Sorry, all—I’ve spent the morning deleting Texas holdem trackbacks and reading through the fascinating arguments in this INDC Journal thread on a potential Alberto Gonzalez Supreme Court nomination.
My take, very quickly: Gonzalez, like O’Connor, is in disposition more of a politician than a potential Supreme Court justice—and his opinions, to the degree that I know them (he supports an assault weapons ban, he’s status quo on affirmative action, he would not overturn Roe, etc), seem based more on what he believes to be the best political compromise than on any consistent or coherent judicial philosophy. And I’m uncomfortable with potential justices who have shown that, given the opportunity, they’d act more as benevolent philosopher kings with a knack for affecting acceptable social compromise than they would as consistent interpreters of the Constitution.
In fact, such was O’Connor’s biggest problem, as I see it—this willingness to contort rulings to fit her (often laudable, often not) political sensibilities. But this very willingness to make outcome oriented decisions at the expense of a consistent legal philosophy—while appealing to moderates (and revisionist liberals now insisting the President nominate a “moderate” conservative swing voter just like O’Connor)— is the very thing that will, I believe, always taint her legacy as a legal thinker.
****
More from Patterico; see also, the Centerfield, TNR, and Bill Kristol.
You are absolutely right, Gonzalez would just be a cookie-cutter replacement for a flawed appointee. Reagan never supposed that O’Conner would deviate so far from her earlier judicial restraint. That’s what getting to the top of the food chain will do for someone seeking validation in their job. O’Conner’s ultimate goal was to be a Supreme. When she made it, she had no underlying constructionist framework that would consistently guide her decision making processes.
She was a sad disappointment and should be a warning that appointing someone for any other reason (i.e. first female justice, first hispanic justice) than their judicial philosophy is like treading on thin ice…nothing good will come of it.
I think it’s time to bring back Bork.
Mostly just because I can’t get enough of saying, “Bork.” It’s like I’m channeling the Swedish chef or something.
Not to mention that it doesn’t make sense to have 3 AG’s in the span of a year. Gonzales’ hard fought appointment needs more time to come to frution – he will execute the law regardless of his position.
I agree Bork would be fun. Except for the fact that Teddy-boy Kennedy would be saying Bork. He is so eternally annoying; with that affected Boston Brahman accent, hearing him try to pronounce Bork is excruciating. He makes it sound like something produced by an injured parrot…Bwa-a-rk!
A lot of things about Kennedy seem to have been produced by an injured parrot.
Wow. When you get serious, you get serious. Very good analysis, Jeff.
S/W: “high.” Hmmm, were you high when you wrote this?