ConfirmThem

It's always nice to see liberal judicial activists repudiated, especially by the voters. There is hope in the world....

The Sykes nomination was an interesting case study. She's a highly credentialed, conservative female judge who at the time of her confirmation in 2004 was young enough (47) to be on Supreme Court Short lists for a decade or more. But how do you get such a great nominee confirmed from a state with two democratic senators? Well, they get something in return. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had a working 4-3 conservative majority at the time, and Sykes' confirmation allowed Gov. Doyle (D) to nominate Loophole Louie to the court. That gave the liberals the votes they needed to engage in all kinds of nonsense, not least of which was adopting the incredibly broad "risk contribution" theory in a liability case involving a lawsuit against paint manufacturers.

Judge Wilcox, writing in dissent, summed up the effect of the majority decision by stating "manufacturers can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the plaintiff's injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market . . . Simply put, the majority opinion amounts to little more than this court dictating social policy to achieve a desired result."

So now Loophole Louie (who, incidentally, lost by a 2-1 margin when he ran against Judge Skyes) is history and the conservative majority is restored. I wondered at the time if it was worth it to "give up" the Wisconsin supreme court to get a great judge on the 7th Circuit (and line up a potential Supreme Court pick). I favored the exchange, but I'm sure the business community in Wisconsin has different feelings.

I always wondered why President Bush didn't go for the same sort of trade in other states. Michigan, for instance, has a 4-3 conservative majority on its supreme court, a democratic governor, and two democratic senators. It also has two seats on the 6th Circuit to fill. Justice Young is an outstanding conservative jurist, still only 55 and African American to boot. Justice Maura Corrigan is a big fan of Scalia - 'nuff said. She's 60, I believe. Would it have been worth it to lose the Michigan Supreme Court to fill those two seats on the 6th Circuit?

To answer your last question: Absolutely. While I understand Michigan's is one of the truly outstanding originalist supreme courts in the country, I wouldn't mind dismantling it to further a stronger federal judiciary. Michigan as a state is a lost cause any way.

Sometimes you must give up something to get something. Sykes was an All Star talent on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ready to be discovered. There is no question that her two Dem. Senators wanted to get rid of her knowing that the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court could be changed overnight. They both wholeheartedly supported her nomination to the 7th Circuit. They would be hard pressed to vote against her for the next SCOTUS seat.

She has served well on the 7th Circuit [8R/3D]. I think the fire power and orginality on the 7th Circuit is second to none. Sykes has written articles and has given speeches highly critical of the newly composed Wisconsin Supreme Court since her departure. She is my pick for the next SCOTUS seat. I will crack open the champaign if she ever replaces Stevens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Supreme_Court

"Vacancies on the court occurring between sessions of the General Assembly may be filled by the Governor for a term expiring thirty days after the commencement of the next session of the General Assembly."

By confirming Agee, the Senate will give Kaine, the Dem governor of Virginia, the ability to name his temporary successor on the Virginia Supreme Court , giving the successor a leg up when the next General Assembly meets to name Agee's replacement. The Dems would love to control the nomination and confirmation of a new, more liberal member of the Virginia Supreme Court.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/04/it_never_ends.html

"It is no secret that, when it comes to the issue of judicial nominees, the Right just likes to fight. And one of the way the GOP and the Right try to gin up their base in an election year is to make judges an issue, and make unfounded accusations of bigotry against any opponents. They’re at it once again."

"The Right sees some nefarious ulterior motive at work – and that is how they manage to convince themselves that opposition to [Leslie] Southwick stems not from concerns about his record but from some sort of deep-seeded hatred of Southern white males … the same way they said opposition to Miguel Estrada was really due to anti-Latino prejudice … and opposition to Priscilla Owen was the result of flagrant anti-woman bias … and opposition to William Pryor was actually due to anti-Catholic bigotry … and opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was in actuality rooted in racism.

And guess what? Here they go again ... this time with a bit of a twist, as Fidelis circularly accuses Sen. Pat Leahy , who is himself Catholic, of accusing Robert Conrad, who is likewise Catholic, of making anti-Catholic statements."

"While that complaint is a bit confusing and probably unlikely to generate any sort of outrage, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice decided to take a different track and simply accuse Senate Democrats of being anti-Semitic for opposing the nomination of Peter Keisler."

Sorry Virginia, but your loss will be the nation's gain (Agee). Virginia will have to take a hit for the team, as Wisconsin did earlier when Sykes moved to the 7th Circuit.

After all, those fools elected a Democrat Governor, so in some ways they deserve what they get. Sorry.

When you write that "Michigan is a lost cause," are you meaning only judicially, or also with regard to the electoral college? If the latter, I beg to differ for a few reasons: the current delegate debacle among the Dems; the economy in Mich. that can be laid at the feet of the Dems; the possibility of Romney being the veep candidate.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/

"Here’s a sampling from letters of recommendation from folks who know Keisler well and who (from their self-descriptions in their letters or from their public reputations) aren’t conservatives:

Akhil Amar (Yale law professor): “I would rank Peter at the very top of the distribution curve in terms of sheer intelligence, lawyerly skill, judicial temperament, and overall character. In short, Peter Keisler has the potential to be one of the most respected jurists of the early twenty-first century.… I support his judicial candidacy enthusiastically and without reservation.”

Neal Katyal (Georgetown law professor and opposing counsel in the Hamdan case): Keisler “would be a fabulous judge”; “not an ideologue, but rather a lawyer who took tremendously seriously both his craft and his carefulness.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/in-taking-judicial-nomination-fight-...

"Sen. Arlen Specter’s recent tough talk with Democrats in the escalating Senate battle over judicial nominees could mollify conservatives in his own party who almost upended his political career four years ago.

The Pennsylvania Republican barely escaped a two-pronged attack in 2004, weathering a GOP primary challenge and later a concerted effort to keep him from becoming the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

Since then, the pro-abortion rights centrist has quietly sought to thaw relations with the right. He has hired aides well-known to conservative leaders, attended weekly Wednesday-morning meetings with activists, spoken to the conservative Federalist Society and kept conservative editorial boards apprised of his legislative maneuvering.

The outreach comes as he has sought to win Senate approval of lifetime seats for Bush’s judicial nominees, a priority for Republicans who want the federal courts to move solidly to the right. After shepherding through Bush’s two Supreme Court nominees, Specter is now playing the lead role in a partisan, election-year fight that could bring the Senate to a standstill."

I was referring to Michigan politically and economically.

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/specter-offers-judges-fight-...

"Politicians attempting to pander to their base is nothing new. In fact, it's not even surprising. Both parties take advantage of this political strategy, but during the Bush years the Republicans have managed to turn it into an art form. Realizing that the end of their heyday (otherwise known as the Bush presidency) is rapidly approaching, Republican senators are shocked to find themselves on the losing side of the debate on health-care, the economy and the war in Iraq. As a result, beleagured GOP Senators have turned to an old party favorite: judges.

Leading this charge to the right is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"It seems strange that Senate Republicans would accuse the Senate Democrats of “playing politics” on judges. Particularly considering that its senators like Arlen Specter who are attempting to use this issue as a wedge to energize their base."