ConfirmThem

Alito today in a speech on the idea of a living Constitution:

"'One of the things I am asked is if I believe in a living Constitution,' Justice Samuel Alito said, referring to a theory that the Constitution can change with the times. 'Umpires face this very same problem. For example, do we want a living strike zone?'"

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/16864166.htm

Both of W's justices have now come out against the idea of a living Constitution (Roberts did so at the Reagan Library soon after he was confirmed).

w00t.

Now the nine district court nominees that were left stranded on the Executive Calendar at the end of the 109th Congress have been confirmed. Thanks to Brownback's hold on Neff, it took an extra unnecessary THREE months to confirm these nominees. Also thanks to Brownback, it is likely that the five Michigan nominees will never be confirmed (except Neff, who is likely to be renominated by Hillary in 2009).

shortsighted jackass.

I still expect the Western District of Michigan nominees to be renominated and confirmed sometime later this year. But definitely not the two 6th Circuit nominees.

If the Dems take the White House in '08 and fill those 6th Circuit seats, the Circuit will tip back roughly to a tie in many en banc cases (and a Dem majority on a lot more panels than now). Thank you, Sam Brownback and our Republican Senate "leadership."

The list is finally posted for the hearing on judicial nominees next week.

No/zero/zip Circuit Court nominees! Only three District Court - in Illinois, Mississippi and Washington.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2595

For the "April COA confirmation," there are presently three possibilities - Keisler, Livingston and Southwick. Keisler is the only one who has already had a hearing. That means that he is also the only one who has already answered committee follow-up questions. This is important in terms of the timing of a committee vote. After a hearing, COA nominees normally must answer a litany of written follow-up questions by committee members. Even if Livingston and/or Southwick had an immediate hearing, I doubt that they would be able to complete the committee follow-up questions in time for an April committee vote and confirmation. That leaves Keisler as the most likely to be next nominee confirmed after Hardiman.

First: O.K., next week's hearing is for 3 District Court nominees, which is what I and presumably most people here expected. Better than nothing. Ho hum.

Second: There seems to be a somewhat fatuous optimism around here about the Keisler D.C. nomination, which I emphatically do not share. The capacity for optimism around here after the events of the past several years is quite breathtaking.

Third: I do not share your view that Keisler will be next. I think the Dems will do Livingston first, and that her hearing will not take place until the end of this month at the earliest and next month is more likely. Enabling further delay is the whole point of the Schumer machinations that you described yesterday. Livingston will be the "April confirmation" (or early May).

Fourth (most important): The Democrats will insist on another hearing for Keisler, so his having had a previous hearing last year does not give his nomination priority over Livingston. Keisler's hearing (if and when he gets one) is going to be arduous and brutal. If you have any doubts, I refer you to Leahy's Statement at Keisler's 8/1/06 hearing (published on the S.J.C. website). First, Leahy makes it clear that he and the Democrats consider the 8/1 hearing to be inadequate. In it, he descibes Keisler as one of the White House "cronies", a "Bush-Cheney Administration insider", a "spokesman for the Bush-Cheney Administration" and a "rubberstamp". I expect Keisler's nomination to be bogged down in Committee for many weeks, and he will be lucky to be voted out of Committee by the first week of June, if at all.

Leahy went on for three pages to rant on about "concerns" about Keisler ("nominee has been on the wrong side of those fundamental issues and will continue to be as a judge"). If the Dems. were this opposed to Keisler while in the minority, what makes you think they will confirm him now that they are the Senate majority and control the confirmation process?

I hope that reports of a grand deal: Keisler confimation for the 12th D.C. judge shift to the 9th Cir. are true. It seems to me to be the only hope for Keisler's confirmation. But it somehow doesn't seem likely.

I agree with you that the Dems are not to be trusted, but I don't think the Dems will require a second hearing for Keisler. The Dems required a second hearing for Kavanaugh because his ABA rating had been downgraded. They required a second hearing for Haynes because new information concerning his role in the torture guidelines had come to light. In Keisler's case, his ABA rating has NOT been downgraded and no new information concerning his involvement in nefarious White House dealings has come to light. His record is spotless compared to those of Kavanaugh and Haynes.

Maybe. I hope you're right but remain sceptical. Having a spotless record hasn't protected previous conservative COA nominees from Democrat obstruction and delay (Estrada, Owen, Brown, Pryor, Roberts, Sutton, etc.)

Remember also that in 2003 the Democrats (in the minority!) forced a second hearing for Jeffrey Sutton and John Roberts on the basis that their original hearing on 1/29/03 was allegedly unfair and inadequate. Never underestimate the Senate Dems' willingness to obstruct and delay by any means possible.

Leahy clearly laid the basis for demanding a second hearing in his Statement at Keisler's 8/1/06 hearing, saying that "we have not yet had access to those files" and "we are not being afforded any opportunity to review those records". He also said that the hearing "is not the proper consideration our system calls for, and it is a disservice to this Committee, this nominee and the Americans we serve".

I strongly recommend that everyone on this site read Leahy's entire 8/1/06 Statement in preparation for the upcoming Judiciary Committee consideration of Keisler's nomination. It is on the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

And they may try to do to him what they did to John Roberts during Bush I - run out the clock.

I guess if we need a brilliant white confirmable male, we still have Neil Gorsuch on the 10th Circuit.

The next GOP administration needs to make getting Allison Eid on the DC Circuit or 10th Circuit a top priority so she's ready for SCOTUS when we need her.

If the Democrats succeed in blocking the Michigan seats for the entire eight years of the Bush Presidency, the appropriate response is to fillibuster those seats for the entire eight years of Clinton's Presidency.

If the Democrats want peace, fine, give them peace: the nominees are blocked until 2017 when the nominees of an unknown President, of an unknown party will be confirmed.

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 true conservative leadership for the cause.

Don't forget about Michael McConnell, Steven Colloton, and Thomas Griffith (in addition to Gorsuch) if you're going to discuss confirmable white males. Again today, Griffith was on the right side of a momentous DC Circuit case. The other was the right to experimental medical treatment decision from last year, where he dissented from Judge Rogers and Chief Judge Ginsburg's majority opinion. Easterbrook, with more than 20 years worth of opinions, may be a bit more controversial, but might also be confirmable. So too with Paul Clement.

6th Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin of Michigan.

He's brilliant, and not controversial despite a solid conservative record. Even a majority of the ABA's committee rated Judge Griffin WELL qualified (a minority rated him qualified).

The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Griffin in July 2005 (with 95 yeas and 5 not voting).

Griffin was only confirmed as a result of Democrat anxiety over the nuclear option. Prior to the Gang of 14 Deal. the Dems let it be known that they were willing to let McKeague and Griffin be confirmed in order to stop a vote on the nuclear option. Once the Gang deal was finalized, the Dems felt they couldn't backtrack. There is no way the Dems would allow Griffin to be confirmed to the Supreme Court now.

but we could force them to vote for him or explain why EVERY Democrat found him suitable for confimration just a couple years ago.

We could run constant ads in states that voted for Bush twice but have Democrat Senators who need to be perceived as moderates (e.g., Nebraska, Florida, Colorado, Montana). Play hardball and put the "moderate" Dems on the spot as obstructionists and hypocrites if they refuse to allow a confirmation vote for a guy they themselves confirmed.

This is, of course, true for any Circuit judge who was confirmed with unanimous Dem support in recent years.

I'm not SURE it will work, but it has to be tried, and it CAN work.

works best with Dems who personally voted to confirm the S.Ct. nominee to the Circuit. It wouldn't work as well with the new Dem Senators, who weren't in the Senate whe J. Griffin and company went through in 2005 (e.g., John Tester of Montana, Webb of Virginia).