NOWHERE in the Constitution is the Senate required to provide an up-or-down vote on the President’s nominees:

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the President’s power of appointment. It reads:

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” read on

From AMericablog via Newsmax

Rehnquist's Clever Boost for Bush

When Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced in late October that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, we took the news sadly.

Now that the election has taken place and the dust has settled, we think the clever veteran of the Court and Beltway politics may have timed his announcement to give George Bush a small boost before Election Day.

Rehnquist could have waited a few days, until after the election was over -- as John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, did to announce her breast cancer.

As NewsMax reader Miguel Tuas first pointed out to us, Rehnquist's timing was impeccable.

Though Rehnquist did not say he planned to step down, many media commentators said the ailing chief justice, now 80 years old, may have to leave the court to attend to his health.

And that suddenly injected the judiciary -- and the number of Supreme Court appointments the next president may have to make -- into the presidential campaign.

Can you imagine Kerry's potential court picks: Dershowitz? Tribe? Estrich?

Thankfully, we don't have to.

DOWNLOADS: (1044)

PLAYS: (899)

Embed

The Hill:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said on Sunday that Vicki Kennedy should be considered to replace her late husband in the Senate.

Hatch, one of Kennedy's closest friends in the Senate, said on CNN's State of the Union that Vicki Kennedy is well-qualified to serve, even if only until a January special election to fill the rest of the term.

"I think Vicki ought to be considered. She's a very brilliant lawyer. She's a very solid individual. She certainly made a difference in Ted's life, let me tell you. And I have nothing but great respect for her," Hatch said on CNN.

Another close friend of Kennedy, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), acknowledged that Vicki Kennedy has not expressed much interest in filling in for her husband, but said he would support her next step.

"Whatever Vicki wants to do, I'm in her corner," Dodd said on State of the Union. "She knows that. And she's expressed to me her own sort of reluctance to [fill in for Kennedy], but she could change her mind. If she did, I'm for it. I think she'd be great."

"She brings talent and ability to it, and to fill that spot I think is something the people of Massachusetts would welcome. We could certainly use her in the Senate," Dodd said. "But I leave that up to her. She's got a lot on her mind right now, and frankly, I'll leave it up to her decision-making process."

Massachusetts lawmakers, spurred by a letter from Kennedy himself, have begun discussing new legislation that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to appoint a temporary replacement to serve until an election. State law passed when Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was in office took the power to appoint a replacement away from the Republican when Sen. John Kerry (D) appeared in strong position to win the presidency.

Kennedy was reportedly worried that the Democrats would fail in their health care reform push without that 60th vote and wanted to make sure that Patrick could appoint someone before that January special election. You gotta love that about Teddy, optimistic 'til the end that the Dems would find their spines.

Meanwhile, BoldProgressives has started the Honor Senator Kennedy petition:

PETITION TO THE SENATE: "Ted Kennedy was a courageous champion for health care reform his entire life. In his honor, name the reform bill that passed Kennedy's health committee 'The Kennedy Bill' -- then pass it, and nothing less, through the Senate."

Sign it, it's getting passed on to the Senate today as they come back from recess.

In news that surprises exactly no one, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today voted nearly unanimously in favor of appointing Hillary Clinton to be the next Secretary of State. The only thing left is a full Senate vote, expected to take place shortly after President-elect Obama is sworn in next Tuesday. The lone holdout on the committee to vote against HRC? Diaper David Vitter of Louisiana.

AP (via HuffPo):

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly on Thursday for Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next secretary of State, endorsing President-elect Barack Obama's promise to take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction.

The 16-1 committee vote paves the way for a full Senate vote after Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Clinton is not expected to hit any major roadblocks, with Republicans and Democrats alike praising her acumen on the issues.

But concerns about her husband's charitable fundraising overseas remain. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, who was among several Republicans who raised the issue at her confirmation hearing earlier this week, cast the lone opposing vote.

Just yesterday, word leaked that Senate Dems, unwilling to see what kind of mischief the president might consider during the congressional recess, might keep the chamber open with a series of pro forma sessions.

Apparently, this wasn’t just a trial balloon — Roll Call reports that Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the idea today.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to keep the chamber in session over the Thanksgiving break to block President Bush from making any unsavory recess appointments while Senators are out of town.

In a statement inserted in the record Friday, the Majority Leader said he will hold the Senate in a series of pro forma or nonvoting sessions to prevent the controversial practice. In the statement, Reid argued that nominations need to get on track, and that Bush has not met the Democrats “halfway” in agreeing to Democratically backed nominees to “important commissions.”

“While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,” Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President will meet me halfway. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.”

Good for Reid. He’d considered this move before, but was reluctant to go through with it. Today, he made the right call.

Rachel Maddow had to bring Tucker Carlson back to earth on the issue of President Bush's anti-abortion judge appointments and the notion that Bush has no litmus test determining judicial nominees. ( Bush denies he has one.) (At least Kerry was perfectly clear about his feelings.)

Carlson:...There's only one issue that Democrats are interested in, and that's protecting Roe v. Wade. And I think it's totally legitimate, and in fact laudable, if the president were to come out and say, “You know what? Roe v. Wade is bad law. I'm not nominating anyone who is for it,” period.

MADDOW: If you flip a coin ten times and it comes out heads every time, do you start to think the coin is loaded? If you flip a coin 50 times—if you flip a coin 100 times, it's heads every time? How about if you flip a coin...

Download | play -WMP

CARLSON: It should be loaded. It should be loaded.

MADDOW: Bush has appointed more than 200 judges in his term. Not a single one is pro-choice. If you tell me he doesn't have a litmus test...

GASPARINO thinks the president should lie about it, well not really lie...just a little spinning of the truth. Rachell is doing a great job on the show and a good reason to tune in even when the game is always stacked two against her.

As John Cole says :It is pretty silly to pretend there is no litmus test for judges, when both sides clearly have them. It is even sillier for the press to play along, as they appear to have.

via The Carpetbagger Report

A day after suggesting judges who are the victim of violence may have somehow brought their fate upon themselves, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) followed up yesterday with remarks that were intended to clarify his meaning. It wasn’t particularly helpful.

“My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing respect that it needs to serve the interests of the American people well. We should all want judges who interpret the law fairly — not impose their own personal views on the Nation. We should all want to fix our broken judicial confirmation process. And we should all be disturbed by overheated rhetoric about the judiciary from both sides of the aisle. I regret that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.

“Our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary and about judicial nominees must be toned down. Our broken judicial confirmation process must be fixed once and for all.”

There’s a lot of nonsense here, but the bottom line is that Cornyn hasn’t apologized for offering a rationalization for anti-judge violence. Instead, he’s standing by his controversial remarks and accusing his critics of taking his remarks out of context....read on

Of course as we predicted that the usual "taken out of context" statement would be made. I shouldn't call it a prediction really. What else was he going to say. Oh...there's this " “judicial confirmation process must be fixed once and for all.” Something is rotten in la-la land when Dick Cheney responds "There's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments." Of course nothing from the major right wing bloggers. They are too busy worrying about those damn pulitzer prize winning AP photographs to care about judges.

via Talk Left:

People for American Way has prepared concise statements as to why Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown should not be given lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

• Priscilla Owen: Remaking the Law for the Radical Right

• Janice Rogers Brown: Far out of the Mainstream

More information is here.

Now if anyone can figure out this Hugh Hewitt post, please let me know. It would appear that he is trying to defend Janice Rogers Brown in her out-of-the-mainstream remarks. As it turns out, Hughie's only point is to point out certan quotes attributed to Barry Lynn. As usual since Brown's remarks are clearly an indication that she is unqualified for the job, Hewitt attacks Mr. Lynn since he can't defend the messenger. The whole point is not how disingenuous other people might be Hugh old boy, because Barry Lynn isn't up for the nomination. Its all about what Janice Rogers Brown has to say that really matters. Obviously you have a tough job in front of you, trying to defend the indefensible.