MyDD :: How to defeat Peter Keisler

How to defeat Peter Keisler

by Alice Marshall, Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:52:10 PM EST

President Bush nominated Peter Keisler to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June, making him one of the longest pending circuit court nominees. Bush resubmitted Keisler's name to the Senate this year. ...

... Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) last week hinted that Democrats would block Keisler's nomination.

Members of the Judiciary Committee

Patrick J. Leahy
CHAIRMAN, D-VERMONT

Edward M. Kennedy
D-MASSACHUSETTS

Arlen Specter
RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-DELAWARE

Orrin G. Hatch
R-UTAH

Herb Kohl
D-WISCONSIN

Charles E. Grassley
R-IOWA

Dianne Feinstein
D-CALIFORNIA

Jon Kyl
R-ARIZONA

Russell D. Feingold
D-WISCONSIN

Jeff Sessions
R-ALABAMA

Charles E. Schumer
D-NEW YORK

Lindsey Graham
R-SOUTH CAROLINA

Richard J. Durbin
D-ILLINOIS

John Cornyn
R-TEXAS

Benjamin L. Cardin
D-MARYLAND

Sam Brownback
R-KANSAS

Sheldon Whitehouse
D-RHODE ISLAND

Tom Coburn
R-OKLAHOMA

If we had a coordinated movement the ACLU, PFAW, AUSCS, NAACP, NOW, AFL-CIO, and all the other interest groups would swing into action and begin going over his record with a fine tooth comb and publicizing his bad decisions. They could even use Blogads to make their point.

Not only would his civil rights decisions be scrutinized, but his anti-consumer ones as well. Depend upon it, those would be very effective in educating Americans why the Federalist Society are not our friends.

The local bloggers, who are the blogs with real influence in this sort of fight, would be enlisted, and the national blogs would be linking to them.

The labor blogs, which COPE would have identified, if we had a coordinated movement, would all be working together to publicize his anti-labor decisions and the national bloggers would be linking to them, serving as a center of activity.

We can defeat this guy, but only by coordinating our activities and acknowledging one another's contributions.

Tags: Judiciary, courts, Federalist Society, Bush, Senate, grassroots, netroots (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

Maybe I'm missing something, but this guy doesn't seem to fit the profile of who Democrats should be blocking. I understand that he's conservative, but he's also extremely well qualified. In truth, he almost seems like the type of nominee from Bush we should encourage.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:53:36 AM EST

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

Rhenquist was qualified. If this guy is loyal to the Federalist Society agenda rather than the constitution, he needs to be blocked.

We need a moderate and if we keep insisting, we can get one.

by Alice Marshall on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:03:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

Actually, I would argue Rehnquist wasn't qualified at all and was faaar more overtly political than this guy.

Ultimatley, I suspect you and I simply disagree about the proper role that the Senate should play when it comes to nominations. I respect your point of view, but I've always agreed with Senator Feingold that Presidents should have significant latitude with their nominations absent trying to appoint someone who is unqualified, unethical, or a purely political appointment. Under that standard, I think it was right for Roberts to be confirmed but I thought Alito should have been filibustered. Likewise, I would have filibustered Janice Rogers Brown but think that Keisler should probably get confirmed.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

Roberts is pro-torture with the decisions to prove it. He should never have been confirmed and should be tossed off the court for his views on torture.

And this guy should be blocked, no member of the federalist society should be allowed on the court.

by Alice Marshall on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

Does that mean that when Republicans control Congress it's acceptable for them to refuse to confirm any nominee who is a member of the American Constitution Society? That's just silly. Conservative presidents appoint conservative judges. Liberal presidents appoint liberal judges.

Honestly, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the US Atty scandal is all about. This administration was refusing to hire applicants to the DOJ for no reason other than a person looked like they were a Democrat. I'm outraged about that, but don't think the solution is for progressives to do the exact same thing.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

That is what the Republicans already DID during both Clinton's & Carter's presidency.

The Constitution society is not comparable to the Federalist society. The Federalist society is an extremist organization and needs to be treated as such.

by Alice Marshall on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

They certainly did try to do that, with varying degrees of success. But (1) that doesn't make it right' and (2) both Clinton and Carter did get through plenty of progressive, extremely well qualified Judges. If the process wasn't broken, that would have been even more true.

I can supply names if you want. I can also point to good Judges appointed by Bush I and even Reagan. The point is, we should want well qualified individuals serving on the bench. I prefer those individuals be chosen by a progressive Democratic president, so they look like Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, but I vastly prefer Anthony Kennedy to Thomas.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (3.00 / 1)

Cabinet positions deserve some deference to the will of the executive. Judgeships on the other hand do not.

When you are talking about who will go to work for the President then sure, within limits let the exec pick their own team. But judges don't work for the President and generally have much longer time in office. Not to mention they are there as a check on the power of the executive. Letting the President install yes-men and loyalists completely subverts that purpose.

That's why I want Congress to fight tooth and nail every step of the way if the nominees aren't acceptable. And yes, it's fine for the Republicans to do the same thing when the situation is reversed.

by Curt Matlock on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

I agree with the distinction you're making to a certain extent and would also support blocking judicial nominees who would be yes-men or otherwise refuse to execute their duty as judges. My point, however, is that holding a judicial philosophy different from Justice Ginsburg, Stevens, or me doesn't automatically make someone incapable of being a good Judge.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here or to defend judicial approaches I don't agree with. It's just that as a lawyer myself, I know plenty of reasonable individuals with the utmost respect for the judiciary who hold a different judicial approach than I do. In light of that fact, I'm extremely skeptical of the proposition that such individuals should be precluded from serving in the Judiciary purely b/c their approach happens to differ from a majority in Congress.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

You would hope that any nominee for a judgeship would be non-partisan in their rulings but as we've seen many aren't. We also have seen how a Republican Congress and a Republican President go about selecting nominees. They choose the most vicious partisan they can find and then use every ounce of power they hold to see them confirmed.

Now that Democrats have Congressional power I expect them to at the very least weed out strong Republican partisans and make the President send moderates up instead of the Republican hatchetmen he's favored in the past. But I accept your point that there is more to judging than whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. My objection is to those with partisan agendas and not to conservatives in general.

by Curt Matlock on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he be blocked? (none / 0)

I think we're on the same page and I agree with you completely about nominees with partisan agendas.

by HSTruman on Tue May 15, 2007 at 04:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.