Erick at RedState is reporting that the White House will announce on Thursday the selection of Priscilla Owen as its next SCOTUS nominee—though he also notes that Karl Rove, among others, continue to push for Alberto Gonzales.
Writes Erick:
[…] A third party source tells RedState that Rove is pushing for Gonzales and that Larry Thompson’s name has gone off the radar. This afternoon I contacted my White House source who says Karl Rove “believes that Gonzales is conservative and, given the current docket, will have time to prove it before midterm elections.”
The source says it is not a guarantee and there are significant issues at play—including confirmability. I have no word on other names, other than the usual that are already out there.
[…]
[…] The source says some conservatives inside the White House, including the source, feel some “conservative frustration,” i.e. conservatives are being seen, but not heard.
The selection of either Owen or Gonzales would jibe with media reports today suggesting that the President is leaning toward selecting a “minority”—though I think the choice of Gonzales might prove disastrous to Republicans if indeed he’s confirmed. Perhaps Rove is willing to use Gonzales as a sacrificial lamb—certain the Dems would use the “torture” memos to filibuster the Attorney General, and thus set the stage for a battle over a far more traditionally conservative nominee like the manifestly small-government choice, Janice Rogers Brown, whose ability to weather the process would be greatly aided if a prolonged fight and defeat of a nominee like Gonzales (or even Owens, for that matter) preceded her nomination hearings—but that’s buying into his manipulative genius a bit too much, I think. And I don’t think Bush would allow such a thing to happen, anyway.
Besides, a selection of Gonzales is sure to upset many of those hoping for a judicially conservative jurist. And though the AG has made overtures to social cons recently, it won’t be enough, I don’t think, to bring them around; similarly, his reputation for political opportunism and a sliding judicial philosophy will alienate those who believe in a judiciary that eschews the political and tries to view the Constitution outside the context of political wranglings over it’s supposed penumbras and emanations. In short, he will only be acceptable in defeat.
A surprise pick that I’d find compelling is Miguel Estrada, who was the first real victim of Democratic judicial obstructionism under Bush. And if Bush had the balls to do it, it would go a long way toward rehabilitating his image, particularly with those on the right who fear he’s going the way of LBJ…
(h/t Allah)
****
update: Confirm Them has this to say about Gonzales:
In more than two years of working in and around the fight to confirm the President’s judicial nominees, I have not heard a single person express anything but concern over a Gonzales nomination. This includes both conservatives and libertarians. It also includes so-called social conservatives and the business community. My discussions with attorneys and other vetters whom I respect indicate a record that deeply worrisome. There is nothing to lead anyone to believe that the Attorney General would be a justice who puts the Constitution first. As a strong supporter of the President, I worry that if he nominates the Attorney General, many of the President’s strongest allies would view the move as breaking his campaign promise.
And, while I deeply respect the White House’s political insight and acumen, I have a hard time understanding how nominating the Attorney General makes any short-term political sense. General Gonzales will face a brutal confirmation fight. And those groups and individuals who have been key allies of the White House in these fights will  without question  sit this one out (if not openly oppose the General Gonzales’ confirmation). Indeed, with the President’s supporters already on edge over the raft of new federal spending, I fear an open revolt if he selects the Attorney General to serve on the Supreme Court.
So why do it? Perhaps some believe that the President will gain politically if General Gonzales’ nomination is defeated. But a Gonzales defeat would conjure cheers from the right and a chorus of declarations from the Left and the MSM that the President has been rendered a politically irrelevant lame duck. It would be a body-blow to the President’s political standing. And it would alienate the conservative base. Perhaps those pushing the Attorney General are arguing that it will improve the GOPs standing with hispanic voters. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. But if the Attorney General is defeated, I can’t imagine that it will produce any meaningful new support from hispanics. Meanwhile, the President will certainly offend a large segment of his conservative base. And, as the White House knows a lot better than I do, the Republican gains over the last six years are due  more than anything else  to this President’s ability to appeal to and mobilize the base.
[Emphasis in the original].
And a WaPo editorial today identifies Judge José Cabranes of the Second Circuit as a good pick for Bush—a suggestion that Ed Whelan at NRO’s Bench Memos defly problematizes.
I don’t think that the Prez and Karl will be able to resist the opportunity to have the country watch Ted Kennedy and the rest of the obstructionists on the judiciary committee rake a candidate like Janice Rogers Brown over the coals – especially in that Sen Reid has already promised to filibuster her nom. Perfect defining moment, as the self-described tribunes of the plebs excoriate the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper. That’s what I argued here, at any rate…
I’d put my money on a woman nominee. (Edith Jones)
Dems will look pretty lame beating up on a woman.
I’d say that the “leaking” of any name is a head fake, just as occurred in the Roberts nomination.
Completely offtopic, but when the fuck did we start calling Attorneys General “General So and so”?
Although I’ll grant that Reno was a general so-and-so.
TW: “gave”. Must be because I’m at the office.
There’s an obvious solution if Bush really wants Gonzales on the court. Given their ages and states of health, there’s still an excellent chance that Bush will be able to nominate a replacement for either Stevens or Ginzburg, maybe even both. A wish-washy pseudo-conservative like Gonzales could still help pull the court back towards the center if he were to replace one of those two.
All the trial balloons are a smokescreen. He will slip Eugene Volokh in at the last minute. There are a lot of groups Bush respects, but bloggers are the only group he truly fears!
I believe calling the Attorney General “General” is incorrect. The term merely refers to the fact that the attorney in question is not specifically attached to any government department, but is the chief attorney of the government at large—he is a generalist upon whom any governmental department can call.
More here: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Monographs/No53/Chap2.html
Edward III employed what was called a ‘general attorney’, to distinguish the position of the particular occupant of this post from an attorney appointed by the king for specific occasions and specific cases.
Eventually, the title of general attorney changed to attorney-general and the person in this position began to represent the state in all criminal trials. With the emergence of the modern state, and the function of the state to protect all its citizens from criminals, the attorney-general took over the role of prosecuting all those who broke the laws of the state. The name of attorney-general is consequently somewhat misleading. The person occupying such an office is clearly not a general in the military sense of the word, nor is he an attorney (at least not in a South African context where attorneys represent accused in criminal trials).
I noticed the press doing this first when Janet Reno was named A.G. I ascribed it to general press illiteracy about matters both legal and military; certainly Janet Reno was no more a “general” than I am the Holy Roman Emperor.
Though I would make a good one.
Isn’t the plural of attorney general “attorneys general”? That in itself shows that ‘general’ is the adjective and ‘attorney’ the noun.
You know, from the law profs I’ve talked to at various Fed Soc-affiliated gatherings, I get the impression that at least about 50% of the concern over Gonzales is the fact that he’s just not up to par in terms of knowledge and expertise. One fairly well-known con law prof who will remain nameless told me, “Why is Gonzales a bad choice? Because he doesn’t know jack.”
Bah. Remember the Edith Clement rumors?
Three words:
Janice.
Rogers.
Brown.
I’d like to see Janice Rogers Brown too.
Jeff–
I would forget about Gonzales. Owen is filibuster-proof and a woman, thus Owen is the one–at least among this group. I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnell or Luttig are still on the short list and this “source” is being fed a bunch of bull.
Charlie (Colo.)–
You are correct. AP style is always “Attorney General So and So” never “General So and So.”
Janice Rogers Brown. Just do it! Of course, she might not be willing to put up with having to appear to take US senators seriously. Otherwise, Miguel Estrada could be a lot of fun, at least politically.
my word is hope, as in, I hope they nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
I’d like to see Janice Rogers Brown too. If Bush is set on a Hispanic Justice I hope he stays away from Estrada and Gonzales and goes with someone like Emilio Garza.
Hand to God, my T-word is “brown”. It’s freaking spooky when you do that, Jeff.
I think everyone wanting one pick over another should remember that the President has the first say in the matter…and he keeps his cards close to his vest.
I think he will pick a major league umpire.
A big one.
Not fat, but big…you know, BIG.
Durand
TW: should, as in he should pick JRB.
I just can’t picture Bush playing to lose. Not his style.
I’m thinking of the UN vote before the war that was going to take place but didn’t. The one that was not called for because we didn’t think we’d win. I don’t think Bush believes he gains political capital by losing political fights.
It needs to be Janice Rogers Brown. If Bush nominates Gonzales he deserves to see the true Conservative Republicans in the Senate join forces with the BDS crowd to defeat the nomination so he’s forced to wise up the second time around. Nominating Gonzales would be further evidence, piled on top of another bad idea he announced recently, that he’s pegado en estúpido.
He may pick Regis.
You know, to head him off as a challenger to Jeb for the presidential nomination.