The White House re-submitted six judicial nominees Wednesday: Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

All but Keisler have generated intense opposition from Democrats.

Ed Whelan writes, "don’t be fooled by Democrats' bluffing. There's still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice — or even two or three more — confirmed."

This article from the New York Observer demonstrates why the failure to use the Judge issue was so devastating. Allen in Virginia did not use it. Was it worth 8000 votes? Probably. Burns used it late and unconvincingly. Was it worth 3000 votes in Montana? Even in Missouri, if the GOP had been highlighting this issue for months, could it not have pulled the marvelous Jim Talent over the line?

Now one of the men most hostile to the rule of law, and most viciously partisan of any Senator, Chuck Schumer will do all he can to smear and degrade good nominees. Patrick Leahy does not have Schumer's intelligence or off putting manner but he shares the low cunning and sure knowledge that his schemes to disenfranchise social conservatives through court decisions can now be advanced should another court vacancy emerge.

We must be prepared for either weak nominees from the President, or party line votes in the Senate Judiciary committee. That will mean the Presidents Supreme Court nominees go to the floor with a "no" recommendation. I dont' beleve the Democrats can afford to filibuster a good Supreme Court nominee but they can press to vote him or her down. Appellate Judges are now doomed. No known constitutionalist judge will now get through the Senate to the appellate bench for two years.

The Republicans have 49 votes. They must leverage them to maximum advantage or Schumer's boasting will be prophetic. The President and the Senate REpublicans must work hand in glove in order to fight for the next nominee. It is not going to be easy.

In an insightful piece on National Review Online, Byron York explores the conspicuously-absent issue of judicial confirmations from this season's close Senate races.

A selection of his more compelling points for better inclusion of federal judicial nominations in Republican campaigns includes:

• "...the judicial nominations issue also just happens to have given the GOP its greatest success in the last Congress: the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And, looking forward, there's no reason to assume that those high-court nominations will be Bush's last; age, illness, and the vagaries of fate might well mean another vacancy in the next two years."
• "What if Democrats, instead of having 45 votes, had 48 or 49 [during the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings]? They might have been able to throw more roadblocks in Alito's path. If they had 50, things would have been much more difficult. And if they had 51, we would still be investigating the Concerned Alumni of Princeton."

More ominous for the GOP is Mr. York's closing, which highlights the Democrats' plan for judicial confirmations after November 7th:

• "Sen. Joseph Biden, a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked on CBS Sunday how Democratic victories would affect peoples' lives -- even if those victories were to mean just more seats in the Senate without outright Democratic control. 'Well, I think one of the things they'll see different if the Senate gap is closed, you'll not see many more right-wing nominees for the Supreme Court,' Biden said. 'I think that will, I think the president will have to go a more moderate route on choices for the Supreme Court, if there are any.'"
• "If Republicans lose the Senate, or lose even a few seats in the Senate, the president will be significantly weakened on the issue most important to his party's base. And GOP strategists will be asking the question: Why didn't we make a big deal of this when we had the chance?"

The full text of this article is available by clicking the link above.

"A vote for Bob Menendez is a vote for judicial activism," Curt Levey describes in his latest article on National Review Online. Mr. Menendez has had a long history of support for activist judges, most recently manifesting in his embrace of the recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Mr. Levey highlights a New Jersey electorate that, while supportive of gay marriage, is increasingly wary of judicial activism. For example, in the case of Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey justices "discovered" a right to same-sex marriage that had "heretofore lain undiscovered in the state constitution for more than 160 years," in the words of Mr. Levey. More importantly, the right to create, regulate, or oppose such an institution was removed completely from the hands of the people's representatives.

The crux of Mr. Levey's argument, however, is not centered on the recent NJ Supreme Court decision. Rather, it is to expose a long record of support by Mr. Menendez for judicial overreach. Examples include:

• "He pledged to 'use support for abortion rights as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.' Both pro-choice and pro-life voters should be concerned with this statement, because it telegraphs Menendez's preference for judges who behave like politicians, promising certain results instead of following where the law leads them."
• "Voters will also weigh the cold shoulder that Bob Menendez gave to West Caldwell resident Samuel Alito when he was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court last year. New Jerseyans were proud of their hometown boy, but Menendez tried to deny Alito a vote in the Senate by supporting a filibuster. When that failed, Menendez voted to reject Alito's nomination. Do New Jerseyans want a senator who puts partisan politics above both loyalty to the state and the principle of a fair up or down vote?"
• "Menendez's campaign commercials label Alito and John Roberts -- both of whom Kean says he would have voted to confirm -- as "anti-choice Supreme Court justices." In fact, both men were nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate because they are the antithesis of activist judges. Both have pledged to keep an open mind on abortion issues. But to senators like Menendez who are looking for judges who promise guaranteed outcomes, an open mind is a bad thing."

The full text of the article can be read by clicking the link above.

Sean Rushton, Executive Director for the Committee for Justice, writes:

"For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year's end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation's capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, 'Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.'

"Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered. It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to 'teach Republicans a lesson' next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is 'no more Souters' should bear in mind Robert Bork's fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986."

Speaking today Joe Biden agreed with Sen. Dole's comments linked to in the preceding post (quoted from Redstate but no link):

On FTN, Joe Biden promised that if the Democrats close the gap in the Senate, "you're not going to see any more right wing nominees to the Supreme Court." He also said that Republicans would be emboldened and would openly rebel against the President's Iraq policies.

In other words, Judges that interpret the Constitution rather than force the preferences of Harvard Law's faculty lounge on the rest of us would not only be dead on arrival in a Democratic Senate, but the President would not even nominate them. All Souters, All the Time.

Things are looking better for Republicans this Sunday. Your vote matters. Crawl over broken glass but, especially if you live in Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Washington State, crawl over flaming, broken glass to vote on Tuesday.

Senator Elizabeth Dole writes "I truly believe that handing Democrats control of the U.S. Senate would have a disastrous impact on our judiciary, would put President Bush's excellent nominees at risk, and would have enduring, unforeseen effects. The stakes are that high."