ConfirmThem

Yep, a truly disasterous and frightening answer. He sounds like some liberal judicial activist: "We decide and you deal with it!" And then he goes on to say the states could make their own decisions. Uh, no Mr. Mayor, they can't, not when an activist Supreme Court has taken that decision-making ability out of their hands with detestable decisions like Roe. A confused, conflicted, and disorganized answer, and very injurious to his candidacy.

Giuliani's punt on the Roe question reminds me of Specter's view of judicial supremacy: The mere mortals of this country (i.e. everyone but the 9 Platonic philosopher-kings up there) are not supposed to think about what's constitutional and what's not. It's only for those 9 Olympians to decide what's constitutional!

Bush is guilty of this kind of thinking too. He said he thought McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional but signed it anyway on the grounds that it's the judiciary's job, not his, to uphold the Constitution. He said, "Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns.... I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

But Giuliani's answer seems to me politically foolish as well as intellectually flawed. Why couldn't he say: "I believe abortion should be legal and as President I will veto any new restrictions on abortion. However, I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it has no basis in the Constitution, forces judges to make political judgments about abortion regulations, and has not led to settled and predictable results." This position would not only intellectually defensible, but politically savvy, seems to me: The opposition to Roe would win him support from the Republican base that wants Roe v. Wade overturned, while his being pro-choice would make him seem less scary to pro-choice Republicans and independents.

My guess is that was a reference to "settle-law" Roberts.

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 talk and action from true conservative leadership.

his exact words, IIRC, were that Roe "is settled as a precedent of the Court." That's a tautology. *Any* precedent of the court is settled *as a precedent of the Court*. If he had said that Roe is "settled" period, that would be another story.

My impression of Roberts' strategy during the hearings was that he was careful not to say anything that would necessarily distinguish his views from those expressed in the Court's opinions by any of the 9 justices currently on the Court. A notable exception was his ready criticism of citing foreign law.

Roberts has proven himself to be a strongly principled judicial conservative. If you wanted to bash him here, you should have jumped on the bandwagon and done it last year. He has proven all the naysayers wrong.

Here's a new AP article assessing Alito's performance to date:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_s_true_colors

Well, the hearing notice is now posted:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2760

Southwick for the 5th Circuit is listed,
and Neff for one of the Western Michigan spots as well as O'Grady for Eastern District of Virginia.

I'd be interested in others' views of the tea leaves on Neff. It could be as untoward as the Demmies letting her through and snubbing the other two to stick it to Brownback and the Repubbies, or it may just be that another hearing for her was a part of the deal with Brownback lifting his hold.

As to O'Grady, I guess that Webb will consent to at least something, although maybe that's his way to still be an obstinant mule on everything else.

And, still sticking it to the North Carolina district nominees, with no hearings.

of the 5 Michigan nominees, I'd say she should be the last of them to be considered. Is it "the gold standard" or not?

I must say I am pleasantly surprised that they are having a hearing next week already. I am kind of perplexed thought that they only have 2 DJs on the agenda and one of them is Neff. What the heck? I thought Leahy said that those 3 WD-MI nominees would not need new hearings. I was surprised he even waited for new ABA ratings (that did not change btw). Is this an attempt to muddy the water and make it look like they are moving forward when in reality they are just really doing something that was already done? If this is Brownback's fault, I am going to withdrawl all my warm praise of him I had last night. As for the NC DJs: Dole and Burr DO SOMETHING!!!! You guys are not inanimate objects, you are United States Senators. I am getting fed up with the lack of attention you two have had when it comes to judges - in your own state no less.

It is nice that the Dems are throwing us bones of Southwick and Livingstion but the real prize is Keisler. Once again I implore everyone to call Senator McConnell to push for Keisler. I have called once a week about this. It takes more than one person to make a difference though. Its already May and it looks like with this Southwick trick now, Keisler is being put off indefinately. Please everyone that reads this, take 2-3 minutes out of your busy day and call. Tell Mitch to file a discharge petition. Tell him we want Keisler and we want him this month. His DC office number is 202-224-2541. If you dont call you have no room to complain when nothing is done this month, the next month, and the month after that. Pick up the phone and call!!!!!

Although I would like Bush to nominate people for the North Carolina and South Carolina seats on the Fourth Circuit as soon as possible, I am very afraid the Dems will do almost anything now to pass over Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy. If Bush nominates too many people to the COA now, he will give the Dems plenty of opportunity to avoid what I consider to be a needed confrontation over Keisler. This month, the Dems are apparently giving us Livingston and Southwick without any conflict in order to avoid giving us Keisler or the Michigan Two. Next month, they will probably give us Elrod.

If Bush keeps on giving the Dems new COA nominees, they'll just continue avoiding Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy. Soon it will be January, and voila, Leahy will declare an accelerated Thurmond Rule, and there will be no more COA confirmations for 2008. It's a quandary I'm not sure how to solve. How do we continue letting the Dems confirm one COA judge a month AND force a Keisler confirmation before it's too late? Any suggestions?

Since the hearing is for Southwick (and 2 DJ nominees), the fact that a junior Senator like Whitehouse is chairing is a very good sign. It indicates that the hearing will be pro forma, with very few Democrats even present. If the Dems wanted to make the hearing difficult and controversial, Leahy would be chairing.

It was clear before the nominees were posted that this hearing would not be for Keisler. If the Dems hold another hearing for him, it will be of the full-scale "show trial" variety and confirmation will be very problemmatical. If they send him to the Floor without another hearing, he'll probably be confirmed without major problems (maybe because of his impeccable Washington connections and the the D.C. to 9th Circuit judgeship deal).

By the way, I said repeatedly here in March that Livingston would come before Keisler, and last month that Southwick would come before Keisler as well. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist bringing it up. Though Southwick gets an early May hearing, it's still unlikely that he'd be confirmed before the first week of June unless he's put on an ultra fast track. The realistic goal would be to get him on the Executive Calendar before Congress adjourns on the 25th. That would still be OK.

Bobo, in reply to your guery, I've argued repeartedly that Circuit nominations should be rationed severely. The "shotgun approach" advocated by some here would invite Democrat cherry-picking, as you said, and Keisler and the most important Circuits will be bypassed. However, I strongly disagree with you about one thing: the 4th Circuit is more important than Kethledge and Murphy on the 6th. My plan: the Administration should make ONLY 2 nominations between now and September: 4th Circuit (N.C and S.C.). Both nominations should be made in the next month. They will be too late to interfere with Keisler in June or July (if Dems. advance Elrod to June). If they get placed before the 6th Circuit (who have been eternally stymied anyway) so much the better. The 4th Circuit is far more critical at this time (with 5 vacancies as of July 1st). In any case, there will be plenty of nominees to suffice at least until November at this rate, and only important ones (DC, 4th, 5th and 6th) an be considered. What do you think?

By the way, Livingston getting voted out yesterday is excellent news. That's obvious, admittedly, but it's nice to be able to say something positive once in awhile. A Southwick hearing next week would also be great. Filling this seat will be very satisfying, since it's been essentially vacant throughout Bush's Presidency (Pickering was merely a recess appointment).

I don't quite understand why the Dems suddenly seem to be playing nice on Circuit nominees. I'm glad they are, but it's sort of disconcerting and ominous. I have a foreboding that all this seeming conciliation will be the harbinger of some very bitter battles in June and July.

If he, eventually, votes to uphold Roe, or aides and abets that case never being reviewed, ever again, then he has been a lousy appointment.

If, on the other hand, if you are a moderate, establishment Republican primarily interested in economic considerations, or if you are a "neo-conservative" bent on torturing prisoners held without charges, or trial, then Roberts may very well have proven his mettle to you.

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.

Its posts like #12 that many people think you are a troll. You are either the stupidest conservative I ever met, or a really annoying liberal that has nothing better to do.

If Keisler's seat is not filled by Sept/Oct, I suggest pulling him and getting rid of the 11th seat. If they are just going to play games with it, just get rid of it. That will be one less seat for Hillary to fill in 2009. Maybe you could even move it to Texas or Arizona. This would have two purposes: 1. It would help the over-worked courts down there drowned by immigration cases and 2. it would be easier to fill in either of those two states because they both have two Republican Senators and Kyl and Cornyn are on the SJC. The DC CCA's caseload really doesnt suggest it needs that seat anyway. Still make an effort for Keisler though. There have been rumors on here that DiFi and Kyl made a deal for Keisler in exchange for the 12th seat. Is this real or is this just speculation by Ed Whelen (whom I met two weeks ago at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, PA btw). If anything the threat of Keisler looming makes the Dems play nice with these other nominees. Just think, all of this Keisler nonsense could have been avoided if Frist and the 109th actually did something in December rather than just throw in the towel. Sigh :(

"On the current court, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas all worked in the executive branch. Republican nominees Kennedy, Souter and Stevens did not."

This was first, I believe, put forth by someone here, although certainly many people are aware of it. Have to be blind not to see it.

It's my greatest reservation about Sykes. She has apparently none of SDO, AMK, or DHS' psychological/philosophical problems.

BUT, how she'll react to the white-hot spotlight is anyone's guess.

We know pretty well how JRB, EBrook, McConnell, Jones, Luttig, Pryor, and even probably Batchelder(due to her husbands's battles in the Ohio leg.) would.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we also know how Estrada & Mahoney would.

Actually, if there's a vacancy in '08 Batch would be the one to pick, IMO. I'd rather get 10-15 solid years than 5 solid ones followed by 25 bad ones.

The idea that each nominee HAS to serve for 25+ years (but also be non-threatening enough on the surface to get confirmed) is fraught with peril.

There's certainly nothing wrong I can see in nominating a 61 year-old JRB or Easterbrook in 2010. At least we'd know what we were getting, and no one can possibly know what the POTUS/Senate will look like four years in the future, let alone twenty four.

We do know, however, what a twenty-plus year mistake looks like.

As for Rudy, it is inexcusable on his part that he does not have pat answers to every aspect of the abortion question at this point. Mind-boggling.

Of course, the problem is he's pro-choice but also apparently doesn't like judicial legislating. Very easy bridge to gap.

Bad day for Rudy, but he still beats Hillary like a drum headup in the polls, so there ya are.

Brownback, Tancredo, & Huckabee don't believe in evolution, oh boy.

I'm in full agreement that it's pointless to make anymore nominations until Keisler's and the Michigan Five's status is resolved.

What is Mitch doing?

At the outset, we were told that Rudy was going to run as a muscular federalist - as an anti-Roe pro-choice Republican who would nominate strong strict-constructionist/originalist judges and justices to the court while not using Roe as a litmus test.

I believe that Rudy really wants to be president very badly - and the fact that he can't run on this very simple, completely reasonable and rationale path to the nomination that he should be imminently comfortable with tells me that he would be very hesitant to nominate a justice that would strike down Roe. And those type of justices would be very weak on a wide variety of cases, as we well know.

Now, the only upside is that I think he would very much like to nominate justices who would be strong on executive power and the unitary executive. Those justices do tend to be justices that I would be comfortable with and that I think would strike down Roe, as we saw in the Hamdan decision.

Rudy is a real quandry. I think Romney did very well during the debate and he solidified himself as my favorite candidate in the field thus far. But if a bulk of Rudy supporters would agree to switch to Fred Thompson if he jumps in, I'll go there with them. :-)

Are you comparing Estrada and Mahoney?? Please explain.

DON'T FEED THE MENTAL PATIENTS! For the love of God, don't respond to BS Bob!!! Don't read his stuff either so you won't be tempted to respond - it's usually best for your own health. LOL

I, and any other true pro-life conservative would be really stupid, actually morons, if we were to allow you to be the judge of who was, and was not, "conservative" after your little rant about how the sky would have fallen if Roberts and Alito had joined Scalia and Thomas in noting that Roe had no Constitutional basis.

Again, if you are pro-choice, you may very well worry that the abortion "issue" is an impediment to appointing moderate, establishment judges in the face of liberal opposition on that issue. Colloquially, they fear having to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," the "baby," in Dienekes' case being judges who would support detention without trial, torture etc., and the "bathwater" being pro-life folk. Or should I more accurately state they fear "having to throw out the stem-cell-rich embroyonic fluid with the aborted baby."

My message to pro-life folk like myself is simply enough to grasp: maybe it isn't an accident that after appointing seven of the nine Supreme Court justices Roe is the "law of the land," and homosexual marriage is less than a decade away from being legislated from the bench. Maybe it is time to consider that events have unfold this way precisely because this how the people in charge of process wanted it to unfold!

And, if that were the case, it would be the height of insanity to continue supporting politicians who are deliberately throwing the battle on your behalf! Instead, perhaps, it is time to only support politicians who will help us rather than sabotage us, and punish those politicians who have broken their promises to us!

As to your ad hominem accusations:

There is not a single poster who seriously believes that I
am a "troll." No one was ever questioned that I believe what I write or write what I believe.

Even you cannot muster the intellectual courage to unequivocably charge me with being a "troll." Instead, you eqivocate with words like "maybe your a troll, or maybe you are just the stupidest conservative I have ever..."

If you can't even take your own accusation seriously, why should anyone else?

Again, I don't believe that you are actually as stupid as to question my level of intelligence. I don't believe you actually believe that that I am "stupid." I just think you wish to attempt to discredit me by insulting me on a personal level.

On the other hand, I am willing to test the premise:

I am hereby offer to wager you that if we agree on an IQ level that would constitute the cut-off between the stupid, and the average, I could score higher than that over a series of standardized IQ tests.

Talk is cheap. How about a wager of $50,000?

You won't take the wager because you know you are wrong!

Isn't that the case?

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, more effective, leadership.

Disagreeing with you is not exhibiting mental illness.

Accusing people who disagree with your politics of being mentally ill was a tactic that was practised by the Soviet Communist state to discredit intellectual opponents. People who disagreed weren't dissidents; they were "mentally ill." A similiar tactic was used by slave owners to explain why Negroes fled slavery: it wasn't that they wanted to go North and be free, rather it was because they had a mental illness that caused them to run.

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 leaders lead their movement.

Advice well taken. Saved myself a lot of time avoiding that incoherent drivel above in #20 and #21.

Yet again, jtp7 resorts to condescending arrogance to deflect from the fact that he has been seriously chastized for issuing ad hominem abuse.

Again, if I am as "incoherent" as you suspect, I am offering you the opportunity to relieve me of $50,000 of my dollars.

All you have to do is specify an IQ level you attribute to me, consistent with your assertions that I am "stupid" and "incoherent", and bet that I can't meet that threshold on standardized IQ tests.

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 and more principled leadership.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Roberts at his 2003 confirmation hearing.

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 more effective and principled conservative leadership for their movement.

Bigskybob, you know that Roberts said that in the context of his becoming a circuit judge. You also know that circuit judges *must* apply Roe as "the settled law of the land," because they don't have the option of overruling it. And what's wrong with saying "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying" it? Circuit judges, including Luttig, Wilkinson, Jones, McConnell, etc., must "fully and faithfully" apply any Supreme Court precedent.

I would guess that all of Bush's circuit nominees have had to use pretty much the same language in their hearings. I know McConnell did, but I haven't read the hearings of any of the other nominees, so I don't know for sure.

That Roberts didn't repeat that categorical language in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, should give conservatives some comfort. Again, what he said in his Supreme Court hearings was tautological and therefore noncommittal: "Roe is settled *as a precedent of the Court*, entitled to respect *under principles of stare decisis*." These things are true of *any* precedent of the Court (that hasn't been overruled).

Of course, what you said before, "Roberts Hasn't Proven Himself As Being Either For or Against [retaining] Roe," is true.

You know you are right. Roberts should have come out in that hearing and said "...if i get on the court, overturning Roe will be the first thing I do!" How could all of us have been so stupid for thinking Roberts would be good since he did not say this? Thank you Bob for enlightening me, oh wise one.

How about Roberts having said,

"When I agreed to serve in the government I took upon myself the obligation to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. When I wrote that memo I did so not merely to represent my client, but, also, to protect the Constitution."

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 sack their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives.

What is the context of that quote, what "memo" is he talking about, and what point do you want the quote to illustrate?

Its obvious Bob is talking about the following memo:

"I, John Roberts, want to make a push for the United States to torture all people that the President deems necessary. Roe v. Wade is my favorite opinion of all time. Justice Brennen is my favorite SCOTUS jusitce. Its a shame the Equal Rights Ammendment did not pass; I will just have to find it in the Constitution somewhere now, probably the 14th Ammendment or this great penumbra I hear so much about. I also suggest that we silence all the real conservatives like this guy named bigskybob and install moderate liberals into the leadership roles of the conservative movement, to throw everyone off. That way we can install Brennen clones during the next SCOTUS vacancy while passing them off as conservatives.

Sincerely,

John Glover Roberts"

Man I just don't know how we missed this during the vetting process. What a disaster!!! LOL Thanks for pointing this out Bob.

..that said he was "pro-life," and then appointed the great admirer of Brennan?

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 their movement be lead by actual conservatives.

I would have loved for Bush to appoint someone who was more clearly in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as he suggested he would do in his campaign. But Roberts is no Souter. That's clear from comparing their confirmation hearings and their opinions over the past 2 years.

You also suggested above that Roberts was a good pick for those "interested in economic considerations." I can think of 2 cases this year (Watters v. Wachovia and United Haulers) where Roberts (with Scalia) happened to come out on the side of federalism, against business, and Alito came out the other way. Not commenting on which side should have won in either case, and not suggesting that anybody voted the way they did just because they like federalism or business, just noting that Roberts happened to come out against business when he wouldn't have been alone had he come out the other way.