ConfirmThem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-fc5os23mI

I'll (barely) get my wish of a vote below 70 yes. Not that it matters a hill of beans. Two facts: elections have consequences; and she's on for life.

I'll (barely) get my wish of a vote below 70 yes. Not that it matters a hill of beans. Two facts: elections have consequences; and she's on for life.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/08/gop_sen_george_voinovich...

"Voinovich will explain his rationale in a speech on the Senate floor around noon. He is expected to say that while Sotomayor might not have been his personal choice, she has the temperament, experience and understanding of the rule of law to render her qualified for the highest court in the land.

Voinovich will join a small group of Republicans in his vote for Sotomayor, who is certain to win confirmation because of the Democratic majority in the Senate."

So Mikulski left the hospital this morning and is headed to the Senate to cast a vote *for* Sotomayor:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bal-mikulski-ankle-08...

Any word on the status of Kennedy?

Byrd will be there:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/37630-1.html

If Kennedy does *not* show up, the vote ends up being 68-31, right? Or is anyone else not at the Senate right now?

I agree with the "majority" sentiment on this website and would have voted against the nomination for many of the reasons expressed here and by the Senators voting against.

However, now is the time to congratulate Justice Sotomayor on an amazing accomplishment, and to wish her wisdom and good judgment as she joins the Court.

Kennedy didn't vote due to illness

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/06/2021908.aspx

"Though Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed today by the Senate to become the next Supreme Court justice, she is technically not yet "Justice" Sotomayor. She won't be until she takes both the federal oath and the judicial oath on Saturday.

A White House official says Sonia Sotomayor will stay out of public view today. She's at her chambers at the federal courthouse in New York.

She'll be sworn in on Saturday at the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Roberts. (That event will be available for TV pool coverage, which will be a first for the court.)

Justice Sotomayor will be the court's second-youngest member, at age 55. Only Roberts, who turned 54 in January, is younger.

*** UPDATE *** Here's what the Supreme Court now says about the swearing in:

Sotomayor will be sworn in as the 111th Justice of the Supreme Court on Saturday, Aug. 8, at 11 a.m. at the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will first administer the Constitutional Oath in a private ceremony in the Justices' Conference Room attended by members of the Sotomayor family. The Chief Justice will then administer the Judicial Oath in the East Conference Room before a small gathering of Judge Sotomayor's family and friends.

The Judicial Oath ceremony in the East Conference Room will be open to pool coverage. There will be no opportunity for interviews or questions at the ceremony.

A formal investiture ceremony will take place on Tuesday, September 8, at 2 p.m. at a special sitting of the Court in the Courtroom."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/08/white-house-ceremony-may-not-b...

"Holding the ceremony at the Court rather than the White House is a significant break from recent practice, and represents something of a concession to the wishes of justices who have complained that the oath-taking has become an inappropriately political event.

Several justices -- most recently, Justice John Paul Stevens -- have objected to White House ceremonies for new justices, fearing that such events send the message that the justice is beholden to the appointing president or is a political trophy for the president."

"A White House source says President Barack Obama wanted the oath-taking to occur at the Supreme Court 'as a symbol of the Court's independence.' There will be a White House reception for Sotomayor next week, the source indicated."

5 new nominations, including 2 Circuit Court positions:

Thomas I. Vanaskie, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, The Judiciary; vice Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, retired.

Jane Branstetter Stranch, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, The Judiciary; vice Martha Craig Daughtrey, retired.

Edward Milton Chen, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, The Judiciary; vice Martin J. Jenkins, resigned.

Richard Seeborg, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, The Judiciary; vice Maxine M. Chesney, retired.

Dolly M. Gee, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, The Judiciary; vice George P. Schiavelli, resigned.

Current status of Circuit Court nominations:
7 nominations of which:
3 are waiting for a hearing,
1 has had a hearing and is waiting for a committee vote,
3 are approved by committee and are waiting for a full-senate vote.

Current status of District Court nominations:
9 nominations of which:
8 are waiting for a hearing and
1 has had a hearing and is waiting for a committee vote.

Wow -- so much for the notion that there wouldn't be any more COA nominations until after the Senate returned from its August recess....

A few thoughts:

--Obama clearly doesn't plan to renominate any of Bush's holdovers (I never thought that was as likely as others did). This now is obvious, in that even Specter's pal Paul Diamond, who was thought to be the most likely Bush COA nominee to be renominated, was shunned for the PA seat on the 3rd, in favor of yet another district judge in Thomas Vanaskie. So much for Quin's speculation (http://www.confirmthem.com/specter_to_obama_renominate) some months back about a Diamond deal.

--For the first time, Obama chose a *non*-district judge for a COA judgeship, in the form of Jane Branstetter Stranch for the 6th. In retrospect, I see that Stranch was reported way back in February to be one of two people in Nashville (at least -- there were undoubtedly more) to express interest in the Daughtrey seat:

http://www.tba2.org/tbatoday/2009/TBAtoday02-12-2009.htm

--Yet again, both nominees are in their mid-50s. Obama still hasn't picked a COA nominee under 51. I don't think another recent president has selected so many COA nominees in a row who were over 50; Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 were all careful to nominated people in their 40s to COAs.

have Diamond reappointed when he switched to the Democrat Party and he was challenged him in the primary. Specter is now dependent on Obama rather than the other way around.

for why Obama is nominating people in their 50s for these positions.

Arrogance.

My guess is that Obama and his junta may have filled their heads of a permanent Democrat majority and that they will have 12-16 years of Democrat Presidents. As such, they will have a lot of time to ensure that they can stack the courts as they wish.

I think it's just the opposite:

Look at how they're pushing health care reform, cap and tax, etc. Obama knows there is a very limited opportunity to push his agenda through.

I just think its a lack of focus and thinking on his part. Sotomayor, to be honest, was not the greatest of choices for an initial pick for a (then) popular President, especially given how she has gutted his own empathy standard.

Peggy Noonan made a good comment, in that Obama, unlike Bush, sometimes seems to fail to grasp the nature of his office, and he says and does some rather dumb things.

Right before today's Senate session ended, Harry Reid filed for cloture on the nomination of potential future SCOTUS nominee Cass Sunstein. Recall that Sunstein, an Obama pal, has been nominated to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an obscure but very powerful position that oversees regulation. His nomination had been held up amid concerns by senators over Sunstein's previous statements regarding animal rights.

That means that during the second week of September, the Senate will hold a floor debate and vote to confirm Sunstein.

The Senate did not move on any of Obama's pending COA nominees before adjourning.

Here's one of the only items published online yet about the Sunstein cloture move:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2009/08/an-update-about.php

http://www.branstetterlaw.com/article.aspx?a=23

"Ms. Stranch was in the second class of women admitted to the University of Virginia. She is a summa cum laude graduate of Vanderbilt University, 1975, and received her J.D. degree from Vanderbilt School of Law in 1978, Order of the Coif. She has taught labor law at Belmont University and has served on the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee. She is a member of the Nashville, Tennessee and American Bar Associations, the Nashville Bar Foundation and the Law Association for Women (L.A.W.). Ms. Stranch is married to an attorney, James G. Stranch III, and they have four children, one of whom practices law with them."

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/

"The state's two Republican senators promptly issued nearly identical statements congratulating Stranch without declaring support for the nomination.

Sen. Lamar Alexander: I called Ms. Stranch to congratulate her on being nominated by the president, and I told her that I look forward to meeting with her in preparation for the confirmation process."

Sen. Bob Corker: "I called yesterday afternoon to congratulate Ms. Stranch on her nomination and let her know that my staff and I look forward to meeting with her as she goes through the confirmation process."

Stranch, 55, is the married mother of four children and a member of the Nashville law firm of Branstetter, Stranch and Jennings. The White House statement says she "has developed a national practice in labor and employment law and specializes in complex ERISA litigation."

A quick check at Center for Responsive Politics indicates she donated $4,300 to John Edwards' presidential campaign last year and $250 to Obama's campaign She also chipped in $1,000 to the state Democratic party's federal election account.

Her husband, attorney James Stranch, gave $4,600 to Edwards with nothing showing for Obama, plus $3,000 to the state Democratic party.

On the state level, Registry of Election Finance records show she and her husband together donated $16,750 to Democratic state Senate candidates last year. The couple also gave $500 each to Republican Sen. Doug Overbey of Maryville.

James Stranch also gave $500 to Democrat Bob Tuke's campaign against Alexander for the U.S. Senate."

1) The noncommittal congratulations from Alexander and Corker implies to me that they were not consulted on Stranch's nomination.

2) It appears that both Stranch and her husband have worked actively in the past for the AFL-CIO. Although I can hardly imagine anyone more liberal than Martha Craig Daughtrey, I expect that on labor/big business issues Stranch will be just as liberal.

Are there any Tennessee lawyers out there who can give us a heads up on Stranch?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/08/obama_...

"...the White House announced that Edward Chen, Dolly Gee, and Richard Seeborg have been nominated to be federal district judges in California.

“I am honored to nominate these three distinguished candidates to the United States District Court bench,” Obama said. “They exemplify the best in American jurisprudence and they will serve the people of California with integrity and fairness. I am grateful for their commitment to public service and look forward to their appointment to the federal bench.”

The nominations further Obama's goal of adding diversity to the federal bench. Sotomayor, who will be sworn in Saturday, is the first Hispanic and third woman on the high court.

If confirmed, Gee would become the first Asian-American woman on the district court in central California and Chen would become the first Asian-American federal district court judge in the San Francisco area.

“This marks the first time in history that two Asian Pacific American judicial nominations have been made on the same day. These historic nominations come on the heels of the nomination of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen for United States District Court for the Central District of California just one week ago and demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to improving the long-needed diversity of the federal judiciary,” Andrew T. Hahn, Sr. president of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, said in a statement."

http://dsl.psu.edu/faculty/adjuncts/vanaskie.cfm

"Thomas I. Vanaskie, a native of Shamokin, PA, was sworn in as a District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 1, 1994. He became the District's Chief Judge on September 1, 1999 and completed his seven-year term as Chief Judge on August 31, 2006. He is the Chair of the Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the United States Courts, having been appointed to that position by the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Judge Vanaskie has served as a member of the Third Circuit Judicial Council, and presently chairs its Automation Committee and serves on its Library Committee. He is a former member of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association."

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2451

"Born 1953 in Shamokin, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 17, 1993, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on February 10, 1994, and received commission on February 11, 1994. Served as chief judge, 1999-2006.

Education:
Lycoming College, B.A., 1975

Dickinson School of Law, J.D., 1978

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. William Nealon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1978-1980
Private practice, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1980-1994

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male"

http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/11-06/robust/index.html

"Judge Thomas Vanaskie was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994. In 2005, he began his tenure as chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology.

Question: What is the mission of the Committee on Information Technology?

Answer: The mission of the Committee on Information Technology is well expressed in its jurisdictional statement, which is to recommend to the Judicial Conference broad information technology goals, objectives and priorities; to develop and propose information resource management policies that promote the effective and efficient use of automation in the courts; to coordinate the development, and approve the submission to the Judicial Conference, of the Long Range Plan for Information Technology in the Federal Judiciary; to conduct ongoing evaluations of existing systems and make recommendations for changes, as necessary; and to propose adequate funding and resources to support the information technology programs, including relevant education and training, electronic public access and voice telecommunications programs, taking into account the overall fiscal situation of the Judiciary. The Committee also makes recommendations on IT staffing issues to the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources.

Question: One of your goals as chair will be to foster collaboration with other conference committees. Why is this important?

Answer: It’s necessary because IT resources pervade all aspects of the administration of justice."

http://www.scrantontimes.com/news/vanaskie_considered_for_appeals_court_...

"Judge Vanaskie has a friend in Mr. Casey, and it goes beyond party lines.

When he was a young lawyer, the judge worked with Mr. Casey's father, Robert P. Casey Sr., in the Scranton office of the Philadelphia law firm of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish and Kauffman.

"He was a mentor to me," Judge Vanaskie said. Mr. Casey's father later became governor and Judge Vanaskie joined the federal bench in 1994 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. Judge Vanaskie, a Shamokin native, worked for Mr. Casey after serving as Judge Nealon's law clerk."

Amazing how things change. If al the parties were reversed, the Democratic Senators would be putting out statements saying they weren't consulting and so would blue-slip the nominee of the evil Republican President.

1) I get the distinct impression that Stranch may be more liberal than Vanaskie, but I cannot say so for sure. That said, I can't believe that Stranch is so unbelievably liberal that Alexander and, especially, Corker won't be able to support her. Despite the likelihood that she will side with labor 100% of the time, she must possess something mitigating - like being pro-life or pro-gun. After all, Obama knows Alexander and Corker could scuttle her nomination with blue slips.

2) Obama does appear to be trying to diversify the federal bench - look at the number of women and minorities he has nominated so far. He has put Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, nominated two blacks (Davis and Greenaway) and two women (Martin and Stranch) for appellate positions, and two blacks (Honeywell and Kallon), three Asian-Americans (Nguyen, Chen and Gee) and four women (Honeywell, Berger, Nguyen and Gee) for district court seats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR200908...

"Sotomayor has begun work on some aspects of her new job. Dawn Cardi, a lawyer in New York who is one of her closest friends, said that the new justice began to consider possible clerks soon after her confirmation hearings ended last month, meeting some face in New York and Washington and interviewing others by phone.

If she follows the example of other justices, at least some of her four clerks will already have worked for another justice and become familiar with the court's ways. "You can imagine, everyone in the world has a candidate for her," Cardi said.

Experienced clerks can serve as guides at a court where justices work independently, rather than as a team. The chambers of the nine justices are often described as separate law firms in a common building, a description McAllister says is accurate."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/08/senate-confirms-legal-nominees...

"Still unconfirmed are three circuit court nominees and four nominees for assistant attorney general positions, including Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel. Democrats need Republican agreement in order to move the nominees forward, unless they want to use days of time on the Senate floor."

...while whining about not being "consulted"? What's the problem? Not like we don't have a template from the last eight years.

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

are very moderate/liberal for Southern Republicans. While Corker has been slightly more conservative than I expected, Alexander has not been, note that he was one of the Sotomayor Nine, and other than Graham, the only one from the South.
But both of them voted for the extension of cash-for-clunkers, for example.

Stranch is apparently a labor whore (apologies in advance if my language is out of bounds). She shouldn't be appointed/confirmed to the bench from a Southern state. But I wouldn't count on Alexander or Corker to block her. This should be considered as a possible pick for a filibuster.

There's no question that Stranch will be filibustered, because so far, Senate Republicans, in effect, are "filibustering" any even remotely controversial nominee. So whether it's technically a filibuster or a filibuster by another name, it's a moot point -- no Obama nominees with any controversy attached to them (and this has included and surely going forward will include all COA nominees) are getting to the Senate floor through unanimous consent.

Ultimately, Reid is going to have a decision to make, I think: to decide whether to file for cloture on every COA nominee (and controversial executive branch nominee), whether to put together a new "Gang of 14" to get nominees through, or whether to pursue his own "nuclear option" by changing the Senate rules. As the COA nominees pile up, he won't be able to let the current situation continue, in part because he simply won't have enough days on the Senate calendar to mess around with endless cloture votes on so many nominees. It will be interesting to see what he chooses.

As for Stranch: I have to say, I know zero about her. What little information that's out there about her (White House bio, law firm bio) is pretty un-helpful. I don't doubt that she's sympathetic to labor, although trying to gauge how liberal she will be strikes me as a massive guess based on almost entirely non-existent information. The bigger question is, how on earth did she ever get this nomination? Also, a big question is whether the blue slip policy will even matter. If Alexander and/or Corker blue-slip her, I'm not sure that'll make a difference -- Reid and Leahy have the votes for cloture. In addition, we don't know Leahy's *exact* blue-slip policy; we know he's said he'll continue the blue-slip policy, but we don't know whether that means he'll merely "strongly consider" home-state senators' views or whether those views will reign supreme. My guess is, it'll be the former.

There is no way the Republican leadership in the Senate will filibuster a nominee approved by one of their own (Alexander). Not to mention, how can the Republicans filibuster a nominee supported by her TWO Republican homestate senators? The key here is whether or not Stranch can get Alexander's and Corker's approval. If she can, she will be confirmed, regardless of how liberal she may be.

I agree that at the present, all of Obama's COA judicial nominees have holds on them. The only way to break those holds will be Reid filing cloture. Obviously at this point, Reid is loathe to do that because he doesn't want 30 hours of debate on each nominee when healthcare is his top priority. At some time in the near future (maybe Oct. or Nov.), though, the healthcare situation will be resolved one way or another. That will free up Senate time for a debate on judicial nominations. Then it may become impossible for the Republicans to stop Reid from getting at least some of Obama's nominees confirmed.

This article is from a few months ago, but I don't think anyone discussed it here. I now would be surprised if the pick to replace McConnell ended up being anyone other than this fellow:

http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_12555212

"He's the son of a governor and the brother of a congressman. Now Scott Matheson Jr. wants to add a new title to the legacy of this Utah dynasty.

Matheson is interested in becoming the newest judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I would be honored to have an opportunity to serve, but it is very early and we will have to see how it all plays out," said Matheson, who is also a University of Utah law professor.

A slot -- expected to be filled by a Utahn -- will be available at the end of August, when Judge Michael McConnell, who teaches law at the University of Utah, officially will resign.

Naming a replacement won't happen fast. It may take President Barack Obama months to nominate someone. But Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered.

He previously served as the U.S. attorney for Utah from 1993 to 1997 and spent the next eight years as the dean of the U. law school. He ran for governor in 2004, ultimately losing to Republican Jon Huntsman Jr., whom Obama tapped to be the next ambassador to China.

Matheson may not be the only person interested in the opening, but he surely will have the most political clout behind him, starting with his younger brother, Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah's lone Democrat in Congress."

As most everyone here knows, there are 24 current or announced COA vacancies for Obama between the start of his presidency and next February. Of those 24, seven are currently pending nominees, with no confirmations. Whom might Obama choose for the other 17 seats? Given the pattern we've seen so far with the choices he's made -- plus, given some names that already have been put out there for other seats -- one can actually make some very educated guesses on who many of the 17 other nominees will be.

So, here are some thoughts on whom he picks to fill each of the remaining 17 vacancies, by circuit/state with former judge in parentheses:

--1st Circuit/RI (Selya): RI's senators have already said they're recommending a state judge, Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson. It's hard to see the White House going against those two senators.

--2nd Circuit/NY (Sotomayor), 2nd Circuit/NY (Sack), 2nd Circuit/NY (Parker): It makes sense to put all three of these vacancies together, since they're all seats from the state of NY. Some possibilities: lawyer Teresa Wynn Roseborough; U.S. District judges Denny Chin, Laura Taylor Swain, George Daniels, or John Gleeson; former NY Solicitor General Caitlin Halligan; Columbia Law Professor Gillian Metzger; New York University Law Dean Richard Revesz; NYC lawyer (and former Breyer clerk) Anne K. Small; Hofstra Law Dean Nora Demleitner. Obviously, NYC is full of tons of lawyers (and big Obama donors) who would love these seats.

--2nd Circuit/CT (Calabresi): U.S. District judges Robert Chatigny, Christopher Droney, Alvin Thompson or Stefan Underhill.

--4th Circuit/SC (Williams) and 4th Circuit/SC (Wilkins): no obvious candidates from SC; one of these seats probably will be transferred to NC anyhow.

--4th Circuit/VA (Widener): VA Supreme Court Justice Barbara Milano Keenan already has been recommended by VA's senators; as was the case with Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson on the 1st Circuit, it's just a matter of time before the White House endorses this pick.

--4th Circuit/NC (Phillips): U.S. District Judges (and failed Clinton nominee) James Wynn or James Beaty; U.S. bankruptcy Judge (and failed Clinton nominee) J. Rich Leonard; NC Court of Appeals Judge Martha Geer; NC Supreme Court Justice Pat Timmons-Goodson; NC attorney Douglas Kingsbery.

--5th Circuit/MS (Barksdale): former MS Attorney General Mike Moore; former state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz.

--7th Circuit/WI (Evans): no obvious candidates.

--9th Circuit/AZ (Michael Daly Hawkins): U.S. District Judges Raner Collins, Mary Murguia or Susan Bolton (most likely Murguia).

--9th Circuit/ID (Trott) and 9th Circuit/CA (new position): the Trott seat probably will revert to CA, so I'll group these two seats together: U.S. District Judges Virginia Phillips or Phyllis Hamilton; former U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins (now on the CA Court of Appeal); former Clinton COA nominee Barry Goode; law professors Pam Karlan, Kathleen Sullivan, Jennifer Chacon, or Jennifer Martinez; SF lawyer (and former Breyer clerk) Aimee Feinberg.

--10th Circuit/UT (McConnell): former US attorney and gubernatorial candidate (and son of a former governor) Scott Matheson, Jr., as noted in my previous comment; or alternately (but not likely, given his age) U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart.

--DC Circuit's two vacancies (Randolph and Roberts): these are truly anyone's guess. Unlike the Second Circuit vacancies, the *entire United States* is full of tons of lawyers who would give much for these seats. Any shortlist would contain the following names, though: Beth Brinkmann, Teresa Wynn Roseborough, Elena Kagan, Neal Katyal, Cass Sunstein, Richard Roberts, Virginia Seitz, Kathleen Sullivan, Pam Karlan, Tom Perrelli, Casey Cooper, Donald Verrilli, Ian Gershengorn, Harold Koh, Anne Harkavy, and Preeta Bansal.

Does anyone have any suggested additions to this list?

Alexander/Corker may be willing to allow Stranch to have a hearing, i.e. let her pass the blue slip (or may be forced to by Leahy/Reid by ignoring their objections). But Alexander and Corker may also decide that while they would not initially obstruct her path, they wouldn't vote for her (although I doubt Alexander would even do this.)

Alternatively, Stranch's liberalism may come out in the hearing, and the GOP may decide that this is a choice that should be filibustered, because Alexander/Corker were mislead to allow Stranch to pass.

I think. I'd be surprised if Hatch or Bennett would block him.

Congratulations, you are two steps ahead of the Obama administration in filling judicial vacancies (not that I mind, they can stay vacant for a long while as far as I care...).

I think for Mississippi, Diaz is an absolute no go. He is way too liberal for either MS senator. Maybe Cochran might be persuaded on deferring to the President, but Wicker wouldn't be. I think the MS senators would be jumping up and down to confirm Mike Moore however, because he is possibly going to win the Governorship in 2011 if he runs.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get some rather controversial ultraliberals from California and New York. Personally, I wouldn't completely object, because in all fairness, they do get some representation in the Democrat Party in NY and CA, and that party did win the last election. But there is no reason why any of those types should be allowed to be appointed outside the 1st, 2nd, and 9th Circuit.

Sotomayor has now (Sat. - 11:02 am) been sworn in as an associate justice.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.confirmation08aug08,0,2...

"Senate sources say that Davis and Perez have fallen victim to two unrelated issues.

First, Republicans had held up action on all judicial nominations until after the vote on Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor. Now that that has happened, Republicans don't appear to be of a mind to do the administration any more favors right away.

Second, reported plans by the administration to consider Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as a possible destination for Guantanamo Bay detainees has raised hackles in that state.

As a result, the two Republican senators from Kansas have apparently decided to block Obama's Judicial and State department nominations until they get assurances from the White House that detainees won't be headed to the Sunflower State."

I had indeed read that about Brownback and Roberts holding up AAG/Civil Rights nominee Tom Perez. However, not until seeing the Baltimore Sun article above had I read that they also specifically were behind holding up any judicial nominees.

But, as I've written earlier, it's sort of academic who the exact senator is (or senators are) behind any of the GOP's current judicial nominee holds. Even if Brownback and Roberts were to lift holds on *all* judicial nominees, there are 15 or 20 other GOP senators who then would immediately place holds on Davis, Hamilton and Lynch, in retaliation for the way Bush's COA nominees were treated throughout his presidency. And Bush's nominees were of course jerked around because of the way Clinton's COA nominees were treated. And Clinton's second-term nominees were blocked largely because the GOP controlled the Senate during his entire second term. And so on and so on. As I've written before, what we're seeing right now is pretty much the way it's going to be in the Senate from now on when it comes to judicial nominees.

And I think that that's why Reid doesn't yet want to file cloture on any single judicial nominee. If he does it on one, I think he fears it'll set a precedent that will effectively require him to have to *always* file cloture on COA nominees. My guess is he'd far prefer to reach some kind of deal (a new "Gang of 14," if you will) with at least some Republican senators that paves the way for votes on all (or almost all) nominees without eating up floor time on cloture votes. I'm not sure he'll be able to pull off such a deal, but my guess is that's why he's biding his time and waiting. I'm well aware that we're only talking about three COA nominees awaiting floor votes right now, so it's not like the cloture votes would take up *that* much floor time. At the same time, this impasse ultimately could extend to district court nominees as well. I know that senators historically have just let district court nominees from other states through in the past, since filling those is pretty much a state prerogative. However, the times, they are a-changin' -- I could now see the impasse extending to Obama's district court nominees, and we all know how many of those there will end up being in a four-year term. After all, there was a time when senators ignored COA nominees from other states as well! (under Nixon, under Ford, under Carter, under early Reagan, under Bush 41 and even under early Clinton) That seems almost quaint compared to the current situation. So, it's not written in stone that the GOP won't start blocking district court nominees as well -- if you think about it from their standpoint, why give an inch to the Democrats. And given how long so many judicial seats now seem to sit vacant, I think senators from opposition parties are perfectly content to let them stay open until their party is back in the White House. (Of course, if that kind of thing happens, we'll start seeing COAs that are less than half full!)

for now, but could we still have a new open thread to talk about matters relevant to this site?

"As I have said before, I view President Obama’s nomination of Judge Hamilton as something to be commended rather than obstructed and delayed. The president worked with both home state senators, a Republican and a Democrat, to select a highly qualified and respected nominee. Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh are both thoughtful Senators. Just as I consistently sought to encourage President Bush to work with home state senators, and tried to expedite confirmation of his nominees when he did, I tried to proceed promptly on the nomination of Judge Hamilton."

I think he's forgotten Priscilla Owen and a bunch of others.

on the latest nominee from TN, then Leahy is okay with blocking her?

"My guess is he'd far prefer to reach some kind of deal (a new "Gang of 14," if you will) with at least some Republican senators that paves the way for votes on all (or almost all) nominees without eating up floor time on cloture votes."

What good does a "deal" with some GOP senators do? Even if such a deal is reached, what prevents DeMint or Coburn or anyone else from just putting holds on every judge? Outside of changing the Senate rules, there really is nothing to prevent a single senator from forcing a cloture vote for any or every nominee.

Now that I think about it, this is probably what the Dems probably planned on doing if the filibuster for judicial nominees was removed in 2005. It was probably what they meant when they threatened to "tie up the Senate".

JamesSmith130--

I completely stand corrected on the Gang of 14; I'd like to say I was just sloppy, but that's not being honest. Clueless and forgetful, is more like it. I went back and re-read closely about the Gang of 14, since it's a subject that I thought I knew well. And in fact, I had entirely forgotten that even through the Gang of 14, cloture votes indeed still had to be filed not just on the three principal subjects (Rogers Brown, Owen, and Pryor), but also subsequently on Kavanaugh. Shame on me for not remembering that!

So yes, it's quite possible (and in fact, entirely probable) that the only way for floor votes on Hamilton, Davis, Lynch, et al to occur will be through cloture votes. More to the point, if that hurdle is imposed by Republican senators in this session, we may *never* again see COA nominees nominated by either party ever reach the Senate floor without cloture votes. For all of the COA nominee obstruction by both parties over the last 10-12 years, there still have been relatively few cloture votes on COA nominees. If *all* of Obama's nominees require cloture votes, then it's hard to see the Dems not repaying future Republican presidents with similar hurdles.

And you're right -- the only way around this may be changing Senate rules to eliminate holds (which may be what we eventually see happening). It's quite right that this may well be what Dems had planned on doing in 2005 if the filibuster for judicial nominees was eliminated.

Is all of this a precursor to some kind of future "nuclear option" that eliminates judicial nominee filibusters and/or holds? It sure *feels* like that's the direction we're headed.

JamesSmith130:

Great comments on Diaz and Moore, and I can't disagree with those at all. It gives an idea of how few options there were that I was able to think of in Mississippi! I agree with you that Diaz is too liberal for MS' senators to stomach; the only way he gets nominated and confirmed is if MS' senators' views are completely shut out of the process (i.e., blue slips not taken into account, no holds recognized on the Senate floor, etc.). And it'll be fascinating to see what Mike Moore does politically.

I am really intrigued to see if any Obama COA nominees -- even to the 1st, the 2nd and the 9th -- get Senate votes through unanimous consent. I think the blood is so bad in the Senate right now that cloture votes will be the only way. But I agree with you that Obama will probably concentrate any super-controversial COA nominees to the 2nd and 9th Circuits, and just roll the dice and figure that hey, the Republicans eventually let most of the super-liberal 2nd and 9th Circuit nominees through under Clinton, so how loudly will they complain if I nominate similar such nominees to those circuits?