ConfirmThem

Does the 12 count Helen White? If so, we should not fall into the liberal trap of counting her.

Democratic leaders announced last month that it is their intention to adjourn sine die in September. There are only 4 legislative weeks left.

Way to short to get Diamond (and the others) confirmed.

Actually, if there is no hearing next week, it is very likely that there will be no more confirmations this congress.

AC1, the current count is 10 circuit judges (including White) and 48 district judges.

Olly - I suspect Diamond will be confirmed. A GOP controlled Senate confirmed 15 of President Clinton's nominee's to the U.S. Courts of Appeal during the final two years of his Presidency. The current Senate has only confirmed 10 of President Bush's nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeal (and, of course, Helene White was a Clinton nominee in all but name). The Dems think Obama will be President in 2009. It must have occurred to them that, by keeping the number of confirmations so low, they are handing the GOP all the ammunition they need to return the obstruction, with interest, over the next four years. I suspect the Dems will do what it takes to confirm Conrad and Diamond (both compromise picks), even if it means acting in special session, in order to even out the numbers a bit more. That will probably be enough of a gesture to the moderate GOP Senators like Specter, Collins, and Snowe to ensure that they allow Obama's nominees to move through to confirmation. I see the Dems playing a deeper game here than just preventing the confirmation of one or two more judges.

Well, I'm more negative. I don't see Senators coming back for a special session to confirm one or more judges.
(If there is other matter for that special session, like appropriation bills; it might be a different story.)

On Conrad: why don't they schedule a nomination hearing for him next week? Easiest solution, if they really want to confirm him.

Even though the nominations weren't reported on the White House website, the five PA nomination (and Pratter's withdrawal) appear in the proceedings of the Senate in the Congressional Record from yesterday.

Off topic, but in case anyone knows - Why are the ratings down on the ABA's website? They haven't been appearing for the last couple of weeks.

I thought Gregory was a Clinton COA nominee that was renominated by Bush and confirmed in '01. And if we're subtracting the two "Clinton appointees" by Bush, has anyone done the due diligence to make sure Clinton did no such favors for Bush I?

President Clinton did not renominate any of President Bush's Court of Appeals nominees (at least not in his first two years in office).

Interestingly, District Judge Richard Conway Casey (S.D.N.Y.) was nominated by Clinton and confirmed in 1997 - previously, Casey's nomination had lapsed when he was nominated by President Bush. Judge Casey was the first blind man nominated to the federal bench (although previously at least two judges had lost their sight but continued to serve). The renomination may have been some kind of olive branch to Sen. D'Amato, who recommended Casey the first time around.

Bench Memos notes that Anthony Trenga, nominated by President Bush on 7/17 to a Virginia District Court seat, has made political contributions to John Kerry in 2004, Mark Warner this year, Jim Webb in 2006, and numerous democratic candidates for state office in Virginia. Hmmmm . . . Is Trenga part of a deal? Does Sen. Webb get to pick 1 out of 4 district court nominees out of VA, as is the case in some other states where there is at least one senator is of the opposite party from the President? Hard to fathom, otherwise.

If Trenga gets confirmed out of VA ahead of David Novak - be annoyed.

Probably a concession to Webb. Or perhaps he's a Democrat who's also a judicial conservative. (I know, but stranger things have happened, I suppose, at some point in world history.)

The 4th circuit agreed to hear the en banc appeal of the 2-1 panel decision to strike the VA partial birth abortion ban.

This means there's a good chance that decision will be reversed. I count at least 6 of the 11 judges to reverse(Williams, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Duncan, Shedd, Agee with Traxler a good bet as well). If Conrad can get confirmed it's almost a guarantee that it would be reversed.

This would pretty much open the door for state pba bans everywhere, which sholud have happrned last year.

Anyway, it looks like it points to a big victory for pro-lifers. Coupled with the 8th circuits recently upholding en banc an informed consent law, things may be turning around.

Traxler was a Bush I district nominee, who Clinton appointed to the CoA.

He had worked on Strom Thurmond's campaigns.

One new post on this site in the last 11 days...yet another sure sign that things are going nowhere fast.

Depressin', innit? But at least McConnell & Specter are going to take it to those obstructionist Dems any day now. "Think lioness", to quote Madame Speaker.

BTW today's NYT sez it was Judge Mike McConnell who recommended Obama for a fellowship at UoChicago Law. Guess he liked some editing suggestions Barry made for one of his articles when Barry was editor of Harvard Law Review.

Wonder what Obama'd do if Stevens croaked tonight and Bush nominated McConnell next week? MM is on record as saying both RvW & BvG are...less than perfect. ABA would certainly give MM a UWQ. The Senate Dems would look pathetic & scheming for blocking him; meritocrats, independents & moderates would be outraged; they'd leave themselves wide open for retaliation down the road and the public won't stand for another Borking. IIRC his wife is Hispanic, and of course he's got the perfect Justice "look" a la Alito. There'd be some screaming about diversity from TIME & Newsweek, but nobody really cares about that crap anymore.

And he's parsecs of magnitude better than Mahoney or Callahan. All total fantasy, of course. Just idly spinning as the dust swirls and tumbleweeds, er, tumble.

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

Just some friendly reminders on how Obama thinks re judges:

http://www.slate.com/id/2196337/

http://www.slate.com/id/2183930/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-on-supreme-court-appointments...

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

Back from another small vacation, I was somewhat depressed reviewing what had gone on while I was gone. I do not know how any of the new nominations (including Diamond) can get processed this year if Reid adjourns in September as promised. If Reid and Leahy try to honor the judicial deals that have been worked out so far, the Senate will have to spend at least an entire week on judicial votes in September. Not to mention, Leahy will have to schedule a ton of hearings during that same time. I don't see how this can happen considering the glacial pace of the Senate these days.

I think some of these "deals" must be for political hype only. Will Leahy have either the motivation or time to schedule hearings for the two Virginia (G.Conrad and Trenga, who I think is part of a deal to get G. Conrad confirmed), two Colorado (Goldberg and Arguello) and five Pennsylvania (Diamond and company) nominees in September?

I am especially worried now about Glen Conrad's nomination. He is the only bipartisan COA nominee ready for a hearing, but none has been scheduled for him yet, and Congress will only be in session for one more week.

Some good news may be that Reid now appears to backing off of the idea of an early adjournment of the 110th Senate in September:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/27218-1.html

Only if the Senate meets more than three weeks in Septmember will Reid and Leahy be able to process all these nominees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR200807...

"Agee's arrival restores a 6-5 advantage for Republican appointees, with four vacancies remaining. But legal experts said it's unclear whether Agee, generally known as a moderate conservative from his time as a judge and earlier service as a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, will decisively tilt the balance.

"I think the right word to describe this is incremental in terms of a change in the complexion of the court," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "I don't think it will return them to being the most conservative court in the country, but it won't make them more liberal, either. We'll just have to wait and see."

At a minimum, Tobias said, the appointment will smooth the day-to-day functioning of a court that had been down five members for nearly a year. "It certainly helps in term of caseloads and moving appeals," he said."

Although I think Keisler's case is hopeless now, here is some new stuff from Specter on him:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/on-the-merits-alone/

"This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine reports by the Justice Department´s Inspector General (IG) on "politicization" at the department. The first such report, issued last month, brought to light facts that the committee should heed as it carries out its responsibilities in the judicial confirmations process.

Peter Keisler, who recently served as acting attorney general, was repeatedly cited in the IG's June report as having spoken and acted in opposition to those who allowed political considerations to play a role in hiring decisions in the summer law intern program and the honors program at the department. He was one of two high-level officials at the department who were praised for insisting that the decisions be based on the candidates´ qualifications.

Ironically, Mr. Keisler, who was nominated to the federal bench more than two years ago, has been unable to get a Senate vote on his confirmation because the Judiciary Committee has elevated political considerations over the nominee´s qualifications. He is a stellar nominee with a history of public service, a superb resume, extensive legal experience, the highest ABA rating, and endorsements in editorial pages of major national newspapers. Yet, Mr. Keisler is being refused a vote in the Judiciary Committee.

One can only conclude that he is the victim of the same type of refusal to make decisions based on qualifications, which the committee is now decrying."

http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/three-cheers-fo.html

"I don't know Mr. Keisler, who has returned to private practice now. Before doing so, he was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Political considerations no doubt foreclose any confirmation proceedings before November, but in my view his conduct in this case [i.e. DOJ hiring] shows him perfectly suited for the bench."

http://www.committeeforjustice.org

It looks like the Committee for Justice website has bitten the dust. Is this a sign that major political players in Washington know that there will be no more major judicial confirmations this year?

Curt can you give us an answer?

When this board seems to be going dormant, who DOES care??

Anyway, for what it's worth, three new district court nominations (IL, MS - what took so long on that one! - and NY) today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080731-18.html

Other than to have the talking points about how many were pending when W left office (which is important, admittedly), it's hard to go through the motions of actually thinking that they will get anywhere.

You never know - that MS nomination (2 GOP senators) might slip through. There are now 33 nominations for 41 total vacancies. Two district court judges just took senior status - a SD judge yesterday and a FL judge today. There was already a nominee for the FL seat. I'm not sure if the SD seat was on the pending vacancy list or not - if it was, it should already have had a nominee. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is one of the few democrats that is pretty good on judges. He was one of only 4 dems that voted to confirm Justice Alito (Nelson, Byrd, and Conrad were the others).