ConfirmThem

Tomorrow's "special" business meeting should be pretty rancorous. The Democrats will do everything possible to block Boyle, Myers and Smith, and Graham will do everything possible to block Haynes. I hope Sessions and Grassley don't join in as well with complaints about filling the D.C. Circuit's 11th seat.

By the way, there is also a hearing tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 for judicial nominations. I wonder if it will be for Debra Livingston or Michael Wallace. Probably Wallace's hearing won't be until next Tuesday, September 26.

Obviously all they need to do is not show up.

Again.

bk, the whole point of the timing and place of this "special" meeting is to give the Democrats the fewest excuses for being absent. Hopefully, Specter's plan will work, and the Democrats will have to admit obstructionism if they don't appear this time.

Here's praying for a good day tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Committee . . .

Are any of those Dems on Judiciary up for re-election this year? Anyone we can paint as obstructionist. Anyone near any of them that we can paint .. how about Stabenow:

Opening shot: Black fading in an unflattering picture of Dangerously Incomptent Debbie with solemn music playing:

Michigan's judicial seats sit empty while Debbie Stabenow's Democrats play politics. Even though there is a deal for Michigan's judgeships to be filled, they may never get their day in court.

Stabenow's fellow Democrats wouldn't even show up to take part in their required committee meeting. At this rate, the judges that Stabenow blocked for so long will still be waiting long after the new year.

Call Debbie Stabenow and tell her that Democrats should respect judicial nominees enough to at least show up for their meetings.

She's on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and sadly, she's an absolute lock to be re-elected, regardless of what she does. California is very blue, and she's extremely popular. I'd be surprised if she pulled less than 70% of the vote.

The agenda for tomorrow's "special meeting" is up now. It contains all the same nominations as last Thursday's aborted meeting. I hope their are no tricks this time. There is also a second business meeting this week scheduled for Thursday.

The TIME article says that Graham "iced" Haynes' nomination. That doesn't sound good for tomorrow's vote. We'll have to see if Quin is right, and Graham gets Haynes sent out of committee with a negative recommendation.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535846,00.html?cnn=yes

The ad suggested sounds like it would violate the prohibition on mentioning a candidate for federal office within 60 days of the election.

But why hasn't the President simply indicated that if these nominations don't get the hearing and vote they deserve then they will all be given recess appointments. That should install them until the end of the first session of the 110th Congress (sometime at the end of 2007). Most of these nomminations have sat around for years, undergoing successive renominations due to obstruction.

Time for the President to put his foot down. If the Senate won't render its advice by acting, then he should make the decision for them when they recess for the election season.

For some of the nominees a recess appointment makes sense. For most it does not. It just depends on their careers, their chances for confirmation, and their future plans. Boyle would not be a good recess appointment given his age. Myers and Haynes would depend on their future career plans. Wallace and Smith would be good candidates because I believe Smith has a good shot at confirmation and Wallace would improve his chances at confirmation with superior performance as a circuit judge to counteract the charge that he is not qualified. In the case of Judge Pryor I believed it helped is nomination because he showed competentcy in his time as a circuit judge under a recess appointment. I would say that the decision to take a recess appointment would depend on the nominee himself.

Even if Graham reports Haynes out with a negative report, I'm STILL okay with that.

He is a Senator and he has the right to vote No. Now, if he voted NO on a whole host of judges, I'd have a problem, but if he's just exercising his judgment on Haynes, then I won't complain (even if I disagree with him).

It's the holds and delays that I can't abide.