June 26, 2005

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS HOW DEMONIZED THEY'VE BEEN:

Who May Succeed Rehnquist: If the ailing chief justice steps down, Bush will select a conservative. There are clear differences among a dozen likely candidates (David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt, June 26, 2005, LA Times)

[T]he kind of conservative the president selects could determine whether there is an epic, summerlong fight over the Supreme Court.

The White House counsel's office, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, has compiled a list of a dozen possible nominees to the high court — and all of them are considered conservative. Most are judges on the U.S. appeals courts.

All of them can expect to be opposed by liberal interest groups, which have spent the last four years gearing up to fight Bush's court nominees.

Several top candidates could look forward to a relatively easy confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. They include: Judges John G. Roberts Jr., 50, a cautious and highly regarded Bush appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.; J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 60, a scholarly veteran judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; and Michael W. McConnell, 50, a former University of Chicago law professor who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.

If named by Bush, they would be likely to have the support of the Senate's 55 Republicans and stand a good chance of picking up Democratic votes.

The same is true of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 49. A former Texas Supreme Court justice and White House counsel during Bush's first term, Gonzales would be the first Latino to serve on the high court.

But if the president chooses to set off a big fight, he may name a judge who has shown a more hard-edged ideology and a determination to push the law to the right. That could include Judge J. Michael Luttig, 51, an appellate judge in Virginia, or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — whom Bush has called his favorite justices.


The Democratic Party would actually seem to have become so deranged that they'll be forced to make a battle out of anyone he nominates, but Scalia and Thomas are probably the only ones they'd have to filibuster.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 26, 2005 8:52 AM
Comments

"Who May Succeed Rehnquist" - It should read: Who might succeed. "May" implies he needs permission. That's what the Lefties would like us to believe. Their permission is not required, since they are in the growing minority in the Senate.

Growing - meaning their numbers are growing smaller after each election.

Posted by: obc at June 26, 2005 11:36 AM

So this is the big week, eh? I still say they start in October with the same lineup. The real reason they won't allow cameras is that they know there's a growing probablility that one of them is going to fall face-forward during oral arguments and be carried out in a bag.

And isn't "growing minority" an oxymoron of sorts?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 26, 2005 12:58 PM

I predict were going to get Gonzales, who is Souter in a sombrero.

Posted by: carter at June 26, 2005 1:54 PM

Hopefully.

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2005 1:57 PM
« WHAT'S A FEW DEAD AFRICANS AMONG FRIENDS: | Main | "ONCE STRUCK," TWICE BLIND: »