ConfirmThem

Does anyone have any insight into when (if??) the Administration will be making additional nominations?

Given the extended (month and a half) Congressional break, punctuated by the occasional 30 second pro forma session, I would have thought and hoped that there would be some nominees in the pipeline.

While I know that the SJC is at best slow walking everyone, we have no chance to get nominees confirmed if they aren't nominated. And, at some point, even if they are not, the public will understand the numbers not confirmed.

Hearing scheduled February 12th (District Judge only)

James Hall: S.D. Georgia
Richard Honacker: D. Wyomong
Gustavus Puryear M.D. Tennessee
Brian Miller: E.D. Arkansas

This clearly means that there will be no Circuit Nominee hearing in February. Leahy & Co. have successfully crossed another month off the calendar.

Feinstein is presiding, as if to underscore how trivial this hearing really is. The Democrats' evadsion of a February hearing clearly indicates to me that there will be 2-3 Circuit confirmations at most this year. I think the probability is 2 (Pratter and hopefully Haynes). That's all, folks.

Leahy and the Democrats clearly have the bit in their teeth and intend to steamroller us. Our only recourse is to yank it out and ram it down their filthy throats by electing a Republican President in November. Unless you want to let them get away with this, it's time to get fully behind John McCain (who I voted for earlier today) and push all-out for a McCain victory in November. There is no viable alternative!

Bush will hold a public event with judicial branch nominees in the East Room Thursday morning at which he will press Congress to give them a “fair vote,” said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.

Not even counting family, press and spectators, just hosting all the blocked nominees themselves would take a huge room wouldn't it?

Does this event signal the administration will soon name nominees to the two Virginia 4th Circuit seats? It would make sense for the two to go hand in hand.

We'll see....I no longer hold out much hope for this administration regarding the judiciary. I hope President McCain will focus on these and other vacancies early in his first year on the job.

Nice to see there are still some other posters around. Does anyone have a reponse to my interpretation (in #2 and #3) of the significance of next week's DJ-only hearing. Wish Bobo was around; I'd like to hear his ideas on this subject.

Matthew Friendly: I'm puzzled by your several references to the need to nominate people to "the two Virginia 4th Circuit seats". As far as I know there are currently two such vacancies (Widener and Luttig seats), and Getchell was nominated to the Widener vacancy last September (was he recently withdrawn?). So there is currently just one vacancy witout a nominee (Luttig vacancy). Perhaps your statement indicates a hope that Getchell be withdrawn, creating 2 vacancies to be quickly filled with nominees from the Warner-Webb list. If so, I fully share this hope. The Getchell nomination was a bad mistake and should be withdrawn immediately, and two nominations made pronto from the Warner-Webb list. They probably won't be confirmed or even get hearings at this late date. But Bush should at least call the Democrats' bluff, and make them publicly parade their hypocrisy for all to see.

I withdraw my statement in #7 above questioning your posts about there being two 4th Circuit Virginia vacancies. You were indeed correct. I went to the White House site and found the Getchell withdrawal announced on January 23rd (for some reason it's not yet posted on the DOJ site). Thank Goodness! As stated above in my #7, I fully agree that Bush should immediately submit 2 nominations from the Warner-Webb list.

Was formally withdrawn a couple of weeks ago.

I agree that at the moment it looks like only Pratter and Haynes will get confirmed before Leahy closes down all Senate confirmations in July. I'd love it to be more but that all depends on how aggressive McConnell plans to get with Reid. Maybe things might change a little if Bush starts pressing judges as well. It will be interesting to see what Bush says tomorrow at his news conference concerning judges.

Do you have any further information about Bush's news conference tomorrow about judges? I can't find any information on it on the internet. Do you have a link to a site or article about it?

http://origin.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8130987

"Sen. Wayne Allard has told the seven candidates he nominated for the vacancies on U.S. District Court in Denver to apply for the openings through Sen. Ken Salazar's bipartisan commission even though Allard already submitted their names to the White House.

Thursday's announcement comes after weeks of disagreements between the two senators over the judicial selection process."

Here is something vague about Bush's meeting tomorrow on judges:

http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Press+Briefing+by+Tony+Fratt...

"the President tomorrow will have an event talking about the need for the Senate to confirm the President's nominees. At this time we have more than 200 nominees to the administration, judicial and non-judicial nominees waiting to be confirmed. The President is going to call on the Senate to give an up or down vote on these nominees. Some of these nominees are in critical positions to the government. We think the executive branch should have the opportunity to function with the qualified nominees that the President has nominated, and we would like the President to -- I'm sorry, the Senate to act so that these fine men and women can begin their jobs."

Does anyone know the time this meeting is supposed to be held?

I really don't like that tomorrow Bush will be lumping together stalled executive nominations with stalled judicial nominations. There are so many more executive nominations compared to judicial ones that I'm quite sure the issue of judges will not receive the full attention it deserves in the mainstream press. Doesn't Bush realize that executive confirmations at this point are quite temporary and extraneous, while judicial confirmations are for life?

From the article I linked to above:

"It seems to me that the Senate only cares about one nominee, because they are willing to not fill over 200 positions in the federal government over the one position that they claim to have a problem with.

Let me say this about Steve Bradbury: He is one of the most highly respected and impressive people in this government that I've ever dealt with. I know the President thinks very highly of him. The Attorney General, Mike Mukasey, thinks very highly of him. He is really an incredible person, an incredible lawyer, and we back him. We have more than 200 qualified people who are waiting to get into government slots that they probably have sacrificed something to put themselves in a position to be. We have countless other individuals. We had an announcement -- I think it was last week -- one of our nominees for the Council of Economic Advisors who withdrew his nomination after waiting for no apparent good reason for the Senate -- because of the Senate's delays in considering his nominations.

These are good people who decided they wanted to come into government and do a job. The time available for them in this administration to do the job is dwindling, and it's outrageous that they have to wait this way because of these kinds of delays that the Senate causes. It's not fair to any administration, not just this one. It's not fair to any administration to have their nominees held up this way. It's not the way government ought to function."

Why doesn't the White House just withdraw Bradbury if that is truly the only reason why Reid is blocking the 200 other stalled nominees?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/specter-pushed-on-judges-2008-02-05....

"Conservatives members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeing a narrow window left for President Bush to appoint judges, are pressing Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) to use hardball tactics with Democrats who may be stalling confirmation votes.

But Specter, the senior Republican on Judiciary and a centrist, wants to avoid a clash with Democrats that could derail the committee’s legislative work. In his own words “there’s a lot going on,” such as patent reform legislation and a bill that would give bankruptcy courts more authority to deal with the growing mortgage crisis.

“I’ve been able to work pretty well with the Democrats by keeping my cool but I know how to be hot,” Specter said, adding that Republicans could face a backlash if they are perceived as holding up important business."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3680.html

"The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon hold a hearing on the confirmation of Wyoming pro-life advocate Richard Honaker to be a federal district court judge. Honaker, an attorney and former state legislator, received an appointment by President Bush to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.

Honaker is a well-respected attorney who has practiced in Wyoming for over 30 years and served as a member of the Wyoming State House.

Pro-abortion groups have fiercely opposed Honaker's nomination because of his efforts to prohibit abortions in Wyoming."

I've seen one of the invitations to the WH event and it states that attendees should arrive no later than 9:30 am. Doesn't say when the main event begins. I'm guessing 10 am.

The article on Specter is unsurprising. He's pretty much eschewed hardball tactics in the past in favor of press conferences, op-eds (like his recent WSJ one) and behind the scenes arm-twisting, as he did with DiFi.

Re: the Allard/Salazar dust up: Senator Salazar's tactics with respect to judicial nominations have been increasingly infuriating ever since he reneged on his 2004 pre-election promise of up-or-down votes for all nominees, almost as soon as he arrived in D.C.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0108/020608cdpm2.htm

"In a war of words Wednesday, the White House focused mostly on Bradbury, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took aim at von Spakovsky."

"Bush apparently intends to keep the focus on the stalled nominees Thursday. Reid said one of the Democratic FEC nominees, Steve Walther, had been invited to a White House breakfast for all nominees whose confirmations are on hold.

"The effort it took to invite my Democratic friends and other nominees to the White House is truly a waste," Reid said. "The president's Thursday breakfast really only needed one attendee. That's because only one nominee really matters to the president. It should really just be an intimate breakfast between the president and Steven Bradbury.""

If all the limelight is on Bradbury and von Spakovsky tomorrow morning, I doubt the names of Keisler, Conrad and Matthews will even be mentioned. How can Specter be forced to do more with judges if the President wastes all of his time on one or two high-priority executive nominations?

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=24984

"

The White House will host a breakfast tomorrow for President Bush's nominees who have not been confirmed by the Senate. The group includes extremist nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal courts as well as nominees for other high-ranking, influential positions in federal agencies and commissions that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Many of the nominees are opposed by sitting Senators and by a broad range of watch-dog groups.

"It's absurd for the President to nominate some of the most extreme ideologues possible to these powerful positions and then profess shock when the Senate refuses to confirm them. This President has chosen confrontation over compromise at every turn, and the senators are refusing to roll over and play dead. Good for them," said Tanya Clay House, PFAW Director of Public Policy. "The Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to give or withhold consent as it sees fit. Serving eggs benedict doesn’t change that."

People For the American Way has raised concerns about several of the nominees that are meeting at the White House tomorrow, including Hans von Spakovsky, nominated to the Federal Election Commission; Richard Honaker, nominated to the U.S. District Court, Wyoming; and Peter D. Keisler, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

"President Bush should show real leadership by working with Congress to find a workable solution. Instead he continues to thumb his nose at the Senate and the constitutional confirmation process.""

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/white_house_insists_on...

"Dems have returned Bradbury's nomination four times, and over and over again, the White House has renominated him, most recently last month. And today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Durbin, the Senate whip, revealed that, in negotiations with the White House late last year before the Christmas holiday, the President refused to strike a deal on nominees unless Reid allowed him to recess appoint Bradbury. Reid said he'd offered to confirm 84 of the pending nominees, but the White House said no dice. From Reid's remarks on the floor earlier today:

He said that unless I would agree to allow him to recess appoint Steven Bradbury, he wouldn’t make a deal – he didn’t care if that meant no one got confirmed. He was willing to forgo the 84-plus nominees and the offers of recess appointments if he couldn’t install Mr. Bradbury.
On a conference call with journalists earlier this afternoon, Durbin said that White House chief of staff Josh Bolten has made it clear that until Bradbury is approved, no deal will be cut on nominees.

The White House apparently plans a kind of public relations push on the set of unconfirmed nominees, with the president himself expected to speak tomorrow. Today in the White House press briefing, spokesman Tony Fratto claimed that it was Senate Dems who were causing the problem: "It seems to me that the Senate only cares about one nominee, because they are willing to not fill over 200 positions in the federal government over the one position that they claim to have a problem with." (In the call, Durbin said he had no idea where Fratto got the 200 number from.)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the administration's all-or-nothing stance on Bradbury "the most bogus issue they've found yet.""

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0208/Bush_ups_the_ante_in_nominat...

"President Bush plans to meet at the White House on Thursday with some of his nominees still awaiting confirmation by the Senate, reigniting a fight over their appointments with Senate Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took to the floor on Wednesday, to denounce the meeting as “just another of this administration’s political stunts, misplaced blame and failure to take responsibility for its own actions.”"

"While there are scores of pending appointments, much of the acrimony can be traced back to Steven Bradbury, nominated to the post of assistant attorney general, office of legal counsel."

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200802061632DOWJONES...

"Senate Democrats are unwilling to give full terms to the Bush administration's choices to fill openings on the Federal Reserve Board to avoid hindering a new president's ability to "remake the Fed," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday."

"Reid spokesman Stephen Krupin noted that it is rare for the Senate to approve nominees to lengthy terms, such as the 14-year Fed term, near the end of a president's time in office, with Senate Republicans taking a similar stance at the end of Bill Clinton's administration.

Bush is slated to hold a breakfast meeting Thursday with individuals who now have nominations pending in the Senate. Fratto said more than 200 positions are at stake and that lengthy delays in Senate action have caused some nominees, such as one to fill a slot on the Council of Economic Advisors, to withdraw from consideration."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/white_house_s...

“When the president is willing to vote so many of his own people – including four Assistant Secretaries of Defense and the Fed – off the island for one nominee, you know that person must be special. And special he is," Reid said. “Mr. Bradbury is the lawyer who loves to give the president the answer he wants regardless of the law, regardless of its impact on our nation and regardless of what it does to our standing in the world."

Sen. Arlen Specter called out his colleagues however in an op-ed he wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal. Specter said that “some Senate Democrats oppose particular nominees because they feel some of President Clinton's nominees were treated unfairly,” but he said that that “we can make no progress in the Senate or in the nation if we keep talking about perceived wrongs and behaving like the feuding Hatfields and the McCoys.”

http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/catharina-haynes-report.pdf

http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/afj-pratter-report.pdf

speeches by Romney and McCain should be very interesting for various reasons. I would think both would address the subject of the judiciary. I would think they'd both be on CSPAN, as well the VP.

Should a Republican minority filibuster 84 nominees for each one that they don't like?

Poor little Arlen Specter... he is being manipulated by the very same people he is now criticizing. He should have stood up like a man when the Republicans had the majority and now he is whining about the Democrats doing what exactly they said they were going to do... stall, stall and more stalling.

Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3130

Bush thanks everyone for coming, despite Washington traffic- says 'longest delays' in DC are in senate committees. Welcomes members of congress- heaps praise on Specter and Hatch, especially for getting his SCOTUS noms confirmed. Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint also thanked. Takes his nominating responsibility seriously. Senate not fulfilling its duty- confirmation process is 'never-ending political game where everyone loses.' More than 180 nominees waiting- half waiting more than 100 days. More than 30 waiting over a year. 9 waiting over two years. No way to treat them. Noms deserve up-or-down vote, as many careers are on hold, spouses in limbo, children waiting to find out where they go to school. Noms should not be treated like political pawns. Noms shouldn't be dragged out indefinitely. If a senator has problem, hold vote, and see if majority agrees. Lack of appointments makes it hard for government to do its business. Especially difficult during times of economic uncertainty. Key positions not filled. Council of Economic Advisors down to one person. Irresponsible for US Senate to leave positions unfulfilled. Senate waiting on three noms for Fed's board of governors, all nominated more than nine months ago. FAA still doesn't have a head. Seven nominations to senior DOJ positions still outstanding. Thanks senators for Leslie Southwick nomination. 28 judicial noms still pending. 'Extra constitutional' standard applied- 'minority of obstructionists.' Justice delayed for American people. Courts need to render swift decisions, and so should US Senate. Courts are understaffed and overworked. Mentions three noms for 4th circuit- Conrad, Matthews, Rosenstein. Delay is irresponsible. EVERY judicial nomination should go to floor for up-and-down vote. Delays make it haredr for future presidents to find people willing to perform public service. Calls on senate to rise to its responsibilities- confirm them as soon as possible.

Breaking on Fox News....

That seals the deal for McCain. Obama and Hillary will split the delegates pretty much down the middle, Hillary's machine will claim the Superdelegates and the nomination, Obama's black base will claim disenfranchisement, and McCain will trounce Hillary in November.

I don't know who the Dems are kidding. Obama is George McGovern, and if by chance he becomes President, he'll be steamrolled like Jimmy Carter.

Wow, Zendari. Good job calling the election in February! And if memory serves, Carter did manage to become President for a term

Now that the nomination is essentially McCain's, the crucial question is: Who does he pick as his running mate? This really is very important. If McCain wants to reconcile with many conservatives who distrust him, his VP candidate has to be a strong conservative.

Chris Cox should be the VP. He's a conservative who shores up McCain's right. Yes, most people don't vote on a VP, the conservative base is more interested in the VP than the Independents and moderates. Cox also knows the importance of judges.

It won't happen though. Cox's probably not well known enough to get the nod. Pawlenty is a falling star to me. Barbour can be easily tagged as a lobbyist. Condi Rice is not conservative enough for the base. Newt is, well, Newt. I've evn heard talk of Bloomberg. Now that would be a disaster.

I, for one, am somewhat amazed by this development (and only slightly less amazed by the lack of response on this site so far). First, for the FIRST time since retaking the majority in '06, Senate Democrats are holding more than 1 judicial nominee hearing in a single month. I had incorrectly concluded that the District Judge-only hearing on Feb. 14th meant that there would be no Circuit Nominee hearing in February. Something clearly changed the Dems' nefarious plans. Was some effective behind-the-scenes pressure applied by Senate GOP? Was there some inside deal?

Second, the hearing is for "priority #2" nominee (according to Senate Dems) Haynes instead of slam-dunk Pratter. I expected Pratter to be scheduled first, since her confirmation is a sure thing in any case. What is going on here? Perhaps this indicates that there will be 3-4 CCA confirmations this year after all.

Comments, anyone?

Typo: District Judge hearing is on Feb. 12th, not the 14th (1st paragraph, line 5). Sorry.

Just put Bush on the ticket. Simple as that. The only people who say dynasty are the left anyway. What would Hillary be? Here we get FL and the base is shored up.

I think we need a break from the Bush dynasty. I don't want more big government conservatism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080207-8.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080207-8.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/images/20080207-8_p02070...

I for one am very excited about the hearing for Haynes. All ten of the COA nominees were at the breakfast this morning. Haynes can be clearly seen to the left in the upper tier behind Bush as he makes his speech. Check out the video of his speech on the White House website.

I was pleasantly surprised that Bush did not make the event all about Bradbury as the Democrats claimed he would. Rather, he spent a lengthy time at the end of the speech talking just about judges. He specifically singled out the Fourth Circuit, and Rosenstein, Conrad and Matthews stood directly behind him.

I am not necessarily surprised that Haynes is being processed before Pratter. She was nominated first and has had her ABA rating done for a much longer time. Since Haynes has almost the same qualifications as Jennifer Walker Elrod, I have long assumed that it would be nearly impossible for the Dems to block her. As I suggested earlier this past fall, one of the main reasons she was not confirmed last year was so that she could be included in this year's confirmation totals. The Dems did the same thing to Debra Livingston.

Given that her hearing is on February 21st, it is likely that Haynes won't be voted out of committee until March 6th or 13th. That means she is likely to be confirmed sometime in the last two weeks of March. The big question now is whether Pratter will get a hearing in March or not. If she doesn't, she might not be confirmed until late April or early May. That leaves June and July to fight over Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees.

http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002666793

"Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted Wednesday that he’s thinking about letting the next president fill some of the vacancies.

A hardening of positions on both sides is evident, even though Reid was careful to avoid listing which vacancies might remain open — and to avoid saying when the door would close on the hotly contested lifetime jobs on the federal bench."

"To try to disprove the allegations of slow-walking for political purposes, Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont on Wednesday announced a Feb. 21 hearing date for the nomination of Catherina Haynes to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Haynes is one of 10 appellate court nominees pending before the committee — a number high enough to make Republicans nervous about the possibility of delay turning into de facto rejection.

“There is a strong sense that we’re way behind in terms of confirming circuit court nominees,” said GOP Conference Vice Chairman John Cornyn of Texas, a Judiciary Committee member."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mississippi-supreme-court-sets-elect...

"Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) won’t have to defend his brand-new Senate seat until November, thanks to a ruling that the state Supreme Court handed down Wednesday.

Mississippi’s high court affirmed Gov. Haley Barbour’s (R) decision to set the state’s special Senate election for Election Day in November, thwarting Democrats’ attempt to force him to set it for earlier this year."

So, who's your pick for veep? The Apostle Paul (didn't last more than two years any one place)? Jesus (crucified after a 3 year public ministry)?

I don't think Haley Barbour would let the lobbyist tag stick. He's been a good governor. And Condi's not all that bad. Chris Wallace grilled her on abortion and there was room for commonality there--and I write as a stauncly pro life person, inc. against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (which the pro life Jn. McCain voted FOR). Woops, there I go again....

Yes, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain in Nov., but please leave me to my Romney grief for now.

So, who's your pick for veep? The Apostle Paul (didn't last more than two years any one place)? Jesus (crucified after a 3 year public ministry)?

I don't think Haley Barbour would let the lobbyist tag stick. He's been a good governor. And Condi's not all that bad. Chris Wallace grilled her on abortion and there was room for commonality there--and I write as a stauncly pro life person, inc. against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (which the pro life Jn. McCain voted FOR). Woops, there I go again....

Yes, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain in Nov., but please leave me to my Romney grief for now.

So, who's your pick for veep? The Apostle Paul (didn't last more than two years any one place)? Jesus (crucified after a 3 year public ministry)?

I don't think Haley Barbour would let the lobbyist tag stick. He's been a good governor. And Condi's not all that bad. Chris Wallace grilled her on abortion and there was room for commonality there--and I write as a stauncly pro life person, inc. against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (which the pro life Jn. McCain voted FOR). Woops, there I go again....

Yes, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain in Nov., but please leave me to my Romney grief for now.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006472.cfm

""The president may be serving his last year in office, but that's no excuse for Democrats to deny action on his judicial nominees," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "To match President Clinton's last two years in office, the Senate would have to confirm another nine court of appeals nominees this year, even though it appears Senator Leahy is bent on doing nothing of the sort. All he seems capable of is hurling criticism at the White House. That's simply absurd."

TAKE ACTION
Ask Sens. Patrick Leahy and Harry Reid to schedule hearings for President Bush's judicial nominees."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT7g_qgSW9yk&refer=h...

"Bush isn't the first president to face challenges in getting his judicial nominees confirmed. Previous presidents have also had a mixed record. In former President Bill Clinton's last year in office, a Republican Senate confirmed only eight of 25 appeals-court nominees. At the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency, a Democratic Senate only approved seven, leaving eight slots unfilled."

There is an interesting picture of Bush in this article. Immediately behind him are Conrad and Matthews. On the upper tier behind those two are Keisler and Pratter.