ConfirmThem

1) Does it matter to Romney whether or not a Supreme Court nominee has judicial experience? Is he more likely to nominate someone presently serving on a federal court of appeals or not?

2) When it comes to a nominee's jurisprudence, does Romney differentiate between strict constructionism and originalism?

3) Which five current court of appeals judges does Romney respect the most and why?

1) In the face of obstruction or rejection of his judicial nominees by the US Senate, would Governor Romney be more inclined to stick with nominees having his judicial philosophy, or would he be more inclined to instead select new nominees who are more palatable to the judicial philosophy of those Senators who do the obstructing or rejecting?

2) Governor Romney has echoed other Presidents, like Reagan and Bush, in saying that "You need people who will follow the law rather than legislating from the bench." How does Romney address this counter-argument from Justice Kennedy: "Well, what about the law of contract and tort; where do they think it came from, the stork?"

3) What does Governor Romney think about the kind of judicial nominations that other GOP contenders would make?

4) There are two separate issues about abortion: whether Roe should be overturned so that the democratic process can play out, and whether the democratic process should ultimately keep abortion legal. I don't have any big problem with the fact that Governor Romney's stance on these two issues has changed, so that he now sincerely favors overturning Roe and favors not keeping abortion legal. Did his stance on one of these two issues change before his stance on the other of these two issues?

5) You clerked for Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court. Please tell us something about the Court or the Justices that the public doesn't already know. Justice Thomas says that the justices have never raised their voices at each other, or been uncivil. Can we say the same about the clerks?

Among the distinguished conservative legal scholars out there, are Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid, former active-duty U.S. Marine Judge Margaret Ryan of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz, and Dean Jim Chen of the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law hot on Romney's radar screen for Supreme Court nominations? :-)

Wendy -- One of the discussions (especially during the slow summer months) is what is the best way to force a Democratic Senate's hand to take care of nominations.

I've proposed the "Judicial Emergency" strategy which is quite simply to quickly fill all of the "Judicial Emergency" vacancies and then if the Dems block the nominations, there is a built in sound bite for the President to beat the drum that the Democrats are "blocking Judicial Emergencies," a message that will get through to the masses.

What does the campaign and Mitt think of that approach?

Also, will you hire Quin Hillyer and me to help you pick Judicial Nominations?

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

When the Democrats obstruct, and they will obstruct, what will you do? Will you and the Republican senators constantly go out to every media outlet and let the people know this is taking place? If the Republicans have a mojority in the Senate, will you insist on the constitutional option? This could have all happened before, but the Republicans did a horrible job of explaining this to the public. Will you offer a history lesson that it was never done before by one party to block nominees and that it was the Democrats who used the "nuclear" option by filibustering? Or will you just sit idly by as happened before?

In October 2002, President Bush announced a plan for the timely consideration of judicial nominees. Pursuant to that plan, the President committed himself to submit a nomination for a seat within 180 days of learning of an impending vacancy. The President also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on a nominee with 90 days of receiving a nomination and for the full Senate to vote on a nomination within 180 days.
Unfortunately, the Senate has not followed this plan. Surprisingly, for reasons that are unclear although much debated, neither has the President. For instance, according to Sen. Leahy, 15 of the 23 vacancies currently without a nominee have been vacant for more than 180 days. While strategic considerations may be involved (the lack of nominees may be designed to force the Senate Judiciary to consider certain nominees as opposed to "cherry-picking" the most ideologically acceptable nominees out of a larger group), there is concern that the lack of nominees indicates that an insufficient amount of interest, attention and resources is being directed at the nomination process on the part of the White House.
So, how important does Mitt Romney consider the judicial nominating function? Is he willing to make the selection and shepparding of his nominees a priority of his administration? Does he think that 180 days is a reasonable period of time within which to make a judicial nomination, and is he willing to commit to making nominations within that or some similar time period?

Monday, October 01, 2007
Romney On The Supreme Court
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:01 AM

I will be broadcasting today from a forum in San Diego sponsored by California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, devoting most of the program to legal reform and the SCOTUS. It is the first Monday in October, always an important day to focus on the judiciary and the legal system in general.

An excellent statement from Mitt Romney on the day the SCOTUS opens its new term

The First Monday in October marks the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term. Cases in the upcoming term could dramatically impact the everyday lives of all Americans. The Court will face questions involving the death penalty, voter identification as a means of ensuring fair elections, efforts to stop child pornography, whether terrorists held as enemy combatants deserve special rights, and perhaps even our right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is important that we nominate justices in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

Today reminds us that a judge’s most solemn obligation is to the 'rule of law,' a phraseology of which I am particularly fond since it comes from the original Massachusetts constitution of 1780. It reminds us that those appointed to the federal bench must leave behind their partisan passions and retain only one: the passion for 'equal justice under law.' Respect and fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under law must guide the judicial mind and, in fact, they are required by the oath all federal judges must take.

Those holding themselves out for the Presidency have an equally solemn obligation: to find women and men for judicial service who respect the rule of law and who will be faithful to the law as enacted. As President, I intend to nominate judges who respect the separation of powers, are committed to judicial restraint, and have a genuine appreciation of the text, structure, and history of our Constitution. The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of 'junior-varsity Congress.' That would wrongl

Given the number of SCOTUS appointments likely in store for the next president, Romney's views on the Court will matter a great deal in the primaries and will be a huge issue in the fall as well. I expect that a second President Clinton would have at least four appointments and perhaps more.

Just a reminder:

Justice John Paul Stevens is 87.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 71.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 69.
Justice David Souter is 68.

If it is then that's good news.

"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 think you have things confused. Wendy Long clerked for Clarence Thomas, but Romney did not. See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_...

Would Gov. Romney have voted to confirm Justices Ginsburg & Breyer had he been a US Senator at the time of their nominations? How about if the nominees had been Mario Cuomo & Bruce Babbitt instead? Why or why not? What did he think about Senator Hatch's 'negotiations' with President Clinton over those two vacancies?

Would Gov. Romney have voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales & Harriet Miers had they been nominated/not withdrawn? How would he compare & contrast Justices Stevens & Scalia's qualifications with those of Justices Thomas & Souter, at the time of their respective nominations? How would he compare the qualifications & jurisprudence of Chief Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice Burger? Justice Powell to Justice Blackmun?

Would Gov. Romney nominate Janice Rogers Brown or William Pryor to the Supreme Court, and lead the fight for their confirmation on a *DAILY BASIS*? Will he specifically commit to nominate Justices EXACTLY in the mold of Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas, as Mayor Giuliani has done?

What does Gov. Romney think of how President Bush has handled the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals in general, and the 4th Circuit specifically? Would he reject out of hand an otherwise highly qualified "conservative" potential nominee previously unknown to him & his staff who was suggested & "pre-approved" by moderate Republican senators and/or conservative Democrat senators?

Will President Romney promise in his inaugural address to nominate candidates for ALL vacancies in the federal judiciary by 2/20/09?

Some predictions if Romney and a Democrat Senate are elected next year:

1. There will be no "honeymoon" whatsoever for the new President as regards judicial nominations. Democrats will actively obstruct starting 1/21/09.

2. Dems will continue to block any conservative CCA nominee for 4th Circuit Maryland. What's 4 more years when they've done it for eight years already?

3. Levin and Stabenow will continue to block nominees for the present two Michigan CCA vacancies. What's 4 more years when they've done it for eight years already?

4. White conservative Southern CCA (and to some extent DJ) nominees will continue to be smeared, obstructed and keel-hauled. Filling 4th Circuit and Mississippi vacancies will be especially difficult. There will still be at least two 4th Circuit vacancies in 2012.

5. Conservative Supreme Court nominees will be heavily obstructed and blocked, even if this means that the Court would be undermanned for years. Any Recess Appointments to fill the gaps will be decried as a perversion of the Constitution. If Democrat opposition to a nominee somehow falls below 50, the ultra-liberal Democrat rump will filibuster even from the "majority".

6. Beginning on January 20th, 2009, Democrats and the Move-On/AFJ/People for the American Way/NARAL axis will immediately begin counting down the 3 1/2 years until the Thurmond Rule kicks in.

What great fun we could all have. Four more years!

Yesterday Sen. Reid made some comments on this weeks schedule.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S01OC7-0006:

"Once action on DOD authorization has been concluded, it is my intention to have the Senate consider the DOD appropriations bill, to be followed by the consideration of Commerce-Justice-Science. Then we have a circuit court judge and several district court judges we plan on working on this week."

So we can expect some confirmations this week. He is talking about one circuit court judge, my guess would be Elrod.

If olly's news is correct and Elrod is the only COA confirmation this week, then Outsider may indeed be right. Southwick may never be confirmed. Reid could, contrary to some of his public statements, not give Southwick a floor vote before the October break. If this occurs, it should be noted that, if Reid can keep Southwick off the table until the beginning of the annual December break on Nov. 16th, then Southwick's nomination could be sent back to the White House. That would require that he be reported back to committee if he is renominated in January. By that time, Leahy could use the Thurmond Rule to make sure he isn't given another committee vote. However, would Reid go back on his word like that?

But it steel good that there is someone like her in the Romney campaign

"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 assume that your last question is rhetorical and humorous, given what Reid is. Among other things: a fraud, a cheat, a scoundrel, a sleazeball, a liar, a sanctimonious hypocrite, an unsufferable bore, a George Soros/Move-On tool, a PFAW/ALJ/NARAL minion, and probably a crook as well.

However, if your question is serious as to whether Reid would go back on his word, my answer is "yes." Reid is so untrustworthy that he's capable of going back on his word before he even gives it (mentally).

Your analysis of the possible Democrat procedural strategy on Southwick is excellent and spot on.

I still hope for the best, but I shudder for Southwick. Curse you, George "Maccacca" Allen!

You forget:

7. Romney & the Republican senators will not fight at all for conservative judges, and Mahoney, Callahan, & Ikuta will be the 'best' we will get for SCOTUS.

You're probably right, alas. And I also forgot an amendment of #6:

8. Senate Democrats will move up the kick-in date for the Thurmond Rule to January 2012. So the clock that begins ticking on 1/20/09 will be set for just 3 years, not 3 and 1/2 years.

when? If McConnell was ever going to shut down the Senate to force floor action on a nomination, Southwick is as good an opportunity as any, and probably better than most. This is not a fight the dems want to have right now. Reid will delay as long as he possibly can, but if the GOP holds firm and forces his hand, he'll fold. From a political angle, you've got to love the fact that Southwick is an Iraq veteran. A shutdown of the Senate would be a big news story, and the GOP would like nothing better than to shine a light on Southwick and Democratic obstruction in the Senate. DiFi's vote, in addition to getting him out of committee, is all the cover Nelson, Johnson, Byrd, Landrieu and possibly a few others (Pryor, Baucus, Webb?) will need to vote for him. A filibuster is not going to happen. But Reid controls the calendar, and for anything to happen, McConnell has got to force Reid to bring Southwick to the floor. Conversely, if McConnell doesn't take action, then its hard to imagine there will be many more appellate level confirmations.

How does Gov. Romney feel about the Gang of 14 deal; net positive or net minus? Does he believe the Democrats lived up to their end of the deal, and can be trusted to live up to further deals? Does he feel that Republicans made the most out of the deal?

Is Gov. Romney familiar with the ENTIRE sets of circumstances surrounding the COA nominations of Miguel Estrada & the late Susan Bakke Neilsen? Does he believe the Democrats treated both nominees fairly?

Does Gov. Romney believe BOTH questions in Bush v Gore were decided properly? Does he believe that President Bush's administration's effectiveness & legacy would've been helped or harmed had that election been settled by the House of Representatives rather than (essentially) by Supreme Court decision*? Does he feel Gore supporters would've accepted a House vote more readily than the Court's decision? What would his personal preference be, should the 2008 election come down to a key state that is in a virtual dead heat?

* Note that all subsequent recounts eventually showed that Bush did in fact win Florida in 2000.