ConfirmThem

"The Judges are Coming"

BillM--

Where did you see the headline re RBG receiving chemo? The impression the mainstream media gave was that the cancer in the center of her pancreas was so small that there wasn't much of a need to worry about it....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-judge18-2009mar18,0...

"...within minutes of the White House announcement, a conservative legal group labeled Hamilton an "ultra-liberal" who was a "former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU."

The Judicial Confirmation Network, which rallied support for President George W. Bush's court nominees, said Hamilton had issued "extreme rulings" -- including a decision that barred overtly Christian prayers in the Indiana Legislature and another that blocked enforcement of part of an Indiana abortion law that required pregnant women to make two trips to a clinic before having an abortion.

Hamilton said the required advance visit to hear in person a warning about the risks of abortion amounted to an "undue burden" on the woman's right. The 7th Circuit disagreed in a 2-1 ruling in 2002, and faulted Hamilton for delaying full enforcement of the law. It said waiting periods for abortion, including an advance visit, were constitutional.

The appeals court also set aside Hamilton's ruling on prayers in the Legislature. It said the taxpayers who sued to stop the prayers as unconstitutional had suffered no real harm, and therefore had no standing to sue.

Hamilton "is no moderate, as the Obama White House is trying to spin him," said Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.

Although Obama's first nominee may not end Washington's war over judges, Hamilton drew wide praise from lawyers and law professors in Indiana, including the president of the local Federalist Society, a conservative legal group."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR200903...

"...many conservatives have waved off Obama's stated interest in ending the sharp-edged battles over judicial nominations. So far, Obama has not moved to fulfill a request from all 41 GOP senators who have asked him to rename some of the judicial nominees who went unconfirmed last year after being appointed by President George W. Bush. By contrast, in his early months in office, Bush appointed two judges who had been nominated by President Bill Clinton but were blocked by GOP senators -- a bipartisan gesture that was encouraged by several Republican senators.

In addition, critics point out that as a senator, Obama was a willing participant in the confirmation wars who voted against the Supreme Court nominations of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Conservatives also ridiculed Obama's interest in the "empathy" demonstrated by a prospective nominee, saying that it has nothing to do with a judge's work of interpreting statutes and the Constitution. "Who's to say who you are supposed to be empathetic toward?" said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal advocacy group."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGNmNWM1YzZmOWU4MzVkYTQxOTkwNzQy...

"It’s no surprise that the Obama administration has restored the ABA judicial-evaluation committee’s pre-Bush 43 privileged role in reviewing prospective nominees before the president formally nominates them. But the timing of yesterday’s announcement by the ABA is curious and would seem to provide more evidence that the ABA is eager to play handmaiden to the Obama administration’s political agenda.

Consider that the ABA’s announcement came on the very day that President Obama made his first judicial nomination, David Hamilton (to the Sixth Circuit)—and on the very day that the ABA committee issued its rating (“well qualified”) of Hamilton. The fact that the ABA committee issued its rating yesterday indicates that the White House restored the ABA’s pre-nomination role some weeks ago. (This ABA document—especially pages 5 to 9—describes the lengthy evaluation procedures that the ABA committee undertakes. Although that document has not been revised to reflect the ABA’s restored pre-nomination role, the exercise of that role would begin with the White House’s informing the committee who the intended nominee is.)

In other words, at the very time the media were speculating whether the Obama White House would restore the ABA’s old role, the ABA had almost certainly already had its role restored. Why did the ABA not say so at the time? And why did its announcement yesterday obscure when its role was restored? I’d guess that the White House asked the ABA to keep mum—in order to avoid giving conservative opposition a heads-up that nominations might be imminent—and that the ABA happily complied with this purely political request.

By the way, yesterday’s statement by the ABA’s president repeats the canard that the ABA committee “does not consider a potential nominee’s ideological or political philosophy.” I’ve exposed the falsehood of that assertion in this post. The National Law Journal also reports today that “a soon-to-be-released study by political scientists concludes” that the ABA’s ratings “are biased against potential conservative nominees.” Given how the members of the ABA committee are selected (a matter that I discuss at length in this essay), that’s hardly a surprise."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTU1YzY2ZjQyN2I4ZGVkMjMxNjM4MTUz...

"When he ran for President, Obama said he'd set new and higher standards for bipartisanship in many things, including judicial nominations.

Higher than President George W. Bush, that is, one of whose first acts of federal judicial appointment was to renominate President Clinton's holdover nominee, Roger Gregory, to the 4th Circuit. President Bush went further in bipartisanship, elevating Clinton appointee Barrington Parker from the district court to the 2nd Circuit. And later in his administration, President Bush renominated Helene White, another former Clinton nominee who had been stalled, to the 6th Circuit. That's at least three Clinton judges who were confirmed to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal under President Bush.

Today, the White House is hailing its first federal appellate nominee, Judge David Hamilton, an ACLU liberal and long Democratic political player, as some kind of bipartisan step.

It's not clear why they think appointing a long-active Democrat who was a leader in the ACLU (and was certainly not a Bush nominee) is "bipartisanship."

When President Obama renominates a few Bush holdover appointees, such as Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit and Rod Rosenstein and Robert Conrad to the 4th Circuit, we can begin to assess whether President Obama has even met — to say nothing of exceeded — President Bush's level of bipartisanship in judicial nominations.

We're still waiting . . . and Hamilton does NOT count."

The WaPo article above as excerpted by BoBo says the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR200903...

"By contrast, in his early months in office, Bush appointed two judges who had been nominated by President Bill Clinton but were blocked by GOP senators -- a bipartisan gesture that was encouraged by several Republican senators."

This is incorrect. And I do not understand why so many writers, particularly those in the mainstream media, can't ever get this right. In his first months as president, Bush appointed *one* judge who had been nominated by Clinton and blocked by Republicans -- Roger Gregory. Then, the *second* "Clinton" judge whom Bush appointed, Barrington Parker, was elevated by Bush to a COA judgeship after being appointed more than six years before by Clinton to a district court judgeship, but Parker *never* had been nominated by Clinton for any COA judgeship. Ergo, Parker had never been blocked by any GOP senators. So in May 2001, did Bush select two judges who had been nominated to various positions at one time or another by Clinton? (Parker for his lower court district judgeship and Gregory for the COA judgeship) Yes. But did Bush pick two judges in May 2001 who had been previously blocked by Republican senators? No.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429142688

"The findings:

• Nominees appointed by Democratic presidents are more likely to receive higher ABA ratings than nominees appointed by Republican presidents.

• The more conservative the nominee, the less likely he or she will receive a high ABA rating.

• White nominees are more likely to get higher ratings than minority nominees.

• Nominees with judicial experience receive higher ratings than those without judicial experience.

• Nominees who were previously congressional staff members were more likely to receive lower ratings, but those who served as executive branch attorneys were more likely to receive higher ratings."

From AP Yahoo--
[And don't forget how he keeps changing his position on his sweetheart loan (from Country Wide?) Note esp. the last paragraph in this cut and paste from the article.]

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.

The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.

Dodd’s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd’s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Simmons--43
Dodd--42

Just a year or so ago, Dodd's favorables were in the low 70's.

Simmons isn't a social conservative, but I'd be happy to see him defeat Dodd.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/hatch-reserving-judgment-on-ob...

"Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) isn’t saying yet whether he will support Judge David Hamilton’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Hatch told reporters today that there are “a lot of concerns” about Hamilton, whom President Barack Obama announced Tuesday as his first nominee to the federal bench. He also suggested that Hamilton, now chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, fits the category of a “very liberal judge,” but he left open the possibility that he would defer to the president’s choice."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWE4YWU0NjEyYjAwYzkyN2JlNTIwYjU0...

"The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary (2009 edition) includes lots of effusive comments from lawyers about Judge Hamilton’s abilities. But comments from criminal-defense lawyers reinforce my initial perception that Hamilton is not the moderate that the Obama administration is trying to paint him as:

“He is the most lenient of any of the judges in the district.” “He is one of the more liberal judges in the district. He leans toward the defense.”

And the comments on Hamilton’s sentencing (evidently from both prosecutors and criminal-defense attorneys) are similar:

“He is your best chance for downward departures.” “He is inclined to give certain defendants a break.” … “In sentencing, he tends to be very empathetic to the downtrodden, or to those who commit crimes due to poverty.”"

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/hispanic-bar-endorses-judge-fo...

"The Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia has officially thrown its weight behind Judge Vanessa Ruiz of the D.C. Court of Appeals as a candidate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Ruiz, who was born and raised in San Juan, Puerto Rico, has served in her current spot on the bench since 1994, when President Bill Clinton made her the first Hispanic judge to sit on D.C.’s highest local court.

“She’s someone who’s really sort of a leader in D.C. and nationally,” says Brigida Benitez, a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Hispanic Bar Association board member.

Benitez says the association has sent a letter backing Ruiz to both the White House and Justice Department, and that she expects other organizations will line up to support the judge.

If nominated and confirmed, Ruiz would be the first Hispanic judge to sit on D.C. Circuit. President George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada in 2001, but the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner withdrew his nomination after it was held up in a partisan confirmation battle.

After graduating from Georgetown University Law Center in 1975, Ruiz began her career as an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson. After a period as senior counsel at Sears World Trade, she co-founded Sloan, Lehner & Ruiz. In 1991, she became Washington’s Corporation Counsel (now called the D.C. Attorney General).

Ruiz is currently active in a variety of Hispanic and women’s legal organizations. She is the president of the National Association of Women Judges, and this year was one of five honorees presented with the American Bar Association’s Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award."

The full Senate is debating Kagan's SG nomination right now, with a full Senate vote on her nomination vote expected shortly -- probably late this afternoon or early tonight.

It's sort of hard to believe she got fewer "yes" votes from senators than David Ogden and Tom Perrelli did! It gives everyone an idea of what the next SCOTUS vote will look like (hint: very much like Alito's vote, only in the opposite direction).....

Could somebody who is more knowledgable and aware of the issues from the past eight years please re-write the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_George_W._Bush%27s_judicial_appoi...

I think it is important to get this article written in a non-bias way, and yet also getting the issue and the truth of what has happened these past 8 years available to the larger audience.

What do you think is biased about the article?

As if we didn't already know that Linda Greenhouse was a raging liberal:

http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/New%20acs%20board%20members%203%2013%2009.pdf

"The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy announced
three new members of its Board of Directors -- James Forman Jr., a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Linda Greenhouse, a senior fellow at Yale Law School and the former Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, and
Pamela S. Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School."

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/obamas-circuit-nominee-mixed-c...

"So what exactly did Hamilton do before 1994, when President Bill Clinton nominated him and the Senate confirmed him for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana?

He split most of his time between practicing corporate litigation at an Indianapolis firm and working for Indiana’s then-Gov. Evan Bayh, a Democrat. While in private practice, he frequently did pro bono work for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and was a board member and vice president there for a year — which the White House did not mention in announcing Hamilton’s nomination."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/so-you-want-to-be-a-judge.html

"On March 16, 2009, I met with Attorney General Holder, Associate Attorney General Perrelli, and OLP staff in separate meetings at the Department of Justice. I also met with counsel to the president Gregory Craig and members of his staff, and then with members of the White House communications staff on that same day, and I met briefly with President Obama that same day."

Seems like Eric Holder will have a major hand in choosing new nominees.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/18/advice-for-obama-on-picking-judges/

"In light of Obama’s appointment of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, Quin Hillyer’s article in DC Examiner is particularly timely, and worth a read. The article features advice offered to Obama by Clinton administration Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, and Bench Memo’s own Jonathan Adler at an event hosted by former Attorney General Edwin Meese here at The Heritage Foundation.

Despite their different political and jurisprudential philosophies, Quin notes that all three panelists agreed that Obama should follow President Bush’s lead by renominating several of his predecessors blocked judicial nominees, and they likewise agreed that DC Circuit nominee Peter Keisler would be a good choice. There are more details, including Dellinger’s take on how the judicial issue cuts politically, so it is worth reading the whole thing."

This could be a first step in him eventually getting a judgeship:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/28203

"Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh announced to the Law School community Monday that President Barack Obama will nominate him for the position of legal adviser to the Department of State.

Upon confirmation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Koh said he will resign from his deanship and take a public service leave from the Law School. As legal adviser, Koh will serve as principal counselor on all legal matters to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton LAW ’73.

“There is no institution I love more than the Yale Law School. I have had the privilege of teaching here since 1985, and serving as your Dean since 2004,” Koh said in an e-mail message to the Law School community."

Even MSNBC beat them. Heck, even their own subsidiary network, Headline News, beat them. So we can rest assured that nobody takes these morons seriously.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/33506-1.html

"Shortly after the Senate Judiciary Committee announced a hearing date to consider its first judicial nomination on Wednesday, ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) charged that members were not given ample time to prepare questions."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGM1NmNmYzZhNjI4NDE4YzJiMzM1NWY4...

"By letter yesterday, Senator Specter requested that Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy not schedule a hearing on Seventh Circuit nominee David F. Hamilton before the Senate’s upcoming recess, which will begin at the end of next week. In a handwritten note at the end of his letter, Specter advises Leahy, “If you insist on this schedule [i.e., a pre-recess hearing] for Hamilton, you will [be] starting on the first Pres Obama nomination in a very contentious manner which will provoke opposition [and] prove counterproductive.” (Emphasis in original.)"

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/03/leahy-plans-hamilton-conf...

"Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy said today that he plans to hold a confirmation hearing for President Obama's nomination of David F. Hamilton to the 7th Circuit next week, despite GOP objections.

"We'll do it next week," Leahy said. He brushed aside Republican complaints that he is moving too fast on the nomination, which Obama made on March 17, saying that his acquiesence in delaying some of Obama's Justice Department nominations was met with more Republican delaying tactics.

The committee's top Republican, Arlen Specter, voiced his displeasure during a committee hearing this morning. Specter also made it clear that when it comes to Obama's judicial nominations, support from Republican home state senators, by itself, won't be enough to eliminate GOP opposition.

Hamilton, currently an Indiana federal district judge, is backed by Indiana Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar. But social conservatives have criticized Hamilton as an ideological activist.

Specter said Lugar's endorsement is "not sufficient. There's a little thing called the Constitution and it calls for confirmation by the Senate," Specter added, "Dick Lugar doesn't confirm, the Senate does."

Leahy pointed out that next week's confirmation hearing will be followed by a two-week Senate recess before the committee votes on the nomination. But Specter said "the issue is on preparation to ask questions at the hearing.""

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/senate-preps-hearing-for-obama...

"Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has sent a letter to Leahy requesting more time.

“Judge Hamilton has been a district court judge for almost 15 years and has authored over 1200 opinions,” Specter wrote. “In addition, he has submitted approximately 2000 pages of speeches, articles, and public policy papers relating to his nomination. Members cannot prepare for a hearing for a lifetime appointment to a circuit court in a mere thirteen days, especially when they are expediting review of two executive nominations...

No senators have said yet that they plan to oppose Hamilton’s nomination, though some of his rulings and his past work for the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union have drawn criticism from conservatives. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has said he supports Hamilton."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRiZGVkYzZmZGFhMDM4MTE2ZmE1ZTMx...

"In 2005, in Hinrichs v. Bosma, federal district judge (and now Seventh Circuit nominee) David Hamilton enjoined the Speaker of Indiana’s House of Representatives from permitting “sectarian” prayers to be offered as part of that body’s official proceedings. In so doing, Hamilton adopted one reasonable construction—though not the only one available—of the Supreme Court’s messy Establishment Clause rulings. (In denying a stay of Hamilton’s order pending appeal, the majority on a divided Seventh Circuit panel indicated that its “initial reading of the case law” strongly inclined it to Hamilton’s reading, but the Seventh Circuit ultimately reversed Hamilton on standing grounds.)

One peculiar aspect of Hamilton’s ruling is how he drew the line between “sectarian” and “non-sectarian” prayers. On the one hand, Hamilton made clear that prayers that “use Christ’s name or title” are sectarian. On the other hand, he ruled (on a post-judgment motion) that it is presumptively not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to “Allah”:

The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to "Allah." The Arabic word "Allah" is used for "God" in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

I find it difficult to make sense of Hamilton’s explanation. The fact that “Allah” is Arabic for “God” would seem to have little or no bearing on what a Muslim imam praying in English means when he invokes “Allah” or what his audience would reasonably understand him to mean.

More generally, it may only be Hamilton’s naivete, or a politically correct favoritism of Islam over Christianity in the public square, that causes him to “see[] little risk that the choice of [“Allah”] would advance a particular religion or disparage others.” By e-mail, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has called to my attention two notable examples in recent years (here and here) of “Islamic clerics offering highly sectarian prayers before unwitting infidel audiences.” According to Spencer, “Muslim imams have made canny use of the apparent non-sectarianism of their prayers, aided by the universality or generic character of the word ‘Allah’ or ‘God,’ in order to engage in what were actually some rather aggressive statements of Islamic supremacism.”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now “stuck” with him as chief justice.

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

Reid’s comments, which came during a wide-ranging discussion hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, reflect Democratic concerns that Roberts presented himself as a neutral arbiter of the law but has wielded a relentlessly conservative agenda. Republicans reject the attacks, saying Roberts has been a fair judge and has been consistent in his opinions.

Although Reid said that Democrats will try to put moderates on the bench, he said he will not try to deny Republicans the right to filibuster nominees. In 2005, then-Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to eliminate the filibuster, sparking a furious reaction by Reid and other Democrats who said the so-called nuclear option would quash the rights of the minority.

This thread began a week and a half ago. The posts seem to be declining to a trickle. Would an open thread be helpful to begin today?

The rules for judicial confirmations have changed. I used to believe 'elections have consequences' and would reluctantly agree that the likes of Ginsburg should be confirmed by the Senate when nominated by a president.

I give Reid credit for his recent interview with Christian science, saying he would not prevent the GOP from filibustering Obama's judicial nominees. Since that is the case, and since the rules have fundamentally changed, I would support a filibuster of people of the likes of Hamilton. It rubs me the wrong way, and I don't like the new rules, but the game has changed, those are the new rules, so lets play accordingly.

Lets play according to the new rules, and it may be that the Democrats discover these new rules are bad, and we can go back to the old way of doing things and giving all nominees an up and down vote. But until the rules change, we need to learn to play according to these new rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html?_r=1

"The group says it is serious and diligent about evaluating candidates without regard to ideology. But there is reason to wonder whether Alberto R. Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, might have had a point when he told the group eight years ago that its help would not be needed.

The bar association is, after all, a private trade association, not an arm of the government. It takes public and generally liberal positions on all sorts of divisive issues. And studies suggest that candidates nominated by Democratic presidents fare better in the group’s ratings than those nominated by Republicans."