ConfirmThem

If that post is accurate, then I take back all the nice things I said about Specter. All he had to do was call for a vote and move all the nominees; the holds had been burned, so there was no way to stop it. And even worse, apparently he got NOTHING in return, since Jordan was already a done deal.

I think Frist should hold the Senate over until it gets its work done. Another week won't hurt any of those guys, and it just might get another few judges confirmed. Or create an election issue that is a sure winner for the good guys.

I wonder if he was getting support for this move from Graham and DeWine. A way to keep them off record.

Just plain nutty.

Oz,

I agree about Boyle and Haynes - Graham and DeWine are slimy enough to hide behind a lack of a quorum to duck the vote. But I didn't think they had any objection to Keisler; even Kennedy said nice things about him. So why cave in on him?

Here's an essay she wrote, published in the WSJ today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115931733674775033.html?mod=opinion_main...

One quick excerpt

while scorn for certain judges is not an altogether new phenomenon, the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history. The ubiquitous "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" have become central villains on today's domestic political landscape. Elected officials routinely score cheap points by railing against the "elitist judges," who are purported to be of touch with ordinary citizens and their values. Several jeremiads are published every year warning of the dangers of judicial supremacy and judicial tyranny. Though these attacks generally emit more heat than light, using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat to the independent judiciary.

_______________________________________________

"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

Whole I agree with most points expressed here regarding the quorum issue, it is only a symptom of a larger malfunctioning process. This month's Judiciary Committee process is clearly a charade, a Kibuki show, a Poptemkin Village, designed to mask a lack of will to achieve anything before the election.

But another question still perplexes me, and I'd appreciate any theories or answers about it. I thought I was pretty cynical at the beginning of the month, and expected only the "non-controversial" nominees to be confirmed: Livingston, Jordan, Kethledge, Murphy, plus maybe Keisler if we were lucky. Now a grand total of one-fifth of these will be confirmed, Jordan only. No hearings were even held for Kethledge, Murphy and Livingston, although the Committee found plenty of time to hold 2 district-judge-only hearings.

What in the name of sanity is going on here? The Senate GOP is now so spooked and timid that it won't even confirm appellate nominees who are offered and easily confirmable. Kethledge and Murphy were nominated to the 6th Circuit as part of a deal with Levin and Stabenow ending the 5 year Michigan impasse. So why aren't Senate Republicans picking even this low hanging fruit? A hearing was held for the district nominees (including the Democrat Levin got as part of the deal) but not on the vastly more mportant Circuit nominees, Kethledge and Murphy.

What is the Senate GOP waiting for? Clearly the Democrat scoundrels in the Senate cannot be trusted to honor any deal they make, even if it's sworn on a hundred Bibles. I won't be at all surprised if, after the Michigan district nominees are confirmed (and Democrats get their part of the deal), Schumer & Co. suddenly discover "troubling" problems with Kethledge and Murphy, and duly proceed to obstruct their nominations.

How can people be so stupid? The feckless and supine GOP Senators have continually shown me that my views which seemed jaundiced and cynical at the beginning of a month turn out to have been hopelessly optimistic and naive by the end.

The only hope is to retain or augment the GOP majority in November, but I worry that even that may not be enough.

O'Connor and breyer were on Charlie Rose last night and it was sickening. Comin up as we are on the start of a new term it made me realize more than ever how much we NEED to get a 5th conservative on the bench.

All this talk about Boyle, Myers et al is meanngless. The SC is where it's at and if we have 5 solid conservatives on the SC none of the COA guys matter.

For the nation's sake, Stevens or Ginsburg needs to go in thext 2 years.

but I continue to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He expertly shepereded Roberts and Alito (in the process brusquely cutting off Kennedy), he got JRB, Pryor and Owen on, and he got Kavanaugh on. So maybe he knows what he is doing.

An alternative theory is that he has been told by Frist that no floor action will occur on these nominees so it is pointless to get them out of the committee. If that is so, there is no reason to piss off Democrats simply to piss them off.

So I, for one, am not rushing to condemn Specter just yet.

Despite Specter's seeming inability to say "no" to Leahy, much of yesterday's fiasco is directly due to the behavior of the other Republican senators. Even if Specter wanted to kowtow to Leahy, why didn't any of the other Republican senators object? Why didn't someone say,"hey, wait a minute, these men deserve a vote right now regardless of what Patrick Leahy wants!"? Why didn't anyone step forward to push the issue?

Unfortunately, I think I know the reason: the Republicans had already decided in private not to pursue the issue of judges. They were probably secretly glad that they wouldn't have to confront each other or any Democrat on Boyle and company. To make matters worse, they didn't even stand up for Keisler.

The icing on the cake, however, was the absence of most of the Republican senators for the hearings of Wallace and Bryant. What could have been a watershed moment in forcing the ABA to re-evaluate its biased rating system turned into a worthless exercise in futility. Although Cornyn and Sessions did a wonderful job in deconstructing the logic of the ABA, their performance was marred by the absence of the others. Rather than providing a united front, the absent Republicans made it seem like Cornyn and Sessions were two lonely extremists pushing a partisan grudge.

The main reason that Murphy and Kethledge were denied hearings and confirmations this month has to do with the recent NSA wiretapping decision by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. The decision is being appealed to the 6th Circuit. In case that court accepts the case en banc, the Democrats want to make sure that there aren't two more Republican judges on the court to swing the vote against them. Unfortunately, the Republicans have acquiesced to the Democrats once again.

As far Livingston goes, the judge she will replace doesn't retire until 9/30, two days AFTER the election recess begins. Since her confirmation depends on Schumer and Clinton, I'm sure they don't mind waiting until after the position actually opens up before allowing Livingston through. After all, why put another needless Republican judge in place when it's not absolutely necessary?

Unfortunately, I think I know the reason: the Republicans had already decided in private not to pursue the issue of judges.

This has been fairly obvious for a while now. The big mystery is why they so completely caved in. Maybe they were following Frist's lead.

"The big mystery is why they so completely caved in. Maybe they were following Frist's lead."

That would be a first.

Thanks for your elucidation on the Kethledge-Murphy delay, BoBo. This seems strangely reminiscent of 2002-03, when the Dems delayed the nominations of Sutton and Cook to the 6th because (at least partly) they didn't want to upset the "liberals'" one vote advantage in the Grutter v. Bollinger 6th Circuit en banc appeal. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, I suppose.

How tres francais of you.

You're right that the SC is the end of the line. But do not discount the Circuit Courts. Many precedents are set by Circuit Court rulings for which the SC declines a hearing, and thus it's as if the SC ruled and rubber-stamped it. Sometimes the SC may refuse to take a case, even when we believe it was wrongly ruled at the CC level.

the CCA writes the opinions that the Supreme Court deals with and a great deal of how a case is finally ruled lies in how the CCA frames the question in their opinions.

Despite rumors that the SJC will hold another business meeting tomorrow to discuss Keisler, Boyle, Myers and Haynes, there is no new meeting listed for tomorrow on the SJC website. This doesn't sound good. I know the notice for Tuesday's meeting said that some nominations MAY be discussed on Thursday, but there was no guarantee. I wonder if Specter will just forego any further discussion on the four and allow them to remain in committee.

The controversial (now 6) will all be returned. Luckily, I think Bush will and (should) again renominate all of them.

Has anyone heard rumours about the possible retirement of John Paul Stevens after the mid term elections?

I don't think that Dems can keep Kethledge and Murphy off the Sixth Circuit long enough to keep them from voting. For one thing, it will be a few months before the Sixth Circuit even hears the case. Most likely, a panel of three judges will decide. Only then will there perhaps be an en banc hearing. Murphy and Kethledge should be on by then and would participate.

In any case, there are already more Republican judges than Democrats on the Sixth Circuit. In 2003, it was the opposite.

Currently, there are 20 judicial emergencies including 11 circuit court seats. This includes 3 seats in the 3rd and 2 seats in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th circuits. Specter and Frist could care less.

On Tuesday, Specter scheduled 11 nominations [5/CC and 6/DC] starting at 2:00 pm. Next he schedules 2 controversial nominees, Wallace and Bryant, and 11 witnesses for an ABA non-title cage match starting at 3:30 pm. The fight never matched its billing. Is is any surprise that the bottom line is 1/CC and 2/DC nominees out of the SJC? To top it off, one of the DC nominees is Jarvey who will not be seated until 11/05/06. This seat is still warm. The 11 CC JE vacancies languish while the SJC wastes time filling a future vacancy DC seat that won't be open for 6 weeks. Nothing fishy going on here. Did Specter schedule a hearing for Thursday? No the SJC can't be bothered. Frist sings his own praises about how he pushed through numerous nominees during the last four years. Please! Bobo correctly saw through the thin veneer that is the SJC of the do nothing 109th.

By the end of this year, there will be approximately the same number of CC vacancies [17 or about 10%] as there were at the beginning 2005. What a waste of 55 Senators. We may never see these Republican Senate numbers again in our lifetime.

As I understand it, it is possible that the Bush administration could ask the 6th Circuit to hear the case en banc initially with no intervening three judge panel. In that case, the whole 6th Circuit could hear the case before January. Only judges who hear the oral arguments then could vote. If Kethledge and Murphy are not confirmed until January or February, which seems likely given the election recess and the inter-congressional recess in December/January, they will not be able to participate in the final en banc vote and decision.

At least so far:

http://www.confirmthem.com/returned_nominees_renomoinated#comment-389

http://www.confirmthem.com/specter_interviewed_on_fox_news_sunday#commen...

*heH* I nearly posted this with "PERDictions" in the title. And PerdITION is exactly where we are, although it was entirely pred- er, forseeable. :)

This was exactly what everyone should've known would happen by renominating Boyle, Myers, & Haynes, and it will keep happening if they're renom'd in January.

Once again, the Gang publicly killed Myers, McCain & Graham killed Haynes, and the Gang privately killed Boyle in exchange for Kavanaugh. I don't know if we're in an Alphonse/Gaston moebius or a Rosencrantz/Guilderstern spiral, but it's where we are.

Frist & Graham have just completely destroyed their POTUS chances, McCain has seriously damaged his, and Bush has done those who consider the Judiciary important no favors.

Oughta be laugh-a-second watching the Frist-Kerry "out sooner" contest in February, tho.

Why Frist has not decided to risk being honest and bold on these nominations is baffling. He's going to get blamed for the standoff; no one who considers judges a litmus test will give him any credit whatsoever. Donald Duck could've got Roberts & Alito confirmed; he let the Big Three dangle for years before the Gang arose and even then they were confirmed at heavy cost (tho it was worth it).

Privately, or publicly if necessary, telling the WH that the Dead Three have no chance, they can be easily replaced by superior candidates, and that clever tactics can get the others confirmed (with enormous side benefits along the way), is something a LEADER would do, which I'm sure is why all his handlers & advisors would never let him do it, assuming he even thought that way in the first place.

You know, if Kerry really did have 39 votes to filibuster Sam, maybe someone like Sen. Bennett SHOULD have joined him, so the nuke could've gone off, assuming Frist had 50 votes for it, which I know highly doubt. Best case, it would've been worded as going nuke for Sam, and Sam only.

What a bunch of nonsense all the chatter about "meetings" has been her the last few weeks. Worse than Insider and waiting for Stevens to retire. At a minimum, Smith, Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, and Livingston all should've been confirmed; the ABA should've been discredited over Wallace; and the Dead Three finally brought to the floor to meet their fates.

Any Republican that tries to run in '06/'08 on "I got conservative judges confirmed" will get laughed off the stump.

Oh, and for the poster who wanted to know about new Stevens retirement rumors. I spoke to Stevens today. He told me he most likely won't retire until he drops dead, but he definitely won't retire under a Republican POTUS unless the Dems hold the Senate.

[/sarcasm]

Thanks BillM. It seems then that there is the strongest chance yet of his retirement if the Republicans lose the Senate.

According to Specter's senate web site, the Judicary committee is meeting both the 28th and the 29th to consider judicial nominations. I am still optimistic. Of course I was optimistic there would be one or two SC retirements this summer too!