The junior Senator from Kentucky held up this nominee for his own purposes -- purposes having nothing to do with the nominee. He did it in order to gain leverage to force a vote on an unrelated and ill-advised amendment. You cannot amend a nomination. So now that he has forced the Senate into two days of inactivity, the Senate will finally vote.

As I said yesterday, the goals of Senator Paul’s amendment are already the law of the land. The new conditions on military aid for Egypt, which I wrote with Senator Graham, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and were signed into law just two months ago without Senator Paul’s support. Those conditions require certification by the Secretary of State that the Egyptian military is supporting the transition of civilian government and protecting fundamental freedoms and due process. Unlike Senator Paul’s proposed amendment, these conditions—again, already the law -- do not pose a risk of backfiring on us and on our ally Israel.

Moreover, once this misguided obstruction is ended and the Senate has voted to confirm Judge Jordan to fill the judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit, the Senate will turn back to its work on the surface transportation bill. As Senator Boxer said this morning, that bipartisan bill can save or create 2.8 million jobs. That, too, should be a priority, not a pin cushion to attach ill-advised foreign policy amendments.

This is the kind of obstruction that is hard to explain to the American people.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Margo Kitsy Brodie (Cal. No. 409)
Ordered, That at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 2012, the Senate proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination of Margo Kitsy Brodie, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Ordered further, That that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. (February 17, 2012.)

Just a word of thanks for following all this for us, Joe Ruby. I don't respond too often, but I read everything you post.

Just a word of thanks for following all this for us, Joe Ruby. I don't respond too often, but I read everything you post.

What happens next time? Your guess is no worse than mine.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/e ... /xcalv.pdf

Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Of these 2,100 nominees, only six have been reported by party-line votes – only six total in the last 65 years. Five of those six party-line votes have been by Republican Senators against President Obama’s highly-qualified district court nominees. In fact, only 22 of those 2,100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split roll call vote at all, and eight of those, more than a third, have been by Republican Senators choosing to oppose President Obama’s nominees. President Obama’s nominees are being treated differently than those of any President, Democratic or Republican, before him.

Update As Of Feb 1:
Article III Judicial Vacancies
Circuit Courts---16 Vacancies with 9 Nominees
District Courts--68 Vacancies with 30 Nominees
http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudges ... ncies.aspx

At yesterdays Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Sen Lee (R-UT) offered his personal opinion regarding an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court that I felt obligated to share.

55 The author received some small inkling of the influence of Abele II on the Court’s thinking in the fall of 1972, when interviewing for clerkships at the Supreme Court. Justice Powell devoted over an hour of conversation to a discussion of Judge Newman’s analysis, while Justice Stewart (my future boss) jokingly referred to me as “the clerk who wrote the Newman opinion.” I assume that the latter was based on Judge Newman’s generous letter of recommendation, a medium in which some exaggeration is expected.
http://a.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/17/4 ... 31-248.pdf

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mary Elizabeth Phillips (Cal. No. 439)
Thomas Owen Rice (Cal. No. 440)
Ordered, That at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, en bloc:
Mary Elizabeth Phillips, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, and
Thomas Owen Rice, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.
Ordered further, That there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.
(March 2, 2012.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/e ... /xcalv.pdf

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Hurwitz to be a Circuit Judge for the 9th Circuit by a 13-5 vote. This nomination will probably generate plenty of opposition in the Senate and likely be subject to a filibuster attempt.

The National Right To Life Committee (NRLC) opposes the Hurwitz nomination. The NRLC mentions a comment written by Hurwitz as "the clerk who wrote the Newman opinion". It appears Sen Grassley reads their press releases because he quoted the same in announcing his opposition during yesterdays Executive Business Meeting.
http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/Hurwitz9th ... letter.pdf

Newman refers to then USDC Judge Jon O. Newman who was part of the 3 member panel which ruled on two abortion cases (Abele I and Abele II) prior to Roe v Wade. The article claims the Abele II decision was influenced by Hurwitz and that the Abele II decision was relied upon by several Supreme Court Justices when deciding Roe. That alone is enough for some Senators to oppose confirming Hurwitz to any government position.

The statement which received this attention follows (footnote 55).


Sen Grassley's comments regarding the Hurwitz nomination start approximately at the 23:30 mark.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/com ... 12&st=1250

Pres Nixon nominated Newman to be a USDC Judge for the District of Connecticut in 1971. Pres Carter nominated Newman to be a Circuit Judge for the 2nd Circuit in 1979. Newman assumed senior status in 1997.

Reid, if successful, would force a vote for the 17 district court nominees before the Senate, but not the five appellate court nominees. Appellate choices receive more detailed scrutiny because appeals courts are often the last word in deciding major issues — or are the last stop before a case reaches the Supreme Court.

"I urge Senate Republicans not to give way to political temptation by continuing to obstruct these district court nominations," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said. "Senators should debate, and then vote, on these non-controversial nominations, and not needlessly delay them any longer."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 3f149151c2

After the progress that’s been made, filing cloture on more than a dozen nominees is simply a ploy by the Majority Leader to build political rhetoric for the president.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Art ... 1502=39660

Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home state Senators who know the nominees and their states best, and have always been confirmed quickly with that support. Never before in 37 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything like what is currently happening. Never before in the Senate’s history have we seen these district court nominees blocked for months as we have seen since President Obama’s election.
<snipped>
Two weeks ago at a meeting of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah conceded that a “new standard” is being applied to President Obama’s nominations. He was only saying out loud what has been apparent from the start of President Obama's term—that Republican Senators have applied a different and unfair standard to President Obama's judicial nominees.
<snipped>
So, too, I expect the district court nominee to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in Utah, supported by Senator Hatch, will not be controversial once the vote takes place. The district court nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies in Texas, supported by Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn, should easily be confirmed. The nominees to judicial emergency vacancies in Illinois supported by Senator Kirk, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in Louisiana supported by Senator Vitter, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in Missouri supported by Senator Blunt, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in Arkansas supported by Senator Boozman, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in Massachusetts supported by Senator Brown, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in South Carolina supported by Senator Graham, should not be controversial. The district court nominee in Ohio supported by Senator Portman, should not be controversial.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press ... 34462fb3ed

Under the deal, the Senate would vote on a total of 14 noncontroversial nominees by May 7, a dozen of them to U.S. District Court seats and a pair to the U.S. Circuit Court.
<snipped>
Under the deal, the Senate would consider two or three nominees a week before May 7. The nominees would fill District Court seats in West Virginia, Utah, California, New York, Virginia, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois. The others would fill vacancies on the 4th Circuit, which covers the Mid-Atlantic region and the 9th Circuit, which covers the West.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 45442.html

I've been critical of Reid's leadership abilities in the past. I'm very pleased to see the Senate Majority Leader force this issue.

Under the deal, the Senate would vote on a total of 14 noncontroversial nominees by May 7, a dozen of them to U.S. District Court seats and a pair to the U.S. Circuit Court.
<snipped>
Under the deal, the Senate would consider two or three nominees a week before May 7. The nominees would fill District Court seats in West Virginia, Utah, California, New York, Virginia, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois. The others would fill vacancies on the 4th Circuit, which covers the Mid-Atlantic region and the 9th Circuit, which covers the West.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 45442.html

Vitter (R-Pampers)