"The Court sounds perfect for her personality, but what the Court really needs is a seasoned pol, legislator, and vote trader leading it."

And since our goal is not to find a perfect sinecure "for her personally," this is a bad pick, right? Good grief, a corporate lawyer and a "loner."

No, you want a conservative version of the late Warren Court, which means one political leader (Warren), one intellectual leader (Brennan), and followers. Even the early Warren Court had too many guys who thought they were smart.

As much as conservatives revere Scalia he's been a remarkably ineffective Justice because of his intellectualism:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-17-scalia-1acover_x.htm

What portion of the quoted article makes you think that she will be a "follower?"

"right results"

"Her campaign, votes and public stances defy easy characterization."

Oh dear. She may well overturn Roe vs Wade but the above does not augur well.

" She backed a redistricting plan aimed at electing more minorities even though conservatives called it a quota system. She voted to raise taxes two years in a row, disagreeing with some colleagues who favored deeper budget cuts."

curt:

yes, the right results, not politics.

Should've nominated Delay then.

My prediction is that if she is seated her vote in any given case will be anyones guess.

curt:

That's true of every nominee ever.

Jim:

DeLay couldn't yank their committee assignments on the Court.

Come on, oj, everyone knew exactly what they were getting in Ginsberg (liberal down the line) and Breyer (moderate to conservative on crime and economic issues, otherwise liberal).

Roberts may surprise, but at least he has a consistent record and a lifetime of dealing with constitutional issues. Meirs is not only a cipher today, she is likely to remain one long after she is seated.

Ginsburg isn't especially liberal in terms of the last fifty years, and certainly no more on this Court than the two GOP appointees, Stevens and Souter.

Ginsberg had established her liberal bona fides on the D.C. Circuit court, which of course is why she has suprised no one by voting with Stevens and Souter 98.6% of the time.

The problem is that we have no reason at all to believe that Meirs will not vote with Republican appointees Stevens and Souter as often as she votes with Scalia and Thomas.

Curt" We have 2 reasons. 1. The Presidents word. and 2. Her religion.

She was conservative on the Appeals court, rigorously applying Supreme Court precedent. Did the Supremes ever overturn one of her Appeals decisions?

oj, that response is goofy on so many levels one hardly knows where to begin.

The first rule of judging is that you have to respect S.Ct. precedent, hence every judge at least pretends to do so. There is nothing "conservative" about it, or, if you wish, every judge is a "conservative" in this respect --indeed, there is no more conservative judge than a liberal judge insisting on the continued viability of a Warren Court right to privacy decision.

The S.Ct. only takes a few dozen cases a year, most of them from the huge 9th Circuit. The S.Ct. only considers taking cases that are appealed to it. The S.Ct. was not reliably conservative during her tenure at the D.C. Circuit. She could only write Circuit decisions that had majority support. There are some issues on which conservative and liberal judges agree (the S.Ct. itself issues many unanimous decisions every year). In short, even assuming that she was never reversed by the S.Ct, the fact would merely mean that she is a typical judge, not that she was a conservative.

What does her reversal rate have to do with the issue at hand anyway? If she had been a bad judge, she would never had been nominated for the job. She was a perfectly competent liberal.

curt:

Yes, she was an excellent conservative judge on the Appeals Court.