ConfirmThem

I would assume that 2 days of debate on Southwick would be asked for and granted by Reid. Thus cloture would have to be requested Wednesday at the latest to ensure a vote by the recess this weekend. The Senate still has a ton of other stuff to do because they have wasted so much time on worthless Iraq BS. FY2008 has already started and NO spending bill has been passed yet! All of this leads me to believe that the CCA Reid speaks of is Elrod. This can not be allowed to happen. Southwick is on the floor. McConnell if you are listening, do NOT allow the senate to recess until Southwick gets his vote!

The grammar in the part of Reid's statement that you put in bold is utterly clear and unambiguous: "a circuit court judge". That's singular. That means one (1). That means Elrod. That means Southwick is being bypassed and prepared for quiet burial.

Mose is right on target in his recent post on the earlier thread. McConnell and the Senate GOP must go all-out NOW to get Southwick confirmed. That includes shutting down the Senate if necessary. Otherwise Reid and the Dems will bury and kill the Southwick nomination, and future CCA confirmations will be extremely few and far between.

Don't worry, Southwick won't be getting his vote:

Roll Call reports that while it “appears increasingly likely that the Senate will punt a vote on the controversial appellate court nomination of Leslie Southwick until at least after the October recess, Republican leaders are still eyeing the possibility of a roll call this week and are igniting a wholesale lobbying campaign to try to come up with 60 votes to win his confirmation.”

It won't happen. It can't happen. The Rs absolutely do not have the votes. So we can wring our hands about some other topic.

BTW, Elrod won't get confirmed this year, either. "We plan on x," means that x will certainly not occur.

Glad we took 1/2 an entire session buying into and rebutting the Ds' completely ridiculous criticisms of a man who was already unanimously voted qualified to serve. Wouldn't it just have been a lot easier to fight hard for LS in March, take the case to the people and then work on other nominees (like Keisler) through the summer? That time is now gone and we are never going to be getting it back.

The Ds really know who is in charge. It is certainly not the current WHCO. Hardiman, Jordan and Livingston (as well as Alito and Roberts) get credited to Miers and her staff. The current office is oh for 2007 and I predict will remain so for the rest of the year.

Very Truly Yours, RS

PS. Where is our "one a month", handwringers?

"If such a vote is not scheduled by the Senate leadership, then my understanding is that any senator can call for a vote on Southwick at any time, because he's already been reported out of committee."

Well, let's see if Lott or Cochran do so. I'll believe it when I see it. The Dems will scream bloody murder about "Senate traditions & courtesies". And senatorial comity & privilege always comes first, as we all well know.

Outsider & Mose are right. Reid is quietly burying Southwick, and McConnell, Lott & Cochran appear to lack the will or skill to prevent it.

Kos on CBOC West v Humphries: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/2/15161/7053

Dahlia on Day One: http://www.slate.com/id/2175044/nav/tap3/

You beat me to it with that Roll Call article. Can anyone post the whole article if you have a subscription? Thanks in advance.

If a perpetual filibuster is attempted against Judge Southwick, then I agree McConnell ought to shut down the Senate. There are no extraordinary circumstances regarding Judge Southwick, only smears and innuendo. A 60-vote threshhold for confirming judges is just not acceptable.

What if the Dems simply don't bring the Southwick nomination to the Floor for confirmation at all? Would you support shutting down the Senate to force consideration? Does that fall within your definition of "perpetual filibuster." Or do you only support a Senate Shutdown if there is an actual filibuster, if and when Reid & Co. bring it to the Floor for a vote?

I strongly favor shutting down the Senate in either of the above instances, since either would doom the Southwick nomination.

As indicated by the last blockquote in my blog post, any senator can bring Southwick's nomination to the floor for the vote. So, there's no need to shut down the Senate to force consideration. At least that's my understanding.

Bill Frist did not force consideration of either Boyle or Myers after they had been voted out of committee. What makes you think McConnell will of his own accord force Reid to consider Southwick? Maybe McConnell is just as squishy as Frist but under worse conditions? Frist at least had a Republican majority. Has it ever occurred to you that McConnell is just as squishy as Frist and might not fight for Southwick if he knows that the Dems will filibuster him? What should Southwick supporters do then to encourage McConnell?

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6113.html

"Senators from Virginia, New Jersey and Michigan are threatening to withhold support for U.S. Court of Appeals nominees because they say Bush dismissed their recommendations."

So the Senators from Michigan, Levin and Stabenow, are now threatening to "withold support" from Bush's 6th Circuit nominees. How shocking! I'm really let down about that. That's precisely they've been doing for the last seven (7!) years regarding these two vacancies.

More seriously, the Southwick nomination is obviously headed for the graveyard unless McConnell & Co. take drastic forceful action. But do they really care much about judicial nominees? Will they do anything more than give the usual perfunctory lip service?

Few thoughts on the comments in this topic.

1) When Reid was speaking of one circuit court judge, I guessed that was Elrod, just because of the reasons outlined by jtp7. I still think Southwick will get a Senate vote, sometime. But there will be a few days of debate. I don't know whether that will be a cloture vote or an up-or-down vote.

2) Yes, any Senator can make the motion to go into executive session and consider Southwick. BUT it is the prerogative of the Majority Leader to set the Senate's agenda. So such a motion will 100% certain be voted down (or tabled) on a straight party line vote. Elections do matter...

3) Shutting down the Senate won't work. Congress still has to complete all appropriations bills and also the DOD authorization bill. Very important bills. You just can't withhold funds for the troups (for example) because of one single judge.

4) On Boyle: I still have the impression that some republicans opposed that nomination.

in many ways. He knows how to work the minority angle and rights in the Senate. If he thinks he has a shot, he'll try to do the right thing.

If Reid schedules debate and a vote on Southwick, and a filibuster occurs in order to prevent the vote, then you say shutting down the Senate won't work. I don't agree with that.

No judicial nominees have been filibustered to death since the Gang of 14 deal on May 23, 2005. There have been several cloture votes on judicial nominees since then, for Owen, Brown, Pryor, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jordan. All of those filibuster attempts failed, because there were no extraordinary circumstances. If Southwick is defeated by filibuster, then it's not just a matter of what happens to a single solitary judge --- it's turning back the clock to where we were before the Gang of 14 Deal. In other words, a disaster.

Andrew: I think the democrats already have turned back the clock to the situation before the Gang of 14 deal. And it was easy, there is no majority for the nuclear option.

On shutting down the senate: Let's assume the Dems will filibuster the Southwick nomination.

Reps: OK, now we will shut down the senate
Dems: Lets consider the conference report on DOD authorization
Reps: No, we have shut down the Senate
Dems: Well, at least the DOD appropriations?
Reps: shut down = shut down
Dems: What about the Iraq supplemental?
Reps: No, we don't move anything until one single judge is confirmed.

Who will make the most political points in the opinion of the general public? I think the dems, although I might be wrong.

In my opinion there are just to many must-pass bills on the agenda right now. A shutdown might work in February or March.

how about a slowdown? No money for social programs, no money for NASA, no money for the IRS, et cetera, et cetera. The Democrats would hold the keys to normalcy in their own hands: no normal treatment of their favorite things until they return to normal treatment of judicial nominees.

You haven't answered my questions: what should be done if Reid NEVER brings up Southwick's name for debate? That will just assuredly kill Southwick's nomination as much as any open filibuster. What should McConnell do in such a circumstance if the Dems can table any motion they want by party-line vote?

I don't see any reason to believe that Reid won't bring Southwick up for a vote as he promised. It's the GOP that seems to be stalling here, in order to get 60 votes that should not be necessary. But if Reid does reneg, then certainly a Senator should make a motion as described in my blog post, and then there will be an up-down vote on that motion, and all Senators would go on record.

You partially answered my question after I had posted my new question. Sorry for the overlap, but do you think McConnell will risk a filibuster he can't overcome or will he rather just let things slide under such circumstances?

Thanks, sorry for the real time delay in our postings.

I have no idea what McConnell would do in those circumstances, but I would recommend against the ostrich approach. It would be better to force the Democrats to filibuster if that's what they're threatening to do, better to deal with it, and better to have a government slowdown than to allow the clock to turn back before the Gang of 14 deal.

Both Southwick and Elrod should be considered simultaneously before the October recess.

The 5th circuit is in emergency status.

How can you possibly be so naive about Reid and the Senate Dems after all that has occurred? Reid is, among other things: a fraud, a cheat, a scoundrel, a sleazeball, a liar, a sanctimonious hypocrite, an unsufferable bore, a George Soros/Move-On tool, a PFAW/ALJ/NARAL minion, and probably a crook as well.

If there is any question as to whether Reid would go back on his word, my answer is "yes." Reid is so untrustworthy that he's capable of going back on his word before he even gives it (mentally). Ditto Schumer and Durbin et al.

Trust Reid and Southwick is dead.

for oh I don't know November 1, 2008 or January 10, 2009?

I agree with Andrew on this. I think that Reid will give Southwick a vote this week. The larger question is whether the republicans/specter can find 10 additional democrats for the cloture vote. IMHO I think Reid is willing to bring Southwick to the floor and seek party discipline on the cloture vote. One question that hasn't been addressed is--who are the likely 10?

that Reid is a scumbag, but the fact remains that the current delay seems to be due to other causes, if you believe Roll Call. Namely, GOP Senators seem to be stalling in hopes of scraping up 60 votes, which of course should not be necessary according to Senate tradition.

1) Unless Reid wants to slap the Republicans in the face with a slam-dunk filibuster, he will not bring Southwick's nomination up for a vote this week.

2) I don't think there are ten Dem senators willing to block a filibuster by the likes of presidential hopefuls Clinton, Obama, and Biden. With the exceptions of Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor of Arkansas and Landrieu of Louisiana, probably no Dems would vote for Southwick. All of the new Dems are either too liberal (Cardin, Whitehouse, etc.) or too beholding to the Senate leadership ( Tester, McCaskill, etc.) to vote for Southwick. In addition, all of the old Dems participated in the filibusters of the 108th Congress. They won't change colors. I don't think even Feinstein would vote for cloture now. Not after all the grief she got for her committee vote.

I get it now. It's Catch 22. Reid will bring Southwick up if and only if there are not 60 votes to break a filibuster. It it looks like there will be 60 votes, he will not bring Southwick to the Floor. Catch 22: it's the best catch there is.

We will know within the next couple of days how the Southwick situation will play out. We can't forget however that Reid's actions will be based on more than simply his character or dislike for Southwick. The democrats have to be contemplating a democratic president in 2008 who will also nominate "controversial" (as labeled by the republicans) nominees. Therefore, I think it is in the democrats best interests to let the vote happen--whichever way it goes. If Southwick is confirmed it shows "good faith" on the part of the Senate (with a handful of democrats more interested in ensuring the integrity of the process than political grandstanding)--and Reid will look for reciprocity in 2008-2012. On the other hand, if Southwick is voted down then Reid can say that he gave him a vote.

I know there are some extremely partisan folks on this list, but I think everyone sees the disastrous implications for the future of the judiciary if this puts a new "Southwick Rule" in to the mix for the judicial nomination/confirmation process. Perhaps Southwick created the "perfect storm" for this type of treatment--white male nominated to a Mississippi seat that has had controversial nominees that could be defeated in the past. I'm not convinced.

Perhaps Southwick created the "perfect storm" for this type of treatment--white male nominated to a Mississippi seat that has had controversial nominees that could be defeated in the past.

Earlier, Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog listed Texas Supreme Court justice David Medina as the Hispanic frontrunner for a Supreme Court nomination if a Republican is elected president in 2008. Today, however, How Appealing recounts how Medina is involved in an odd case of arson and house foreclosure:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5183343.html

http://multi-medium.net/2007/10/03/strategery-3/

"While it appears increasingly likely that the Senate will punt a vote on the controversial appellate court nomination of Leslie Southwick until at least after the October recess, Republican leaders are still eyeing the possibility of a roll call this week and are igniting a wholesale lobbying campaign to try to come up with 60 votes to win his confirmation.

As part of the effort, a key group of GOP Senators and at least one Democrat will huddle today to talk strategy and gauge support for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hopeful. At the same time, Southwick himself has begun holding a series of private meetings with a handful of Democratic Senators whom the White House has targeted as possible swing votes.

“We are preparing for a vote this week based on the things [Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-Nev.] has said,” noted one senior Republican Senate aide. “We’re still working, but confident.”

Reid earlier had indicated he would hold a confirmation vote on the divisive nominee before the brief October recess, which begins Friday. But Democrats close to Reid said Monday the Majority Leader has no plans to add the nomination to the calendar unless and until GOP Senators ask for it.

“From everything we can see, Republican Senators are still trying to shore up their votes,” said a high-level Democratic Senate staffer. “The fact is, the Republicans aren’t pressing for a vote. They need more time and we understand they are looking for more time to work on improving their vote total.”

Republicans acknowledge they still are trying to corral the votes they need to avert a filibuster and install Southwick, a former Mississippi appeals court judge, to a lifetime appointment on the New Orleans-based federal bench. But GOP sources also pointed out Monday that Reid, as the Majority Leader, controls the calendar and ultimately will decide when votes are cast."

Has anyone noticed that of the two judicial nominees at the September 25th hearing, DJ nominee Dow is on the Agenda of tomorrow's SJC Business Meeting while 7th Cir. nominee Tinder is not. While this fact was entirely predictable, thought I'd mention it anyway.

Presumably Democrats have no particular animus against Tinder, except the generic one that he is a Bush CCA nominee. It's just part of their delay strategy for the rest of this year, to ensure that there is only one more CCA hearing at most. Bypassing Tinder means that he won't be considered until after the coming recess, and Dems still have the one-week delay in reserve. As long as Tinder is stuck in Committee, Dems feel no pressure to hold another hearing. Remember the dearth of CCA hearings from mid-May to mid-July while Southwick was stuck in Committee.

By the way, does anyone know why Dow (nominated July 18th) was given a hearing before many DJ nominees from January, March, May and June? Very possibly it's because he's acceptable to Durbin and Obama. Let's hope he's not 'more than acceptable'. And don't forget that, inexcusably, he was the ONLY DJ nominee given a hearing in September. That didn't even keep up with retirements last month.

"Reid earlier had indicated he would hold a confirmation vote on the divisive nominee before the brief October recess, which begins Friday. But Democrats close to Reid said Monday the Majority Leader has no plans to add the nomination to the calendar unless and until GOP Senators ask for it."

This doesn't sound as if Southwick is going to get a vote this week. In order to get a confirmation on Friday, Reid will have to file a cloture motion today. I bet it doesn't happen.

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

Although the chances for a Southwick confirmation may be diminishing, the chances of a Haynes confirmation appear on the rise. If Elrod is confirmed this week, the chances now appear high that Haynes will also be confirmed before the November 16th break. In addition to having almost exactly the same credentials as Elrod, Haynes now has a higher ABA rating. She has a WQ (1 abstention) rating compared to Elrod's Q rating.

If Southwick's nomination is being obstructed, the Dems may want to fast-track Haynes. If Elrod, Tinder and Haynes are all confirmed before the end of December and Southwick is not, then the only Bush nominees left will be "controversial" white males. That will make it easy for the Dems to send the whole bunch back to the White House as being not diverse enough. Not only will this allow them to openly block all of them with the Thurmond Rule if they are renominated in January, it will force Southwick back into committee. Feinstein's reputation will be restored.

I'm not sure the article on Medina suggests his culpability in the fire. Since he did not have insurance on the house, it doesn't look like he was trying to get the insurance proceeds, though there's some mention that he may not have known the insurance lapsed. The article has many holes in it so it's hard to say for sure.

I disagree that the chances are "high" that Haynes will be confirmed this year. Look at the calendar. One of the ulterior motives of the Democrats current strategy of delaying the next CCA hearing (outlined in my previous post) is to make confirmation of that nominee (probably Haynes) this year unlikely. If Tinder, as now seems probable, can be held in Committee until October 25th, if not later, the hearing for the next nominee will not take place until the first week of November at the earliest. Assuming the Senate adjourns on November 16th, that would leave only two weeks at most from hearing to a confirmation vote on the Floor. This would not conform at all to the Senate Dems' leisurely (to say the least) pace for CCA nominees this year. Even Livingston took a month fom hearing (April 11) to confirmation (May 9).

The Dems might fast-track Haynes and confirm her next month for appearances' sake, but I wouldn't count on it. I am constantly surprised by the continual tendency of persons on this site to overestimate the pace and chances of confirmation of upcoming CCA nominees. How many times do people have to be kicked in order to learn and be wary?

I don't see the Dems wanting to hold Haynes back. If they confirm Elrod this week, and Haynes has the exact same crededentials with a better ABA rating, the Dems will appear to be acting somewhat arbitrary for no good reason. I know many on this site will say the Dems are being arbitrary right now anyway, but that has not been the case this year with female nominees. In addition, Haynes' confirmation will make it easier for the Dems to return the nominations of Southwick, Keisler and the other "controversial" white male nominees on November 16th under the guise of "more diversity needed".

http://www.thedeadpelican.com/100307%20letter%20to%20sen%20landrieu.pdf

I don't think the Dem-Libs have anything against Haynes per se, just as they probably don't have anything against Tinder. But that won't prevent them from further stalling these nominations.

Remember this. Stalling Haynes backs up and delays all the CCA nominees behind her, and time is growing short. That's the Dems' true aim and motivation here. Same thing with Tinder now. They are playing this chess game while thinking several moves ahead. The not-so-bright or indifferent GOP Senators are probably just reacting and floundering in the moment, as usual. Easy pickings.

Elrod. Senator Reid indicated, in closing down the Senate tonight, that the Elrod nomination will be handled tomorrow (Thursday) with one hour of debate equally divided.

Three District Court nominees: Mauskopf (EDNY), Jones (WD Washington), and Aycock (ND Mississippi)

i'm glad to see Vitter publicly calling Landrieu out for blocking a judicial nomination. We need more Republican senators willing to do this.

I'm really happy about Elrod and even happier about Mauskopf.

Is she retarded??? This is the last thing she needs approaching an election. Maybe she has already realized that she has no chance due to New Orleans not being there any more. Are they any other stalled DJs that are on the floor?

Who is there of any quality to run against her in LA?

Guess Domenici's retiring too. Wow, Hagel, Warner,...

They should not shut down the Senate to confirm a COA nominee, but they sure could shut down the adjornment planned. McConnell should not allow the Senate to recess until he is confirmed.

Mark Kennedy the current state treasurer is going to run. Rove set it up already.