Here is Senator Obama describing what he will look for in a judge if elected president:

[W]hat I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That’s been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

Except for unborn babies, of course.

Those, you can kill with impunity (even after they’re born).

If you missed Senator McCain’s “judges” speech, you can now watch it on his website here. 

To those of you who were/are frustrated with Senator McCain because of his involvement with the Gang of 14, I offer you the following quote from Judge Charles Pickering:

There is no way you can look at that agreement as a Democratic victory. Two days after the Deal was announced, Owen was confirmed by the Senate. Two weeks later, Brown was confirmed, and the next day the Senate confirmed Pryor. These confirmations were exactly what President Bush and the Republicans had tried to accomplish for five long years and the Democrats had blocked.

The confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito –two exceptionally capable and conservative jurists– were made relatively easy because of the “Gang of Fourteen Agreement.”

(h/t to RNLA - Judicial Blog)

Erick has the details.

And I have the text of McCain’s excellent speech below the fold. (more…)

CNN”s Political Ticker has this report:

On the day Democrats hold a crucial primary in North Carolina, John McCain will venture to the Tar Heel State to lay out his vision on what kind of judges he would appoint to the bench.

The McCain campaign tells CNN’s Dana Bash the Arizona senator will deliver a speech next Tuesday at Wake Forrest University designed to help bolster his standing among conservatives with regard to the issue of judges.

Many conservatives took issue with McCain in 2005 for signing on to the so-called “gang of 14″ in the Senate — a bipartisan group of senators who sought to find a compromise on some of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Oh, and be sure to read the accompanying comments. Here are just a few gems: (more…)

RedState and Confirm Them founder Michael Krempasky recently spoke to George Washington University’s Internet & Politics class, and had some interesting behind-the-scenes tidbits on the significant impact Confirm Them had on the eventual withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination.

As someone who was actively blogging at Confirm Them during the Miers nomination controversy, I found Mike’s comments fascinating, and I suspect many of y’all will as well.

(forward to the 1:25 mark)

(LvRedState)

I was going to link to Orrin Hatch’s excellent piece, but Feddie beat me to it. But the comment by “Dolly Madison” below Feddie’s post is worth promoting to its own blog post. My info is that Puryear is being horribly abused (in other words, a typical smear job from the left), and I hope to write extensively on the case soon. Meanwhile, though, Dolly’s post, and the link therein, are important reading.  This is where the judge wars spread to the District Court level — which is a sad and terrible development.

for their obstructionist tactics re: President Bush’s judicial appointments.

This was the right decision by Brownback. Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote within a reasonable period of time, and it was inappropriate of Brownback to attempt to condition his vote on Neff agreeing to recuse herself from any gay marriage cases.

I have to say though, I am not at all heartened by what I’ve read about Neff thus far. In a nutshell, she does not strike me as a judicial conservative, and one is only left to wonder why in the world President Bush nominated her in the first place.

Well, the president did nominate Harriet Miers, so I guess that explains the Neff nomination (in part), now doesn’t it?

Yep, I’ve been writing about this danger on SA and the South Carolina Appellate Law Blog for some time.  Now, the Washington Times is picking up on the theme. 

Wow.  This means big changes on the Fourth Circuit.  Here is the scoop.

 Rumor is that he will run for governor in SC in 2010. 

Schumer is the Devil.

Ed Whelan argues that the sky has not fallen on NRO today.  What say you all?

Judges are the main reason I will be upset if the Dems take the Senate. Bill Kristol has a fantastic article.

The Grand Rapids Press has the latest on Senator Sam Brownback’s hold on Judge Janet Neff’s nomination:

“There’s been a five-year fight to get judges appointed from West Michigan and I don’t relish getting into the middle of this,” said Brownback, an opponent of gay marriages and a presidential hopeful. “But I’m pursuing this and trying to get information factually as to what exactly happened, and whether this was a legal or illegal ceremony at the time, and what it reveals about (Neff’s) judicial philosophy.”

Brownback said he received a brief message from Neff on Friday, but it did not provide the answers or explanation he was looking for. Neff has said she cannot comment publicly on the issue while her nomination is pending.

Brownback said the key issue is whether Neff participated in an illegal ceremony.

“If you have someone up for a federal appointment that says, ‘I don’t care, I think this is the right thing to do,’ then this is a violation of the law or an intent by someone who’s to interpret and uphold the law, to violate it,” he said, following the rally. “Now, that may not be the circumstance we have here, but that would clearly be crossing the line to me. Right now, we just don’t know.”

Hugh Hewitt explains why we should all care about the Montana Senate race this election cycle.

Boo hoo.

As just a reminder of how critical the pending nominations to the Fourth Circuit are, take a look at US v. Kahn and Rux v. Republic of Sudan, both of which deal with war on terror issues.  The former deals with a terrorist cell in the United States and the latter deals with a suit for damages arising out of the attack on the USS Cole. 

According to a story on last night’s Special Report with Brit Hume, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee realizes that there’s something fishy about the ABA’s vehement opposition to the Michael Wallace nomination.  If you go to the show’s website right now and scroll down to the section ”As Seen On ‘Special Report,’” you can watch a video of the story.  Here’s the money quote:

Fox News correspondent MEGYN KENDALL: On Tuesday, Specter circulated a letter to the Judiciary Committee, which was meeting on other nominations, urging it to reject the report, an unprecedented move. Specter will also urge the committee to request a new ABA report from a panel of unbiased lawyers. Specter also wants the ABA to identify all of its sources, to name the people attacking Wallace, something the chairman says he’ll now push for in every ABA report.

SPECTER: I do not think that they ought to be anonymous if we are to base a Senate judgment on them. It does not give the nominee a chance to defend himself.

Ed Whelan is all over this, in a multi-part posting on Bench Memos today.  Start here and scroll up.

It’s hard to believe, but Hugh Hewitt is still making excuses for President Bush’s biggest political blunder: the Harriet Miers nomination:

Indeed, his nomination of Harriet Miers, dismissed as cronyism by his critics or unserious by his friends, was probably the result of his desire to get a war-powers friendly justice on SCOTUS. 

Dude, let it go. We were right. You were wrong. Just admit it, and move on, bro. Quit being such a damn hardhead.

(LvRobbie)

That’s the question posed by Sean Rushton over at NRO today. Here’s a taste:

This November will be the first election year since 2000 that no significant Senate debate over judicial confirmations will spark a voter response. If Senate leaders do not rethink their strategy, fewer voters will be considering judicial confirmations when they vote for Senate candidates on November 3rd. It is a huge mistake. It is an avoidable mistake.
. . .

The absence of current confirmation debates allows attention to slip from the main attraction, the very real possibility of a third Supreme Court vacancy in the next two years. If voters want a Supreme Court that will eventually repair recent decisions on property rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, and marriage — as polls indicate they do — they should keep the Senate strongly Republican. Otherwise, another Justice O’Connor or Kennedy may be the best the White House will be able to do next time around.

Spot on. When will Republicans learn that the “judges issue” is one of the strongest reasons to vote for their party? Oh well, Mark Shea doesn’t call the Republican Party the “Stupid Party” for nothing.

The letter to the President can be found here. 

Today, I have a column on the Haynes nomination appearing in the Greenville News, a South Carolina paper covering the upcountry.  Here is how I conclude the piece:

With the recent retirement of Judge Michael Luttig from the Fourth Circuit, the conservatives on the court have only six votes out of 12. The Fourth Circuit currently has several open seats, and unless the Senate votes on qualified nominees such as Jim Haynes prior to the mid-term elections we could see a Fourth Circuit much less in agreement with the average South Carolinian.

Jim Haynes is a qualified nominee with South Carolina roots. Too much is at stake to permit the Haynes nomination to die at the hand of obstructionists in the Senate. Sen. Graham and his colleagues in the Senate owe it to South Carolinians to make one final push to bring the Haynes nomination to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.

That’s Judge Kavanaugh to you, Senator Clinton.

Congrats, Brett!

With Mike Luttig headed for the private sector, there is a debate in the blogosphere on whether we are properly compensating our judges.  Currently, judges of the court of appeals make about $171,800 per year.  Luttig left, citing the need for additional dollars to put his kids through college.  From those close to him, I understand that his children are extremely bright, and thus we are talking Harvard and Yale type dollars–probably at least $50,000 for tuition and board is my guess.  

Some have speculated that the money was not the real reason Luttig left, but anyone close to the Fourth Circuit will tell you that he often expressed frustration his law clerks made more than him the day they took a private sector job.  And, yes, the D.C. area ain’t cheap.  Between the money and Dubya passing him up for SCOTUS, I believe Judge Luttig felt he had to make a move.

The dollars debate brings to mind why the public views lawyers as greedy.  Median household income in the United States is about $44,000.00, and only 4.2 percent of year-round workers earn over $100,000. It is difficult for most Americans to understand a why there is a debate about whether $171,800 is enough money for a judge. 

In Luttig’s world, with friends like Ted Olson making, I dunno, a cool $1 million per year in private practice, I can see why $171,800 seems like chicken feed.  But this debate will only increase the public perception that lawyers make too much money and live in a world separate from ordinary Americans. 

Is there a good reason why we have ceded the role of evaluating judicial nominees to a left-leaning organization?  As such, the only judicial evaluations and ratings for the media to report come from the ABA.

I don’t doubt the general good faith of the ABA in evaluating judicial nominees, but it seems to me that few would argue that the ABA has at least a slight lean to the left. 

 Perhaps the Federalist Society should begin evaluating all federal judicial nominees, just like the ABA.  It seems to me that the Federalist Society could even attempt to create balanced panels for those evaluations. 

 There would certainly be a furor for awhile, but at least the media would have another rating to report.

The Fourth Circuit is regarded as the most conservative in the nation. This could quickly change with the departure of Judge Luttig coupled with the troubled nominations of Boyle and Haynes.  If the White House does not act quickly, in the next three or four years, the Fourth Circuit could have a liberal majority. 
 
Right now, the judges of the Fourth are loosely grouped as follows:
 
Conservative
Chief Judge William W. Wilkins
Judge H. Emory Widener, Jr.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer
Judge Karen J. Williams
Judge Dennis W. Shedd
 
Moderate
Judge William B. Traxler, Jr.  (leans right)
Judge Allyson K. Duncan   (leans left)
 
Liberal
Judge M. Blane Michael
Judge Diana Gribbon Motz
Judge Robert B. King
Judge Roger L. Gregory
 
Labels are difficult, depending on the issue. For example, with “tough on crime” issues, one could easily put Judges King and Traxler (both former prosecutors) with the conservative judges. And Nixon appointee Judge Emory Widener is known to march to the beat of his own drummer, especially in the last few years as he has aged. But, the above is about the best we can do as a general matter.
 
With Luttig gone, the conservatives have six votes out of 12. Judge Widener has indicated that his senior status will be effective as soon as his replacement is confirmed. William Haynes has been nominated as Widener’s replacement, but it looks like that nomination is dead because of the torture memos. 
 
Regarding the Boyle nomination, Democratic members of the Gang of 14 are about to request that Judge Boyle be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. This would likely mean the death of his nomination as well.
 
With mid-term elections likely to go poorly for the GOP, it will be very difficult for a conservative nominee to sail through–especially with the Luttig seat now open. If Judge Widener decided to simply take senior status regardless of whether his replacement is confirmed, then that would leave the core conservatives with 5 votes out of 11 (maybe six in a pinch because Judge Traxler does lean toward the conservatives). If the three open seats are filled by moderates, or after the next presidential election by liberals, the conservatives could easily find themselves in the minority on many issues.

 
The White House needs to act immediately on the Luttig seat.  We need a solid judicial conservative to replace him.  Even with a GOP majority it has not been easy getting judges through (e.g., Haynes and Boyle), but before the Dems make gains in November, the White House needs to get moving.  We need a conservative nominee to replace Luttig and perhaps it is time to withdraw Haynes (maybe Boyle too) and push forward with fresh conservative candidates.  If something is not done, the Fourth Circuit could look much different in the next few years.

“The ABA Goes Wild” declares Power Line.  “With this nakedly political move, the American Bar Association has once again forfeited any claim to credibility.”

More to come . . .

According to Kate O’Beirne just now on The Corner, the ABA has rated him “not qualified.”