Conrad to Retire

[krazen1211]

If Obama wins reelection, we're going to see exactly how broken our judicial nomination system really is.

We've already seen it the last 2 years.

Because Obama got both his Supreme Court nominees confirmed, with Republican votes?

He got fewer lower court appointees approved with a Democratic Senate than Bush did in his first two years in a Senate that flipped from GOP to Democratic. He got fewer nominees appointed in two years than any president since Nixon. Now, imagine if Republicans faced pressures from their base to not allow any presidential nominee to get a vote other than the most moderate or some tokens. It's going to be ugly.

It already was ugly.

Bush got a lot of nominees in his first 2 years.

He got very few nominees in his last 2 years.

In fact, its funny you mention the bolded. Chuck Schumer declared a pre-emptive strike on Bush nominees in 2007.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”


“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington.




He incidentally didn't actually reverse the presumption of confirmation. Shrug.

[krazen1211]

Here are the full numbers for the last 2 Presidencies as far as judicial nominees.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/10/judicial-confirmation-statistics-clinton-v-bush/

District court confirmed    Circuit Court confirmed    Senate controlled by
103rd Cong (93-94)    108    19    Dem
104th Cong (95-96)    62    11    Rep
105th Cong (97-98)    80    20    Rep
106th Cong (99-00)    57    15    Rep
Totals    307    65

107th Cong (01-02)    83    17    Dem
108th Cong (03-04)    85    18    Rep
109th Cong (05-06)    35    16    Rep
110th Cong (07-08)*    58    10    Dem
Totals*    261    61

[krazen1211]

Here are the full numbers for the last 2 Presidencies as far as judicial nominees.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/10/judicial-confirmation-statistics-clinton-v-bush/

District court confirmed    Circuit Court confirmed    Senate controlled by
103rd Cong (93-94)    108    19    Dem
104th Cong (95-96)    62    11    Rep
105th Cong (97-98)    80    20    Rep
106th Cong (99-00)    57    15    Rep
Totals    307    65

107th Cong (01-02)    83    17    Dem
108th Cong (03-04)    85    18    Rep
109th Cong (05-06)    35    16    Rep
110th Cong (07-08)*    58    10    Dem
Totals*    261    61

Okay, the 109th Congress figure is intriguing.

Yeah, it sort of is.

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/judicial_vacancies/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies


Basically 4 months of so were lost to filibustering, Alito/Roberts/Miers chewed up another 6 months, and Specter refusing to move nominees during the lame duck session lost another 2 months. Really just incompetence on part of Bill Frist and company.

Democrats in the 110th, of course, had no reason to play 'catchup' when they thought they would take the Presidency.



Anyway, I bring this up because a lot of people talk about the 107th session, which was obviously fairly productive. The more recent sessions, though, weren't so for whatever reason, and they're probably fresher in people's minds. So there's likely some lingering bitterness.

[krazen1211]

Hopefully Ginsburg sees the writing on the wall and retires sometime before the next election.

If Ginsburg retires too close to the election, the GOP will filibuster, just like happened late in LBJ's term, when he nominated Abe Fortas (who then dropped out after ethics issues popped up).  So if Ginsburg is thinking about retiring, she had better make up her mind.

Yeah, I think that's why nobody has retired in an election year since then. Of course, Chuck Schumer based on his own partisan hack statements might have moved that clock up to July 2011.

[krazen1211]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

The last 2 years have shown that having a Senator on the filibuster cusp (ie Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown) lets you demand what you want in legislation.

I'm sure Massachusetts power players recognize that fact.

[krazen1211]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

The last 2 years have shown that having a Senator on the filibuster cusp (ie Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown) lets you demand what you want in legislation.

I'm sure Massachusetts power players recognize that fact.

The "Cornhusker Kickback" deal Ben Nelson got made no one happy. But once again that's not the way voters think. As Lewis noted the Republicans being able to take the Senate would only reduce Brown's chances. As noted before no one in Massachusetts didn't seem to care about the state not having any members of the majority party in the House for a full decade and none in the Senate either for the same time except for the brief period after Jeffords' flip.

I agree, its not the way voters thing. But it is the way financial donors, local mayors, gotv guys, and special interests think.

Why else would Menino come out swinging for Brown?