ConfirmThem

Massachusetts is a lost cause. I don't think Romney's state picks (and I know nothing about them or how they are selected) give us any real insight into who a President Romney might nominate.

Moving back to our present president, where are our other nominations?? We're still waiting for nominees for the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th. It is outrageous that Bush was not prepared at the very beginning of this new Congress to name nominees to all of the vacancies. This administration's continued level of apathy towards judicial nominations is striking.

Romney was trapped by being in MA.

I think he ran for Gov there to show he was bipartisan for a future SCOTUS run, and didn't realize how it would affect him running for the nom as a conservative.

I can't imagine him nominating anything other than JGR/SA types to SCOTUS. But, who knows?

I don't know what the confirmation process in Massachusetts is like, but I bet that judicial nominees must be confirmed by either the state legislature or voters. That means the nominees had to be palatable in both cases to populations that were heavily Democratic. That may have been the reason why Romney had to choose the people he did. I also think people need to remember that Bush II did not always nominate strict conservatives to judgeships in Texas. As president, however, he nominated the likes of Roberts, Sutton, Cook, Sykes, JRB, Owen, Pryor and Alito.

Remember that until November, incompetent Harriet Miers was in charge. Then Alberto Gonzales took over after the election, and at this point we don't even know if Fred Fielding is going to get involved in the nomination process. With all this confusion, I think the White House did well to drop The Fatal Four and nominate Leslie Southwick in Wallace's place. I agree, however, that the White House must quickly now get back on track and nominate a slew of COA nominees within the next 45 days.

Bobo, I'm not sure if the analogy to Bush's term as governor in Texas holds. I'm not sure how the lower-tier judgeships in TX are filled, but as I recall, the TX state supreme court is elected, not appointed.

On the other hand, it's true that Romney was limited to a certain extent in his judge picks, as the governor's judicial appointments in Mass. must be approved by a special council elected by the state legislature, which was heavily Dem during Romney's term of office.

As I understand it, vacancies in the Texas judiciary are filled by appointment first. Then those appointees must win in the next election in order to retain their seats. So, the initial step in the process begins with the governor. This is how most people become judges in Texas - by appointment. There are, however, a few judges that have first acquired their seats by beating incumbents in elections.

Jon

You are correct that Texas judges are elected. The governor comes in when judges leave mid-term (for whatever reason) and appoints a replacement which must then face voters next election.

BoBo

I think you may be thinking of the California system whereby a judge is appointed and then runs for re-election with an up or down vote of the populace in the general election. In Texas, judges run in a party primary for the opportunity to run in the general election.

I do not recall the source, but I remember reading that most Texas judges leave midterm. Because of this, most judges in Texas (2/3rds) actually are first appointed by the governor before winning an election. In general, incumbent Texas judges (like most state judges in the U.S.) are retained in elections.

Any nominee for the courts in MA has to make it past the Governor’s Council, which in MA during Romney’s tenure was 8 out of 8 democrats (6 of whom were hard-core lefties).

Romney has been candid about the fact that his appointments do not take into consideration sexual preference or gay-rights politics…the reason being that that his appointments have all been lower-bench seats which focus on the legal qualifications and rule-of-law views of the candidates. Romney has not gotten the chance to back up his call for strict constructionist interpretation of the MA Constitution on the Supreme Court.

The fact that Romney got 25% republicans through that briar patch of a 100% lefty GC bodes well for his abilities with SCOTUS and a 49% conservative US Senate. One of Romney’s early executive orders from 2003 overhauled the nomination process to make it blind to partisan political leanings of the candidates, a very likely reason for his success. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/02-11-2003

"When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness" -- Mitt Romney