Alito clears penultimate hurdle January 31, 2006
Posted by relantel in O'Connor Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
Judge Alito today cleared the penultimate hurdle on his path to becoming the 110th justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
We should be cheering on the streets that 19 democrats were brave enough to vote to end debate:
Akaka (HI)
Baucus (MT)
Bingaman (NM)
Byrd (WV)
Cantwell (WA)
Carper (DE)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Inouye (HI)
Johnson (SD)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Lieberman (CT)
Lincoln (AR)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Source: US SenatRoll Call
Tom Harkin (D-IA) did not vote, and neither did John Ensign (R-NV), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Ensign was involved in a traffic accident earlier in the day and spent much of the day in the hospital. I don’t know about the other two. It is telling that the two “home state” senators both voted against the cloture motion, and have both indicated they will vote against the nomination itself tomorrow.
The bottom line is that Alito will be confirmed in the morning, likely by a 58-42 margin, and that his confirmation is a good thing for America. He represents replacing a mostly conservative voice on the court with a solidly one. What was the Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas block will likely become the Robers-Scalia-Thomas-Alito block, and all hope is not lost for Anthony Kennedy, who is more right than wrong.
The stage is set for a third vacany for Bush later in 2006 or in 2007. It remains to be seen whom that will be, but chances are it will be a much greater shift than O’Connor to Alito was. That fight will be even bigger than Alito, but Bush has shown that by picking the best person for the job, that candidate will likely run rings around the Democrats yet again, as Alito and Roberts before.
Alito hearings – Day 2: The Questions begin January 10, 2006
Posted by relantel in O'Connor Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
The real fireworks start today, as Judge Alito gets to banter with the Senators, and set them straight, as opposed to being forced to sit politely and listen to the diatribes the Dems gave yesterday.
I did not have the opportunity to provide updates during the opening statements yesterday, and I may not get the opportunity today, but I will attempt to do so.
Needless delay until 2006 November 4, 2005
Posted by relantel in O'Connor Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
(Extended from Altio thread in PDT’s forums)
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled its hearings on the Alito nomination for January 2006, yes you heard right, January, or more than 10 weeks past the nomination date, or far longer than the five weeks that had been scheduled for Miers, so reports the AP.
There is no reason, given Alito’s history, record, and prior vetting, that the Judiciary commitee could not have begun hearings on 11-7 when originally scheduled for Miers. The Dems were behind this, I’m sure, hoping to get a case or two decided by O’Connor before Alito receives his commission and takes his oaths.
Shame on Arlen Specter for allowing the Shenanigans. A post over on Redstate’s Redhot section notes that this gap will have been the longest since Bork in 1987:
That will be when hearings begin on Sam Alito. This is another failure of leadership on Bill Frist’s part. Not since Robert Bork has there been so much time between nomination and hearings. This will mean there is ample time for the left to get its anti-Alito operations in gear and sabotage the nomination
http://www.redstate.org/redhot_history/4526/#4526
Blanton has it right, Frist’s inability to keep Specter in line, and the caucus together as a whole on judges has been his undoing. And I am not sure, save a Santorum or McConnell, if there is a real leader in the GOP senate caucus for when Frist retires.
Rel’s take on Miers October 17, 2005
Posted by relantel in O'Connor Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
I still don’t know enough.
And while I have great deference to President Bush, and faith that he will fulfill his promise to appoint originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, I am not sold on Miers. But likewise, I can’t say I oppose her as much as I harbor some disappointment in those who could have been…
Miers’ responses to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were released yesterday. NRO has them posted in PDF format. There is nothing in the answers that screams “VOTE HER DOWN NOW”. The answers don’t completely alleviate the concerns I might have, or my prior disappointment for those not picked for this slot.
This quip over on Redstate today might say it best:
More importantly, Miers will be a better business conservative than O’Connor, I’m told. She has a business background and enough practical experience to not only persuade academics on the Court, but also to write reasonable, easy to understand opinions.
I’m told that the White House has the votes. “There’ll be some in the party who oppose her, but they’ll never vote against her on the floor,” says he. “It’s a long time till 2008, for them to oppose Bush now.” He says that the senators most likely to oppose her (and he thinks Brownback, Kyl, and Coburn are three of them) will make a lot of noise, but will in the end let her through.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/19/83615/279
Perhaps Bush knows something we don’t, in that there is another vacancy on the near horizon, say next June at the end of OT 2005. He knows that if Miers votes against the right that he will pay a huge price for it. One has to think this is in the calculation. And one has to think that if Miers knew she could not side with the right, she, based on her friendship with Bush, should not have accepted. The early speculation for the next vacancy would be 85 year old John Paul Stevens, which, if replaced with a Bork, Luttig, Alito, McConnell, Jones, etc., would really be a meaningful shift.
Miers, at best, seems just slightly to the right of O’Connor, but not quite all the way over. Granted, similar was thought on Clarence Thomas prior to his nomination. And Souter was thought to be rock solid. It’s this crap-shoot nature in court picks that has the right in a frenzy over the stealth trend.
Rel’s take on Miers October 17, 2005
Posted by relantel in Law, Politics, Supreme Court.add a comment
I still don’t know enough.
And while I have great deference to President Bush, and faith that he will fulfill his promise to appoint originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, I am not sold on Miers. But likewise, I can’t say I oppose her as much as I harbor some disappointment in those who could have been…
Miers’ responses to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were released yesterday. NRO has them posted in PDF format. There is nothing in the answers that screams “VOTE HER DOWN NOW”. The answers don’t completely alleviate the concerns I might have, or my prior disappointment for those not picked for this slot.
This quip over on Redstate today might say it best:
More importantly, Miers will be a better business conservative than O’Connor, I’m told. She has a business background and enough practical experience to not only persuade academics on the Court, but also to write reasonable, easy to understand opinions.
I’m told that the White House has the votes. “There’ll be some in the party who oppose her, but they’ll never vote against her on the floor,” says he. “It’s a long time till 2008, for them to oppose Bush now.” He says that the senators most likely to oppose her (and he thinks Brownback, Kyl, and Coburn are three of them) will make a lot of noise, but will in the end let her through.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/19/83615/279
Perhaps Bush knows something we don’t, in that there is another vacancy on the near horizon, say next June at the end of OT 2005. He knows that if Miers votes against the right that he will pay a huge price for it. One has to think this is in the calculation. And one has to think that if Miers knew she could not side with the right, she, based on her friendship with Bush, should not have accepted. The early speculation for the next vacancy would be 85 year old John Paul Stevens, which, if replaced with a Bork, Luttig, Alito, McConnell, Jones, etc., would really be a meaningful shift.
Miers, at best, seems just slightly to the right of O’Connor, but not quite all the way over. Granted, similar was thought on Clarence Thomas prior to his nomination. And Souter was thought to be rock solid. It’s this crap-shoot nature in court picks that has the right in a frenzy over the stealth trend.
Unsatisfying or secret weapon? October 3, 2005
Posted by relantel in O'Connor Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
Unsatisfying? or “secret weapon”?
That’s the spin amongst the conservative blogosphere this AM about the Miers nomination to replace retiring associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
And the lack of immediate response from PFAW and the other left-wing groups is disturbing. But Jonathan Turley is against, so perhaps the pick wasnt so bad after all.
I still think I would have preferred Samuel Alito of the third Circuit, Michael Luttig of the fourth Circuit, Michael McConnell of the tenth Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit.
Do I take some solace in Hugh Hewitt’s thoughts? Perhaps.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatives.
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/02-…dex.php#a000302
Though one must say, there are few voices that positive amongst the conservative punditry.
Hewitt closes:
The president is a poker player in a long game. He’s decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters.
His bottom line: it comes down to FAITH. Faith that Bush has done what he said he would do. Hewitt had a very good point to lead his post — GWB has known Miers for ten years. GHWB did not know Souter but took him on recommendations from others.
Beldar is out there cautionsly optimistic as well:
With even a half-hour’s worth of hindsight, I declare myself unsurprised that the President chose Ms. Miers. It’s absolutely consistent with his appointment style for other positions going back to his days as governor of Texas: George W. Bush has consistently preferred those who are well known to him, of proven qualities and proven loyalty, over perhaps bolder or more popular choices with flashier résumés.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10…iers_nomin.html
Beldar also hits on the consequences to Bush if he picks unwisely:
Beldar makes a strong close on the “trust Bush” argument:
Conservative skeptics, I remind you that even though you haven’t seen this stuff, Dubya has, so let your comfort level be in inverse proportion to the sounds of frustration and gnashing of teeth from the liberals. Sen. Brownback, your demand for guarantees as to how this nominee will vote on your key issues is like a fan in the stands insisting that the quarterback’s play calling in the huddle be broadcast all over the stadium; whether you approve of the call or not, your team’s odds go into the toilet when there’s a microphone in the huddle.
Meanwhile, another positive voice out there tonight is Patrick Ruffini, who ran the Bush/Cheney 04 website/blog:
The navel gazers are nabobing about another Souter. That’s silly. The Court will almost certainly move to the right as a result of the nomination and confirmation of Harriet Miers. And here’s why.
It’s true. Little is known about the views of Harriet Miers. But what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater.
http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/200…iet_miers_c.php
His post goes on, also drawing from others in the blogosphere that view the nomination positively. Conversely, Michelle Malkin leads a similar post on her blog on the other (pessimistic) side of things, titled “Utterly Underwhelmed“, where she pulls together some of the most notable negative thoughts out there.
And not to be undone, Redstate as a group has done a formal non-endorsement.
For all we know, and we know very little, Harriet Miers is the second coming of Antonin Scalia. But, we do not know. What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues. She did actively oppose the American Bar Association’s position. Assuming that Miers is a conservative jurist, we still cannot, at this time, accept or endorse this nomination
My take:
After the day’s review, of bloggers both pro and con, I have to lean a bit to the side of the “trust Bush” crowd, even if Miers would not have been my first choice. Reagan’s old phrase was “Trust but Verify” in dealing with the USSR. Those against are right to bring that up, but Bush has had a clear track record in his previous judicial appointments, from Roberts to the appellate circuit judgeships to the federal district level. If there has been one area of consistency, that is it.
A gut in me says there will be at least one more vacancy left during this term, likely a liberal being replaced by a onservative, as opposed to conservative for conservative.
My advice for those on the right — walking away will only serve to repeat 1992. Bush has the Dems on the ropes… now is not the time to leave the fight.
Judiciary committee members pontificate… September 22, 2005
Posted by relantel in Rehnquist Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
In one of the longest votes of recent memory, the Senate Judiciary Committee today is allowing its members 10 minutes each to announce their vote and the reasons behind it, before actually voting later this afternoon.
Most of the GOP members have not used the full 10 minutes, with Orrin Hatch coming in at just over 2 minutes used. All of the Dems have used the full time, and have split 3 for, 5 against:
All GOP For (10 members)
Dems For (3 of 
Leahy (VT)
Kohl (WI)
Feingold (WI)
Dems Against (5 of
Kennedy (MA)
Biden (DE)
Feinstein (CA)
Schumer (NY)
Durbin (IL)
For a final tally of 13-5, or not that much different than when Roberts was up for the D.C. Circuit two years ago, when he got 3 no votes in committee before being approved unanimously by voice vote on the floor of the Senate. (Feinstein & Biden voted for Roberts in committee in 2003)
The Dems voting For the nomination have left a caveat to allow them to vote against a future nomination solely on the basis of a White House refusing to share privileged documents, as they did in this case with the Solicitor General’s office memos.
We know Wisconsin almost went Red last November, and is trending that direction. I think that helped give Kohl and Feingold an excuse to support Roberts. One of the two is up next year for re-election.
12;55pm: the vote is done, 13-5, and the nomination has been forwarded favorably to the Senate Floor.
Judiciary committee members pontificate… September 22, 2005
Posted by relantel in Law, Politics, Supreme Court.add a comment
In one of the longest votes of recent memory, the Senate Judiciary Committee today is allowing its members 10 minutes each to announce their vote and the reasons behind it, before actually voting later this afternoon.
Most of the GOP members have not used the full 10 minutes, with Orrin Hatch coming in at just over 2 minutes used. All of the Dems have used the full time, and have split 3 for, 5 against:
All GOP For (10 members)
Dems For (3 of
Leahy (VT)
Kohl (WI)
Feingold (WI)
Dems Against (5 of
Kennedy (MA)
Biden (DE)
Feinstein (CA)
Schumer (NY)
Durbin (IL)
For a final tally of 13-5, or not that much different than when Roberts was up for the D.C. Circuit two years ago, when he got 3 no votes in committee before being approved unanimously by voice vote on the floor of the Senate. (Feinstein & Biden voted for Roberts in committee in 2003)
The Dems voting For the nomination have left a caveat to allow them to vote against a future nomination solely on the basis of a White House refusing to share privileged documents, as they did in this case with the Solicitor General’s office memos.
We know Wisconsin almost went Red last November, and is trending that direction. I think that helped give Kohl and Feingold an excuse to support Roberts. One of the two is up next year for re-election.
12;55pm: the vote is done, 13-5, and the nomination has been forwarded favorably to the Senate Floor.
William Cushing, 3rd CJOTUS? September 21, 2005
Posted by relantel in History, Supreme Court.add a comment
As I had some excerpts on the forum side, I thought I would make some extended comment over the story today on law.com that argues that John G. Roberts, Jr. will be the 18th Chief Justice of the United States and not the 17th as mentioned in his formal nomination to the Senate.
Briefly, Justice William Cushing was one of the original appointments to the initial 6-man Supreme Court, whose justices also had to ride circuit (forerunner to today’s eleven appeals courts), acting as an appeals court composed of two Justices of the Surpreme Court and the district judge where the appeal was heard, with the caveat that the district judge could not rule on appeal on a case he heard originally. There was no such pre-emption on Supreme Court justices.
This “riding circuit” would last well past Cushing’s tenure on the court (his death in 1810 ended it), and it was often a reason for short tenures on the court. As it stood, Cushing was the only original Justice to make it into the John Marshall era. (until reading the law review article, I had not realized that Adams had originally appointed the first CJOTUS, John Jay, to the position again upon Ellsworth’s resignation. The Senate confirmed Jay, but he declined, resulting in Adams’ nomination of John Marshall)
A few excerpts below:
Cushing soon sent a letter to Washington, in which he returned the commission, citing his “infirm & declining state of health.” By Feb. 5, the minutes of Court proceedings lumped Cushing in with the “associate judges.” He continued serving as associate justice until he died in 1810, at age 78.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1127207113073
If John Rutledge, a recess appointee to CJOTUS that was rejected by the Senate, is among the recognized for a four month period, then any time served in that official capacity ought to be recognized. I have not yet read Ross Davies’ 76 page paper, but have found the link on the University of Toledo Law Review Website (thank google for making it easy). In short, the table of contents for the article PDF indicate that Mr. Davies lays out what it takes to be CJOTUS, and what oaths Mr. Cushing took.
He goes on to examine contemporary appointments, and the use of resigned vs. declined in their nomination and confirmations. He presents evidence that both George Washington and the Senate considered Cushing CJOTUS — as his replacement’s, Oliver Ellsworth, nomination mentioned Cushing’s resignation.
In short, Davies presents a compelling argument as to why Cushing should be remembered as the nation’s 3rd Chief Justice, even if only for two days. A bill to effect such recognition was proposed in 1857, but lacked the documentary record Mr. Davies has amassed.
Is there ice forming in Hades? September 18, 2005
Posted by relantel in Rehnquist Vacancy, Supreme Court.add a comment
WaPo (gasp) supports Roberts’ confirmation (HT: Redstate):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…5091701133.html
My take is that the Post realizes the fight is lost on Roberts, and that they need to save their capital for the fight on the O’Connor replacement. This brings me to some speculation from Erick at Redstate:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/17/112359/844
I see it as a wee bit distressing that they are even worrying about polls. If the Dems try to filibuster, the democrat half of the “gang of 14″ will either break the filibuster by keeping their word, or force the GOP half to keep their word by voting for the constitutional option, killing judicial nomination filibusters once an for all. Either way, whomever Bush nominates will get confirmed.
It is often said the difference between 40% in the polls and 60% is action vs inaction. Clinton was in the 60’s but didn’t do very much at all, and as such is still searching for a legacy. For all the complaints, no one can say that Bush has done nothing. The one thing never asked in those types of polls is why those polled approve or disapprove. A breakdown between disapprove because of doing too much, or disapprove for doing too little would be nice.
