ConfirmThem

Cheers, Andrew. Thank you the years of enjoyment on this website. Here's to hoping Obama's time to do damage to the Constitution and the judiciary is limited to 2 years, 4 at most. God speed and God bless.

Thanks for all your good work. How long will the website be left up?

Been fun & educational, if also aggravating and disappointing at times (the results, not the people here).

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

This site has been a valuable and timely source of information and analysis on a vital issue affecting America. My thanks to Andrew for his hard work. I've also enjoyed the fellowship among the commenters, and hope that we have the opportunity to band together again very soon in the cause this site stands for.

Take care, everyone. Your participation has been much appreciated.

Before this site is closed down, could 'Insider' finally reveal himself?

Is there anywhere we can track Obama's nominations?

The last thing to track. If anyone hears about any lame duck confirmations or recess appointments, please post here!

I'll definitely check it from time to time.

This was my favorite web site from the time it went up through 2006. When the Dems won the Senate, there was not much left to talk about. Is this site just going to disappear or will the others who post here continue to post?

I don't know what will happen with this web site. I guess we'll find out eventually.

Thanks for this site. It was a regular stop for me and I will miss the updates and the comments. Andrew, I especially appreciate your comments regarding the unborn. Good luck.

for all your work here. Thank you, Red State, for making CT possible.

I hope this site will continue, or at least will morph into something usable during the "wilderness" years.

Liberals have used the threat of lawsuit for decades to control the national agenda. It's not just liberal judes, but liberal lawsuits that have held this country hostage. Case in point: Prop 8, just passed in CA as a Constitutional amendment is already being challenged by a liberal lawsuit.

We fell short in filling the Courts with Conservatives. That much we can agree on. And after Obama, it will take 20-30 years, if ever, to get close enough again to have a shot.

What we need are pro-active lawsuits challenging liberal legislation in the Courts!

Where are the conservative lawsuits like the one against prop. 8 when a piece of liberal legislation is passed?

of a lawsuit would be enough to prevent liberal causes in many instances.

It may be time for conservatives to step back from the view that Courts should not be used to advance an agenda. The liberals have been doing it to us for 50 years, it's time to fight fire with fire !

No way! Fundamental to being a true conservative is being committed to the rule of law and the democratic process. Only liberals would challenge prop 8 in the courts. A true conservative, because he is a conservative, must respect the rule of law.

gets us nowhere. The Liberals do whatever it takes to win, and until we do the same they will control our national agenda.

that McCain's entire campaign was one long concession speech.

On another matter, it turns out that Greta's secured the first post election interview with Palin. She's going to Alaska. Interview will be on Mon. night.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/11/03/daily77.html

"Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal."

Hopefully, Senate Republicans like Kyl will play hardball with ultraliberal judicial nominees. As most on this site already know, I fully support Republicans filibustering extreme Obama nominees. If the Dems use the nuclear option to break the filibuster, all the better. Then, finally, the judicial filibuster will be dead.

I question whether or not he would have 41 votes to pull that off.

Nah, he won't come close to having 41 votes to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee of Obama's. Kyl's even going to have trouble getting 41 votes to filibuster any of the president's lower-court nominees. Probably a few will fall by the wayside, but the majority will be confirmed.

In addition, despite what he said above, Kyl's own words from May 19, 2005 don't exactly help his cause:

"The reality is that the Senate is now engaged in an historic effort to protect constitutional prerogatives and the proper checks and balances between the branches of government. Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition – wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore."

And then Kyl made this comment on PBS on May 4, 2005 that the Democrats surely will throw back in his face:

"We need to go back to that tradition of 200-plus years and get the up or down votes that these people deserve. If senators don't like the candidates, if they think they are disqualified or for some reason they shouldn't be sitting, they can vote no, but give them an up or down vote. That's what they deserve."

above provides a rationale to continue this website, in at least some format.

Is there any word yet from the powers that be of the status/future of confirmthem.com going forward--whether it will remain as is or morph into something else?

Will be Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Yes, this is a great site. Definitely the number one spot to come to from around June '05 to February '06 when there was so much excitement in relation to the Court with departures and replacements. It will be sad to see it go, though without a Republican president the site has lost a good deal of its usefulness. It would be nice to see new posts every once in a while.

Let's hope that Stevens really does want to die on the Court (and lives at least four more years) and that rumours about Ginsburg and Souter are untrue. However, Obama will almost undoubtedly get at least one appointment. Let's pray it's not a total detriment to sound decision-making at the Court.

And let's hope that the five right of center justices stay healthy and end up retiring under a Republican president down the road.

Roberts, Alito, no Miers, no Kerry appointees. Overall, pretty good.

While most people believe that George W. Bush will be most remembered for September 11th and Iraq War, I believe that his long lasting legacy will be his fine conservative judicial appointments to the federal bench. Both Roberts and Alito will deliver numerous important decisions for decades to come. The appointments by Bush on numerous circuits will also have a lasting impact for the forseeable future.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just reached the high water mark for conservative judicial appointments, the likes of which we will not see for years to come. As 2009 comes to an end, we must take stock in what we have accomplished during the last 8 years. First and foremost, George W. Bush did not disappoint with his two stellar appointments to the Supreme Court. These two incredible minds are gifts that will keep on giving.

Second, we have a majority of Repbulican judges on 10 out of 12 circuits, an accomplishment which cannot be ignored.
There was great disappointment ending the year with only an equal number of judges on the 4th Circuit. Then, there is the 9th Circuit which needs no introductions here at this site.

Finally, there are many excellent district court judges who may some day make fine circuit court judges in the years to come. At this point in time, the active federal judiciary may comprise of the highest percentage of Republicans in modern history. Does anyone know the percentages or numbers? I would imagine that there are more active Republican judges/justices than at any other time in history.

Quite frankly, it is high time to crack open a bottle of champagne and celebrate the accomplisments that conservative have achieved during these last eight years. Thank God that George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004. We have made very good gains for the cause.

It is now Obama's turn to see if he has learned anything from the administrations of Carter and Clinton. These two presidents were followed by two other presidents who consistently nominated conservative judges/justices. We have had a good run and we will another turn in the not to distant future.

Andrew, you are a patriot in the truest sense of the word. Your tireless efforts have been extremely informative and are greatly appreciated. The information here was not only timely, but also very entertaining as well. This is the only serious website on this topic and I hope that it somehow continues.

Good luck to you my friend and thank you yet once again. Andrew, may the wind always be at your back.

Hopefully, only Stevens will retire or die in the next four years. Under that set of circumstances, Sotomayor could be Obama's only SCOTUS appointment.

I think Kagan will not be considered for a SCOTUS nomination until she has been on the D.C. Circuit for at least a year. She should be one of Obama's first COA nominees. I bet she will be nominated to the D.C. Circuit in late January/early February and confirmed before April.

I think Andre Davis and James Wynn will be nominated to the Fourth Circuit at the same as Kagan is nominated. They too will probably be confirmed by April. The only way to stop Wynn will be if Burr blue-slips. Unfortunately, with Hagan replacing Dole, it could be hard for Burr to block Wynn. Especially if Obama also nominates Elizabeth Gibson to replace Wilkins.

Here's hoping that Obama will be only a one term president and that the 2012 president elect Republican will continue the fine work done by President Bush on all federal judicial levels.

Whoever Obama appoints, the conservatives will be well represented on the high court and at the very, very least will be the intellectual equals of any Obama nominees. As long as the five right of center justices hang in there, we'll be fine.

Now if it was Chief Justice Gonzales, Justice Miers, an aged Scalia, and a taciturn and idiosyncratic Thomas, I would be worried.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMU8pZTTBJh7FF0jgF3WNjxztQAgD94AR6JG0

"Even when Clinton had a Democratic Senate majority in his first two years as president, he was slow to nominate judges, although an unexpected early retirement announcement by Supreme Court Justice Byron White partly accounted for the delay in moving other nominations.

The incoming Obama administration is unlikely to repeat that mistake, in part because of the experience of high-ranking officials beginning with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, a senator from Delaware who served 32 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Biden was chairman of the committee, which reviews judicial appointments, during the explosive debates over Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. He led the committee for eight years and was its top Democrat for eight more during Democratic and Republican presidencies.

"This presidential team has more experience and expertise on these issues than any in history," said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "You'd expect this is something they will get right."

Yup, plus W's had about the least, so that's that.

And please, for God's Sweet Sake, no more about Non-Insider. I believe BoBo and others strongly figured him to be a staffer of an GOPSen on the Jud Comm--and his "record" showed that he knew nothing more than any of us.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

an open thread and/or clarification on the future of this site? Or are we waiting until the electoral votes are officially and legally counted? Inauguration day? Other?

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=9035&type=UTTM

"With President-elect Barack Obama poised to take office Jan. 20 — and four vacancies on the 15-member 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — court watchers say they see the possibility for a seismic shift on the Richmond-based appellate panel. The incoming Democratic chief executive can quickly put a liberal stamp on the conservative court, which hears appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas, they add."

"In particular, Obama might be interested in elevating district-court appointees of former President Bill Clinton, the most recent Democratic chief executive and whose judicial philosophy might be akin to Obama’s.

One Clinton appointee, Judge Andre Davis of the U.S. District Court for Maryland, was later nominated by Clinton to the 4th Circuit. The nomination, however, was made too soon before Clinton left office to gain consideration from the Senate.

Professor William Reynolds, of the University of Maryland School of Law, said Obama should give Davis serious consideration for the 4th Circuit. “He’s just an excellent judge,” Reynolds said."

Nothing, absolutely nothing, sums up all the shortcomings of the Bush administrations, on every issue, better than the situation on the 4th from 1/20/01 to present, especially in Virginia, and ESPECIALLY the under bus throw of Duncan Getchell.

Two GOP Senators in a GOP majority Senate have him on their list, but because no WH staffer thought of him, no way. Then, when one of the Senators is defeated and the other is nearly retired and 100% sure to be replaced by a Dem in a Dem landslide, Voila!, Getchell's our man! Disgraceful on every historical, intellectual, strategic & tactical level, to say nothing of on a moral level. Leave the man dangling with no hope of even a hearing just long enough to have his reputation destroyed. But, hey, let's give AIG some more taxpayer money with no transperency, huh?

There is simply no rational explanation for it, tho I guess it was predictable based on Gonzo, W & Frist's cowardly refusal to lift a finger for Estrada. And Gonzo wondered why there was no one to fight for him. It would be like the Titans all of a sudden signing Dan Marino to run the wishbone. Or, "I don't care if it is raining, we didn't invent the umbrella so we're not going to use them."

I repeat my prediction that Obama will have a nominee for every open Circuit seat and 90%+ of the Distrcit seats by 7/4/09. Won't be much left for Pres. Huntsman to fill in 2013, tho God willing all the old Gollums will still be clutching the Precious.

Stay optimistic and forward-thinking-out-of-the-box, everyone, although I guess we do need to use the last bits of outrage to keep Franken from stealing MN, and get "Tiger" Chambliss back on the DC links.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202425886208

""He's looking for a federal Oprah, more than a judge," said Shapiro. "The reason conservatives accuse liberals of activism is for trying to mete out equity rather than following the law," he said.

"To my way of thinking, we have probably never had a president better qualified to make appointments to the court. He is a lawyer and constitutional law professor, and his wife is a lawyer," said Cris Arguedas, a criminal defense lawyer at Arguedas, Cassman & Headley in Berkeley, Calif., who was head of Senator Barbara Boxer's judicial appointments review committee in 1992.

"One thing we need to discover will be: Does he think appellate judges should have trial experience?," she said.

Tobias suggested that Obama could reach back to Clinton nominees left without confirmation votes in the contentious Senate, pointing to 4th Circuit nominees such as U.S. District Judge James Beatty and Judge James Wynn, a state appellate judge in North Carolina. Both are African-American.

"I don't think [Obama] is ideologically driven," Brosnahan said. "He is a pragmatist and he will translate that to the judiciary. I think an Obama judiciary will be pragmatic, number one, and yes there will be a more diverse selection process."

It is even likely that Obama may nominate a few Republicans, particularly for district court positions, which traditionally include consultation with home senators, Schwartz said.

"To put it bluntly, trial judges have to know something, circuit judges don't," he said. "Circuit judges spend time studying paper. It is cerebral. District judges have to run trials, handle difficult emotions and make sentencing decisions," he said.

One thing that isn't known is how Republicans will react. "Years ago, Senator Rick Santorum said he would filibuster any liberal nominee, but he is gone. The Republicans might try to filibuster," but it remains an unknown, Schwartz said.

Arguedas expects to see merits appointments and plenty of applicants after eight years of Democrats waiting in the wings through a Republican administration for the chance to apply."

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-10-...

"There are four Bush nominees for the vacancies, but none has received a hearing, Tobias said. "I don't think any of those four will be seriously considered. . . . I cannot imagine why the Democrats are going to want to confirm a Bush nominee now," he said.

Kimberly Hunter, press secretary for Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said, "We have no expectation that there will be any additional judicial confirmations prior to the 111th Congress convening in January."

"We will be working closely with the White House, Senator Mark Warner, and the Virginia legal community to fill the 4th Circuit Court and other judicial vacancies with qualified, upstanding jurists," said Hunter."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_54/politics/29921-1.html?page=2

"The tensions within the Conference will be on display in a number of policy issues, but perhaps nowhere more prominently than when Obama begins the process of nominating judges.

DeMint, noting that Democrats successfully used the chamber to block several of President Bush’s nominees to circuit courts, warned that Obama and Senate Democrats will look to pack the lower courts with liberal judges, which he contends could be disastrous for Republicans.

“They’re going to come back and try to fill those seats. ... If Republicans don’t make up their mind to stop this, we’re going to lose ground we can’t make up for generations. I think its going to be a key issue,” DeMint said.

But Specter, who as chairman of the Judiciary Committee helped shepherd Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts through the nomination process, argued such an approach is dangerous and urged his colleagues to take a more measured approach.

“I wouldn’t want to anticipate any special difficulties in the future,” Specter said, arguing that Republicans should allow the process to play itself out before the GOP decides to block a particular nominee. “Anybody who makes a decision up front to block them is being precipitous. I think we ought to give the new president a chance and see what he does,” Specter said."

Will Bush recess appoint any last minute nominees such as Peter Keisler to the DC Circuit? Are there any current U. S. Attorneys nominated to a circuit position who may agree to a recess appointment? Should Bush recess appoint someone to the 9th Circuit since the Repubs were swindled out of the DC/9th Circuit swaparoo?

Assuming Bush does none of the above, does anyone expect Obama to offer an olive branch by renominating any of the current nominees? I expect him to play hardball from the outset, to offer no olive branches and have all vacant circuit nominees positiions filled by July 4th. Like Clinton, I expect Obama to fire all U. S. Attorneys within two weeks of taking the oath.

While I'm sure Bush's team wants to recess appoint someone, I doubt it'll happen. Think about it:

1) Pro forma Senate sessions will be held. Reid and Leahy haven't fought this long to let Keisler or anyone else get in via a back door, and I'm not sure Bush would want to get down and dirty in the mud and fight a post-recess appointment legal fight before the SCOTUS on the legality of pro forma sessions, especially since it's a tool that Republicans may one day want to use themselves;

2) Even if there is a recess appointment, Obama and his team probably won't bother reappointing that person anyhow since olive branch or not, it likely won't improve the atmosphere much. Look at how Democrats acted even with Bush renominating Gregory. Will Republicans *really* go easier on Obama's nominees in the next two years if he just would renominate Diamond and/or Glen Conrad and/or Stone? At this point, there's just no payoff for either party for being nice with the other side, and I think Obama's team knows that;

3) Bush is said to be very sensitive about how he's perceived on the way out the door. He really thought Clinton behaved shamefully in his final days in office, especially with the pardons. Couple that with the fact that Bush is almost sure to pardon Scooter Libby and perhaps also family friend Roger Clemens for any crimes he may have committed, and I'm not sure Bush will want to bother with a final-days fight over the legality of a late December judicial recess appointment(s).

On the other hand, judges *are* a big issue with Bush's base, even though he sure hasn't made the issue a visible one in the last year-plus....

I'm not even sure Keisler would accept a recess appointment if he'd only possibly serve for a short time; he's busy in his new job, and there is something mildly embarrassing, as Pickering learned, about sitting in the chair for a relatively short time and then having to pack up and go. Who knows if Keisler would subject himself to that, since he's obviously still a young man with a lot of years left to be renominated by a Republican president. On the other hand, he's been willing to remain nominated for the last 30 months, so who knows?

Rod Rosenstein is the only current U.S. Attorney who is a current nominee for a circuit court of appeals seat. Most of the others are U.S. district judges, so the uncertainty of a COA nomination doesn't really impact their lives in the same way it affects someone without a lifetime job. Also, because they're district court judges, they would, I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) lose their lifetime status if they were recess appointed to a COA seat and then not renominated once that session of Congress ends. So it's a high-risk move for a district judge -- one that few would want to take. As a result, Rosenstein, Keisler, Stone and Matthews probably are Bush's only recess appointment options anyhow.

Finally, somewhat surprisingly, Obama's already told the press that he'll keep U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago. Not sure about the other U.S. Attorneys, but he therefore can't match Clinton's 1.000 batting average for firings!

I was hoping that Lieberman would be kicked out of the Democratic caucus, join the Republicans, give the Republicans the majority for the final weeks of the lame duck Congress, allowing them to confirm all the remaining COA nominees. Not likely to happen, but I can hope!

Even if Lieberman did that, the Dems could still filibuster, like they did when we had 55 seats.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425933868

"At her law clerks' reunion last June, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the word out in no uncertain terms.

"If anyone asks you, 'When is she retiring?'" Ginsburg said, according to several who were there, "tell them I have a great role model in Justice [John Paul] Stevens, who is going strong at age 88."

Apparently, not enough people asked, so tucked away at the end of a speech at Columbia University on Oct. 25, she made the point again. Referring to the legendary Justice Louis Brandeis, Ginsburg said he "became a justice at age 60, as I did. He remained on the bench until age 83. My hope and expectation is to hold my office at least that long."

Now 75, Ginsburg would have to remain on the Court until 2016 to match Brandeis and 2021 to match Stevens."

"...as Ginsburg's broadly dropped hints suggest, justices don't always follow political timetables for their departures. They often remain as long as they feel their health and their work product are still good. The political persuasion of the president, while sometimes a factor justices consider in timing their departures, rarely is decisive.

"I don't think justices retire strategically, by and large," says University of Missouri-Kansas City political scientist David Atkinson, author of a book on why justices retire. "As long as they are in good health and feel happy and indispensable, they tend to stay.""

They often remain as long as they feel their health and their work product are still good.

When was Ginsburg's work product good? Not only can she use faulty legal reasoning, but she's also apparently incapable of realistically evaluating her work. Maybe senility is setting in, too... ;-)