ConfirmThem

1. Schumer has just declared pre-emptive war on Bush's judicial nominees.
2. If the Senate stands with the principle of rejection first, checks and balances of Federalist 74 are clearly out the window.
3. We might as well make 49 recess appointments for the 49 vacant seats.

4. How will this backfire on President Hillary?

(From previous thread)

The dems have just completely lost their minds on this one. Insane overreaction. A significant majority of the public SUPPORT the PBA act, hated forced busing, and think McCain-Feingold violates the First Amendment.

All Rudy, Fred or Mitt needs to do is just calmly dissect this lunacy piece by piece, starting with how JGR & SA did NOT join Thomas' concurrence calling for overturning Roe/Casey. A sharp 15 year-old could win this debate. The Democrats have plainly stated that they intend to legislate thru the Judiciary. What more could you possibly ask for?

They're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again. An unpopular POTUS at one of the weakest moments any POTUS has ever had, a badly mismanaged (at best) war with no end in sight, a growing "scandal", and they do the one and only thing that hurts them. Unbelievable.

This will quite possibly infuriate Specter too, right after he was talking about investigating JGR & SA!!!. Way to take THAT off the front page, Chuck. And, it also now sets the Schumer Precedent to go along with the Ginsburg Precedent, i.e. nominees are presumed non-confirmable. No more Ginsburg & Breyer cakewalks, pally.

Props to the White House for the instant response. McConnell, Hatch, Cornyn and all the rest need to join up immediately. Perhaps he should even be censured for this. Clear violation of the Constitution. If they can't make lemonade out of this, there's no hope at all. And Sessions or Coburn needs start making noise about investigating Breyer for his comments to Specter, as well.

I can't believe Chuck is this stupid, and that Aron & Neas are that powerful. They gotta have dirt on him; he could get re-elected til he's 90 otherwise. I now formally place him (and Breyer) in the "wouldn't shake his hand" group, along with Reid. He looks insane in that photo, too.

And whatever you do, W, don't fall into the "Mmmm, vacancy, must fill" trap. Let Jack & Ruthie's corpses molder, and Davey get lost in the woods. 5-3, 4-3, 5-2, all works.

Again, if the Republicans can't use this to their advantage, it's all over.

Those of you with connections to bigger sites & bigger voices, get on it.

(from previous thread again)

Recess appoint every vacant seat this August, absolutely. Gotta be people like Keisler & the various law professors and such mentioned here so nobody risks their pension, but there's plenty of those around so fill 'em all.

And I think the state judges on the level of Eid can prolly risk walking away from the golden springboards like the Colorado Supreme Court. Sounds crazy, I know. Maybe it's just me, but I think she wouldn't be unemployed for too long after her appointment expired.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/192119/015

There are also some comments in the main thread:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/211837/144

Be sure to check often; good times! ;)

I esp. loved the post that worried about Chucky inadvertantly openeing the door to a "Gonzo for a SCOTUS pick" swap. Hell, Gonzo & Rove for Keisler, Southwick, Murphy, Kethledge, Haynes & the four 4th seats? :D

OK, I'm gone for now. First beer's for Schumer!

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005140.cfm

"Specter said it’s up to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to decide how much opposition to express in the full Senate, but he’s ready to draw the line."

How convenient? Specter is ready to go, but he can't say anything firm about a Republican response to Dem obstruction because that is up to McConnell. Sounds like more lip service to me. Specter is essentially telling conservatives, "I'd really love to help you with Southwick, but my hands are tied." With such an inspirational speech , no wonder the mainstream press has not publicized Specter's comments yesterday.

In comparing Nan Aron's recent attack on Elrod and Schumer's speech about no more SCOTUS nominations, I see a new Dem obstructionist tactic: if a Bush nominee does not have evidence in their past, either in written or verbal form, that supports liberal ideals, they will not be confirmed. My, my, my, doesn't sound as if the Dems are demanding that Bush nominate only documented liberals for the rest of his term. If that is the case, I suggest that the Republicans in the 111th Congress refuse to confirm any Dem nominee who doesn't have evidence of supporting conservative views in his past.

Do Chuckie's words really surprise anyone? Haven't he and other Democrats already used this tactic for the last six years on district and appeals court judges? The answer is of course yes. Only now he feels comfortable enough to say in public what was once only said behind closed doors.

As is so often the case with Chuckie, his words are full of sound and fury, but signify nothing. So he says he'll block another Bush SCOTUS nominee. Big deal, unless someone dies there's not going to be a retirement. In effect, he's operating in a free fire zone. The chances his words will be turned against him in a nomination fight are almost zero.

Still, the fact that he can say this with little or no fanfare drives me nuts. It also exposes one of the great faults of the Bush presidency. Despite his successes with nominations, he has never fought in manner befitting the importance of the moment. It's times like these that make wonder what could have been had Trent Lott never been deposed by el presidente and Rove.

It's a bit different. Back with the circuit nominees, they didn't declare opposition before a name was even sent down.

but why would Schumer bring this up now, knowing its the one thing that really get conservatives fired up? Can we be so lucky as to get one more appt?

I do not see how those two can say they were "hoodwinked and misled". They could say that if they voted for Roberts and Alito but now feel like they wouldnt. However that is not the case. They both voted against the two and even to filibuster Alito. You cant be "misled or hoodwinked" if you were against them from the start!

http://instapundit.com/archives2/007656.php

"Bush should make a lot of recess appointments to the courts, just to mix things up. I volunteer to fill any vacant Supreme Court slots on a recess basis. I promise to make things interesting . . . ."

I have a hunch that Schmuck's "presumption" will disappear if she's elected.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

you're just NOW putting Schumer on the "no shake" list? He's been on my "spit on on sight" list for years. the man is disgusting, slimy, obnoxious, smarmy, arrogant, and pure evil, plain and simple.

I always considered him just a bare-knuckle partisan who was willing to fight in ways that Republicans will not, albeit an especially annoying one, a la Pelosi & Leahy. And I've always considered Breyer & RBG flipsides of Roberts & Alito.

But this last week is too much. They've panicked and have lost their minds & dignity. Reid, however, is in his own special category. A truly evil, revolting person. Chuck & Breyer are just disgusting & shameful. I'd simply turn my back on them, but I don't thing I could control myself around Reid.

Say, and didn't somebody used to be Justice O'Connor? Judicial independence is under attack, Sandy. Sound the alarums!

She's edging closer to the "no shake" list herself.

a contemptible fool, unworth the effort it would take to hate him. Schumer is evil personified.

I think "self-righteous" and "grievously mistaken" would be more accurate. Let's try to be more dignified.

By the way, Dienekes, I agree with your comment in the earlier thread that Bobo shouldn't make the Dems' bogus arguments for them, and I annotated Bobo's comments accordingly.

Maybe we can find a happy medium between Bobo's approach, and the namecalling?

OMG, I hope no one will construe my previous comment as being defensive of Chuck Schumer!

Bob "Old as Euclid" Dole once asked someone whether he knew what the shortest distance is between two points, in Washington D.C.

Answer: the distance between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera!

Hahahahahahaha. Dole had it nailed. Schumer needs to chill out, and become a better role model for the junior senator from New York.

I wish the junior senator from New York would rub off more on her senior colleague. and that's not a defense of Hillary, either! ;)

Andrew, would wondering whether Schumer's middle name was Voldemort be more appropriate? :P

Ralph Fiennes would never stoop so low. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR200707...

The WaPo article keeps referring to poll results about the Supreme Court, but the link they provide to poll results doesn't seem to include anything about the Supreme Court.

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, spoke with Specter earlier this month, telling him that the court term that ended in June was notable for rulings that reversed some long-standing decisions. “The new ‘conservative bloc’ is undermining the authority of the judiciary.” Breyer complained. “If this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, the Court’s ability to rule this country will be seriously compromised. We can only hope that the Democratically controlled Senate will prevent any of Bush’s further nominees from being approved.”

If this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, the Court’s ability to rule this country will be seriously compromised.

I didn't know it was the job of the Supreme Court to rule the country. Can you imagine the outrage if Scalia or Thomas made a comment like this.

amazing how the least litle bit of pressure and these guys reveal themselves for who they really are. I'm still a bit surprised at it from Breyer though (really any Supreme Court Justice, as they're normally a bit more circumspect and professional)

I wouldn't wager on the accuracy of that report. It says at the top, "Semi-News".

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm

I can't imagine Breyer would say that the Senate should not confirm anymore Bush nominees. We need another source to confirm that. OTOH, there is no doubt that is what he thinks.

The same source says:

According to the Bush Administration, the number of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border will be trimmed in half by the end of August. The Bush Administration characterized the move as “payback” for the people’s opposition to its immigration reform bill. “I can play ‘hardball’ too,” Bush said. “There’s more than one way to ensure the continued flow of much needed immigrants to America.”

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm

for clearing that up. what he DID say, according to the Politico is disturbing enough, though.

how about this sarcastic (one hopes) response from Volokh Conspiracy commenter PersonFromPorlock: "I do admire the principled way in which Sen. Schumer has concluded what a lesser man might out of sheer partisanship."

hehe!

http://www.confirmthem.com/please_pardon_a_brief_and_gentle_attack_again...

http://www.confirmthem.com/please_pardon_a_brief_and_gentle_attack_again...

http://www.confirmthem.com/please_pardon_a_brief_and_gentle_attack_again...

Besides bordering on censorship, I think both your comments are not conducive to any long term or civil resolution to the problem at hand . There are two sides to every coin and to deny that there is in this particular case only increases the chance that the present politicization of judicial confirmations will get worse and not better.

Motivation is in the eye of the beholder. The Democrats feel that their motivations are justified. The Republicans feel that their motivations are justified. To deny that the opposing side has grounds to be upset doesn't help bring consensus and resolution to any problem. Rather, it pushes people farther apart. I have said this repeatedly: in order for this tit-for-tat situation to be diffused, one of the parties is going to have to UNILATERALLY tone down its partisan rhetoric and accept the possibility that the other side might have some valid grievances. Hopefully both sides would want to do this, but it is so easy to get caught up in one's own emotional reaction. Dienekes and Andrew, both of you need to examine the possibility that your reaction to my statement is based not on any type of logic, just partisan fury.

BTW, what has partisan fury gotten us anyway? I will tell you. Two years ago, it scared Frist and the Gang of 14 so much that they bonded together to prevent the nuclear option. Last year, the emotional over-reaction to Dem obstruction over Boyle sabotaged Keisler's confirmation and delayed the confirmation of Smith, Jordan, Livingston and Hardiman. Some people around here obviously can't see the forest for the trees! Don't let yourself be blinded by your emotions. Not to admit that the Dems have some valid points is to condemn to sure failure any further efforts to get more COA confirmations in this Dem-controlled Congress.

Disagreeing with Bobo is censorship?

No, but saying that I shouldn't say certain things you don't like is.

I meant "shouldn't" in the sense that "it's not a good idea." No pressure.

And incidentally, I think you're way off base, Bobo. Up until the Dems took over the Senate, you bet there was outrage at this blog about a MINORITY VETO of judicial nominees. It's not a good idea for you to equate that to anything that the GOP ever did. It's an extremely bad idea for you to suggest that we should have gladly tossed majority-supported nominees under the bus.

And since the Dems took over the Senate, this blog has generally not been railing against obstruction of nominees. The Southwick treatment is the exception, because he has been slandered and branded as a racist, and there is no precedent for that kind of dishonest treatment of Democrartic nominees. It's an extremely bad idea for you to suggest otherwise.

I'm certainly not trying to bash you BoBo, as you are surely one of the best commenters here, but I don't think that type of handwringing is useful at all, and all it sevres to do is drive us batty after enough iterations. that doesn't mean don't look at the reality of the situation or acknowledge the difficulties that lie ahead, but that type of pessimism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

and again, "valid points" and a "valid" response to what Republicans did to Clinton nominees is to afford the likes of Roberts and Alito Ginsburg- and Breyer-like 89 and 97 vote confirmations, and to confirm 14-16 appelate judges, not confirmation votes in the 70s and 50s and begging to count onto a second hand for COA.

I too despise what the Dems have done to the reputations of fine people like Saad, Pickering, Wallace and now Southwick. I'm appalled by the deviousness of how they have chosen to sink various Bush nominees, both while in the minority and the majority. However, just because the Dems have decided to press a totally subjective and misleading campaign doesn't mean that we as Republicans should. Republicans need to admit that we have also contributed to the virulent tone of this situation by both our past actions and present rhetoric.

Too often, Republicans want to blindly blame the Democrats for everything concerning judges. That's not helpful in developing a practical strategy that will get more nominees confirmed. The Republicans need to reform from within. When we have our act together, maybe we will be more effective in winning the judicial confirmation wars.

I see three Republican weaknesses that need to be addressed before a truly workable solution to this problem can be developed:

1) Republicans in the past did things that were unwarranted in terms of confirming Dem nominees.

(Ex. Hatch's dictatorial management of the SJC in the 106th Congress presaged the bas. He should've been much more transparent in his treatment of Clinton nominees. By refusing to give all of Clinton's nominees hearings and committee votes and then not honestly explaining why, he set the tone for future dictatorial actions by the Dems . If SJC Republicans in the 106th Congress didn't like a nominee's ideology, then the nominee should've been voted down in committee with ideology given as the direct reason why.)

2) Republicans have been complicit in aiding the Dems in their obstruction.

(Ex. The nominations of Boyle and Myers died in limbo because Frist REFUSED to bring their names up for a vote when he had the opportunity. Haynes failed because McCain and Graham REFUSED to let him out of committee. Keisler may fail because Grassley and Sessions hesitated to push his confirmation when the iron was hot. Southwick may fail because McConnell is REFUSING to shut down the Senate.)

3) Republicans have too often chosen ideological battles at the expense of further confirmations.

(Ex. Keisler's confirmation was sabotaged by a useless ideological battle over Boyle, a battle that almost derailed FOUR other confirmations! An ideological battle over Southwick might just do the same thing now by derailing THREE other confirmations.)

If you are really determined to win the confirmation wars, why haven't you decried Frist's refusal to deal with Boyle and Haynes? Why haven't you labelled McConnell and Specter for the liars they are? Why do you seem to buy hook, line and sinker what the Republican leadership says concerning nominees. Instead of blaming Dems, why not Frist, McConnell and Specter?

In short, we need leadership in the Senate that

1) acts transparently (Hatch and the 106th Congress accelerated the culture of diversionary obstruction that we now need to dismantle.)

2) acts in a united way against the Dems (Republican senators need to be strictly punished by their leader for opposing Bush nominees.)

3) forcefully attacks the Dems by using strategic procedural moves that result in practical results rather than wasted rhetoric about Dem obstructionism. (McConnell and Specter need to be made to accept blame for their inaction).

Andrew, correct me if I missed it, but did McConnell say that he:

1) has asked Lott and Cochran to request an immediate committee vote on Southwick?

2) is filing a discharge petition on Southwick on Monday?

3) is shutting down the Senate until the Dems allow Southwick's confirmation?

If he didn't offer any of these three possibilities, then I'm afraid that I'll just have to chalk up his comments to so much more useless rhetoric that refuses to practically address the real situation - but, hey, that's just me.

Andrew, despite the tone of my previous comments, I want to point out that I think we have a lot in common - we both want judges who respect the Constitution and don't rule by judicial fiat. We just have different methods for achieving that goal. I don't want to get anyone angry on this site, I just want to point out things that I think may be helpful in developing a more successful strategy in terms of judicial confirmations. I recognize that we disagree on a lot of the details, but at the same time I appreciate your vigor and desire concerning this important matter.

while I confess there is a certain nobility in your attitude, you seem to have it backward, blaming the speck in y/our eye for the log in the Democrats' ;)

no one is denying the Republicans blocked Clinton judges, nor do they deny that the Democrats have every right to reciprocate. but apparently shooting for half a dozen judges while calling the rest racists and extremists isn't at all reciprocal.

and isn't the posture you're advocating very much similar to the "new tone" conservatives keep bashing Bush for? and while I marvel at Dubya's ability to turn more cheeks than any mere mortal could possibly possess and respect him mightily for it in many ways, there are times when I have to agree with the critics that it makes him less effective than he could be, and this is one of the major ones. and it also seems a bit at odds with your demand for McConnell to shut the Senate down immediately?

You go! I agree with everything you said except the last part about Southwick. If the GOP really made a push for Southwick now, and somehow it worked (it wont) the radical Dem leadership will shut down new hearing IMMEDIATELY. They have already dug in and bloviated their inaccurate rhetoric. They have crossed the point of no return with Southwick. Their is no way they can vote for him now or allow a vote without looking weak and retarded. Nan Aron & Co will freak out and really turn up the pressure. All judges including DJs will be finished at that point. Its over. Might as well pack it up till Jan 2009. We need to chalk Southwick up to experience and be ready the next time this happens. Leahy, Cardin, and Reid have been spewing their racist talk since Memorial Day. McConnell needs to call them on right away not two months after they crossed the point of no return.

I think all this talk about judicial confirmations being broken is only part of the problem. The Senate as a whole has deteriated into a Jerry Springer like freak show. The all nighter and the stuff about the pardons being stuck on that student loan bill was the icing on the cake. The real problem is Harry Reid! He really brought this on himself starting in 2001. The way he totally backstabbed Lott on their power sharing deal was repulsive and later during the Strom T controversy. Then the whole Jefferds situation, which he solely orchestrated, sealed the deal for commity. Come on he even has gotten Specter mad at him, now that's saying something. If McConnell was smart he should go have a chit chat with Turbin Durbin about having a coup. Mitch should tell him that many in the GOP caucus cannot and will not work with Reid anymore. Promise him their support to make Durbin Majority Leader and something like smooth passage for the remaining Approriation Bills. I dont like Dick Durbin but he is a 1000 and 1 times better than Reid. Removing Reid from power would really change the tone. He has repeatedly disrespected fellow Senators on the floor (Specter, DeMint, etc) and the World's Greatest Deliberative Body as an institution. He is not fit to continue to serve as the Leader of the Senate.

Hasn't Durbin been the main spewer of lies about Southwick? He's at least as dishonest as Reid is and would be just as bad I'm sure.

And while Reid likes to call the President a loser, Durbin likes to compare our troops to Nazis. Durbin and Pelosi would make a great tag team of anti-troop leaders.

I think jtp7 makes one crucial point--supporters of the President's nominees (our Senators, us, etc.) need to respond immediately when the opposition attacks our nominees. Unfortunately, there was almost a month between when the misleading attacks on Southwick began appearing in the press and when his supporters started organizing counterpoints to support him. This allowed PFAW to build momeentum and collect commitments from SJC democrats to thwart Southwick's nomination.

For the rest of the nominees, Specter, McConnel, this website, and others need to respond immediately to the false attacks that will come. Counterpoints need to be issued right away, put in front of the press, and given to McConnell, Lott, and the SJC Republicans to use to seize the initiative, frame the debate, and head off a repeat of the Southwick tragedy.

As soon as you see anything critical from the Usual Suspects, start collecting what positive information you can. Get the information to your senators, Specter, McConnell, and Lott, post them on this site so others can spread the word, and send them to other websites who support the President's nominees (NRO, Ed Whelan, American Spectator, CFJ blog, Republican Lawyers' Blog, etc.). Let's get this information out within 24 hours of any negative press. We can help Specter, McConnell, and the rest. Let's do it.

The Republican leadership and administration is just not as organized when it comes to judicial politics. The same situation happened last year with Myers, Haynes, Wallace and Boyle. The leftist strategy and attacks were quick and relentless. The Republican counter, delayed, weak and disorganized.

Again I would rather have failure by votes than no votes. The administration and Republicans need to bring Southwick up for a vote in commmittee and let the chips fall. All I ever argued for the nominees last year was a vote- but instead our own party blocked this from happening.

Really would the election have turned out differently for our party or the Dems on failed cloture votes or committee votes for Boyle, Haynes and Wallace?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010397

I dont think we should even wait for that attacks to begin. We should assume that every nominee Bush puts forward will be the target of such hate speech. We should put out good information before attacks and then rebut the attacks when they happen within 24 hours. It seems like we are caught off guard everytime when stuff like this happens. Come on guys, we know the Dem playbook by now. Lets be proactive!

The biggest difference between the two is Durbin has not disrespected, backstabbed, or sought to humilitate other US Senators like Reid has. When I was watching CSPAN2 last week, I watched an exchange between Reid and DeMint. It was terrible. DeMint was blocking a UC and wanted a vote on something. Reid just stood their and ripped him up one side and down the other and belittled his request and him on the FLOOR OF THE SENATE! What a jerk. There was that similar incident with Specter after the all nighter. His repeated things he did to Lott like I mentioned before are also noted. I just dont trust the man. Durbin says a lot of stupid things but is a little more credible in my mind and collegial. Aside from his gulagg comment last year, I cant think of anything really radical or disrespectful he has said. That comment too, I think was greatly taken out of context and he quickly retracted it realizing how it was being portrayed. When he was first elected, he was a fairly conservative senator. Only later when the Donks turned left did his positions change so he could stay in the good graces of the leadership. I think he is probably still prolife at heart. Anyway my whole thing is I think he would rule the Senator with more an even hand than Reid is currently. Most importantly, he would treat everyone with more respect than Reid and that by itself, will lower the rising temperature in the Senate. Does anyone disagree with this analysis?

I think one problem that has not been addressed much in regards to judical nominees is the rules of the Senate. The Consitution says the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm. Where is there anything in the Constitution about blue slips, holds, chairman refusing to bring nominess in for a hearing or a vote, senate majority leader doing the same? These rules of Senate operation are in effect subverting the Constitution.

1) Blue Slips and Holds must be completely eliminated.

2) Once a person is nominated, a deadline must be set, in which by law, the committee chairman must bring them forth for a hearing (3 months?) and then another deadline set by which the committee must vote on them (1 month?).

3) Then all nominees are brought to the whole Senate for a vote within a certain time limit as well (1 month?). Committee votes will only be seen as recommendations. All nominees will get a full Senate vote regardless of the Committee vote.

Wouldnt this be more in accord with the Constitution than the current system? Of course my recommnedations would be opposed by both GOP and Dem senators for one reason: individual power. They will not want to give it up. The problem is now they are abusing their power to the harm of the country.

Would it not just take a majority vote of the Senate to pass the above reforms? Maybe the GOP needs to show themselves to be the reformers of corruption on this matter.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

Senate and House Rules, including Committee Rules, Calndar Rules, etc., have the above as their excuse for, in effect, violating various other parts of the Constitution. It keeps getting worse and worse all the time. What seems obvious to average outsiders like us has nothing to do with the arcane and ridiculous rules of Congress, especially in the Senate.

Given that seats are (unofficially) attributed state by state, I do think home state senators should have at least some leeway or influence on the selection.

Perhaps it should be a part of the reform package I mentioned above that this "unoffiical" division of the Circuits by states be eliminated. That is not in the constitution either and seems to cause immense difficulty in the nomination process. In fact, is there anything in the Constitution that says the judges have to come from the Circuit they live then. Constitutionally, could the President nominate a judge from NH for the Circuit in CA? It seems we are getting layers of "tradition" esp. in the Senate that are in effect binding the President's hand in the way the Constitution does not. Let the President nominate whoever he wants to where ever he wants. If the Senate doesnt like it, let them vote the nominee down. That's the power they have. But lets get rid of these arcane rules and traditions that have the effect that give individual senators and committee chairmen so much power that they make the decision for the whole Senate. Perhaps they have the right according to the above quoted section to make their own rules for proceedings. That doesnt mean those rules cant be changed. I think the GOP should lead the charge in getting rid of these rules. I dont think they will though because they like the individual power they currently have and would long for the power the Dems have should the GOP take over the Senate. I don't think the current process is good for the country regardless of the party in power.

I don't see how a requirement that judges come from respective states is unconstitutional.

Congress establishes all lower courts, and I believe they could set minimum baseline requirements for the positions if they choose to. They did for cabinet members with the nepotism act.

I want to thank Senator Schumer for his candor and his stupidity. We conservatives should embrace him and his position on this issue, because it plays to our advantage. Here's why:

(1) It makes it more likely Stevens or Souter will retire during the remainder of Bush's presidency. With Schumer's statement, the retiring Justice will think he's been provided an assurance that he won't be replaced by any real conservative. He can now comfortably retire under a Republican president;

(2) It makes it more likely Bush will nominate a true conservative originalist to replace Stevens or Souter, not a squishy "moderate" conservative or whatever it's called. The Dems are promising to obstruct even before a nomination is made. Thus, they are clearly stating they will oppose both moderates and conservatives: anyone from this president. So why put up a moderate conservative, when he or she will be opposed anyway? Put up JRB, Estrada, Eid, or McConnell instead, and fight to the death. Do the Dems really want to be known as the party that, in an election year, opposed the first black woman justice, or the first Hispanic justice? I don't think so, but if they do, all the better.

This can be a win-win if Bush, Reps and conservatives play it properly.

I do think home state senators should have at least some leeway or influence on the selection.

Edwards/Obama/Clinton are not touching any vacant 5th circuit seats.

What do you mean? I'm sure the next Dem president will connive with Reid and Leahy to modify the blue-slip procedure so he can fill all 5th and 4th Circuit seats controlled by two Republican senators with liberals.

I don't think they will succeed, even if they try. The GOP Senate tends to operate much better when its in the minority, for some reason.

If you look at the 103rd Congress, they filled 19 judgeships. It's far more likely IMO that Hillary would try to snatch up new judgeships first before moving on to Mississippi.

That said, it depends on what happens to the Senate.

When would either of them retire? They need to do so sooner rather than later, else, they are just wasting the courts time with a bunch of re-hearings similar to what Alito had to do.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2902

This guarantees that at best Elrod will be the September confirmation. I sure hope Nan Aron can't get any traction on her during the August recess.