Because the assault from the left on the next nominee is going to be so intense, it makes sense to nominate a judge who has recently been vetted and FBI-checked. Fairly recent Senate hearings are also a plus, as they will demonstrate the necessary ability to handle the heat that is on the way.
Because cases coming before the SCOTUS in the near future include some crucial decisions—including an abortion rights blockbuster that will be argued in late November—it is very important to get a nominee for whom hearings can be scheduled immediately.
The Gang of 14 must be denied an “extraordinary circumstancs” argument, so a recent nominee that was given a hearing and a vote without a filibuster is to be preferred.
A nominee who has fairly recently filled out all the forms and who has some decisions on record but not too many is to be preferred.
And the nominee should be a “base uniter.”
I think this gets us to Judge McConnell in a hurry.
And Ramesh Ponnuru:
[…] I think [Hewitt] is right (even though I know there are elements of McConnell’s jurisprudence with which I will disagree). Hewitt doesn’t add one point that I think also argues in favor of McConnell: If it is true (as some have said) that some large segment of conservative evangelical voters believe that the anti-Miers conservatives have shown an anti-evangelical bias, and that this bias has now prevailed, nominating McConnell might help reduce their bitterness. That’s not the main reason to nominate him, but it is a modest plus.
The political thinking here is very sound. Still, we have to wonder how important is it to this Administration that the next nominee be a woman. For what it’s worth, over 80% of Americans don’t believe the sex of the nominee should be a deciding factor. But then, the President isn’t married to 80% of the population.
Questions: First, who would you all like to see? And second, if McConnell was put forth, would he be acceptable? Why or why not?
Would like to see Posner. McConnell would be acceptable. Doesn’t matter why since we’re getting a woman.
I’ve heard scuttlebut that he would be inclined to strike down polygamy laws as violation of first amendment religious freedoms.
If that’s so I would question his reasoning ability.
RAWR!
Who do I want??? That’s easy. Janice Rodgers Brown. Not only is she clearly qualified, experientially and intellectually, not only does she have a consistent and well-articulated conservative judicial philosophy, but I would pay BIG MONEY to watch Upchuck Schumer and Teddy “Alcoholic Gasbag” Kennedy stand up on the floor of the Senate and filibuster a black, single-mother, sharecropper’s daughter, self-made BLACK WOMAN!!!! I would PRAY for that sight!!! Oh, and, in addition to getting an excellent Supreme Court Justice, we would see a significant dent in the Dems stranglehold on the Black vote.
JRB for SCOTUS!!!!!
Having said that, I do NOT believe the nominee has to be a woman . . . but since there are so many superbly qualified women out there (JRB, Owen, Clement, etc.), why not?
Aw ya know……anybody from the 9th circuit would do. Not really familiar with any of them in particular, but I do, so admire their work. Quite possibly if one of them was an Asian of some sort, and maybe also a lesbian with a leather fetish, that would just be perfect.
Janice Rogers Brown would be my first choice. McConnell would definitely be acceptable to me.
TV (Harry)
tw: involved, as in “I hope these hearings are not too involved”. Wishful thinking.
Not to track away from the question but
why worry about the “political” side?
Are we worried what the left will think?
Harrison —
This is the operable bit:
Some of the other nominees are going to take a while to vet and review. But Rogers Brown and Owen fit that bill, as well—though they were far more controversial picks.
My preference is a political nightmare – Estrada. JRB would be a close second. I would not oppose a McConnell nomination.
I do believe if it is someone I could support that there will be a political fight and we will see the nuclear option played out.
Jeff,
True, true.
I’m just still spoilin’ fer a fight.
Please nominate JRB….
[I don’t care if Fitzmas indicts Cheney, Rove , I. Scooter(i have a homo name)Libby ]
The Supreme Court is like forever……….
But then, the President isn’t married to 80% of the population.
Oh, so now it’s a problem that Bush isn’t Mormon.
If nominated, I promise to piss in Teddy Kennedy’s cornflakes. As long as it takes.
Besides, I look good in black.
How about Goldstein? Ultra-Conservative for the right. And kinky enough that the left should love him. I predict Jeff would get 100 votes in the Senate.
First pick: Janice Rogers Brown. From what I understand, the biggest controversy concerning her judicial opinions was when she supported private property rights. Who better to send up to the bench in the wake of Kelo? (And yes, I am aware that O’Connor voted against Kelo, so it wouldn’t change anything).
The woman has clearly established her conservative bona fides by voting against government power in California, of all places. If she can stand up to liberal influence there, she can stand up to it everywhere.
Everything else (race, gender, poverty, etc.) is just gravy.
I would also love to see Estrada go up. His filibuster is one of the most outrageous tragedies this Senate has yet produced, and a nomination would be a mighty fine way of offering a collective “we’re sorry.”
I don’t know enough about McConnell to say, one way or the other. I don’t do this for a living.
Posner. Before he’s dead, dammit.
Besides, he’ll eat Biden for breakfast.
:peter
Janice Rogers Brown has all the advantages Hugh mentioned, and should make Laura happy, too.
She’s definitely my first pick … but then she has been all along.
The overshelming conservative support for Brown has always made me wonder where the pro-Meirs crowd ever came up with their “sexism” line.
Query. Will the “next” nominee be considered Second String?
Re: Hugh Hewitt
He was on the wrong side of the Miers issue but give the guy some slack.
He has been one of the best advocates of the blogosphere in the country.
He turned me on to : Powerline; CaptainsQuarters:MM; Mark Steyn and Protein Wisdom among others.
Kozinski would also be a superb choice. If you don’t know who he is, enjoy.
Re; Hugh Hewitt
He was on the wrong side of the Miers issue but give the guy some slack.
He has been one of the best advocates of the blogashere in the country.
He turned me on to : Powerline; CaptainsQuarters:MM and Protein Wisdom among others
Re: my last comment, how can you not root for a guy who’s appeared on the Dating Game and enjoys Nintendo?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
TW: come. No comment.
Janice Rodgers Brown
Personal choice is JRB, although didn’t her nomination to the D.C Court of Appeals result in the Gang of 14 thingy? McConnell’s reputation is that he is brilliant, but he has been very outspoken on Roe. I predict a Ted Olson nomination.
What Flagwaver and others have said: Brown.
Not only do we get a damn fine Justice, we get to tweak the d’Emocrats too.
Miguel Estrada. (Me, too.)
McConnell would be OK. He’s about a 90-percenter.
Oh, Allah, not Posner; he’s a 50-percenter. Kozinski is far too quirky for traditional judicial conservatives like me.
Ted Olson would be great, but he’s 65 years old, a little old for this.
Edith Jones, of course. A rarely heard name: Paul Clement, Solicitor General of the U.S. (who’s about 38 years old).
Best advice to Bush: DON’T SCREW IT UP (again)!!!!
There’s only one sensible option:
Janice.
Rogers.
Brown.
I’m down with Brown, just like the rest of the brainwashed theocons in the wingnut Borg collective. Pity this thread isn’t the US Senate.
On McConnell, he’s well regarded by people whose opinions I respect, but I haven’t heard enough details of his decisions to separate him from the pack. At least he’s in the pack, though.
T/W: “least.” Why don’t you just give the anti-spam generator its own thread? It doesn’t need our help to discuss the issues.
Seeing as he was on the faculty of my Runnin’ Utes (the law school, actually), I’m all for McConnell.
Running Utes?
RACIST!
Wow, I came into the comments here to stir up some trouble by suggesting Janice Rogers Brown.
I should have figured…
JRB is obviously my dream choice—always has been.
Based on what I know of McConnell (albeit not a ton), I would put him in the “acceptable” category. Good credentials, good age and a good conservative pick. Maybe not conservative enough for some but those folks are probably pushing Roy Moore.
“Over 80% of Americans don’t believe the sex of the nominee should be a deciding factor. But then, the President isn’t married to 80% of the population.”
Rimshot! Great zinger.
Might as well cast my vote for
Janice Rogers Brown
From the left… I respect McConnell (though his 1st Am. jurisprudence is a little too pro-sponsored-religion) and Estrada (though I generally disagree with him) and a bit less for Brown (for, IIRC, the natural law leanings). For those of you here who don’t know much about McConnell, you would like him. A lot.
While I wouldn’t want any of them on SCOTUS at least they aren’t the insult to the Court and our collective intelligence that Miers was.
Emelio Garza would be my first choice followed by JRB, but I’d be very happy with anyone not named Estrada on the short lists that have been floating around. I want a Justice, not Bush Lackey v2.0. McConnell’s perfectly acceptable, but I’d prefer Garza, Brown, Luttig, or Owen.
Do you mean not named Gonzales, Sean?
Dream nominee: Alex Kozinski.
As for McConnell: I want to do away with Roe as much as the next UTERINE FASCIST CHICKENHAWK, but I’m afraid I’m going to need a bit more convincing…
What would make anyone think Estrada is a Bush lackey?
He’s worked at a NYC law firm, the US Attorney’s office in Manhattan, the Solicitor General’s office in DC, and a DC law firm.
More on McConnell here.
Oops. Yes, you’re right of course. I had some kind of brain fart that made me think of one and type the other. My bad.
Miers was a stealth pick, no doubt about it. There should never be a stealth pick for SCOTUS. I’m not at all disappointed she has withdrawn.
But, what if, the President appoints a a strict constructionist that makes us all very happy, but John McCain doesn’t decide to play along. What if there is a filibuster that cannot be broken. What if McCain and Hagel and the rest won’t vote for the nuclear option. What if those ever so unpredictable swing voters decide Paul Begalla is right, that the President has completely caved to the far, far right?
What if Sandra Day O’Connor ends up staying on the bench into 2006 becuase of the filibuster and the Repubs lose seats in the House and the Senate.
What if with new Democrats in the Congress the pressure to abandon Iraq becomes too great to stand against? Well you see where I’m going.
Let’s face it, Miers withdrew because we are looking for a fight. I admit it, I am. If we get it and lose, will we tell George we’re sorry? Will we tell the Iraqis we’re sorry?
Lord knows I’m not defending Miers. I’m just not so sure that we need to celebrate this. There are alot of long hard fights ahead, and no garuntee we’re going to win any of them. I’m not trying to be a naysayer. I dind’t think Miers should wear a robe either, but pretending this is great victory that cements a right-center strangle hold on thought and politics is a big mistake. We’ve been on dangerous ground since 9/11. This doesn’t make it any safer.
Doesn’t matter. Unless it’s Gonzales or somebody like him, the Democrats will filibuster and the Republicans won’t be able to break it. The Dems will hold out til 2006 in the hope that they gain seats in the Senate. Then it’s game over.
Having principles is one thing. Having the votes to carry them out is another. Until the Senate gets principles, you’re not going to get what you want.
It’s really that simple.
Well, that cinches it for me. I’m voting Dem from here on out.
If they can control the country even when they’re out of power, what’s the point of voting against them.
Screw principles. I WANT TO BE ON THE WINNING TEAM!
Looks like McConnel isn’t satisfactory to all either.
Poli pre-opposes
Because he is not partison enough.
I guess not all Mier opposers have principles as high as Jeff.
Politics make strange bedfellows.
SC nominations make them even stranger
Since I’m nearly always wrong, I’m going to go out on a limb and say “He” doesn’t have the political capital right now. And the he is McCain. The other 6 of the 7 dwarfs don’t see what going along with McCain got them. And if they support a filibuster, all the public will see is obstruction and blame the gang of 14. These 7 may not be true conservatives, but they were elected by conservatives. Their constituency will not be happy with them joining liberals to block a nominee that they agree with.
Thus, I predict, Brown or another staunch originalist is nominated. Dems filibuster. Some of the 7 dwarfs bail and the nuclear option passes. The nominee is confirmed on a close vote along party lines, even though some RINO’s vote against.
I’d love to see Kozinski. But you’re gonna get Consuelo Callahan.
Allah,
Posner? You lovable nutbar. Posner is oen of the smartest guys around, but he’s a proud activist. He’ll do whatever he thinks is “wise,” and he’s not shy of saying so.
As for JRB, I have real problems with her. She has made some public statements about there being a “higher law” of transcendental rights that should trump the Constitution in some respects. Granted, I would probably agree with the substantive goodness of those beliefs, which would do things like prevent the usurpation of private property, etc, but that stuff isn’t in the Constitution. If Ginsburg can’t do it to further her whacko liberal causes, then JRB shouldn’t be doing it either.
Now, I admit that some have pointed out that these were speeches and similar non-legal, substantive policy beliefs JRB was expressing, and that she has a record of hewing more closely in her opinions. But I’m not so sure what she’d do on the Supreme Court.
Like Jeff has said: it’s about process, not results.
Anyone else here feel like the Miers choice was intentionally set up to “wake up” the base and wake up the Republican Senate so that Bush could send someone truly “controversial” into the fray, but this time with strong support from everyone who was previously just laying back? I mean, the Miers choice was just sooooo soooo bad, almost intentionally set up to push all the wrong buttons and get people interested again.
No? Well, it was my fantasy, guess we’ll find out in a couple days if it was even a possibility…
Now we’re getting Rovian conspiracies from the right?
As for Kozinski,
No way. Not in a million years. The guys gets a stiffy from writing and saying hilariously biting (and usually true) things about stupid people who take themselves too seriously. He even puts it in his opinions. They don’t call him “The Mad Romanian” for nuthin’.
Dems would shit their pants over how “mean-spirited” he is.
Plus he sounds like Elmer Fudd when he talks. A Romanian Elmer Fudd. Remember Bork and his beard?
You can’t shave an accent.
Posner’s a realist. An anti-theorist. Or, as he’d describe himself, a pragmatist.
Kozinski’s bite would get him in trouble with the Dems, but it’d send the right into raptures. I’d love to watch those hearings. Love.
Rovian? I think the problem is that he’s otherwise engaged and they have the second string on this one. If this was a set-up, it has got to be the. worst. evah.
We are now, politically, and in the public opinion, in a much weaker position to fight the fight we needed to. We should have engaged right off the bat. This is what happens when you let politicians run the war.
BECAUSE OF THE QUAGMIRE.
tw: only – Rove?, if only.
Allah, if you think Miers upset the base, just see what happens when you nominate Richard “PBA” Posner. I have a lot of respect for Judge Posner and have read a lot of his work. But he’s just not Supreme Court material, but for pretty much the opposite reason as Miers–Posner’s intellectual gifts are part of the reason he thinks his opinion is more important than the law–why he’s a “pragmatist.”
Has anybody seen the Dating Game video with Kozinksi? He kind of forces a kiss on the girl (maybe that’s why she stood him up).
Oh, and you’re crazy if you think Posner would be less controversial than Kozinski.
I think Bush may avoid many on the “short list.” Count out a lot of the names, except JRB and Estrada because their minority appeal puts the Dems in a difficult position.
The reason he may choose a “verifiable” conservative not on the short list is that he can be painted, accurately, as caving to the base if he does so. This will jeopardize the nomination.
Bush’s mistake in Miers has made it more difficult to nominate a strong convervative. The base is ready to rumble, but some moderate Republicans and most Democrats will be susceptible to the notion that Bush has nominated a radical to appease his core supporters.
The best chance is to nominate JRB or Estrada (or, say, Garza) and hope they make it through on qualifications and Dem’s fear of identity politics. My vote is for Estrada, but he strikes me somewhat as a gamble (I, at least, don’t know enough about him, but he strikes me as way to the right of Miers). His biography is worth a lot, too. Thoughts?
I don’t think Posner would be less controversial than Kozinski. Quite the contrary. That’s why the Koz has a chance of being nominated and the Poz doesn’t.
Also, you’re being unfair in dismissing Posner’s pragmatism as the product of ego. He doesn’t reject constitutional theory because it’s beneath him. He rejects it because too often it proves unworkable.
Like I said, Posner is one of few first-rate intellectuals around. He’s a great read. But his jurisprudence? Pragmatism? If anything has proven “unworkable” as constitutional jurisprudence it is that courts too often believe their judgment is superior to that of legislature or executive branches. That is demonstrably false. The great forays into pragmatism–Dred Scott and Roe–have proven totally “unworkable,” not to mention morally repugnant, as a basis of constitutional ajudication.
1. Ann Coulter
2. Laura Ingram
Another thought on picking someone not on the ‘short’ list.
Most of the lefty interest groups already have thier talking points ready to go for the obvious choices. Emailed, snailmailed, call going out,….all within minutes of the announcement.
How long did it take Kennedy to make his famous Bork speech. If memory holds, and I’m to lazy to google it, he was speaking on the Senate floor denouncing Bork within 40 minutes.
One of the great things about Roberts was it caught the Dems by suprise and they had no pre filled ammunition. Hmmm…maybe Miers attempt was to clever by far…
Nevermind…
Let’s face it, Miers withdrew because we are looking for a fight. I admit it, I am. If we get it and lose, will we tell George we’re sorry? Will we tell the Iraqis we’re sorry?
I’m glad somebody said it. This thread has got me feeling mean.
“Let’s have Janice Rogers Brown!” Yes, and would you like a pony too? Bush nominates justices. He does not confirm them. “The base” does not confirm them. The Senate confirms them. And right now, I’m sorry, but there are not 60 votes in the Senate to confirm Brown or anyone like her.
OK. So now Bush has two choices:
2. Nominate another stealth candidate. “The base” freaks out again. The Senate has plausible cover to reject said nominee. Result: O’Connor continues on the court for the nonce, Bush is weakened politically even more, possible Democratic takeover of one or both houses in 2006. Good result for conservatives? Happy-making? No? OK, the other possibility:
2. Nominate an open judicial conservative. Everyone at the Corner has simultaneous multiple orgasms. The media immediately goes to work on the nominee’s “troubling” views, “which some have labeled extreme”. A couple weeks of this, and the Senate has plausible cover to reject… I am repeating myself. You get the idea.
Now, I can understand the desire for a fight. I cannot understand the desire for a very public, very significant fight which your side is going to lose. Holding that fight in the middle of a war, when there’s an excellent chance that the loss that fight will result in fatal setbacks in that war, strikes me as… well, “treasonous” is stronger language than I like to use when discussing political differences, and I certainly don’t mean it in the legal sense, but is there another word for putting party above country?
JRB, Luttig, or McConnell in a heartbeat—but I’m willing to be convinced with someone like a Kozinski or Olson (or Roberts).
In other words, not someone who will trash Casey/Roe, Kelo, Grutter, Raich, etc. because they came down “on the wrong side”, but because they exemplified unwarranted judicial interference in political decisions. Only then will those who might be on the “right side” today, or the “wrong side” yesterday, get a fair shake tomorrow according to the Constitution adopted in 1787.
Janice Rogers Brown would be my choice. The main decision I care about is Kelo, and while nothing is 100%, JRB voting to overturn it would be a given.
She won’t get nominated. Even if Bush decides to nominate an actual conservative, he won’t pick her, because of some of her comments about big government, something Bush is rather fond of himself.
But I think he’ll go with another Miers/Souter/O Connor type. How is it that the Dems could replace a conservative Democratic justice with someone as left as Ginsburg, but can’t do the same basic thing with a conservative replacing O’Connor? Other than the Republicans are wimps?
Anyway, the Republicans need to get tough and say to the Democrats “You fillibuster us now, then when you get the presidency next, we’ll filibuster every single one of your judges”. Tit for tat. Petty, but better than giving in.
Don’t underestimate JRB and Estrada. They have compelling biographies and are highly qualified. If I wanted a flaming Federalist Society type who stood a chance, I’d nominate one of these two. Their race and background may not be enough to get Dems to vote for them, but it very well may hold off a filibuster (yes, I know both of these nominees were filibustered, but that was not for the Supreme Court, and Republicans didn’t fight much for them anyhow).
Also, McCain and Graham and some others in the “gang of 14” can be persuaded to go nuclear if they’re behind the candidate and, particularly, if they have presidential ambitions.
A coupel more thoughts. I’d go for Estrada or Garza. Alienating Hispanics from the Dems is easier than alientating blacks, who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Hispanics are predominately pro-life and filibustering the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court because he’s pro-life just won’t wash. Of course, Democrats believe it’s “irrational” for “Kansas” or anybody else to care about social issues, but their filibuster of a pro-life Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court will hurt them severely with a population they badly need to win elections. I don’t see them maintaining a filibuster against a qualified pro-life (or suspected pro-life) Hispanic.
Am I crazy?
Luttig. Full stop. On one condition: he must never recuse himself.
Why? We need a hanging judge. His father was murdered in the driveway of his home:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961030/10300451.htm
and he testified at the trial in favor of the death penalty. I want someone on there who will burn every miscreant that comes within reach.
TW: “but.” But me no buts, fry ‘em!