ConfirmThem

On environmental cases, we know exactly where Justice Kennedy will stand. You almost don't even have to know the arguments. Kennedy thinks that he needs to be Captain Planet and save the world from ourselves on environmental issues before the court.

of course, if he comes down like we expect on the PBA cases, we'll all be singing "Captain Planet... he's our hero" ;)

Given his earlier dissent in the earlier PBA case, I think Kennedy will vote to maintain the federal PBA ban. He might, however, not do it in as strict terms as Scalia or Thomas would do. That doesn't particularly bother me, though, because I think the Fab Four with Kennedy's help are setting up a framework in which Alito's previously formulated plan of an incremental evisceration of Roe will be implemented.

I think you're exactly right BoBo...but for that ultimate end (and quite probably for anything further than PBA), Alexham's title is still frustratingly apt: we still need that elusive 5th vote.

how's this for a slogan: time to "slow bleed" Roe? ;)

we need a 5th soon, and hopefully a 6th, so we have some margin for error for when Scalia leaves the bench (may the day never come).

Scalia is brilliant. No doubt about it.

Now if we could just get Ginsburg or Stevens to retire.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich

I must admit that while I'm not as philosophically in line with Giuliani as I am with many of the other candidates (the more Sam Brownback talks about private accounts for social security and an optional flat tax, I'm afraid I might be most in line with him on EVERY issue,) when I look at his poll numbers and think that he might be out best hope for retaining the White House and replacing Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and possibly even Kennedy and Scalia with more Sclias, Robertses, and Alitos (if he is true to his word,) it becomes very, very tempting close my eyes and vote for Giuliani - even though I've previously sworn that I couldn't vote for him in the primary and I still have very serious questions as to what exactly a "strict constructionist" is to Giuliani.

Steve Forbes's assurance that he'd be the fiscal/economic conservative we're looking for is also really assuring. And when it comes to who in the field would be the most assertive when it comes to entitlement reform and winning the War on Terror, it's hard to imagine anyone better suited than Giuliani.

Maybe a President Giuliani with a Senate with enough social conservatives to filibuster any and all socially liberal legislation, thus keeping it from Giuliani's pen, would be the GOP's best possible outcome in 2008? I also would like to see Giuliani make a pledge like Romney did when he was running for governor of Massachusetts - that he didn't want to see a change in American federal social policy during his reign.

If Rudy made a promise that laws to make us more socially conservative or socially liberal came before him that he would veto all of them - so lawmakers shouldn't waste their time with them - I think that social conservatives would be very, very happy with that approach. And it would also be difficult for liberals to demonize him as wanting to "turn back the hands of time."

The best arguments for this case would be that while social policy is important, it is best left to the states, and the federal government has far more pressing matters facing it - entitlements, the war on terror, fixing the federal balance sheet, and improving how government works in general. And a court filled with more Scalias, Robertses, and Alitos would help return more of this power to the states.

With the shape that the GOP brand is in right now, I'm wondering how choosy beggars can afford to be. Maybe after an 8-year successful Giuliani reign, the GOP brand will be fixed, and we can afford to send up another social conservative like Jeb Bush in 2016.

Or maybe a Vice President Newt Gingrich will be ready to assume the mantle?

From his last footnote:

"It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant. This reading of the statute defies common sense."

(love the name btw)

you may be right. nevertheless, I still can't vote for him in the primary. and I still don't completely trust him to nominate good judges, or if he does, to stand up to the Senate if they vote down the first. but I trust him more than the Dems. it might be the best we can get, but I'd hope we can hope for better...

I've said before one advantage to a President Giuliani is that Rockefeller Republicans like Souter and Stevens might be more willing to let him name their replacement (but if their comfort level proves justified, we're done for)...

but I very much doubt that Rudy would "fix" the Republican brand, unless you mean in the same sense one fixes a dog. I don't think there's much chance we'd get another Republican president to follow immediately after 4 or 8 years of Rudy, and certainly not a conservative one. and if that's the case, there's a very good chance that Scalia and/or Kennedy could be replaced by a Dem, which again means, if Rudy doesn't come through with multiple originalist justices, we're done for.

I also doubt you'd get 41 Senators to hold together to filibuster egregious social engineering. heck, we can't even get a majority to vote down funding snake oil research, which Rudy would certainly sign (this is another big reason why I'm coming closer and closer to jumping on the Romney bandwagon, as he's the only major candidate that would hold true to W's courageous moral and ethical stand on the issue).

The thing is that with Brownback you'll get good judges. Brownback is credited for helping prevent Miers from getting on the court.

With Giuliani, you'll get judges like Kennedy, O'Conner, and Scooter -- all judges appointed by candidates who promised -- like John Kerry did -- to appoint strict constructionists.

The whole "electability" arguement is silly. Democrats all voted for John Kerry because he was viewed as the most electable and he lost big.

People used to say that Reagan was unelectable, but he was elected. Dukais was up double-digits in the polls, but he lost big.

In my opinion, Giuliani and Romney are not electable. They simply will lose GOP base votes from real Americans we simply refuse to vote for them. Giuliani is someone who many, many religious conservatives will simply not vote for. The liberals, in the end, will still vote Democrat.

If the GOP nominates a social 'moderate' or liberal and the election becomes about Iraq, the GOP will lose big. Remember than in 2006, the number one issue was gay 'marriage' -- the GOP won big. In 2008, it was Iraq, and the GOP lost big.

The GOP needs to nominate strong social conservatives with a consistant record to have a chance. Guiliani and Romney just don't fit in the catagory. They are not electable, in my opinion.

Would AK have voted the way he did in the EPA case if he wouldnt have been the 5th vote for the Conservatives, instead maybe the 6th vote in a hypothetical world where Souter would have actually been conservative? Would he have changed his vote to stay in the majority?

Yes, Kennedy would have voted the same way even if he was in the minority instead of the majority.

Taking a break from endless speculation about Rudy/McCain/Romney/ F. Thompson/Gingrich/T. Thompson/et al.’s chances, following is a dose of present reality, the actual progress on Bush’s judicial nominees in March:

Circuit Confirmations: 1 (Hardiman)
District Confirmations: 6
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 1 (Hardiman)
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 4 (included in “Confirmations” above)
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 0
District Nominees had Hearings: 3
# of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 1 (3/13/07)
Circuit Nominations: 3 (Kethledge, Murphy, Elrod)
District Nominations: 8
Total Nominees Pending on 3/31: 29
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 3/31: 0

The best we can expect in April is one Circuit confirmation and 6 District confirmations (the 3 who had hearings on March 13th and the 3 W.D. Michigan nominees who had hearings last September). A Circuit nomination will be dicey. The Senate reconvenes on April 10th and a hearing must be held that week in order for Keisler or Livingston to be confirmed in April. I still believe that Senate Democrats will require another hearing for Keisler, using Leahy’s already-stated excuse that his hearing last August was “unfair” and “inadequate”.

I also predict that only 3 District nominees will receive hearings in April. As of now, no Judicial Nomination hearings have been scheduled by the Judiciary Committee.
That means hearings for 3 more must be held in the first week of May in order to confirm 6 in May.

Bottom line: As long as Democrats remain in Senate majority, the best that Republicans can hope for (and should insist on) is 7 confirmations per month (1 Circuit and 6 District). That means a minimum of 2 hearings per month for 7 nominees starting in May. Amidst all the fun chatter about Presidential nominees and hypothetical Supreme Court nominees, we need to keep our attention focused on these figures. I assure you that I will do so.

"District Nominations" should be 9, not 8. One nomination was for a future vacancy on June 1st. Sorry

You have to consider, though, that Ohio looks to be in great peril in 2008. We put up a great candidate for governor there, Ken Blackwell, and lost. The Ohio GOP's election of Bob Taft to be governor was truly the worst possible thing that they could have done, and it's going to take a long time to rebuild the state party there. It's possible that the idiots who voted for Bob Taft in the primary in Ohio way back when have actually helped greatly diminish the GOP's chances in 2008. Even Giuliani loses in all head-to-head matchups except those with Obama.

On the other hand, Giuliani seems to be winning all of the theoretical matchups in Pennsylvania. If we lose Ohio, we need someone who can win Pennsylvania - where the state GOP hasn't been exactly steller, but hasn't had the same problems that the Ohio GOP has had. Wisconsin and New Hampshire went for Kerry by a smaller percentage than Ohio went Republican, too. So a Giuliani might be able to bring those states on board with the promise of Scalias, Robertses, and Alitos to the court.

I'm afraid of more Kennedys and O'Connors as well. And while I agree that they'd be better than Stevens and Ginsburg, I do not agree that we should settle for those kinds of justices.

If Theodore Olson weren't advising Giuliani on the judiciary, I'd be very afraid. But the presence of Olson moves me more into the timid category.

With regard to electability in the 2004 election, wasn't Kerry more electable than Howard Dean? Howard Dean probably would have lost in a 49-state landslide. John Kerry made it close. He was still a deeply flawed candidate, but he was a better candidate than Howard Dean would have been.

You have to remember - this is not a national election, it is 50 statewide elections. A national election would change the calculus drastically. We would be worried about holding onto Dubya's 3 million vote lead, not his couple hundred thousand vote victory in Ohio.

Sam Brownback cannot turn Pennsylvania. He'd probably lose it by the same margin Santorum lost PA, and Ohio by a similar margin that DeWine and Blackwell lost.

We need someone who can win. If Giuliani can simultaneously restore the GOP's fiscal and economic conservative brand image - as the trusted stewards of the nation's finances and national security, then that will set the stage for the GOP to be re-empowered to assert our social agenda post-Giuliani.

That would be especially so if Giuliani took Gingrich as his VP.

I'm most sympathetic to Romney right now, but his multiple changes on so many issues (and especially seeing the ad he took out against the Flat Tax in 1996) has really caused me to wonder. He's moved the right direction on so many issues, and I think it's wonderful. But it's hard to imagine that he's that firmly rooted in any of these.

I'm reminded of Arnold's first campaign in California when he ran as a conservative. Then he had trouble getting a conservative agenda passed, and he wanted to get stuff done. So what did he do? He got a liberal agenda passed. I'm a little bit afraid of the same thing happening with Romney.

"*For you Roberts and Alito skeptics, please note that the Chief wrote a separate dissent and Alito joined both Roberts and Scalia's dissents."

Indeed - it was nice to see all four sign on to both dissents.

I'm reminded of Arnold's first campaign in California when he ran as a conservative. Then he had trouble getting a conservative agenda passed, and he wanted to get stuff done. So what did he do? He got a liberal agenda passed. I'm a little bit afraid of the same thing happening with Romney.

I'm more than a little bit afraid of the same thing happening with Rudy Guiliani!

isn't even pretending to be a socon (I don't really think Romney is "pretending" or pandering, for the most part) - he's merely giving us a very polite middle finger.

I don't worry at all about Rudy going Arnold on us. I think that Rudy, on policy, will do exactly what he tells us he will do. Rudy is the type who digs in his heels and fights for what he thinks is right. Now, what I fear, is that we don't exactly see eye to eye on all of these things. From his RNC speech in 2004, he said, "We don't have all of the right ideas, and they don't have all of the wrong ideas. Sometimes our ideas are just more necessary than theirs." That quote has stuck with me because I keep wondering what exactly we might be wrong about and what Democrats might be right about. In almost 2.5 years, I haven't come up with anything. LOL

And to be fair, Romney showed a lot of backbone in Massachusetts with the exception of healthcare. RomneyCare appears to be Mitt Romney's "I just want to do something" legislation. And it looks like it might have been a big mistake, even though Heritage advised him on it.

In fact, I think that it may be the similarity in their healthcare proposals that makes me think that Romney go Arnold on us. But my hope is that this is Romney coming home to his natural positions. That he was just posturing in Massachusetts.

My biggest concerns with Rudy are:

1. If our definition of a strict constructionist/originalist squares up

2. Global Warming

3. Federal funding of abortion and embyronic stem cell research

Now if Theodore Olson sends Giuliani a list of steller finalists to send to the court, then that would be wonderful and I probably wouldn't have to worry about more Kennedys and O'Connors. The problem under that scenario, however, is - how many Attorney Generals have lasted all 8 years of a presidential administration? We need to keep Josh Bolton in The White House, too.

If Rudy's solution to Global Warming is to switch the nation over the nuclear energy, then that would put to rest my fears over him screwing up the economy in order to save us from ManBearPig.

The Senate GOP must filibuster all abortion-related legislation, and/or Rudy must pledge to hold social policy in statis for the duration of his presidency - vetoing all legislation that moves the nation one way or another. I mentioned some very good reasons for this. It takes contentious social issues off the table and allows us to work on the really serious problems facing the nation right now.

And if Rudy took Newt Gingrich as his Vice President, it would relieve a lot of fears, for sure.

I agree that in April Republicans can expect at most to get one COA nominee and six district court nominees confirmed.

As far as the COA nomination goes, next week will be pivotal. If no COA hearing is scheduled then, it is unlikely that any of the nominees without hearings (Livingston, Southwick, Kethledge, Murphy or Elrod) will get confirmed in April. Only Keisler will then have a chance. If that's the case, we will have to look at the executive business meeting agendas for Thursday, April 12th, and Thursday, April 19th. If his name doesn't appear on either one, then there is almost no way he can be confirmed by the end of the month WITH OR WITHOUT another hearing. It could be possible that there will be no COA confirmation, but I continue to hold out hope that Kyl and Feinstein have made a deal.

Concerning the district court nominees, I agree that Ozerden of Mississippi, Settle of Washington and Kapala of Illinois will get confirmed. I think the fate of the three West Michigan nominees is largely up to Brownback, and how he wants a vote on Neff to be done. If he wants a long debate, Democrats may balk.

Has Justice Kennedy's past environmental record been left of center? I hope, because if it was right of center it would indicate that Kennedy is up for shifting, and that with the newly contructed Court it's a whole new ball game.

I know where Kennedy has stood on most of the major issues, but I must say I'm quite ignorant what it is on the topics dealt with in today's case.

In last year's big EPA case, he sided softly with the conservatives. He wrote a concurrance that muddied the water and greatly upset Chief Justice Roberts.

It was that case where Scalia argued that even storm drains could be considered "navigable waters of the United States" under the liberal bloc's definition. Kennedy split the difference. This time, he signed on to the liberal opinion wholesale - which indicates he is much more comfortable signing on with liberals than with conservatives on environmental matters.

It's possible that Kennedy is moving or has moved left on environmental law.

the last decided such case was the Rapanos case ("navigable" waterways) last term. he sided with the 4 conservatives there, but in a concurrence that watered down the opinion.

I can't find any notable environmental cases between 2000-5 yet, and since Rapanos was before the court as currently constituted, I don't think the switch in sides such as it is says as much about a change in Kennedy as about the difference in the cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03gitmo.html?ex=1333252800&...

"Despite the apparent transparency, the real story was probably one that no justice acknowledged: the inability of the court’s four most liberal members, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg, to count on Justice Kennedy’s eventual vote.

While four votes are sufficient to grant a case under the court’s rules, five are of course necessary to win it. The liberal justices, or at least their leader, Justice Stevens, may well have decided that refraining at this point was the wiser course, given the risk that the case might come out the “wrong” way, from their point of view, with an affirmation of the appeals court’s decision that would then become a hard and fast Supreme Court precedent."

"Justice Stevens, who will turn 87 later this month, is also a strategic and canny inside player who knew that providing a fourth vote to hear the cases without assurance of Justice Kennedy’s position risked putting them on track to the wrong destination."

Is this a sign that Roberts and Alito are keeping Kennedy more in line than Stevens wants?

except on environmental cases. On those, Kennedy is a goner.

there was a post over at SCOTUSblog today that basically surmised that neither bloc was able to count on Kennedy's vote. I suspect that is likely correct. The conservatives were ok with taking it and winning, or not taking it and let the DC circuit's course stand. Its a partial win for our guys, but not a loss for the other guys either. It seems probable that Justice Kennedy knows his own mind no better than any of his colleagues do.

Of course, contra the NYT's PoV, Stevens ONLY would have provided the 4th vote with the assurance of Kennedy putting them on track to the wrong destination, which is why he didn't ;)

Marty Lederman:

What this obviously means is that Justice Kennedy was unwilling to tip his hand on the merits either way within the Court. (If either block of four Justices had been confident of gaining his vote, they presumably would have voted to grant the petition.)

What do you folks know about Chuck Rosenberg, the US Atty for the Eastern Dist of VA who just took the post of interim chief of staff for AGAG following Kyle Sampson's resignation? He has an impressive resume. Any chance he would be nominated to fill one of the VA vacancies on the 4th Circuit?

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/March/07_ag_158.html

drats, guess not a SCOTUS candidate at this time then

I don't think Rosenberg would become a judicial nominee so quickly after becoming Gonzales' chief of staff. Gonzales has a lot of restructuring ahead if he stays on as AG. At the present time, Gonzales is supposedly criss-crossing the country talking to various U.S. attorneys and asking for input. I'm sure he doesn't want a chief of staff who will ditch him as soon as possible for the next best job.

is Stevens trying to win him over because he's already decided he's leaving and needs to shore up their side, or is it just evidence he hates Bush and won't leave while he's President?

sadly, I suspect its probably the latter, but we have 3 more months to hope.

Rosenberg is being called AGAG's "interim" chief of staff, so I'm not sure how long he's sticking around. Maybe that only means AGAG ain't gonna be around long...

Here's my choice for the remaining Texas 5th Circuit vacancy (along with Prof. Earnest Young from UTexas Law School): Justice Dale Wainwright of the Texas Supreme Court.

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/03/05/33338215.shtml?Element_ID...

Is that Texas has so much awesome conservative legal talent, and so few seats on the 5th Circuit. :-)

Don't completely dump on Kennedy and write him off as a lost cause just yet. CJ ROBERTS is as convincing and smooth as they come and might be successful in swaying Kennedy, as opposed to Kennedy's many years of dealing/listeningt to Scalia and his brackish combative self in his dissents, which are brilliant, but nonetheless not easily embraced by a "nuanced moderate".

And remember, Kennedy was in the minority in Grutz v. Bollinger, with O'Connor the 5th vote to UPHOLD racial preferences. Does anyone think Alito is actually going to toe the Liberal line on race preferences? Come on! Re-argue this case and Mr. Bolinger and Co. can kiss race preferences good-bye, with Alito providing the 5th vote to REVERSE!!! And don't forget, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Bush v Gore.

I know, KENNEDY is a flake, but HE CAN BE REASONED WITH--and swayed; he is not an activist judicial-legislator a la Ginsburg and Stevens. btw, How has Stevens (FORD nominee!!) gotten so liberal over the past ten years??!!

Bottom line---> We CAN work with Kennedy - NOT so with the other 4 judicial oligarchs. any other cases besides U Michigan r preferences, please list them I'm sure there are more!! Be positive people!!!

And remember, Michael McConnell is so highly respected on both sides of the legal spectrum, that he might even pass a 50/50 Senate on another Bush SCOTUS pick or Guliani/McCain. Even liberals respect this guy. I think he is our best hope.

There are many issues that I think that Roberts and Alito will be able to coax Kennedy over to our side on when if he was waffling. Environmental issues are obviously not among them. First there was Rampanos last year and now this.

Forget Kennedy on environmental cases, but he's still very much with us, I believe, on a lot of other cases. And I'm not so sure that he would vote the same way as he did in Casey, either.

Still...it would be best if Kennedy were still a harmless conservative darling on the 9th Circuit and Douglas Ginsburg was in his seat on the Supreme Court instead. If Reagan were here today, I'm sure he would agree.

Dienekes said: Of course, contra the NYT's PoV, Stevens ONLY would have provided the 4th vote with the assurance of Kennedy putting them on track to the wrong destination, which is why he didn't ;)

There have been other similar comments here. Do the SC Justices typically cast this vote based on whether they think the case should be heard at their level or only if they feel they know there will be a particular outcome???

I'd like to believe it's the former, but maybe a true activist follows the latter. So for example do the 4 libs tend to vote against hearing cases where they think some horrendous decision from the 9th will be overturned regardless of the merits of the case?

Ohio's problems will be mostly over in 2 years. Dewine, who was part of the gang of 14 lost. I don't think that the pro-civil union Dewine lost because he was too conservative on social issues. Rather, he lost because of internal Ohio problems and because of Iraq. Blackwell was simply a victim of the internal Ohio problems and Iraq.

PA elected Casey over Santorum. The Democrats are not going to nominate a Casey for president. Casey is against abortion, and against gun control -- Guiliani is for federal funding of abortion and supports gun control. Guiliani will run worse in PA than would Brownback if he runs against an Edwards, Obama, or a Clinton. PA is big with labor unions, which is another area where Guiliani will do horribily, and Brownback will do much better with. Brownback's focus on social issues will win him a number of PA cross-over votes -- votes that Guiliani loses. Santorum's problems were Iraq, his big mouth, that he offended his base by supporting Specter, and that he ran against Casey. All problems Brownback will not have.

Yes, Rapanos. Thanks. Unfortunately that too came down after O'Connor left and Kennedy became the man in the middle.

I had a dream last night that Kethledge and Murphy got confirmed. Dreaming about SCOTUS from time to time is forgiveable, but the circuit courts is absurd...

If Kethledge and Kesiler get confirmed (let us pray), Mr. Justice Kennedy will have done awfully well getting his clerks on the circuit courts. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Keisler, and Kethledge. All young, all pretty bright. And there's reason to believe they'll be joined by more Kennedy clerks. Scalia only has one on the circuit courts. O'Connor has only one as well. Does Stevens even have any?

I don't think it's normal (ie common), but I do think it happens occasionally. I think really, it's more a reflection of how the NY Times thinks justice should or does work, which is the problem.

I don't know that it happened in this case either. I actually tend to doubt it, and think the Stevens/Kennedy "patient concern", for lack of a better term, is probably genuine. (as an aside, remember in Hamdan, as awful a decision as it was on many levels, Stevens et al. didn't say it couldn't be done, and did give the administration something it could work with). I'm just poking fun at the Times

lol about your circuit court dream dilemma!

I don't know about the Stevens' clerks on the circuit courts, but the clerks list at wiki for him is very spotty up until about 2000, and obviously no one that's clerked that recently is going to be on a COA (party because they're too young, and party because they'd have to have been appointed by President Bush, who's not likely to tap a Stevens clerk.)

Bush really has gotten a lot of Kennedy clerks on the bench, hasn't he? too bad he couldn't get Estrada too. Kennedy can form his own Kennedy Court before long, haha.

Scalia could have another if Bush can get Clement on a court. Overall it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of former clerks of the current justices on the courts of appeals though, even including Rehnquist and O'Connor's.

Strictly speaking, Jeff Sutton was a Lewis Powell clerk who was shared with Scalia. As such, technically no Scalia clerks have made it onto the court of appeals.

O'Connor has one clerk to become a COA judge, Sandra Ikuta.

Rehnquist has two - John Roberts and Steven Colloton.

Thomas has none, although Margaret Ryan is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is not an Article III judgeship.

Kennedy presently is tied with Rehnquist with two - Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Potentially, he could lead the pack with the confirmations of Keisler and Kethledge.

None of the liberals - Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg or Breyer - have any clerks on the court of appeals. That probably will change if a Dem president is elected in 2008.

Personally, with today's Dem-controlled Senate, I think that being either a Scalia or Thomas clerk may make a nominee's confirmation much more difficult - probably more so for a Thomas clerk. I am not so sure that Paul Clement or Allison Eid could get past a senate run by Reid and Leahy.

Gorsuch technically was a White clerk who was shared with Kennedy. That would mean that Kennedy really only has one clerk on the court of appeals at the moment - Kavanaugh.

any idea how many Blackmun/White/Marshall clerks are on the circuit courts?

and any idea how many SCOTUS clerks are on the district courts or a state supreme court?

of SCOTUS clerks Bush has put on the circuit courts (including Roberts) currently stands at 6 with 2 more currently nominated? is Estrada the only one that didn't get confirmed?

Blackmun has two clerks on the court of appeals - Karen Nelson Moore of the 6th Circuit and Diane Pamela Wood of the 7th Circuit. Both are considered likely Dem nominees to the Supreme Court.

White has three other clerks who became COA judges besides Gorsuch - David Ebel of the 10th Circuit (ironically the person Gorsuch replaced), James Loken of the 8th Circuit and Rhesa Barksdale of the 5th Circuit.

Marshall has had only one clerk on the court of appeals - Douglas Ginsburg of the D.C. Circuit. Elena Kagan is likely to become a second clerk-turned-COA judge if a Dem president is elected in 2008.

At present, Rehnquist has two clerks as district court judges - Mark Kravitz of Connecticut and David Campbell of Arizona. Scalia has one SCOTUS clerk as a district court judge - Patrick Schiltz of Minnesota - and one COA clerk as a district court judge - Paul Cassell (a former Burger SCOTUS clerk).
As far as I know, none of the other current members of the Supreme Court - Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts or Alito - have any SCOTUS clerks as district court judges.

Besides Estrada, another SCOTUS clerk who was not confirmed was Michael Wallace of Mississippi who was a Rehnquist clerk.

We're ignoring Brennan who appears to be the undisputed winner. He has Fisher, Fletcher, and Berzon all of the 9th Circuit, as well as Garland of the DC Circuit. Ironically, his most prominent clerk is right of center Posner of the 7th Circuit. There's also another prominent Republican, McConnell of the 10th Circuit. And there was Chertoff on the 3rd Circuit before he resigned to be part of Bush's cabinet.

Six former Brennan clerks as circuit judges -- seven when Certoff was around.

that is a ton, especially for someone who hasn't been on the bench for 16 years. at least, unlike his legacy on SCOTUS itself, the legacy he leaves via his clerks isn't completely horrible.

I find it more likely that judges who have been off the bench for 16 years or more like Brennan will naturally have more sitting judges. A clerk for Scalia just out of law school in '87 which was 20 years ago is only now hitting their mid to late 40s. I would guess that most SC clerks dont assume the bench themselves until after their SC master is long gone unless you have a justice that sits for 30+ years, ie Brennan and Stevens.

Also had Judge Posner.

Burger had many, but a few are now gone (Starr, Luttig). Marshall had D. Ginsburg.

yeah, it was mainly the fact that he sat for so long but still has so many that I was referring to. a lot of his CLERKS are probably dead by now, or at least retired. clearly a ginsburg or breyer clerk wouldn't have made it yet (as justice anyway, its probable some of their COA clerks are now COA judges themselves)

Here's the Wikipedia entry re Supreme Court clerks, so we can figure out how many clerks are noe or have been district court and circuit court judges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_...

Great job whoever put this together. One of ours, right? BoBo?

but many others have helped as well

especially for Stevens up through the late 90s, and any former Justices excepting Rehnquist and O'Connor

great job BoBo and anyone else that's contributed to it

Say, doesn't the Gitmo ruling technically mean that JRB's decision was upheld?

Guess she's not so radical after all! :)