October 31, 2005

SUPREME COURT CONTEST III:

Officials: Bush set to name nominee: Miers helps finalize choice to replace her as Supreme Court pick (CNN, 10/31/05)

President Bush is expected Monday to name his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court, senior administration officials told CNN Sunday.

Pick quick.

Brother Whited informs that the Dallas Morning News says she's withdrawn her nomination, demonstrating why W trusted her in the first place.

Miers withdraws as high court nominee (AP, October 27, 2005)

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front -- the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Miers notified Bush of her decision at 8:30 p.m., according to a senior White House official who said the president will move quickly to find a new nominee.

In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."


Now it gets interesting. He can't really reward his enemies, so his choices are constrained. Judge McConnell would be a similarly Evangelical pick and opposition to him would reveal the whole squabble to be exclusively religious. Alberto Gonzales would be a thumb in their eye and hard to oppose because Latino. Mel Martinez is the most easily confirmable Hispanic. But then he's back to not giving Laura Bush a female justice...

Start guessing...we've got more books....

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 31, 2005 5:24 AM
Comments

Edith Jones

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 9:24 AM

Can I pick Bill Clinton again?

Posted by: BJW at October 27, 2005 9:25 AM

NRO, Frum, etc must now think they are kingmakers and will expect Bush to dance to their tune.

Posted by: AWW at October 27, 2005 9:28 AM

can't help picturing the Corner-ites as munchkins...

Ding Dong, the witch is dead.

Posted by: Chris B at October 27, 2005 9:30 AM

They could help themselves by calling for McConnell.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 9:35 AM

Connie Callahan. Latina, moderate, acceptable to the Dems, female, sitting judge.

Posted by: Bob at October 27, 2005 9:35 AM

The statement from the White House, citing the "internal documents" demands as the reason for her withdrawl, probably precludes Gonzales.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 27, 2005 9:37 AM

Miers withdrawing this morning doesn't bode well for indictments of White House staff. I hope those who led the pogrom against her will be happy with the results of their outrageous behavior. Buying TV ads against her! Who paid for those ads, Soros or Heinz?

Weakening and/or destroying Bush gives terrorism renewed hope of a Democratic congress and president in the near future, so the killing will continue and even escalate in anticipation of resumed appeasement and UN directed foreign policy. The Saudis will think twice about reforms, Syria will dig in and the rest of worldwide moonbattery will be in high-five mode.

I feel sick. This is an orchestrated assault on Bush. Culminating in a week when the report exposing UN corruption is made public. Does anyone else think the delays in getting supplies to hurricane victims in south Florida have something to do with a union slow down? Those trucks are driven by teamsters and Jeb lecturing hurricane victims that they should have gotten in supplies to last for a couple of days, although true, isn't being played that way by the media here in Florida. It's being played as New Orleans redux with FEMA at fault again.

I know only nutcases believe in conspiracy theories, but you don't have to be a nutcase to see the media behaving like frenzied yellow jackets at the end of August when they know their time is running out.

If there are no indictments and Bush emerges stronger than ever after he sends up another Supreme Court nominee, I'll be very happy to be proven wrong and offer an abject apology to all.

Posted by: tefta at October 27, 2005 9:38 AM

It may be too early for this but what is the post-mortem? Was this simply a misstep by Bush who didn't expect the opposition? or is it as some have suggested a strategy to get a different nominee on the bench?

Posted by: AWW at October 27, 2005 9:40 AM

For the third time, I'm going with Alberto Gonzalez.

Posted by: Brandon at October 27, 2005 9:45 AM

Paul:

They're only kidding.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 9:45 AM

Rejections come in two's so I'll stick with Estrada to be nominated and then rejected. The woman angle presents a problem. But the closest to being acceptable to me (it's all about me) and still confirmable would be Edith Jones.

AWW

If this was part of a strategy, then maybe Bush is a moron. But no it wasn't part of a strategy.

Posted by: h-man at October 27, 2005 9:46 AM

AWW:

misstep. He assumed he'd earned some credit from his putative allies. The most important thing to understand about the Right is that it sees itself as an embattled minority and isn't particularly interested in being a governing party if it means giving up that indulgence.

The mule learns to love the whip.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 9:47 AM

McConnell -- and the only opposition will be Democrats and maybe some liberal Republicans.

Posted by: jefferson park at October 27, 2005 9:48 AM

AWW --

My guess is that GWB, a loyal guy who likes to reward friends, just went with the same play one time too many -- worked out fine with Cheney, but Meirs aint a Cheney. And then there is the spouse with her own little quota program -- hence my selection above.

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 9:49 AM

Janice Rogers Brown

Posted by: Mike Morley at October 27, 2005 9:55 AM

I like Edith Jones too.

But to go WAY out on a limb I'll say Pauline Newman.

Posted by: Bartman at October 27, 2005 9:57 AM

OJ:

Emphasizing the documents issue, whether sincerely or not, is just incompetent planning if you're getting ready to nominate Gonzales.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 27, 2005 10:00 AM

An unexpected and pleasant surprise.

I'm hoping for Judge Alex Kozinski.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at October 27, 2005 10:10 AM

Luttig, the best available. I admire Miers for her decision (to the extent that her consent was required). I feel sorry for her -- the President foolishly put her in an untenable position.

The hearings would have been brutal for the party. Thank goodness.

Posted by: rds at October 27, 2005 10:13 AM

He's going with who he wanted all along - Gonzales.

Posted by: Bruno at October 27, 2005 10:15 AM

The most important thing to understand about the Right is that it sees itself as an embattled minority and isn't particularly interested in being a governing party if it means giving up that indulgence

Yup. Unfortunate, too, because we're in times where leadership really matters.

Posted by: too true at October 27, 2005 10:18 AM

Curt, the idea that Cheney wasn't appropriate for VP and was tapped because he was a friend is absurd.

Have you any idea of the man's background in DC prior to the 2000 elections?

Posted by: too true at October 27, 2005 10:20 AM

BTW OJ,

The 1993 memo was proof that many of the detractors were correct all along. She was a Souter in waiting.

She wouldn't have overturned Roe v. Wade. She was a judicial elitist, and not at all grounded in any principle.

This wasn't a "3rd way" pick, it was big Gov. Status Quo. We dodged a bullet here, IMO. There is just too much evidence that we had nothing to rely on here other than Bush's judgement, and - as much as I support Bush in comparison to other presidential options - His judgement has not been even close to perfect.

Posted by: Bruno at October 27, 2005 10:21 AM

The key with George Bush is always the war. The point of Miers, like the point with Roberts, was that she could be counted on to defer to the executive on questions of war powers. Whoever the next nominee is, he or she will take the same position. That probably rules out McConnell. Yoo would be perfect, but probably has too much of a paper trail. The nominee is someone who mostly agrees with Yoo, but has less of a paper trail. I'm going to choose A. Raymond Randolph, the judge who wrote Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2005 10:22 AM

All part of a master strategery? Classic Rope-a-Dope? At this point, even an eternal optimist has to stop digging and realize there ain't no pony in here. The screechers on the Right effectively empowered their document-demanding "enemies" on the Left. Now both groups think they have GWB on the run. And now, perhaps, they're not entirely wrong. Effectively the valid reasons precedent for rejection/deep concern/withdrawal has grown to: don't know enough about the nominee/can't get enough paper/not enough case opinion history to hang them with AND know too much about the nominee/too much paper trail/obviously an ideologue that will overturn Roe no matter what they say to the Committee. That doesn't leave much choice.

I'll go with Scooter Libby for the comedy relief factor. And if he gets it, thatís worth at LEAST 2 books.

Posted by: John Resnick at October 27, 2005 10:24 AM

On a moment's reflection, I take Ted Olson.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2005 10:25 AM

Bruno:

A speech in 1993? Reagan signed the most permissive abortion law in US history and both Bushes ran for office as pro-choice. Folks change their minds.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 10:25 AM

I'd take Olson, too, but it will be Gonzales.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 27, 2005 10:28 AM

David Cohen is right.

Miers above all was about the tough tradeoffs we face over the next 2 decades or more as we preserve what we can of our deepest values while facing a stream of destructive attacks by barbarians -- of whom al Qaeda is just the first wave IMO.

Those on the right who can only see things through old ideological battles do not serve the country well.

Posted by: too true at October 27, 2005 10:29 AM

Miers showed why she's a good house counsel: she corrected her boss's mistake. Cohen is right, it'll be the sure thing: Ted Olson.

Posted by: Palmcroft at October 27, 2005 10:31 AM

Jones.

It will be a case of giving the people what they want, but the interesting part will be seeing what the possible effects on the love affair between Bill Kristol and John McCain, if as I suspect, Bush does select someone off the preferred list and Arlen and the GOP Gang of 7 suddenly start getting all wobbly, and the pundit class suddenly discovers why Bush didn't go for one of their people in the first place.

My guess is the wrath of the Weekly Standard will fall on Spector rather than McCain if nominee No. 2 falters, while NRO will split the difference. But both groups will say that if Bush had listened to them in the first place instead of choosing Harriet, he wouldn't be seen as weakened now and the Senate opposition never would have happened.

Posted by: John at October 27, 2005 10:33 AM

too true -

Somehow, you managed to completely misinterpret a 3 line post. Pay particular attention to these 10 words: "worked out fine with Cheney, but Meirs aint a Cheney."

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 10:34 AM

John Cornyn - while the Dems would scream, they won't filibuster, and even if they tried, it wouldn't hold. Plus, Rick Perry could (would) appoint Henry Bonilla to the Senate.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 27, 2005 10:49 AM

Choosing Cheney for VP, according to the MSM was all about bringing to the ticket "gravitas". Miers was lacking "moxie" (plus everything else needed for the Supreme Court). I have this sinking feeling that Dubya will find someone of the same "stature" of Miers. So I'm picking "who?".

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 10:49 AM

I repeat : anyone who thinks Laura Bush gives a damn about the next appointment being a woman is really NAIVE!

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 27, 2005 10:50 AM

It was obviously a blunder, but it has little long term significance. You can cover the differences among prospective nominees with a dime. It's all just atmospherics.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 10:55 AM

Cheney was picked for his competence, but he has no core values other than power and its exercise.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 10:57 AM

Alice Batchelder.

Posted by: pj at October 27, 2005 10:59 AM

re: Cheney, it's not quite true that he has no core values - they just may not be quite the ones you focus on oj.

Cheney's values include a strong belief in the value of defending the US. Have for many years now.

Posted by: too true at October 27, 2005 11:08 AM

Let me go out on a semi-long limb and pick Sykes.

OJ is right, GOP not used to being a governing party.

Posted by: Dan at October 27, 2005 11:20 AM

too true:

Then wny did he trade with our enemies at Halliburton?

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 11:26 AM

Jon -

Scripted or otherwise, Laura has on at least 2 occasions told the press she would like to see a woman appointed. It is not her usual MO to offer opinions like that. It would be "really NAIVE" to think her comments were not significant.

Oh, and BTW, we can all agree that whatever her other attributes Meirs was a woman...

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 11:40 AM

Mel Martinez.

Posted by: b at October 27, 2005 11:43 AM

"why did he trade with our enemies at Halliburton"

That's also another of his core beliefs. Better to be rich, than poor.

Posted by: h-man at October 27, 2005 11:49 AM

It's not that the GOP isn't used to being the governing party, the spending shows that's not true. It's that the Conservative Intellectuals aren't used to the idea that they can win. They've become so comfortable with losing for so long that they come to like it, and the idea of winning against their opponents scares them, so they content themselves with internal squabbling. Sort of like those Northside fans.


As for a pick: None of the Above, a name that won't be floating around until, at most, 36 hours before that person is named.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 27, 2005 11:51 AM

Why should Cheney care about saving the Left from its enemies?

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 27, 2005 11:55 AM

I wonder how many on the list of potential nominees that are supposedly kosher with the cry-baby wing of the Republican party will also provoke outrage from those knuckleheads. For example McConnell has already been referred to as another Souter according to the links at the now inappropriately named site ConfirmThem

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 27, 2005 11:56 AM

How many on the screecher's list are going to decline to be named because they don't get excited when the Confrimation Circus comes to town, especially when they are expected to lead the Parade of Clowns?

I still think Miers got named because Bush had received a number of rejections from those names being tossed off here, and switched to Plan B.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 27, 2005 12:15 PM

McConnell talked about his interview for the Roberts slot. So, I think he's out.

I tend to agree with David's analysis but I'll stick with my Connie. Just to see NRO explode again if for no other reason.

Posted by: Bob at October 27, 2005 12:18 PM

Miguel Estrada

Posted by: David Reeves at October 27, 2005 12:20 PM

Samuel Alito

Posted by: Jeff at October 27, 2005 12:37 PM

I thought I read somewhere that Luttig, Alito, and another woman were the finalists before Miers. If Bush wants to satisfy the NROs then it'll be Luttig. If he's p'od enough to go with someone else I have no idea.

Posted by: AWW at October 27, 2005 12:45 PM

It won't be Ted Olson (unfortunately) -- he's too old at 65.

Posted by: Dave P. at October 27, 2005 12:48 PM

curt:
Laura's comments are 'significant' in the sense that it is 'significant' that the WH wants people to believe that she cares about a woman being appointed.. it's a sop to squishy RINOs and moderates who generally approve of gender/identity politics ..

if GWB nominates a woman: 'how nice , he listened to his wife'
if GWB appoints a man : 'oh well, at least Laura is on our side'

it's a cost-free bit of rhetoric and people who believe it are, IMHO , naive.

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 27, 2005 12:50 PM

Edith Jones

Posted by: LC at October 27, 2005 1:10 PM

The Meiers nomination and Picket's Charge are alike in two ways: both were doomed to failure and both represent the high water mark of their respective causes.

I hate to say I told you so....

Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2005 1:16 PM

No you don't.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 27, 2005 1:18 PM

Anon:

Except that in this version Lee still gets to take the hill, just not with Pickett. That's why the whole thing means so little except to folks inside the Beltway bubble.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 1:24 PM

At what point did conservatives lose the right to disagree with the President on ANY issue (in this case, the terrible pick of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court)? I'm sick of the whining from those members of the party who think "any appointment" from the President should be approved. Harriet Miers only qualifications for the Supreme Court were (a) she was a woman and (b) she had to take Con Law to graduate from law school. If those are the only qualifications, then the President should nominate me!

The bottom line is that George Bush has yet to realize he is not dealing with the Texas legislature, where compromise equalled passage of major legislation and progress on other issues. The Democrats in Congress are not interested in working with him on ANY issue, so thinking he can work with Ted Kennedy on education or Harry Reid on a Supreme Court nominee is a pipe dream. If Bush were smart (and I'm beginning to doubt him), he would nominate a hardcore conservative, someone willing to take a beating in the confirmation process (I have no particular suggestion here). If the hearings blew up, it wouldn't be his fault and he might actually win some points for nominating someone "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas," one of the few campaign promises most of us hoped to see him keep. It's not merely about overturning Roe; it's about putting justices on the Court who think the Constitution isn't a bunch of tea leaves needing to be read by the magnificent 9, but rather, a document that means what it says.

Posted by: Sharon at October 27, 2005 1:34 PM

Sharon:

Obviously they have the right, but what did they gain? The President knows and trusts Ms Miers and how she'd vote. Now you get a pig in a poke. Good work.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 1:38 PM

Allen:

If it's only about stature then it is Olson--he has nothing else to recommend him except the deference to the Executive Branch and a personal stake in the WoT.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 1:40 PM

Paul:

All that matters about Gonzales is his ethnicity--you can club down any objection with it.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 1:48 PM

The other Edith, althoug I really want Luttig or McConnell.

Harriet Souter reminded me of nothing so much as a former managing partner of the firm I used to work for. He was a perfidious male child of a female canis familiaris, and if I ever see him again I will choke him to death with my bare hands.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 27, 2005 1:50 PM

Anon:

The better analogy is Cold Harbor, costly and unnecessary, but on a strategic level just a bump on the road to victory.

Posted by: Jeff at October 27, 2005 1:51 PM

Sharon: somebody over at Ann Althouse suggested Cass Sunstein. I was thinking of Larry Tribe myself, but Sunstein will do. Enjoy this while it lasts.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 27, 2005 1:54 PM

Sharon:

Unless I've completely misread Will, NRO, Red State and the rest it IS all about the magnificent 9 reading tea leaves. Miers in their view wasn't magnificent enough. They just want the tea leaves read their way.

Posted by: Jeff at October 27, 2005 1:55 PM

Except that it is just one battle and he wins it eventually no matter what--there's going to be a 9th justice, no?

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 1:56 PM

OJ, the beltway bubble boys just beat you. And beat you badly.

Jeff, the South was also in denial about its defeat - even after Appomatox. Heck, some Southerners today deny that they lost.

Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2005 2:14 PM

Anon:

Yes, so now what happens? W picks again and he can keep doing it until he's named his second Justice. It just isn't a meaningful setback.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 2:18 PM

Anon:

But that made them no less defeated. Who reconstructed whom?

Posted by: Jeff at October 27, 2005 2:39 PM

Jon -

Your analysis fails to explain why Laura raised and pursued the issue to begin with. I doubt she threw the marker down so that people disappointed when GWB selected a man (as if that was ever in the cards) could say "oh well, at least Laura is on our side" (even though she obviously has no influence at all). It just wasn't worth the effort.

The interesting question is whether the WH feels like the "woman" obligation has now been discharged. If they want to go with a man next time, Laura may have to speak up and give permission.

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 2:50 PM

"The President knows and trusts Ms Miers and how she'd vote. Now you get a pig in a poke. Good work"

GWB had no clue how she'd vote. Heck, she had no clue how she'd vote. She was the ultimate pig in a poke. The opposite of a pig in a poke is someone with a career of consistent utterances on issues that matter. What is so difficult about sending a tested and proven conservative to a Senate composed of 55 Rep. Senators? If not now, when?

Posted by: curt at October 27, 2005 3:05 PM

Last time I hoped (more than predicted) Janice Rogers Brown, but since nobody has mentioned Maureen Mahoney, I'll take her this time.

Posted by: PapayaSF at October 27, 2005 3:59 PM

Curt: The Gang of 14 makes it impossible to nominate a "tested and proven conservative." They've all been pre-filibustered.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2005 4:34 PM

viet dinh

Posted by: JAB at October 27, 2005 4:40 PM

David:

Actually, the Democrat filibuster was broken by the Gang. Now the folks who bitched loudest about a filibuster run theirs before the nomination even reaches the Senate.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 4:44 PM

Papaya:

Apparently her support from affirmative action/gender equality made her unacceptable.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 4:45 PM

curt:

Sure, he'll just send up someone she picked for the courts now. But it will be someone he necessarily trusts less to do the right thing and who has, by definition, never actually ruled the way the Right wants. Only Justices get the opportunity and they always disappoint the extremists.

That said, there'sd so little difference amongst them all and so few cases where the differences matter that it hardly matters who eventually makes it. They'll be conservative enough for government work.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2005 4:52 PM

Diane Sykes

Posted by: David Reeves at October 27, 2005 5:03 PM

Crap. Double crap.

I've been at work all day and this is the first I've heard of it.

(Muttering to myself.)

Okay, I pick Edith Jones.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 27, 2005 7:07 PM

Just for the sake of a little fun, I'm going to go with Miers, again.

W will fumble about looking for someone, lots of rumors leaked, etc., until the next congressional recess.

Then he'll cite directly all the sweet nothings from the cry-baby right today about how classy she is, how pulling herself out is the first sign of quality in her etc.

And he'll recess appoint her.

(He probably won't, but if I were he that's what I'd do.)

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 27, 2005 7:50 PM

oj,
I'll stay with the one I think W should have nominated: Judge Alice M. Batchelder
Mike

Posted by: Mike Daley at October 27, 2005 7:59 PM

OJ continues to misunderstand the Gang of 14's corrupt deal, which explicitly allows the Dems to filibuster the President's nominees:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2005 8:41 PM

What does the right gain by balking at the Miers nomination? How about self-respect. Or maybe a better pick the second time around.

Posted by: sharon at October 27, 2005 8:45 PM

Probably the scariest thing about Miers is that she was easy for Bush to understand!

Posted by: Oldkayaker at October 27, 2005 9:10 PM

i don't think miers was meant to go all the way (in the confirmation process) i think she was meant to be a stalking horse, a feint as it were..."i tried to replace sandy with a woman but was blocked, oh well".

Posted by: anon99 at October 27, 2005 11:31 PM

One of the Ediths: Edith Bunker - or Edith Clavell.

Posted by: obc at October 28, 2005 1:13 AM

Halliburton is our enemy? When did that happen???

Posted by: Kirk Parker at October 28, 2005 1:17 AM

Scooter Libby

Or Brown

Posted by: RC at October 28, 2005 3:53 AM

sharon:

Won't be better, just different.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2005 7:37 AM

David:

Of course if there are extraordinary circumstances the nominee should be filibustered. Had Doug Ginsburg been submitted he would have been. And the folks who've been bitching loudest about filibusters just filibustered Miers. David Frum did more damage to the judiciary process than Mike DeWine.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2005 7:39 AM

John Kerry has already warned the president that if 41 senators disagree with the next nominee, he or she won't be confirmed, so he better not send up a right-wing idealogue.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 28, 2005 9:45 AM

Mr. Kerry needs 51.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2005 10:06 AM

It seems evident Bill Frist cannot provide 51 votes, much less 60. If McCain wants to be President, now is the time to prove it.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 28, 2005 10:46 AM

The buzz is apparently now Alito, which means it's almost certainly not him. But I'll pick him anyway because it seems reasonable and I have no clue otherwise.

Posted by: Timothy at October 28, 2005 12:57 PM

anon:

Supposedly they're naming Alito on Monday, if so it would certainly seem they were prepared to move to option 2 pretty quickly.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2005 12:59 PM

I want to put in a vote for this guy. With his attitude, he'd fit right in.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 28, 2005 5:53 PM

I said it before, and I'll say it again ... Luttig.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2005 5:09 AM

I am in the same boat as Timothy - put me down for Alito, even though all history has shown it is a feint by the administration.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 30, 2005 7:17 AM

Ahem, again. I'm assuming I haven't received a book for picking Harriet Miers because you were prescient enough to realize that her nomination would obviously be withdrawn? My hours of study and research for naught.

Posted by: JimBobElrod at October 30, 2005 11:07 AM

JBE:

It went out Thursday.

Posted by: oj at October 30, 2005 11:09 AM

Jerry Killian.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 30, 2005 5:41 PM

Sticking with JRB here. Harriet was a damn fine stalking horse.

Posted by: ghostcat at October 31, 2005 12:25 AM

TypeKey wouldn't let me sign in, so I don't know if my little balloon friend will appear or not. It's so exciting, not knowing what to expect.

A CNN clip first thing in the morning? Too cruel.

Posted by: erp at October 31, 2005 7:25 AM
« SO MANY PEOPLE, SO LITTLE TIME: | Main | SINOPHOBIC IS GOOD, BUT NOT ENOUGH: »