Even though half the Democratic caucus voted for Roberts, that this vote wasn’t far closer to unanimous is still very troubling; as far as “conservative” judicial nominees go, Roberts was nearly perfect. Which suggests that being “conservative” is in and of itself, for some Democratic Senators, enough to exclude a candidate for the bench—even when he is replacing another clear conservative (as Roberts was in William Rehnquist).
This next battle will be very interesting to watch; I suspect that the Democrats will threaten to filibuster the nominee no matter who s/he is. Bush should make the filibuster as painful as possible for the Democrats by nominating somebody like Janice Rogers Brown or Garza or Estrada who, should Senate Democrats try to block their ascension to the bench, will force them to pay a big PR price.
Jeff, I agree with you in principle, the problem is that the Dems cannot be made to “pay a PR price” so long as there’s a complient MSM ready to go to bat for them. Any minority figure can simply be painted as an “uncle tom” and the Dems will get a pass on opposing them.
Personally, I think you have to nominate Janice Rogers Brown, if you think there’s going to be a fight. I want to watch the dems call her an uncle tom (or as close as they’ll get).
Estrada, Edith Jones, Luttig—in that order.
Or how about Michael Brown? I don’t think he’s that busy these days.
BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRACY!!
BTW: Ruth Bader Ginsburg? 96-3.
If Janice Rogers Brown is even half as good as Thomas (yes, good), the PR battle against a black woman would just be a lovely dollop of whipped cream on top of a delicious chocolate cake.
My fingers are crossed.
The Dems have already said in not so many terms they are going to filibuster the next nominee.
Janice Rogers Brown would make them squirm in a big way.
I still think it’s going to be a curveball–Olsen is one such dark horse–but I think Bush has build up so much SCOTUS credibility with Roberts that it will make any such filibuster look foolish and foolhardy.
Of course I expect them to fight. This is the keep, the final bastion. If they lose any semblence of control on the court them Democrats will be firmly locked out of federal power for years, if not decades.* They cannot allow this to happen so they are going to go out in a blaze of glory, a banzai charge, if you will, of screaming obstructionism, an attempt to do as much harm as possible to the other side as opposed to actually winning.
I expect nothing less from them, and would be dissapointed if they rolled over meekly.
*The Republicans are busy entrenching themselves institutionally so that they will have to be as Bourbon-ized as the Democrats were to lose control of the government.
Well, Rehnquist got 11 more no votes (confirmed 65-33) than Roberts when he became Chief Justice in 1986.
Double BTW: Antonin Scalia? 98-0.
Norb —
Fine and good. I’m not comparing numbers of votes. I’m more interested in how somebody who is quite clearly qualified for the position could have gotten 22 nay votes.
I think it speaks to a clear misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary. And I’d say the same thing (and have) to Social Cons who had similar problems with Roberts—that is, not knowing how he’d vote on particular cases before he was asked to consider them.
I think J. Brown would make a good Justice. Any other PR benefits, etc., are just bonus material. If it is the AG who gets the nod, I’ll just have to go find a stack of air-sickness bags.
Mikey, you put forth the most likely scenario. Problem is, the Republicans have allowed themselves to be neutered by the MSM and various poll figures, such that they won’t return the fight. They have illustrated that they’re far to afraid of being portrayed as “partisan” or “mean-spirited” or “power-mad” to truly stand and fight as they should (and exactly for which purpose they were elected).
I wish I weren’t so pessimistic, but the way the party has behaved over the past several years really leaves little room for optimism.
TW: “district”
as in, DeLay: “I should’ve let him keep his damned district.”
Norb,
Thanks for proving my point. Justices who who have the relevant expertise should be confirmed. It’s the remarkably dishonest and power-grubbing Dems who have broken witht hat tradition in recent years because uber-partisanship and base-whipping demogoguery.
*but I think Bush has build up so much SCOTUS credibility with Roberts that it will make any such filibuster look foolish and foolhardy.*
Lol, I understand what you mean here but I’m hard pressed to find a time when the idiot contingent of the democratic party has had any issue with making themselves look foolish and foolhardy. Lack of perspective maybe ? Personally, I think Teddy Kennedy wallows in the foolishness- like a drunken murderous cowardly pig.
I’d love to see a Janice Rogers Brown fight- she’s clearly a qualified judge with conservatives leanings and (from what I’ve read) a realistic take on interpreting the law. I mean, they can’t attack her on race (the old standby) so they’ll have to go after her judicial opinions. That she’s black and a woman is really icing on a well qualified cake.
Jeff: Obviously, everything was a political calculation (Roberts answered questions on cases that hadn’t technically been overturned, such as Korematsu, because appearing to believe in the precedential value of Korematsu would have been poisonous to his nomination), to how some random Democrat symbolically voted, knowing that Roberts would get 70-90 votes (some of the toughest questioners on the Judiciary Committee voted “yes”). Ultimately, the number of “no” votes may correlate, at least recently, to the ideological variance from the person the candidate is replacing; I think Thomas got the most no votes not because of the sideshow things, but because he was replacing Thurgood Marshall.
Which is also why Janice Rogers Brown / Edith Jones will be the next Clarence Thomas.
Hmmmm.
So Jeff. You’re putting your credibility on the line with this? You’re guaranteeing Roberts won’t turn into a Souter?
I hope W has more class than to nominate a USSC justice on any grounds other than their qualifications for the job.
Bad precedent, and all that.
Man, woman, black brown or chartreuse – all irrelevant. There are no “reserved” signs on that bench, folks.
SB: anyone
I DEMAND A HETEROSEXUAL SCOTTISH-ITALIAN FORMER STAR WARS FAN TO BE THE NEXT JUSTICE!
MY GROUP HAS WAITED LONG ENOUGH!
Not at all. Bush’s credibility is on the line. I didn’t make the selection.
However, I acknowledge that it’s the President’s choice to make, and that Roberts is clearly qualified, based on both his record and the answers he gave at the hearings.
That’s the process.
Scalia is having his law clerks scour the Constitution for where it says when a sitting Chief Justice dies, the spot has to go to the swarthiest justice remaining.
…the spot has to go to the swarthiest justice remaining.
Well, that would be Clarence Thomas, then, wouldn’t it?
Cordially…
If it’s not JRB, I’ll have to wonder if she declined the nomination. The confirmation process is bad enough without having to suffer through being called “the new Bull Connor’s house n*gger” or whatever. While I think it’s about damn time to get the race hustlers to show their whole hand, and during a process that would make it very hard for the MSM to cover for them, I certainly couldn’t blame JRB or anyone for not wanting to be a part of that circus of hatred.
When is the announcement of the new nominee? I need to get the popcorn ready.
But wouldn’t that be Thomas?
Good call, amyc. It’s often way too tempting and thus, way too easy to see these candidates as merely candidates with only good and bad qualities seen solely in the light of The Process.
JRB’s biggest flaw from a non-frivolous standpoint is the fact that she has written/said several times that there’s a higher moral order that exists above the Constitution (in line with stuff like Lochner from an economic standpoint and a host of other legislation in the social sphere). Count on the Dems to hammer her over this stuff as a “radical judicial activist.”
I myself would be more concerned over questions like those if JRB didn’t already have a long-stabnding record of judicial restraint and respect for close statutory and Constitutional interpretation. In that light, her remarks (always made in speeches or writings that are not strictly judicial in their context) seem more like substantive policy positions than a decisional philosophy.
But, of course, JRB’s biggest problems are likely to be based on frivolous grounds. She’ll be hounded in the Senate for being mean-spirited and stingy with rights, but her real lumps will come in the media sphere. They’ll pick on her looks mercilessly and call her a race traitor. Expect multiple cartoons with particularly ugly caricatures of her dressed in all manner of Nazi and Klan regalia.
Any Court followers know if Roberts will wear a Gilbert and Sullivan type of robe like that which Rehnquist wore?
Will he go for something more sparkly?
How’s this for cynical and Rovian: first nominate Estrada or Garza or Gonzales, then wait for the Democratic attack machine, and then announce loudly (esp. to Hispanic voters) that his nomination has to be pulled because of the Democrats’ anti-Hispanic racism, and then nominate JRB. Big fun.
I MEANT SWEATIEST!!!
Racists—all of you.
Oh, well that would be Breyer, then…
Maybe this’ll influence Dub – he’s on the comeback trail.
Hmmm.
“Not at all. Bush’s credibility is on the line. I didn’t make the selection.”
Yeah that’s pretty much what everyone says. First they call him a “conservative” and then they say “well I didn’t pick him”.
sigh. It’s frankly depressing.
Well, that’s the way the system works, Ed. And I have only his testimony and his previous decisions to go by.
From what I can tell, he seems to respect the role of the judiciary and keeps to the Constitution. I’ve written elsewhere of my concerns—expansion of the commerce clause, too much deference to stare decisis—but he is well qualified. So how can I object?
I’d love to see Bush go for broke and nominate Ann Coulter for the supreme court. Fun and games, y’all.
ed: Not having psychic powers, I can’t guarantee Roberts will not become a Souter. But then again, I can’t guarantee that he will.
So the balance is maintained. I’m completely clueless until the decisions start coming down.