ConfirmThem

and don't intentionally omit Scalia as a model justice. Neither is the path to winning votes.

did anyone notice in today's debate that when asked for his model SC Justice, Richardson said without hesitation Byron White, right after a whole section on abortion? He couldn't haave helped himself with that comment.

When Williams said that it had to be a living Justice, every candidate agreed on Ginsburg.

Also, Biden excoriating the Carhart decision when he voted FOR the bill. He said he opposes the procedure exceptw hen for life or health but he voted FOR a bill without a health exception. Come on.

All he had to do was encourage a nuclear vote and we'd have had Roberts and Alito and lots more at the Circuit level. The Gof14 deal killed a hell of a lot more than it helped.

I just checked and Biden is listed as not voting on the abortion bill. The other guy from DE, Carper, voted yes. I must have had the two confused although I could have sworn I read somewhere that Biden did vote for it.

At the very least they should have forced a vote on either Saad or Myers along with the other 3.

Biden voted for it.

There will be votes on the floor of the Senate for DJs Kapala of IL and Settle of WA on Monday April 30th at noon.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

April was supposed to be a big month for Judicial Confirmations. Instead of Keisler and Livingstion, we get neither and only 3 DJs. PATHETIC!!!

I encourage everyone to call Senator McConnell (202-224-2541) and let him know how unexceptible this is. At a MINIMUM we should demand 1 CCA and 6 DJs per month. 3DJs and 0 CCAs is terrible!!! Tell him to file a discharge pettion for Keisler. If you give the Dems an inch here they will take a mile. We have to put our foot down. They have a Memorial Day recess at the end of May and that will be the new excuse.

I really expected the 3 MI judges to get confirmed in April. So much for that. I have no clue what their hold up is. Also is there any reason the 4 NC DJs have not received a hearing yet. I know Leahy wants to avoid the 4th Circuit but why is he stickin it to these 4 low level judges that have two R homestate senators. What the hell are Dole and Burr doing? It was bad enough they didnt fight for Boyle. Also I am curious to what you guys think Rogan's chances are. I figured he was dead when all those other CA nominees got confirmed and he didnt. Someone said a bit ago that they still thought he would make it. Do you still believe this and if so why do you think that.

He leaves Scalia out to please the center since Scalia is the bogey man.

He talks about the decision in particular to help get the right.

He's a politician.

That he would try and sell the Gof14 as "anti-filibuster" is just contempt for the average Republican voter.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

Agree with Oz, we have to remember that. None of these guys have core beliefs, they just have public positions that they think will maximize their support. That's their job.

Take Bush. He's also a politician. He implied during the 2000 campaign, when he was running as a conservative, that he would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. Instead, when it came time to nominate, he aimed for the pragmatic center and nominated two justices like Rehnquist. Conservatives let him go towards the center because they trusted him, and Dems forced him to go towards the center because they didn't trust him and would have filibustered any nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.

Now to 2008. I think Giuliani is our best shot to get a Scalia- or Thomas-like justice. Because of Giuliani's own liberal stances on social issues, the Dems will be disarmed when it comes time to nominate someone--it's conservatives who will be naturally suspicious. This will force him to pick Scalia- and Thomas-like nominees.

McCain and Romney are running, as Bush did, as conservatives. Either one, I predict, would appoint justices who are pragmatic centrists, like Rehnquist, where Giuliani would appoint justices who favor principle over pragmatism, like Scalia and Thomas.

As an afterthought, I remember reading somewhere (in JCG's book I think) that in the late 80's in a job interview, Alito explicitly named Rehnquist as his favorite justice (when he could have named Scalia at the time). Not really a surprise, then, that Alito is turning out to be more like Rehnquist than Scalia.

While it might be appropriate to label Sandra Day O'Connor as a "pragmatic centrist," it would NOT be appropriate to describe Rehnquist as one. Far from it, Rehnquist was the architect of a conservative revival on the Supreme Court. Without him as the first step, there never would've been an Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Their jurisprudence would've been ridiculed. Rehnquist could best described as a "pragmatic conservative," even though some of his decisions were not so pragmatic. Remember, he wasn't trying to build consensus. For years, he was the lone dissenter on the Burger Court because of his principled conservatism. Many of his decisions from that period became the basis of present conservative jurisprudence. There is no reason to denigrate Rehnquist's unique contributions to the conservative movement.

I mean judicial, not political, pragmatic centrism. Each of the opinions that Rehnquist joined in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Maryland v. Craig, and Apprendi v. New Jersey, for example, reached a more politically conservative result than Scalia's, but Scalia's vote was based on sounder reasoning (IMO) and greater fidelity to the Constitution and thus was a more judicially conservative, principled, vote.

The difference between Rehnquist and O'Connor was not that she was pragmatic and he was not. They were both pragmatists, and the difference between them is that his political sensibilities were more conservative than hers.

But Rehnquist wasn't a totally reliable political conservative either, which justifies me calling him a "centrist" as well as a "pragmatist". I'm thinking especially of the evolution of Rehnquist's thinking on Miranda, which culminated in the nonsensical Dickerson opinion. Now, thanks to Rehnquist, we've got a precedent on the books suggesting that any Supreme Court decision that is "embedded in our national culture," even if the decision is BS, deserves respect. (Hey, isn't Roe v. Wade "embedded in our national culture" too?)

It shouldn't be a surprise that Rehnquist wasn't a totally reliable political conservative vote. If favored policy outcomes, rather than judicious reasoning, drive a judge's thinking, then as that judge's view of policy changes, so will his votes.

That's why I think it's best to nominate people who have a clearly articulated judicial philosophy they've thought about for a long time. Rehnquist was basically a Republican party faithful prior to his nomination, and he drifted ever so slightly left over the course of his SCOTUS tenure. Scalia and Thomas have been rock solid precisely because they have rock solid judicial philosophies.

"I really expected the 3 MI judges to get confirmed in April. "

Aren't all of them emergency vacancies? Why not pull them? If Levin wants to play hardball, it should come at some cost to his state.

Although I prefer originalism as the most reliable and consistent means of interpreting the Constitution, I recognize that there are other interpretive methods that are also conservative in nature. It is not always necessary for a judge in the vein of a Rehnquist, Roberts or Alito to exclusively refer back to the Founding Fathers when he decides cases, especially when those cases hinge on the analysis of statutes. Conservatism cannot be exclusively defined as adherence to originalism. Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito are definitely conservative. To call them moderate or liberal is to be too extreme and rigid in one's mindset.

"But Rehnquist wasn't a totally reliable political conservative either, which justifies me calling him a "centrist" as well as a "pragmatist". I'm thinking especially of the evolution of Rehnquist's thinking on Miranda, which culminated in the nonsensical Dickerson opinion."

As I understand it, he knew their side had lost the case, so he switched sides specificially to limit the damage done by reaffirming a bad opinion.

By writing a weak opinion, (essentially saying that Miranda is bad law but its precedent) he set the stage up for future courts to change it.

Where do I vote for McCain as our next President???

Because all judges are human beings, they are subject to human nature. Although it would be nice if all legal disputes in the United States could be objectively evaluated and decided according to the same originalist interpretation of the law, human nature demands pragmatism at times. The fact that Rehnquist chose to be pragmatic in order to reduce the scope of Miranda should not be held against him. The result created a more conservative result in a practical sense than would've been possible if Ginsburg had written the opinion. Rehnquist was still being conservative. That is why I call Rehnquist a "pragmatic conservative."

I'm sorry, but that's almost terminally naive, and at this late date there's no time or margin for naivete (although after SIX years, Senate Republicans still haven't learned this simple fact).

Levin and Stabenow and other Senate Democrats don't care a fig about "judicial emergencies" on the 6th Circuit or anywhere else. Due to unprecedented Democrat obstruction, the "Kethledge seat" on the 6th has been vacant for over SEVEN YEARS. The "Murphy seat" has been essentially vacant for over EIGHT YEARS. The Senate Democrat ghouls only confirmed Susan Neilson to the seat because they knew she was terminally ill and would die within months. One of the vacant Michigan East DJ seats has been vacant for over SIX YEARS. The Circuit seats to which McKeague and Griffin were confirmed in June 2005 (as part of the Frist-Gang of 14 deal) had been vacant for for over THREE years due to Democat obstruction.

These were all "judicial emergencies". Levin and Stabenow couldn't have cared less. Democrats only play the Judicial Emergency Card as an excuse to obstruct and delay Bush nominees to vacancies that are NOT judicial emergencies (Kavanaugh, Keisler, JRB. etc.)

It's bad enough that we've been getting unprecedentedly shafted by Democrat obstructionists for years, and that they're now virtually toying with nominees. There's no excuse for playing the fool while it's happening.

"did anyone notice in today's debate that when asked for his model SC Justice, Richardson said without hesitation Byron White, right after a whole section on abortion?"

We coud do a lot worse than Byron White. Wouldn't everyone on this Board prefer him to Kennedy or O'Connor?

Kenneth has spilled the beans in noting the difference between O'Conner and Rehnquist was not in principle, since they were both "pragmatists," or as I would put oligarchial super-legislators,
but rather, merely ideological: O'Conner was a moderate whereas Rehnquist was a somewhat moderate conservative.

Conservatives should have two demands for those who appoint judges. The first is that they should appoint nominees who respect the proper role of a judge. And, second, they should appoint nominees who when deciding a case properly with the perview of the Court consistently take the conservative position.

That is, conservatives should prefer Scalia over Rehnquist on judicial philosophy, and Rehniquist over O'Conner, or Stevens on political "sensibilities," as Kenneth characterized it.

Moderates have sold conservatives a bill of goods about "judicial restraint." Conservatives have allowed moderates to deceive them into believing that if a nominee respects the proper role of a judge, he is a fit nominee.

Of course, moderates were never stupid enough to practice what they preached to conservatives. Judges who properly respected the proper role of the Court, but had decidedly conservative "sensibilities," like Judge Michael Luttig were not seriously considered. Nor, were they even willing to appoint moderates who respected the notion of judicial restraint. Roberts was super-legislative oligarch in the mode of Rehnquist, or little to the left, whereas Miers was just another SDO!

The conservative movement has never articulated the twin principles because their leaders have been moderates who have stressed the first principle to deliver conservatives into support of moderate nominees.

I don't know what is more pathetic. That moderates would engage in such a dishonorable tactic; or, that conservatives would allow themselves to be deceived by such tactics.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better, consistently conservative, leadership.

While I would still vote for the Republican, Richardson would be the most capable and best suited of the Democrats to be President.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

"Conservatives should have two demands for those who appoint judges. The first is that they should appoint nominees who respect the proper role of a judge. And, second, they should appoint nominees who when deciding a case properly with the perview of the Court consistently take the conservative position."

I don't think there's enough room for your second criterion. A judge who fits your first criterion will necessarily reach the result of each case based on non-political considerations, even if either outcome of the case is "within the purview of the Court" (by which I assume you within a reasonable interpretation of a possibly ambiguous text at issue in the case). As Roberts said in his hearings, "Sometimes it's hard to give meaning to a constitutional term in a particular case. But you don't look to your own values and beliefs. You look outside yourself to other sources."

For example, does the First Amendment protect anonymous electioneering? That's a hard question. I suspect that the law at issue in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, which prohibited a certain type of anonymous electioneering, was distasteful to the politically conservative politics of both Scalia and Thomas. But, while Thomas's originalist analysis led him to conclude that anonymous electioneering is protected, Scalia concluded the opposite. I don't think either Scalia or Thomas was driven to reach the conclusion he reached by his own political views. Each reached the result he reached using the judicial approach he thought made the most sense.

BigSkyBob, I agree with your "demands" for judges. But setting aside your hyperbole and assuming for the sake of argument that Rehnquist was a pragmatist rather than a Scalia-like formalist, I don't know how you can say with confidence that Roberts is a pragmatist in the mold of Rehnquist. It's far too early to tell for sure, but the signs to date are that Roberts's judicial philosophy is very much like Scalia's (and, therefore, like Luttig's).

jtp7: Your post is spot-on throughout. Our standard of a minimum 7 confirmations per month (1 CCA and 6 DJ) must be rigorously pushed by McConnell, Specter(?), Kyle and other Senate Republicans. I have called his office (among others) to convey my concern and disgust (politely) and urge others here to do so also.

Scheduling the confirmations of Kapala and Settle (DJ nominees) for the afternoon of the last day of the month seems almost like a calculated insult: "Hey Peons! Look at the nice crumbs we're graciously throwing out for you at the last moment. Now eat it." Maybe we're supposed to be grateful that the Senate is starting its Monday "Morning Business" at noon instead of the usual 2 p.m.

The 4th Circuit North Carolina situation is beyond my comprehension. I know Dole and Burr are relatively junior Senators, but are they total ciphers?

As to Michigan, I have no "expectations" whatsoever. Only guarded hope.

This has already been said by others, but it bears repeating: the available evidence suggests that President Bush has been trying to give conservatives what they want in judicial nominees and is not trying to sell us a bill of goods.

However they turn out as justices, Roberts and Alito were both favorites of movement conservatives. Roberts was something of a blank slate to the public, but true believers who knew him personally vouched for his conservative bona fides (in much the same way they vouched for Thomas, also largely a blank slate, fifteen years ago). And Alito was on nearly every conservative's top-ten list, often near the top. (For instance, during the Miers fiasco, Robert Bork and Pat Buchanan both named him as someone Bush should have picked.) Not to mention that Janice Rogers Brown, probably the purest originalist short of Justice Thomas, is near the top of Bush's short list for the next vacancy.

With respect to Miers, and especially after reading Jan Greenburg's book, it seems clear that Bush was motivated by a mix of cronyism and misguided tactical considerations, not by any desire to sneak a "moderate" onto the Court.

I know that people like Edith Jones and Emilio Garza were purportedly ruled out because of their provocative comments on Roe, but that was due to the political reality that we would lose the RINO senators, especially Specter, on an outspoken opponent of Roe. The quite reasonable--even if disputable--determination that some degree of stealthiness on Roe is required to achieve confirmation should not be confused with a lack of dedication to the cause.

Here are two responses to the letter from the SJC Republicans to Leahy asking for Keisler to be put on the next business meeting agenda:

The good:

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004485.cfm

The bad: (from our oh-so "moderate" friend, Ralph Neas)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23936

Just went to the Senate website and saw that Monday's "Morning Business" begins at 2:45 (45 minutes later than usual), not noon as had been reported. Hey, that's a Club I want to join! Where do I go to sign my soul away for eligibility?

For being gullible and accepting the suggestion that they could actually bring themselves to start as early as noon, I hereby plead guilty to the "naivete" that I so roundly condemned back in post #17.

On a more serious note, as one who's been following SCOTUS since at least the early '70's, the notion that William Rehnquist was a "pragmatic moderate" is utterly preposterous and laughable. As Chief Justice he sometimes moderated his opinions and votes to influence a divided and slightly adverse Court (as in Dickerson). But his conservative jurisprudence of judicial restraint and deference to "written" Constitutional provisions (easily the most conservative on the Court before his elevation to Chief Justice) is consistent throughout. After 1986, "Pragmatic conservative" I would agree with.

Incidentally, his Dickerson opinion to a large extent acknowledged the correctness of Karen William's (maybe not such a judicial "lightweight" after all) 4th Circuit opinion on the legal arguments, basing the overrule principally on rather flimsy stare decisis grounds and keeping open chances for a later reversal. Can you imagine the legal harm if Stevens had written the Dickerson opinion?

Rehnquist did the best he could with what he had: largely the Court of 1993-2005.

Normally when there is a vote on a judicial nominee, there is a unanimous consent agreement to that effect on the Senate's Executive Calendar stating the exact time for the vote. There is no such notification on the Executive Calendar for Kapala and Settle. I'm not sure if jtp7 is correct about any votes Monday. Does anyone have any news on this?

Bobo - I don't see anything on the executive Calendar or Senate schedule of business to say one way or the other whether the District Court judges will be voted on Monday. I would be interested to know the source of JTP7's post.

Everyone on this board would be doing cartwheels of joy to have nine WHR's on SCOTUS, from any point in his tenure.

Consider what he might've done with Bork, Jones, & Silberman, instead of the mush Republican POTUS's, WH staffers, and senators stuck him with.

He was the trailblazer. As BoBo so eloquently put it, w/o Rehnquist there is no Scalia or Thomas. He's one of the four greatest national figures post WWII, IMO, along w/Ike, Reagan, & Goldwater.

Esp. in light of the LBJ style 'conservatives' we have today, and his wisdom in handling his & Sandy's retirements, WHR keeps looking better all the time.

OK, after reading the PFAW garbage by Ne-ass and his fellow quasi-traitor socialists (probably now funded by George Soros), here's a little quiz: Who and what does this remind you of? ...

That's right. MIGUEL ESTRADA in 2001 for a seat to the very same Court. We thought it was such a pathetic and hopeless little diversion then. After all, such document demands for government records were unprecedented in U.S. history. As were filibusters of Circuit Court nominees. Now, of course, it's the norm. Sort of like stabbing our government and military in the back in the middle of a war. And a once-great Democratic Party is now united and subservient to a bunch of subversive fringe rifraff.

The prospects for a Keisler confirmation remain dim.

I did provide the link for my source in post 7. I will give it again.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

The two judges are mentioned at the top of page 5 in the pdf file. This document is dated for Monday April 30, 2007 and was found on the senate website. Im not a expert on the Senate but does this not mean that a vote is scheduled for these two on Monday?

To Bob: Who would you nominate to SCOTUS next if you couldnt choose Luttig? Basically what I am asking is who is your second favorite choice?

No, when a name is listed in the nominations section of the Executive Calendar, it only means that the person's nomination has been voted out of committee and CAN be voted on in the full Senate at any time in the future at the discretion of the majority leader. It does not mean that the nomination is to be voted on the next day.

As I said before, when a confirmation vote is imminent, a unanimous consent agreement is listed as the first order of business on the Executive Calendar listing the exact day and time of the final vote.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/john-roberts-on-judicial-doctrine.htm...

"But the point is that justices of all stripes regularly sacrifice their intellectual integrity in order to reach the all-important "rule of 5," i.e., getting (at least) four of their colleagues to unite behind a single opinion that can be presented to lower courts (and law professors, law students, lawyers, and editorial writers) as "the law" instead of merely personal opinions of the justices"

I think this analysis is important to the point I made earlier that the human desire for pragmatism often over-rides ideological integrity. That is why there are few if any judges like Clarence Thomas who possess a "pure" jurisprudence with little inconsistency.

Sorry for my over eagerness. I just saw that and figured it was there time, especially cause if they dont go Monday, it will mean only ONE DJ got confirmed in April. I find it odd that they were held over an extra two weeks in the SJC and Ozerden was not. Anyone know why?

Kenneth claims that judicial restraint is sufficient because,

"A judge who fits your first criterion will necessarily reach the result of each case based on non-political considerations,"

This is a false alternative. One's sense of justice, equity, prudence and such are a function of character, and other such intangibles. There are not merely a reflection of one's political views.

For instance, consider school graduation ceremonies. The case for state ran prayer was balanced against its cons. The cons were some agnostic student might be "offended" by a divine blessing. The case for prayer is that high school graduation is a rite of passage. Rites of passages, such as birth, marriage, and death have always been the perview of religion.
The state doesn't officiate birth, marriage or funerals. But, the state does issue high school diplomas. First, the state muscled into a rite of passage, and, then, muscled out religion.

The Court, IMHO, made the wrong call. It made the wrong judgment in weighting the cases. That judgment, I submit, was highly a function of whether, or not, the individual judge was a theist, a traditionalist, etc.

It is precisely these intangibles that conservatives ought to demand from a nominee of a "conservative" President.

Conservatives have received the shaft in ruling after ruling precisely because moderate, establishment Republicans have appointed judges with moderate, establishment values, outlooks and prejudices.

Conservatives have to demand better respect for the process, "restraint," and better respect for themselves, as human beings, from the moderate establishment, that in many respects holds them in contempt ["those people!"].

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand only true conservatives lead their movement.

Rehnquist was a centrist? C'mon!

I'm sensing I'm in the minority on this one :)

jtp7,

I can appoint Luttig.

I would appoint Luttig.

I seriously doubt Luttig would refuse the nomination.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives d