ConfirmThem

In looking at the opinions issued from the December sitting, 4 have been issued and 5 Justices haven't written. Roberts, Stevens, Scalia and Breyer have. That leaves Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, Alito and Kennedy.

Stevens has written(and crafted somewhat of a legacy building on his mentor Rutledge with)the 2 liberal terror cases Rasul and Hamdan and since Boumedienne is very similar to those two and in many ways a direct extension of Hamdan, it makes sense that if the liberals won he'd write Boumedienne. But Stevens has already written from that sitting.

It's unlikely he'd assign the opinion to Souter or Ginsburg as they've written virtually no landmark cases in their combined 30 years on the bench, certainly none recently.

Roberts has also written. Of the remainig Justices, it's probable that Kennedy has the opinion, especially given his swing vote status and the fact that any majority needs him to hold. I think given the information and his questioning at oral argument, it's likely that Roberts gave the opinion to Kennedy and that he's writing a fairly narrow opinion in favor of the Government, which would be a pretty big win for the administration and the conservatives, and one that was unexpected at the start of the term.

If you look at the arguments from Baze and Crawford, this is shaping up as a pretty good year for the conservatives.

Heller will be fascinating since none of the Justices have really dealt with the issue. It's one of the rare times when we really don't have an idea where they stand and it'll be interesting to see. I wouldn't be surprised if Souter and to a lesser extent Ginsburg lean towards the individual rights view.

If we win Boumedienne, Baze, Crawford and Kennedy(the child rape case), that's close to a sweep.

I agree that Souter hasn't written much over the last 15 years, and that a bulk of important cases since 1990 fell to Kennedy and O'connor.

But Ginsberg has had a fair number of famous cases, such as US v Virginia, and of course that Bush v Gore dissent.

It might be possible that Kennedy sided with the libs, but wasn't willing to go as far as Stevens, as he did in the previous decision, with Stevens writing his own separate opinion.

I do believe, though, that Kennedy realizes he is forever going to lose his 'moderate' reputation with the liberals in Washington.

If Kennedy breaks with the liberals again, he's going to be hated by the Dailykos establishment the way Scalia is.

I don't know if that's a step he is willing to take.

Isn't Stevens' dissent in BvG the most widely quoted?

I believe that AMK is so drunk with power at this moment in time that he is beyond caring about the opinions of anyone or anything, other than whatever whims & winds are currently swirling through his head.

And in a bizarre way, the present lineup of the Court may allow him to return, along a VERY tortured path, to his basically conservative nature. Plus, JGR is likely much better than WHR at keeping him somewhat on the ranch, and Sandy's no longer there to put ideas in his head.

Hardly an ideal situation, but it's the best it's been in a long old while.

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

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/24/what-is-pat-leahy-thinking/

"Last week. Sen. Pat Leahy managed to sneak a judicial nominee hearing in under cover of recess, scheduling the hearing on the fly...and reportedly leaving a number of Democratic Senators and their staffers on the committee less-than-pleased at his high-handed tactics on scheduling this. What is Pat Leahy thinking?"

"I have heard through the grapevine from sources that Judiciary staffers and several Democratic Senators were not pleased (fuming was one word that I heard) about the high-handed, swift and without consulting colleagues way this hearing was scheduled -- because many of the Senators who would have liked to question the nominee were not able to be there due to the quick nature of the hearing being scheduled."

This is ridiculous. Haynes' hearing was scheduled on February 6th. If Dem members of the Senate Judiciary Committee really wanted to question Haynes, they had two full weeks to find a way. They chose not to. Why? Because they could care less if Haynes is confirmed. They know that to keep the Republicans in the Senate in line for awhile, they need to do some confirmations and Haynes is the least controversial of the group.

What is apparent form this liberal blog entry, however, is that Leahy and the Senate Dems have to be careful about alienating the extreme-left activists who haunt them. At present, I think the Dem senators on the SJC and some of their staffers are just giving lip service to the radical fringe of their party. I think the lip service will continue with Pratter, whose battle is likely to be much more heated. After that, then I think the Dem outrage will turn real when Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees are considered.

Stevens probably had the most well known dissent from a legal perspective, yeah. Ginsberg's is only known for the removal of the word 'respectfully' from the end, which as far as I can tell, is the SCOTUS equivalent of the middle finger.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3163

Both Brian Stacy Miller for the Eastern District of Arkansas and James Randal Hall for the Southern District of Georgia are getting committe votes this Thursday. They had their hearings with Honaker and Puryear on February 12th. I guess Honaker and Puryear won't be processed.

In the continuing series of Dem obstruction:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/15912757.html

The Senate Democrats' treatment of Honacker, Puryear and Dugas is disgraceful (though hardly surprising) but relatively unimportant. District judges just aren't that significant in the overall scheme of things. Circuit judges are. If the Dems are racking up scalps to cover their left flank for a compromise this July by which we get 4 or 5 Circuit nominees confirmed this year (including Keisler and at least one 4th Cir. nominee), I'd be willing to see 10 District nominees go down. Whether or not that is actually the Democrats' scheme is, of course, just a speculation.

As to the Senate's blue-slip procedure, it is a farcical stain on the Senate and on the principle of fair treatment of a President's nominees, and should be abolished.

Outsider - Does your speculation that the Dems are "racking up scalps" to give themselves cover for a compromise on Circuit court nominees this summer have any basis in fact? I call shenanigans. If Keisler and (say) Conrad haven't been confirmed by July, I don't see any possibility that they will be confirmed after that date.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of district court judges. I particularly wouldn't want to see Republicans in the Senate give up on district court nominations in favor of appellate court nominations that have little or no chance of success. Many decisions of district court judges are either entirely or effectively unreviewable, particularly in the context of the admissability of evidence, and a liberal district court judge can cause an enormous amount of mischief.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3163

Hall and Miller both appeared at the hearing with Honaker and Puryear. Clearly, those two appear to be in a spot of trouble.

As I specifically stated at the end of the first paragraph in my #11, the silver lining scenario was just a "speculation". By definition, speculation is fairly synonymous with conjecture, in that it is not based on conclusive evidence. I have no hard evidence to support the scenario I advanced. I advanced it merely as a rationally plausible interpretation, based in part on the way that Leahy & Company have been using the District judge confirmation process to cover their tracks on Circuit Judge confirmations (though admittedly in the opposite manner so far).

I agree with you that the above scenario is not probable. More likely the Dem-Libs are just torpedoing as many nominees as possible, both Circuit and District. But it is plausible, though as you point out the timing makes it unlikely, since Pratter's confirmation will probably be dragged out to mid-May at least, and July may well be too late.

Also agree of course that District Judges can be influential and important. GOP Senators should pressure the Dems to process at least 3 or 4 a month through June or July. But at this point Keisler and the 4th should be the top priorities, faint though the hopes may seem.

#9, not #11

We can't relent on District Judges. Letting Leahy and Co. see that they can block DJs without consequences will only embolden them to block more DJs and will also encourage them to dig in their heals even more forcefully on the Circuit Judges. They never would have filibustered so many Circuit Judges if the Republicans had pushed back forcefully on the first one.

I recall writing and phoning Senate Republicans (especially Senators Frist and Hatch) in 2003 warning that if they allowed Democrats to get away with blocking (at that time filibustering) Estrada and other Bush Circuit nominees, that the Democrat sharks would smell blood in the water and eventually begin blocking District nominees. That is now happening.

You are so right. Even the Senate Democrats in the spring of 2003 could hardly believe that Frist and the Senate GOP were so spineless and hapless, and were letting the Dems get away with it. When the GOP stupidly let Estrada go down, the game was effectively lost. Goodbye Estrada, W. Haynes, Boyle, Pickering, Myers, Allen, Saad, Kethledge, Murphy, Matthews, Rosenstein, Stone, Getchell, probably Conrad, et al. So unnecessary. So it goes.