ConfirmThem

As Lord Obama cruises towards a large victory, I will be interested to see how nominal Republican appointees to the various federal courts react. More to the point, I will have my gaze trained on the Supreme Court justices reaching the twilight of their careers.

While Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republicans, they have certainly let down the party who backed them. It will be intersting to see how fast they stampede to the exit once Obama is sworn into office. I suspect these two, along with Ginsburg, have been waiting and waiting for a Democrat president so they can retire.

Losing the chance to replace Stevens or Ginsbug isn't so bad, but losing the chance to replace Souter is painful. It's painful because he was such a fraud when sold to Bush 41. If Souter had any decency, he would wait and allow the party he conned to replace him. Of course with the way things are going, that could be another twenty years.

If Obama is elected with 57 or so Democratic senators behind him, I see a flood of extremely liberal nominees being confirmed in the 111th Congress. I think Stevens may actually hold out until the 112th Congress to retire just to create a new record in terms of judicial longevity. Ginsburg and Souter, however, I think will be knocking each other down in order to see who gets out of the door first.

I am very worried about the federal courts of appeals. I see the following nominations coming in February 2009 or sooner if Obama is elected:

Second Circuit - Teresa Wynn Roseborough to replace Preska

Fourth Circuit - James A. Wynn, Jr. to replace Robert Conrad
S. Elizabeth Gibson to replace Matthews

Ninth Circuit - Barry Goode to replace Trott
Kathleen Sullivan to fill the new seat

Eleventh Circuit - Leah Ward Seats to replace Anderson

D.C. Circuit - Elena Kagan to replace Keisler
Cass Sunstein or Harold Hongju Koh to replace
Randolph

Of these nominations, I think Goode, Sears and Kagan will be quickly confirmed. I see all the rest as having problems. Hopefully, the Republicans will filibuster some of them. As I have said before, maybe then the Dems will take it upon themselves to use the nuclear option and rid the world of the hideous judicial filibuster.

Roseborough, Sullivan, Sunstein and Koh should all be blocked due to blatant partisanship of their writings and actions. In addition, Sullivan seems an especially poor choice because she initially failed the California Bar. If Dole is defeated in North Carolina, hopefully Burr will blue-slip Wynn.

Gibson is a special case. In regards to population, South Carolina does not deserve the number of seats it presently holds on the Fourth Circuit. This is thanks to the actions of Strom Thurmond. I think the Dems will try to correct this problem for two reasons: 1) as a slap in the face to the legacy of Thurmond, and 2) as a means by bypassing a more conservative nominee as would be required if two Republican senators (Graham and DeMint) had approval of the process. Especially if Dole is defeated, I see Obama switching the nomination from South Carolina to North Carolina. Although Burr might be able to blue-slip Wynn, I think it would be much more difficult for him to blue-slip both Wynn and Gibson. The only way to stop this state transfer in judgeships would be if Graham and DeMint can get the Republicans to filibuster Gibson.

I think by saying what he did in that radio interview, Obama's forfeited the right to take any oath to uphold the Constitution. He certainly has many reservations about it! And today Kaptor (sp?) of Toledo literally called for a second Bill of Rights to guarantee just about everything to everybody.

Whacker--all is still not lost. Have you voted? AP is trying to sew woe. Drudge shows Gallup tracking within margin of error.

Rudy was great on Greta tonight. Rendell on MSNBC seemed to be running scared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/29judges.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref...

Good article:

"On Oct. 6, Mr. Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and that represents one of his most enduring accomplishments. While a two-term president typically leaves his stamp on the appeals courts — Bill Clinton appointed 65 judges, Mr. Bush 61 — Mr. Bush’s judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact.

They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year — half what it considered a generation ago. And Mr. Bush’s appointees have found allies in like-minded judges named by Mr. Bush’s father and Reagan.

Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, are projected to make up about 62 percent of the bench next Inauguration Day, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.

David M. McIntosh, a co-founder and vice-chairman of the Federalist Society, said the nation’s appeals courts were now more in line with a conservative judicial ideology than at any other time in memory.

“The level of thoughtfulness among sitting judges on constitutional theory and the role of judges is higher than certainly any other time in my life,” said Mr. McIntosh, a former Reagan legal team member and Indiana congressman. “For somebody who has spent a lot of my life promoting those ideas, it’s very encouraging to see.”

The consequences of the evolving judiciary are only beginning to play out.

In the case of the 2005 South Dakota abortion law, the dissenters — including two Democratic appointees, a Reagan appointee, and a Bush appointee — portrayed the court’s decision as a sharp change in direction."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Interesting article. Calabresi employs his usual hyperbole, likely exaggerating the magnitude of the next president's impact on the appellate courts since no one knows just how many COA judges will actually retire in the next four years. At the same time, it *is* still pre-election mode, and he's obviously trying to stir voters with this essay.

Despite Calabresi's claims, I'd say that if Obama wins, he won't get anywhere near the number of DC Circuit confirmations that Calabresi is implying he'll get. By my count, Calabresi is hinting that Obama could get eight DC Circuit confirmations. Not likely in either four or eight years.

Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, are projected to make up about 62 percent of the bench next Inauguration Day, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.

The Supreme Court has 78% Republican appointees, and conservatives certainly do not "control" it. There seems to be a balance right now of 4 conservatives and 4 liberals with Kennedy in the middle. They are doing Pat Leahy type arguments based on numbers and not on reality.

The likelihood of Democratic appointees being liberal seems much higher than that of Republican appointees being conservative. Break down the Supreme Court:
2/2 Dem appt liberal - 100%
2/7 Rep appt liberal - 29%
1/7 Rep appt moderate - 14%
4/7 Rep appr conservative - 57%

Apply those percentage to the 62R/38D circuit courts and we come up with:
100% of the 38% appt by Dems liberal = 38%
29% of the 62% appt by Reps liberal = 18%
14% of the 62% moderate = 9%
57% of the 62% conservative = 35%

Add that all up and you get a breakdown of:
56% liberal
9% moderate
35% conservative

And yet we are supposed to believe that because 62% were appointed by Republicans, the circuit are tipped almost 2/3 to the right when in reality it could easily be the case that only 1/3 are conservative.

David M. McIntosh, a co-founder and vice-chairman of the Federalist Society, said the nation’s appeals courts were now more in line with a conservative judicial ideology than at any other time in memory.

“The level of thoughtfulness among sitting judges on constitutional theory and the role of judges is higher than certainly any other time in my life,” said Mr. McIntosh, a former Reagan legal team member and Indiana congressman. “For somebody who has spent a lot of my life promoting those ideas, it’s very encouraging to see.”

See again how misleading? We're supposed to read "more in line with" and "higher than" as meaning "in conservative control" when they really mean "not quite as one-sided as it had been". The SC is now up to 44.5%L/44.5%C/11%M, meaning it has peaked at an even balance after decades of liberal domination. With Obama as President, it likely ensures that the SC will never get past an even split for another generation.

Of course it is a must that he would preserve and protect the constitution because that is included in his sworn duty. Anybody in a position is responsible for these duties.Arlen Specter has served in the U.S. Government with distinction for decades. He was part of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F Kennedy, and he's served as Senator for his home state of Pennsylvania for five terms – thirty years. Most of those thirty years were spent as a moderate Republican, but he has apparently had it, and has gone across the aisle. He didn't need a no fax cash advance to tempt him, he has been voicing his dissatisfaction with the Republican caucus for some time. President Obama has already given him a message of welcome. Now Democrats are closer to a filibuster proof senate. No installment loans will bring Arlen Specter back to the GOP.