ConfirmThem

FYI, Timothy DeGiusti, District Court in Oklahoma, was confirmed this morning by the Senate. With four other district nominees pending, I hope this isn't the only confirmation before break.

Also, it's strange since he wasn't the first one in order on the Executive Calendar, and it's not a "judicial emergency" seat like two of the others. Does anyone know if there are any "holds" in place on the other nominees that are already through the SJC or other specific factors in play?

Another strange thing, Southwick did not make the Executive Calendar yesterday. More SJC games playing?? Also, did either of the pending district court nominees get voted out yesterday by the SJC?

The answer to your question on SJC playing games with Southwick. - yes. The SJC did not report his nomination to the full Senate yet. Probably will report it today for September's Executive Calendar. If McConnell really wants to be a royal pain there are procedural methods to bring his nomination for a vote today.

The other two district court nominees on the agenda yesterday were held over by the SJC.

There are secret holds that come and go all the time in the Senate. The other nominees should be cleared today unless there is some controversy with a Senator.

I'm glad that those who said we should toss Southwick overboard were proved wrong. Sometimes decent people and superb judges CAN win out at the end of the day.

I will be the first to admit that I was one of those people who thought Leslie Southwick was a goner. I wasn't willing to have him withdraw yet, but I did think that the Senate Republicans needed to lay his nomination aside to focus on others. I made a mistake. I didn't think McConnell and Specter were really willing to fight for a judicial nominee. Their "sense of the senate" amendment, however, was a brilliant move. I also applaud Cochran for stepping up to the plate behind the scenes to introduce Southwick to some important Dem senators so that they could see for themselves what he was like as a man. I also never anticipated that a major Dem like Dianne Feinstein would buck the liberal special-interest groups. All in all, I am very glad that the stars seem to perfectly align for Southwick this week. My natural pessimism has received a well-deserved jolt.

Should call the Senate back into session on Monday to confirm this man.

And keep them coming! We still have the 2 VA, SC, and PA seats to fill. SC is critical; if Bush wants to push Steve Matthews he needs to be nominated now.

I think this innovation could be followed for every appellate court nominee. Indeed one could include two or more nominees in one resolution. Let's see Landrieu, Pryor, Baucus, etc. vote against those. I think McConnell should try it again soon. It shines an uncomfortable light on the Democrats.

I wonder who will be furiously trying to dig up dirt on Judge Southwick over the next 30 days or so?

I am reliably informed that contrary to rumor, the McConnell amendment on Southwick is still pending.

I have no idea how that impacts the overall Senate fight/vote on the nominee.

Checked with McConnell's office. They said the resolution went away with the vote on SCHIP.

How can an amendment still be pending when it was never voted on before the bill to which it was attached was passed? In fact, I distinctly heard Max Baucus last night on C-SPAN2 withdraw all pending amendments to the SCHIP bill before the final vote. What gives?

You wrote your answer before my question got posted.

"So there’s a history here. Some may think it is ancient history, but the fact is that nominees to this Circuit were treated particularly unfairly during the Clinton Administration, and there was a special burden for the current Administration to work with our side on nominees for it. To ignore this history would be to simply reward the behavior of the Republicans during the last six years of the Clinton Administration."

excerpt from Feingold's statement on the Southwick nomination:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=2902&wit_id=4083

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Pres. Clinton nominated three people to the Fifth Circuit who never made it out of committee. They were Enrique Moreno of Texas, H. Alston Johnson of Louisiana, and Jorge Rangel of Texas. The Moreno and Rangel nominations were opposed not by just one of the Texas Senators, but by both. In contrast, both Mississippi Senators support Judge Southwick's nomination. Regarding Johnson, I'm not aware that GOP Senators smeared him as being racially insensitive, like the Democratic Senators have been doing to Judge Southwick. In any event, one would think that Pickering and Wallace are more than enough payback, not to mention the Owen filibuster.

Clinton appointed 65 circuit judges, with the Dems in charge of the Senate for 2 of his 8 years. Bush has appointed 54, with the GOP in charge of the Senate for 4.5 of his 6.5 years. If Feingold wants some justice here, he'll let Bush appoint 11 more.

Bush renominated Roger Gregory as a show of good faith after he was blocked in the Clinton years. So that makes it really WJC - 66 GWB - 53. And Susan Neilson really shouldn't count. That seat was blocked until she was on her deathbed and then it has been blocked since her death, so that was a token offer for a three-month fill-in, making it more like WJC - 66 GWB - 52. And that's counting Barrington Parker in the Bush column. And like you said, this was with his party in control 6 years for Bush and only 2 for Clinton.

If the next president is a Democrat, I fully expect the Dem-controlled Congress to substantially increase the number of federal judges. That would give Hillary or Obama the opportunity not only to fill any spots held open by Dem obstructionism now, but also the opportunity to fill a bunch of newly created seats. The only way to stop this travesty would be if the Republicans in the Senate filibuster any new bill raising the current number of judges. Would this be ethical, though, if it also means that the federal judiciary would be overworked and understaffed?

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/03/cq_3226.html

"When California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday cast the deciding vote on the Judiciary Committee in favor of forwarding Southwick’s nomination for Senate floor consideration, she quickly drew flak — and a threat of political retribution — from California Rep. Maxine Waters, an outspoken African-American Democrat."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/quin_hillyer/2007/08/breaking_ranks....

"California's Senator Dianne Feinstein on Thursday committed an act of decency that offers at least a slim hope that Congress might become slightly more functional in the autumn than it has been up until now. The United States desperately needs such functionality."

I just read the new addition of the Senate Daily Digest and it appears the only district nominee that was approved before they left was the Oklahoma one.

And apparently no new judicial nominees before the recess either.