ConfirmThem

for making me read anything in the NYT. I should know better. The retching should stop soon.

Sorry.

January Nominee Report
As of 1/31/08

As a reference aid for other readers and posters on this site, I compile a monthly summary of progress on Article III federal judicial nominations. Quite easy this month because almost nothing happened, as foreseen. Following are the figures for January:

Circuit Confirmations: 0
District Confirmations: 0
Circuit Nominees Reported by SJC: 0
District Nominees Reported by SJC: 0
Circuit Nominees had Hearings: 0
District Nominees had Hearings: 0
No. of Judicial Nomination Hearings: 0
Circuit Nominations: 0
District Nominations: 0
Total Nominees Pending on 1/31: 28 (11 CCA, 17 DJ)
Nominees in Committee with hearing: 1 (1 CCA: Keisler, 0 DJ)
Nominees on Executive Calendar on 1/31: 0
New Vacancies: 1 (1 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 12/31: 47 (15 CCA, 32 DJ)
Total Vacancies on 1/31 48 (15 CCA, 33 DJ)
Change in Vacancies in January: +1

Outlook for February: Hearing scheduled for 1 CCA nominee (Haynes-5th Cir.) on Feb, 21st. Hearing scheduled for 4 District Court nominees (Puryear-Tennessee, Miller-Arkansas, Honacker-Wyoming, Hall-Georgia) on February 12th. No confirmations likely this month. 3-4 District nominees may be voted out of SJC and placed on the Executive Calendar.

OUTLOOK for 2008: Present CCA Nominees:

Haynes (5th): Hearing scheduled on 2/21. Very likely to be confirmed sometime in March.
Pratter (3rd): Slam dunk whenever. Hearing probable in April. Confirmation likely in early May.
4th Circuit: Top priority. Nominations (from the Warner-Webb List) for the two Virginia vacancies ought to be made no later than this week, given the 2-3 month lag for vetting. 1 out of 5 confirmations would be good at this point. 2 would be excellent but very unlikely. 3 would require a virtual miracle. Only Conrad or a Virginia nominee from Warner-Webb list seem even feasible.
D.C. Circuit: Keisler (DC): Seems improbable, unless the purported “deal” can be consummated. A top priority, nevertheless.
Kehledge and Murphy (6th): Not worth discussing
Smith (1st) Low priority
Prospective 9th Cir. nominee: Not worth pursuing at all. A premature nomination might get in the way of Keisler and 4th Circuit nominees.
Stone (3rd): Highly unlikely.
Other D.C. vacancy (transferred to 9th): not eligible for nomination until January 21, 2009.

BOTTOM LINE: 3-4 confirmations still seem most likely this year. 5-6 more District Court nominations should be made this month to keep the pipeline adequately filled.

[For reference, my December 2007 Nominee Report appeared in the thread “McCain Wins Florida” on January 30th.]

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/us-district-judge-kelley-will-resign-wor...

From the article: U.S. District Judge Walter D. Kelley Jr. announced Monday that he will resign from the bench and return to private practice. "After much consideration, I have reluctantly concluded that my professional interests and the needs of my family are best met in the private sector," Kelley wrote in a letter to President Bush, which he sent Monday by overnight delivery. The letter says Kelley has accepted a job with the international law firm Jones Day and will work out of its Washington office.

I wish Mr. Kelley well, but from the standpoint of the judicial confirmation battles this is disappointing. He only served 4 years, is only 52, and now his successor will almost certainly be appointed by the next President. I realize you can make a much higher salary as a partner at a big firm than as a judge, but I really think that you shouldn't accept the nomination if you don't feel that you can serve for at least ten years (although I acknowledge that his personal situation may have changed, you never know). This is the second such resignation just in the past few months - the other was Judge Cassell from the Utah District, who was an absolute rising star. I guess this is one more data point on the issue of whether judicial salaries should be increased.

FYI, here's a link to Leahy's "pro forma" opening statement.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=3076&wit_id=2629

There's a somewhat glancing reference to Mr. Honaker being controversial, but less than I expected.

Does anyone have any insight on how the hearing went?

let's just say that if feinstein ends up voting for honaker, i'll eat my computer.

He has no chance. The only way he was even on the agenda today was for a senatorial courtesy. Once again Leahy is right on the mark with lack of nominations and ones that are made, are done purely to provoke. Come on Bush-wacker. Make some more nominations. Work with home-state senators. We are less than a year away from a Dem making these nominations instead of you.

If there are going to be nominations based on who the next president will be, probably they should wait until November. No need to get desperate right now, IMHO. McCain has a good chance of winning.

I agree re McCain. Right now he's even money, and over the next several months as the voters get to know him and Clintobama better, I think he will become the favorite to win, once it becomes obvious just how radically left Clintobama is.

Courtwatcher, did you actually see the hearing today, or are you just offering an opinion based upon Feinstein's feminism? I guess I really want to know what happened procedurally. Was much time spent on the other nominees versus how much time was spent on Honaker? What type of questions were all four asked? Was the questioning of Honaker vicious or perfunctory?

One about Honaker's hearing. (He has no chance, I think):
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/02/13/news/wyoming/28-nomin...

And one on Puryear. He is controversial too. Although I can't imagine that the Dems block 2 district nominations in one month:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS03/802...

Honaker was nominated almost a year ago. It's ridiculous that he is just now getting a hearing. The fact that groups like NARAL or Americans United for Separation of Church & State oppose a nominee does not make him "extreme" or "controversial."

Smith, Murphy, Kethledge, Stone and Rosenstein will never get a hearing under any conditions. The President should with draw them immediately and make some more nominations after consulting with the home state senators involved, nominating the most conservative candidates possible.

Why cant the NC, SC senators force their nominees to get a healing as Enzi did with his district nominee? Why hasn't the Kesiler deal been acted upon according to the agreement between Di Fi and Kyl?

http://www.thenew995fm.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed...

http://christiannewswire.com/news/922535680.html

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/021308.pdf

"'Today, a coalition of about 60 organizations – led by the Committee for Justice (CFJ) – delivered a letter to each of the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee "to express our deep concern about the lack of progress in 2007 in reporting judicial nominees . . . out of the Judiciary Committee, and to discuss reasonable expectations for progress on this issue in 2008.'"

"The coalition names, as its "highest priority," Peter Keisler, a D.C. Circuit nominee "who has inexplicably languished in committee without action since his hearing a year and a half ago." The letter notes that "Keisler has been given the American Bar Association's highest rating – 'unanimously well-qualified' – and has the enthusiastic support of leading legal scholars and practitioners from across the ideological spectrum." Even 'the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have called for Keisler's confirmation.'"

I think several of you are overly optimistic about McCain's chances in November. I think too many people are fed up with Bush's shenanigans. (The left think he's way too far right - well, he's Bush so by definition he's evil - and the right think he's messing us over with his immigration and globalization nonsense.) The left will be out in droves to make sure they get their guy (gal) in office. Many on the right will be demoralized beyond belief and will stay home due to lack of energy from Bush and general dislike of Maverick McCain, and the center will be claiming we need change, so we need to switch to a Democrat. Plus there will be the feminists who will vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman, or the blacks who will vote for Obama simply because he's black.

(Note that I don't give a rip about whether a candidate is a woman or a black or anything else. For example, if Ken Blackwell, the black guy from Ohio who lost in the governor's race, was running for POTUS, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Likewise, if there was a good, conservative woman running for POTUS, I'd support her just as much as any man. I also believe Condi Rice is NOT that person.)

Black people pretty much vote Democrat anyway. Gender might help Hillary in the general election, but race won't help Obama much.