ConfirmThem

Posted at 9:25pm on Apr. 3, 2008 Catholics, Jews, and the SJC Showdown

By Curt Levey

When Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy was confronted this morning by GOP colleagues fed up with his obstruction of circuit court nominees, the Chairman’s legendary thin skin was on display. Leahy became flustered and, when asked why 4th Circuit nominee Robert Conrad had not received a hearing, accused the staunch Catholic nominee of being “anti-Catholic.” At best, the charge is ironic, given the arguably anti-Catholic tone of Democrats’ attacks on Judge Bill Pryor during his confirmation hearing. This evening, the Catholic group Fidelis issued a press release calling on Leahy to apologize to Conrad and give him the hearing he has been waiting for since his nomination last July.

As I note at the end of my CFJ blog post, if there’s any religious bias involved in the current judges battle, it might be working against Jewish circuit nominees Peter Keisler, Shalom Stone, and Rod Rosenstein. After all, there does seem to be some extra Democratic antagonism whenever the President’s judicial picks remind the public that not all Hispanics, African-Americans, and Jews are liberal.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:39pm on Mar. 4, 2008 Ratcheting up the Pressure

By Curt Levey

Yesterday, Sen. Specter signaled that he had run out of patience with the nice-guy, behind-the-scenes approach to persuading Sen. Leahy to end his obstruction of judicial nominees. Specter met with conservative leaders to plot strategy for ratcheting up the pressure on Leahy and his Democratic colleagues, released a ‘last chance’ letter he sent to Leahy on Friday, and spoke on the Senate floor to initiate this new, higher-profile phase of the judges fight. The new approach clearly got under Leahy’s skin.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:20pm on Feb. 13, 2008 60 Groups Demand Progress on Judicial Nominees

By Curt Levey

Today, a coalition of about 60 groups—led by the Committee for Justice—delivered a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing deep concern about the lack of progress on judicial nominees, and making it clear that anything short of 15 circuit court nominees reaching the Senate floor in 2007-08 would be remembered as “historic levels of obstruction.” The letter, list of signers, and accompanying press release can be found here.

Thanks to Bobo for noting this letter in the comments earlier today.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:44pm on Dec. 27, 2007 WaPo: Squeeze in Some Hearings Between Those Pro Forma Sessions

By AndrewHyman

The Washington Post is recommending speedy confirmation hearings for the nominations of Robert Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Rod Rosenstein to the Fourth Circuit.

Hat Tips: How Appealing and Nomination Observer.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:20am on Nov. 21, 2007 Justices Roberts and Alito are Extremists Who Mock Compassion and are Blinded to the Vulnerable?

By AndrewHyman

That's what one hyper-partisan U.S. Senator says:

As we enter the third year of the lifetime appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Court, it is clear that their approach to judging mocks the commitment to open-mindedness, modesty, and compassion that they professed during their confirmation hearings….Alito and Roberts have turned out to be remarkably blinded to the plight of America's most vulnerable….The White House concealed information about its nominees ….[T]here is no good reason for nominees to refuse to state how they would have voted in cases the Supreme Court has already decided….After posing as moderates in their confirmation hearings, extremist justices have moved the Supreme Court far to the right of the American mainstream.

This is from a November 19 piece by Senator Edward Kennedy in the American Prospect. Kennedy might consider that people who disagree with him sometimes do so in good faith.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said: "A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal . . . to the intelligence of a future day...." Ted Kennedy wants to decide those appeals, instead of letting judges do it. Kennedy may have good intentions, but he's wrong. Congress can overturn cases that turn on the meaning of a federal statute, but Congress should generally butt out of constitutional cases. The last thing we need are judicial nominees who abandon what they believe is an honest and open-minded approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, in order to pander to politicians.

I had a similar post in April titled, "Ted Kennedy Imperils Judicial Independence."

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:01pm on Sep. 20, 2007 Elrod Out of Committee

By AndrewHyman

Fifth Circuit nominee Jennifer W. Elrod is now out of committee. Thanks to Mose for the tip. She and Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie H. Southwick will hopefully get floor votes soon.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:56pm on Jul. 25, 2007 60 Groups Demand Progress on Judges

By Curt Levey

Today, a coalition of about 60 organizations—including the Committee for Justice—delivered a letter to each of the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing deep concern that the “lack of progress in reporting judicial nominees out of committee ... has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith.” The letter notes that “[t]he broken promises and personal attacks on nominees that have accompanied this inaction ... only add to the public perception that your committee is not living up to its responsibilities.”

The coalition decries the fact that some of “the nominees are being subjected to obstruction borne of partisan politics” and cites as a prime example the “ugly campaign of character assassination” against Fifth Circuit nominee and Iraq War veteran Leslie Southwick. “The American people will ask why you put the demands of [liberal] special interest groups above the fair treatment of a man who interrupted a highly successful career to serve his country in Iraq,” the letter notes.

The letter concludes by asking that Judiciary Committee members “allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent, by ensuring that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner ... In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.”

The full text of the letter, including the list of signers, is below the fold.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:23pm on Apr. 4, 2007 Hearing Next Wednesday

By AndrewHyman

Sen. Schumer is scheduled to chair a hearing of the Judiciary Committee on 11 April. I'd guess that Second Circuit nominee Debra Livingston may appear, since the Second Circuit includes New York (look for Schumer to insist that she reveal her political views and that she opine about Supreme Court cases that other nominees have declined to opine about).

Hat Tip: Nomination Observer.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:37pm on Mar. 8, 2007 Hardiman & Bryant Out

By Curt Levey

Third Circuit nominee Thomas Hardiman was reported out of the Judiciary Committee this morning, as was district court (D.Conn.) nominee Vanessa Bryant. Last week, the ABA screening committee changed its rating of Bryant from “not qualified” to “qualified.”

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:04am on Mar. 1, 2007 Hardiman on Tap

By Curt Levey

U. S. District Court Judge and Third Circuit nominee Thomas Hardiman is on the agenda when the Judiciary Committee meets later this morning. He was first nominated for the new job last year and is likely to be approved by the committee. Three district court nominees are on the agenda as well.

UPDATE (March 1): Hardiman was held over this morning until the next committee meeting.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:00am on Feb. 19, 2007 SJC to Consider Hardiman on March 1

By AndrewHyman

The Senate Judiciary Committee may vote March 1 on the Third Circuit nomination of Thomas M. Hardiman. Legal Times had this article about him last year. How Appealing chimed in here.

Hat Tip: JTP7.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:12pm on Feb. 14, 2007 Goings On in the Judiciary Committee

By AndrewHyman

Tony Mauro of Legal Times has this report about Justice Kennedy's appearance today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Kennedy's prepared testimony is here). Most of the discussion was about a judicial pay raise, which Kennedy said would attract more and better nominees, and would encourage lifetime service rather than judgeships being used as stepping-stones (Paul Volcker recently wrote about this issue, and so did C.J. John Roberts). There was also some discussion today about cameras in the Court, which Justice Kennedy said would be "insidious."

Meanwhile, Nate Nelson of the blog "The Common Tater" has a few thoughts about the judicial nomination situation. He notes that one seat in the Fourth Circuit has now been vacant for thirteen years. Nelson opines: "Although it would seem that Bush would have to do the compromising thanks to the Democratic majority in the Senate, that may not be true. The Democratic majority is razor thin, and Bush could use his bully pulpit to turn the vacancies into an election issue in 2008...." Nelson assesses the attitudes of the Judiciary Committee members, one by one.

HT: Bashman.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:46pm on Feb. 8, 2007 Smith is First to the Floor

By Curt Levey

Congrats to Randy Smith. This morning, he became the first circuit court nominee voted out of the Judiciary Committee in the 110th Congress. He should soon be on the Ninth Circuit.

Congrats as well to district court nominees Nora Fischer, Marcia Howard, John Jarvey, and Sara Lioi, who were also voted out this morning.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:47pm on Jan. 31, 2007 On Joe Biden and "cleanliness"

By Alexham

Now, keep in mind, folks, that this is the same guy who has accused several of the president's judicial nominees of being "racially insensitive."

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:25pm on Jan. 25, 2007 Three Thursday Items

By AndrewHyman

The Judiciary Committee had a meeting today, but no appellate nominations were considered. A hearing is scheduled for February 6.

We previously mentioned that a leading contender for Justice Alito's seat on the Third Circuit is Noel Hillman. Here's a recent article mentioning that prospect ("If Hillman is nominated, this might be an opportune time for the Republicans in the Senate to get to the meat of the Berger affair").

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:44pm on Jan. 5, 2007 “Thurmond Rule” More Myth than Reality

By Curt Levey

Senator Specter, now the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, isn’t buying Chairman Leahy’s avowed plan to invoke the so-called “Thurmond Rule” on judicial nominees come mid-2008. Leahy could use the rule to bring confirmations to a virtual halt in the final six months of the Bush presidency. Specter noted in a statement yesterday that “the historical record suggests that this rule is more myth than reality” and cited the confirmation of Stephen Breyer to the Second Circuit as just one example. Specter went on to say

The fact of the matter is that the Senate has regularly confirmed judges in presidential election years. In the election year of 1980, when it is asserted Senator Thurmond inaugurated the so-called rule, the Senate confirmed ten Circuit Court nominees and 53 District Court nominees.
. . .
Justice Breyer was then Senator Kennedy's Chief Counsel. He was nominated by President Carter on November 13, 1980, after Carter had lost the election to Ronald Reagan. The Senate, which was also about to switch party control, held a swift confirmation hearing and voted to confirm Breyer on December 9, 1980.
. . .
In 2000, President Clinton's last year in office, the Senate confirmed eight Circuit Court nominees and 31 District Court nominees. Furthermore, many of these presidential election year confirmations occurred late in the year. Since 1980, 110 judges were confirmed after July 1st of a presidential election year, 17 of those were confirmed to Circuit Courts. In the same period, 63 judges were confirmed after September 1st of presidential elections years, twelve of those to Circuit Courts.

The full text of Specter’s statement follows below the fold.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:51am on Oct. 1, 2006 Six Judicial Nominations Returned

By AndrewHyman

As mentioned previously, the nomination of Randy Smith was returned to the President. Now comes word that the following additional circuit court nominations were also returned: Keisler, Boyle, Haynes, Myers, and Wallace. Smith was the only one of the returned nominees pending before the full Senate, whereas all of the others were mysteriously stuck in committee. Regarding Smith, Associated Press has corrected its erroneous report about the judge whom he would succeed.

It only takes one Senator to force the return of a nominee during a recess of more than thirty days, so these returns are no big surprise given recent history. What is surprising is that, for whatever reason, the additional five circuit nominees weren't moved along to the full Senate. On September 3, Senator Specter said, "I'm going to move them right along one at a time and let the full Senate make its judgment."

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:22pm on Sep. 28, 2006 Final Business Meeting?

By Dave II

Tomorrow at 9:30AM, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold what is likely to be its final executive business meeting. Wallace is not on the agenda, but a bunch of district court nominees are.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:17pm on Sep. 27, 2006 What Happened to the Quorum?

By Dave II

Why was Kent Jordan the only Circuit nominee to make it out of Committee yesterday? Bench Memos has an interesting post about that.

The bottom line? You guessed it: Arlen Specter.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:12am on Sep. 27, 2006 News Items

By AndrewHyman

Quorum Lacking for NC Judicial Nominee

Del. judge gets Senate panel's OK

Judicial Nominee Defends Himself Before Senate Panel

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:29pm on Sep. 26, 2006 Hearing Webcast

By AndrewHyman

Today's hearing will begin in a few minutes. You can watch and listen here.

UPDATE: The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out three nominees today: district court nominee John Alfred Jarvey, district court nominee Sara Elizabeth Lioi, and circuit court nominee Kent Jordan. No word yet if any other votes were taken, e.g. on circuit nominees Boyle, Keisler, Haynes, or Myers. As of now, there are two circuit nominees pending before the full Senate: Kent Jordan and Randy Smith. They both ought to be confirmed post-haste. But what about Boyle? Hat Tip: Bobo.

UPDATE #2: Chairman Specter is quoted as saying: "If there had been 10 Republicans there instead of 8, Boyle, Haynes and Myers could have been voted out today." Hat Tip: CubsFan.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:06pm on Sep. 25, 2006 ABA Showdown

By Curt Levey

It looks like tomorrow’s Judicial Nominations Hearing in the Judiciary Committee will be the long-awaited showdown between Republican senators critical of the ABA’s performance in rating nominees – e.g., Chairman Specter – and the people responsible for those ratings. No fewer than six current and former members of the rating committee – the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary – are among tomorrow’s witnesses, including its Chair, Roberta Liebenberg. It is no coincidence that both of the nominees getting hearings tomorrow were rated unqualified by the ABA. Mike Wallace, nominated to the Fifth Circuit, received a virtually unprecedented “unanimously unqualified” rating, while in the case of Vanessa Bryant, a nominee to the district court in Connecticut, a “substantial majority” of the rating committee found her to be unqualified.

For more on the problems with the ABA rating committee, see this recent article by Ed Whelan.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:00pm on Sep. 25, 2006 Wallace to Have Hearing Tomorrow

By AndrewHyman

How Appealing has the latest about the Wallace nomination, here.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:25pm on Sep. 21, 2006 Tuesday

By Dave II

Another "Special" business meeting on Tuesday, this time with all the nominees who didn't make it out today. Nobody new has been added.

Interesting the agenda says this, "Nominations and legislation held over during the September 21, 2006 markup may still be considered on Thursday, September 28, 2006."

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:28pm on Sep. 21, 2006 Feinstein Promises Filibuster

By AndrewHyman

CQ Today reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) remains opposed to Randy Smith’s nomination. She said again today that it would transfer a California seat on the 9th Circuit to Idaho. However, Feinstein says she is “amenable” to compromise. “If I have to filibuster this judge, I will do so,” she added.

The judge who Smith would replace is Stephen Trott. Judge Trott says it's not a California seat. Moreover, there are currently no Idaho judges on the Ninth Circuit, and never have been any Idaho judges on the US Supreme Court (Justices Kennedy and Breyer are both from California).

UPDATE: Here's audiovideo of today's business meeting. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer, although it's not exactly a riveting blockbuster. And here's an Associated Press article about Feinstein's vow to filibuster Smith.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:18am on Sep. 21, 2006 Judiciary Committee Action and Inaction Today

By AndrewHyman

The SJC had a fairly productive meeting today. Ninth Circuit nominee Randy Smith was reported back to the floor 10-8, and at least four district court nominees were also reported: Valerie L. Baker, Francisco Augusto Besosa, Philip S. Gutierrez, and Lawrence Joseph O’Neill.

Third Circuit nominee Kent Jordan and DC Circuit nominee Peter Keisler will be considered next week, probably on Tuesday (Sen. Specter has scheduled another special business meeting for next Tuesday in addition to the usual meeting next week), because it’s standard practice to wait a week after “burning a hold.” Along with Jordan and Keisler, district court nominees John Alfred Jarvey and Sara Elizabeth Lioi will probably also be considered next Tuesday, and district court nominees Nora Barry Fischer and Gregory Kent Frizzell may be squeezed in next week as well. I haven't heard anything about Lisa Wood, who was also on the agenda today.

Sen. Specter deferred discussion of Judge Terrence Boyle because Sen. Kennedy is attending a service today for his sister, Patricia Kennedy Lawford (condolences to the Kennedys). Thus, there’s no reason not to expect that the Boyle nomination will be considered next Tuesday as well. A FLOOR VOTE ON BOYLE IS LONG OVERDUE. The nomination of William Myers was discussed today but it didn't get to the point of a vote (the quorum evaporated). They didn’t have time to start discussing the Haynes nomination.

The congressional session will probably end next Friday or Saturday. It’s likely there will be a lame duck session for maybe a week and a half, starting on November 13. However, note that there will be more than thirty days until November 13, and therefore it appears the minority could return nominations again (if they want to be obnoxious).

That is all.

P.S. Background about the pending circuit nominees is here.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:17pm on Sep. 20, 2006 Tomorrow

By Dave II

Here we go again. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider twelve judicial nominees. No votes were held on any of them.

Tomorrow, the Committee will hold another executive business meeting to consider sixteen judges. Because of Democratic obstruction, the number of judges awaiting a move to the Senate floor has grown. The Committee is like a clogged pipe at this point. Assuming votes are taken, Peter Keisler and Kent Jordan can no longer be held in Committee.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:37pm on Sep. 19, 2006 Filibuster in Judiciary Committee

By AndrewHyman

Further to Dave's post and Curt’s post, I’m told that Senator Leahy invoked the "two hour rule" today, in order to block the nominations of Terrence Boyle, William Haynes, William Myers, and Randy Smith (i.e. Leahy threatened to talk for two hours until adjournment). As far as I’m aware, no GOP Senator countered by invoking the rule that allows "a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote." And as far as I'm aware, no Senator has any plans to make a motion in the full Senate for discharge of Boyle, Myers, Smith, or Haynes from committee. Very frustrating. The next business meeting will be on Thursday.

UPDATES BELOW THE FOLD....

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:29pm on Sep. 19, 2006 No Votes Today

By Curt Levey

None of the judicial nominees were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today because none of them were voted on. As it turns out, today's special committee meeting was used to burn holds on Peter Keisler (D.C. Circuit) and Kent Jordan (3rd Circuit), rather than to vote on any of the more controversial nominees, i.e., Boyle, Myers, Smith, and Haynes.

Even before today's meeting, CQ Today declared in a Sept. 18 article that "the conflict over President Bush’s most contentious appellate court nominations in the 109th Congress has been all but abandoned." (full text below the fold) In truth – with a committee vote on at least some of the contentious nominees likely on Thursday, and a lame duck session of the 109th Congress yet to come – the fight goes on.

CQ notes that, even if the contested nominees get out of committee, Senate Majority Leader Frist has no plans for floor votes on judicial nominees because he "has devoted the Senate’s September schedule almost exclusively to national security-related issues." True, but let me remind Sen. Frist that judges are a national security-related issue.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:10pm on Sep. 19, 2006 STUCK

By Dave II

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a "Special Executive Business Meeting" to consider twelve (!) judicial nominees. And today exactly none of them were voted out of committee.

It seems impossible that this could occur, and I don't exactly understand it myself. According to the guy I spoke to at the Committee, holds were used on four judges (though he didn't know which ones), and the others didn't come up for votes. Amazing.

Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »