ConfirmThem

Politics in this country is cyclical. Just look over history and when one party has had won several elections in a row, then it seems that the over party starts to win. Generations seem to react against the prior one and the other party starts to win. The GOP has held the presidency 28 out of the last 40 years. That is a pretty good run. What if our run is over? What if the Dems have the WH 28 of the next 40 years? Is it realistic, against the backdrop of history, to expect that we will keep winning? I say all of this because in these 28 years, we have never once obtained a majority on the Supreme Court. What if our time has now passed? What if our chance is gone?

I sadly do agree that our chance will be gone - but only if we lose this election. In the next four years Stevens will definately step down, Ginsburg will probably step down, and Souter might step down. We had a chance back with Reagon / Bush 1 to obtain a majority on the SC and lost it with the O'Connar, Kennedy and Souter appointments. We have a rare second shot at it, right now. However, if Hillary or Obama is elected, we will need to wait for another generation for a chance at a majority on the SC.

That is why electability is the most important issue in my opinion (assuming of course they are at least 'in the ball park') in this primary season.

I sincerely believe McCain is our best chance to beat a Hillary - Obama ticket. My Bush-hating friends even like McCain. Here is direct quote from one of them today: the reason I want McCain is because he is the only one
of all the candidates I am reasonably sure wants the good of the country more than the good of himself.

I know McCain has angered alot of us with the Gang of 14 deal, but we need to be asking the question 'Would McCain appoint solid conservatives to the courts?', and I am convinced he would.

That gang of 14 deal says: We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate.

What is wrong with consultation? I think Bush did well consulting and getting opinions from Reid, Leahy and others regarding SC appointments. If they are 'heard', I think that goes a long way in smoothing the way for confirmation.

Haven't many of us argued that Bush would have been wise to pick the most conservative off the Warner list for the VA COA judicial vacancies? Or at least picked one off the list! What good is it nominating Saad and Estrada and Broyle and Pickering and..... if they never are confirmed?

If McCain is elected president, the former senator I predict will have a great 'confirmation percentage' because he knows how to 'work the system', but will still appoint solid conservatives (Did he not say very positive things about Estrada?).

I hope you're right about McCain, because it looks like he just got a big boost by Huckabee winning Iowa instead of Romney winning Iowa. See here.

The point about the Advice and Consent Clause is that it is specifically designed to give the President sole responsibility to choose the nominees who he thinks are best. Only after a person is nominated does the Constitution require the advice of the Senate. Presidents are free to consult Senators beforehand if that will help the President pick the person that the President thinks is best, but there isn't supposed to be any required advice before someone is nominated. I'm concerned that maybe McCain doesn't take that view.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR200801...

A second D.C. district court position is opening up in May. Reagan appointee Chief Judge Thomas Hogan is taking senior status in May. I doubt seriously the Dems will allow Bush to fill the position. Bush could be his own worst enemy in this case. Bush has yet to name a successor to Clinton appointee Gladys Kessler who took senior status last January.

He appears to be Mr. 'compassionate conservative' 2.0, minus W's backing from the pro-business coalition of the GOP.

43 was a blessing to the courts...I don't see how much Huckabee will be different.

He is the most pro life candidate of all, very little risk he will appoint liberals. There may be a few pro life anti Business potential Judges out their but not many. I think other than Fred Thompson he may pick the Best Judges.

A string of Democratic Presidents would be bad, um, ok. Because they would appoint liberal justices. And liberal justices would be bad, um, ok.

I understand that the Senate's "consent" must come after nomination. I don't quite see, however, what the purpose of the "advise" is once the nomination is made.

Two possibilities:

(1) to advise the nominee and the president how to execute the office to which the person is confirmed; and/or

(2) to indicate not just passive acceptance of a nominee, but affirmative endorsement.

Things are a lot worse.

Even if a Republican miraculously gets elected, he will face a strongly Democratic Senate. Right now it's 51-49. But it's impossible, given the seats that are up, that the Rs will gain. In fact, a net gain of 5 for the Democrats would be very easy for them. Higher gains are also possible. But let's say it's 5 (with Republican losses in Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska and one of Maine/Oregon/Minnesota, offset by a gain in Louisiana). So then we are at 56-44.

Pretty hard to get conservative judges confirmed that way. Especially at the Supreme Court-level. Now, of the Republicans the most conservative candidates from a judicial point of view is clearly Thompson and he doesn't look like he's taking off.

Giuliani has promised strict constructionists and is backed by Theodore Olsen et al. but still, he's a pro-choice social liberal from New York....

McCain has tended to vote for Bush/Reagan judges, but is he a conservative? And given his coziness with his Democratic buddies in the Senate is McCain really going to nominate the fifth vote to overturn Roe should Stevens step down during his presidency?

And don't get me started on Huckabee. There is nothing to suggest he'd appoint conservative judges despit his pro-life tendencies.

Romeny may want to keep his campaign promises, but again, what could he really do with 56 Democrats and a few socially liberal RINOs (Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter et al.) thrown in the mix.

A vacancy on the Court in the next presidential term, with a Republican as president, obviously presents the specter of the fifth vote to overturn Roe.

If you think a Giuliani or a Romney or a McCain will be able to get that accomplished with a 56-44 Democratic majority in the Senate you are dreaming.

It seems we have missed our chance.

Now, a disastrous one-term of an Obama or Hillary might not be so bad. Let's say that only one of the liberal justices goes. Maybe Stevens or Ginsburg. But the others don't, and then the Republicans rally again and start winning seats in 2010 and win the White House back in 2012.

It may well be that we'll have to wait that long to put the fifth conservative vote on the Court.

I don't see it happening anytime bfore then.

Frankly, I'm not sure that McCain would be better on judges than Giuliani, and Giuliani just might be okay. Anyway, I wouldn't despair quite yet. The incumbent has more than a year left in office. And Giuliani might actually hold his ground against the Senate.

It's not a matter of holding his ground -- it's a matter of counting votes.

No matter how committed the pro-choice President Giuliani might be about nominating a fifth vote to overturn Roe, what do you think the chances of such a nominee to get confirmed in a 56-44 Democratic senate?

President Giuliani ought to nominate exactly who he thinks would be the best possible SCOTUS justice. And that nominee ought to say nothing to Giuliani or anyone else about how he or she would vote on Roe, which is pretty much what every nominee has always done. And if the Senate denies an up-down vote (contrary to what it has always done for SCOTUS nominees), then Giuliani ought to just let the position go vacant until there's an up-down vote. And if the nominee loses the up-down vote, then Giuliani ought to nominate someone else who would make an equally good justice, without any compromises whatsoever. That's the way the system is supposed to work, per Hamilton in the Federalist.

It strikes me as possible, though, that Giuliani might sign a statute into law codifying Roe v. Wade, and that might be the quiet quid pro quo that allows him to appoint a justice who would overturn Roe. It's not a nice scenario, but it would be progress.

Well, maybe a Souter-type Republican would get confirmed by a 56-44 Demcrotic senate.

Maybe Consuela!

But not any of the type of judges we want. Alito or Roberts would not get confirmed.

They would get voted down. On ideological grounds, thus setting a dangerous precedent, i.e. liberal judges can be confirmed in all kinds of scenarios, but real conservatives ONLY when there is a conservative Republican president and a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Sebate.

That's why it might be better to have a Democratic President in 2008.

If the first one is voted down, send up another having the same philosophy. Let the seat go vacant. Federalist 66:

"It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy."

Suppose Giuliani or McCain or Romney or Thompson or Huckabee is president. Two activist judges retire. That leaves seven, who would be very able to decide cases.

If the Democrats are busy rejecting nominees then they aren't hiking our taxes or otherwise inflicting damage on the country.

I'll take it.

I have posted a longer version of my argument.

I would support a Kennedy-type conservative to replace Stevens or Ginsburg. Such an appointment would still significantly move the SC to the right. And such a nomination I think would be confirmed by a 56-44 Senate.

But lets not give up on the Senate yet. Two years ago, nobody was guessing the Democrats would pick up 6 seats last year. So the Republicans could still do surprisingly well - especially if we get a candidate that would have coattails.