ConfirmThem

http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=14535&CHID=36

"The White House should return to the original list sent by Sens. Webb and Warner. The five candidates all have distinguished legal backgrounds. Certainly, at least one should be acceptable to the White House. With the bi-partisan support of Virginia's senators, any candidate chosen from the list can be confirmed without partisan delay by the Senate.

President Bush should choose one of the five recommended candidates and nominate him quickly. If so, one of the emergency vacancies on the Fourth Circuit should be filled within a few months."

First, IMHO, Bush should choose TWO, not one, off the W/W list immediately and nominate them. Second, just because that may happen, I don't expect either new nominee to quickly processed. Even if they were announced today, I think they wouldn't be ready for a vote until May at the earliest - what with FBI background checks, ABA ratings, hearings and other things involved.

But why not nominate one from the Webb-Warner list, and one from off it . . . it would show conciliation without capitulation.

The problem of nominating anyone not on the list is practical: the person simply won't get confirmed. Webb and Warner will simply block the unwanted nomination (like they did with Getchell) while facilitating the confirmation of the nominee from their list. They will justify their actions by meekly saying, "look at how conciliatory we can be when we are consulted. If Bush had only nominated someone else from our list, we could've had two confirmations instead of one." Allowing such an outcome is unacceptable to those of us who want to maintain some level of conservatism on the Fourth Circuit. Playing election year politics with valuable COA seats is a very short-sighted strategy. With only an extremely limited amount of time left to get as many Fourth Circuit nominees confirmed as possible, the nomination of someone who is already DOA is silly.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24950

"'Maine voters have a right to know where their Senators stand on the issues,' said PFAW political Director Mary Jean Collins. 'Susan Collins wants to have her cake and eat it, too. She claims to be pro-choice, then votes to confirm anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court.'"

Bush might as well pick 2 from the W/W list. Even if he had the idea of a Romney or Thompson picking someone more conservative than those 5, President McCain will pick from that list anyway, and the seat will just get filled a year later.

Actually, it may be a worse list next year since Virginia may well have two Democrat senators.

The good news is that the Judiciary Committee has finally scheduled a hearing on judicial nominations.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3076

The bad news is that it's not until February 12 - typical slow Leahy pace. Sen. Feinstein is chairing. There are currently two California District Court nominees (although one is Rogan -good luck); those are the only tea-leaves I can read on that issue.

february 12th. feinstein presiding. any guesses who it will be? probably district, since it's not leahy chairing? honaker?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080123-1.html

"WITHDRAWALS SENT TO THE SENATE:

E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, vice H. Emory Widener, Jr., retired, which was sent to the Senate on September 6, 2007."

No replacement nominee was named. However, Steven Bradbury was renominated as an Assistant Attorney General. This renomination is a waste. The Dems have no intention of confirming Bradbury, and because of the White House's obstinance over him Reid prevented Keisler from getting a recess appointment with his series of pro forma sessions over the December/January break. Let me see, which is worth more: an assistant attorney general who can only serve at most a year or a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who can serve a lifetime if given the right jump-start to his nomination? Hopefully, Bush won't foul things up by nominating another person not on the Warner/Webb list to replace Getchell. I'm tired of the White House's short-sightedness.

Last year, Leahy let other more junior Dem senators chair hearings for COA nominees whom he didn't consider controversial at the time. In May 2007, Whitehouse chaired an as of then uncontroversial Leslie Southwick's hearing. In July, Cardin chaired the hearing of noncontroversial Jennifer Walker Elrod. As a result, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that Feinstein will chair a hearing for either Haynes or Pratt. At this time, I suspect it would be for Haynes for the simple reason that she is the only noncontroversial nominee at the moment who has an ABA rating. The hearing would also likely include John Mendez as a California district court nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/24bradburycnd.html?hp

"President Bush on Wednesday renominated Steven G. Bradbury to be an assistant attorney general in a move certain to be controversial because of Mr. Bradbury’s link to Justice Department memorandums authorizing the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects."

"Mr. Bradbury has the kind of conservative credentials that President Bush admires: in 1982, he was a co-founder of the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers’ group. In the early 1990s, he was a clerk for Judge James L. Buckley of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was a one-term senator from the Conservative Party of New York in the 1970’s. After that, Mr. Bradbury was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Later, he was a partner with the Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis."

People should note that Bradbury is a former Thomas clerk. That in and of itself is damning evidence in the eyes of Washington's liberal elite. If those people don't want Bradbury for a short term executive branch position, do you really think they will allow another Thomas clerk like Steve A. Matthews to be confirmed for a life-time judgeship?

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/01/getchell-gets-a.html

"'The nomination of Duncan Getchell seemed to be an effort to pick a political fight rather than a nominee the Senate could confirm to fill a vacancy on the 4th Circuit,' Leahy said today in a statement. 'Now more time has been wasted, and we are into the president’s last year in office. With the withdrawal of Mr. Getchell’s nomination, the president has another chance to get it right. I hope that he takes the opportunity to work with Sen. Warner and Sen. Webb to select a nominee whose nomination can move forward in the Judiciary Committee.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/washington/24justice.html?ex=135883080...

"The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment."

Hopefully, Bush won't try to snub Warner and Webb by nominating people off their list.

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings110.pdf

This means that Feinstein's SJC hearing on February 12th might be for Pratter instead of Haynes. If it is, it will likely include Short as well. I hope this isn't the case because, if it is, then it means that Specter will now be beholding to the Dems. I don't want Specter to become an ally with the Dems in the blocking of every other COA nominee after Pratter and Short are confirmed.