Judge William H. Pryor Jr. lays the smackdown on the president of the ABA, Tommy Wells:

The prescribed topic was whether judicial independence has been threatened by recent developments in the law and culture. But when Wells began arguing that one of the alleged threats to independence was the “over-politicization” of judicial selection processes, Pryor answered with a soft-spoken but stinging rebuke.

In effect, he said the ABA itself was guilty of what Wells was warning against.

“The ABA is far too political an organization, Pryor said. It files far too many amicus briefs in cases that “have nothing whatsoever to do with the profession.” It takes positions on too many issues before Congress. And its committee that rates the fitness of federal judicial nominees can often devolve into “another subterranean form of politics… that can be an ugly form of politics as well.”

“It is important,” Pryor said to Wells, “to keep your own house in order.”

The audience, probably 1,000 lawyers strong, loudly applauded Pryor’s remarks.

Ouch! Now, that’s definitely gonna leave a mark.

MSNBC has this report, and quotes yours truly.

You can read my quotes below the fold. (more…)

A solid post by Professor Althouse.

Yes, the same Doug Kmiec who has endorsed Barack Obama for President went on the talk-show, op-ed circuit in October 2005 to support President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. This is what Professor Kmiec wrote in a 2005 Washington Post piece:

(more…)

The Tennessean has this report:

McCain heard from one man concerned about his record with social conservatives and the possibility that liberal judges could get onto the Supreme Court. He wanted McCain to outline his philosophy for nominating to the high court. McCain responded by saying he supported recent nominations of justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, while Obama opposed them.

“I will only nominate judges who have a clear and unequivocal record of strict adherence and interpretation of the Constitution of the United States,” McCain said. “It’s one of the most important responsibilities of the president of the United States. I’m told there may be two or more vacancies that may occur in the next president’s term.”

I really wish McCain and others would stop using the word “strict” in describing originalism, but I am, nevertheless, encouraged by his commitment to appoint judicial conservatives as president.

Professor Kerr nails it:

Let me paint with a very broad brush and offer my best explanation. The primary reason, I think, is the nature of the Supreme Court’s docket in the last fifty years. During that period, most high profile Supreme Court constitutional law decisions have considered whether to ban practices embraced by conservatives rather than whether to ban practices embraced by liberals. For conservatives — especially social conservatives, and especially religious conservatives — the question has been whether the courts will allow their views, not whether the courts will mandate them. (more…)

Quin Hillyer (rightfully) sings Arlen Specter’s praises.

In case any of y’all are still looking for a reason to support McCain over the likes of Obama:

McCain plans to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, George W. Bush’s conservative counter-revolution at the Supreme Court . . . . The question, as always with McCain these days, is whether he means it. Might he really be a “maverick” when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.

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.