ConfirmThem

From what Whitehouse and Reed were saying at the time of the Smith nomination in December, it sounds like they won't let him go forward, for no good reason other than they just don't want to. At the time they said silly things like there isn't enough time to process the nominee before the 2008 election, but no one believes that. How could it take a whole year?? Idiotic, but we expect idiocy from liberal Dems, after all. And look at the speed of the White and Agee nominations. Obviously, these things can move along quite quickly when Leahy and Reid want them to.

Thanks for info. Do you know if this seat is effectively reserved for Rhode Island, or could it possibly be filled by a New Hampshirite?
Quin Hillyer

While it is not restricted by law to a Rhode Island judge, for all intents and purposes, it IS a Rhode Island seat. As a practical matter, which sometimes seats do move states within a Circuit, there is no way the Democrats would allow that to happen to circumvent obstruction by a Democrat home state senator. Remember the California-Idaho brou-ha-ha for one of the Smiths when California "claimed" the seat? Or the original Claude Allen fiasco, when Bush tried to "move" the Maryland seat to VA/NC?

In other words, while it theoretically could happen, it won't. No way, no how.

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/judge-conrad-nominate...

"By nominating Conrad, who came recommended by Virginia’s Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and Republican Sen. John Warner, Bush has shown a willingness to appoint centrist judicial nominees in his final year in office.

“I think the White House is being more pragmatic and realistic about what is possible after seeing how much the Senate expedited Agee,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

After heeding the recommendations of Virginia’s senators, Bush nominated Agee March 13. The Senate Judiciary Committee held his nomination hearing May 2 and is slated to vote on the appointment May 15 – record speed compared to other more controversial nominees who have gone months without a hearing."

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_04-2008_05_10.shtml#121034576...

"In an interview yesterday with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Barack Obama spoke again on what kind of judge he would want appointed to the federal courts (he discusses the topic starting around the 9 minute mark). An excerpt:
What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now there's gonna be those five percent of cases or one percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge has to then bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings — and, in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly. The courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v. Board of Education."

Although the blue-slip policy has kept Bush from getting conservative judicial nominees from blue states confirmed, it also kept Clinton in the 1990's from getting liberal nominees from red states confirmed. I personally don't find the blue-slip policy to be as offensive as the judicial filibuster. It makes sense from a states' rights view that a liberal state with two Democrat senators should have more liberal judges than a conservative state with two Republican senators. The Supreme Court in the end will act as the "great equalizer" by determining which form of jurisprudence it wants nationally applied.

Who cares what happens to New England. They elect the likes of Teddy, Kerry, and company. They deserve everything they get. It is a shame but there are more important things to worry about than Smith. New England is also becoming more and more irrelevant as they lose population to the south east and mountain west (except in the Senate). We should offer to give it away to Canada in exchange for oil rich Alberta! lol.

I was born and raised and live in New England, jtp7. And I don't want to be swapped for Alberta!!!

I am sorry to hear that. I will not hold that against you. lol

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080512/1a_cover12.art.htm

"They became the first judges in more than a half-century to say the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. They took the lead in ruling against affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. And they upheld bans on an abortion procedure called "partial birth" before it reached the Supreme Court.

They are prominent appeals court judges appointed by President Reagan in the 1980s — the products of an unprecedented, meticulous and often controversial screening process that transformed the politics of judicial nominations.

Named to an influential set of 13 regional courts, they were, as a group, young, brainy and bold. They became the legal vanguard of the Reagan agenda to lessen federal control — and protections — in American life.

Now, nearly 20 years after Reagan left office, many of them are at the height of their power. Their opinions routinely draw national attention. Eight are the chief judges of their circuit courts and in key positions on the U.S. judiciary's policymaking committee. Many are superstars of the conservative movement, appearing as speakers at meetings of the arch-conservative Federalist Society and, in past years, landing on Republican presidents' short lists for Supreme Court appointments."

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/161619

"In March, President Bush nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee for a seat on the court. Last week, as the Senate Judiciary held hearings on Agee's nomination, Bush made another pick from the list: Conrad.

Now Americans will see if Senate Democrats will act.

Democrats could be tempted to twiddle their thumbs for the rest of the year, hoping their party wins the White House in November and gets to fill judicial slots. Senators up for re-election might also not want to cast a vote opponents would use against them on the campaign trail.

Those are poor excuses for inaction. The Senate could set a strong example by acting quickly. The message would be plain for future presidents: Mainstream, moderate nominees will receive swift action on their confirmation.

To some extent, it is Bush's own fault for waiting so long to trust the considered opinion of Virginia's senators.

Nevertheless, the Senate has an opportunity to set an example for future Senates and to exercise some Pavlovian conditioning with the White House.

Democrats need not act on Bush's more dangerous nominees, but when this president does select a moderate, the Senate should reward him."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24557662/

WASHINGTON - This could be the Supreme Court term, one court watcher joked recently, that Justice John Paul Stevens remembers he is a Republican.

A 1975 appointee of President Gerald Ford, Stevens is regarded as the anchor of the court's liberal wing. But he has joined with his more conservative colleagues in three high-profile cases that defied predictions they would showcase deep ideological divisions on the court.

Last term was marked by an unusually high number of 5-4 decisions, and many experts believed this term's notable cases would produce similar outcomes.

But the biggest cases decided so far — upholding lethal injection procedures, photo identification requirements for voters and Texas' treatment of a Mexican on death row — have had six or seven justices, including Stevens, in agreement on the outcome.

Just one case has been decided by a 5-4 vote. Two others split 4-4 with a justice not participating. Another was 5-3.

Taking stock of the court with half its decisions still to come is a bit like wrapping up a sporting event at halftime. So far, however, Stevens' voting pattern and the lack of 5-4 decisions stand out.

http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com/2008/05/bush-appoints-judge-who-refuse...

"As Howling Latina posted back in June 2007, Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and John Warner, R-Va., recommended five names for the Circuit Court.

One of the names was U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad who was inititally appointed to the bench by Sen. John Warner and former Sen. George Allen for the Western District of Virginia.

A news item that stuck out as Howling Latina pored over articles on Lexis-Nexis was the fact that Judge Conrad once refused to enforce a Department of Labor order demanding a chief financial officer from Cardinal Bancshares be reinstated under the “whistleblower” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The Associated Press now reports the White House "announced Thursday that Bush had nominated Glen E. Conrad to the Richmond, Va.-based appeals court."

How's that for law and order...??? Well at least this time Bush stuck to the Warner-Webb list; one supposes that's progress."

I think the Dems will stil confirm Glen Conrad. I just think they will do it in the same way they are confirming Agee. In Conrad's hearing, the Dems will point out all his flaws and then act as if they are graciousness itself by confirming such a flawed nominee.