ConfirmThem

what a shocker.

though I am not sure which side of this case I would fall on. I may well have agreed with the dissenters, but for a very different reason than the political correctness which I assume animated them. I tend to think an employer should be allowed to hire or fire anyone they want for almost any reason they want. The fact that the offender apologized and the offendee accepted probably mitigates that somewhat, but I'm not sure it takes away any "right" the employer has to make a firing decision.

The fact that this was a public employee rather than a private employee makes the case more complicated. Mississippi state law established an Employee Appeal Board (EAB) for public employees who want to dispute their firing. Obviously, it would be unlawful for the EAB to just rubberstamp every firing, so it's clear that Mississippi law did not allow a public employer to fire someone for any reason they want.

and I don't mean to suggest Southwick and company were wrong, and I am of course not suggesting that it disqualifies him from the 5th circuit, as the Dems would like it to. it is not a case that should generate animosity towards judges on either side (though I'd again question the reasoning of the dissenters if they decided on PC grounds, I wouldn't question the judgement), IMO, or the types of shameless allegations the Dems and their puppetmasters are making.

Nit alert: I think the Hardy case was Sixth Circuit, not the Second. I can't double-check, as FindLaw is now login req'd.

Reid is such filth that I'm not rational on the subject. He knows Southwick would be confirmed by a full floor vote, and how furious the moonbats would be it.

He told Bork he would not vote for him unless he committed on the spot to overturning Roe. He voted for the federal PBA, then after the decision came down he started moaning about "missing Justice O'Connor". What scum he is.

Thanks, I changed "Second" to "Sixth." Andrew

"Senator Reid made a speech on Friday about the Southwick nomination. The speech makes very clear that he opposes a floor vote for Judge Southwick because of the “N-word” case, Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services."

Andrew, I think your statement is misleading in terms of empirical evidence provided in the text of Reid's actual speech:

"Southwick has had a hearing, and to this point, he has been unable to convince the Judiciary Committee he is the person for the job. Senator Leahy has stated that anytime Senators Lott and Cochran ask him to put him on the calendar for a vote, he will do so. They haven't asked him to do that yet. Why? Because at this stage it appears Democrats are going to oppose this nomination. But Senator Leahy said anytime they want to test the vote, they may do that."

"I know the administration has sent Judge Southwick around to meet individually with Democratic Judiciary Committee members. Anytime they want that vote, they can have it. Chairman Leahy and I can only establish a process. We can't promise that the outcome of that process will be to the liking of Republican Senators."

"I say that Judge Southwick is not being looked at with lack of favor by the Judiciary Committee because of the color of his skin. It is because of his judicial participation in various opinions.

The members of the Judiciary Committee will decide whether to report."

Reid no where says that he would not schedule a floor vote on Southwick if he is passed out of committee. That is your supposition, a supposition which can't be proven at this point in time. Rather, Reid quite clearly states that before a floor can happen Southwick must be voted out of committee. He in fact offers Lott and Cochran the opportunity to have the necessary committee vote as soon as they request it. It seems to me then that the real problem is not with Reid or Leahy, it is with the people who are refusing to make the request.

I totally agree with Reid's basic conclusion. If Leahy actually will allow a committee vote now, then Lott and Cochran should request it (I must admit at this point that I don't understand why Reid is so easily letting Specter off the hook about the request - after all, as the SJC ranking member, Specter is the one who should actually be doing the official asking). We all know, though, the reason why that won't happen: it would be very embarrassing to Lott, Cochran and the White House if a Bush COA nominee was actually voted down in committee. I am also sure many conservative Republican senators are privately afraid of the precedent that such an action would create for other conservative nominees like Keisler.

Consequently, it appears that the Republicans are also playing political games with Southwick's nomination. We, as conservatives and Republicans, need to openly admit this. If they are truly principled and not strictly results-oriented, Specter, Lott and Cochran should ask for a committee vote immediately and calmly allow Southwick to be voted down in committee if that is what the majority of the committee members desire. Then, Bush and the White House should nominate someone new. Although I have a very high regard for Keisler, he too should be subject to the same procedure.

Elections have consequences. In 2006, the Dems won the Senate fair and square. That gave them the right to block any and all Bush nominees they want to in committee. I think the Democrats are right in saying now that all they are morally required to do is to provide each nominee with a hearing and then a committee vote. If the nominee fails the committee vote, so be it. In regards to Clinton's nominees, I agree with Reid that such action is indeed more than what a Republican-controlled SJC did for 62 Democrat nominees from 1998 to 2000. What should be done if a Bush nominee is voted out of committee and then not given a floor vote cannot be discussed at the moment because it hasn't happened yet.

I realize that many conservatives will try to trot out a list of past grievances to refute this argument - Democrats don't deserve the benefit of the doubt due to the obstruction of Reagan and Bush I nominees and the Democrat filibustering of Bush II nominees - but if this situation is ever going to be resolved peacefully and constructively, one of the political parties is going to have to make a unilateral move that could hurt them in the short run.

In this case, the Republicans could allow Southwick and Keisler to go down in flames. Then continue to nominate new, maybe even more conservative nominees to replace them. As the number of dead increases, the Republicans could then more effectively publicly make the case for conservative judicial nominations and against Democrat obstruction. Under this scenario, they would have a lot of numbers to back themselves up.

At this point, although Dem obstruction is most certainly going on, there is no statistical evidence to provide the American public as proof of such a contention. If 15 Bush COA nominees had so far in this senate been voted down in committee and 5 more voted down on the full senate floor ( as compared to only 3 COA getting confirmed - Smith, Hardiman and Livingston), I think the Republicans would be in a much better position to launch a real public relations coup against the Dems.

Currently, it seems like the Republicans are just complaining about a nonexistant political situation regarding judges. Only we "federal judiciary junkies" seem to presently know the real truth, and that hasn't changed much of the actual dynamics of the game. We might need to take a few bullets as regards to some negative committee and floor votes in order to ultimately win the judicial confirmations wars.

http://justicedigest.blogspot.com/

This link shows that the left is now at least putting up a small fight against Elrod.

http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/07192007.html

At that first link that I posted, it seems that the left has found a statement made by Conrad where he said that Planned Parenthood is a radical, pro-abortion organization. While this statement is true, it may spook the Dems on the SJC.

I think the liberal special-interest groups have decided to oppose every Bush nominee just to see how much they can succeed. That does not necessarily mean that the Dem leadership will always go along with them. The Dem leadership has it own agenda that may at times not match that of the special-interest groups. Elrod is a particular case in point.

Regardless of the status of Southwick, the Dem leadership still knows that at least for the time being they need to provide the Republicans with a steady stream of COA confirmations. Reid and Leahy understand that it would create a public-relations problem for the Dems to cut off the judicial pipeline too soon without providing the American public with a valid excuse for doing so. Such an excuese will occur in January when Leahy can innocently claim that with the Thurmond Rule he is just implementing a time-tested senate tradition.

This is the reason why both initially agreed to confirm Southwick. Then, unexpectedly, the liberal special-interest groups out-manuevered them. Now that confirming Southwick is not an option, they must find someone new to confirm. Since confirming Keisler would only further anger the liberal special-interest groups, and confirming Kethledge and Murphy would infuriate Levin and Stabenow, the Dems are restricted as to whom they can confirm now. The only viable candidate is Elrod. Since they have already given Neas and Aron Southwick on a silver platter, I think the Dem leadership will not have a problem confirming Elrod over their objections (especially since Aron in her Alliance for Justice statements cannot even provide one concrete disagreement with Elrod or one of her judicial opinions). In addition, the confirmation of another female nominee will help the Dem leadership to appear sensitive to diversity issues.

In short, although Ralph Neas and Nan Aron may get upset, confirming Elrod now is in the best interest of Reid and Leahy, and they will allow her to be confirmed.

Although I have no doubt that Elrod will be confirmed, I have serious doubts about Conrad's confirmation. There are two reasons for this:

1) When Conrad was up for his district seat, Leahy openly opposed him. Leahy even discussed at the time Conrad's previous comments about Planned Parenthood. Leahy did not block his nomination at that time, though, because it would've required a filibuster, and the Dems have never filibustered district nominees because they want to maintain the false image that they have all along allowed a continuous flow of judicial confirmations.

2) The Dems in general are furious that Jesse Helms during the Clinton administration blocked three diversity picks for the North Carolina seat for which Conrad has been chosen. Two African-American men (James Wynn and James Beaty) and one white woman (Elizabeth Gibson) were blocked by Helms for the position. Since the Dems succeeded in blocking Boyle as retribution, I don't think they will mind blocking two more. The only way a North Carolina nominee might get through under these conditions would be if they were female and/or minority. As another white Southern male, even if he hadn't made any anti-liberal statements in the past, Conrad was going to have problems getting confirmed.

Bobo, my post is not misleading at all. Reid said: "the facts of his background and his decisionmaking are different than had been represented to me. The Judiciary Committee must still do its work with care, and it should only report those nominees who deserve a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench....at this stage it appears Democrats are going to oppose this nomination."

As I said, it is "very clear that he opposes a floor vote for Judge Southwick because of the 'N-word' case."

I totally disagree. Saying that,"at this stage it appears Democrats are going to oppose this nomination," in no ways says anything about HOW they plan to oppose Southwick. In fact, he directly says that the reason why Lott and Cochran are scared to ask Leahy for a committee vote is probably because they know Southwick will be voted down in committee. No where does Reid say that he will not allow a floor vote on Southwick if he is voted out of committee, so your statement that he, "opposes a floor vote" is patently incorrect. You could only say he opposes such a vote if and when he either actually refuses to schedule such a floor vote or leads a filibuster against such a vote.

Bobo:

1) Is it not clear that Reid supports voting Southwick down in Committee?

2) Is it not clear that Reid supports never giving a floor vote to Southwick if he is voted down in Committee?

3) And given these facts, isn't it also pretty clear that Reid would oppose a discharge motion?

Yes, it is clear that Reid supports voting Southwick down in committee. But, no, desiring a negative committee vote does not mean the same thing as saying that Reid actually opposes a floor vote on Southwick if Southwick was eligible to have one. I think we are entering the sematical arena now, so I guess it is best that we just agree to disagree on this one.

You added a third statement before I could respond to your first two!

As far as a discharge petition goes, I would agree with you that if Reid filibusters it with fewer than 50 votes, he would be openly opposing a floor vote for Southwick. However, if the Dems vote the down the petition with more than 50 votes, it would not necessarily mean the same thing. By refusing to allow Southwick out of committee before a committee vote could be interpreted to mean that he doesn't want the full senate to short-circuit the deliberations of the SJC. In such a situation, again Reid would not have to directly address the issue of whether or not he opposes a floor vote under the normal conditions (i.e. a favorable committee vote) under which a nominee is eligible for one.

Sorry you didn't see that third statement sooner.

It's unclear if a discharge motion would be more likely after a committee vote or before the committee vote.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I think we Republicans need to be very careful about condemning the Democrats for obstructing Bush judicial nominees in the 110th Congress. According to Senate rules, they have an absolute right to do so. To be fair, if Republicans condemn the Democrats now, they should also condemn the actions of the Republicans in the 106th Congress. After all, the Republicans did exactly the same thing to Clinton's nominees then as the Republicans are doing to Bush's nominees now.

In general, the 106th Congress should be viewed as cautionary tale. From 1998 to 2000, the Republicans should have given all of Clinton's nominees committee hearings, committee votes and full floor votes if the nominees were lucky enough to pass out of committee. That is not to say, though, that Republican senators should have voted "yes" on any of those nominations during an actual up-or-down vote. In fact, they should've voted down the most ideological of Clinton's nominees in the full Senate, especially Helene White, Elena Kagan, Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez. Maybe if the Republicans had treated the Dems differently ten years ago, things would be different now.

Al Kamen of the Washington Post recently said that Bush "may be hard-pressed to get the 11 he needs to match Clinton's 65 appeals court appointments. (By the way, Clinton reached his total with the Senate in GOP hands for six of his eight years.)"

And how are Democrats preventing Bush from matching the Clinton numbers? By trumping up charges of racial insensitivity out of thin air, for the third time in a row. The GOP has every right to be ticked off.

Although Republicans have an absolute right to expose the fallacious reasoning that the Dems are presently using to support their obstruction of Bush nominees, they do not have the right to question the technical procedure with which the Dems have chosen to implement that obstruction, a procedure they used quite effectively for their own purposes during the 106th Congress.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2007/07/the-skys-still-.html

"But [Kathleen Sullivan's recent criticisms concerning the conservative turn of the Supreme Court] were grounded in law, not rhetoric—a much-needed liberal voice of clarity and calm at the end of a contentious term. I say much-needed because some of the liberal commentary on the Court since the justices packed up and left town has been almost breathtaking in its over-the-top hysteria. That does no one any favors: not liberals or conservatives—and certainly not the Court itself."

Bobo, isn't it possible for the fallacious reasoning of the Dems to be sufficiently fallacious as to justify the GOP in slowing down other matters?

Just as the Dems have the right to use the procedural tricks at their disposal to block Bush nominees, Republicans have the right use the procedural tricks at their disposal to get those same nominees confirmed. So, yes, the Republicans have every right to slow down the Senate until the Dems remove the obstacles they have placed in front of the nominees.

For the good of the rest of Bush's nominees, I think it is time to dump Southwick. I thought he may have a chance when he went last week to personally lobby some of the more reasonable SJC Dems. That has obviously not worked.

Fact 1: The Dems control the Senate
Fact 2: Southwick will never be confirmed while Fact 1 remains true.

We knew going into this Congress that Bush would never get all of his judges through. It was sad Saad, Haynes, Boyle, Wallace, Estrada, Kuhl, Cox, etc were not confirmed. However we moved on. There is no point trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Southwick's story is a little bit more wrenching because he is such an outstanding gentleman. However we cannot continue to waste time on something that is just never going to happen. Let the SJC vote happen and then bump him down to the DJ seat. At this point just leave that CCA seat without a nominee. Make sure the Dems know that NO Dem POTUS will ever fill that seat and let that be that.

The Dems need a body count to show their moonbat base that they are fighting Bush's judges. Let them have a count as long as we get some confirmations out of each failed nominee. This requires more nominees though. Perhaps nominate that Federalist Society member for that RI seat that Chafee was against. He can then be used as a sacrifice for the greater good of Bush judges.

With all of that said, the only nominee I will not compromise on is Keisler. I really think he still has a shot. I base my hope on DiFi and the much talked about deal Bobo mentions every so often.

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263350

"If anyone really believes Senator Kennedy hasn’t seen obstruction like this in his 45 years, then they haven’t met Judges Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Myers, William Pryor, Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Miguel Estrada, Peter Keisler, Charles Pickering, or Leslie Southwick. While some of these judges eventually got onto the bench as part of the Gang of 14 deal, there are many who were scuttled as part of the deal, and Keisler and Southwick continue to languish at the hands of the Pat Leahy controlled Judiciary Committee, of which Kennedy is a member. Kennedy is no stranger to preventing votes from being taken."

http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&rid=237545

"“I’ve been overwhelmingly impressed by Judge Elrod’s qualifications for this job,” Sen. Cornyn said. “She has a reputation as a fair, hard-working and thoughtful judge recognized for her low reversal rate. By all accounts, Judge Elrod has exercised her judicial duties with nothing but neutrality and commitment to fundamental fairness for every litigant to appear before her. I am confident that Judge Elrod has demonstrated her ability to fairly and impartially resolve cases before her. I commend this outstanding lawyer, judge and Texan, and urge that this Committee act promptly and favorably on her nomination.”"

Despite Nan Aron's recent criticism of Elrod (which oddly did not highlight any specific disagreement with Elrod concerning her ethics or any of her judicial opinions), I think Elrod will be the next confirmed nominee. Unlike Southwick, Elrod has the added benefit of having a homestate senator on the SJC who seems determined to get her out of committee.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2007/07/three-four-more-busheviks-...

"And Judge Haynes is a full-time partner at the law firm Baker & Botts:

Jim Baker's firm, and an erstwhile busy player on Bush/Cheney's behalf, back when the latter were working full-time at the theft of their "election." (Ever since then, Baker has had his own office in the White House.) The firm also represents the ruling family of Saudi Arabia."

This is one of the stupidest "guilty by association" comments I have read in awhile. Catharina Haynes was a state judge in 2000, and wasn't with Baker & Botts at the time the firm was helping Bush with the Florida recount.

http://lawstate.info/legal-articles/white-house-nominates-four-to-us-cou...

"Haynes is a litigaton partner at Baker Botts. Prior that, she served as a state-court judge in Dallas. And before joining the bench, Haynes spent time at both Baker Botts and at Thompson & Knight. She seems to have been somewhat of a legal Doogie Howser: The White House notes that she graduated second in her class from Emory Law at age 22; and first in her class from the Florida Institute of Technology at 19."

Is anyone here more likely to vote for him now due to his new judicial advisory council? It does cause me to look more closely at his candidacy. I view him as the most electable nominee. If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I fear that I will have trouble sleeping at night out of fear that something will happen to one of our 4 3/4 votes on the USSC. They would need to have a doctor following them around to check on their health hourly much like the President has the Secret Service.

Yeah, I'm prolly going for Rudy. He's far from perfect, but if he's got Olson & Estrada on his side it tells me he's likely gonna be solid on judges. I don't think any of the others have more than mentioned in passing platitudes on judges.

Rudy has specifically mentioned the Big Four, and Olson specifically said yes when asked if Rudy would nominate someone like JRB. I'll wager Luttig is pretty high on Rudy's, too, along with Estrada & Mahoney (who I can prolly swallow hard and accept in place of Stevens or Ginsburg).

McCain is finished, Fred is a phony lightweight, & Mitt just keeps doing one dumb thing after another (the latest? The "Say No to Obama, Osama & Chelsea's Moma(sic)" sign), that is when he's not flip-flopping.

I agree, Rudy isn't perfect that is for sure BUT
he is great on taxes, security, crime, and speaking
his advisors and all his talk on judges has been 100% (he always mentions Alito, Scalia, and Roberts as judges he would nominate)
besides even if he puts a few questionable ones in that is far from what Billary would put in
Lets face it a Dem will put atleast 3 yes 3 younger lefties on the SC. Just can't let that happen. If it does it sets us back 20 years for the next possible shift to the right

Huh??? What numbers are you looking at for fundraising? You must be using some fuzzy math. McCain raised $11.6 million last quarter. Paul raised only $2.3 million.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/16/mccain-warchest-larger-t...

As I said before, almost all of Paul's support comes from Kossacks trying to advance their antiwar kook message. Just go over to their site during the next GOP debate. Watch how they cheer Paul when he says 9/11 was OUR fault. Watch how they put links for post debate online polls. Watch how they put orders on their stupid site to text vote to make Paul look relevent. If you think 9/11 was our fault you are on the wrong site and in the wrong party.

Here is the direct quote from the debate from Ron

Paul: "They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East...I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it"

I dont care what their reasons for attacking us were Dr. Paul, they are irrelevant. By listening to their grievences we make their attacks have merit. You respond by bombing them to bits until they regret attacking us in the first place or they are all dead. This discourages any future attacks by creating fear of what we will do next.

I've cleaned up this thread, and banned a couple people. It's hard to tell if they were really serious or not. In any event, if people want to advocate for repealing part of the 13th Amendment (they probably meant the 14th Amendment), and want to claim that there's a genocide of white people in the U.S., or want to repeatedly use particular words that they have been told are offensive, then all that can be done at another web site. It's a big internet.

Thank you Andrew!!!