Congressional Republicans have precious few days to do something that will give voters a reason to return them to the majority. But one obvious opportunity lies in the issue of judicial confirmations that proved such a boon to GOP fortunes in 2002 and 2004. The Senate’s Republican leadership will squander this opportunity if it doesn’t move aggressively on a group of pending nominations that have been unconscionably delayed, at times by Republican senators. And if it fails to act before the election, it may not have the chance after. Should Republicans lose a few Senate seats in November, as is expected by even the most optimistic prognosticators, emboldened Democrats will probably block action on judicial nominees during the lame-duck session. Then, in the next Congress, a smaller Republican majority will be unlikely to have enough votes to block Democratic filibusters. Things would be different if the seven Republicans in the Gang of 14 hadn’t squandered an opportunity to end Democratic obstruction once and for all by using the “nuclear option” in early 2005, but, alas, they did. Peter D. Keisler, a senior official at the Department of Justice who was nominated to replace John Roberts on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in June, deserves immediate confirmation. At a hearing in August, even Ted Kennedy had kind words about this talented attorney who clerked for both Robert Bork and Anthony Kennedy. He should be voted out of committee at the earliest opportunity to ensure a full Senate vote before the midterm elections. Another priority should be the confirmation of North Carolina district-court judge Terrence Boyle to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination has been pending for over five years. Former senator John Edwards initially blocked it; more recently, liberals have accused Boyle of conflicts of interest. Their charges can be easily rebutted, and Elizabeth Dole has belatedly come to his aid. He is eminently qualified and has been badly mistreated, and simple justice requires that he be given a floor vote. Congressional Republicans plan on devoting the month of September to national-security issues in the hope of drawing politically helpful comparisons between themselves and Democrats. The stalled nomination of Department of Defense general counsel William J. Haynes is an opportunity for them to debate the administration’s detention and interrogation policies, as well as the proper role of judges in national-security issues. In a speech this week, President Bush provided details on how the detention and aggressive interrogation of al Qaeda operatives has disrupted terrorist plots, and these details underscore the necessity of the policies for which Haynes and the DoD have been attacked. The nomination is opposed by some attorneys in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and Lindsey Graham — a Republican and a JAG lawyer himself — echoes their complaints. But he should not be able to deny Haynes a vote in the full Senate. Finally, Republicans should schedule a hearing in September on the nomination of Michael Wallace to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This will be a chance to hold the ABA accountable for the indefensible “not qualified” rating it gave Wallace despite acknowledging his “highest professional competence.” The ABA committee responsible for that rating was headed by an old and bitter adversary of the nominee, and its finding that he lacks the requisite “judicial temperament” was nothing more than a political hatchet job. It is grounds for Republicans to end the ABA’s privileged role in judicial nominations, and should not stand in the way of Wallace’s prompt approval. As time runs out for the Senate Republicans, so too does the forbearance of Republican voters who rank the confirmation of conservative judges at the top of their issues agenda. The Senate’s dwindling majority seems not to think the confirmations so important. Unless that changes, it could eventually dwindle all the way to nonexistence.