May 17, 2005

BULL CONNOR'S PARTY:

Minority Rule?: How the Democrats decide who to filibuster (Steven G. Calabresi, 05/09/2005, Weekly Standard)

THE LEGAL LEFT IS DANGEROUSLY close to winning the political war it has been fighting against the Bush administration over the future direction of the federal courts. The evidence of this is that whenever rumors are floated of possible Bush Supreme Court nominees, there are some very prominent conservative names that aren't mentioned, though they should be.

The eminently qualified conservatives Democrats have quashed include Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. By keeping these five nominees off the federal courts of appeals, Democrats seem to have blocked Bush from considering them for the Supreme Court.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.

This is what is at stake in the fight that rages now over whether the filibuster of judges gets abolished.


This doesn't seem like a president who'll shy away from appointing them just because Democrats blocked them from the Appeals courts.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 17, 2005 1:05 PM
Comments

Most politicians are like that - and virtually all the good ones. No winning politician looks to pick fights unnecessarily. However, once in a while a fight comes up that is worth picking. Here George Bush can help the GOP long-term by making the Democrats fight a black Catholic woman with a great personal story. George Bush has proven he has the guts to fight from time to time. Hopefully he will gird his loins for this one.

Posted by: pj at May 17, 2005 1:10 PM

Brown is perfect and does not need to be on the 9th Circuit prior to being nominated for the Supreme Court -- she was on the Supreme Court of California.

There is ample precedent for people jumping from State Supreme Court to US Supreme Court.

Oliver Wendel Holmes (Mass) for one, and I think Cardozo as well (NY Court of Appeals, which is actually the name of their highest court).

Posted by: AML at May 17, 2005 1:13 PM

Why identify a candidate today? Is there a vacant seat on the Supreme Court? Relative to President Bush's willingness to fight - John Bolton, Social Security, Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz,...

Posted by: tgn at May 17, 2005 1:46 PM

It's almost as important to turn around the dysfunctional 9th circuit as to add another conservative to the Supreme Court. Bush isn't going to back down, and the Dems can't stop him. Their bargain would force the President into something close to personal betrayal of the barred candidated, and he isn't gonna go there.

Posted by: Pat H at May 17, 2005 1:55 PM

Was there supposed to be a 'not' in oj's statement?

Posted by: b at May 17, 2005 1:57 PM

Doh! That would be candidates not candidated.

Posted by: Pat H at May 17, 2005 1:58 PM

Thanks, b.

Posted by: oj at May 17, 2005 3:06 PM

I liked it the first way, OJ. It was more snarky. And it makes the fantasies in the article even more humurous.

Posted by: John Resnick at May 17, 2005 3:11 PM

.... humorous. (Pat started it)

Posted by: John Resnick at May 17, 2005 3:13 PM

sarcasm is tough on the Internet.

Posted by: oj at May 17, 2005 3:16 PM
« THE POLITICS IS AS USUAL...: | Main | MILKING DUDS: »