ConfirmThem

The next few years the left wing of the SC (Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter) will be retiring.

Even though extreme conservatives would be wonderful replacements for them, solid and reliable conservatives will be more than sufficient to significantly move the SC to the right.

In other words, some of us may or may not want McCain replacing Thomas and Scalia, but we can be more than content with him replacing Ginsburg and Stevens and Souter.

In baseball talk, after Bush hit two home runs, we don't need McCain to hit three home runs to win the game. Getting three solid hits will win us the game.

Ted Olsen's endorsement of McCain, and his acceptance of the position of chief legal advisor in McCain's campaign, are among the most heartening recent political developments. Do others here think that Olsen has the inside track for A.G. in a McCain administration?

The lost opportunity of 2003-06 that we discussed earlier is very unfortunate, but not irredeemable. Democrats have succeeded in keeping these judgeships vacant, but will not be able to consolidate their tentative victory by filling them. Unless they win in November, in which case all is lost. The situation can still be redeemed (and the Supreme Court and 4th, 3rd and 6th Circuits saved while others are consolidated or kept from getting even worse--9th) IF AND ONLY IF McCain or Romney defeats Clinton/Obama (and their prospective Kagan/Reinhardt/Paez/Motz type leftist judicial activist nominees)in November. McCain or Romney nominees would be safely in the range from Kennedy to(preferably) Roberts/Alito.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and the Federal Appellate Judiciary can still be saved. But no suicidal infighting, please! We and our nation cannot afford such petty indulgences. We should unite wholeheartedly behind the Romney-McCain winner.

Sure maybe some still are hoping for a Miracle next tuesday, but the battle against McCain appears to be lost.

The party has decided to line up behind John. He wasn't my first choice, but then again it was a Republican field that had anyone who was my first choice. Fred would have been, but he just didn't convince many people he wanted the job. And all of the other candidates had their own question marks when it comes to judges

I will support McCain in November. I might actually be motivated anough to go work for him if the opponent is Obama.

As much as I may dislike the thought of Callahan becomeing the sext supreme court justice, she is going to be a huge improvement over JPS or ginsburg, and she is going to be an absolutely massive improvement over someone like Kathleen Sullivan or Deval Patrick

The reason why the battle may be lost is because the mainstream media all want us to believe it's lost. Romney isn't a great choice, but he's vastly better (more conservative) than McCain. MSM will back the most liberal of the Republicans because they find them the least objectionable. Plus, they know that the more liberal the Republican nominee, the worse the likely Republican turnout since many of the conservatives will simply stay at home or vote third party, thus giving that more of a chance to their hero, the Democrat nominee.

It's all VERY calculated. Take that to the bank. But don't invest it with a subprime lender!

Listen, my choice was Fred Thompson, but no one seemed to care about conservative ideals when he was a candidate. Now, right wing radio talkers and bloggers act as though Mitt Romney is Reagan times ten. Please. If Mitt was the answer, he would have locked things up in Iowa and New Hampshire. Unfotunately for him, he came across poorly at the start.

We can't forget what is at stake in this election. Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg could all exit the scene in the next four years. I know the McCain haters don't want to hear this, but McCain has always been good on judges. We can debate the "Gang of 14", but let's not get carried away with the nuclear option. It was never going to pass and had Frist attempted to push it through, it would have failed.

Let me mention once more that McCain has said many, many positive things about Miguel Estrada. In fact, when he authored the Gang of 14 he specifically said Estrada did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Even better, now Ted Olsen has joined McCain. Olsen was said to have pushed very hard for an Estrada nomination in 2005. I doubt he's lost any faith in Miguel and I wouldn't be surprised to see Miguel join Ted on McCain's judicial advisory committee just as he did with Rudy.

We are one justice away. We can't forget that. This next election is pivotal for conservative jurisprudence. One more victory is all we need. I hope the reactionaries in talk radio understand that before they attempt to take McCain down in a general election because that's what they plan to do.

Also important to this discussion is for McCain to understand, if he is the candidate, the need for him to pick a strong conservative as his running mate. I like Fred Thompson, as well as others such as Mark Sanford, Chris Cox, Tim Pawlenty, inter alia.

I too am heartened by the endorsements of McCain by Ted Olson, William Barr and Miguel Estrada. Even more, the fact that Olson and Barr are serving as McCain's advisers on the judiciary is fantastic. If he actually listens to them, we'll be okay with judicial nominees.

I could very much see Estrada being in play as a SCOTUS pick for McCain for several reasons.

First, if the early primaries as well as opinion polls are to be believed, McCain is benefitting from unusual (for a GOPer) popularity amongst hispanics. I could see him capitalizing on this by nominating Estrada (I hate identity politics, but we know it's possible).

Estrada would also galvinize the GOP base, which McCain will need once in office to push through anything he wants to get done and, of course, give us a reason to vote for him in '12 if he runs for re-election.

But beyond the SCOTUS, it's imperative to have a GOP president to continue the work of building center-right circuit courts throughout the country. A few of them (like the 4th) are teetering on the edge thanks to some incompetence by the current Administration.

In 2005, many of us thought Chris Cox should be considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, he was denied a spot on the Ninth Circuit in 2001 because of the two nag senators in California. Still, Cox has held many important positions in the House and now serves as the Chairman of the SEC.

It looks like John McCain is going to be the nominee and many conservatives hope he chooses a conservative VP. I say Chris Cox should be that person. He's a judicial conservative with an extremely impressive record. Although he wouldn't bring California into play, he might get a few more votes in the state than McCain otherwise might.

Several people say McCain has already determined he will be a one term president and hopes to set the stage for his VP. Chris Cox could well be that man. It's my contention that conservatism needs a break due to the Bush legacy. Under a McCain presidency, conservatism could regroup while the battered Republican Party image gets a face lift. If that occurs, conservatism could spring back into action with Chris Cox. It's just a thought.

Here's his wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox

McCain appointing Estrada to the SC would result in the kind of forgiveness Bush received appointing Alito after Miers.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1201683357/4

"Allard, a two-term senator, is used to sending nominations to the Bush administration and he did so again on Tuesday, offering seven names to be considered, including Democrats and Republicans."

""Senator Salazar would encourage the nominees on (Allard's) list to submit their names to the judicial advisory commission," Cody Wertz, Salazar's spokesman, said Tuesday afternoon when asked whether Salazar would support any of the nominees on Allard's list."

"Allard's reaction to Salazar's timetable and advisory commission has not been welcoming. Steve Wymer, Allard's spokesman, said the Republican senator has consulted with Salazar about judicial nominees in the past.

"Sen. Salazar is treating the judicial nomination process for Colorado as if it is a game being played with his ball," Wymer said Tuesday. "If he isn't making the rules, he wants to quit, go home and take his ball with him.""

My thoughts exactly re Chris Cox as VP. I think Cox can be the kind of conservative everyone wanted in Fred Thompson and Romney, someone to hold the mantle as "our guy." For many, Newt Gingrich should be that person, but he's been so demonized to the public in general that he'd probably be radioactive as a candidate. Cox could, after McCain, be the conservative we could all wholeheartedly rally around for the presidency in 4 or 8 years.

Can anyone explain to me why Bush hasn't submitted names for the Virginia 4th Circuit seats? He has had the Warner-Webb list for several months now. This is unforgivable that he has not yet nominated 2 people from the approved list and moved forward. It's simply maddening.

Good point. A successful Estrada appointment by President McCain could engender an essential forgiveness and reconciliation for many of us. As for President Bush, despite the perfect excellence of the eventual Alito nomination, the Miers gambit broke an essential string of trust for many of us that can never be fully repaired or forgotten.

I may forgive, but I never forget.

For many reasons, I think Newt would be a disasterous national candidate. He galvanizes a good portion of the conservative base, but he does so for the Democrat base as well. His new book, although I haven't read it, seems to be more big government conservatism. Thanks, but no thank. Just weeks ago, it was reported on Fox he was hoping for a brokered convention so he could swoop in as the nominee. I just prefer not to see him in national politics. His background is a treasure trove of opposition research.

We should really find a way to push Chris Cox. He's a true conservative with knowledge of the tax code and the importance of a conservative judiciary. Are there two more important policies for us? I don't think so. He knows what to look for in a judge. He also has legislative experience and would be less prone to make the dumb mistakes Bush did. Sometimes, it's important to know how the sausage is made. McCain also needs a verifiable conservative on the ticket.

I've heard other names mentioned as McCain's VP, but few really excite me. Tim Pawlenty has been pushed by Hugh Hewitt because he is an evangelical. We need to get away from such identity politics. I've even heard Haley Barbor's name as well. We don't need a lobbyist on the ticket. Some people are even pushing Rice. They do this knowing full well she was a terrible NSA and not particulary conservative in any demonstrable way. Does anyone know her view on Life? I know she's pro-affirmative action because she has said so.

He is only being pushed because of Minnesota's EV.

He is only being pushed because of Minnesota's EV.

Yes, my understanding is he's close to McCain and he'd (hopefully) bring more of the liberal Midwest states (Minn, Wisc, Mich) into play. He's also been a very good governor and has strong credentials in his own right. But I prefer Chris Cox.

Pawlenty would be the most likely because of his support through thick and thin.

One does wonder if McCain would run for a second term, so the veep choice becomes all the more important.

Haley Barbour anyone? I guess he wouldn't pick Condi. JC Watts, p'raps?

I write the above as hypothetical, because I'm a long time (since Jan. of 07) Romney supporter. I think a win by Romney's still possible--and much needed!

McCain, the anti-conservative

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 1, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It's true that McCain is unpopular with Reagan conservatives because he decidedly is not, on far too many issues, a Reagan conservative. But it's more than that. He is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye.
He enjoys cavorting and colluding with our political enemies and basks in the fawning attention they give him. Adding insult to injury, he now pretends to be the very thing he is not: an across-the-board Reagan conservative. This fraudulent pretense inspires fundamental distrust among Reagan conservatives.

Consider: Robert Novak has corroborated John Fund's account of McCain dissing Samuel Alito as too conservative, or as "wearing his conservatism on his sleeve." True, McCain voted to confirm Alito, but that's a far cry from nominating such a judge in the first place.

McCain's characterization of Alito is troubling on another level, as well. There is a difference between a judicial-restraint philosophy and judicial activism that promotes conservatism. McCain wholly ignores that distinction and echoes the liberal line of disinformation that judges like Alito are conservative activists. This type of thinking is born of liberal instincts; McCain often thinks like a liberal.

That's unfair, you say? Well, isn't it true? Doesn't he have liberal instincts, or at least an irrepressible desire for liberal approval on global warming? Don't liberal assumptions underlie his crusade for campaign-finance reform?

How many times have we heard him say: "Money corrupts all of us. We need to get money out of politics"? Assuming he really believes money ineluctably poisons every politician, it is astonishingly naive to believe such ubiquitous corruption can be eradicated with a mere finger on the dike aimed at restricting certain avenues where money enters the process. It's as insultingly ludicrous as John Edwards' promise to end all poverty.

Plus, it's not as if the campaign-finance-reform experiment is just a well-meaning but harmless enterprise. On top of its woeful ineffectiveness, perhaps even counter-productiveness, it also has egregious consequences: It does violence to free political speech – the most important category of speech essential to the preservation of our republic.

McCain's tunnel vision on this and his refusal even to consider the speech-suppressing aspects of his reckless, utopian fantasy bespeaks an ends-justifies-the-means attitude, also typical of the liberal mindset. "We know what is best for you, so there is no harm in our beneficent suppression of the most important freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

But perhaps most troubling about McCain is his habitual resort to class warfare. While he now says that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because he received insufficient guarantees that they'd be coupled with spending cuts, his stated reason at the time was that they were cuts just for the rich. This is demonstrably untrue.

The reductions were across the board and skewed, if anything, in favor of the middle- and lower-income earners. Only liberals mouth these disingenuous and destructive platitudes – destructive because they alienate and polarize people, stirring resentment and demonizing producers and wealth. And don't forget that McCain was only one of two Republican senators who opposed the plan. That speaks volumes – and it should open the eyes of those resisting the truism that McCain is not a reliable Reagan conservative. They're the ones with blinders on, not those of us laboring to unveil the truth.

Lest you think McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts was just a single exception to his stellar conservative economic credentials, I cite the recent California debate, in which McCain similarly disparaged big business, profits, producers and wealth. This constant harping against the engine and fruits of capitalism is tantamount to waging war against the American ideal. McCain's liberal instinct once again rears its unflattering head.

Whoa, you object. When it comes to the most important issue of all – the war – McCain is more hawkish and more conservative than anyone. But even that is not entirely true on closer inspection. He's been good mostly on Iraq – from a conservative perspective – but very disappointing on opposing tough, life-saving interrogation techniques, in wanting to close down Gitmo and in favoring constitutional protections for enemy combatants. Only liberals think like that. Only liberal instincts tell us that if we are tough on them, they'll be tougher on us – as if they need any excuse to be barbaric toward us. They just are.

It ought not to be necessary to have this debate about whether McCain is a Reagan conservative. Beyond the non-exhaustive list here, just look at the people who are constantly cheering him on – liberals in the mainstream media, Hollywood and New York entertainers, and Democrats. Why? Because McCain not only often thinks and acts like a liberal, he also routinely and joyously sticks it to his own team; he's the "maverick" – the anti-conservative in our huddle.

Thanks for spamming us with an anti-McCain piece. Rush and his brother better get on board or they're going to be left behind. Rush is attempting to scare people away from McCain right now. He claims McCain will lose in a landslide even though polls don't suggest that. What Rush is really trying to do is drive down the conservative vote in the fall so McCain loses. That way Rush can say he was right (most important to him) and he gets what he's always wanted, a Hillary presidency.

It's been a tough seven years for Rush as he's had to conform his purist views to Bush's big government conservatism. Rush hasn't enjoyed it and now he wants the free fire zone of a Democrat controlled White House and Congress back. He was never better in the 1990's and he wants higher ratings. Rush is not being honest about McCain. McCain's not the best thing in the world, but he's pro-life. I find it odd Rush is so concerned about purity right now, yet said nothing about it when Fred needed a boost.

by your threats, Whacker 77. You sound like the anonymous Huckabee person who slammed Limbaugh back in January. Your lack of knowledge re Rush is appalling--he has opposed the Bush administration whenever he believed it went contrary to basic conservative principles.

Instead of an ad hominem attack, I wish you'd respond to David Limbaugh's well grounded points--that is, if you're able to. Or, you might be like Senator McCain who dodged and faded and provided crooked talk several times during the Reagan Library debate.

Stuff like "Juan McCain" isn't appropriate here.

Thank you Andrew. We don't want this place to become Free Republic.

I listen to Rush nearly every day and I am a member of his website. I listen to his podcasts when I am on the road flying for American Airlines. I was a Fred Thompson supporter from the moment he announced his interest in the race. Before that, I was a McCain supporter and now I am back to a McCain supporter. I'm indifferent on Huckabee and have never attacked him.

Obviously, you and I aren't listening to the same Rush Limbaugh. Over the last month, he has exhibited a vindictive and petty side I have not heard before. When he's not swooning over the day to day operations of the Hillary campaign, he's attacking John McCain. In the last week, he resorted to scaring people about McCain. He's used the age card and he's gone on record saying McCain would lose in a landslide.

The polls certainly don't show McCain would lose in a landslide and the respected and non-partison Charlie Cook said this past week a McCain/Hillary race would go down to the wire. So why is Rush saying this? I can only assume it's what he hopes will happen. He hates McCain and doesn't want to see him lead the party. Clearly, Rush has set out to derail McCain's chances whether it's in the primary or in the general. With McCain, Rush has no access.

Rush relishes the chance to have a Hillary presidency. While his show was huge before Bill was elected, the Clinton presidency established him as the leader in conservative radio. With Hillary in the White House, where do you think everyone, including you and me, will be at the noon hour? We'll be listening to Rush. His ratings will go through the roof and he will become the unquestioned leader of the party out of power.

What I have written about Rush is no different from what Rush has said about McCain. Rush has made assumptions about McCain and I have made assumptions about Rush. The only difference is 20 million people won't read this. While I continue to listen to Rush, I must admitt I'm tired of listening to him decide who is and who isn't part of the conservative movement. Who annointed him? I know I didn't and I don't remember a vote having been taken.

The fact is Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush couldn't live up to the standards Rush has set. Reagan raised taxes in 1986. Reagan granted amnesty in 1986. Reagan wasn't an ardent free trader either. George H. Bush called supply side economics voo-doo economics in 1980. The elder Bush raised taxes in 1990. Bush 41 gave us David Souter. They did all this, but Rush never rails against them. Why? Why is McCain so different from these two idolized Republican presidents?

I'm not an ardent McCain supporter, but I am ardent supporter of the Republican party in a general election. Rush said this past week that he never believed losing was a good way of sending a message. If that's so, what good does it do him and the rest of the punditry class to continue the relentless pounding of McCain? Like it or not, McCain is going to be the nominee and continuing the barrage of attacks will only serve the other party.

Still, I continue to wonder from where Rush's new found purity has come. Rush knew compassionate conservatism wasn't ideologically pure, but he handled Bush 43 with kids gloves. Where was he on Harriet Miers? I, like many others, fumed the day Harriet Miers was announced and I tuned in to Rush's show figuring he would be as well. He was a bit mystified, but he never openly opposed her. At least Ingraham and Levin did, but Rush never did. On the defining conservative moment of 43's presidency, Rush was basically muted.

Frankly, I don't care what David Limbaugh has written. He endorsed Fred Thompson and that didn't matter. From an ideologically pure standpoint, I'm sure he's dead on about McCain. At this point though, it doesn't matter anymore. If he and Rush and any other person feel the need to vent and fume, get it out of the system by Tuesday. After that, McCain will all but be the nominee. The Supreme Court is the goal and another nine months of carping won't help.

I'm sorry you and I don't agree.

Rudy was the only one beating the Dems in polls. It just goes to show how meaningless such national polls are this far out.

And, do you think McCain will be left alone by the main stream media if and when he wraps up the nomination? This could very well be worse than Dole in 96.

And Andrew, I greatly admire you and all those who play such a significant role in this site. You've been very patient over the months and years in explaining various leegal and judicial matters to this layman. Kindnesses were showered upon me at this site when I was facing a life threatening illness (as of now, it looks like I'll be living a long and full life, Lord willing). I won't use the "Juan" word again if that is your wish, but it was a reference to McCain's over the top views on immigration, esp. with regard to the person he has appointed to be in charge of Hispanic outreach. This gentleman has, among other things, worked for Vincente Fox (he holds dual citizenship) on helping Mexicans going to and in the U.S. (illegally or not), as well as lobbied for states (of the United variety) to allow full driver's licenses for illegal aliens. The word "J--n" McCain was coined by Glenn Beck. Love him or hate him--there is often truth in his barbs.

I agree with Romney on immigration, rather than McCain. And Romney is wholeheartedly supportive of legal immigration. The problem with using a term like "Juan McCain" is that it sounds like the person using that term doesn't like any kind of immigrant from Mexico, whether legal or illegal. Anyway, thanks for not following Glenn Beck in this regard.

"The fact is Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush couldn't live up to the standards Rush has set. Reagan raised taxes in 1986. Reagan granted amnesty in 1986. Reagan wasn't an ardent free trader either. George H. Bush called supply side economics voo-doo economics in 1980. The elder Bush raised taxes in 1990. Bush 41 gave us David Souter. They did all this, but Rush never rails against them. Why? Why is McCain so different from these two idolized Republican presidents?
"

Why are Bill Clinton and George W. Bush the 2 most disliked Presidents in our nation's history? Simply because they are the most recent.

W's legacy in 50 years will probably be different than today.

http://www.charlotte.com/sports/story/473886.html

"U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert Conrad has been looking forward to today's Providence Day-Charlotte Catholic game for weeks.

His son, Ryan, 17, is the leading scorer for Providence Day's boys team. His son, Bobby, 25, is the head girls coach at Charlotte Catholic and has led the Cougars on a 13-game win streak."

Ron Paul on Judges:

"Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/899/politics-and-judicial-activism/

"It’s sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.

Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers. "

With McCain any conservative is up for discussion. As a consummate deal maker, McCain will give these values up if he can put his name to a deal.

Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never support McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.

I heard McCain likes to run over cats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120209536777639949.html?mod=opinion_main...

2008 will be the third time in US history somebody has gone directly from the Senate to the White House. JFK and Harding are the other two.

Though I would expect McCain to step down from his senate seat this summer to allow Arizona to schedule a special election in November to replace him.

That would interestingly put some pressure on Hillary and Obama to do the same (I would not expect them to) and make McCain look even more like the likely winner in 2008.

you forgot "drink their blood"
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

would step down from the Senate while running for the presidency. Didn't Bob Dole do that, under pressure?

The Senate has been Jn. McCain's life for many years. I would think he'd want to do battle (from his perspective) with the Dem. nominee in the senate.

Again, this is assuming a McCain nomination. It's not a done deal. Romney won Maine with 52% of the caucus vote, despite the two RINO (Andrew--that's an acceptable acronym at this site, I believe)senators supporting McCain.

There are various polls showing various things, but one shows Romney trending ahead by 8 points in California....

:)

you're still with us.... ;o)

Speaking of Senators,
Did anyone else think that the Coke commercial during the Super Bowl with Bill Frist and James Carville was a bit, well, weird??

I'm all for poking fun of oneself, but to me Bill Frist appearing in that stupidity somehow, someway further just confirms in retrospect all of the feelings expressed on this board about the rather clueless drift on judges during Frist's tenure. Just unbecoming a someone formerly holding such a position of public trust.

Of course, I'd expect nothing more of Carville.

Kathryn Kolbert, the liberal lawyer who argued in Casey, has been announced as the replacement for Ralph Neas over at PFAW.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24975

Any guesses about which conservative judicial nominee she will try to block first?

[Since no one is responding on the most recent thread, I'm posting this here too]:

Hearing scheduled February 12th (District Judge only)
James Hall: S.D. Georgia
Richard Honacker: D. Wyoming
Gustavus Puryear M.D. Tennessee
Brian Miller: E.D. Arkansas
This clearly means that there will be no Circuit Nominee hearing in February. Leahy & Co. have successfully crossed another month off the calendar.

Feinstein is presiding, as if to underscore how trivial this hearing really is. The Democrats' evasion of a February hearing clearly indicates to me that there will be 2-3 Circuit confirmations at most this year. I think the probability is 2 (Pratter and hopefully Haynes). That's all, folks.
Leahy and the Democrats clearly have the bit in their teeth and intend to steamroller us. Our only recourse is to yank it out and ram it down their filthy throats by electing a Republican President in November. Unless you want to let them get away with this, it's time to get fully behind John McCain (who I voted for earlier today) and push all-out for a McCain victory in November. There is no viable alternative!