ConfirmThem

Won't the vast majority of the Dems vote against it, letting Senator Byrd say how "it violates 230 years of Senate tradition of letting Committees do their work" or some such blather?

Is the idea to put the pressure on whatever few barely moderate Dems there are?

I applaud Senator McConnell today. Finally, he is actively doing something besides spitting out useless rhetoric. It doesn't matter if Southwick is voted down in committee tomorrow. The point is that his situation hopefully will be resolved in a procedurally appropriate manner. If he is lucky enough to get voted out of committee, so much the better. Then we can fight the battle about when Reid will bring his name up for a full floor vote.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjEzZGE0Y2QwOGJmNjQwMmU3Njk4NTc3...

"A couple Senate staffers whose judgment I trust are optimistic that the Sense of the Senate resolution will be voted on.

On the merits, Southwick’s attackers have zero ammunition. Their primary advantage is their ability to keep the nomination a low-profile matter and thus to minimize the political costs of their obstruction. The McConnell/Specter amendment seems a smart move (if only a first step) to raise the nomination’s profile and to put pressure on the Senate Judiciary Committee to report the nomination to the full Senate. Kudos to McConnell and Specter."

Senate Democrats stymied an effort by Republicans on Wednesday to force a floor vote on a controversial Mississippi judge in a new fight in the well-trod arena of judicial confirmations.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SENATE_JUDGES?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=...

It said Reid would move to table the motion, but if it hasn't been tabled yet then how is it stymied?

How does it work if there is a discharge petition filed? Does it have to get voted up or down, or can Reid keep it off the calendar, table it, etc.? Can it be filibustered?

I don't know about tabling, but the discharge petition can be filibustered.

The AP news article about the "stymied" effort does not make much sense. Yet, over 120 (and counting) news organizations have already run the article.

Here is a more realistic assessment of the situation:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291748,00.html

Also, Senator Nelson has stated he sees no reason to oppose Southwick.

""I'm growing somewhat tired of statements being made" that exhibit the hypocrisy of the politics used in the nomination, Leahy said in explaining why he put Southwick back on the committee agenda. "Let's stop the hypocrisy, the crocodile tears."

If no Democrats have been convinced about Southwick's credibility, it is highly likely this nominee will be defeated in committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will not bring the nomination to the floor if Southwick cannot get out of committee."

This sounds like Leahy has put Southwick's nomination up for a committee vote tomorrow because he knows Southwick will be voted down in committee. That raises an interesting question in my mind: can a discharge petition be filed on a nominee who has been voted down in committee? My assumption is "no". Otherwise, why wasn't such a trick done when Estrada and Owen were first voted down in a Dem-controlled committee?

It is my understanding that a 'no' vote out of committee is merely a recommendation. The nominee can still be voted upon by the entire Senate. It's unlikely Reid will put anyone up for vote who was voted down in committee.

I could be wrong, so if I am, please correct me.

Has a COA nominee who was voted down in committee ever gotten a full Senate vote during the same Congress in which he was voted down? I've never heard of such a person. Owen got a full floor vote only AFTER her nomination was resubmitted in a new Congress.

Yes, the whole purpose of a discharge motion is to extricate a nominee from committee when the committee wants to hold on to him. I don't have statistics handy, but a discharge motion is perfectly appropriate when a committee votes to reject a nominee. It doesn't happen often, because most committees are not stacked with the controlling party's most partisan flamethrowers.

And I think a discharge motion would succeed. The question then becomes whether it would be filibustered.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how Clinton and Obama would vote on a Sense of the Senate resolution, a discharge motion, and/or cloture on the discharge motion.

If Southwick goes down, then there is a legitimate argument for the President to simply not make any more nominations to the circuit courts. That would be preferable to allowing the Senate to coerce whatever types of nominations it wants. The opposition to Southwick has not been in good faith.

The Fox News story is interesting in one aspect. It states that the amendment will be stymied by the motion to table. In effect the motion to table becomes the sense of Senate vote for Southwick. My last count shows 95 senators present. 47 (D) 47 (R) and one (ID) from CT. Note: I count the (I) from VT as a (D) since he has a 100% voting record with the Democratic Party. With Specter sure to vote against the motion it is not a foregone conclusion that Reid can table the amendment. Maybe Fox News has the vote count as 48-47 or more is favor of tabling but that would suggest some (R's) voting with Reid. Although I may be very wrong, I think with the current 95 Senators present this vote will be closer than a slam dunk.

If the motion to table passes than Southwick will be voted down tomorrow. If the amendment is not tabled and Southwick gets in the mid 50's support than it will be difficult to deny him in committee.

If Southwick is voted down, why in the world should Bush not nominate anyone more. Politicallly, it would make much more sense if he did. At present, this senate has confirmed 3 of 12 COA nominations for a 25% confirmation rate. However, there have been 20 open seats. If Bush made nominations to all 20 and no more were confirmed, the confirmation rate would be lower (3 out of 20 or 15%). Why not go into the next election with a COA 85% rejection rate instead of a 75% one? It would demonstrate more clearly the Dem obstruction and could conceivable force a few more COA confirmations from an embarrassed Dem senate majority. The key would be to only nominate only known conservatives in the future if Southwick is voted down, no moderate ones. I say, flood the gates with outstanding judicial conservatives!

It is maddening to see Bush not do anything with them. You have a preapproved list with many good conservatives on it. I have a feeling all but the IN seat from the latest batch of CCAs will be obstructed for one reason or another. I would rather have two noncontroversial nominees to the 4th be taken than no one. Nominating them in the next two days will save at least a month because the ABA can start their long and slow process over the Aug recess. Please W, make some nominations!

Leahy's response to today's events

"Leahy: Republicans seem to love to shut down government"

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Leahy_Republicans_love_to_shut_down_0801.h...

No matter what happens w/Southwick, I join the chorus that says Bush MUST pick the two best names from the Webb/Warner list, and get McConnell to fast-track them.

Robert Bork was not a COA nominee, but he was sent to the floor despite a negative committee vote as you describe.

There was a district judge from AK who was sent to the floor "without reccomendation", ala Clarence Thomas.

But I don't know of any COA examples.

"most committees are not stacked with the controlling party's most partisan flamethrowers."

Basically right. You have to put the 'moderates' in your party somewhere.

The average committee will reflect the partisanship of the 51 member body as a whole, but Reid specifically picked northeast partisans here.

If not putting the VA nominees up now is an attempt to get Conrad through, forget it. The Dems are not that stupid. If they want to block him, they will, period. I believe Leahy when he says JAN 2008 is the cutoff. Lets get what we can now rather than trying to outsmart the Dems because we will end up outsmarting ourselves.

1. Today is August 1st; the Senate will adjourn by August 3rd (2 days from now at the latest).
2. If (and that's a big IF) Southwick is voted on by the SJC tomorrow, his nomination will lose by 1 vote.
3. There is absolutely, positively NO WAY the full Senate will vote on Southwick before adjournment.
4. Virtually everyone in the country will forget (if they ever knew about) the Southwick nomination during the 5 week August recess.
5. Neither Elrod nor any other CCA nominee will have been voted favorably by the SJC and put on the Executive Calendar during June and July (61 days).
6. It has been 82 days and counting since the last CCA confirmation.
7. The Dem-Libs have declared Total War on judicial nomination for the rest of the Bush Presidency.

This whole performance being commented on here is pure political theater for idiots. I choose not to play the idiot.