ConfirmThem

see here (h/t David Stras at SCOTUSblog).

great title, too.

I didn't watch the whole debate, but I did see the exchange between Guilliani and Paul. To my recollection, Paul did not use the term "America First," he spoke of "non-intervention."

Was a quote fabricated?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand conservative leadership for the conservative movement.

Starting with Maureen Mahoney.

There are already five votes against affirmative action and she would be a huge improvement over any of the liberal justices. If Stevens or Ginsburg retired tomorrow, I would be ok (if not thrilled) with her as a replacement.

I meant to say, I would be ok (but not thrilled) with her as a replacement.

If a McCain or Romney would give us Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, why should we vote for a Giuliani who would give us Maureen Mahoney?

There are a few problems with Alt's article. (I don't agree with bigskybob's contention of fabricating a quote, as Alt doesn't say he's quoting Ron Paul, he uses the quotes to delineate a line of comments made by Paul: his "blame America first" comments. That's not a quote.) First, while Meese certainly had a major role in shaping Reagan's judicial philosophy and the judicial philosophy of many Reagan era lawyers, I'm not sure it's accurate to characterize Meese as the architect of Reagan's judicial legacy. Meese became AG in 1985. By that time, most of Reagan's significant district court and circuit court appointments had been made, including Bork, Winter, Scalia, Posner, Bowman, Wilkinson, Chapman, Starr, Wilkins, Higginbotham. Easterbrook, Jones, and Kozinski were appointed that year. Not too many significant nominations and appointments were made after 1985, in fact. There was Scalia to SCOTUS; Kennedy to SCOTUS (not a great legacy pick!); Silberman, Williams, Ginsburg, and Sentelle to the DC Circuit; Smith to the 5th Circuit; Boggs to the 6th Circuit; O'Scannlain to the 9th Circuit.

Additionally, and with all due respect, Meese didn't have much in the way of truly outstanding credentials to warrant his elevation to AG in 1985. Not unlike AGAG, Meese was a capable lawyer who just happened to be a close friend and adviser to the president. There were certainly many attorneys far more qualified to be AG. Thus, Rudy's criticisms of Meese, while perhaps contemptuous, also had some basis.

Lastly, Alt is truly blind if he thinks Rudy pandered and caved in to the liberal media elite in NY, and would do so again as president. No one has ever taken such constant and vitriolic critisicm as has Rudy from the NY press, but he's given it back and then some. Few public figures have ever had the fortitude that Rudy has had in dealing with the media. In this aspect, Robert Alt has no idea what he's talking about. It's clear he has reservations about Giuliani and this was all he could come up with to voice them.

Especially when we have Allison Eid, Margaret Ryan, Miguel Estrada, Ted Cruz, Michael McConnell, Peter Keisler, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Yoo, Jim Chen, Jerome Holmes, Diane Sykes, Priscilla Owen, and Gregory Coleman just waiting to be nominated. :-)

Giuliani might pass on Maureen Mahoney and nominate Lee Rosenthal - which would most likely be a much better selection. I wish Dubya would get her on the 5th Circuit so we can see what she can do, but with Jennifer Elrod's nomination, I doubt we'll get two caucasian Houston female judges nominated to fill the two Texas seats on the 5th Circuit.

Who's to say McCain and Romney would give us Luttig or JRB, or that Giuliani would give us Mahoney? That's purely uninformed speculation. Giuliani has promised Scalias, Robertses, and Alitos. I've not heard any of the other possible candidates go on record with such names.

BananaR,

I'm just saying that Mahoney is not someone you should be "worried" about especially since she would replace someone much more liberal. Who I'm more worried about is someone like Elena Kagan.

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

In 2009, she will be 49 years old, absolutely unstoppable in the Senate, and is a liberal version of Roberts and Alito.

McCain openly and proudly worships at the altar of bipartisanship. He wouldn't nominates a justice the Dems oppose(not even hate as much as they hate JRB) in a million years.

Unfortunately, "the female John Roberts" will be an attractive potential nominee for any of our candidates: she's "conservative enough" (in their view, not mine); she's likely to win high marks from the general public (as Roberts did); and she's likely to avoid the sort of confirmation battle that most Presidents will be eager to avoid.

As for McCain, it is fantasy to think that self-proclaimed Mr. Bipartisan would give us Michael Luttig or JRB or anyone else on the Democrats' hit list.

I currently support Mitt Romney and think that he would deliver excellent justices, but I think that Fred Thompson would give us the best justices. He seems to have the most backbone on every issue that's come up. Given his immense experience with the judiciary (and not just as a DA on Law & Order) I'm becoming a convert hoping that he will jump in. I don't think he would nominate Mahoney. I think he'd deliver us top-notch justices.

If Rudy is the nominee, I will support him and hope for the best.

BTW, Giuliani dismantled New York City's affirmative action program for contractors and at CUNY so I doubt Mahoney would be high on his list.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E0DD1539F930A1575BC0A...

Eight months into office, the administration of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has scaled back or eliminated several programs aimed at enhancing the role of black, Hispanic and Asian New Yorkers in city government and is considering abandoning several other affirmative-action measures.

....

But more than that, the retreat from affirmative-action programs reflects a philosophical perspective that Mr. Giuliani has articulated long before his mayoralty began: that race should play no role in the way government recruits, hires or delivers services. "This administration believes in hiring the best person or best company irrespective of race, color, creed or sexual orientation," Mr. Giuliani said in a recent statement. "All such decisions are based solely on merits."

In general, as I have said before, I think all of the major presidential candidates are to a certain extent wildcards. My previous mention of " a McCain or Romney" was merely a reference to any Republican candidate who might offer more conservative judicial nominees than Giuliani; it was not a direct comment on either McCain or Romney. Unfortunately, at this point, it is very hard to determine which type of judges any of the top three would nominate. Do we trust McCain's voting record on Bush nominees? Do we trust Ted Olson's belief in Giuliani? Do we trust Romney's statements about whom he would nominate? As I have stated before, I fear Giuliani would be more likely to nominate moderates who fit his odd definition of "strict constructionist," which includes too much respect for stare decisis and not enough for federalism.

BananaR,

What (Fred Thompson's) IMMENSE experience with the judiciary are you referring to? He was assistant US attorney from 1969 to 1972, that's it.

Although I personally like FT and enjoy his roles in movies, I can't seem to remember a single thing he accomplished in the Senate. I really love how people here pore over each of Bush's appellate nominees' credentials, but a biography of:
lawyer-assistant u.s. attorney-Watergate committee counsel-lobbyist-actor-2 term US Senator makes a person the best Republican candidate to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?? Only the last one makes him modestly qualified, and I don't think one could say that he was better than mediocre as a Senator. He wasn't even a down-the-line conservative like Inhofe or Crapo, being one of the few Rs voting for acquittal of Clinton on one of two charges and voting for McCain-Feingold which attacks the most basic protection of the constitution: the right to free speech.

Compare his qualifications to earlier Republicans elected president:

W.-2 term Governor of Texas, 2nd largest state in US

HW-VP

Reagan-2 term Governor of California, largest state in US

Ford-selected not elected

Nixon-former VP

Eisenhower-WWII general/hero

In a word, I'm stunned that so many conservatives have deluded themselves that this guy will enter the race on a white horse and save the party and the country. Sadly, it shows a lot of desperation in the party and unfortunately sets up a lot of people for disappointment when he enters the race and is not the Messiah people think he is.

The potential GOP nominee will be an extreme leftists on the border and will disappoint with his judicial picks (especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices), among many other areas. Sadly, I think the GOP nominee will be Giuliani. (Who would be a disgustingly leftist nominee.) Giuliani does not have a conservative bone in his body; he will capitulate to Democrats alot more than Bush has-and that's just SCARY. The GOP will forever lose its image as being a conservative party if Giuliani is the nominee. Other than the War on Terror, he is the male version of Hillary Clinton. If Rudy keeps us safe from attacks, then his leftist domestic agenda will be very germane. I will NEVER vote for Giuliani because I sincerely believe he is as bad as Obama and Hillary (except for the War on Terror.) I'm posing this question as a Catholic, what happens in 2008 when both parties nominees are pro-abortion, will the Church hierarchy tell Catholics to just stay home and forgo voting?

McCain is too old and has pissed off the base so much with McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, trying to give habeas corpus rights to terrorists, etc. that he will NOT be the nominee. I agree with others that we will at best get an O'Connor-like justice out of McCain, but most likely a Souter-like justice from him. I cannot express how much I LOATHE John McCain; I will NEVER vote for him (under any circumstances). The GOP and the country are far worse off because McCain got into politics.

Mitt Romney came across as a true charlatan in the second debate. I'm not going to vote for any person who supported the "assault weapons" ban; is pro-abortion (even though he contends he's pro-life); pro-No Child Left Behind; etc. I do NOT believe him when he says he wants to double the size of Guantanamo Bay. He has a credibility problem, as does Giuliani and McCain. I believe that Romney, McCain and Giuliani are mendacious, and won't be much better than Hillary or Obama. Romney's money will keep him in the race AT LEAST until February, 2008, but I don't believe he's a viable nominee.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are the ONLY conservatives in the race. I will NEVER support Fred Thompson if he were to get in because of his support for McCain-Feingold. Just that one issue alone should disqualify him with any TRUE conservative. I have a feeling I'll be sitting on my couch having not voted on November 4, 2008. By not voting, I would be saying that no candidate is acceptable (which will be the case). I truly think that amnesty will hand the Democrats the White House in 2008 because they'll have millions of new voters and they'll cheat (as ALWAYS). GOP voters were jazzed up in 2004 and Ohio's 21 EVs were the difference; now we're disgusted with the potential nominee and will pay a price for giving amnesty to the 12+ million illegal aliens. Conservatives truly need to take back the GOP or face a long wilderness period.

Andrew,

I'm not going to waste time rebutting the whole article, since the Father's main point is something we all know: Giuliani's positions on the legality of abortion is opposite to that of the Republican party.

Your point, however, doesn't make sense to me:
Giuliani specifically gives examples of what he means by "strict constructionists", Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. We know that two of those definitely believe Roe should be overturned and two are not on the record yet.

Now, either
1) He is telling the truth, in which case he is not using the term strict constructionist to deceive us.
OR
2) He has no intention of naming a strict constructionist like Scalia or Thomas and is throwing in their names to assuage the base.

If 1) is the case, your premise is false. If 2) is the case, then if he is willing to lie about Scalia and Thomas, he could also be lying about appointing any strict constructionist. For all we know, he is really looking to nominate Larry Tribe or Elena Kagan or Richard Paez. After all, these nominees would also claim that they would faithfully interpret the constitution, and not make it up as they go.

So what's the point of parsing his definition of strict constructionist? If you believe he is being honest, then Scalia/Thomas tells us that he will not have a litmus test on his strict constructionists. If you believe he is willing to lie on Scalia/Thomas, he could be lying about anything so you can ignore anything he says.

Does Bush really want to avoid a fight? If he has the chance this July, I'd say a confirmation battle is the best thing that can happen to this White House.

Between Gonzo, Wolfowitz, Iraq, and the rest of the problems, they can definitely use the distraction.

but it's NEVER sensible to stay home on election day. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the Republican as the lesser of two evils, please cast a vote that sends a message about what you believe in.

Vote for the Libertarians, vote for the Constitution Party, whoever, but VOTE. Millions of votes for one or both of those parties tells the GOP what we want them to stand for.

Staying home sends no message, because nobody can tell why you stayed home. Someone who stays home because of a well-reasoned objection to the D's and R's shows up in the vote totals the same as someone who stays home because he's lazy, indifferent, or ignorant -- i.e., neither one shows up at all.

-------------

Btw, we need run-off voting in federal elections (one of the very few things we can learn from France). The top two vote-getters from the first round advance to the second round.

In the first round, we'd be free to vote for the candidate who most closely reflects our views (for many of us, that would be the Libertarians or the Constitution Party). If the Democrat and Republcian made it to the second round, only then would we have to hold our noses and vote for the Republican because he's the lesser dumbass.

Say, would anybody here be interested in reading a long recent interview w/Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

http://tinyurl.com/2z2kp5

For purposes of discussion, let's distinguish the two types of strict constructionists at issue. Let's call them "Constitution-first" strict constructionists, and "precedent-first" strict constructionists.

Guiliani has said that his nominees may be either one, without specifying which type he'd favor. He's been totally ambiguous about that, and thus he's pointed out that his nominees could be a Constitution-first type who would overturn Roe, or a precedent-first type who would affirm Roe. If Giuliani has ever said or implied that he would prefer a Constitution-first type over a precedent-first type, then I missed it.

He has spoken well of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. But even if Roberts and Alito turn out to be Constitution-first types (as I hope), still Guiliani may have merely meant that he approves of how all these four justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution and statutes. That says nothing about how those four justices weigh their correct interpretation of the Constitution against contrary precedent.

rightwing, I also know how you feel, and I'm also upset about this moronic amnesty plan cooked up by those "great mavericks" in the Senate.

However, if all Republicans were to take your advice and stay home, Democrats would be elected to every position in the country, from President down to school board. They would be free to pass hundreds of constitutional amendments that could do stuff like
1) Ban all other parties
2) Make the Clintons co-presidents for life, (with right of succession to Chelsea.)
3) Abolish the US military
4) Abolish the free market and nationalize all businesses.
They may or may not want to do any of these things, but nothing would stop them from doing this.
And that would really punish Bush and the Republicans in Congress, wouldn't it? Not to mention our children, grandchildren, and all future generations.

So next time you stay at home on election day or urge others to do so, think about what would happen if everyone followed your advice. And then go vote.

Andrew, your post assumes that it is possible to distinguish ahead of time between these two types of strict constructionists and, more specifically, between those who will overrule Roe and those who won't. With the exception of dead-on-arrival nominees who have expressly urged the overruling of Roe (like Edith Jones), it is not possible.

Our goal instead should be to demand Supreme Court nominees who have displayed a public commitment over time to core principles of federalism, separation of powers, textualism, originalism, etc. Nine out of ten times, a nominee who has shown such a commitment will be a good bet to overrule Roe, even if we allow for the theoretical possibility, as Giuliani has, that he or she "could vote to uphold Roe as precedent".

Kennedy and O'Connor didn't vote to uphold Roe because they are "precedent-first strict constructionists". They voted to uphold Roe because they aren't strict constructionists at all.

We're worried about nominees like Mahoney and Callahan not because we think they might be "precedent-first strict constructionists", but because we have no evidence that they are strict constructionists of any stripe.

Everything you say is true, but it seems (at least to me) that what he means when he says that his nominees could be (as you say) "Constitution-first" or "precedent-first" is that the president or anyone else almost always doesn't know when he makes the nomination.

As Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, when asked about Roe, is that he will decide each case when it comes to him and not prejudge anything before reading the briefs and seeing the facts, etc. I don't think he was lying and I happen to agree with this approach. And as you point out, we still don't know which camp Roberts and Alito belong to.

Thus, Giuliani is pointing out something obvious: When asked if his nominees will overturn Roe, he responds that he will appoint justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, but that he can't positively say whether they will or will not overturn, because we didn't know how Scalia or Thomas would look at it before they got on the court, and we still have no clue how R and A will decide the issue. I think this is the most obvious explanation of Giuliani's position, and likely the correct one.

Your interpretation that: "Giuliani may have merely meant that he approves of how all these four justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution and statutes. That says nothing about how those four justices weigh their correct interpretation of the Constitution against contrary precedent"
obviously could be true but if he prefers a "precedent-first" justice, would be extremely deceitful since none of the four he names is known as a precedent-first justice and he doesn't name a single person who actually is a "precedent-first" strict constructionist.

Although presidents do not ask how nominees will rule on particular cases or issues, I would be very surprised if the current president and past presidents have not asked nominees how they would weigh the clear meaning of the Constitution against a clearly erroneous precedent. And it does not take a genius to figure out which kind of answer a President Giuliani would be looking for. A prospective nominee who says he admires "super duper precedent" would be nominated. Take it to the bank. That nominee would generally vote with Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, but would be most reluctant to overturn prior longstanding decisions.

Anyway, I hope that some intelligent reporter will directly ask Guiliani which type of "strict constructionist" he would prefer.

This is very astute, and Giuliani needs to be pressed on it.

LMK,

I'm generally with you on what type of Senator Fred Thompson was. Very mediocre. But something seems to have changed with him since he left the senate. I mean...he's saying ALL the right things, and people seem more willing to go along with him than Mitt Romney.

As for his experience in the law (I realize I'm changing terms here...perhaps this would be more accurate,) he was a US Attorney and was co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and revealed that a Tennessee governor had been selling pardons. He was in private practice for a long time, and he helped shepherd the Chief Justice through the judiciary.

FT also seems to have some fight in him these days. I'm thinking that marrying a younger woman has made him more...vigorous. :-)

At this point...I just think that I'd be most comfortable with his nominees. I'm sure that Romney would nominate justices whose are well-liked by conservatives and who have giant intellects.

I'm fine with either Fred Thompson or Romney. Anyone else is someone I'm going to have to vote for in spite of my misgivings about them.

Which isn't conservative at all. In the last debate, he basically promised to defend the country and destroy the economy.

Well, Scalia has voted to uphold some constitutional precedents he believes are erroneous and both Roberts and Alito said they would follow the precedent on precedents: i.e. look at reliance... and you obviously know that it's not a simple issue of being either a "constitution-first" or a "precedent-first" judge since pretty much every conservative lies somewhere in between, sometimes voting to uphold precedent because it's precedent and sometimes voting to overturn it.

Still, I agree it would be great to know whether Giuliani would prefer that any justice he appoints uphold Roe or overturn Roe. Somehow I doubt he will ever tell us, since any answer would harm him greatly, either with the base or with the kind of swing voters he hopes to capture in states like NJ and PA.

Or...it might make the people in PA, NJ, and NY rethink whether or not Roe is so sacrosanct. Possibly?

That's why I want more justices like Thomas. I love Scalia, but we need some more Thomas-esque justices to strike down bad precedents, and why I favor former Thomas clerks for the court. :-)

"Scalia has voted to uphold some constitutional precedents he believes are erroneous...."

It's one thing to uphold a precedent that seems probably to be unconstitutional or that seems clearly to have been decided unwisely, but quite another thing to uphold a precedent that is clearly unconstitutional. I don't see how a judge could vote to uphold the last kind of precedent while still adhering to the oath.

Giuliani is not going to say whether he'd prefer that any justice he appoints uphold Roe or overturn Roe, nor should he tell us that. But he could certainly tell us whether he'd appoint a justice who would uphold a precedent that the justice believes is clearly unconstitutional.

Either or would be fine with me.

That said, I don't have a problem with Rudy as much as others here do. Bush has created a large block of conservative COA judges as potential appointees. Given such a selection, I think the next GOP president is highly likely to choose from this bunch, and unless they pick Barrington Parker, most of the choices aren't all that bad.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=2793

The agenda for next Thursday's SJC business meeting has been posted, and - surprise, surprise - the names of neither Keisler nor Southwick are on it!

With the new immigration - read amnesty - bill to be debated soon, I would've assumed that the Dems would want to woo the Republicans will some COA judgeships. I guess not. I think it is important to note again that the Dems have definitely slowed down the confirmation process to a trickle. We are now way off of a once-a-month COA confirmation schedule. Rather we now have an every-other-month schedule:

January - none
February - Randy Smith
March - Thomas Hardiman
April - none
May - Debra Livingston

Again, I seriously doubt Bush will get more than 11 COA judicial confirmations during the 110th Congress. Leahy has said as much. In his last speech about judges, he seriously questioned the Republican talking points concerning the need to confirm 15 COA judges this Congress.

I would've assumed that the Dems would want to woo the Republicans will some COA judgeships.

But the GOP leadership (with shoves from Bush) seems to have completely caved without granering any concessions as far as I can tell.

I don't really want to see señor Bush replaced by señor Guliani. One open borders supporter replaced by an even worse one.

The "debate" is over, no matter what Cornyn says.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/senate.immigration/index.html

These guys will fight to the death over essentially meaningless crap like flagburning & Terri Schiavo, but they just lie down on a mega issue, they way they always have before. Lil' juice from Con-Ag & Wal-Mart never hurt the cause of selling out America, either.

All you youngsters here, be prepared for the great immigration debate of 2030.

I may vote for a Jeb Prescott in '12, but not a (insert name) Bush again, ever.

Rudy is better than Hillary & Obama, and Mahoney & Callahan are better than Stevens & Ginsburg and likely better than O'Connor & AMK. A $5 bill is also better than a quarter.

Whatever Rudy, McCain & Romney's vast flaws, at least there are clear records there to judge by.

Thompson? Well, Bush was SAYING all the right things in 1999, too. Please tell me things Fred's actually DONE, because he really strikes me as a Wesley Clark-wanting a fresh face/anyone but the front-runners type candidate at this point, tho I'd love to be wrong.

I agree with LMK that Mahoney would be a vast improvement over the lefty bloc (I even think there's a possibility she could be a superb justice even by our definition (the fact that she clerked for WHR just a couple years after Roe says a lot, IMO), with the probable exception of aff. act. which, as LMK notes, we should already have a majority on anyway (we'll know within a month or two)). However, even if she is only the relatively moderate (in the SDO/AMK mold, not the DHS mold, which I don't believe she'd be for a second) we fear she may be, I'm not convinced Rudy would give us judges even that good.

If Maureen Mahoney can't see how affirmative action clearly violates the equal protection clause, I don't know how great a strict constructionist justice she could POSSIBLY be on other issues.

It seems as though that the US Attorney for WD-PA was once on the list to get axed as late as Nov 2006. This is according to a new report from the Pittsburgh paper. That is why the Dems wanted to call her for their witch hunt. It had nothing to do with her having a role in the firings like was speculated here earlier. As it turns out she was put on the list by mistake.

From the article: "...it [her being on the list] may have been nothing more than incompetence from officials in the Department of Justice not talking to each other, he said."

Maybe her being a 'victim' in this affair will improve her chances for a 3rd CCA spot. On another note, what the heck is wrong at the justice department? How are they so clueless and inept. Another Pittsburgh son was just canned this week, Paul McNulty.

Lastly, did anyone get sick in the stomach watching Lindsey and McCain laugh it up today with Kennedy. It's like possibly looking into the future. Barf. I do not want 8 years of that with those two smucks in the POTUS and VP. Also who is dressing DiFi. My eyes almost exploded due to her bright yellow 'dress'. Its like Rosa Delauro D-CT is dressing her.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07138/787111-84.stm

I would vote for Giuliani in November against any of the Democrats running in 2008. I would do it with a tear in my eye. I always want the lesser of two evils, rather than the greater of two evils.

On a different topic...

In the last decade, McCain (with the help of Graham) has done more than all the Democrats in both houses of Congress combined, to get domestic liberal initiatives enacted. And he has the nerve to run for president ... as a Republican? I would love to know who are these 1 in 5 Republicans who support him???

At least this amnesty bill will get the media to start loving him again. Instead of attacking the foolish Iraq-supporting McCain, we will soon see the media extolling the bipartisan statesman McCain who rises above politics to solve the country's problems. It's just sickening.

Just wondering on who everyone would put on the list. At first I was going to limit it to any GOP senator to serve during Bush's terms because I didn't think there would be enough crappy ones in the 110th Congress. However it was not hard to come up with more than 5 for this Congress. Here is my list.

5 Worst
McCain
Graham
Martinez
Hagel
Voinovich

5 Best
Coburn
DeMint
Thune
Kyl
Cornyn

I can't complain with you list too much with one giant exception - John Thune. Thune has been a great disappointment. He sponsored a $1.3 billion "loan" to a failing railroad company. He has nothing in common with the other senators you mention.

John Sununu, Jeff Sessions, or Judd Gregg would fit in on that list much better.

Sununu made me mad because of his handling of the Patriot Act renewal. He has been too libertarian on a lot of things that I don't like. Sessions is a great Senator, but he really upset me with his CYA blocking of Keisler in the lame duck session of the 109th. Other than that he has been solid. That is pretty much the only reason I bumped him in favor of Thune. Thune: while I agree with your disgust of the 2nd railroad to nowhere, he learned from that. I read from Bob Novak a few weeks back that he really "had an awakening" from that railroad bill (which by the way did NOT get funded) and has returned to his original conservative promise. In addition to that he was the guy who brought down Daschle. He is still very young and a rising star in the GOP. Give him time, I think he will be a great Senator.

I'd put Ensign on that list before Thune.

Debates about whether, or not, one should vote in the next election are pointless. The politicians have decided to elect a new people. They might call it "comprehensive immigration reform," but it is simply the taking of the decision to replace the American people. That new people will chose their own leaders. Your mine, and our input in that process will be irrelevent.

The real answer is to elect a new Senate, House and President. Those who speak in favor of electing a new people must be defeated. That is equally true of Clinton, Obama, Brownback McCain.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leadership that aggressively and effectively pursues the true interests of conservatives.

Moderates are firmly entrenched, and in charge, of most "conservative" organization including the Republican party.

Under that moderate regime, the conservative movement has abandoned the pursuit of conservative goals, such as overturning Roe, stopping homosexual marriage, cutting spending, devolving power from the federal government to state and local control, balancing the budget, exalting our culture, defending our borders and avoiding excessive foreign entanglements. Instead, "conservativism" has degenerated into an endless stream of mendacious propaganda about how pursing liberalism is "conservative:" about how amnesty is "pro-family; about how no child left behind is "pro-child;" about how reckless deficit spending is "stimulative" to our economy; and about how passive acceptence of abortion-on-demand is smart "strategery!"

As a result Republican politics has degenerated between to a power struggle between those who are moderates and profess themselves to be "moderates," and those who are moderates and profess themselves to be "conservative." That is the Republican dog-and-pony show.

In 2000 McCain was the unabashed moderate, and Bush the "compassion conservative," aka "moderate." In 2008, so far, Guilliani and McCain are playing the "moderates," while Romney is playing the "conservative." Of all the candidates, only Trancredo is remotely conservative, and the moderates who head "conservative" organizations are trashing him with as much venom as they can muster as a direct result.

The lack of a real conservative candidate has left real conservatives grumbling about the situation. They are being asked to drink the Kool-aid. And, they are being told they have a choice: you can drink from the cyanide-laced cherry Kool-aid, the cyanide-laced strawberry Kool-aid, or the cyanide-laced grape Kool-aid.

Predictably, real conservatives are asking for an alternative.
They are demanding a real conservative candidate. Realizing that neither of the dogs nor the pony is an attractive candidate, the folks who brought you the dog-and-pony show are proposing trotting out another pony: Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson has almost no credible claim to being considered a conservative. But, he has such a minimal paper trail that he can be passed off as an empty vessel in which true conservatives can pour their hopes and dreams such as appointing juges who will overturn Roe.

Whether Thompson runs is irrelevent. Whether he is the nominee, or not, is irrelevent. What is relevent is that Fred Thompson has served his purpose: that conservative energy has been misdirected sufficiently long so that no true conservative can enter the race at this late date with a realistic hope to win.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives purge their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives.

Bennett belongs on the 'best' list, IMO. I wish we could clone him & send Orrin back to Pittsburgh, and I'm hardly the only Utahn that feels that way.

Brownback's making a strong effort to get on the 'worst' list.

Coburn is clearly the best Senator, and it's not even close. One of the best in recent memory, in fact. I've always been a fan of Grassley too.

What, no thinks Specter is a candidate for the 'worst' list? ;)

Im just curious, what leads to your dislike of Sen Hatch?

Could use 51 of him on Capitol Hill.

Specter isn't the worst. He has different political positions than some of us, but at least he doesn't backstab the party while claiming the opposite. Not as much as Graham anyway.

Hatch can do some unexpected things at times. Right now he is supporting a seat in the House for the District of Columbia, a move I think is totally unconstitutional. Also, he has oddly supported liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer at times. He told Clinton to nominate Ginsburg and actually got Breyer his COA job by convincing Strom Thurmond to let him be confirmed just before Reagan took office.

I don't dislike Hatch, I just think that he isn't always predictable. Conservatives who out of the blue do something with the Democrats unnerve me. At least everyone knows that McCain and Hagel cannot be consistently depended on.

I agree that the DC House seat is extremely short-sited unless Utah gets that extra seat permenately. I also agree that it is not based in the Constitution. If anything we should try and cut back on the number on House Reps - NOT increase them. Maybe like cutting out 5 per census till it reaches 400. Anyway back to Hatch. Ginsburg was as best we could hope for at the time. In 1993, we were in a smaller minority than we are today in the Senate and Clinton just ousted a sitting president. Even having a thought about filibustering judges was still 10 years off. What was Hatch suppose to do? He saved us from Como or Babbit. At least Ruthie has a better intellect than the two of them put together and the paperwork to back it up. Plus she was OLD, when she was appointed. I think Hatch was actually kind of sly in getting us an old Ginsburg and a pragmatic liberal in Breyer. I would venture to say that Breyer has actually been better than Souter. All in all, it could have been a lot worse, A LOT! Hatch also did a good job bottling up a lot of Clinton's terrible judges for along time. In the end, the only circuits that really suffered with lots of Clintonistas were the 9th and the 2nd. Bush II got in and we have captured control of every other circuit in only five years, some substantially. Hatch was a great chairman of the SJC - getting rid of the blue slips. Its just too bad that Frist was so terrible a leader. I actually had the chance to meet Hatch back in 2004 when he came to speak at UPitt and for a Specter fundraiser.

From Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/analysis_the_co_3...

"The next President similarly will have two appointments immediately (replacing Stevens and Souter), and there also is a very substantial prospect that a Democrat would quickly be in a position to appoint a third (replacing Ginsburg). In fact, if a Democrat wins, there will be something of a race for the exits."

"If a Democratic President wins in 2008, the current conservative-leaning détente on the Court is likely to be enshrined for the indefinite future. Imagine if in 2009 Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg were replaced by Judge Garland (then age 57), former Solicitor General Seth Waxman (58), and Dean Elena Kagan (49); they would join Justice Breyer (71). On the right, you would have Scalia (73); Thomas (60); Alito (59); Roberts (54). And Kennedy in the center (for this Court) would be 73.

In that scenario, the potential range of movement in the Court’s jurisprudence would narrow dramatically. Only three Justices – one from the left, one from the right, and one in the center – would be at an age at which they would even be thinking of retiring. The other six Justices would be expected to serve at least 10 (and more likely 15 or 20) years."

http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=e69539a...

"Four cases remain from the December sitting, most notably the school-racial-integration duo of Parents Involved v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson County. Four Justices have yet to write opinions, including JGR, DHS, SGB, and SAA. My guess is that the Chief is keeping the race cases for himself. The Court seems almost certain to strike down the voluntary integration plans, and this would be the first major opinion by the Chief this Term. After plumbing the depths of railroad liability, prison lawsuits, and solid waste, I think the Chief, famous for his “divvying us up by race” opinion during his first Term, is ready to make some 14th Amendment history. The only question is how far the Court is willing to go in implementing a colorblind vision of the Constitution. Will Grutter turn into a pumpkin long before its SOC-imposed 25-year lifespan expires? Probably not, but at the very least I expect a strong opinion reiterating that strict scrutiny really means strict scrutiny when it comes to race-based government action.

Just 2 opinions left from January—Davenport v. WEA (union fees) and Safeco/Geico (Fair Credit Reporting Act)—with only Scalia and Souter left to write. I’ll bet the Chief assigns AS the choice task of skewering the Washington Supreme Court’s wacky First Amendment ruling in Davenport, while DHS will be consigned to consoling the Geico cavemen, whose thriftiness (and fashion sense) he has always admired."

The sarcastic humor of the author of this piece, Aaron M. Streett, a seeming liberal, reminds me of Dahlia Lithwick.

He is retiring from the Missouri Supreme Court.

http://www.missouripulse.com/production/

The source code of Goldstein's post has a glitch in it. The following is in the source code, but not in the post: "The Chief Justice and Justice Alito are defenders of stare decisis, but squarely presented with the question – and unable to reach the result they believe is right by narrowing Roe further – it seems likely that they would vote to overturn it, as it is a decision that (insofar as their pre-judicial statements are instructive) they believe is essentially lawless."

UPDATE:SCOTUSblog has fixed the glitch.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/05/whats_up_with_that_third_circu_1.php

http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/117903086...

"In an abrupt about-face, President Bush has decided against nominating Noel Hillman, a veteran prosecutor and now federal judge in Camden, to the seat on the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that was held by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr."

"Hillman [is] a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey and the lead Justice Department prosecutor in the Jack Abramoff Capitol Hill lobby ing scandal."

"The reason for dropping Hillman remains a mystery, and both Hillman and the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania are staying mum. But speculation abounds, with some believing a skittish White House was concerned about the possibility that Hillman's Senate confirmation hearing could become an inquisition into the behind-the-scenes operations of the Justice Department."

As I have said before, I somehow doubt that Lautenberg and Menendez, both Democrats, will allow Bush II to fill Alito's old New Jersey seat on the Third Circuit. Dropping Hillman is a sign of this. Despite their previous approval, the White House obviously doesn't think that Lautenberg and Menendez would help grease the way for Hillman's confirmation. Rather Bush seems to be afraid that they would crucify Hillman in order to further destroy the Justice Department.

OK, that's not too surprising given Hillman's previous DOJ experience. But one question: Why should this nomination even be an issue? It should be about 7th or 8th in line for new CCA nominations, behind the following:

1. 4th Cir. (N.C.) 2. 4th Cir. (S.C.) 3. 4th Cir. (Virginia) 4. 3rd Cir. (PA) 5. 5th Cir. (Tex) 6. 4th Cir. (2nd Virginia)

And these are all behind the nominees who are already in line. So, I can't get too excited unless (and alas this is plausible) those idiots are actually considering puting this 3rd Cir. (N.J.) nomination ahead of the 6 I listed above.

In and of itself, I agree that Alito's old New Jersey seat is nothing to worry about. I do think, however, that the dropping of Hillman is a good instructional guide as to what to expect from the Dems. They will try to twist and manipulate the careers of even the best qualified COA nominees in order to embarrass and humiliate the White House, this includes the careers of those nominees previously supported by Dem senators for district court positions. This should be a warning to all those who think that Webb will passively sit by while Bush nominates qualified conservatives for Virginia's open COA seats.

I always assumed the NJ seat was the more likely to be filled, since it seemed an open secret that Hillman was on tap (and so, I always found it strange that so many posters put the PA seat ahead of it, 2 Dem Senators or no. I still think they were wrong to do so, though they aren't wrong now. I still don't think it necessarily says any/everything about the seat itself or similarly situated seats, though).

Bush should have the opportunity to replace the judge he tapped to be justice (and I wouldn't be surprised if refusal to allow him to do so was as much a part of the Dems' petty reasoning as their attempts to set up a proxy smear of the administration on the nomination of Hillman or others).

I agree with you on that. It seems like all gloves are off and that Dems will smear and slander CCA nominees in any way possible. This is of course not new: see Estrada, Owen, Pryor, Saad, Kuhl, Pickering, Wallace and others. But it looks like they're going to take it up another notch. I think Southwick is safe, unless the Dems go totally over the top sooner rather than later. But beyond that, it looks to get very ugly in the near future. Unfortunately, Keisler with his DOJ experience could be a prime target. I think his only hope is his excellent Washington connections and the possible Deal discussed here several times regarding the CCA shift from DC to 9th Cir.

And yes, I have no illusions about Webb. Athough, Warner and Allen didn't do much (make that zero) for 4th Circuit VA nominee(s) from 2003-06.(Oh yeah, "nominee" is singular since Bush never bothered to nominate a successor to Luttig in 2006.) The timing of that resignation should make Luttig forever "dead" for future S.C. nominations.

Perhaps this will an instructional part of your education about dealing with Senate Dems on judicial nominations.

The second sentence in your first paragraph is a complete logical contradiction. The third sentence demonstrates an obstinate resistance to learning, which I trust you will eventually reconsider after further bitter experience.

Life is unfair, and disappointment is an understandable reaction, often of youth. When one learns to expect little or nothing from the opposition, you will not be disappointed by the bitter fruits that they usually offer.

now.

I note that you did not reply substantively to my comments, but instead in an emotional vacuum. My teenage son does the same thing all the time, so I'm used to it. I generally enjoy and respect your comments, so I hope that you'll assimilate and think about the issues at hand, rather than replying immediately without reason. Believe me, we've got enough real enemies at hand without being the enemies of one another.

If we are to stop "condecension," then shouldn't that apply to those who arrogantly decided that conservatives should lie on their backs, expose their throats, and urinate on themselves as part of a "deal" to allow seventeen moderates and no conservatives, scratch that at most eleven moderates and no conservatives, to be appointed to CCA's?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principled conservative action from principled conservative leadership.

1st, I am not your son, nor a teenager.
2nd, nothing in my post 63 deserved your being an ass in 65.
3rd, I fully recognize the perfidy of the Democrat party, so
4th, there was nothing of substance in your insulting post 65 to which to reply substantively. and
5th, you will stop talking down to me and, I repeat, you will do so now.

you may call me wrong if you wish (though I am unsure what there was to be "wrong" about in my post and/or what you found so objectionable therein), but you will not cite stupidity or naivete not in evidence as proof of wrongness.

now, before I say something (for the first time tonight) "immediately and without reason", I will stop there, recognizing I am not in the mood to play this game. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and credit you being in a similar mood for your failure twice in as many attempts to speak with a modicum of respect to a fellow poster who had done nothing to deserve other than that respect.

I will let it go at that because (assuming, again giving the benefit of the doubt, that the "respect" bit in 67 was not more condecension) I too generally enjoy and respect your comments. You have in the past couple weeks been pretty outspoken about reining in the "sky is falling" mentality (e.g. that the failure to confirm 1 in April doesn't mean that it can't be made up (and even if not in May); and that Leahy et al are merely making soothing noises to their moonbat base re: Southwick. I would add that the Dems won't turn off the spigot completely as many fear because they know judges is one issue they are very, very vulnerable on. they will of course be their usual donkey selves, drag their feet maddeningly, make outrageous statements about Bush's "troubling" and "disturbing" nominees, but they will in the end confirm, grudgingly, as many as they feel is needed to avoid looking too obstructionist. that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't grouse about their tactics, as I did in 63, or that doing so is a signal of naivete), and I agree that approach (for the time being) is still warranted.

peace, brother.

Yes, it's bad enough that Cornyn and McCain are at each other's throats on immigration, and McConnell and Hatch are at each other's throats on a House vote for the Distrcit of Columbia, et cetera.

Your point about the Alito seat in the second paragraph is quite apt. It would be just like the Democrats to hold the Alito CCA seat open as some kind of twisted Statement. And it's quite interesting that another recently-appointed Justice's CCA seat is still open after nearly two years: John Robert's seat on the DC. And of course the nominee to this seat is Peter Keisler.

That could be one more factor in whatever is coming next month (or July) on the Keisler nomination. As if more complications were necessary.

I was afraid to say so about Keisler, since I too am still keeping my fingers crossed about the alleged deal, but I have that fear there also. I do think Feinstein is a Dem that can be worked with (compared to her comrades at least, especially on the SJC), so I do still harbor the hope that the deal will be honored (again, assuming any such deal was made). maybe they'll cause trouble but eventually relent since those could be touchy seats for the Repubs for the very same reason, and could cause some blowback if the Dems win the WH. I don't like being at their mercy though. sigh.

Keisler is in exactly the same situation that John Roberts was in 1991. An immediate first-tier SCOTUS candidate with a brilliant resume who would be unlikely to produce any controversial opinions on the mostly non-ideological DC Circuit and would be extremely impressive in televised confirmation hearings.

Ultimately, he will probably also get the '91-'92 Roberts treatment. Ignore, ignore, ignore until time runs out.

in that Roberts was in his very early 40s and I think Keisler is 47. those years could make all the difference if he is confirmed.

Diekenes,

When you say, "those years could make all the difference,"
Do you mean that Roberts would have been confirmed in 1991 if he was older or that Keisler will be too old to be a Supreme Court nominee? I dodn't think the first is true, and Keisler will be only 57 in 2017 when Kennedy or Scalia (or Breyer or Souter) might all be retiring.

simply that, in general, the younger the nominee the more problematic it will be to get them through a Democrat-controlled Senate, especially the closer it gets to the end of the term. I strongly doubt that any more nominees in their very early 40s can get confirmed (after Hardiman and Elrod, and with the possible exception of Paul Clement, who I think has at least some prospect of confirmation). We'll see a few more in their mid-to-late 40s, I'd guess, but I think about 80-90% of future nominees will be in the 48-58 range. That especially goes for a potential 3rd SCOTUS vacancy, for which the talk of Eid or Cruz or Clement is pure fantasy.

More directly to the question of your post, I am not specifically saying either of the alternatives you state, but that if Keisler were as young as Roberts was in 1991, it would be much, much harder to get him confirmed. I also don't mean to say that Keisler will certaily get confirmed now, or that Roberts would have been confirmed then if he were 47 instead of 41, but that the chances go up greatly.