July 2, 2005
MAY AS WELL SAVE HER FOR THE CHIEF'S SPOT:
Reversing the Bork Defeat: With a Republican Senate, President Bush has the chance to succeed where Reagan failed by getting a conservative constitutionalist confirmed to the Supreme Court. (William Kristol, 07/01/2005, Weekly Standard)
ON OCTOBER 23, 1987--a day that lives in conservative infamy--Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Democratic Senate. Now, 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution. [...]There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists. Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.
The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit; the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.
Every political decision Mr. Bush has made has had two goals in mind, often, but not always, coincidental: (1) to expand the Republican majority; (2) to leave a conservative legacy long after he's gone. Mr. Gonzales and Ms Brown meet the first criteria, but there's sufficient uncertainty about Mr. Gonzales meeting the second that you have to assume Mr. Bush will only appoint him if he's been given private assurances about what kind of justice his friend would be. That would seem to leave Janice Rogers Brown as the most obvious choice. So, on the basis of absolutely nothing, I think it'll be John Roberts. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 2, 2005 12:00 AM
Let's try to think of some nominees guaranteed to torque off our opponents. I've got:
Ann Coulter
Robert Bork
Ken Starr
David Cohen
OJ, you want in?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 2, 2005 2:42 AMPlus, there's always me. There's not an age requirement for Supremes, is there? Like Lionel Hutz, you've got nothing to fear from me on the Court: I watched Matlock in a bar last night; the sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 2, 2005 2:45 AMI've always wanted to be a Supreme. What a cushy gig! You work maybe three months out of the year, get a six figure salary, get your clerks to do all the real work and 90% of Americans have never heard of you.
Posted by: Governor Breck at July 2, 2005 7:22 AMHey, now I can say I've been short-listed for the Supreme Court. Where's that resume. Matt -- Your confidence in me won't be misplaced. Now, when are you going to be elected president?
My choice -- McConnell
My prediction -- Gonzales
David Cohen:
I hit the age requirement in 11 years and of course by then I'll be rich and famous, and naturally a perfect fit for the nation's highest office if only some of my comments on this website can be conveniently expunged.
In the meantime, I must work on finding a First Lady.
You will certainly be my first pick unless the science of cloning advances sufficiently to produce a number of grown-up Scalias primed for the bench. I figure if the technology's there I might as well make the most of it.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 2, 2005 10:54 AMI think Bush has heard so much negative feedback on Gonzalez that he may wait on him. I don't know the judges very well but Garza, McConnell, Luttig, Roberts, and a few various women seem to be the consensus.
Posted by: AWW at July 2, 2005 12:25 PMI'm in the anyone but Roberts camp. He's the favorite of the DC Apparat and those are the people I want to be most unhappy with whomever Bush chooses for the Court. Given that Roberts is such a Beltway Establishment fave, I would doubt that Bush would nominate him as he has promised conservative Christians that the Court is where they will see the tangible benefits of supporting him. Roberts would be a heterosexual Souter with a chin and would an abject betrayal of the cultural conservative base. Any hope that Jeb could ever get the nomination would be gone as Bush would essentially be the same as 'Mud' among such voters.
Posted by: bart at July 2, 2005 1:46 PMbart:
That would seem exactly the kind of guy W would be most comfortable with.
Posted by: oj at July 2, 2005 2:29 PMI don't understand Bart's complaints about Roberts, nor do I understand OJ's agreement with them. Roberts is known to be a solid conservative, and brilliant. I think Bush wants an acknowledged heavyweight, which is why I think it is Roberts or Luttig. Maybe then it will be Owens' time in a year when Rehnquist goes.
Posted by: rds at July 2, 2005 2:42 PMrds:
That description is exactly who people like bart have been saying Bush is for 15 years now.
Posted by: oj at July 2, 2005 2:47 PMThe NY Times was full of laudatory remarks about Roberts the last couple of days, specifically referring to him as a favorite of Beltway Establishment figures. Frankly, I'd never heard of him prior to that time, but any prospective nominee who gets praised by the NY Times should immediately be suspect.
I'd like to see Luttig get it but I don't see that happening. Garza, Jones, Brown or Clement would be fine and Estrada would be tremendous.
Posted by: bart at July 3, 2005 8:52 AMAh, speaking from ignorance..we're all shocked.
Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 8:56 AMOJ,
If someone is nominated for the Supreme Court who believes in using foreign precedent, I'm not going to waste time finding out his views on capital punishment. He is already disqualified.
Similarly, praise from the NY Times should be a disqualifying factor. Criticism from the Old Gray Metrosexual should be seen as a major plus.
Posted by: bart at July 4, 2005 8:52 AMbart:
There's never been a justice who doesn't apply British precedent. We're British.
Posted by: oj at July 4, 2005 9:17 AMYou know to what I am referring to, OJ, there is no need for you to be deliberately disingenuous, especially when you are so free and easy with the generally understood meaning of the English language.
No foreign judicial decision entered into after July 4, 1776 should be given any precedential weight in any American court. It's just that simple.
Posted by: bart at July 4, 2005 10:30 AMbart:
the other day you were arguing British law shouldn't. I can't keep up with your psychotic breaks.
Posted by: oj at July 4, 2005 11:37 AM