On Wednesday, President Obama nominated University of Utah law professor Scott Matheson for the Tenth Circuit. This is the kind of kind consensus nominee for a judgeship that deserves wide support.
Matheson (a colleague of mine at the law school school) has a resume that makes him a extremely well qualified for the federal bench. As the White House press release on the nomination explains:
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.
While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.
Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.
Matheson is widely regarded as cautious moderate rather than an activist liberal. Having worked as a prosecutor in both the state and federal systems, he has a good understanding of the day-to-day realities of modern law enforcement. And his “paper trail” reveals someone who is firmly in the mainstream of American law. Presumably this is why, when the Matheson nomination was announced, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was quick to offer this statement of support: “I’m pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the Tenth Circuit. I’ve known Scott a long time and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott’s nomination.”
Unfortunately, however, a few conservative bloggers have found something sinister about the timing of the nomination. The Weekly Standard, for example, was quick to opine in this blog post that “the timing of this nomination looks suspicious” given that Scott Matheson’s brother, Jim Matheson, is a Democratic congressman who is undecided on how to vote on Obamacare. A few other right-wing blogs have echoed this theme.
Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, the facts show that the Scott Matheson nomination has nothing to with the health care debate. The Tenth Circuit vacancy that the Matheson was just nominated to fill was created on May 5, 2009, when another University of Utah law professor — Michael McConnell — resigned his judgeship to accept a teaching position at Stanford Law School (press release here). Within a matter of days, it was widely understood in the Utah legal community that Matheson would be the front runner for the nomination. He was the obvious choice for the Obama administration, given Matheson’s legal acumen, extensive experience in state and federal public service, and long Democratic political connections (his father, Scott Matheson, Sr., was a well-regarded and moderate Democratic Governor of Utah 1977 to 1985 and Scott himself ran for Governor in 2004) After that, the Obama administrator presumably pondered the choice — their delay in moving forward on nomination having drawn the attention of this blog and many other commentators.
I can add on factoid on the timeline to the nomination. In approximately mid-January, my wife and I were both contacted by the American Bar Association in connection with the ABA evaluation process. The fact that the ABA was evaluating Matheson at that time means that the Admininstration had already made the determination to move foward with the nomination — and, indeed, had decided at least a month or two earlier, as an FBI background check would automatically precede an ABA investigation. Given that the ABA was evaluating Scott in roughly January, one would expect an announcement roughly six weeks later – exactly as happened here.
While I don’t have inside knowledge of the timing, others who do are quick to scoff at the idea of any “vote buying” with the nomination. According to the Salt Lake Tribune story on the issue, Senator Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination. “I can assure you [of] that,” Hatch said. “I don’t think Jim [Matheson] would change because of it anyway.”
I hope that conservatives will not let understandable concern about some of the Obama Admistration’s other initiatives cloud their judgment when something comes along that should be supported. Even in Utah, Obama had a lot of left-wing activists he could have nominated for this Tenth Circuit vacacy. Scott Matheson is precisely the kind of restrained, consensus choice that conservatives should join Senator Hatch in applauding.
B.D. says:
He’s obviously qualified. But it’s a curious selection when you consider that there is an enormous surplus of qualified candidates for every federal judgeship. It does not good to rebut the criticism by saying that he’s qualified; it’s beside the point.
At the same time, the critics will never be able to prove that this is some sort of quid pro quo. B.D.(Quote)
Nunzio says:
I wonder if he’ll be bored with it like Judge McConnell. Not sure law professors make good judges for this very reason. Most cases are pretty day-to-day. Not a lot of philospher-king stuff. Nunzio(Quote)
ruuffles says:
Utah has two Republican senators, either one of whom could kill it via blue slip (esp. Bennet who is in a primary). Compare this to, say, the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th ct, out of CA with two Democratic senators. ruuffles(Quote)
Tamerlane says:
For a different and just as reasonable perspective see here. Tamerlane(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
It was the president who made Matheson a hostage to his brother’s vote, not conservatives.
Qualified or not, if congressman Matheson changes his vote, his brother will never get confirmed. The GOP in the Senate will block the nomination until next Congress by holds and other delaying tactics.
Then, the increased GOP contingent will, if a majority, never vote him out of committee, Orrin Hatch or not. If still a minority, they will filibuster a floor vote.
It does not matter how qualified Scott Matheson is, that is just the way it will be.
But look on the bright side, if Jim Matheson does change his vote, he will have more time to spend with his brother in Utah since he won’t be in Congres anymore. Bob from Ohio(Quote)
1040 says:
I, a liberal, thought the trading theory was hogwash too, but after reading this post, I am not sure at all. Man, if that Obama is the drastic left-wing loony liberal that this post describes him as, appointing a mere moderate is clear indication of a quid pro quo. 1040(Quote)
Martinned says:
Yes, reasonable, that’s what usually follows after a headline that says: “The Obama way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe”. Martinned(Quote)
Wayne says:
I was going to click on Tamerlane’s link to see another “reasonable perspective.” Then I saw it led to Malkin and realized Tamerlane was obviously being ironic. Well played sir, well played. Wayne(Quote)
ruuffles says:
Given the blue slips, what’s to say it wasn’t a quid pro quo the other way? That is, Hatch and Bennet refusing to sign off on any nominee to McConnell’s seat unless Rep Matheson agreed to always vote no (since the confirmation would almost certainty come afterwards). Then, Hatch and Bennet proposed his brother, knowing that (as Bob noted above) it would be impossible for Matheson to vote yes. ruuffles(Quote)
LTR says:
After “Louisiana Purchase” and Rahmbo offering administration job to Joe Sestak if he drops the primary challange to Specter, this stuff is hardly out of the realm of imagination. LTR(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Did Jim Matheson vote no the first time around? If he changes his vote, does that change the probabilistic calculus about whether his brother’s nomination might have been politically motivated?
Which way does that cut, as to whether Matheson’s nomination was influenced by the possibility of picking up a vote for the government healthcare takeover?
I don’t have the answer, but in my experience the money bet is that pols are opportunistic calculators. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Alan Gunn says:
I don’t know whether there’s a quid pro quo here, but it’s wrong to claim that “the facts show” that there isn’t. Even if Matheson is the person who would have been chosen on the merits, and even if that choice had already been made, it’s possible that the President told Matheson’s brother to vote for health care reform or the nomination would be dropped. I have no evidence that this happened, and I’m not arguing that it did. But it could have; nothing in your recitation of facts rules it out; and nothing I know about the President’s history or character makes it implausible. Alan Gunn(Quote)
Jim Clay says:
I remember the glowing admiration for Eric Holder when he was nominated for AG from Volokh denizens. Fool me once ... Jim Clay(Quote)
ruuffles says:
ruuffles(Quote)
ruuffles says:
You ... you ... can’t fool me again? ruuffles(Quote)
SGD says:
The U graduates I have talked to said Scott Matheson is smart but a dull professor, and that he would be a brilliant judge.
It will be interesting to see if Jim Matheson changes his vote on ‘health reform.’ He has already voted twice against it. If he changes now, I think it will be strong evidence of some kind of quid pro quo. And it will also be good evidence that the Democrats will lose another seat in 2010. SGD(Quote)
Abdul Abulbul Amir says:
Perhaps not. A No vote would show him standing up for whats right even at the possible cost to his brother. Abdul Abulbul Amir(Quote)
KevinM says:
By the same token, should Louis Brandeis be blamed for the misbehavior of Jersey teens because he acted as “counsel for the Situation?” I submit not! KevinM(Quote)
Allan says:
Three points:
1. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim Malkin is reasonable.
2. The timing is bad.
3. All judicial appointments are political. It is naive to think that the decision did not have a political component. I don’t know what happened in the PA and CO senate races, but if there were legitimate job offers and no mention of leaving a senate race, would there be a controversy? Also, were I to appoint someone, I would want assurances that they would stay in the job. So, perhaps insisting that the appointees not run for office is a legitimate consideration in making appointments. Allan(Quote)
velville in georgia says:
Sorry, Paul, but I am not buying. If he is indeed the bright light you see, perhaps it is unfortunate that Professor Matheson has been caught in the Obama dishonesty web.
As has been said elsewhere, were Jim Matheson to have told the President that he had problems with the monster called [incorrectly] health care reform [more appropriately politicians and bureaucrats tampering, ala Schiavo and the quacks in Congress] and would not vote for it, and the President have nominated his brother anyway, I would see this differently.
The sad fact is that the President shows again no principles and he expects everyone to act like a common slut when selling his vote.
But then, the President was [supposedly] a con law professor. velville in georgia(Quote)
ruuffles says:
You mean a yes vote. A no vote comes at no cost to his brother. ruuffles(Quote)
you're all missing the point says:
The conspiracy theory here is that Obama appointed Scott Matheson to influence Jim Matheson’s vote on the health care debate. As has been acknowledged, there’s no evidence of this. But some have still suggested that the mere appearance of a trade makes this improper.
For there to even be an appearance of a trade,however, the timing has to line up. In other words, you’d have to show that Obama’s decision to nominate Scott Matheson lined up, timing wise, with his need for Jim Matheson’s vote. But as Professor Cassell has pointed out, the evidence shows that this decision was made awhile ago.
The real problem with the conspiracy theory is that it’s focusing on the wrong thing. The issue isn’t the timing of the announcement. The issue is the timing of the decision to nominate Scott itself. From a common sense perspective, I would think that most rational people would see that there would have been a vetting gap between the decision and the announcement, thus killing this conspiracy theory. And from a reality perspective, I’ll echo one particular aspect of Cassell’s post: we in the Utah legal community have known that this was coming for a long time, certainly well before the health care debate popped up. There just isn’t anything to this, at all. you’re all missing the point(Quote)
SecurityGeek says:
I had no idea that you just awoken from a 14 month coma and/or returned from meditating at a monastery in Tibet. In either case, welcome back! SecurityGeek(Quote)
SGD says:
Sorry Abdul, I edited my post after you had already started quoting it. I agree that if Matheson votes ‘no’ on ‘health reform’ he will keep his seat. SGD(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Thank you, Paul Cassell, for the insightful and informative post. It has certainly helped clarify my own thinking on the matter.
Consider this, folks. According to the timeline provided by Prof. Cassell (who is certainly far more familiar with the process of federal judicial appointments than we are!), right about now would be the ordinary and expected time for Matheson’s nomination to be publicly announced. There are plenty of folks familiar with the usual timing of these things, and I’m sure the GOP Senate staffers would be in the loop on how the background checks and ABA evaluation were proceeding. Had all the vetting been completed and the President NOT made a public announcement of the nomination right now, then it would be obvious to any number of folks that he was holding back the public announcement pending some future event... like the healthcare vote. He would be accused of holding the formal nomination over the head of Rep. Matheson until the Congressman voted the correct way.
So, having previously been uncertain whether this appointment smells bad, Prof. Cassell’s post convinces me that it’s on the up-and-up. We’ve got far better reasons to oppose some of the President’s plans, especially healthcare reform; there’s no need to slander what appear to be good people while we’re at it. PatHMV(Quote)
this is just silly says:
Obama has a chance to further radicalize a federal circuit court by appointing a liberal activist to a lifetime spot.
Instead, he appoints a guy who is a former prosecutor on both the state and federal levels, who has a long and verifiable track record as a moderate, who has the support of such conservative luminaries as Orrin Hatch, Jason Chaffetz, and now Paul Cassell, and who also happens to be a Rhodes Scholar with degrees from Stanford and Harvard, not to mention the dean of the state’s law-school.
And conservatives are now upset about this?? And they wonder why the rest of us think that they’re obstructionists? This is insane. this is just silly(Quote)
Ben says:
Hold on a second. Exactly WHO was interfering in Schiavo? Ben(Quote)
Anderson says:
But it’s a curious selection when you consider that there is an enormous surplus of qualified candidates for every federal judgeship
Uh, no, it’s NOT “a curious selection.” Did you read Cassell’s post?
Within a matter of days, it was widely understood in the Utah legal community that Matheson would be the front runner for the nomination. He was the obvious choice for the Obama administration, given Matheson’s legal acumen, extensive experience in state and federal public service, and long Democratic political connections ...
It’s a non-curious selection. Anderson(Quote)
Steve says:
Shorter comment thread: as long as you regard everything the Obama Administration does with a presumption of dishonesty and bad-faith, the possibility can’t be ruled out. Steve(Quote)
Constantin says:
It makes Obama look worse if this isn’t a bribe. He can’t be that oblivious as to not recognize the appearances here, can he? He’s teetering on the verge of an incompetence narrative as it is. Constantin(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Constantin, no. As I noted up-thread, based on Prof. Cassell’s timeline, it was time for the release of the nomination in the ordinary course of business. Had the President held off on it, it would have reeked even more of a bribe. I guarantee you that a GOP staffer in the Senate would have leaked information on Matheson’s nomination announcement not being made according to the normal schedule, and then that would have made it look like the President was waiting until AFTER he could see how Rep. Matheson voted to decide whether to make the formal nomination. It’s just unfortunate timing all around, not incompetence. PatHMV(Quote)
Just Dropping By says:
So Obama shouldn’t nominate anyone to a judgeship who is related (or has any personal/business connection) to any member of Congress? Afterall, there are plenty of MoCs whose vote Obama might need on any number of items on his legislative agenda over the next few years. Just Dropping By(Quote)
Brett says:
Ha!
As a Utah Democrat, I can definitely tell you that there is no chance Jim Matheson is voting for that bill, even if Scott Matheson gets the position. His district (which is also a textbook case of gerrymandering — they split up a liberal area around Salt Lake City and attached it to a huge chunk of more-conservative-than-God southern Utah) has more Republicans than Democrats in it, and there is zero chance short of him choosing to leave his position that he’d risk it voting for something they’d see as “too liberal” for them.
Of course, that might change if Utah gets the 4th seat after the 2010 Census. If we get it, odds are the state legislature will re-gerry-mander the district, except that this time they’ll try to cram as many democrats and liberals into a single district as possible. Brett(Quote)
Dave N. says:
I never had Scott Matheson as a Professor (he was on leave as a Salt Lake County prosecutor my 1L year and I had the prosecutor who traded jobs with him as my CrimLaw professor instead). Those I know who had him seem to like him though he was, by reputation, a bit dry.
I have heard nothing but good things about his tenure as Dean (though I will acknowledge the Alumni Newsletter might be a biased source).
Frankly, I think he is an outstanding choice and I join Professor Cassell in hoping for his speedy confirmation.
As for Utah’s two Senators, I am glad Orrin Hatch is on board with his enthusiastic support. Between his and Jason Chaffetz’s support, Bob Bennett has all the cover he needs from his right flank. I can’t imagine him “blue-slipping” Matheson either.
(Chaffetz defeated a Republican incumbent in 2008 by running to the the incumbent’s right)
Hatch will support Matheson in the Judiciary Committee. The chances of a Republican filibuster are zero.
Overall, a good day for the 10th Circuit, the State of Utah, and those who care about the law.
And yes, there are some pretty loony liberals in Utah so the President could have done much, much worse. Instead, I don’t think he could have done any better. Dave N.(Quote)
Tamerlane says:
Whatever you think of Malkin, she makes the reasonable point that the Obama administration has an established record of being very slow to start the process for appointing new federal judges. The pattern was repeating itself here until the recent increasing desperation to pass the current “healthcare reform” bill. Now quite suddenly–compared with previous activity–Matheson has been very publicly fast-tracked for this judgeship. Of course,this gives the Obama team a lot more leverage over the process as it moves forward: They can easily derail it if things don’t go as they like. I suppose it’s not completely naive for someone unfamiliar with Chicago politics to suspect that nothing untoward is going on. But I myself am not so much the naif. Tamerlane(Quote)
Constantin says:
Maybe he shouldn’t announce the nominations on the very same day he invites the brother to the White House to twist his arm on health care. In the middle of a process that the president himself concedes has been too full of shady deals and tradeoffs. Where the brother has been publicly identified as a potentially key vote.
How could he not know this wouldn’t look good? None of the options (stupidity, arrogance, sheer incompetence) is particularly flattering. At the very least he’s screwed over both Mathesons with his carelessness. The nominee gets it particularly bad since he is unanimously seen as qualified for the job. What’s more, Barack’s probably taken a potential vote for his crusade off the table as well. Constantin(Quote)
Dave N. says:
Given that Judge McConnell resigned almost a year ago, 10 months doesn’t seem like that much of a fast track. But maybe it’s just me.
And given the expected “Well Qualified” designation from the ABA and Senator Hatch’s support, the Administration will look like HUGE schmucks if it derails Scott Matheson’s nomination based on how Jim Matheson votes. Dave N.(Quote)
1040 says:
I agree with the worthies on this site. It is entirely Obama’s fault that they feel the need to speculate and cast aspersions on the appointment of a well qualified judge. Maybe it is because Obama is a radical leftist, as Prof. Cassell delicately observes. 1040(Quote)
this is just silly says:
Constantin: he probably thought that this would be ok because everyone involved from Utah–including, among others, Orrin Hatch–had clearly assured him that this was a completely justified merits pick. I suppose they just didn’t count on the loony right creating an issue out of Obama appointing a conservative democrat to the court. this is just silly(Quote)
Constantin says:
I’d add that when the head of the DNC is asked on national television whether there’s vote buying involved here, and he replies while chuckling that the nominee is indeed qualified but “I’m sure there are other factors. Life is life,” that probably doesn’t help matters. Constantin(Quote)
Reldim says:
Really it’s the perception it creates. To me it just shows that for all the talk in 2008 about how wonderfully skilled a politician Obama is, he’s really got a tin ear. It doesn’t matter whether the timelines match up (no offense to the Professor, but his “evidence” is that people in Utah have thought that Matheson would be the front runner — that’s it — the rest is just the Professor’s opinion as to what “probably” happened) or whether this was a quid pro quo (you probably can’t prove it was, or for that matter, that it wasn’t) — somebody in the White House (paging Mr. Axelrod) should have had the good political sense to realize that you shouldn’t announce this nomination now. You just invited the nominee’s brother to the White House along with other MCs to convince them to change their votes from no to yes on your signature policy proposal. Didn’t anybody say “hey, that might look bad”. As noted, the vacancy has existed for a while, but certainly not as long as vacancies on other courts that are still unfilled. Obama wants a House vote on health care by March 18th. Are we saying that the 10th Circuit is so desperate that he couldn’t have waited a couple of weeks and announced the nomination just prior to his Asia trip (or even wait until he gets back) — possibly after the House vote?
Now Obama has probably ruined any chance of getting Congressman Matheson to change his vote. First, a yes vote probably won’t be popular back home and has the potential to cost him his seat. But now, even if Matheson were willing to endure the ads that would run in response to that vote, a yes vote brings a second line of attack for any challenger — that he was bought off.
Judicial ethics usually recommend or require recusal even where there is no actual bias but where there is even the appearance that the judge may not be impartial. Obama has managed to create the appearance of impropriety where there probably wasn’t any and he very easily could have avoided that. Reldim(Quote)
DG says:
I hate it break it to people, but not everyone is close enough to their siblings to pull this sort of thing. Its probably just coincidence. DG(Quote)
1040 says:
Yes. At least in the case of the Al Qaeda Seven, there was good reason to suspect those terrorist loving lawyers. Here, apparently everybody admits there is no good reason, but it is still an IMPORTANT and SUSPICIOUS development. 1040(Quote)
tvk says:
It may well be that the nominee is, on all accounts, an excellent choice. It may well be even that, on the facts, he would have been nominated anyway. But the facts do not and cannot show that “the Scott Matheson nomination has nothing to with the health care debate.” Lack of but-for causation is not always a defense.
Take this example, suppose that Congressman Matheson paid Obama $1 million in cold hard cash to nominate Scott Matheson. Suppose also that we have ironclad proof that Obama really would have nominated Scott Matheson anyway. That doesn’t mean that the nomination “has nothing to do with” the $1 million bribe. tvk(Quote)
Steve says:
A hallmark of these right-wing hit jobs that are based on nothing but speculation is that it is always the liberals’ fault for forcing them to speculate. If only Obama had the good sense not to fuel the speculation by announcing the nomination on Wednesday, you see... Steve(Quote)
9080yy says:
Two points:
1) Jim Matheson was not invited to the White House to discuss health care on the same day the nomination was announced (and I emphasize, announced). Jim was one of 30 members who were invited to by the President to congratulate their efforts on supporting PAYGO legislation. There was no discussion on health care, much less “arm-twisting.”
2) Prof. Cassell’s timeline accords with what most judicial nominees have said the timeline is for nominations. Not only was this nomination not “fast tracked,” but Scott was selected back when Jim was voting against pretty much everything the administration wanted, from health care to cap and trade.
Timing probably could have been timed better, sure. But it’s hard to buy into this vote-buying narrative when there is so much persuasive evidence to the contrary, and so many conservative and democratic luminaries pointing out gaping flaws in the argument. Personally, I’d rather be on the side with folks like Hatch, Bennett, Chaffetz, and Cassell (to name only conservatives) than join the ranks of Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Bachmann (i.e. the gifted mind who called for an investigation into “anti-American House Members” and brought us the “lightbulb freedom of choice act”) 9080yy(Quote)
Anderson says:
This thread is like a living Tom Tomorrow cartoon. I think half the commenters are wearing 1950s-style hats. Anderson(Quote)
Mike Keenan says:
You have some very good arguments, but they are lost a little in the invective:
“have found something sinister”
“right-wing blogs”.
“conspiracy theorists”
“vote buying”
“cloud their judgment”
It all comes off a little poorly. Mike Keenan(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
Yes. Nor should a GOP president do so.
(Though it should be a significant personal/business connection, not merely “any”. All family members should be out.)
Plenty of lawyers around. Bob from Ohio(Quote)
Constantin says:
Take a look at the list of the ten House Democrats who were invited to the White House for the alleged PAYGO meeting. Anything stand out?
Observers on both sides of the debate recognized this meeting for what it was. That the meeting was even being commented on says plenty–when’s the last time you had guys Tweeting about PAYGO meetings? Let’s not kid ourselves. Constantin(Quote)
Just Dropping By says:
Well, since to the best of my knowledge no president has ever followed that standard (at least not publicly), it appears to be a textbook example of near lethal blood levels of Obama Derangement Syndrome to start insisting that Obama is corrupt/incompetent/etc. based on a single nomination of a relative of a sitting Congressman. Just Dropping By(Quote)
PLR says:
I would oppose the nomination on the grounds that Yale is already overrepresented in the Third Branch, but that’s just me. PLR(Quote)
Steve says:
Yeah, what stands out about that list is that they’re all Blue Dogs. Obviously it’s not possible that the President would ever meet with the Blue Dogs on a budget issue. Steve(Quote)
David M. Nieporent says:
You can stop right there, as there is no way to complete that sentence accurately.
Where do you see a “fast track”? What does that even mean in this context?
The conspiracy theory not only has no factual basis, but is, to use a technical term, stupid. Obama gives up all his leverage by making this announcement now. If Obama had wanted to play hardball, he’d have done the opposite: hold off on the nomination until he saw the ObamaCare vote. By nominating the professor first, the congressman can vote “no” and there’s nothing for Obama to hold over his head. David M. Nieporent(Quote)
geokstr says:
Hmmm...“congratulate their efforts on supporting PAYGO”? Would that be the same wonderful PAYGO legislation they were all crowing about passing while out of the other side of their mouth and through all their media whores they were eviscerating Jim Bunning for trying to get them to actually follow, and they wouldn’t, even with hundreds of billions of faux-stimulus (nee: vote-buying) money yet unspent?
Oh, that was that PAYGO...
I see. geokstr(Quote)
Anderson says:
A Tom Tomorrow reader? That explains A LOT.
Well, now you can picture me: beard, wire-rims, corduroy sportscoat ...
(Now that I think about it, I do own a corduroy sportscoat. Not green, however, as I think TT’s “Liberal” wears. Much more tasteful. Really.) Anderson(Quote)
geokstr says:
Gosh, what a funny coincidence.
That’s exactly how many conservatives feel about the left in general. geokstr(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
I’m a penguin with goofy glasses on! And I subscribe to his blog too! Sarcastro(Quote)
David Nieporent says:
Gosh, what a funny coincidence.That’s exactly how many conservatives feel about the left in general.I’m unfamiliar with that definition of the term “coincidence.” David Nieporent(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Many conservatives think about the entire left the same way the left thinks about one of the right’s more partisan bloggers!
This clearly makes the left seem to be the unhinged ones! Sarcastro(Quote)
To Have and Have Not says:
I’d have preferred that Cassell be nominated rather than Matheson. Does that make me unhinged, too? To Have and Have Not(Quote)
Dunstan says:
If Obama had nominated someone else instead of Scott Matheson, we’d be hearing conspiracy theories about how Obama snubbed the “obvious” choice as punishment for his brother’s earlier “no” vote. Dunstan(Quote)
Blind to Conspiracy says:
If Obama really wanted to buy Congressman Matheson’s vote, wouldn’t the standard procedure be to hold announcement of the nomination until after that vote occurs, thereby rewarding the preferred vote? Isn’t the natural implication of announcing the nomination before the vote that the nomination was clearly not contingent on the Congressman’s vote? Doesn’t it sort of take the vote buying off the table? Yes, the wily White House could now scuttle the nomination, but isn’t that a significantly more difficult and embarrassing way to buy a vote then just making it clear to Matheson that his brother would be nominated when he voted the right way? Blind to Conspiracy(Quote)
erp says:
Since the position was open since last May, why did Obama wait until now to make the public announcement?
People who get their information only from the mass media may not even know about other similar situations concerning the WH’s Chicago thuggery style arm twisting.
Ms Malkin’s title, The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe, is not only catchy, it’s quite true. erp(Quote)
Blind to Conspiracy says:
In fact, by announcing early, rather than waiting for the vote, doesn’t Obama lose all ability to “buy” Congressman Matheson’s vote because of the very uproar that is now occurring, which will surely lock Matheson’s vote to “no.” That same uproar would not have occurred if the President did not announce the nomination, and therefore Matheson would have been politically freer to change his vote (and three or six months later, the President would have been free to nominate his brother, relatively controversy free). So again, by announcing at this “suspicious” time, doesn’t Obama give up his political card or bribe or whatever? Blind to Conspiracy(Quote)
U dude says:
Matheson taught a con law class I was in years back. Good guy, slightly dull class. He has a very practical approach to everything which makes me think he probably would be a good judge. Not a huge policy wonk at all. U dude(Quote)
Anderson says:
If Obama had nominated someone else instead of Scott Matheson, we’d be hearing conspiracy theories about how Obama snubbed the “obvious” choice as punishment for his brother’s earlier “no” vote.
No, no, Dunstan:
(1) The conspiracy cannot be disproved. You cannot prove there is *not* a conspiracy.
(2) Attempts to disprove the conspiracy are themselves further proof of the conspiracy. Anderson(Quote)
Arthur Kirkland says:
An enormous surplus of qualified candidates suitable for a Democratic nomination in Utah? Difficult to believe.
Perhaps the president should give Republicans until Monday at 10 a.m. to (a) identify and stand by a case against this nominee, (b) publicly and unqualifiedly denounce this nominee’s detractors, or (c) watch him, at 10:30, withdraw the nomination and submit one guaranteed to delight liberals and disturb conservatives. Arthur Kirkland(Quote)
DangerMouse says:
I’d add that when the head of the DNC is asked on national television whether there’s vote buying involved here, and he replies while chuckling that the nominee is indeed qualified but “I’m sure there are other factors. Life is life,” that probably doesn’t help matters.
So the Democrats admit that it was vote buying. Ok. DangerMouse(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Agreed. Mark Field(Quote)
cboldt says:
– By nominating the professor first, the congressman can vote “no” and there’s nothing for Obama to hold over his head. –
Obama can get the Senate to do the dirty work, holding the nomination in Committee or not bring it up for a vote. The GOP Senate did this to a handful of GWB’s nominees.
And if the Senate doesn’t oblige in the event of non-performance, there is always the right of the President to withdraw the nomination, or to not perform the appointment even given confirmation. Not that either of these is a politically practical option, both options exist. The nominee isn’t in the office until he’s been appointed, and the appointment power belongs to the president.
Not to say there is an agreement or quid pro quo, just that the cards haven’t been fully played yet. cboldt(Quote)
cboldt says:
– Orrin Hatch clearly assured him that this was a completely justified merits pick. –
Hatch had the same conclusion regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Hatch’s credibility as a conservative bellwether is suspect, at best. cboldt(Quote)
David Nieporent says:
Whachu talkin about, Willis? Ginsburg is a completely justified merits pick. You seem to be confusing the notion of whether you agree with a judge with the issue of the judge’s qualifications. David Nieporent(Quote)
Dave N. says:
And adding to David Nieporent’s comment, I suspect a Senator from Utah would be quite knowledgeable about another politician from Utah. Dave N.(Quote)
Dave N. says:
What if the spouse has significant policy experience of his or her own? To name Republicans, Elaine Chao is married to Mitch McConnell; Elizabeth Dole is married to Bob Dole; and Jane Roth is William Roth’s widow. Dave N.(Quote)
Cornellian says:
I’ll take this guy and let the 10th Circuit have Obama’s recent 9th Circuit nominee in exchange. Cornellian(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Dave N., since I agree with Bob on this — and take a beat to reflect on that — I’ll say this and then he can add his own view.
In my view, there’s far too much nepotism and favoritism in our government. It gets to the point where Washington has become a revolving door for the in crowd, with the vast majority of Americans left out. I’d like to see the scope of talent available to government expanded to include those who don’t have an “in”. As Bob says, there are lots of qualified people in this country. We may lose a few by denying jobs to family members, but IMO the gain will be far greater, both in the sense of inclusion and in the elimination of the culture of entitlement that afflicts our ruling class. Mark Field(Quote)
Mick says:
There is no incompetence. Everything Obama does is for a reason, and it’s all political theatre. He obviously knows the implications of this nomination at this time. It’s not like he doesn’t have a history of these political judgeship promotions at opportune times.
Arthur Gonzalez was promoted to Chief Justice of the bankruptcy court of NY 4 DAYS before he ruled in favor of Old Carco in the recent Chrysler Dealers motion to reconsider suit. Hmmm. He’s a dirty politician, and there is NO DOUBT about QPQ. Even if Matheson doesn’t change his vote then the administration can say, “see look at those paranoid Republicans”. But he has the CHANCE to affect Matheson’s vote (which of course Matheson would rationalize in some way about how the bill is different now).
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
These 82 Chrysler dealers will have standing for Quo Warranto in the DC district challenging Obama’s eligibility (his father was never a US Citizen). Their injury is different than any other voter, and was inflicted by US Government owned Chrysler.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Chrysler-Dealers-and-attorneys-Donofrio-and-Pidgeon-file-lawsuit-in-NYC Mick(Quote)
Dave N. says:
But to use either Elizabeth Dole or Elaine Chao as examples, both already had established themselves in Washington before marrying their Senator husbands: Dole was a member of the Johnson and Nixon White House Staffs and a member of the Federal Trade Commission prior to marrying Bob; Chao was Deputy Secretary of Transportation and headed both the Federal Maritime Administration and the Peace Corps prior to marrying McConnell.
Do we then say, “Well, even though you personally offer something I am looking for, I can’t use you in my Administration”? Dave N.(Quote)
Dave N. says:
As a follow-up, is it better to have the spouse working not for the Administration, but for the President personally, as Stanley Greenberg did for President Clinton? Dave N.(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
This Obama, for whom all is calculated for Maximum Marxism, is truly a Worthy Foe.
The worst is how he is so evil there is NO DOUBT everything he does is a bribe, yet some enemies doubt! Sarcastro(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
I agree with all that.
They did not have unique talents. Plenty of people with similar experiences that could have filled the jobs they got post-marriage.
(Plus, it is difficult for another senator to oppose the spouse if they were unqualified.)
There are just way too many government families. In both parties. Bob from Ohio(Quote)
leo marvin says:
The threads where DMN gets accused (directly or implicitly) of being a lefty are some of my favorites. leo marvin(Quote)
leo marvin says:
Yes.
I’m not confident anti-nepotism rules would meaningfully broaden the pool, but I’d support them anyway, if only for symbolic value. leo marvin(Quote)
Mark Field says:
No, that shouldn’t be allowed either in my (rather strict) view. And as for the marriages, I’m sure the marriage would survive if Liz or Bob had gone to work in the private sector a few years earlier than they actually did. Mark Field(Quote)