ConfirmThem

Matthew Friendly pointed to an article about the nomination of Janet Neff:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-32/116020302753080.xml&coll=6

Senator Brownback has a hold on it.

I don't know much about Neff. However, this particular issue seems like a poor reason to block her nomination. First, it doesn't appear that any laws were broken. Second, it's obvious that the "commitment ceremony" was performed in Massachusetts, whereas Neff was from Michigan, and therefore it would have been obvious to everyone that Neff was not acting in any official capacity.

Like I said, I don't know much about Neff. There may be very strong reasons to oppose her being confirmed as a federal judge. But keep in mind that this isn't even an appeals court judgeship. It's only a district court position. She's obviously part of a deal to get some appeals court judges confirmed, and the deal may be well worth it.

I think the Goodridge decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court was wrong and a classic case of judicial activism. That decision was made years after the incident in question. The court in Goodridge said, "Because obtaining a marriage license is a necessary prerequisite to civil marriage in Massachusetts, denying marriage licenses to the plaintiffs was tantamount to denying them access to civil marriage itself, with its appurtenant social and legal protections, benefits, and obligations." As far as I know, Neff did not purport to issue any marriage license to the two women in question, nor did she purport to grant them any social and legal protections, benefits, or obligations appurtenant to a marriage license.

If Neff had participated in this ceremony in Texas instead of Massachusetts, then there would be a legitimate issue, because at that time Texas had a law on the books that arguably forbade this kind of thing. But Massachusetts did not, as far as I know.

So, as a legal matter, I think it's silly to bring up this objection against Neff. The whole matter is conflating a judge's ability to apply the law with a judge's personal views, and there's nothing here to suggest that Neff has a problem with the former.

As a political matter, it's also silly to bring up this objection against Neff. Some conservatives will get the idea that the GOP made a big mistake in nominating her, and they may therefore lose faith in the GOP and not bother to vote. Liberals, on the other hand, may be motivated to vote by this matter. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the media is giving this tempest a huge amount of coverage?

IMHO, Senator Brownback should have determined the answers before placing a hold on this nomination. I just don't see any valid questions that he's raised.

My fear is that Brownback's hold on Neff may backfire. Levin and Stabenow could use the hold as an excuse to repudiate the deal on judges they negotiated with the White House. That could mean the end of Murphy and Kethledge as viable COA nominees.

IMHO, if the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats in November to control the judicial confirmation process, Levin and Stabenow will no longer want two more Republican judges on the 6th Circuit. Rather, with the help of Leahy, they will try to save those two Michigan COA seats for Hillary to fill in 2009 with Bill's blocked 6th Circuit nominees, Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis. Brownback's hold gives them just the cover they need to block Murphy and Kethledge with impunity.

Dienekes raises an interesting question:

has any other president ever had to make such compromises to get even a paltry few judges confirmed? any Democrat president?

don't get me wrong, I'd make that deal too, but the Dems really, really infuriate me.

that Jimmy Carter got to fill the COAs with about SIXTY leftist wackjobs in one term, with almost NO scrutiny, and that Bush in two terms may not even reach that, and many taking over three months each is absolutely maddening.

It's even more unusual given that the same party has been in control of both the Senate and the White House.

If the White House, Frist and Specter are smart, they will make Keisler a must-do priority during the upcoming lame duck session of the 109th Congress. If the Democrats gain a significant number of Senate seats in the 110th Congress, no COA nominee as conservative as Keisler is likely to be confirmed. Everyone needs to remember that when Leahy first served as SJC chairman under Bush in the 107th Congress, the really conservative COA nominees were blocked in committee.

in blocking Clinton nominees - legitimately - in committee have been expiated by now, both through Leahy's obstruction while in the majority, and through the bastardized filibuster while in the minority. they should not be given the reward of being able to do it again at will when they're more than even.

With a name like Neff you pretty much have to make her a judge, ideally at the same time as you nominate a guy named Pennoyer.

"Personal jurisdiction is fo' suckas!"