ConfirmThem

I wonder if Specter's statement concerning a refusal to send the renominated names on to the full Senate actually applies to Keisler as the article says. Just this Sunday, Specter said he thought Keisler could get confirmed. I hope very much that at least Keisler is sent on. If The Fatal Five are tabled, that opens the door for Jordan, Livingston, Hardiman and possibly Keisler to get confirmed before December 22nd. I still think Murphy and Kethledge will be delayed - due to Brownback's hold on Neff, and Levin and Stabenow's desire to save some 6th Circuit seats for Hillary.

Specter did his job earlier and got them out of committee, but Frist never brought them to the floor of the Senate. Maybe Specter is simply stating 'Frist did not bring them to the floor in September, he won't bring them to the floor now'. Does anybody know why Frist did not bring them to the floor?

On Sept 6, at:
http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=445&Month=...

Frist promised to 'continue to fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent by bringing more judicial nominations to the floor for confirmation'. However he did not. Why not? Anybody know why not?

Here is Specter's quote from Sunday's New York Times:

"Mr. Specter said he hoped to move forward on other Bush nominees who were less controversial than those four. He said Peter M. Keisler, a senior Justice Department lawyer nominated to a seat on the appeals court in Washington, should be considered quickly.

“I don’t know of any substantive objection to his nomination,” Mr. Specter said. “It’s not good public policy to hold someone up without cause.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12judicial.html?ex=1320987600&en=17...

I move the URL around (or rather, blogspot does, when I change the authorship date to keep the post "near the top"), but here is a Circuit Courts Nominations Summary.

Specter may be right that the nominations wouldn't move once on the Executive Calendar, but if I were him, I'd push out the ones that I could, and leave the hot potato in Frist's hands. I agree with summarily discharging Myers, Boyle and Smith - and taking up Keisler as a matter of fulfilling his promise.

I notice that Specter is making quite a few "promises" for the lame duck session too - he's on the record saying the NSA/FISA revision be passed; comprehensive immigration too. I think he needs to be confronted with his contradictory sentiments on handling the Keisler nomination during the lame duck session. It appears his first expression (let's handle it) was made in the comfort of thinking the ball was in a lap other than his.

I encourage everyone to go to:

http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Campaigns.Form&Campaign_id=65

and fill out the form Senator Frist is asking us to fill out. Lets sound a strong message the judicial nominations is important. If we speak loudly enough, hopefully he will hear us, and get some confirmations done during this lame duck session.

skippy wondered why Frist didn't bring up the nominations of Myers or Boyle. These were on the Senate's Executive Calendar (out of Committee) for months - Myers for over a year.

I believe the reason they weren't brought up for a vote is that to do so would have shown the memorandum of understanding to be a sham. It was more important to Frist to preserve collegiality in the Senate, than it was to force the issue of the Senate performing its duty under the Constitution, to provide up or down votes.

This issue played out in miniature with the Bolton nomination. Frist was indignant, called "filibuster" when the DEMs did not pass cloture. The same cloture vote was held a month later, and Frist just let it go without complaint.

The media isn't about to make it an issue, and neither is the Republican party. It's one of those sleeping dogs that our fearless leaders prefer to leave alone. Meanwhile, Republican presidents are saddled with coming up with nominees that are agreeable to the minority party. The new hurdle for nominees is whatever the Senate establishes via cloture.

If a liberal minority is going to try to control who is nominated and confirmed, should a conservative minority also use the filibuster to offset the liberal filibuster? In other words, if Bush nominates a squish to please the liberals, should conservative Senators filibuster the squish?

I urge consistency in message, and would reject the use of cloture abuse to block a nominee.

At the same time, I also urge voting against objectionable nominees. That the Republicans were agreeable with Ruth Bader Ginsberg is beyond belief - but there's the damn vote saying "she's just fine."

Use the process as it's intended to be used, and the people are more likely to grasp what's going on. As it is, the government is training the public that it's okay to be dishonest.

Well, maybe that's the intention, and I'm the odd man out.

the media would spin such a maneuver horribly (and not entirely without justification). the only solution is to crush the Democrats, especially their far over-represented left wing.

Once a Democrat is back in the White House and making judicial nomination, I will continue opposing filibustering nominees (even though they are liberal and even though I will oppose their nomination).

HOWEVER, I will only do that only after (1) The Democrats apologize for having started filibustering nominees, and (2) we get some type of permanent agreement making sure that once a Republican is back in office, the Democrats won't start filibustering nominees again.

I don't think Bush will ever nominate people who Schummar would be excited about.

Here is what the New York Times and Washington Post are reporting about the renomination of The Fatal Five and Keisler:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/washington/16nominees.html?ex=13213332...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR200611...

The NYT article implies that the Democrats might not oppose Keisler and Randy Smith, but the Washington Post reports Schumer saying that none of the six will be confirmed.

For those on this site who think that the renomination of Boyle, Myers, Haynes and Wallace hasn't "poisoned the well," think again. These articles are proof-positive that it has. Because the White has chosen to be NEEDLESSLY ANTAGONISTIC, the nomination of two innocent men - Keisler and Smith - are now in deep trouble. Toxic nominations do indeed adversely affect other, less controversial nominations. If Bush had just renominated Keisler and Smith (in Myers' old slot), both probably would be on the road to confirmation right now. But no, the White House had to start the confirmation wars all over again with first the renomination of radioactive John Bolton and now the poisonous Fatal Five. Such extreme ideological loyalty to certain nominees has reached a pathological point with this president. Didn't the midterm election teach Bush anything about being more conciliatory? He is not a popular president at the moment, and vengeful actions like these only reinforce the Democrats' charges against him.

• the White has chosen to be NEEDLESSLY ANTAGONISTIC
• Toxic nominations
• extreme ideological loyalty to certain nominees has reached a pathological point
• Didn't the midterm election teach Bush anything about being more conciliatory?
• vengeful actions like these only reinforce the Democrats' charges against him.

I see the issue in the other direction. The Senate, and in particular the Democrats in the Senate, set on a needlessly antagonistic course of non-rejection rejection by refusing to vote on nominees of their selection. The nominations may be disagreeable ("toxic"), in which case the Senate was derelict in not using its power to reject them.

At the same time, President Bush has been receptive to substantive complaints, having withdrawn the nominations of Miers and Payne before they obtained a vote.

Bobo urges the President to "be conciliatory" toward the Democrats to the extent that the President is called to circumscribe his nominations in such a way as to please his opposition, which improperly wields cloture to kill nominations using a minority of votes. But there is a price for conciliation. On the judicial front, the message the President and the GOP-lead Senate got from their voters was dismay over not quashing the practice of cloture abuse. The GOP is elected (or not) by conservatives, not by Democrats. Being conciliatory to the Democrats on this issue is probably an electoral negative to the GOP.

"Vengeful action" on the part of the President? Futile maybe, because nobody with a big enough megaphone has taken up the cause. Stubborn maybe, if the President doesn't really grok that the Senate's process is flawed -- although that I think is doubtful, seeing the various proposals from 2004 and 2005 aimed at obtaining up-or-down votes for all nominees, even the disagreeable ones.

Will the renominations be effective? Will the nominees be voted on? I doubt it. Will the GOP use the stalled nominees as an issue, to attempt to quash the Democrats cloture abuse? I doubt that too. But just because the Senate fails to take up a righteous cause doesn't mean the Democrats are right to assign "antagonistic and vengeful" to the White House.

I see and appreciate the temptation to be pragmatic, to accept the confirmation hurdle set by the Democrats. But the "pragmatic approach" is also a capitulation to a significant imbalance of power. My balance tips opposite from Bobo's.

The Democrats (and moderate Republicans) have always held the key to resolving this issue - all they need do is vote. And in the 110th, with a majority of the Senate, they may well be able to reject the nominees via a vote.

The idea of forcing the Senate to be accountable in its handling of judicial nominees is theoretically admirable and desirablable but is useless in the practical day-to-day world of the Senate. Only when an idea has enough support can it become reality, and this idea does not have that support. No politician wants to be held accountable for everyone of his actions. In this case, BOTH Republicans and Democrats want cover to oppose certain candidates with impunity.

It is against the self-interest of most senators to do otherwise. That is why this issue of accountability will not float now. Despite all their rhetoric during Bush's first term, people like McCain and Graham wanted impunity to squash the nomination of Haynes with impunity during his second term. It is possible that Grassley and Sessions also wanted impunity to stall Keisler's nomination and, obviously, Frist wanted impunity to kill Boyle and Myers' nominations.

Let's face it guys, all that talk about nominees deserving up-or-down votes in the 107th and 108th Congress was not honest or true and was just a bunch of Republican propaganda to energize the base and antagonize the Democrats. When the base became expendable during Bush's second term due to his lame duck status, Republican senators began to backtrack. Frist and the Republicans on the SJC and in the Gang of 14 began participating in the decried obstruction by refusing to bring up certain conservative nominations in either committee or in the full Senate. Since these same senators control the machinery of the confirmation process, there is no way to stop them besides voting them out, and how many people here really want to vote out people like Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, Brownback and Coburn, all of whom have been complicit in this blocking of candidates and bear some of the responsibility for it.

From the L.A. Times:

"Bush also renominated Peter D. Keisler, a highly regarded Washington lawyer and head of the Justice Department's civil division, for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Unlike the other nominees, Keisler has not been criticized as unqualified or extreme in his views, but the Democrats have hesitated to approve him."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-judges16nov16,1,482...

From the Washington Times:

"It is a curious end to a year that began with the confirmation of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. But since then, confirmations have dropped off. One key senator earlier this year blamed the White House for not sending up new nominees fast enough, though Mr. Rushton said the Senate leadership failed to push the pending nominees."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061115-105416-8912r.htm

"It's also possible the White House may pull Southwick's nomination to the District Court and nominate him - instead of renominating Wallace - to the 5th Circuit seat when the new Congress convenes next year.

Southwick's possible nomination to the appellate court probably would not spark Democratic opposition."

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/NEWS/61...

its ridiculous to blame Bush for the Dems pettiness. the other 4 are just an excuse (and no good one, since the others can still be acted on regardless of who else is nominated). they'd come up with another reason even if they hadn't been nominated

Let's face it guys, all that talk about nominees deserving up-or-down votes in the 107th and 108th Congress was not honest or true and was just a bunch of Republican propaganda to energize the base and antagonize the Democrats.

If that is in fact true, the party has lost my support and earned my contempt. I find it believable though, talk is cheap and the GOP-lead Senate has been full of talk yet short on action.

Again, I hear the cry to soften on principle, and I think it's a legitimate argument. But it is an argument that rubs me the wrong way.

Senator Specter is indeed sending mixed messages. "Keisler should be confirmed" vs. "I will move no nominees out of Committee during the balance of my tenure as chair of SJC."

But, if he was not going to move any out, that could also be taken to mean that he would not have moved Keisler if Keisler was the only renominee.

The "harm" came on September 29, when the DEMs objected to carrying specified nominees forward, and Keisler was on that list. Using the "conciliatory" approach, even Keisler would not be renominated.

I don't care what you think, this is funny (from the WaTimes article)...

"There is zero, zip, zilch chance of any of these judges making it through the Senate killing fields in the waning days," said one Republican aide, who has watched the nominees situation but asked not to be identified. "Without a plan for successful confirmation from the White House, the only point is to fly the flag as the judicial-confirmation ship slips beneath the waves. Burble, gurgle."

So, another "blame the White House" voice, sort of. But it's really up to the Senate to control Senate business. All the White House can do is complain about the absence of action, and one has to admit that the White House hasn't made much of a complaint.

How about this for a plan: vote the nominees out of committee. Then bring them up for a floor vote. If the Dems filibuster, ask the Gang of 14 if there are "extraordinary circumstances". If the Gang says "no" then use the constitutional option. Then the whole Senate can go burble, gurgle.

I don't have much problem with Specter; he moved nominees out of committee only to have Frist sit on them. The WH compounded the problem by running a slow process of getting nominations to the hill.

Now, with limited time in a lame duck, the WH sends up the same dead nominations, condemning Keisler and Smith along with them. Trust me, I'd love to see Wallace and Boyle confirmed, but there is NO way that is happening. And Andrew, Frist will not bring them to floor votes, so we won't get any political capital here, either.

We should have taken what we could have gotten - Keisler, Smith, and probably Levi for the CA seat. Instead, we pushed the problem to next year, when we will have a minority. What idiot is running this show?

I agree with #21. But therein lies the problem all along--bringing them up for a floor vote.

The GOP could do this:

Since 1980, the Senate precedent has been established that when the Senate is in legislative session, a non-debatable motion may be made to go into executive session to take up a specified nomination . . . . If adhered to, the precedent, according to one congressional scholar, means that "there would be only one filibuster, on the nomination itself."

In other words, once a nomination is reported out of committee, any member of the Senate can call up the nomination, and force the Democrats to either have an up-down vote or filibuster.

If there was a real core of Republican senators who were willing to buck the status quo, your idea might have some merit. Unfortunately, however, there aren't any conservatives in the Senate who really care about the issue of judges any more. With conservatives like Hatch, Kyl, Sessions, Graham and Coburn scurrying away like scared rats every time a controversial nomination is brought up for a committee vote, do you really think that there are enough conservative senators willing to do what you are suggesting? I say the answer to that question is a resounding "no". That leaves us with another question, how do you fight against a crew that is all too happy to let the ship sink and are already floating away in lifeboats?

Bobo, the reason Specter is refusing to report nominees out of Committee is because he knows that the tactic described in my previous comment WOULD be implemented. It's really extraordinary what Specter's done here.

This plan was set to be implemented after Labor Day, but the Dems sent the nominations back to the White House.

if so, all praise be to Specter. he's been quite commendable in his office as chairman to date, and I was actually disappointed for probably the first time when I read this post.

I may never say an ill word about him again if this is his intent (though I try and follow Reagan's 11th commandment as it is, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee who's made it clear he's not really a Republican anyway).

Dienekes, you don't like the idea of forcing floor votes on these nominees? I like it. That's what Sen. Specter seems to be trying to prevent.

I thought you were saying he was angling to get them votes (that the maneuver required them not being forwarded or something; sorry, I didn't go back to reread the original, so the procedure was fuzzy in my head).

blah. never mind.

"Four of the previously blocked nominees were criticized as unqualified or too conservative. One of the others ran into objections from California senators who did not want his seat **moved to Idaho**........."

ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Looks like someone's nomination didn't get swapped with someone else's, mmmh? To reiterate, absolutely no one will come within a mile of a floor vote, let alone confirmation. Specter & Frist are bald-faced liars.

Clever strategy and sneaky compromise would get most of them thru, or superior replacement nominees thru. At least Bush sticks to his guns, which is why Rummy's still SecDef, right?

Well, the only good I see in all this is that if JRB really IS at the top of Bush's shortlist for when William O. Stevens finally bites the bag, then it looks like he'll pick her. At least McConnell will fight for her.

Of course, it would be just like this White House to stand firm on unimportant crap like a two-year lame duck UN Ambassador, and cave in completely on a SCOTUS seat w/a Callahan.