ConfirmThem

the Dems (or the squishy Reps) in the Gang, and certainly not the ones out of it, would take that interpretation of "future nominees" Andrew. it's a new nomination, but the same person. they'll keep up their bastardized filibuster.

I must agree. Andrew and others take the Gang deal more seriously than many that signed the deal do. Proper interpretations are left to the Democrats on "extraordinary circumstances." A returned nominee is an E.C. if a D Gang member claims it is. It is not for us non-signers to question their motives.

The Democrats in and out of the Gang will treat Boyle, Myers, Haynes and Wallace the same way they did before the four were sent back to the White House if they are renominated. Randy Smith is the only one with a real chance of being treated differently, but it is a chance dependent upon the withdrawal of Myers.

Facts are facts. Haynes was nominated in February of 2005, and thus his nomination has been a "pending" nomination under the Gang of 14 Deal which was signed in May of 2005. Does anyone disagree with that?

If renominated, his new nomination would apparently be a "future" nomination under that deal. Does anyone disagree with that? It's just a simple fact.

It seems abundantly clear that future nominations would fall under a different paragraph of the Deal than pending nominations did. Whether these facts have real-world consequences is another question entirely. One would hope that Senators don't enter into written agreements with each other, only to completely ignore those agreements later on.

Bah ... what are your facts when we are SENATORS :-) Bow low, mortal.

Facts are facts but votes are votes. As long as Frist and company don't force a damn vote to be taken all the politicians on both sides declare victory, we get screwed, and the nominees get royally screwed.

Up until now, the senators favoring up-down votes have been patient and polite. However, they're not helpless. When a nominee has been approved by the Judiciary Committee (as Boyle and Myers were), then under the rules any senator can make a motion to go into executive session to consider a nomination. That can only be prevented by an up-down vote against considering the nomination. Once in executive session, any sixteen senators can file a cloture vote to end debate on the merits of the nomination. So, it only takes 16 senators to bring this thing to a head.

Haynes will not be confirmed. If I were the President, on prudential reasons I would abandon Boyle too. I think at the end Boyle will be confirmed but he is too old and has indicated that he will take senior status in a few years. IMHO, that is a wasted nomination. OTOH, sticking by Boyle should be a matter of principle. He has been pending for too long to now just drop him. It would be unfair to him. So I am torn on Boyle.

Myers should be dropped as there is no way he is getting confirmed. And given the fact that this is 9th Circuit, we cannot afford to not fill w/e vacancies are available with conservatives. I am sure the President can find plenty of other conservatives in Idaho.

There will be plenty of time to drop nominees after this session of Congress ends. But I don't see why any nominees should be dropped before then, just because the Democrats have presented the President with that opportunity by returning the nominees.

I hope they're all renominated in September, and that sixteen senators will force cloture votes on any who make it out of committee. Next January is another story, and much will depend upon the elections.

How does forcing a vote on Haynes (who will lose outright on the floor) and Meyers (who will lose because of Abramoff concerns which will not be settled by the Department of Justice for several years) do the GOP any good?

If Haynes and Myers are toxic, then there's no reason why they should get out of committee. I only said that votes should be forced on nominees who get out of committee.

And from what I know of Haynes and Myers, there's no reason why they shouldn't get out of committee. For example, I don't know of any allegation that Myers ever met or communicated with Abramoff, much less any credible allegation that Myers was illegally influenced by Abramoff.

The problem is that it really takes 16 who are WILLING TO BUCK FRIST and BE CONSERVATIVE at the same time.

Generally that list is down to 1:

Coburn

While I love the conservativeness of my home state Senators Chambliss and Isakson, neither seems willing to take the lead on something like this.

and it puts people on record for what they stand for.

If Haynes or Myers were to go down then so be it. Frankly, I wouldn't even hold such a vote against a GOP Senator (assuming that its not something they do all the time). But not voting is giving away majority rights to the minority.

If there were 16 Senators who had the necessary uh, 'physical attributes' to force the issue, then where the heck have they been? Other than the SC, the Dems pretty much hammered the GOP.

If we had Queen I mean Prez Hillary and 55 Dem senators, she would have 99.5% of her nominations approved at all levels within 90 days of nomination. (I'd say 100% but maybe one of them has an unexpected death or withdrawal.)

The only hope for any nominees is that Frist steps aside and gives McConell a crack at it in a lame duck session.

The Gang will be dead thanks to the death of at least 2 of the Republican members and it won't matter anyway because the Democrats will pick up enough seats that they won't have to compromise anymore during the next session.

This has got to be the biggest folly I have ever seen on the Republican side.

Frist tries to protect the gang by not going to the mat over the controversial nominees and in the end he gets:
1) Democrat pick ups on the order of 4-6 seats
2) No real conservative judicial nominations approved
3) No chance at winning the nomination for President

This will be a sad ending to a very sad story.