ConfirmThem

Reid, Ralph Neas and all the liberal Dems may be making a huge mistake by pilloring Alito in the press. Their remarks may backfire on them. They may do exactly what they did to Thomas - make him more rigidly conservative and not less.

"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

...inviting Nevadans to draw certain conclusions based on their stereotypes, ie that he is really, really, conservative, rather than exam his record, which was always hard left, except for abortion.

Incidentally, moderates did to the same thing to Reagan when they sold him Kennedy ["...and he's Catholic!}.

The country was 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 leaders for their movement.

Read Jan's book. No one had to sell Kennedy to Reagan or Mees. He was the third pick precisely because Reagan's advisors knew exaxtly what he was - otherwise, he would have been the first or second pick. They knew this because of his record and were surprised at his initial conservatism on the Bench.

Kennedy was the choice because the '88 election was fast approaching and the Administration did not want the Dems to stall away until the election. After the disasters of Bork and Ginsburg, Reagan picked Kennedy, fully aware of what he was getting.

For the record, Reagan made the right choice. At some point you have to get a guy confirmed. He picked two that would have been great and ultimately had to settle for one that could get on the Bench.

I'm just glad that Alito is there rather than Miers (and O'Connor). I'm glad that Senator Brownback came out early against the Miers nomination which led to Justice Alito's confirmation. He's someone I know I can trust on judicial nominations.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

I thought it was "Dingy Harry." Dirty Harry was cool. Dingy is not.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

"Kennedy was the choice because the '88 election was fast approaching and the Administration did not want the Dems to stall away until the election. After the disasters of Bork and Ginsburg, Reagan picked Kennedy, fully aware of what he was getting."

That's very true. I suspect we might get a repeat of this course of events if Stevens retires.

The Democrats cannot credibly obstruct a nominee that is made before Nov. 30, 2007. (Kennedy was nominated Nov. 30, 1987, and was confirmed. Heck, Andrew Jackson made 2 nominations the day before he left office, but I'll let that go). Bush is going to have to send up a 'consensus' nominee though.

BoBo says: If the Dems keep blaming Alito, he may become MORE conservative ... Their remarks may backfire on them...

You make it sound like they treated him with some shred of dignity and respect until today. ;-)

Alito's wife how the Dems treated him during the confirmation process.

Though in their defense Reid was winding up the press conference when he said this and was probably walking away from the reporters, how come not one single reporter at the press conference stopped him and asked him about this obvious contradiction? Nobody remembered his voting record or the fact he claims he's pro-life?

When Curt informed me of what Reid said, I immediately remembered his past votes on PBA and his claims of being pro-life - and I don't get paid to cover Congress like reporters do.

Here we have one of those moments where it's hard for me to decide whether the media is so biased that they'll let Dems get away with something like this or they're simply not very well-informed. In other words, are they dishonest or are they just stupid? Perhaps a little bit of both.

A Kennedy-type replacing Stevens will be a HUGE move to the right on the Supreme Court - much larger than Alito replacing O'Connar.

I for one would be thrilled to have a Kennedy-type justice replace Stevens this summer. Especially if it were to open the door for another Kennedy-type replacing Ginsburg in 08 (Ok, I know I am wishful thinking now, but one can always wish!)

I'll take a Kennedy type as a 2nd resort. That said, if the vacancy occurs this summer, we should nominate the best we have.

the goal should a 3rd vacancy arise for Bush to fill should be to get someone to the right of Kennedy, especially on international law and war on terror issues, who will at least go along on some more restrictions on abortion, and who will not read the constitution to guarantee a right to homosexual marriage (and while Kennedy may be ok there, Lawrence leaves that an open question; someone who agrees with O'Connor's concurrence there would be fine (since I think that actually may be the position that I agree with most anyway)).

such a justice also would create goodwill among the public with the appearances (if not exactly reality) of a "moderate" judge, and make it easier for a Republican to win in 08 and cement the judiciary. further, such a person could serve as a "chain" justice that bridges the gap and pulls Kennedy into more and more 6-3 conservative rulings, probably with CJ Roberts serving as another link in that chain. Breyer might even jump on as the leftmost link in the chain to limit some results, but at the same time providing us with even stronger 7-2 majorities in some cases.

is that today's opinion by Alito in James is his first nonunanimous opinion of the term (and yet another in which the two most liberal and two most conservative justices joined together in dissent).

Although I would love to see another SCOTUS vacancy among the liberal bloc this summer, it won't happen. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are running scared now. They see themselves as partisan warriors. They will not easily capitulate in battle out of sheer desperation. They frantically want to maintain Warren court precedents. They will never give a conservative president like Bush the opportunity to undo all that they have figuratively sworn to support. Stevens refusing to give his fourth vote to hear more Gitmo cases is a prime example now of how they will now try to tailor the court's docket to prevent their most prized precedents from being reversed.

I disagree. There were any number of strong conservatives out there who could have gotten confirmed. Reagan did not have to "settle" on Kennedy to get someone, anyone, on the bench. Douglas Ginsburg would have been confirmed if not for his withdrawal over the pot smoking. Silberman, Winter, Starr, Wilkinson, Clifford Wallace, Stephen Williams, Higginbotham, Fried - all were solid conservatives without the Bork baggage of prickliness and strong and open opinions on controversial issues. Each likely could have been confirmed. Reagan and his aides threw in the towel with the Kennedy pick, but they did not have to do so.

As I see it, Alito is not as adverse to either legislative history or sentencing guidelines as Scalia. Does that make Alito any less of a conservative than Scalia? No, it doesn't. I'm a little tired of people assuming that Scalia's way is the only way a justice can act. In fact, there are a variety of issues that I think conservative jurists can disagree on without undermining their "conservative" credentials, legislative history and sentencing guidelines being two of those issues. I would like to point out that Rehnquist was an excellent conservative judge who often did not go about things the same way as Scalia or Thomas.

unless Death or his cousin, Serious Medical Issue, decides to intervene.

but in case there is, I should also add to my criteria for a hypothetical 3rd pick someone who is as strong on the 1st amendment as Kennedy.

heh, I was reading the CNN review of the PBA case, and they described the 5-4 majority as a "solid conservative majority", both in the (sub?)title and the body, yet during the hearings for Roberts and Alito, they hysterically alleged the 6-3 Casey majority to be in peril. the MSM is amusing in its perdictability.

and the further we can go to getting away from issues like abortion (hopefully by overturning Roe) and toward these less "sexy" issues in discussing jurisprudence, the better, and the less distorted. I read in disbelief Lyle Denniston's "analysis" of the PBA case over at SCOTUSblog, and his implicit recycling of the leftist mantra that it is conservatives that are being divisive on these issues, echoing the laughable definition of a "consensus" pick as one the far left will be happy with and the right will be disappointed in, and the labels of "solid conservative" (in the less perjorative iterations) and "moderate-to-liberal" (at best) justices. Roe has skewed the debate so far to the detriment of all sanity and decency, that it should be eligible for reversal on that grounds alone.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Today the Senate voted 93-3 to end debate on S.378, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. That means a likely vote and passage this week on the act. Why is this good? It includes the Kyl/Feinstein deal to switch one seat from the D.C. Circuit to the Ninth Circuit. If Ed Whelan at BenchMemos is right, that means Feinstein will support Keisler's nomination.

http://frwebgate.accessgpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_report...

"Section 506: This section, adopted in Committee by an amendment offered by Senator Kyl, reduces the number of judgeships in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 12 to 11 and increases the number of judgeships in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 28 to 29."

The next question involves timing. Once this bill has been passed, when will Keisler be confirmed? The bill will have to reconciled with the House version, but this shouldn't be a problem. The House Democrats will not block an agreement made by Feinstein and tacitly supported by all the 9th Circuit senators.

It will be interesting to see the final agenda for the rescheduled 4/25 SJC business meeting agenda. Will it contain a vote for Keisler, Livingston or both? If it doesn't contain Keisler's name, I'm sure that the conference report on the Court Security Improvement Act will be passed by the end of May. Maybe Keisler will be the "May" confirmation then.

(If anyone hasn't already noticed, I am a little schizophrenic about the possibility of Keisler's confirmation. When I talked to an aide of a SCJ Republican senator last year in November about Keisler, he said not to worry that Keisler wouldn't be passed out of committee during the lame duck session of the 109th Congress because the Republicans were sure that he be eventually confirmed in the 110th Congress. I didn't start to worry about Keisler until the D.C. Circuit starting to release opinions supporting the Military Commissions Act and gun-control. Then I thought that the Dems would have new reasons to keep another Republican off the D.C. Circuit. It will be interesting indeed to see if, despite these new developments, whether or not Keisler's nomination has been impacted.)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_repor...

Bobo wrote:

"I'm a little tired of people assuming that Scalia's way is the only way a justice can act."

Your quarrel is with those that have come to the conclusion that Scalia's judicial reasoning, and judicial philosophy is superior to other competing theories about how the Constitution is properly enforced.

My answer to your concern is simply to note that your failure to recognize the superior merits of Scalia's judicial reasoning and judicial philosophy reflects rather poorly on yourself.

May I suggest you enroll in "It's my party too!," if you want to surround yourself with like-minded whiners.

The country was 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 principled and consistent true conservatives.

It's nice to see that you denigrate strict constructionist judges like Rehnquist who was the primary architect of the movement that allowed people like Scalia to rise. It's sad that you seem so blind to the opinions of others. Like Scalia, you run the risk of alienating the very people you need to help implement your agenda. If you think Rehnquist was a failure, then I think you are overestimating your own powers of reasoning. You will never be able to convince anyone else of the validity of your points if you continue to be so rigidly condescending and dismissive of those like Rehnquist with greater legal minds than yours.

Bobo wrote:

"I would like to point out that Rehnquist was an excellent conservative judge who often did not go about things the same way as Scalia or Thomas."

And I would like to point out that Scalia and Thomas are excellent conservative judges who often do not go about things the same way as Rehnquist did.

The point is that, IMHO, Scalia goes about things in a better and truer way than Rehnquist did.

What is wrong with my having a strong preference for Scalia's jurisprudence over Rehnquist's?

P.S.

Didn't you take delight over Luttig being "b*tch-slapped" by the Supreme Court, and otherwise infered that he might have suffered from a temporary lapse of sanity, simply because he didn't see eye-to-eye with Bush administation over the Bush administration's tactics in the Padilla case?

So much for your support for diversity among conservative opinion!

The country was 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 realize Bush is a moderate governing under false conservative colors and demand better from the next Republican nominee.

He was trying to force the White House to deal with issues it didn't want to deal with at the time. I call that judicial activism of the highest sort. It is not a court of appeals judge's job to inform the White House what policy decisions to make. The judicial branch in my opinion should show deference to the elected branches.

I have not "denigrated" Rehnquist in the slightest. I have stated my opinion that Scalia and Thomas have a better and truer judicial philosophy.

For the logic impaired, stating student X receives the highest grade of A+ is not infering all other students have received an F mark. [Angry parent at teacher-parent conference, "How dare you denigrate my child by giving him an A grade when another student received an A+!"]

As to your remark,

"It's sad that you seem so blind to the opinions of others." I can only reply that is not True that I am blind to the opinions of others. I am perfectly cognitive that you and I have radically different opinions on the merits of Michael Luttig, for instance. I am perfectly cognitive of the fact that you and I have radically different opinions on the relative merits of Roberts/Rehnquist vs Scalia/Thomas.

As to your observation that,

"Like Scalia, you run the risk of alienating the very people you need to help implement your agenda."

I can only answer by asking how, pray tell, do you expect any help from Michael Luttig, or his supporters, when you denigrated Luttig as possibly being temporarily insane?

You definitely seem to be in "rule or ruin" mode. Again, may I suggest "It's my party too!," as a good place to meet folks who share your attitude.

As to your remark,

"If you think Rehnquist was a failure, then I think you are overestimating your own powers of reasoning."

I merely offered my opinion that Scalia was, and is, a better judge.

As to your remark,

"I can only respond by noting I have merely You will never be able to convince anyone else of the validity of your points if you continue to be so rigidly condescending and dismissive of those like Rehnquist with greater legal minds than yours."

1) I have not been dismissive of Rehnquist.

2) The kettle is calling the pot black.

3) Wasn't infering that Luttig had a temporary lapse of sanity a bit "condescending and dismissive" on your part towards judge Luttig?

The country was 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, truer and more effective leadership of conservative movement.

1) I noticed you quitely dropped your assertion that Luttig might have had a temporary lapse of sanity. Perhaps you might even admit you crossed the line of good taste, if nothing else, with that remark.

2) It is my opinion that Luttig made the wrong ruling in upholding Bush's treatment of Padilla, and made the right ruling in insisting that Padilla receive his day in court. I thought holding a man for an extended period of time, and then mooting his detention was abusive of Padilla's right to due process. My opinion is that what Bush did was inappropriate. Apperently, we radically disagree.

I suppose you believe Luttig's original support for Bush's position was correct, and his insistence that Padilla's Constitutional claims be litigated was incorrect. I suspect Bush mooted the case precisely because he, and Luttig were about to be overruled by the Supreme Court. By my reckoning, we both went one-and-one. I guess we all got b*tch-slapped by the Supreme Court on that one!

The country was 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 of their leadership.

1) My major disagreement with you concerning the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is that your interpretation of Roberts' and Alito's refusal to join Thomas' dissent seems void of practical considerations. At this point in the game, there is no reason for either to reveal his true feelings about Roe. To insist that they should've is to insist upon a political conflagration that could do more damage than good at the moment. Everyone knows that any direct indication that both are willing to overturn Roe in the next two years will in the short term play into the Dems' hands and dramatically increase their chances of winning the White House in 2008. Maybe you are willing to have President Obama or Hillary in 2009 so your political agenda can be satisfied now. I am not willing to make that trade-off. In addition, such exposition also runs the risk that the Dem-controlled Senate will make it much harder than it already is to get Bush II judges confirmed. This is another consequence I am not will to encourage in these partisan times. If Roberts and Alito see practical benefit in keeping their cards close to their vests right now for practical effect, it does not mean that they are inferior in judgement or integrity to either Scalia and Thomas

2) You are correct that I, "believe Luttig's original support for Bush's position was correct, and his insistence that Padilla's Constitutional claims be litigated was incorrect." I also suspect Bush mooted the case precisely because he, and Luttig were about to be overruled by the Supreme Court. That is his choice to make as the country's elected chief executive officer. As I stated before, it is not the job of COA judge to try to force the Executive Branch to litigate a matter it doesn't want to and isn't necessary to do in present circumstances. As for why Luttig chose to be so aggressive about Padilla, I do not deny that I think a lot of his behavior has to do with a professional meltdown brought on by a huge case of ego, a case of egotism that in and of itself disqualifies him in my mind from a position on the Supreme Court. No judge who tries to force policy decisions that are exclusively the domain of the President deserves the honor of being on the nation's highest court. I dislike conservative judicial activists as much as liberal ones.

While you are not "denying" that you believe that Luttig is an egomaniac who had "a professional meltdown," you are "denying" that you insinuated that Luttig just might have had a temporary lapse of sanity after Bush attempted to moot Padilla's appeal.

He most certaintly did not!

The country was 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 conservative leadership.

1) Bush's stubborn attempts to persist in a failed attempt to rectify some undefined backwardness in Iraq is doing more to ensure President Obama or Rodham than anything I am proposing.

2) Robert's own position as an "umpire" who calls the balls and strikes exactly as he sees them isn't exactly congruent with believing that the "umpire" should be considering the "practical" effect upon the Yankees winning the next World Series when making his calls!

I am taking seriously Robert's own comments that the sole focus of a judge is call the pitches before him without regard to anything else. Also, I am taking seriously Robert's own comments that Roe vs. Wade is "settled law."

Relationships between various factions within the "Republican" coalition ought to be resolved within the context of Truth. The Truth is that the moderate establishment has deceived the pro-life movement.

The country was 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, truer and more consistently principled conservative leadership for the conservative movement.

The Truth is that Luttig was "disqualified" from consideration for the Supreme Court [token interview for conservative consumption] precisely because he was conservative.

After he was passed over, the administration, and its willing accomplishes in the "conservative movement" felt it necessary to trash him to justify their treatment of Luttig.

The country was 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 conservative action.

I most certainly believe that Luttig is an egomaniac. I think he has specnt years in an unmitigatedly ambitious mission to get on the Supreme Court. Does that make him "insane"? Not necessarily, just overly and disturbingly ambitious with an inflated opinion of himself. The fact that he back-stabbed Kenneth Starr's nomination to the Supreme Court is another sign of his unwarrantedly high opinion of himself. Twice now his hubris has backfired on him. First, we got Souter instead of Starr, and secondly he ruined his own chances of being nominated to the Supreme Court by this president. There was no White House conspiracy to defraud Bush's conservative base by giving Luttig lip-service. The White House read his opinions, interviewed him, and came to the conclusion that he was not qualified for the job based on his prickly and demanding personality. He confirmed their estimation of him when he took the unheard of, judicially activist, step of trying to force the President of the Untited States to litigate a matter he didn't want to.

Given the well-known fact that Luttig has an abrasive and difficult nature and is prone to sharply criticizing fellow jurists who disagree with him (such as Wilkinson), he would have been far less effective on the Court than Alito. All we need to drive Kennedy into the Liberal Four's arms would be a second conservative justice levelling sharp, antagonizing attacks against him. A little comity goes a long way on SCOTUS, as Roberts is proving.

But--given Luttig's personality, he would almost certainly never have been confirmed in 2005-06. Even the personally impressive and TV-friendly earnestly likeable Alito barely avoided a Democrat filibuster. SJC Democrat demagogues like Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, and Leahy would have had little trouble baiting the prickly Luttig into blowing up and desroying himself at the hearing, sort of a la Bork only more so.

I very much enjoyed the running back-and-forth between BigSkyBob and BoBo last night. This site needs some stimulating feuds among the posters, and the arguments were well made on both sides. After reviewing all the arguments on each side, I generally agree with ... wait-I'd better not wade into those troubled waters.

The person who bears primary responsibility for the appointment of Souter was George Herbert Walker Bush. He was President. He had dozens of potential nominees to consider. He chose Souter. That was disgraceful. Trusting Ruddman was doubly disgraceful.

If Luttig in any way helped prevent Starr from being nominated, I give him credit for that action. I don't want Starr on the Court. Again, I have read that Starr sold O'Connor to Reagan minimizing her pro-choice political stand by claiming that it wouldn't matter because of "judicial restraint." That disqualified him, IMHO.

Finally, the Bush II adminstration is a moderate, establishment administration. I have no doubt that after reading Luttig's opinions, a moderate administration would have
prefered another candidate. I do not believe that there was any intent by the White House to nominate any true, principled conservative judge, whatsoever.

My case is simply enough: Harriot "Harry" Miers, and the adminstration's public disavowal of the widespread public perception that Bush had promised to appoint judges "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas."

I don't think that widespread public perception just happened. I believe that it was carefully cultivated by Bush's handlers to lead on the conservative movement.

Whether you want to call that a "conspiracy," a "lie," or a "fraud," is merely a matter of semantics.

The country was 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 accept only principled conservatives as their leaders.

I said that Luttig went temporarily insane, not BoBo.

I've found that engaging BS Bob is a trying exercise. You're better off talking to a brick wall - I think you'll find that the wall will make more sense. :-)

This is a good example of how Red State Democrats vote one way on hot topics, and then hope and pray that the Supreme Court will overrule them.

I just skip over anything BS Bob writes anymore. his trolling is not worth the aggravation.

It is purely an ad hominem attack to claim that I am a "troll."

A "troll" is a person who foments debate for the sake of debate. Moderates take note. I am not here to annoy you, or debate you, or reason with you. I am here to defeat you. I am here to see to that you lose your political influence, and, if you work inside the beltway, your jobs.

In the fifties some conservatives began to question as to why if we had decisively won the war, and possessed the dominant military, the result had been communist domination of China and Eastern Europe.

After some investigations, it turned out that our State Department, and other branches of the government, had been infiltrated by communists and those communists had aided and abetted the Soviets and Moaists.

Well, those communists lost their jobs. Some, properly convicted of treason, lost their lives.

The replacement of communist with anti-communists resulted in the United States actually opposing communism in what escalated into a "cold war" that the United States decisively won a few decades later.

Had conservative not questioned the failures of the post-war adminstration, that battle might never had even been faught.

It is, I suggest, time for conservatives to question as to why if the Republicans have won seven of the last ten Presidential elections, appointed seven of the nine justices, and held the Senate and House for over a dozen years, it is case that abortion is a Constitutional right, prayer in schools and at graduations is a crime, and homosexual marriage is within a decade of being a Constitutional right.

It is time for conservatives to question as to whether, or not, this outcome occured due not to circumstance, or accident, or chance, but rather it happened precisely because this is how certain individuals wanted it to happen!

Joe Sobran tells an interesting story about Ronald Reagan. Seems Reagan was a dynamic speaker, and Gerald Ford thought that asking him to be his running mate would further his chances for reelection in 1976. He was talked out of asking Reagan by his two closest political advisors. They were Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney went on run for Congress. There he compiled a "conservative" voting record. He was asked to George Bush's running mate. It was said that a "conservative" was being added to the ticket. During a debate he was challenged on that voting record. He did not state a single word in defense of that record, ie he would not defend conservativism. He, then, stated his full agreement with GWB on every issue. But, he did differ with Bush on homosexual marriage.

Despite your best efforts, more and more conservatives are begining to connect the dots.

The country was 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 purge their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives intent on winning the cultural war.

Bobo wrote:

"I said that Luttig went temporarily insane, not BoBo."

and he wrote:

"I just skip over anything BS Bob writes anymore."

How pray tell did you notice that if you "skipped over" what I wrote?

You are monitoring what I write precisely because you want to defeat me. You are advocating others not read what I write because you fear you cannot.

The country was 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 action, not excuses and scapegoating.

To clarify - BananaRepublican (me) wrote that Luttig went temporarily insane during Padilla when he didn't get a SCOTUS nomination, not BoBo.

Dienekes said that he skips over what you wrote.

Your writings are a total waste of ink and I try to skip over them as best I can because reading them causes me to lose faith in the human species. I also don't respond to what you write that I do, unfortunately, happen to read - but you were incorrectly attributing something to BoBo that I said and that he did not say.

Get with it.