ConfirmThem

After reviewing all of the hype about what was expected to be a very low key, uneventful confirmation, there are a few points that have been left out of the discussion. To view Southwick’s record with a proper perspective, one must understand the politics of the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Opinions authored by the same judge can often contradict previous opinions on the same point of law. This was never the case with Southwick. He was one of a few judges who would never decide a case based upon outcome. The law ruled the reasoning and final opinion. Picking out a handful of cases in which Southwick participated out of the approximately 7,000 does not even begin to scratch the surface of the man’s legal views.

Most shocking of all is that Southwick is taking the brunt of Mississippi’s conservative public policy. The implication made by the accusations against Southwick is that a judge should rule in favor of a party if the judge feels that is the proper outcome, even if such a ruling would be in contradiction to the law. One fundamental and consistent characteristic of Southwick is that he will follow the law. Whether or not he will be labeled as a conservative or liberal is none of his concern. Indeed, the judiciary would benefit from more people who hold this view.

The most important characteristics of Southwick have not even been mentioned about him in the unfair representation of his record. On the Mississippi Court of Appeals all ten judges are eligible for per diem for 20 days each month at $99 per day. This is true per diem, in addition to salary. To receive the per diem a judge need only walk into the building of the court and then leave. Needless to say, nine judges take the per diem. The only judge who has never taken the per diem, not one dime, is Southwick. The kicker is that Southwick, by far, spent the most time actually working at the court. He worked longer hours than any other judge on a daily basis. The man did not even take an annual vacation because he viewed his two weeks of military drill as the maximum amount of time he felt comfortable with away from his job as a public servant.

While deployed to Iraq, Southwick could have worked out the situation where he spent enough time on work related to the court which would have enabled him to pull both his salary as a judge and as a military officer. By now you should already know what he did. He signed a waiver of his judicial salary and benefits such as insurance while he was deployed to Iraq. All of the other suggestions made about who would be a more fitting choice for the nomination do not even come close to both the qualifications and character of Southwick.

Just read about the Marri v. Wright decision. Another liberal judicial victory for the terrorists. I just knew as soon as I heard about it that the second judge signing on with Motz's pro-terrorist opinion would be Gregory or Duncan.

Here's a bitter fruit from Bush's 2001 capitulation on Clinton's recess appointment of Gregory. Maybe the entire 4th Circuit (what's left of it) will reverse this travesty en banc.

more comments re the 4th Circuits 2-1 decision discussed by Outsider above, or the SCOTUS decisions handed down today--one of what was unanimous (against Phillip Morris)?

And exactly what did Bush receive in exchange for his nice gesture of renominating Gregory?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand real conservatives, and real fighters, as their leaders.

Could someone explain to me how this works. Yesterday, the 4CCA made a ruling. However, it was a 3 judge panel.
1. Is it always a three judge panel? How does it get decided if it's three or the whole court? How do you come up with the individual three people?
2. There is now an appeal to the whole court? Isn't the next appeal to the SCOTUS?

Thanks for the help.

All circuit court decisions are heard by a three judge panel that is chosen from a pool of all available judges.

I'm not sure the circumstances, but "controversial" decisions can be reheard by the full circuit which is called "en banc."

Romney or Fred.

How do the three get selected? Is it by lottery?

Another reason (a HUGE one) why Bush must focus immediately on filling the vacancies on the 4th Circuit:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVlMGZlMzJhN2EwMWU0YjIzZjkwOGRlOTB...

I don't think most people realize the full extent of the deterioration that has ALREADY occurred on the 4th Circuit.

As a matter of fact, conservative numbers on the 4th Circuit have already dwindled to the point that it is uncertain whether an en banc rehearing would reverse Motz's and Gregory's pro-terrorist Marri decision. With 3 vacancies, there are currently 12 judges on the 4th. After Wilkins retires on July 1st there will be only 11. There will be 5 conservatives: Widener, Williams, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Shedd. Five liberals: the 5 Clinton appointees (including Gregory). The 11th vote would be Duncan, who is squishy at best.

Those are the stark numbers no one seems to realize. We may be forced to rely on Anthony Kennedy to reverse.

After 6 years of the Boyle, Gregory, Allen, Haynes, and Maryland fiascos, the 4th Circuit is on the brink of being lost to the liberals who continually side with the terrorists against their own country. The 4th Circuit handles many of the most important national security cases. What is happening is intolerable: our national security and the safety of our families and country is being put in jeopardy by judicial dupes and pawns of the enemy.

Again, this is absolutely intolerable, even if this travesty is eventually reversed. We need IMMEDIATE action in the form of 2 or 3 nominations to the 4th Circuit, and an all-out push by the Senate Republicans for confirmation.

This is an issue the American people can understand. And if there's another terrorist attack, every Carter-Clinton liberal judge who signs on to this kind of judicial suicide should be impeached without delay. Let them write their own death warrants, not mine and my family's.

The district court judge who dissented, Henry Hudson, has previously been mentioned as a possible nominee for one of the VA seats on the 4th Circuit. I say definitely go with him and fast!

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2954

How is the 4CCA getting this case? I thought that the DC Circuit got most of them b/c the administration is in DC and theat circuit serves that court.

The other day you were whining about judicial salaries. I just want to point out that the lack of adequate pay is why your boy Luttig is no longer on the 4th CCA. He is at Boeing making in one year what would take him 15 or more on the bench. Maybe its time to reconsider your position on judge's pay. Or maybe after we lose that Marri case en banc. Thanks Bob.

although, perhaps next time you can make the point without specifically addressing BS Bob. You know how I feel about responding to him directly. LOL

Why is Obama advertising on ConfirmThem? Everyone click on the ad. The more times you click, the more money it sucks from his campaign! Can we get a computer program to click on it constantly?? :-)

Boeing offered four-million dollars per year to attract Luttig. It is not desirable to even begin to match such salaries for Federal Judgeships.

The primary reason Luttig resigned was GWB. GWB first argued before Luttig that Padilla was an unlawful combatant, and, then after Luttig agreed with Bush, Bush knee-capped him by attempting to moot the case.

The secondary reason Luttig resigned was the Supreme Court selection process. The "Conservatives need not apply!" sign was posted for those who could read the tea leaves. Luttig realized that he wasn't ever going to be a Supreme precisely because he was a principled conservative.

Bush screwed himself when he screwed Luttig. Another case is winding its way through the Fourth Circuit and Bush would really want Luttig to be on the En Banc panel.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leadership that respects conservatives rather than screws them over.

Why was Hudson "designated" to hear this case? He's a District judge and Motz & Gregory are Circuit judges. Shortage of Circuit judges due to the vacancies?

Many circuits do it. It is partially related to the shortage of active judges to be sure, but most circuits do it fairly regularly.

Great article by Harry Stein, and yes, Charles Evers deserves a medal.

Absolutely amazing that Bush, Frist, Lott, & Cochran sat by and did nothing while a man who led the **1967** prosecution of one of the Klan's most violent members, sent his kids to integrated public schools in Mississippi, and is personally vouched for by Medgar Evers' family, is called a racist for giving a first-time offender a 20+ month sentence for being a blind-drunk tagalong at a half-assed cross burning.

And why weren't Specter, Hatch & Cornyn objecting to Edwards' tactics during Pickering's SECOND(LOL) hearing?

Yet more proof that Republican Senators love the cozy cocoon of the Senate, while Democrat Senators love the fire of a judge-bashing fundraiser.

Clearly there is a growing judicial emergency crisis on the 4th Circuit, necessitating increasing use of District Judge designees on panels.

What I want to know is how 2 of 3 judges on the panel (and the only 2 Circuit judges) were Clinton liberals. There are presently only 5 out of 12 on the 4th, so it does seem a little odd. Mere coincidence, I'm sure.

36 hours to go for Southwick. This is the true decision day. I still can't believe he'll be voted down, since there's so little (virtually nothing) against him that the opposition is almost enbarrassing. Unfortunately the leftist groups and many Democrat Senators are way beyond embarrassment.

If Southwick gets delayed again, that's the end.

I don't care if they are for the Virginia seats, or the GOP seats in the Carolinas. Get somebody up there.

Two folks were nominated today to District Court vacancies:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070613-1.html

Better than nothing, I guess, but not much. I wish I could figure out a White House strategy here. Time is moving on.

Ed Whelan: Yet further evidence that Senate Democrats are not fit to govern: I’m reliably informed that Congressional Quarterly will soon report that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have indicated that they have asked President Bush to withdraw his nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit in advance of tomorrow’s scheduled committee vote.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmIzMzA1YmQ3YjZiZmZlODQ5NzY2YmMw...

WAKE UP OUT THERE!!! This site seems to be as oblivious and asleep as the Senate GOP and the Administration. If Southwick is withdrawn, it is biggest event of the year for the judicial wars and the END of significant confirmations (and all except a pathetic few) for the rest of the Bush Administration.

Do you understand? Democrats are going in for the kill RIGHT NOW! Where is everyone? Where is a new thread about this? I am not overstating the importance of this. Wake up, people. Or has everyone just given up? [more later]

I have written and made calls to McConnell, Graham and Specter. If Graham doesn't deliver on this then I am officially working for Ravenel. It is time to deliver a 5th Circuit nominee and then 2 4th Circuit nominees.

Assuming the Bench Memo's source is correct, I'm not sure I understand why the Dems would do it. Does it mean that the far left senators realize they can't kill him in committee and they want a paper trail (with some "we expect more minorities and moderates or we'll stop confirming" language)?

Does it mean that the Dems have the votes to kill the Southwick nomination and after the vote tomorrow they can say "I told you so"?

I would lean toward the first option. Why kill the golden goose in committee (unless it truly is a show of power). From the Democrat's point of view there is so much more to be made of this by pushing it to a debate on the floor of the Senate--picture it Clinton, Obama, [insert other presidential hopefuls here] "standing up" for base by bashing Southwick and creating nice little soudbites. If the most bang for the buck is what they want--wouldn't that make more sense?

What really IS going on? Good question. I had always believed that Southwick would ultimately be confirmed; the case against him is wholly smoke and mirrors by the loony left. So perhaps this is a Democrat bluff and they don't have the votes in Committee. Who would vote yes? Kohl? Cardin? Feingold? Whitehouse?

But after the Amnesty Bill, I worry that the Administration or the GOP Senators may capitulate. That's probably an irrational worry, but it's still there. There has been so much surrender and weakness over the years. The Democrats have smelled weakness, and may have calculated that they can win the whole jackpot on a bluff. The GOP has to realize that if they surrender on this, it's all over for meaningful confirmations. And they will lose what's left of their base.

The Republicans must FINALLY draw a line in the sand. For what it's worth, I've called McConnell, Kyle and Sessions, but only got through to the latter. I wouldn't waste my time on McCain's stooge, Lindsey Graham. McConnell must put on effective pressure to counter this. At least that bungling amateur Frist is gone, or the game would be lost for sure.

Has anyone seen any updates?

Asking the President to withdraw the nomination is the last-gasp, hail-Mary tactic of those who do not have the votes to defeat the nomination outright.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservative leadership with the intestinal fortitude to fight liberalism 24/7/365.

You may well be right. It's quite a logical explanation. It may well be just a desperate bluff or a stunt to please PFAW et al. But my trust in the administration and the Senate Republicans is so low after 6 years of weakness and mistakes that I worry (perhaps irrationally)that they might fold under pressure. And it's still possible, though unlikely, that some Democrat Senator will put a hold on Southwick tomorrow and delay the vote yet again.

do you really think Bush will pull Southwick after what the Dems have already done to 2 supremely qualified judges for the Mississippi seat? after he resubmitted Boyle et al. 2 and 3 times?

my sense is that their maneuver here is akin to the no votes on Roberts to SCOTUS - a pathetic and ignoble shot across the bow. its not done with a view to kill Southwick, but the next nominee, probably Keisler.

while I don't think its necessary, as he'll already be steaming mad if there's any real chance Southwick goes down, add Lott to your calling list.