Some could say that happy days are here again.

Four years ago, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz challenged the conservatives who dominated the federal appeals court in Richmond, urging her colleagues to reverse a decision backing the Bush administration’s detention of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant.” She called the ruling unprecedented and “chilling.”

Her arguments went nowhere.

In June, Motz, the leader of the court’s moderate-to-liberal wing, gave her views the force of law, ruling against President Bush in another major terrorism case involving an enemy combatant. The administration might be unable to get the full court to overturn her ruling — there aren’t enough sympathetic judges left.

Motz’s ascension illustrates a remarkable turnaround: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, long considered one of the nation’s most conservative appellate courts, is shifting to a moderate direction with the balance up for grabs. A growing list of vacancies — now five — has left the court evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees.

With an election year approaching, experts predict the court will tilt decisively to the left if Democrats keep control of Congress and reclaim the White House.

“There is a very good chance that this court will be solidly Democratic for many, many years,” said Arthur D. Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor. He said the current 5-5 split — which began July 17 when Judge H. Emory Widener Jr., a Republican appointee, took semi-retirement — is “tremendously significant.”

Until recently, the 4th Circuit was known as a conservative stronghold that tended to defer to law enforcement and rule against many plaintiffs. Some of the court’s best-known rulings, upheld by the Supreme Court, include striking down a law allowing rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court and preventing the Food and Drug Administration from regulating tobacco.

Story

I guess someone thinks a man’s word is everything. I know you’re going to say that they’re not the first to change after being confirmed and you’re right but that means they’re all alike. I don’t believe that.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.

“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.

The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.

Judicial independence is “so important,” Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. “I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to.”

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees, said a review “could lead us to have a different approach.” He said senators need to be “more probing” with their questioning of nominees.

“Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee,” said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter’s idea.

“They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation.”

Story

From Breitbart news:

The White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
President Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information

I figured this would go to the courts to decide just as it did when Nixon was president and everything was being subpoeaned by Congress.

We’ll see how this pans out.