ConfirmThem

Let me just say that I used to live in the SF bay area and while I am not saying that Feinstein is my idea of a good Senator by any means, she can be quite reasonable.

She was by most metrics, a solid mayor in SF.

This just adds to her reputation.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

:-)

I agree that DiFi CAN be reasonable. Which is why it is so perplexing when she is so unreasonable. I'm so glad that she could be reasoned with on Judge Southwick.

Good. That was a very honorable thing to do.

Didn't DiFi also save the bacon of Jeff Sutton - her positive vote kept him from being filibustered.

Hopefully Keisler, Conrad, and others will get moved out. It will be interesting to see why Feinstein made the deal she did. Deinstein is on Appropriations (as is Cochran), so perhaps they reached an understanding.

Let's see whether Bush will send up a few more nominees when Congress returns.

the last two paragraphs of this article should scare you into it.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/02/courtin_the_left_and...

Please join me in thanking Sen. Dianne Feinstein for doing the right thing. No matter what state you live in, why not call her office? I will. Thank her for pointing out the unfair tactics of Southwick's opponents, and for sending the Southwick nomination to the floor.

Her Washington office number is (202) 224-3841.

Is there anywhere to read or hear her speech? Did she promise to vote for Southwick on the floor?

We seem to be looking at 2 September confirmations, hopefully.

She doesn't have to vote for him on the floor. I'd be surprised if he didn't, but Southwick will get 50 votes.

Aren't these votes the same as floor votes, a la SCOTUS noms, or are they different.

I recall at least one Dem moaning in '91 that he'd already voted for Thomas when the Hill lies erupted.

And props to DiFi. Like AMK, her instincts are far more in her case moderate than her rhetoric would suggest.

I do agree there has to be some deal, but it's likely worth it. The kossacks have to be enraged... ;)

AC1, Feinstein did not explicitly say that she would vote for Southwick but she did say that she thought he would make a good COA judge when confirmed. That sounds to me like she definitely thinks he will be. I am still worried about the liberal special interest groups. They are furious. Here is a taste of their fury:

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-senate-judiciary-committee-a...

"According to Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Committee's decision is "a slap in the face to African Americans and all people of good will. It belies the committee’s commitment to equal justice under the law and makes a mockery of the judicial confirmation process." Ralph Neas of People for the American Way said "It is incomprehensible that someone with such a disturbing legal record is being pushed toward confirmation. That’s not what Americans voted for . . . ."

Today is not a final victory. We still have to figure out how to convince Reid to actually schedule a senate vote. We can't let Ralph Neas and company getting the upper hand again.

Normally, a nominee can face up to three three separate votes before he is confirmed:

1) a committee vote
2) a cloture vote
3) a final floor vote in front of the full senate

Usually, noncontroversial nominees don't have to worry about a cloture vote. As a delaying tactic, Reid if he wants could schedule a cloture vote on Southwick. Historically, though, the Dems have NOT scheduled cloture votes on nominees who received at least one Dem vote in committee. Because of this, I don't think he would schedule one on Southwick.

BTW, just because a senator may vote to pass a nominee out of the judiciary committee, it doesn't mean that he has to vote to confirm him later on in the full senate vote.

"Is there anywhere to read or hear her speech? Did she promise to vote for Southwick on the floor?"

Goto www.cspan.org There is a link to "Senate Judiciary Cmte. Business Meeting (8/2/2007)".

http://www.saveourcourts.org/press_room/remote-page.jsp?itemID=31473564

"Wade Henderson, LCCR president and CEO, said: “The committee’s favorable vote for Leslie Southwick’s confirmation is a slap in the face to African Americans and all people of good will. It belies the committee’s commitment to equal justice under the law and makes a mockery of the judicial confirmation process.”

Nancy Zirkin, LCCR vice president and director of policy, said: “We are taking the extraordinary step of calling for a Senate filibuster of this nominee to restore balance and order and to ensure that Leslie Southwick doesn’t take a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” "

This is what I was talking about earlier. If the liberal special interest groups get their way, Reid will call for a cloture vote which will allow Dem partisans like Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Clinton, Boxer and Obama filibuster.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24117

"Neas noted that not all of Southwick’s record has been provided to the Judiciary Committee, including records from his tenure in the Bush 41 Department of Justice and more than two year’s worth of unpublished decisions by the Mississippi Court of Appeals in cases on which he voted but did not write an opinion. “Given what we already know about Southwick, it would be irresponsible for Senators to proceed with his nomination,” said Neas."

When did Reid say he would not bring Southwick up for a vote if he passed committee?

I look at the speech from the 21st on this site:

"The members of the Judiciary Committee will decide whether to report this nomination to the full Senate. If they choose to report the nomination, I will schedule action as quickly as I can. If they reject the nomination, that action will also be on the merits."

I think there is some confusion.

Stay on offense. The Senate tomorrow will probably go into Executive Session. If Southwick has not been reported to the Executive Calendar by tomorrow (delaying tactic by the Dems), McConnell can file a motion to proceed. Such a motion is debatable. But on the last day before the August recess I don't believe the Dems will want to filibuster. Just what McConnell wants, a Democratic filibuster that goes into next week. McConnell could talk all the way until Labor Day on a Democratic filibuster. In effect McConnell will be shutting down the Senate under a Democratic led filibuster. That would be a sight to behold. Reid would throw the mother of all tantrums.

Probably won't happen. The Republican's play too nice and they will allow Southwick to be held until September.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291748,00.html

When I read the FoxNews article in a previous thread, I regarded the following seemingly illogical statement as a misprint:

" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will not bring the nomination to the floor if Southwick cannot get out of committee."

How could Reid bring any nominee out of committee without a committee vote unless a discharge petition was filed on the nominee's behalf? Since we all know Reid would never willingly do such a thing for a controversial Bush nominee like Southwick, I assumed that he was referring to a situation where Reid would have the natural right as majority leader (i.e. Southwick was already on the Executive Calendar) to call up Southwick's nomination.

Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Courtesy of How Appealing;

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&...

"Roberts obliquely addressed polls that assess the court's performance when he spoke in November about how lifetime appointments insulate judges from politics.

"Not a single person voted for me. If you don't like what I do, it's kind of too bad," he said. "I'm not there to make judgments based on my personal policy positions.""

Could we interpret that statement as a promise from Reid for a vote? I guess he could say floor action means a cloture vote.

The reasons behind Feinstein's vote are likely fascinating, though probably undiscoverable. Perhaps they substituted Southwick for Keisler in the purported original DC judgeship to 9th Cir. deal. Who knows?

I wouldn't celebrate a Southwick confirmation victory just yet. The Senate now goes on a five week recess, which is lots of time for the liberal hate groups like PFAW and AFJ to spread their lies and poison. Remember what effective use they made against Southwick of the one week Memorial Day Recess.

Beware of Senate intermediate votes and actions just before a recess.

Reid is still pigeonholed, though. I'm sure he will try to stall as you said by trying not to bring him on the floor.

Would be very nice though to see Southwick and the 5 DJs get through tomorrow.

That is the only way I can interpret it, yeah. He made that statement 10 days ago.

Obviously he was counting on DiFi to sink the nomination.

What possible reason would DiFi (who was already unpopular with PFAW even before today) have to sink Keisler's nomination, but not Southwick's?

In today's SJC, Hatch talked about how the Republicans in the 106th Congress confirmed TWO very controversial Clinton nominees (Berzon and Paez). I doubt they would jettison Keisler for Southwick. Rather, I think they will press for the Dems to confirm TWO "controversial" Bush nominees in the 111th Congress. With Southwick as the first "controversial" nominee, Keisler is by default the second "controversial" nominee. Why? Because now there are now no other "controversial" nominees besides Keisler. The only other possible "controversial" nominees are not eligible to even be considered in the next five months. There has only been one Fourth Circuit nominee so far (Conrad) and it will be just barely possible to get him a hearing before the December recess. In addition, even if Bush sends up four more Fourth Circuit nominees tomorrow, none of them are likely to be able to get hearings before February.

I think Feinstein has a few pet issues which she protects like a guard dog, ie NARAL abortion policy.

But on something like the 5th circuit? Doubt she cares.

I am glad to see that Hatch brought up the confirmation of those 2 extremely liberal nominees. I posted that exact comment in an earlier thread. I posted the floor votes on both nominees and and they both received over 35 negative votes. We can use this to argue against Leahy when he says no controversial nominees can be confirmed after 1/1/08.

ROSE:

But you don't think abortion is a national issue?

GIULIANI:

Sure it is a national issue, but it may very well be, since it is an issue -- it 's an issue of conscience for people, a deep personal issue where some people morally believe it's wrong, and some people strongly morally believe it's right. My conclusion about that is that government can' t dictate and intervene and make that choice. I think...

ROSE:

The federal government or the state government or no government?

GIULIANI:

I think -- honestly, I think it's better -- my own personal view is it' s better off if that is left to people to choose, and then what you do is; you do everything you can to correctly limit the number of abortions, encourage adoption instead of abortion. I supported the ban on partial birth abortion...

ROSE:

Right.

GIULIANI:

... when it passed, and when -- and the decision of the Supreme Court, I agree with. I agree with parental notification. But ultimately, I think this is not the area where government should -- should be completely dictating.

This looks to me like he is saying that state governments should not be able to make laws regarding abortion. I want to support this guy but he makes it really difficult.

I have the same problem. In a situation like abortion, Rudy is wrong to say that we should just leaving everything to a woman and her family and her husband and her doctor (and maybe her priest). Those people often disagree, vehemently. The full force of the government is now brought to bear against any of those people who would interfere with a woman's abortion decision, and is now brought to bear against the fetus by denying it the protection of those who have a fundamental right to protect it.

Rudy says, "my conclusion about that is that government can't dictate and intervene and make that choice" but that conclusion has never been reached by a congressional majority, much less by the supermajority necessary to enshrine that conclusion in the Constitution.

I personally have some sympathy for the notion that the Constitution may forbid prior restraints on abortion, which may constitute unreasonable seizures if subsequent penalties can be imposed instead. But Roe went way, way too far and blew the due process clause out of all proportion.

Possible reasons: some quid pro quo on another issue 'dear to her heart.'

or: she could be operating as a 'covert agent' for the Dem. Senate leadership to let Southwick go through to the floor. Then they can sink Keisler in Committee this fall. After all, they clearly don't really care that much anyway about defeating Southwick per se. That's just a sop to their idiot leftist base and maybe their idiot colleage, Teddy. Keisler's scalp would ultimately be worth much more.

I'd always said that the Southwick battle was basically a warm-up for opposing Keisler. That said, the Dems have taken it many miles further than I ever anticipated. It may have gotten a bit out of their control due to the leftist special interest groups.

I don't see why Keisler's scalp is greater when leftwing opposition groups have barely mentioned his name at this time.

If you're right, the Dem leadership just pissed off PFAW for no reason at all. Why sink only Keisler when you can sink Keisler and Southwick?

Leahy never would have put Southwick on the meeting today if he knew the outcome.

Still necessary? On one hand, recess appointing him brings the nomination back to the forefront of the debate. On the other, it might upset DiFi or Kohl.

There are a lot of variables to consider when analyzing Keisler's situation. It may be possible that Feinstein has already agreed to help get Keisler confirmed as soon as her deal with Kyl is sealed with the passage into law of the Court Security Improvement Act. In that case, there is no reason to recess-appoint Keisler.