ConfirmThem

for your information under the Southwick thread. I'll follow up on the various matters you suggest. And, yes, zoning does seem to be the stickler in this case.

All these Obama ads are kind of amusing. If he would back up the ads with a commitment to judicial restraint and originalism, then he might be more effective here. :-)

We need to reduce the number of regional Circuits to nine reflecting the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. Below would be my attempt to make 9 contiguous circuits that are more balanced in their representation of population and yet are more regionally cohesive than the current system. The Circuits, according to my suggestion, would fall out like this.

9) CA (California-Kennedy, Breyer)

8) HI, AK, WA, OR ID, MT, WY, NV, UT, CO, NM, AZ and Pacific Territories (Pacific Northwest, Mountians and Pacific Islands)

7) TX, OK, AR, KS (Southwest)

6) ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, MO, IL (Plains States-Stevens)

5) MI, OH, IN, WI (Midwest-Roberts)

4) FL, AL, MS, LA and the Carbbiean Territories (Gulf States)

3) WV, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA (South-Thomas)

2) MD, PA, NJ, VA, DE (Mid Atlantic-Alito)

1) ME, NH, VT, RI, CN, MA, NY (Northeast-Scalia, Souter, Ginsberg)

The Federal Circuit and DC Circuit would be assigned to the Chief.

If my calculations are correct, each Circuit would have over 30 million, but less than 37 million people within its boundries. Hopefully this would make the number of judges assigned to each Circuit Court and the work load for the Circuits more evenly divided for all involved.

Futhermore, I think it would be good for the President to try and appoint justices from the regions currently not represented on the Court so that in the end, each region had 1 justice. If this tradition had been put in practice, we would not have Souter, Ginsberg or Breyer on the Court. The regions not represented now tend to be more conservative and hopefully would have yielded more conservative choices.

Appoint the best judge possible irregardless of what state the current other justices hail from.

The country 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 better leadership.

First thing Monday I plan to start calling some Democrats and hope most of you will too. Republican support alone will not get Southwick out of Committee. Calling Sessions, Cornyn, etc is preaching to the choir at this point.

Jim Webb got elected because of his "support" of the troops in Iraq. I plan to call him and say that I too support the troops and veterans of Iraq and I would hope that Iraq war vet Southwick would be treated fairly in the Senate wth a vote. Paraphrase it however you want when you call and please be respectful. Webb's number is (202) 224-4024.

Sheldon Whitehouse is my other target for Monday. He chaired Southwick's hearing. Tell him what a good job he did in conducting the hearing and how you would appreciate his support of this qualified veteran and hope that he receives a vote on the floor. Whitehouse's number is (202) 224-2921.

Mary Landrieu is up in 2008 in a much redder state than last time around due to Katrina. Remind her that her support of a well qualified Southern who is a veteran for the CCA that sits in her state would help her in her re-election campaign. Landrieu's number is (202) 224-5824.

Mark Pryor is another one up in 2008. Tell him how you don't like how a fellow Southern is being treated by the Senate Majority and how you would like a public statement from him that Leslie's treatment is wrong and he deserves a vote. Mention how fair Pryor has been with judges and how you would appreciate his support now again. Pryor's number is (202) 224-2353.

That is just a start. I will post more numbers and talking points later this week. Feel free to have your own talking points but please be respectful.

[from ucctruths.com. He's also scheduled to speak at the United Church of Christ's 50th anniversary national General Synod meeting in Hartford later this week (or early next?), where Connecticut is kicking in $100k--raising some ethical questions re separation of church and state.]

Obama campaigns at Iowa Conference Annual Meeting

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE SPEECH

Obama: "It's important that we don't stereotype evangelicals in the same way that often times those of us in mainline denominations are often stereotyped"

the end of SCOTUS term. So far, this site has seen remarkably little speculation. Probably due in part to being burned by "Insider" last year and probably because just about every possible permutation has been discussed two years running. But, again, I do so enjoy the hot stove league!

My speculation right now revolves around when John Roberts is finally going to release his affirmative action opinions.

by my count there are 14 cases left to be decided and 2 scheduled days for releasing opinions (though they will likely add this Thursday as they did last week, and probably will have additional days next week as well). I'm guessing McCain, Morse and Hein at least will be some of the very last opinions to be issued, both because they're high profile and more recently argued. It might make sense and be attractive to the court to release the other high profile case earlier rather than later, if possible.

I return to my question, to which I still do not know the answer, on whether the dissent can hold up the release of an opinion by not "finishing" in a timely manner after the majority author has circulated his opinion.

Whatever the case, we're running out of scheduled days and possible days to add, so the chances are good for any time.

depending on whether or not the two weeks of argument in April are counted seperately for division of workload, with today's decision by Souter in the Brendlin case, Alito is the only justice not to have written for the 2nd week, and WRTL is the only case outstanding. (correction: RBG has also not written a case for the 2nd week, but she did write in the 1st week, which Alito also has not done; the CFR case is still the only one outstanding from week 2). It would be the first major opinion of his young Supreme Court career, I believe. and given his recent comments we have a pretty good idea what an Alito opinion would look like in that case.

If the two weeks aren't counted seperately, there's still a decent chance he's writing it since he's the only justice not to have written in either week.

In addition to CFR, there are still 3 outstanding cases from the 1st week: Defenders of Wildlife, TSSAA, and Panetti. Every other justice has written at least once, and Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer twice.

Also, there apparently will be no opinions issued the rest of the week, which leaves just next week to clear the deck of all 11 remaining cases.

the opinion in the race case did not come out today

SCOTUSblog has updated to say opinions will be issued on Thursday.

Kennedy, along with Ginsburg, has authored a 1st week of April opinion, but not a 2nd week. It would hardly be surprising for him to be writing it either.

In view of the Democrats' constant carping about the lack of black District judges in Mississippi and their use of this rather lame "issue" against the Southwick nomination, I have the following suggestion. Attempt to make a deal with Senate Dems in which Southwick is confirmed to the 5th Circuit and Bush nominates an African-American to the vacant District Court seat in Mississippi. A compromise on a District judgeship is clearly worth making if it achieves filling this controversial Circuit seat with a jurist of Southwick's caliber.

This plan might succeed and is certainly worth a try. Even if it doesn't succeed, it undermines the Dems' sordid use of the race issue and would force them to explain why they are rejecting a solution that would achieve what they ostensibly want: a black jurist on the federal bench in Mississippi,

I have suggested this previously and seen no response. In view of the importance of confirming Southwick, I look forward to reading any responses.

The Democrats are clear in their position: no Black Mississippian has ever served on the CCA. Their position is not that no Black has ever served on a district Court.

Since your plan simply doesn't address their stated concern you have to answer the question, "Why is this a deal, or compromise, or whatever, rather than an offer of granting the Democrats a pretense to back out gracefully from their position?"

If it is the latter, why would the Democrats want a graceful exit?

The country 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 reject their current moderate leadership in favor of real conservatives who are competent.

I doubt that works. Leahy specifically made a comment about African Americans on the circuit level.

It's a completely hypocritical stance, but its his to take.

A compromise will have to be made on the circuit level, perhaps a black nominee to the 2nd TX seat.

Southwick Suggestions:

Southwick is a Texas native. We could encourage Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson to allow Southwick to fill the remaining vacancy on the TX 5th COA seat, allowing a suitable nominee from MS to fill the MS 5th COA seat. The deal would be all three nominations to the 5th COA (Southwick, Elrod, and new darker nominee from MS) be fast tracked through confirmation.

The deal could also include nominating a darker American to fill the district court seat in MS. I would say the best person for a district court nomination is Patricia Bennett, currently a professor at the law school where Southwick is now a visiting professor. You can read her profile here:
http://www.law.mc.edu/faculty/profile_pbennett.htm
and see that she is more than qualified, and the best choice for a district court nomination at this time.

Feel free to recommend this option to senators as we advance the objective of getting Southwick to the floor of the Senate. As odd as this may sound, I think Cochran and Lott would rather fight, possibly resulting in the loss of a third nominee, than give in to a compromise like the above proposal.

Feel free to send Mississippi Senators Cochran and Lott an email or call with this recommendation.

Senator Cochran
http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
202-224-5054

Senator Lott
http://lott.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
(202) 224-6253

Also, one of Senator Whitehouse’s staffers seems to think the senator has already made up his mind to oppose Southwick. Senator Whitehouse is probably more open to persuasion than folks like Ted Kennedy. I say call all of your contacts in RI and get them to assure Whitehouse that allowing Southwick to pass through the SJC could actually make Whitehouse out to be somewhat of an independent thinker with courage to do what he thinks is best: move well qualified judicial nominations through the pipeline.

The Democrats have made numerous statements regarding the paucity of black District Judges in Mississippi. One such is the statement by Leahy excerpted at the beginning of the previous thread. I suggest that you try reading them. Democrats cannot credibly base their opposition to this nomination on the basis that this 5th Circuit seat can be filled only by an African-American.

As to your second point, this is a "deal" or "compromise" because each side would give up something and gain something. Republicans will fill a long-vacant Circuit seat with a suitable conservative judge, while ceding their presumed first choice for the vacant District seat. Democrats and the leftist interest groups would achieve a presumable aim of getting another black judge on the federal bench in Mississippi, while allowing Republicans to finally fill this seat on the 5th after 6 years. This type of quid pro quo is the very essence of compromise.

I think that there are some moderate and even liberal Democrat Senators who may want to "back out gracefully" from opposition to Southwick. The case against him is transparently flimsy, and they may decide that this is the wrong nomination to destroy, with others like Keisler coming up soon. True, this plan may not work, but it's certainly worth trying, and infinitely better than doing nothing and waiting passively for defeat.

I'd be very interested to hear any other proposals for positive action on this nomination.

I think that your plan is the best I have heard that could possibly avert this crisis. However this will just put off the battle that is coming to another day. The Dems dont really care what color Southwick is. This is just a means to go to their ends. So while I think this is a reasonable way to go, maybe it is time just to draw a line in the sand and let what happens happen. The Dems are going to want their pound of flesh. Id rather it be Southwick than Keisler.

On rereading Leahy's comment, I see that he did not refer to Mississippi District judges. However, Democrats and interest groups have referred to them on several other occasions. I did not see an ironclad position in Leahy's statement that they will confirm ONLY a black nominee to this Circuit seat. So the plan I proposed is not necessarily outside the bounds of possible compromise (with something else thrown in?).

In any case I think it should be tried first. If it fails, Republicans could then move to a CCA level compromise along the general lines of SOP's suggestions. While the use of racial quotas for CCA seats is abhorrent to me, it may be necessary to finally resolve this impasse.

There is a significant downsize to offering your "deal."

After it is rejected, summarily, Bush will have the additional problem of ceding the three principles of 1) There is a racial shortage on the Fifth Circuit at both levels; 2) Racial quotas are the solution to that shortage; and 3) The Senate no longer should defer to the wishes of the home state Senators. Additionally, such a "deal" would give aid and comfort to those who presume all Whites South of the Mason-Dixon line are "racists"

Since it won't be accepted, your proposed "deal" has no upside.

It certainly isn't the "optimal" strategy.

The country 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 principled and effective leadership.

Bigskybob,

While I will consider conceding that this is not the optimal strategy, I think you will agree that it has potential to break the current delay.

No concession would be made by offering the Dems what they want, darker Americans on the 5th COA and MS district courts. Therefore, no implication would be made that racial quotas are the solution to a perceived shortage. If Cochran, Lott, Cornyn, and Hutchinson all back the deal then the home state Senators would be getting what they want, and avoid consuming time and resources fighting this brewing battle.

I am open to other suggestions but I have not seen many ideas proposed…

I have edited one particular word in comment #21.

This Thursday and next Monday will be HUGE for the Supreme Court with regards to the busing questions (affirmative action) and the WRTL (1st amendment issues).

Using the stats over who has written what opinions, it seems likely that John Roberts will write the combined decision on the affirmative action programs.

Given that David Lat listed this as Chief Roberts "money quote," I'd expect to see these overturned:

"[E]veryone got a seat in Brown [v. Board of Education] as well. But because they were assigned to those seats on the basis of race, it violated equal protection. How is your argument that there’s no problem here because everybody gets a seat distinguishable?”

The other speculation, which has less mathamatical certainty, is that Samuel Alito will write the outcome in Wisconsin Right to Life. That could defintely happen though and if it does, its likely to come up short of completely overturning McCain/Feingold. However, Alito seems likely at least to overturn the "blackout timeframe" of "issue ads" based on both his recent free speech comments and notes from the time of arguments:

Alito also seemed impressed by the accumulation of amicus briefs, by advocacy groups arguing that it is "really impractical" to try to sort out the kinds of ads that could be aired during the blacked-out campaign season.

Romney or Fred.

It was a bit hard to tell which proposal you were attacking, although the inclusion of "optimal" and "deal" indicates that you were at least partly targeting mine, and that offering it would have a significant "downsize" (sic). Perhaps you were targeting both, as virtually nothing written here seems to please you. The fact that Democrats are supposedly angry that no black has ever served as a 5th Circuit (Mississippi) judge does not necessarily mean that they will reject any compromise to confirm a specific white nominee. [I explained the meaning of "compromise" for you in paragraph 2 of #18 above. So I'd recommend referring to it in case you forget.]

Second, we don't know for certain that either proposed deal (SOP's or mine) will be summarily rejected. That is, unless you are privy to specific facts of which we are not aware. And even if it is rejected there is a potential upside as I explained in paragraph two of #14 above (perhaps you missed it).

It would be helpful to the flow of thought on this site if you propose a positive course of action rather than simply attacking everything that anyone else proposes. By positive action, I mean something beyond the usual: when True Blue Conservatives finally take power sometime in the distant undefined future, then everything will work out fine.

I look forward to hearing from you some specific positive proposals re confirming Judge Southwick, or at least of getting him out of Committee.

http://www.nbc11.com/msnbcnews/13522068/detail.html

last portion pasted here:
Bush effect on appeals courts
While Bush may not get a chance to attempt more "improvement" by appointing another justice to the high court, he has named 49 judges to the courts of appeals. And that's significant because many cases never reach the Supreme Court.

With 13 appeals court vacancies, Bush is in the midst of standoff with the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee over the nomination of Leslie Southwick to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit.

Aron's group has accused Southwick of being too partial to business interests and voting "consistently against consumers and workers."

So far Southwick hasn't been able to get a vote on the Senate floor.

For both Southwick and the president who nominated him, the clock is ticking toward the end of the Bush era for the federal judiciary.

Outsider,

Previously, you asserted that you had the "optimal" strategy for dealing with confirmation process, in general. Presumably, you should ask me, "What do you think is the optimal strategy
for dealing with the Southwick situation?"

Instead, you have demanded that I provide some "positive" solution.

There is no natural presumption that an "optimal strategy" is positive. The most effective solution is, presumably, the "optimal" strategy, be it positive or negative.

I can only assume that you asked me the question in bad faith.

To be effective, it is necessary to exam the problem carefully, and, then, and only then, formulate strategies for proceding forward.

I haven't read any serious discussion of what the underlying problems are. First, and foremost, the underlying problem is that Leslie Southwick is both White and Southern. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being White and Southern, yet, that is "there" there in the campaign to smear him as a "racist." Second, there is the fact that GWB is fighting an irrational and insane war in Iraq, and promoting "comprehensive immigration reform," at the cost of record disapproval ratings. [These facts result in the presumption that the Democrats will appoint replacements in 2008.] Third, there is the legacy of the "gang of fourteen" deal in which it was tactically agreed between liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats that the Democrats would be allowed to cast an ideological veto over conservative nominees.

Additionally, there is the neo-conservative problem. Basically, there are neo-cons who are advocating that the general interest of the conservative movement to confirm as many conservatives as possible be sacrificed in favor a singular focus on appointing as many defenders of questionable tactics to the Fourth Circuit as possible.

Anyway, it would be interesting to come up with some "positive" solutions to these problems such as withdrawing from Iraq, withdrawing "comprehensive immigration reform," complete with a "mea culpa! mea culpa! national speech by GWB, ["I have heard the voices of the American people loud and clear, ..."] etc.

Do you have insights into the underlying problem to offer?

The country 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 effective conservative leadership dedicated to acheiving conservative goals.

Spelling flame ["sic"] directed at someone who is dsylexic!

The country 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 principle conservative leadership.

I called all of them this weekend and left messages - some of them i had to look up the local office numbers though. I like your tactic here of calling these Dems.

Long time lurker on here, just thought i'd sign up and say thanks. Not sure i can add any expertise around here, but if I can I surely will.

It's great to have you. Chime in whenever. It doesn't have to be spectacular for you to contribute. Heaven knows that most of my stuff isn't.

Romney or Fred.

NoLibs: Thanks. I too was just a lurker for a long time until I decided to step up with my two cents. I hope everyone will follow your example and call those non moonbat Democratic Senators.

Andrew: What word did you change in post 21.

Bigskybob: You have me rolling with laughter. Between this thread and the last one, you have danced around saying anything about Southwick. Outsider and I have both called you out to back up your rhetoric with an actual plan or stategy. Insteand you just parsed words and gave us definitions of other words. For someone who once said on here that they would wager $5000 dollars to prove they had the highest IQ of anyone on the site, I was disappointed with the response to our challenge. You wiggled out of it by saying, "Im not sure exactly what the problem is." First off have you looked at this site at all in the last 2 months - it has been outlined ad nausem. I will give you the quick review. Leahy and Co were going to let LS through. After the Memorial Day recess and a bunch of conservative SCOTUS opinions the Dem moonbat base freaked out and told Leahy to sink him or else. Aside from the racial slur case (which LS didnt even write) the Dems have nothing. He is well qualified, modest, and an Iraq Vet. Leahy manufactured this "we need a black for MS" to give the Dems a reason to not advance him. That brings us to today. Lastly Im sure you were no better informed of the K & M dilemma with Helen White on the 6th circuit and you put forth a plan there. Do you remember that one? What extra insight to the underlying problem in the case of the 6th CCA did you have that you dont have for LS on the 5th? That is why I think your "I don't know the exact problem" excuse is hollow and disingenious. You have never been shy to give your opinion on something no matter how ill informed you are. So I will ask again. What would you, bigskybob, do to advance the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the 5th CCA?

Just a word that is now largely seen as archaic, usually neutral and, depending on the user, occasionally offensive.

Bob - if you are not fully aware of the problem regarding Southwick to come up with your own plan, how do you justify criticizing our plans regarding something you just admitted to not know enough about?

jtp7 claims I made the following remark,

"For someone who once said on here that they would wager $5000 dollars to prove they had the highest IQ of anyone on the site,"

That is not true. You repeatedly suggested that I was "stupid."
I offered to bet you $50,000 that if you were to guestimate my IQ, consistent with your characterizations, that I could exceed that score.

The real point is not that I think that I am smarter than you, I may or may not be, but, rather, the point is that you believe that I am smarter than you publicly claim I am.

Personally, I believe each, and every, poster here is on the sunnyside of the IQ curve. Very few low-IQ individuals self-select to participate in debates on the Internet.

A similiar exchange occured in the previous thread. You demanded to know if I was a lawyer, or attended university. I responded by noting that if you were willing to guestimate my level of educational acheivement, first, we could compare your estimates with the underlying facts.

Again, the real point is that you won't answer your own question precisely because you believe that I have greater level of education that you publicly profess to believe.

The country 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 effective leadership.

Only a few days remain to change this mess.

Hmmm…so where are all the strategy suggestions to get Southwick out of committee this week?
I still say that we have a good shot at an MS/TX COA swap with Southwick (see post #17 and thanks for cleaning up my double post).

I am looking for feedback here on whether you really think Keisler is going to be achievable given the resistance Southwick is receiving, and more importantly NOVEL IDEAS on how to change the dialogue from Southwick bashing to getting more COA confirmations.

I am still very surprised that the SJC Dems have given in to such extreme rhetoric. Southwick was a “consensus nominee” until the Neas and the PFAW gang splashed some white paint all over his black robe.

I checked my New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

It is not listed as "archaic."

The country 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 leaders more intent on fighting liberals than purging conservatives.

You may very well be a Rhodes Scholar with a 190 IQ. However, you still have not answered Outsider's and I's question: What would you, bigskybob, do to advance the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the 5th CCA?

the council meeting re the video store went well. The store just might not happen, which would be great.

jtp7,

I have, on numerous occasions, articulated my strategy for dealing with the issue of judicial confirmations.

If you acknowledge that I have, I will, for your convenience, refresh your memory. Otherwise, I will not.

The country 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 better leadership.

OK, we are making progress. Please refresh my memory. If you did ever offer a strategy, it was just in broad terms. I have seen nothing you have said specifically what WE can do to advance Leslie Southwick. The only thing I can think of is your usual ...when True Blue Conservatives finally take power sometime in the distant undefined future... rant. I am off tomorrow and have all day to send emails or make calls to Senators. Tell me Bob, how can I best utilize my time tomorrow to advance Leslie Southwick. I eagerly await your response.

Again, if you acknowledge that I have done so, unequivocably, I will refresh your memory. Otherwise, I will not.

The country 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

I dont see why you care what I will acknowledge or not. However, if it will have you share your strategy then fine. You have done so.

My strategy is simple enough: escalate the judicial wars, tit-for-tat, until the nuclear option is triggered, probably by the Democrats.

As to my strategy for confirming Southwick, which is a battle, but not the war, I would prefer to engage you using the Socratic method.

The first step is identifying the problem. Above I listed four fundamental problems, 1) Southwick is Southern and White; 2) Bush is weak and ineffectual due to Iraq and immigration reform; 3) the gang of fourteen deal; 4) the neo-conservative strategy to focus on the Fourth Circuit.

One of the four options is most promising concerning the Southwick nomination.

Which of the four do you believe it is? And why?

The country 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 conservatives lead their movement.

The country 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

Or should I say Sideshow Bob. This is not a game. You can come here and post your thoughts and such. It is ridiculous to have me jump through hoops to get simple answers out of you. Which I will say the question I have 5 times now about LS on the 5th, I have still not received an answer to. Your "tit-for-tat" strategy basically means you got nothing. You are a waste of my time and everyone else on here.

To all other readers: I apologize for degrading this site tonight by engaging him. This brings back memories of verbal fights that would happen on the playground in middle school. The only reason I persist in engaging sideshowbob is to prove that he is a fraud. I feel like I have accomplished that goal tonight. Bob is just here to make trouble. He never has anything constructive to say and does not add to our discussions. It is too hard to ignore him. To keep us more focused on CONFIRMING THEM rather than playing childish games, I would request again that his account be suspended.

jtp7,

It was a pretty simple question. Your failure to pick the obvious of four possible answers just goes to show that you have no genuine desire to discuss how to handle the Southwick situation in good faith.

You are merely a poster here. You are entitled to comment on any post. You are entitled to ask questions, if you wish. The other posters here are neither your slaves, your employees nor your subjects. They are under no obligation to answer a question from you simply because you want them to answer it, even if you phrase it in the language of a demand.

Claiming that your merely asking a question creates a moral claim upon my time, and my mind is morally offensive.

I, on the other hand, do have the moral right to an answer to the question as to why you asked me if I was a lawyer, or attended university. The question was so bizarre as to demand a logical explanation.

Your answer is?

Claiming you have some insight into my motives is highly self-serving in a very convenient way. My motives are clear: I am here to advocate to conservatives that they have leaders that are to the left of them that trying to pull the conservative movement to the left rather than pull the country to the right.
[For instance, the Republican party is advocating,
"comprehensive immigration reform" instead of fighting on the behalf of the vast majority Republicans who want to defeat the bill.]

Charges concerning unstated, secret motivations are the ultimate in injust accusations. Such charges are, by their nature, completely non-falsifiable.

The country 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 better leadership.

#27: Amidst all the verbiage, evasions, smears, historical distortions etc. that you offered, I STILL don't see any realistic proposals from you on how to proceed with the Southwick nomination. No doubt you will now try to divert attention by disputing the definition of "realistic".

#28: To paraphrase Samuel Johnson: "Dyslexia is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

Again, do you have any plan of action to propose regarding the Southwick nomination??

Leahy talking about racial balance reminds me of Edwards taking that job to learn about poverty.

Outsider,

Apperently, you haven't read what I wrote properly.

I have stated a basis for understanding what the real problem is in the Southwick case.

I am willing to discuss my ideas about how to handle the Southwick situation with you, or any other poster, on my terms, not yours.

If you wish to answer the very trivial question of which of the four real underlying problems I outlined above is the best basis for dealing with the Southwick situation in the short term, we can procede from there.

Otherwise, I will have to conclude that you, like jtp7, have no real interest in discussing my strategy for dealing with the Southwick situation.

P.S.

Of course, I will debate the meaning of "realistic!" I can only offer an "optimal strategy," as you put it, for dealing with the situation. Noone here, including myself, is in a position to claim that any strategy will prevail, in the short run, in breaking the judicial impass. "Realistic" is ambigious and, thus, subject the fallacy of equivocation on the meaning of the word. By "realistic" you could mean that such a plan must be presumed to succeed [As in, "must have a REALISTIC chance of succeeding.]. Alternately, a "realistic" position might very will be that the Democrats have the votes, and control the process, and not much can be done about that except regaining the majority [As in, the plan must be REALISTIC in its assessment of the situation.].

So, which since of "realistic" do you mean? You question demands clarification.

The country 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 leaders that respect them, rather than exhibit contempt for them!

Only about 27 hours to tomorrow's SJC hearing on judicial nominations. However, nothing is yet posted on the Committee's website about who will be the subject of the hearing.

Does anyone know? Or have anything more than a guess?

Re paragraphs 1 and 2 of "P.S." Exactly as I predicted in #47, a long and convoluted diversion debating the definition of "realistic". At least you do not disappoint expectations, albeit low ones.

I think that you inadvertantly put your finger on the basic problem of communicating productively with you when you wrote in paragraph 3: "I am willing to discuss my ideas ... with you or any other poster on MY TERMS, NOT YOURS" (emphasis added). An unwillingness to meet other people's viewpoints halfway makes rational communication virtually impossible.

So I am not going to fall into tar pit of endlessly debating the meaning of "realistic" with you.

As to the 4 fundamental problems you outlined, I agree with #1 and think it is the most relevant to solving this mess. That is part of the reason I advanced a compromise plan yesterday focusing on trying to satisfy Democrat-Leftists' desire for a black judge on the Federal bench in Mississippi.

#4 is too bizarre for me to quite get a grip on. A neoconservative plot regarding the 4th Circuit??? Does that mean that other posters here who advocate concentrating on confirming nominees to the 4th are part of a nefarious plot or "strategy"?

I find this very interesting too. Not sure what it means. As I wrote a few days ago, I have the low expectation that this will be a mere District Judge Only hearing. That would be a disaster, putting a July confirmation for Elrod in jeopardy. And of course the Dems would succeed in evading a June CCA hearing at all. Keisler of course is already in jeopardy but this would make it worse.

Perhaps Republicans are applying pressure behind the scenes to get Elrod or Keisler added to the Hearing Agenda, and that's the reason for the SJC's delay in posting the nominees. Or, maybe more likely, Leahy & Co. are delaying the announcement to the last moment because they know that they're sticking it to the Administration and Senate GOP, and don't want to raise a ruckus any earlier than necessary.

As to the DJ nominees, do you think there will finally be a hearing for one or more of the four North Carolina January 9th nominees?

And the reward for his "good first step" is that the Dems have killed a bunch of others: the Michigan group, Keisler, and now Southwick (making a Mississippi trifecta). They are taking "advise and consent" to a whole new level that apparently won't end until we have a Democrat at the White House.

Outsider,

I don't even have any guesses, good or otherwise. To slightly channel Sam Ervin, I'm just a middle aged business lawyer in the midwest who cares alot about judicial over-activism. (OK, you young 'uns, I was only in high school during Watergate, so I'm still middle aged and not a fossil quite yet.)

I think your speculation about the North Carolina vacancies was what called Sam Ervin to mind. I have no clue why those nominees would still be languishing, except to stick it in the eye of states that have the affrontery to elect two Republican senators. I would have thought there was enough eye sticking with Boyle for the last several years, so that the Senate "club" would at least let something through. Same with the district court nominees who've been on the Executive Calendar for weeks/months.

Who the heck knows? I sure don't

I think the chances of a CCA hearing in June were virtually doomed when the Committee struggle over Southwick extended until at least this week. Leahy & Co's pattern all year has been not to hold a hearing (or 1st action) on a Circuit nominee until the previous one is out of Committee. This one at a time strategy serves Dems' goal of delay by slowing down the process. So delaying Southwick in Committee had the added bonus for the Dems of avoiding a CCA hearing completely this month.

That said, I fervantly hope that Leahy & Co. prove me totally wrong by posting an Agenda in the next hour with Elrod and 2 N.C. District Judge nominees on the list. But I doubt it.

I think the fact that there is no agenda for tomorrow means that there is some negotiation going on somewhere (although at this point, I'm not sure what I mean by "negotiation").

I was looking back over the last Statements from Leahy when Southwick has been on the Business Meeting agenda. I find it amazing that not once has Leahy mentioned Southwick. This essentially means that the Democrats are able to push ahead with subpoenas to the Justice Department on the one hand and slam a Bush nominee on the other without having to compromise headlines for the actions.

Also, where is Trent Lott? If the third nominee from my state (the second of which was a close friend), I would be pulling out all of the stops to make noise about the way Southwick is being treated--even if it does nothing more than please my constituency. Just took a look at Lott's web page (even listened to his radio address)--not a word.

All of his numbers are busy and his staffers are out of sight as well.

If Southwick goes down, Cochran and Lott will lose a great deal of credibility and support. It seems as if Mississippians have no voice in the Senate while one of our outstanding judges continues to get pounced! Outrageous.

The only judicial nominee on Thursday's agenda.

Other than Outsider, or jtp7, whom the moderator has deemed a reply to be a continuation of a "feud." [Sorry Outsider, jtp7 that is Andrew's decision, not mine!]

I have a strategy for fighting the battle over Southwick.

The key observation is that Southwick's crime is being both White and Southern.

Given this is, essentially, the whole case against his nomination, to whom should we appeal to rally support for the nomination?

The country 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 leaders more intent of battling liberals than purging persons more conservative than they are.

cubsfan, sorry about the confusion with my prior post. There's a "Judicial Nomination" hearing tomorrow in the SJC--Feinstein is presiding--and there are no nominees listed there.

You are correct that Southwick is back on for Thursday's Business Meeting.

Yes, what is with Lott? He is Minority Whip (No. 2 in the GOP leadership in a 49-member caucus). He couldn't get two home-state nominees confirmed when Republicans had the majority (51 and 55). Maybe he's working hard for Southwick behind the scenes. Did the 2002 Thurmand controversy neuter him politically somehow?

Perhaps he's hiding from the public right now because of the Amnesty Bill and his gaffe in attacking conservative talk radio. His staff was probably overwhelmed with outraged phone calls.

Here's the link:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2829

Four district court nominees: Two NC, one OK and one CA. Not suprising, Rogan of CA continues to languish.

Speaking of Rogan, CA has a nominiation committee type mechanism. Does anyone know if he went through that process, or was chosen outside of it? If he went through it, it's dirty pool if CA's Senators insist on the process and then ignore it at will.

Nor will anyone else who had anything to do with Clinton's impeachment.

Understood completely, but still dirty pool.

As expected. A "July confirmation" is now officially in peril. We'll see about the erstwhile "June confirmation" on Thursday. On it goes. Hey, at least 4 DJ nominees are better than 3. How did that happen? Maybe Leahy & Co. threw that bone as a consolation prize to those tough GOP Senate negotiators.

Burr and Dole may not be capable of getting any CCA nominees from their own state confirmed. Apparently they can't even get any nominations to the 4th from their state these days. But it's good to know that they at least still have enough clout to get invited to introduce their District nominees to the SJC. They way it's going, it's almost surprising those ciphers didn't get snubbed even on that formality.

Sorry, you were clear, I just read your post too quickly.

So can anyone read the tea leaves on what will happen (not what ought to) when Specter can't find a committee Dem or two to vote for Southwick? It's been very quiet on the Repub front since last Thursday, and not even any verbal jousting either. Does that mean the Repubs have rolled, or that there are ongoing negotiations?

"Dems Block All Southern White Male Nominees"
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/908083448.html

"Conservatives Counterattack For Southwick"
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/06/conservatives_c.html

Make it simple for the Dems:

Either take SOP's deal, or let's go home for the year. And crank up the publicity machine, because this is a winning issue for us.

Make McConnell and Lott stand up and be counted. Enough talk, time to act.

That's a great picture of the Pericles statue. Thanks for putting it up. I enjoy looking at it everytime I open this thread, and will probably go back to this thread sometimes just to see it Keep up the good illustrations. The quote was pretty interesting too.

Thanks, Outsider. I cropped the Pericles photo myself. :)

He was quite a great figure.