ConfirmThem

I fail to see his name on the list.

seem to me to have a very small chance of confirmation. Sometimes the WH even to me seems to pick a fight where there is none warrented.

Why did Bush needlessly nominate someone not on the Warner/Webb approved list? Such foolishness! As we have already discussed, without Graham's support, Matthews is dead on arrival. Now Gretchell is dead on arrival. Oh, by the way, Conrad from North Carolina is also dead on arrival. As I have said before, maybe Bush is trying to generate an election issue in 2008. He must know perfectly well that Conrad, Gretchell and Matthews are nonconfirmable - all are very conservative white Southern males and we all know that the Dems hate those types! My only hope is that these Fourth Circuit three will make Keisler look like a liberal in the Dems' eyes and encourage his confirmation as a compromise.

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings110.pdf

Tinder of Indiana has been given a unanimous WQ rating. Expect him to be confirmed after Southwick and Elrod.

In 1999, Clinton got 7 COA nominees confirmed. So far in 2007, Bush has gotten 3 COA confirmations. That leaves 4 more for the Dems. Southwick, Elrod and Tinder look like shoo-ins at this point. Who will be the lucky 7th confirmation? I bet it will be either Keisler or Haynes. All the rest will never get out of committee this year or next.

If all of the people on the list were liberals/moderates, then I could understand the nomination. However, there were some good conservatives on that list. I will take the conservative we can confirm over the one we can't confirm. Getchell's bio reads like he is to the right of Jesse Helms. I would be thrilled if he were to be confirmed. There is just no chance of that happening. If we had 60 Senate seats then this would be a great nomination.

Geez, I could understand you folks urging Bush to nominate someone off the Warner/Webb list. But when Bush decides to instead exercise his perfectly legitimate constitutional prerogative, then why not rally 'round the prez? You don't even have the slightest substantive criticism of Getchell.

By not nominating someone off the Warner/Webb list, Bush is giving Webb (and Warner) a perfect reason to block the nominee, no matter who that nominee is. The person could be Jesus for all it matters and Webb would still block him. Count on Webb to block this nomination. He can sound perfectly reasonable doing so, especially if Warner agrees with him and is angry too. Remember Warner voted against Clarence Thomas and earlier blocked the nomination of Ken Starr to the Fourth Circuit. This man is no conservative.

Warner voted against Bork, not Thomas.

We don't even know that Webb is an obstructionist wingnut yet. Just because he suggested some names does not mean that he is opposed to all others.

And you don't even know whether Webb and/or Warner have quietly signed off on Getchell. Better to wait and see what happens, instead of blasting Bush at this point.

that its far too early to despair about Getchell being unconfirmable. I do agree it would have been better to pick from the Webb/Warner list, and hope he does so for the 2nd VA nomination, but its a bit extreme to wail about Bush throwing the circuit away by doing otherwise. it probably would have been better to nominate someone else off the list at the same time though.

Things simply won't happen if they aren't.

Why is Tinder's eval (not that it was in doubt with his district experience) complete, but the others from that date aren't?

They're trying to push him first. Hopefully Leahy puts him on the September agenda for next week.

On another note, this is what Webb has to say:

"Today, despite our good faith, bipartisan effort to accommodate the President, the recommendations that Senator Warner and I made have been ignored. The White House talks about the spirit of bipartisanship, lamenting congressional obstructionism. The White House cannot expect to complain about the confirmation of federal judges when they proceed to act in this manner."

Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said Webb will likely withhold his "blue slip," referring to the blue paper senators use to tell the Judiciary Committee whether they approve of a nominee. Warner's office did not say whether the senator planned to do the same.

Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot trade a parcel of land to private hands to allow a Christian cross to remain in the middle of a vast federal preserve, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.

People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.

"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."

Seems like McKeon is making her SCOTUS push.

more like.

time for the 9th to get benchslapped again, joy!

As I previously suggested (thank you very much), Bush should nominate one person from the WW list and one of his own preference. He has done half of it. Now he'll fight for Getchell and then nominate a WW approved person afterwards.

BTW - Getchell was on the arroved lists of both major Virginia Bar associations, so it's not as if Bush nominated some unqualified partisan hack. Have some faith (I know - it's a lot to ask with this prez....).

Webb's pissed. Screw him!

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--4thcircuitvacanc09...

What the hell is going on??

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUSTICE_RESIGNATION?SITE=AP&SECTI...

I looked over their resumes and they are both good conservatives. Just because the Democrats don't like Southern (or any other) white males doesn't mean a Republican president can't nominate them. They are both highly qualified and Bush has correctly decided that no one elected Jim Webb or John Warner to appoint judges.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/06/ap4089011.html

Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

NEW YORK - A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

Nominated May 1999 by Clinton on Schumer's reccomendation to a NY district seat.

You give Bush WAY too much credit. "Maybe he cosulted with them and Warner/Webb signed off." What in Bush's history would make you think he would do that. He doesn't care what Congress thinks and NEVER has!!! Bush is determined to pound a square peg into a round hole. This is the STUPIDEST thing he has done this year. He had a preapproved list of CONSERVATIVES. Instead of picking one of them, he intentionally went out of his way to poke Webb and Warner in the eye just to prove a point, and for what? Many posters have called Webb Senator Jackass. I think after today we should instead be saying President Jackass. If any of you say this is part of a larger strategy to help get Keisler or Southwick through than you must also believe that Bush was just using Miers as a Trojan Horse to get Alito through. Please!!! Bush is a failed president and this is just icing on the cake. He took our permanent majority and blew it away with incompetent thing after incompetent thing. Because of him President Hillary will become a reality - something unthinkable after the 2004 election. He has destroyed the Republican Party, the federal judiciary, and with the election of Hillary - the nation!

you just made them roll out of my head

I never suggested he consulted Webb and Warner. But he was never obligated to pick from their list, as good an idea as I've repeatedly said I thought it would be, and there's no reason not doing so should automatically be a poke in the eye (no matter what show Webb decides to put on in response). As Matthew noted, Getchell was on the Virginia Bar Association list, so that does count for something.

the Getchell bio page says he is admitted to "Various United States Courts of Appeals including the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits" maybe it's just late, but I'm finding that formulation hilariously funny. :D

(and later it says he's appeared before all courts of appeals)

his resume looks impeccable, I must say.

again though, it would have been better to get the goahead beforehand and pair him with one of the SCOVA justices or another from the Warner/Webb list (though perhaps that would have just been more reason to process the pre-approved nominee and stall Getchell. still, I think its probably the only way to appease Webb and get him past the Dems, as silly as they'll look stonewalling such an impressive candidate).

I do not mean to take out my aggressions on you. However this is the worst thing that could have happened. It would have been better for Bush to not do anything. This is just one more thing for Leahy to add to his diatribe when he gives speeches on judges. It is not worth arguing the president has the right to nominate anyone he wants. The Senate must also offer advice and CONSENT. Instead of sinking to a debate on separation of powers, lets get some conservative judges confirmed. These nominees is Bush's attempt to assert the power of the presidency and has no intention of getting these fine men confirmed. I for one will no longer be a part of it. When Bush decides to quit acting like a two year old, I will come back. Until then I encourage Leahy to sent all of these nonconfirmable nominees - K & M, Getchell, Matthews, Shalom, and Conrad - back to Bush tomorrow. Honestly!!! I am sooooo mad right now. Is anyone else just totatlly pulling their hair out right now???

Why can't Conrad be confirmed? Have Dole or Burr signalled any problem?

my own apologies for being blunt. but take a deep breath. get some sleep. it'll be ok.

In case anyone's interested, here's a very good law review article about the history and future of the blue slip. The author suggests that "the executive branch take a more active role in identifying and publicizing what it perceives to be abuses of the procedure during the confirmation process."

Conrad has called the liberal agenda "drivel". Do you really think that the Dems will allow that type of slight to pass without some obstruction? In addition, Leahy has already expressed "serious" concerns about him. The only reason why the Dems allowed him to be confirmed as a district court judge in the first place is because they make it a policy not to block district court judges so that they can appear less partisan when they block COA judges. Conrad has no chance.

I'm really sad to hear about Keisler resigning from the Justice Department. I don't know how this will impact his nomination. On first sight, it doesn't look good. With Bolten's ultimatum that people resign if they don't plan to stick with the administration til January 2009, I guess he felt his chances for confirmation were low, and he needed to get a jump in salary for his family's sake. If Keisler is not confirmed, it will be a huge tragedy created by Bill Frist and other Senate Republicans. When they had the chance to confirm Keisler in the fall of 2006, they were too scared to challenge the Dems. We really shot ourselves in the foot on this one!

It doesn't matter if Dole and Burr support Conrad. Look at Southwick. It is only by the grace of Dianne Feinstein that he is likely to get confirmed. Trott and Cochran had to pull teeth to convert her. With all the angry liberal press against her now, do you think she will do the same for Conrad? In addition, Dole and Burr were useless in getting Boyle confirmed. Do you think they have grown a backbone since then?

Conrad has not called the liberal agenda drivel. He said that a particular book by a particular author contained "liberal drivel."

I'm sure there are also some writings by some conservative authors that contain "drivel". Nothing at this website, of course!

The book in question stated that, "To permit the execution of human beings is per se to permit torture." One can be opposed to the death penalty, and still realize that such a statement is silly liberal nonsense.

Conrad made his "liberal drivel" remark years before becoming a judge. It would border on a First Amendment violation to disqualify Conrad for such a remark, which he made during the same year (incidentally) that Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him to be Chief of the Campaign Finance Task Force.

Russ Feingold held up the nomination of Roslynn Mauskopf on the grounds that she too often sought the death penalty. Do you think that he will appreciate Conrad's derisive evaluation of a terminology with which he probably perfectly agrees? Not to mention, I think there are plenty of other Dem senators who think the death penalty is an advanced form of torture. It may not be fair, but remember that Leahy has already set the groundwork for opposing Conrad's current nomination by talking about Conrad's flaws during his district court nomination. Now that he is in control, Leahy can give form to his previous denunciations of Conrad by blocking him in committee. All Leahy has to do to achieve this goal is to not schedule a hearing for Conrad.

Something very big saved Mauskopf's nomination: she exposed a terrorist ring that wanted to blow up Kennedy Airport. After that, Feingold decided he would look foolish continuing to block her. Does Conrad have something that dramatic to save his nomination?

On Monday Osteen, Reidinger and Sammartino (all district court nominations) will be confirmed.

Is there already any indication when a vote on Southwick might be scheduled?

Is Mauskopf also getting a vote on Monday? If not, it is further proof about how petty Feingold and the Dems can be about the death penalty.

3 nominees already confirmed

Southwick and Elrod get confirmed in Sept.
Tinder gets a hearing in Sept, confirmed in Oct.
Haynes gets a hearing in Oct, confirmed in Nov.
? gets a hearing in Nov.

That puts us at 7 confirmations with an 8th on the way. Part of me thinks that Stone will be the November guy...the Dems might allow him through on the 3rd to safeguard the 4th.

It all depends on whether they want to focus on the 4th, or focus on putting more Reinhardts on the appeals courts (which the 3rd NJ seat will allow them to do, while the SC/NC seats won't).

By my count (and correct me if I am wrong)

There are 7 nominees on the Senate calendar: Reid obstructs

There is 1 nominee that needs a committee vote: Leahy obstructs

There are 12 that need committee hearings: Leahy obstructs

There are 7 that need ABA ratings: ABA obstructs

There are 22 seats that need a nominee: Bush obstructs

In my opinion, at every level, including the President, this process is going much slower than is necessary. Why dont all these people just do their jobs instead of playing Jr. High games. If the Senate doesnt approve of a nominee, then vote them down and make the President nominate someone else. Dont hold them in limbo. Somehow the American people need to realize how utterly petty and childish our politicans are acting in relationship to the confirmation of judges.

The GOP needs to push for reform in the system. Its is a winning issue. The blue slip and hold policies need to completely eliminated. And there needs to be time deadlines placed on the President to nominate once a seat is empty, on the JC to hold hearings and vote once a nominee is made and on the Senate as a whole to vote once a nominee is before them. None of them can be trusted to act in a timely manner on their own. Structual change must be made that forces them to do their jobs. The current process shows exactly why Americans have lost confidence in goverment.

Zero chance of either being confirmed.

maybe a zero chance of either being confirmed until either Rudy or Fred is president in 2009. :-)

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/another_justi...

"...instead of another referendum on the chaos at the Justice Department, Keisler's departure probably means he has given up any hope of securing the D.C. appeals court seat to which President Bush appointed him in 2006. Once Democrats regained control of the Senate, Keisler's nomination went on the fast track to nowhere."

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-nominations-to-federal-appel...

This blog post from the American Constitution Society attacks Gretchell, Southwick and Elrod.

From the link:

"Mr. Getchell's appellate cases include upholding the constitutionality of Virginia's redistricting (Wilkins); upholding the constitutionality of the Virginia medical malpractice cap (Pulliam); having Virginia consumer finance laws declared unconstitutional (NHEMA); having punitive damages declared unconstitutional as applied (Hugo's);"

No one's saying Getchell wouldn't be a superb judge. I'm sure he would be. But there is just not a chance in the world he gets confirmed with this Senate. He won't even get a hearing.

IIRC the WW list, which is now MONTHS old, looked to have one great, one very good, two goods, and one maybe on it. Maybe someone can post it again. For heaven's sake, this is low-hanging fruit. Pick a couple.

Oh, and now Keisler's resigned. Beauty.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senator-lott-drawing-fire-again-on-r...

"When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) broke ranks and voted with Judiciary Committee Republicans in August to back the most contentious judicial nominee of the 110th Congress, she surprised nearly everyone with a stake in the battle. Everyone, perhaps, except Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Prior to the vote, Feinstein didn’t inform Lott that she had planned to give the decisive vote to back the nomination of Mississippian Leslie Southwick, and she insists that Lott was not influential in allaying her concerns.

“I assuage my own concerns, and I do that on everyone,” Feinstein told The Hill on Thursday. “I have my own brain, and I try and use it.”"

Again, courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles...

"Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., issued a statement complaining that recommendations to the president by him and Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., for the court had been ignored."

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131960&ran=99003

"Announcement of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court nomination, made as Bush was in Australia for a summit with Pacific leaders, drew an immediate rebuke from Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and a statement of disapproval from Republican Sen. John Warner."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR200709...

"Warner said he has told the White House that "I steadfastly remain committed to the recommendations stated in my joint letter with Senator Webb." Both senators interviewed more than a dozen candidates before making the selections.

The dispute clouds prospects for filling seats on what has been known as one of the nation's most conservative appellate courts, one that has played a key role in terrorism cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_civ_692.html

"Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division has announced his resignation, effective September 21, 2007. Mr. Keisler was sworn in as the head of the Civil Division on July 1, 2003. Prior to that, Mr. Keisler served as Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General and Acting Associate Attorney General. He joined the Justice Department on June 24, 2002."

If Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, Conrad, Matthews, and Getchell aren't acted upon before the end of the year, they should all be recess appointed.

Mary Donohue has withdrawn her nomination to the Northern District of New York. Emminently qualified as a former district attorney, Supreme Court judge, and lieutenant governor, she was nevertheless sunk by the despotic Gov. Eliot Spitzer and despicable Chuckie Schumer. Too bad.

On April 17, 2007, after candidate interviews and investigations, the Virginia State Bar’s Judicial Nominations Committee concluded that Duncan Getchell is "Highly Qualified" to be nominated to the Fourth Circuit.

* The Virginia State Bar noted that Mr. Getchell "is of the highest integrity," "is temperamentally well-suited," "lacks any bias or prejudice for or against any individuals or classes of litigants who would appear before him, and would be able to act with impartiality as a judge."
* Overall, the Virginia State Bar found that Mr. Getchell is "regarded as an extremely able and intelligent appellate practitioner by his colleagues" and has "excellent communication skills" based on the record before the Bar.
* As the Virginia State Bar noted, "Mr. Getchell has achieved a high level of distinction in the field of appellate law, and his long and exceptionally varied appellate experience render him a highly suitable candidate for a position on the United States Court of Appeals."

So why didn't Webb and Warner approve Getchell in the first place? That's the pertinent question, not why Bush didn't go with one of their picks. They didn't because Getchell's a real conservative!

Somebody suggested that Matthews does not have Senator Graham's support, and that this will kill his chances of confirmation. I understand that Senator Graham is now fully and publicly supporting Matthews' nomination. While he might have preferred someone else, there is no political upside whatsoever for him to be agnostic about this nomination. Matthews is very highly regarded by almost everyone in the legal community in South Carolina. Lots of Republicans here have real questions about Graham, and I frequently find myself wondering what he is doing. Nevertheless, while Graham isn't half as smart as Matthews, he isn't stupid. He's smart enough to know that it would hurt him to stand in the way of this nomination.

I expect that Matthews will run into considerable opposition. But I look forward to seeing him deal with Democrat lightweights like Kennedy and Leahy at his confirmation hearing. It will be like watching someone fencing with a manikin.

Grammnesty will just sweep Matthews under the rug. He wont publically oppose him. He will just make sure he never has to go on the record. It will be even slicker than his abuse of Haynes. Graham has got to go!!!