While the news of the renominations is undoubtedly good, it is not by any means time to declare victory. We can't forget that Senator Reid has previously promised to filibuster Boyle, even before this latest renomination.

"I can't imagine how President Bush could bring him to the Senate for confirmation," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday. If GOP leaders insist on a confirmation vote, he said, Democrats "without question" will launch a filibuster." - Washington Post, May 3, 2006.

This is certainly a fight worth fighting, and majority leader Frist seems to agree, from what he told Ed at Captain's Quarters. "[f]ilibusters are a good tool for legislation, but not for nominations. Someone took the rule and bent it for their political advantage, and I broke it. They may try it again, and I’ll break it again."

President Bush has re-nominated Terrence Boyle, William James Haynes II, Michael Brunson Wallace, William Gerry Myers III, and Norman Randy Smith. These are all highly qualified nominees who deserve to be confirmed promptly by the Senate. We call on the Senate to schedule up or down votes on each of these nominees quickly after returning from their August recess.

Too often when the ABA plays liberal politics with nominees, Republicans rightly allege that the rating is evidence of the ABA's bias and that is the end of it. (Interestingly, when the ABA rates a Republican nominee well, the Democrats try to ignore the rating.) However, never before has a Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman made the ABA itself the issue. But that is just what moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter is attempting to do. As seen elsewhere in this blog and on the web, the rating of Michael Wallace is not about his record as a lawyer but rather about his time on the Legal Services Corporation during which his positions were vehemently opposed by current ABA President Greco and Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary Tober.

Let's hope Senator Specter is successful in not only having the ABA re-rate Wallace but also forcing the ABA to change their procedures. Please read and sign the letter above for one idea and a small way all lawyers interested in fairness can help.

If the ABA continues to put personal liberal vendettas above the law, then they should be removed from any formal role in the confirmation process.

The law is a serious subject but even lawyers need a laugh once and again. This article provides it.

Admittedly this news story comes from the Philippines and not a Court of the United States. A judge was removed from the bench because he purported to consult three mystic dwarves for his decisions. I wonder whether, if a federal judge based his decision to strike down a law based on the advice of three mystic dwarves, the Democrats would allow an impeachment or would deem this "good behavior" as long as they liked the result? Indeed, some Justices of the Supreme Court might have their decision making improved by resort to mystic dwarves. The late Justice Douglas and his "penumbras" come to mind.

This story also touches on another recent controversy; the use of foreign law in Supreme Court interpretation of American law. I anticipate the day when the Supreme Court, eager to strike down some law clearly willed by the American people and allowed by the Constitution, cite foreign Filipino law in order to strike it down. I for one will check if this judge was present at that decision, or whether rather than a mere three mystic dwarves, an en banc panel of seven (Happy, Grumpy, Doc, Sneezy, Bashful, Sleepy and Dopey) handed down (up?) the decision.

I also promise a bottle of his favorite Scotch (or whatever Senator Hatch drinks) to the first member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask a nominee whether he thinks its appropriate to consult mystic dwarves in making rulings.

Finally, as Dave Barry would say "Mystic Dwarves" is a good name for a rock band.

"Senate Democrats who oppose a split for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are hindering their own cause by blocking Idaho's two nominees to the court. The longer they wait to confirm nominees William Myers and Randy Smith, the longer the backlog stretches for federal cases in the 9th."

The Senate begin their August recess last Thursday, and as a result, judicial nominees Boyle, Myers, Haynes, Smith and Wallace who were awaiting a floor vote were returned to the President to be renominated after the recess. Confirmthem.com writes that per Senate rules:

"Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President."

Typically this procedure is waived by unanimous vote, however this did not occur before the recess adjournment. This may open the possibility that one or more of the nominees may ask not to be renominated in September.

Today, the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary released the testimony they submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Michael Wallace to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. More to come.

An article in the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger provides some reactions from the legal community.

Also, Ed Whelan with the National Review Online blogged extensively yesterday about the testimony.