ConfirmThem

If the Democrats win 2-3 seats in the Senate, Republicans can expect a lot more filibusters if reliably conservative candidates are nominated for COA seats. If the Democrats actually win the Senate, then it will be worse - few if any COA nominees will even get out of committee. It won't matter if those nominees are conservative or moderate. That is why it is absolutely necessary for the lame duck session of the 109th Congress to confirm as many COA nominees as possible.

In the lame duck session, Keisler should be focused on exclusively. If his confirmation is assured and not blocked in committee, then Kethledge and Murphy need to be confirmed next. Brownback needs to withdraw his complaints about Neff until both Kethledge and Murphy are confirmed. Craig also needs to withdraw his holds as well.

Personally, I think the nominations of Boyle, Myers, Haynes, Smith and Wallace have become a wearisome burden. On a practical level, continuing these nominations will only serve to poison the well for future Bush nominees. Unless Frist can be made to publicly promise that he will use the nuclear option on them during the lame duck session of the 109th Congress, those five should NOT be renominated by the White House.

I would bet every last dollar I have or ever will have that Bush renominates everybody and does not flip Smith & Myers; Boyle & Haynes get all the attention; and Keisler, Kethledge, & Murphy go nowhere; regardless if the Republicans lose no seats at all in the Senate.

I guess the question is, assuming we retain control of the Senate, will Majority Leader McConnell move to change the rules at the convening of the Senate, being the appropriate time to do so, to eliminate the filibuster - or do we have to repeat the same experience of two years ago over the nuclear option? Because the reality is very likely to be that, as BoBo says, we're going to be a couple of seats, the Dems are going to be even more emboldened than they were a year ago, let alone three years ago, and we have more judges to confirm. And possibly a Justice, too. It seems to me that if we have to slam the door on the filibuster (which, barring an astonishing turnaround, and with the prospect of one more SCOTUS vacancy, seems likely), it would be better to do it in as uncontroversial a manner as possible, one that mollifies people like me who aren't necessarily opposed to slamming said door, but who weren't on board with the nuclear option.

~Simon

"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)

re: timing of the Nuke.

and don't forget the senators elected in 2 weeks will serve all of the next presidential term. even if Bush doesn't get a 3rd appointment (perish the thought!), keeping the Republican majority will help the next President appoint originalist Justices (assuming its not Rudy), or make it easier for Hillary! to ruin the country.

Here's some more good news (from Slate/kausfiles):

--According to the Chicago Tribune,

"House Republicans especially saw the border-fence measure as excellent proof to voters that Republicans are serious about cracking down on illegal immigration. So they wanted some pomp and circumstance surrounding the bill-signing.

But Bush, who is holding out for "comprehensive immigration reform'' that acknowledges the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the United States, plans to sign the fence bill in a relatively low-key ceremony in the Roosevelt Room on Thursday morning. [E.A.]"

[kaus commentary]"It seems to me that, by downplaying the fence, he's sacrificing a big 2006 GOP selling in the vague, slightly fearful pursuit of the Latino vote in the long term. It still makes no sense to me. Does Bush think the GOP is in such a strong position that he can win the midterms without every advantage he can bring to bear? Why not have a big, spotlighted ceremony at which Bush declares this the first, necessary and relatively non-punitive step toward larger reform? It's not as if Latinos aren't going to find out the bill was signed. ... Bush's action reinforces my earlier paranoid thought: He doesn't really care that much about winning the midterms. Or, at any rate, he cares less about them than about what he imagines as his "legacy"--a semi-amnesty that somehow turns Hispanics into permanent Republicans. ..."

How do ya'll feel about a semi-conservative, female, Hispanic SCOTUSJ who "somehow turns Hispanics into permanent Republicans"?

All that said, I wish I lived in Tennessee or Montana instead of Utah right now, so a straight ticket R-vote would actually mean something....

Speaking of Tennessee, man, does that new "Harold Ford The Swinger" ad sound like a bad idea by the RNC.

If the Democrats win 2-3 seats in the Senate, Republicans can expect a lot more filibusters if reliably conservative candidates are nominated for COA seats.

There haven't been any since the gang deal have there? I don't seem to recall any failed cloture votes on any nominees. Or does Frist get all the credit for breaking filibusters?

The original Gang deal explicitly states that it lasts only during the 109th Congress. If the Democrats pick up enough Senate votes in November, they will likely not renew the Gang deal. The end result will be filibusters galore if reliable conservatives continue to be nominated for vacant COA seats.

is that Senator Frist was circumspect about which nominees would be brought up for a vote. He didn't want to put the gang of 14 to the test of whether or not Myers represented "extraordinary circumstances," because at bottom, that test would put some aspect of the collegial nature of the Senate at risk.

The only nominees that would come up for a vote were those that had been cleared with opposition in advance, with what amounted to a promise to not block taking the vote via rejection of a cloture motion. If the depth of opposition permitted a filibuster, Frist didn't push the issue - rather, he left the nomination on the Executive Calendar.

This strategy is effective because the strategy isn't an issue that the media (and therefore the public) is interested in.

Bush's action reinforces my earlier paranoid thought: He doesn't really care that much about winning the midterms. Or, at any rate, he cares less about them than about what he imagines as his "legacy"--a semi-amnesty that somehow turns Hispanics into permanent Republicans. ..."

To Bush's credit, he doesn't care as much about the politics of the matter as he does about doing the right thing. I truly believe he governs the major issues based on right and wrong, and not the political implications of the issues. That's one of his principal appeals - that he's a genuine person, unlike a lot of the politicians out there.

To his detriment, he believes that the path he's pursuing (the pragmatist's view that there are all of these illegals who are already here, it's going to be extremely difficult to do much about them, and that they are providing a valuable service within the country) is the right approach. Most of us believe he's wrong, and that there ARE effective ways to handle them, and that they are harming the economy and putting the country at a security risk.

This reveals why he's been so stubborn on this issue. He's doing what he thinks is right, and he's not going to back down on it. That's just what he does. The only way he's going to be moved from that stance is if he can be persuaded that his approach is wrong from an economic and security standpoint. I don't see that happening, either.