The Associated Press reported today that...

"Three federal judicial nominees from Michigan cleared a key Senate committee on Friday and are expected to win confirmation to the bench.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nominations of Grand Rapids lawyer Robert Jonker, Berrien County Circuit Judge Paul Maloney and Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet Neff to the U.S. District Court for Michigan's Western District.

"The Michigan nominees were approved as part of a package of eight federal judges and two U.S. attorneys from Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, West Virginia and Alabama...

"Jonker, Maloney and Neff were expected to be confirmed by the Senate before it adjourns, which could come Saturday."

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to the floor of the US Senate today to praise Justice Antonin Scalia's "dogged commitment to the fundamental principles of liberty." Twenty years ago today, Scalia was appointed an associate justice by President Ronald Reagan, and has consistently served with the philosophy that we have a "government of laws, not of men." Hatch singled out Scalia as a firm proponent of originalism and praised his determination to preserve the liberties guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.

Hatch's comments ring especially true in a day when judicial activism is becoming increasingly common in our democracy. It is perhaps best captured in an oft-used quote of Scalia's own: "Judges are no better suited to govern than anyone else."

Highlights of Hatch's speech:

• "Many people, conservatives as well as liberals, applaud or criticize the Supreme Court when it amends the Constitution, depending on whether they like the amendments. Yet I ask my fellow citizens, both conservatives and liberals: would you rather have your liberty secured by moral reflections and personal impressions or enduring mandates and impersonal rules of law? If you cede to judges the power to make law when you support the law they make, what will you say when judges -- and they will -- make law you oppose?"
• "The inherent power of the principles on which Justice Scalia stands, propelled by the way in which he asserts and defends them, force us confront, whether we like it or not, the issues most basic to a system of self-government based on the rule of law."
• "When he [Scalia] enrages, he also engages. If Justice Scalia had no impact, he would get no attention. Even the commentators that call him a bully, or worse, feel they have to call him something. His harshest critics know they cannot ignore him. Scholars or political activists can no longer simply describe the political goods they want judges to deliver; they must defend why judges have the authority to deliver those goods. "
• "Justice Antonin Scalia has made our liberty more secure, our citizenry and leaders more responsible, and given us all plenty to ponder, and chuckle about, along the way."

(Full text of speech available by clicking the link above.)

Michael Wallace finally had an opportunity yesterday to defend himself against the ABA's inexplicable Not Qualified rating. He did so with poise and confidence. Congressional Quarterly provides a summary of the hearing at http://www.rnla.org/Blog/CQToday9-26-06-Wallace.pdf as does the Clarion Ledger at http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060927/NEWS/609270372/1001/news.

Also, during his questioning of the ABA panel Senator Cornyn introduced as an exhibit into the Congressional Record the RNLA’s bi-partisan letter signed by 220-plus attorneys calling for the ABA to reform its process of evaluating judicial nominees. We thank all of those who signed this letter.

One of the most dispiriting occurrences in the judiciary is the tendency of Republican nominees appointed to the Supreme Court to move away from textualism or originalism to side with those who fill the Constitution with ideas temporarily fashionable amongst liberal legal intelligentsia.

The New York Times' chief court watcher, Linda Greenhouse is likely a minor cause of this leftward movement. So much so that it is termed the "Greenhouse Effect." From her perch on the most prestigious paper in the land she relentlessly assaults those who side with the Constitution, history and the American people, and writes florid puff pieces on those whose jurisprudence bears an uncanny resemblance to brunch conversation on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. In the circles in which many judges move, the good opinion of those who read the Times is sought after. Unless grounded in a solid Constitutional view prior to appointment and willing to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous calumny, and unless fully ready to withstand social slights a Justice can be imperceptibly moved from a solid judge to an advocate of the mindless mush that characterizes current Left jurisprudence.

This article reveals the full extent of Greenhouse's out-of-date, yet fashionable Leftism.

The RNLA issued a press release today as the Senate Judiciary Committee began its hearing for Michael B. Wallace, who's been nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The press release announced a letter sent to ABA President Karen J. Mathis signed by over 200 current and former ABA members raising concerns about the ABA's recent ratings of Brett Kavanaugh and Michael Wallace. The letter calls on the ABA to allow for more transparency in the review process, establish a clear recusal policy for conflicts of interest, and select members for the Standing Committee who reflect the broad judicial philosophies of the entire legal community. A copy of the letter is available at http://www.rnla.org/Blog/ABALetter9-26-06.pdf.

Ed Whelan of National Review writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Mike Wallace's nomination to the Fifth Circuit will take place on Tuesday at 3:30. It should come as no surprise that the ABA's supplemental review of the Wallace nomination—which was triggered by the recent Democratic shenanigans that required the re-submission of the nomination and which was presumably limited to the months since his first review—again yielded a "not qualified" rating."

Thursday, Sept. 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8, along party lines to approve the nomination of Norman Randy Smith to the Ninth Circuit. According to a Sept. 21 Congressional Quarterly article Sen. Feinstein stated "If I have to filibuster this judge, I will do so." Why does she want to filibuster Smith? Because he is not from California.

The Committee also debated the nomination of William Myers, but took no action. No action was taken on the other three nominees, namely Boyle, Haynes and Wallace.

Great letter to Chairman Specter and Leahy in support of Haynes
from retired military officers. It highlight's Haynes distinguished
military record and shows his commitment to public service.


http://www.rnla.org/Blog/haynesofficerletter.pdf

Here is some additional food for thoughts related to judicial nominations:

"Judge This" an editorial in the National Review Online discusses some key Circuit Court nominees that may be critical for Senate Republicans to get confirmed before the end of the session.

Robert Bluey and Jan LaRue have separate articles in Human Events dealing with the impact of the 2006 elections on the judicial nomination process and the impact of judges on the War on Terror.

On a related note, the Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a press release criticizing the recent decision a District Court judge declaring the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional. The press release includes reactions from legal experts concerning the timing of the decision and questioning the court's reasoning.

This week, the Senate and the Judiciary Committee quickly resumed their work on judicial nominations, confirming Kimberly Moore to the Federal Circuit and holding a hearing for Kent Jordan, nominee for the Third Circuit. Confirmthem.com has posted comments by Sen. Santorum during Moore's confirmation discussion relating to judges and national security. The News Journal of Wilmington, Deleware published an article discussing Jordan's hearing.

To begin the week, President Bush renominated five Circuit Court nominees that had been returned by the Senate when they recessed in August - Boyle and Haynes to the Fourth Circuit, Wallace to the Fifth Circuit, and Smith and Myers to the Ninth Circuit. The News and Observer in North Carolina reports that Boyle could be voted out of Committee as early as next Thursday, after Sen. Leahy placed a hold on the nomination this week. The Clarion-Ledger in Mississippi quotes Sen. Specter with saying that the Committee will hold a hearing on Wallace on Sept. 19 or 26.

Thanks to confirmthem.com for this info.

Chairman Specter had promised to bring the President's re-nominated judicial nominees back up in Committee today. He is setting the example for the rest of the Senate to follow on how to give these nominees the prompt attention they deserve.

The Third Branch Conference issued a press release applauding Chairman Specter for his leadership and. Manny Miranda called on Democrats to allow the Senate to perform its duty and hold timely up or down votes for these nominees. A copy of the press release is available here.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairmen Arlen Specter was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Sunday, Sept. 3, 2006. Wallace asked Specter about the judicial nominees that Pres. Bush resubmitted and Specter responded as follows:

SEN. SPECTER: Now, chris, you asked me to be brief and responsive. Now you want me to be frank, too? I will be frank with you. I think it's tough, very candidly. But the President has resubmitted those names, and I'm chairman, and we're going to handle them in regular order, and they're all going to be on the executive calendar for next thursday. We're going to move -- we're going to move right ahead. Nominee Smith is embroiled in a controversy between a couple of states. I think we can get him confirmed. Mr. Wallace is far back in line, but he's entitled to a hearing.

WALLACE: Let's put up his picture. This is Michael Brunson Wallace. He's no relative. The American Bar Association found him to be unanimously not qualified. Senator, again, being frank, doesn't he have a pretty steep climb to confirmation?

SEN. SPECTER: I think he may have a steep climb, but let me remind you about the Constitution, Chris. I know you're concerned about the Constitution. Constitution doesn't say the American Bar Association confirms. Constitution says the Senate confirms. And we'll consider what the American Bar Association has to say. We'll consider what a lot of people have to say. And then we're going to consider him in committee. Is he a lock to be confirmed? Absolutely not.

WALLACE: And let me ask you about one other controversial nominee, and that is judge Terrence Boyle. There have been allegations, as you know far better than I, of a conflict of interest, that he ruled in several cases involving companies in which his family held stock. Doesn't that nomination, Senator, have big problems?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I think it does have big problems. When you have a judge who has ruled on cases where there were stock of his own involved, yeah. He has given an explanation, that they were minor, that they were oversights, but there are a number of them. But let's consider that. Again, it's a matter of an evaluation and a matter of judgment, but I think that judge Boyle ought to have an up or down vote in the Senate. Chances are candidly, Chris, he'll be filibustered, but so far as I'm concerned as chairman, I'm going to move them right along one at a time and let the full senate make its judgment.

It appears that Republican Senators may revitalize their efforts to confirm the President's judicial nominees. Sen. Crapo stated "There has been this obstruction from the Democrats without justification for too long...That obstruction is starting to have them pay a political price in advance of the election." With statements like that and Senator Frist's comment mentioned in the following post we might be seeing an indication of forthcoming progress.