ConfirmThem

This guy is an idiot. But it is rather strange that Catholics make up such a large chunk of the conservative judges (including our stars on the Circuits).

I haven't counted, but I'll take faithful constitutionalists of any race, religion, and gender. The more the merrier.

Ted Kennedy being a drunken, lying, womanizing, abortion-loving, anti-religious, murderous pig. Maybe his type of Catholic on the SC would be okay.

Even Senator Chuckie has the good sense to remain silent after the beating he took for his treatment of Pryor.

http://www.gocomics.com/tonyauth/2007/04/20/

Takes fewer words to say what Stone did.

Someone help me here, but hasn't the Catholic church taken a position opposing capital punishment? If so, according to Stone's hypothesis, shouldn't the three Supreme Court opinions concerning Texas capital cases today have featured a Catholic block vote? Only Kennedy voted with the libs in those cases.

You are correct. Only Kennedy seems to hold both of the Catholic Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito may follow the Pope's view on abortion, but certainly not his stance on the death penalty.

Kennedy actually doesn't really follow Catholic teaching on abortion. If he did, he wouldn't allow any abortions, regardless of trimester or procedure.

Courtesy of Bench Memos,

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZhNGE2NTUyYzgwMmJjMTBmZjdjYjM5...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coyle200509010733.asp

Here is a different take on the effect of a Catholic education on John Roberts.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTE5ZDQ0YWI2OTU5MmEyOGU2Y2Y2MGMz...

I am astounded! A substantial new report of an impending Critical imminent 4th Circuit nomination (more important than anything except Keisler or a SCOTUS vacancy), and many more people are here ruminating about Catholics on the Court--there's plenty of time for that anytime. Get a sense of priorities people!

When you've finished here, I suggest that you take a break and go over to the previous thread ("4th Circuit Nomination?") for awhile, read the comments and hopefully post something. Then come back here too (as I probably will) and commute between the two threads. Let's stay alert!

I always thought he might have a chance to someday surpass Scalia, but it may be happening even quicker than I thought.

I meant to include the final graph quoted by Ed Whelan from Roberts' dissent in the capital cases:

Still, perhaps there is no reason to be unduly glum. After all, today the author of a dissent issued in 1988 writes two majority opinions concluding that the views expressed in that dissent actually represented "clearly established" federal law at that time. So there is hope yet for the views expressed in this dissent, not simply down the road, but tunc pro nunc. Encouraged by the majority's determination that the future can change the past, I respectfully dissent.

Hardiman was a DJ in the WD of PA before he was appointed to the 3rd Circuit. I noticed on the judiciary web site they do not note any vacancy for his old position.

http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=...

This website is usually updated multiple times a week. This website also says that there are 10 judge positions. However there are only 9 current active judges. Am I missing something or are they. Im pretty sure the Hardiman seat was not a temporary one. While Im on that topic what is the logic of creating temporary seats.

What's an anti-Catholic professor to do with the fact that Justice Kennedy voted in the 5-4 majority three times yesterday (writing once) to reverse death sentences. This was also the Vatican preference, I'd presume. I'd guess that Prof. Stone isn't bothered with Kennedy's papal influence in THAT situation.

I wrote more on this (mostly TIC) at the Center for Law and Religious Freedom's new blog (base link in my signature). The link to my post is here: http://religiousfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/04/papal-influence-over-suprem...

www.religiousfreedom.blogspot.com

I've noticed that too; I've been writing Hardiman's name in on my copy of the list of Vacancies for several weeks. It has to be an oversight by the judiciary website.

Jonh Roberts is already showing the makings of a great Chief Justice. Solid reasoning, brilliant arguments, a superb and often witty stylist, and a savvy practitioner of Court politics. Can you imagine how much better the Gonzales opinion would have been in every way had Roberts written it instead of Kennedy's sometimes laughable pomposity and equivocation. One more conservative justice, and major Supreme Court opinions will improve dramatically, stylistically as well as substantively.

has her column in slate predicting that mccain-finegold will be trimmed by the Court.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165028/

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

.. is that Catholicism has such a long and rich intellectual tradition. Much of Protestantism and especially evangelicalism made a point of overthrowing all the highfalutin Scholasticism, angels on the head of a pin etc. The Great Awakenings of the 1800s were a decisive turn away from intellectualism to emotionalism..and that's where Prtestantism stands to this day. And the Jews went almost completely secular until the recent renascence of orthodoxy.

"Someone help me here, but hasn't the Catholic church taken a position opposing capital punishment?"

Not exactly. The Cathechism points out that it may be appropriate for the obviously guilty parties who still pose a danger to society either out of jail or behind bars. There is a distinction after all between an innocent baby and a grown, guilty criminal.

has this very interesting link about justice Thomas. http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_clarence_thomas.html

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

I get your point, I think - but you take it too far. There was a historical evangelical turn away from academia, and that's where lawyers and judges come from. This might help explain the lack of evangelical Supreme Court justices in the 1930's. But I think we're past that time, don't you? The fact is that there are quite a few educated evangelicals these days. But maybe the point is that the media/elite still assume the landscape to be the way you describe it and that bias is what keeps evangelicals off the Court. I know I certainly experienced both in college and law school this assumption (from professors and fellow students) that "born agains" couldn't possibly be intelligent thinking people.

www.religiousfreedom.blogspot.com

Meant to also note that I had blogged on this point as well today in a post titled: "Charles Stanley for SCOTUS?"
http://religiousfreedom.blogspot.com/2007/04/charles-stanley-for-scotus....

www.religiousfreedom.blogspot.com

Both my 20&21 were in response to Cassie's #18.

www.religiousfreedom.blogspot.com

Livingston appears on the agenda for the next Executive Business Meeting next Thursday, May 3:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2744

Here is the agenda for judicial nominations:

II. Nominations

Debra Ann Livingston to be U.S. Circuit Judge
for the Second Circuit

Roslynn Renee Mauskopf to be U.S. District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York

Richard Joseph Sullivan to be U.S. District Judge
for the Southern District of New York

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen to be U.S. District Judge
for the Northern District of Indiana

The Judiciary Committee has noticed a Business Meeting for Thursday, May 3rd. Debra Livingston is on the list, along with the 3 DJ nominees at the 4/11 hearing. Maybe the GOP pressure is having some effect.

On 6/28/2006, the White House nominated Livingston, Jordan, Kethledge and Murphy. The next day, 6/29/2006, the White House nominated Keisler. If Livingston is the "May" confirmation, then it would mean that Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy are the only COA nominees left over from the 109th Congress. As I suspect that it would much more dangerous for Democrats to confirm Kethledge and Murphy to the 6th Circuit (which would prevent a Dem president in 2009 from preserving the 6th Circuit as a court controlled by liberal precedents), I think Keisler's time will be in June.

If McConnell wimps out on pushing him, it'll make me throw up. If the Dems succeed in blocking Keisler, you can forget about more Bush COA nominees being confirmed except for maybe Southwick and Elrod. That means no 3rd or 4th Circuit confirmations. Rather, the Dems will see no more reason to pretend. There will be no "one-a-month" confirmations. The Dems will laugh heartily about how they emasculated Bush and the Senate Republicans.

BoBo, I agree with you. I think this confirms that Livingston will be the May confirmation. It's also quite possible, especially given the added pressure from the Rep senators, that Keisler may be the June confirmation (1 year after his original nomination). I think Kethledge and Murphy will be put off as long as possible by the Dems, and so Southwick is likely to be the July confirmation and Elrod is likely to be the August or September confirmation (who knows if the Senate would confirm someone in August - they don't do any work in August usually). Kethledge and Murphy are probably looking at late fall confirmations if they're lucky, but it's possible they won't be confirmed this year.

They didn't confirm anyone in April, so the Senate GOP needs to get down to business and make up for it.

If we are lucky enough to get a SCOTUS vacancy, retirements historically have happened in late June or July, with confirmations at the end of September. If the appeals pipeline is to be shut down for 3 months, we need to get Keisler at least in the bench before then.

The clear signal as to whether Democrats will obtruct Keisler until at least June will come at the May 3rd Committee Business Meeting.

If the Committee votes favorably on Livingston and reports her nomination to the Floor on May 3rd, there's a small chance that Keisler or Southwick could also be confirmed in May, or at least get placed on the Executive Calendar.

However, if Democrats exercise their one-week delay and put a Committee vote off until at least May 10th, the chances are almost zero that another Circuit nominee could be confirmed in May. I outlined the chronology involved in a post yesterday.

In short, we (and the Senate GOP) should keep our attention focused on next week's meeting; what happens there will be decisive in the short to medium term.

The Democrats would have to move 2 nominees concurrently:

Livingston presumably clears committee on the 3rd, and is confirmed within a week or two, and Keisler would have to be moved through committee on the 10th/17th while Livingston was still on the floor.

The letter from the Senate GOP about Keisler was received only a couple days ago according to Ed Whelan. If Keisler not mentioned at all on the May 10th agenda, we know Leahy is ignoring them.