October 2, 2005

SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED TOMORROW:

Despite the sad fact that our last attempt at a Supreme Court Justice picking contest failed miserably, with only one idiot savant so much as mentionioning John Roberts, we may as well try again. This time one of the prizes, assuming anyone can get it right, will be a copy of the excellent, Our Culture, What's Left of It : The Mandarins and the Masses by Theodore Dalrymple.

The President would seem to face an even tougher choice this time around, because there are so many great storylines and qualified conservatives. In the wake of the Hurricane you could go with one of the Ediths from the court down there. In view of how easily Mr. Roberts is sailing through you could go with a safe white guy, Harvie Wilkinson? Want the first black woman--Janice Rogers Brown? Or how about the first Hispanic--maybe Mel Martinez, who's already received Harry Reid's endorsement? Or, who would potentially shape the Court for longer than Viet Dinh, a refugee from Vietnam who isn't even forty yet but has an unmatched resume?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 2, 2005 11:59 PM
Comments

Mel Martinez

Jeb picks his replacement

(Katherine Harris? Ha ha)

Posted by: JackSheet at September 5, 2005 11:54 PM

Dinh all the way. Smart, great attitude, great record and not an ideologue. Moreover, as Orrin stated, he would be on the court for decades. He is the most eloquent, in a non-egghead way, defender of the Patriot Act.

Posted by: Pepys at September 6, 2005 12:14 AM

My guess is Jones. Though I'd prefer Dinh or Brown.

Posted by: Timothy at September 6, 2005 12:29 AM

Brown. She's a four-fer: female, black, conservative, timely. In their face. Up their hind ends.

Posted by: ghostcat at September 6, 2005 12:42 AM

Gonzalez (I'll explain my reasoning after I collect).

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at September 6, 2005 12:55 AM

Luttig -- just because no one else has picked him yet, and he would make a great justice.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2005 1:14 AM

I'll take Dinh for sentimental reasons.

Posted by: Melissa at September 6, 2005 1:18 AM

Garza

Posted by: Rick Ballard [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2005 1:32 AM

Based on nothing, let's say Priscilla Owen.

Posted by: b at September 6, 2005 2:04 AM

I take the other Edith.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2005 2:13 AM

Brown

Posted by: RC at September 6, 2005 2:29 AM

Mike McConnell.

Posted by: See-Dubya at September 6, 2005 2:58 AM

I picked Garza last time, but since he's already taken I'll go with Samuel Alito.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 6, 2005 3:27 AM

I'll go w/a dark horse "home-state" candidate... Maura Corrigan.

Posted by: Dave W. at September 6, 2005 3:36 AM

Folks can be picked more than once--we've plenty of books.

Posted by: oj at September 6, 2005 7:18 AM

Ted Olsen

Posted by: LC at September 6, 2005 7:49 AM

Oops, Olson.

Posted by: LC at September 6, 2005 7:53 AM

Jones -- I'd lean toward Clement, but after she received Susan Estrich's support early Sunday morning, I think she's now No. 2 in the Edith sweepstakes.

Posted by: John at September 6, 2005 8:20 AM

Alberto Gonzales

Posted by: Brandon at September 6, 2005 8:50 AM

I'll pick Brown just because it would provoke the left into a firestorm of mutually contradictory arguments, the likes of which we see no oftener than two or three times a month.

Posted by: Guy T. at September 6, 2005 9:24 AM

I like Brown for the same reasons listed by ghostcat. Of course, that will be wrong as Bush is so subtley sneakey he has a super-secret nominee that will tie the Dem's in even bigger knots than Brown would.

Posted by: Patrick H at September 6, 2005 10:36 AM

Clement. Though Dinh would rock.

Posted by: JAB at September 6, 2005 11:30 AM

Gotta be a Hispanic, and I fear it might be Alberto.

Posted by: curt at September 6, 2005 11:31 AM

Bill Clinton

Posted by: BJW at September 6, 2005 1:40 PM

Orrin, that was a great interview with Viet Dinh that you linked.

Plain-spoken, an anti-communist, and a "life story" that gives him experience beyond his years: what's not to like?

I pick him even though I doubt a 36-year-old can be nominated.

Posted by: Eugene S. at September 6, 2005 2:04 PM

Brown.

Posted by: jefferson park at September 6, 2005 2:14 PM

Brown of California

Posted by: Pilgrim at September 6, 2005 3:37 PM

I would like to see Brown, I expect Jones, but to be different I'll pick Estrada -- since his wife miscarried and then died during his previous obstruction, the public will despise the Democrats if they subject him to similar treatment twice.

Posted by: pj at September 6, 2005 4:50 PM

BJW: Outstanding, but he'll be the replacement for Stevens, not O'Connor.

Posted by: Mike Earl at September 6, 2005 5:19 PM

The 3rd Edith - Bunker.

Posted by: obc at September 6, 2005 6:28 PM

Our Culture, What's Left of It : The Mandarins and the Masses by Theodore Dalrymple is a superb book! a "must read."

Posted by: Wyck at September 6, 2005 7:25 PM

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, so I pick John Roberts.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 6, 2005 8:13 PM

Like Viet Dinh, I left Vietnam a few years after the war, and so am for him, sentimentally. Think he's pretty eloquent too.

But it won't be him this time. Too young. Too controversial with the Democrats.

But it could well be another professor - Mary Ann Glendon at Harvard Law. Am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned her name yet!

Posted by: Tuan Hoang at September 6, 2005 9:42 PM

Ms Glendon would be fabulous.

Posted by: oj at September 6, 2005 9:55 PM

Luttig or McConnell. The conventional wisdom is wrong that Bush will go for a quota filler is wrong, but the conventional wisdom that he'll go for high qualifications is correct.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2005 11:43 PM

Janet Rogers Brown

Posted by: Bartman at September 7, 2005 3:34 PM

Gonzales.

I prefer he pick Brown or Viet Dinh, but Bush is nothing if not loyal to his long time supporters and close friends.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at September 7, 2005 4:14 PM

BJW - didn't Clinton lose his law license as a result of the Monica/impeachment thing?

Posted by: AWW at September 7, 2005 4:30 PM

AWW:

Fact is, you don't need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: obc at September 7, 2005 6:55 PM

I'll take John Ashcroft. Not that I think he'll be the choice, but just because it would be fun to see so many heads explode like needle-popped balloons.

Posted by: AC at September 8, 2005 5:48 PM

J. Harvie Wilkinson....of course I think Virginians should run everything.

Posted by: Earl Sutherland at September 8, 2005 10:56 PM

Raoul Cantero III of the Florida Supreme Court.

Posted by: pchuck at September 9, 2005 1:04 PM

The estimable Justice Brown of California. She'd be a constitution defender as well as appeal on several other counts, not least of which is as an antidote to the demagogic race hate tossed up after NO.

Posted by: Luciferous at September 9, 2005 3:00 PM

Karen Williams, of the 4th Circuit and based in Orangeburg S.C. Nobody more conservative, but she's not a pre-nomination hate figure. She doesn't have a funky beard and I doubt anyone could plausibly claim that she has discussed pubic hairs in inappropriate circumstances.

Posted by: rds at September 13, 2005 8:51 PM


On this one i got to say its a joke and it shows me this non nation is not walking but running right into the third world.

Posted by: Fred Dawes at September 14, 2005 1:36 AM

Priscilla Owen may have a great shot, as she's significantly younger than Janice Brown or Edith Jones.

Posted by: pj at September 14, 2005 9:03 AM

I'm going with Janice Brown.

Posted by: andrew at September 16, 2005 10:01 AM

Prof. Mary Ann Glendon.

Posted by: Mike Morley at September 16, 2005 5:24 PM

Murphy, you trend-sucking dilettante...

Posted by: oj at September 16, 2005 5:28 PM

I'll say Janice Rogers Brown. More a hope than a prediction.

Posted by: PapayaSF at September 16, 2005 7:21 PM

OJ:

Hey, back off, I picked "Scalito" before anyone.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 16, 2005 7:38 PM

Mike McConnell.

Posted by: L. Rogers at September 17, 2005 11:45 AM

Senator Robert Byrd - although overqualified. He was judge, jury and executioner in his Klan days, wasn't he?

Posted by: obc at September 17, 2005 12:19 PM

No one's picked Larry Thompson yet. I still think it's going to be Jones, but it seems like someone should pick him.

Posted by: Timothy at September 17, 2005 6:57 PM

McConnell

Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 17, 2005 9:55 PM

Thanks to NoleftTurns, http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=7355
I'm now listening to Judge Alice M. Batchelder's Constitution Day address at the Ashbrook Ctr. http://www.ashbrook.org/events/constitution/batchelder.html

Couldn't think of a better replacement for O'Connor than Judge Alice M. Batchelder
Mike

Posted by: Mike Daley at September 19, 2005 11:55 PM

Racicot

Posted by: dan w at September 20, 2005 9:43 AM

dan w:

Too good an idea to happen.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 20, 2005 11:19 AM

Deborah Cook

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2005 1:00 PM

Just caught the headine on the other post. Ok, I will take Consuelo M. Callahan.

Latina and Irish? Catholic?

Posted by: Bob at September 20, 2005 1:51 PM

Estrada

Posted by: h-man at September 20, 2005 7:18 PM

Someone should take Alice Batchelder.

Posted by: pj at September 20, 2005 10:50 PM

Karen Williams is another good dark horse.

Posted by: pj at September 22, 2005 2:12 PM

It has to be a woman. I'll pick Edith Jones

Posted by: GER at September 22, 2005 5:08 PM


Come-on-it's-all about, "money, power and control".
and always has been, sad world and the path to the third world is here.

Posted by: Fred Dawes at September 22, 2005 10:35 PM

ME!

Posted by: Fred Dawes at September 22, 2005 10:37 PM

I'm stickin' with JRB. A swift kick to their gluteous maximus.

Posted by: ghostcat at September 26, 2005 6:55 PM

Okay, OJ, in light of new information I'm dumping "Scalito" and picking up Janice Rogers Brown.

If they're gonna call us hard-right ideologues, we might as well give them a good reason.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 26, 2005 7:19 PM

Karen Williams

Posted by: at September 26, 2005 11:52 PM

Karen Williams

Posted by: Jana [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 26, 2005 11:52 PM

Juan Williams - I mean, Andy Williams, er. . . Ted Williams, ah. . . WALTER WILLIAMS! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: obc at September 27, 2005 12:43 AM

Glenn Reynolds

He's bulletproof - if the Dems try to demagogue him, they'll get such a blogswarm all over them.....

Posted by: ralph phelan at September 27, 2005 10:09 AM

Alice Batchelder

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 27, 2005 12:00 PM

I'm still expecting Jones. Much like Roberts, she's the obvious choice, made less obvious by all the "leaks" from the WH.

Posted by: Timothy at September 27, 2005 9:53 PM

Fred Thompson

Posted by: Matt C at September 28, 2005 3:17 PM

Has no one taken Harriet Miers yet?

Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 10:49 PM

Garza

Posted by: Noel Erinjeri at September 28, 2005 11:59 PM

Bless you, Noel. Try some sudafed.

Posted by: obc at September 29, 2005 12:31 AM

OJ -

Think the country is ready for a math-major, Churchillian spinster on the SCOTUS?

Your right, though. She (a)fits the "Cheney VP search" paradigm, and (b)has already established invaluable working relationships with key Senators and Senate staff.

Posted by: ghostcat at September 29, 2005 12:44 AM

OJ, I was just listening to a legal pundit say that Harriet Miers was probably a leading candidate. So I'll select Ms Miers before anyone else does.

Posted by: JimBobElrod at September 29, 2005 7:01 AM

Bush likes her.

Posted by: oj at September 29, 2005 8:09 AM

According to this Internet quiz, my favorite candidate is Priscilla Owen. As I believe everything I read on the internet, I plunk for Priscilla.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 29, 2005 11:58 AM

Ann Coulter

Posted by: sam at September 29, 2005 12:26 PM

Republicans (and Bush especially) have been openly courting Hispanics for too long to miss this opportunity. Estrada is the best guy and therefore offers the biggest fight. Gonzalez will anger the base and his AG confirmation was no piece of cake.

Mel Martinez is the rightward most viable Hispanic. If the Dems balk at Martinez after Reidís endorsement, it will make Reid look ineffective as party leader so he has an incentive to make it work.

Posted by: Tom Stamper at September 29, 2005 6:57 PM

Estrada's wife committed suicide during his last nomination mess--hard to believe he'd want to go through it again.

Posted by: oj at September 29, 2005 7:08 PM

Michael Crapo from Idaho - not Indiana. (Follow the Harry Reid's endorsement link below). We need a rural westerner for a common sense balance plus he can evidently outshoot anyone in the house, or is that House.

Posted by: paul at September 29, 2005 7:10 PM

The House link is supposed to take you here: http://crapo.senate.gov/

Posted by: paul at September 29, 2005 7:13 PM

Nobody has yet nominated David Cohen?

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 29, 2005 7:23 PM

David - According to that quiz, my favorite is Emilio Garza. I'd be happy with Garza. But I'm gonna stick with Edith Jones as my pick.

Matt - David Cohen would certainly be acceptable. With a sex change operation, or adoption by an Hispanic, he could be a contender.

Don't forget, oj has a law degree also.

Posted by: pj at September 29, 2005 8:31 PM

David Cohen would certainly be acceptable. With a sex change operation [...] he could be a contender.

It's time to test just how badly David wants this job... ;-)

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 29, 2005 8:34 PM

Sacrifice? I'm Jewish. I have experience.

Heck, I'm from Massachusetts so I wouldn't even have to leave my wife.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 30, 2005 8:10 AM

I'm gonna stick with Alice B., but someone might want to pick Maureen Mahoney.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 2, 2005 9:34 PM

Alice B. Toklas?

Posted by: obc at October 2, 2005 11:47 PM

Diane Sykes

Posted by: EyeDoc at October 3, 2005 7:20 AM

Diane Sykes

Posted by: EyeDoc at October 3, 2005 7:20 AM

Apparently it's Miers!

Posted by: Dave W at October 3, 2005 7:33 AM

Dave: I haven't seen that yet. A bit of a dissappointment, if true. I'm sure she'd be an adequate justice, but certainly not up to the level of a brilliant, outspoken conservative like Michael McConnell. Oh, that's right, outspoken conservatives need not apply. Gee, thanks, Senator McCain.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 3, 2005 7:56 AM

David:

Men need not.

Posted by: oj at October 3, 2005 8:06 AM

Wait a minute! I meant to say Miers! MIERS!!!

Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 3, 2005 11:55 AM

I pick Meiers. (competition still open?)

Posted by: obc at October 3, 2005 5:23 PM
« INCREMENTALISM: | Main | FEAR OF THE VOTERS: »