October 28, 2005


Bush pulls plug on Miers (Jan Crawford Greenburg, October 28, 2005, Chicago Tribune)

A senior administration official said that after concluding Wednesday that Miers must withdraw, the White House focused on judges who were in the running to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor before President Bush chose Miers, his longtime adviser and current White House counsel.

The group includes Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Karen Williams, the official said. All four judges had been interviewed by Bush or top administration officials and indicated they would accept the nomination if asked.

Appellate Judges Cited as Focus of New Search: Supreme Court Candidates on Short List Were Vetted This Summer, Sources Say (Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein, October 29, 2005, Washington Post)
The administration has backed away from any insistence that the nominee be a woman or a minority. Rather, it is focused on potential nominees who have previously won Senate confirmation, whose intellectual qualifications would be unquestioned and who have paper trails that make clear their conservative credentials, said one source who is close to the nomination process.

Those candidates, according to the sources, include several federal appellate judges, among them: Samuel A. Alito Jr., J. Michael Luttig, Michael W. McConnell, Emilio M. Garza, Priscilla R. Owen and Edith H. Jones. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the discussions.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 28, 2005 10:18 PM

I thought I read just before Miers was announced that Owens pulled herself out. Also some conservative sites are raising questions about Williams. Alito and Luttig seem acceptablet to the conservatives.

Posted by: AWW at October 28, 2005 10:38 PM

Throw them all in the ocean and the ones who float are crypto-liberal.

Posted by: oj at October 29, 2005 7:31 AM

Fun's fun. Now for history. Haynesworth--Carswell--Blackmun.

I remain suspicious. If the preppy plutocrats have been trying to finesse a cynical flim-flam, stringing us along, only to drop back to the same old baby-murder on demand regime, there is a real danger of the conservative coalition coming unravelled.

We had a deal. We would go along with the econocon economic agenda, we would go along with the neocon foreign policy agenda, and they would give us the babies.

Baby-murder for social, economic and cosmetic convenience, as birth-control of last resort, is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that the worldly like to carry in their pockets. We understand that they do not want to give this up, but they must understand that a deal is a deal and promises have consequences.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 29, 2005 8:30 AM

Which is why it's Scalia-lite. Even if he later votes to uphold Roe no one can blame the Prez.

Posted by: oj at October 29, 2005 8:40 AM

A selection by Bush of one of the NRO-apporved choices, who then nuianced his/her way into maintaining Roe in some form wouldn't be good for whoever runs for president for the GOP in 2008, since it would likely cause a backlash among the fundamentalists, who would feel like suckers after all their efforts, especially the ones who opposed Miers on the advice of the pundits, despite Bush's assurances of her anti-abortion leanings.

But while it would hurt the GOP, it would really shred the credibility of the East Coast conservative punditocracy to have any say whatsoever in the social issues that drive the mainstream of the party.

Posted by: John at October 29, 2005 8:54 AM

Which is why it'll be Alito, not Luttig.

Posted by: oj at October 29, 2005 8:58 AM

How do you know that Alito is more reliable than Luttig in that? Alito thought partial birth abortion bans were Constitutional, but 90% of Americans think that, including many who support Roe v Wade. Luttig has said he has a strong attachment to precedent, which could be a bad sign, but he's strongly supported by people like Hugh Hewitt. I believe they're both among the best possible judges we can get in the current legal and political climate, I'd be delighted with either, but I don't know how to discern which one is more reliable on abortion.

Or would the defense be "'Alito' sounds like 'Scalia', so I thought he'd be in the Scalia mold"?

Posted by: pj at October 29, 2005 10:59 AM


The latter. None of this is about reality, just atmospherics.

Posted by: oj at October 29, 2005 11:13 AM
« THERE ARE TEN BIASES (via David Hill, The Bronx): | Main | THEY CAN HAVE THE NEOCON: »