd be like Bush making an executive nomination that would take effect as of the start of McCain or Obama's presidency.

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

Amazing how fast the ABA can work when a rating means nothing! Nominated on 9/9, Loretta Preska got an ABA rating of WQ today - just 20 days after her nomination! Does anyone think Schumer and Clinton will allow her confirmation this session of Congress? Don't answer that - just being facetious!

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDQ4ZjQzMmMxYzljM2JiZTcwZGVjNjE0...

"Last Friday, while attention focused on the bailout proposals, the Senate quickly confirmed ten district court judges. As the National Law Journal reports, this leaves 23 district court vacancies and 11 appellate court vacancies."

The link from Bench memos notes that Judge R. Lanier Anderson, III of the 11th Circuit will take senior status on 1/31/09. Judge Anderson is one of 7 Circuit Court judges still on active service that was appointed by Pres. Carter. Three of the other six serve on the 9th Circuit (Schroeder, Preggerson, Reinhardt). It will be a happy day when the last of the Carter nominees hangs up their robes.

President Bush has had little influence on the composition of this court - his only nominee is Judge Pryor (although that one is one of his best). The 11th Circuit is currently split 7-5 between GOP and Dem nominated judges. Only two other judges on the 11th Circuit were born before 1943. Judge Rosemary Barkett (one of Pres. Clinton's most egregious picks) was born in 1939, and Judge Tjoflat (one of the few Ford nominees still running around) was born in 1929.

Depending on who wins the White House, the composition of the 11th could thus swing to 8-4 GOP or a 6-6 split in fairly short order.

Uh yeah, so Jonathan Adler over there at Bench Memos isn't exactly the quickest guy on the draw when it comes to Lanier Anderson's decision taking senior status. ConfirmThem readers knew about that vacancy back almost two months ago, back on August 7, thanks to BoBo forwarding us a How Appealing link:

http://www.confirmthem.com/sowell_and_boitnott_on_judicial_nominations#c...

Mose is right that control of the 11th will be impacted pretty fast by whoever is elected -- but not only by who fills the Anderson vacancy. Fully five other judges on the 11th could take senior status in the next four years -- Barkett, Tjoflat, Stanley Birch, Susan Harrell Black, and even Stanley Marcus (in 2011).

You never know. She is well respected and noncontroversial, and could be one more confirmation to pad Leahy and Reid's numbers.

She's stepped on a bunch of third rail issues the Left won't forgive her for. In '05, she dismissed a global warming suit brought by a bunch of state AG's, in the Bronx Household of Faith continuing case she's found in favor of religious freedom and equal access to public facilities; supported free speech on the internet in the Libraries Assoc v. Pataki case, and worst of all, has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court pick in the media.

I'd be shocked if you hear her name mentioned again in the next 3 months.

I wouldn't rule a lame duck confirmation out.

I suggest Peter Keisler for the DC Circuit and any one of four nominees for the 4th Circuit.

Bush offered an olive branch in 2001 which was promptly placed in the wood chipper. Should Obama win, he will not waste his time on any comparable peace offering. Contrary to his branding of Obamania, Barack will not sit down with the loyal opposition for a dialogue. Expect nothing in return for W's gift nominations of Gregory and Parker.

It is hard to believe that we won't have a Bush or Clinton in the White House as we have had for past 20 straight years.

Did W approve any other former Dem nominees in 2001?

7th Heaven

The answer to your question is no, Bush did not nominate any other former Dem nominees to Circuit Court of Appeals vacancies from 2001 (when Gregory and Parker were nominated and quickly confirmed) until April 2008, when Helene White was renominated and quickly confirmed. As has been discussed here in the past, Clinton nominated several Republican-appointed district judges to Circuit Court of Appeals vacancies, all of whom were quickly confirmed: Stanley Marcus (1997), William Byrd Traxler, Jr. (1998), and Maryanne Trump Barry (1999). Sonia Sotomayor (Clinton COA nominee, confirmed 1998) also was a Bush I district court appointee, but only as part of a Bush I deal with Democrats regarding choosing NY district court judges; no one in his or her right mind would deem her a Republican, so she shouldn't really count.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/garre-confirmed-as-solicitor-general/

"According to sources in the Justice Department, the Senate on Thursday confirmed Gregory G. Garre as United States Solicitor General. Garre had served as Acting Solicitor General since Paul D. Clement stepped down in June. Garre joined the office in 2000, serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General until 2004 and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General since 2005. Following graduation from George Washington University Law School, he served as a clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Garre argued five cases before the Supreme Court last term: for the respondent in Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1231) and Munaf v. Geren (06-1666); as amicus supporting the respondent in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. (06-637) and Baze v. Rees (07-5439); and as amicus supporting the petitioner in Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn (06-1221)."

Good for Garre. He deserves it, and it's nice to see the Senate actually confirmed him, not letting him float out there as an acting SG forever. Garre's a great attorney, and hopefully if McCain wins or another Rep in 4 years, Garre will be in a good position for a COA seat.

Bush should sit there watching Cspan, wait for Harry to recess this Congress, then unload 2-3 recess appointments. I don't care if the recess is 5 minutes.

Keisler, G Conrad, and maybe 1 Dem state nominee.

Rosenstein would be my pick. The Dem senators whined that he'd be removed from his US attorney position, but that will be expiring in 2009 anyway.

Or anyone on a district seat.

The Dems will likely not want to confirm Keisler. By November, there will be D.C. Circuit seats open. That is the same number open when Bill Clinton left office. The Dems view those two seats as "theirs" with no Republican rights to them. The same goes for the North Carolina seat to which Robert Conrad is nominated and the Maryland seat to which Rod Rosenstein is nominated. Both were open when Clinton left office. The Dems want to keep them as revenge for the way Hatch and the Senate Republicans treated Clinton nominees in the 106th Congress.

Assuming the Dems want to offer an olive branch next year if Obama is elected, as far as I can tell, the only two Bush COA nominees with a chance of being renominated and confirmed in the 111th Congress are Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond. Neither is up for a seat associated with some blocked Clinton nominee. Steve Matthews of South Carolina has a background very unpleasing to the Dems, so I doubt he has a chance under Obama.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/follow-up-to-the-democratic-not-so-short-li...

Interesting, but not new material.

Given those reactions, I am revising my short list of potential appointments for the first seat to: Kagan, Sears, Sotomayor, Wardlaw, and Wood. The additional names for later seats are: Granholm, Garland, Jordan (assuming an immediate elevation to the Eleventh Circuit), Patrick, and Salazar.

Sears is currently on the Georgia Supreme Court. Bobo mentioned her as a possibility for the to be vacant 11th circuit seat; hopefully she is blue slipped.

In posting a few days ago about cross-party appointments, I forgot about one other COA judge appointed by Clinton who previously had been a Republican-appointed district court judge: Ann Claire Williams of the 7th circuit. She joins other Clinton COA judges with similar status: Stanley Marcus, William Byrd Traxler, and Maryanne Trump Barry. I've pasted the text of my post from a few days ago below for context:

"The answer to your question is no, Bush did not nominate any other former Dem nominees to Circuit Court of Appeals vacancies from 2001 (when Gregory and Parker were nominated and quickly confirmed) until April 2008, when Helene White was renominated and quickly confirmed. As has been discussed here in the past, Clinton nominated several Republican-appointed district judges to Circuit Court of Appeals vacancies, all of whom were quickly confirmed: Stanley Marcus (1997), William Byrd Traxler, Jr. (1998), and Maryanne Trump Barry (1999). Sonia Sotomayor (Clinton COA nominee, confirmed 1998) also was a Bush I district court appointee, but only as part of a Bush I deal with Democrats regarding choosing NY district court judges; no one in his or her right mind would deem her a Republican, so she shouldn't really count."

For two reasons, I doubt Sears will be blue-slipped if she was nominated to the 11th Circuit from Georgia. First, she is relatively moderate and was nominated to the Georgia Supreme Court by DINO Georgia governor Zell Miller. Second, her departure from the Georgia Supreme Court would allow the present Republican governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, to name her successor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06court.html?ref=us

"'McCain is a social conservative, and he’s given every indication that his appointees would be conservative, especially since that’s the traditional way to repay the Republican base for helping elect you,' said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School and a former clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. “Obama’s whole message, meanwhile, is about uniting people and listening to the other side. And he is close to a number of core centrist Democratic thinkers about the court, so it’s likely that he would pick people who are fairly centrist.”

Many conservatives disagree. They point to remarks that Mr. Obama made on CNN where, after saying he did not believe “in a bunch of judicial law-making,” he went on to describe in relatively explicit terms for a presidential candidate what sort of perspective he would want his nominees to have.

“What I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice,” said Mr. Obama, who taught constitutional law for years at the University of Chicago.

Several conservative observers of the court said they interpreted those remarks as code for Mr. Obama’s intention to select 'liberal activist judges.'"

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20081002_levy.html

"Privacy, wartime executive power, racial preferences, abortion, property rights, cloning, gay marriage, school choice, the death penalty, gun control - just a few of the hot-button issues that the federal courts will likely address over the next four years. That's why judicial nominations are vitally important. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were each able to reshape the federal judiciary, filling more than 300 slots apiece, including more than 60 appellate judgeships and two Supreme Court seats. Because federal judges have a momentous impact on law and society, voters need to know what they can expect from Barack Obama and John McCain."