Redstate

Regarding the next nominee.  Let's get it on!

NYT is saying Libby indicted.  WAPO is saying no indictments.  It appears that no one is being charged with leaking a covert agents name. Libby's indictment would be for misleading testimony or some other thing which seems very minor after 2 years of investigation.

No major indictments, a good SC nominee, no more hurricanes, gas prices falling, and troops beginning to come home in '06 should put Bush and the GOP in good shape for '06 elections.

Glad to hear that this nomination will have consequences for those who pushed it and those who botched it.

The question is, how high up will it go?

And with Rove not on the indictment list, let's hope that the President listens to him on the new nomination rather than Andy Card.

Erick,

Can you confirm or deny whether I am correct that the nominee will either be Samuel Alito or Diane Sykes?

then Andy Card is at the top of that list.  Even as you read this, someone at the WH is probably busy building the plank he's going to walk.

before the mid-term elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR200510270
2242.html

Two sources said I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, was shopping for a white-collar criminal lawyer and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove began assembling a public relations team in the event they are indicted.

I think that just as the Democrats are at the very height of their rapture, the next set of cleavers is about to fall.

Let's hope the economy hangs in there.  I'm a bit worried about a badly-timed dip going into '06.

I can do neither other than say that my sources are telling me Alito, Sykes, and McConnell are currently getting serious scrutiny and have been for the past week.

He already promised to confirm whether I'm right that the nominee is Edith Jones!

(kidding)

His religion jurisprudence and squishy abortion testimony give me grave reservations.  If endorsements from Lawrence Tribe and Cass Sunstein weren't bad enough....

Please tell me it's someone else.

If he had anything to do with Meirs, then he need to go and quick!

Could you give me a link to said testimony.. I am not worried about his religious stands but his abortion testimony is new to me... thanks,

Fight it out. Nominate Scalia's little twin brother (whoever that is) and let the fur fly.

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1748

I tell you what, the Beltway Pundits take the NY Slimes word as Gospel.

A two year investigation, the Slimes wishes somebody, anybody will be indicted, and Redstate takes it as fact.

Every day this week some outlet in the MSM "predicted" indictments, announcements, extensions, Real estate expansion, and now this, and the Beltway Establishment on the Right AND Left believe the Slimes.

The focus will be on the Wilsons, MSM, CIA and the Dem Party, where the crimes actually are. The WH will be unscathed.

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc
0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

"Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday."

So it's not over yet.

Around, around, around it goes. Where will it stop? Nobody knows.

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1756#comment-61901

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1756#comment-61839

Sykes isn't well known and isn't a heavyweight, I doubt she could instantly unite the base since most would have to find out who she is.

Alito would be a great pick.

That said, I think it's going to be McConnell, his resume will be too much for Bush to pass up.

I did not know about this and am grateful for the information.  I do NOT support him after reading these comments...

Thanks,

deagle

The NY Slimes cannot even get their made up facts straight:

"Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday."

The GJ has already been extended its legal limt.

Fitz will have to empanel a new GJ, not extend the existing one.

It is the Slimes, where facts take a back seat to agenda.

that if Rove is not charged after two years of being investigated but Fitzgerald attempts to pursue him with a second grand jury and investigative fishing expedition extending way beyond its ordained stopping point, the public relations dimensions here present a whole new ballgame.

I don't expect Rove--or his allies--to sit quietly as they have up to now without a massive fight on the PR front. Any charges or investigations coming after tomorrow will take place with a huge cloud hanging over Fitzgerald's credibility.

He says on that blog that Alito is the frontrunner according to his/her sources and the announcement could come as early as friday morning (what a day tomorrow, good gosh!!)

I flippin love Alito... Scalito and Alito baby!!

For the record, I love Sykes and McConnell as well...

Rove and allies should NOT sit by for this!  If Fitz could not find any wrong doing by now, he needs to hand up his shingle.  It sounds like he is trying to punish politics (bad as it is) if he requests an extension.  Mercy, sounds like years past (a bit - hate to say it)!

and simply wants Rove's help to get him.

my bad:

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp

It's the second one down when i posted this...

Alito is a homerun, if Bush picks him all the wounds from the Miers debacle will be instantly healed.

I don't know much about Sykes, and I don't think most do either.  She isn't one of the big dawgs like an Edith Jones or a Brown, I'd probably be disappointed if she were the pick.

Fingers crossed for Alito.

"As predicted"? How smug. :-)

Alito or Luttig would be my choice, but I would be very happy with McConnell, Sykes or Williams...

...hopefully they still will be tomorrow.

Trenton to DC is an easy trip that can be made with little advance planning.

what do you know that the rest of us don't?  You are taking the Times' word for it?

I just don't see how Fitzgerald can justify impaneling another grand jury.  Especially if Libby's indictments are for things like perjury or lying to investigators.

If Fitzgerald actually charges Libby or others with a crime related to the actual outing of the name, he could get by with it, but in general people are going to see any further investigation as a witch hunt, if the only indictments to date are those that were committed only in the course of the investigation.

I think charging perjury or similar without a primary crime charge is going to have jury nullification written all over it though-I think it is going to be difficult to get a conviction.

Scalia was my favorite Justice, too, until he completely blew it in the Raich decision. We should be looking for another THOMAS.

JRB, oh please, oh please. I MUST see the spectacle of that filibuster attempt. And the radioactive green glass parking lot of fused democrats when it's all over.

And I have always felt like his treatment by the left was uncalled for.

I think his treatment by other "tolerant" African Americans is appalling.

Thomas defnitely marches to his own drum at times, but he argues the beat he is beating.

did have something to do with the nomination, but I think this was primarily Bush's baby through and through.  Obviously Bush is not going to be looking for work in the private sector, so Card it is (he will get the blame, despite my guess that it was the President's idea).

The Dems may get Libby, but we will get the Supreme Court.

report in Hartford Courant this AM (I think they get a Washington Post feed) list four finalists, all of whom have been interviewed by President Bush or "top administration officials" and all of whom have said they would accept the nomination, if offered.  In alphabetical order:  Alioto, Luttig, Owen, Karen Williams.

I stay with my prediction of yesterday - Williams.  No matter how much enthusiasm the base has, he still has the politics of confirmation to consider.  Lindsey Graham is an outspoken supporter of Linda Williams, and made public statements about this yesterday.  I believe he is signaling that he can deliver enough of the Rodney King Caucus (Gang of Fourteen) to get her through - either with or without the filibuster.  

I think if he picks Williams, the Dems will cry bloody murder - and in the end blink and not filibuster her.  

I would take anything printed by the Hartford Courant with ten pounds of salt.

I should know--I live in West Hartford, CT.

Libby is, I think, a ploy to get him to roll on Cheney.  The news stories show that Libby's notes indicate he actually learned Plame's identity from Cheney, and not from reporters as he presumably testified and for which I'm guessing will form the basis of a perjury charge.  Also I don't think Libby's gone back before the grand jury lately, (anyone else know?) so who knows what he might say if he's indicted (I suppose he could have had discussions with Fitzgerald in the interim without having to go before the grand jury).

I'm guessing that, if the news stories accurately reflect his notes and his notes accurately reflect what Cheney told him, then Cheney knew of Plame's status (assuming she met the definition of covert agent in the IIPA), but didn't tell Libby when he told her she worked for the CIA.  The next question would be if Cheney then told him to leak her identity to the press.  This would keep Libby out of the statute's reach (because he wouldn't know she was covert, if she was), and might protect Cheney because he didn't do the actual leaking (and I'm not sure Fitzgerald could get to him for "telling" Libby to leak it, if that's what happened).

That's a lot of ifs and assumptions, but if they wanted to undermine Wilson's credibility and thought pointing out that his wife sent him would work, that's a way of doing it without violating the IIPA (assuming again that she was covert).  A conspiracy charge might come in here, but I haven't heard anything about that lately (just been perjury and obstruction).

I also agree that another empaneling of a grand jury at this late a date is headed into witch hunt territory.  The only thing I can think of that might justify it would be if Fitzgerald got some new information in the last two weeks that he hasn't been fully able to investigate (that might include Libby's notes and Miller's testimony).  

hope you're right but I doubt it.  The bread doesn't get buttered on your side of prediction.  If you wish hosannahs and statesman status you indict republicans,  If you want to be treated as a leper you indict democrats.  I don't think too many will take,as they say, the path less chosen and the political prostitution of the law continues.

The NYT reports:

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

So the bear's not out of the woods yet.

Williams has never presented an opinion to the left on any of the panels on which she has served with Luttig.  They either signed the same opinion or she dissented TO HIS RIGHT.  She would be a great nominee and a promise kept.  Out of that group of four (which is a great group) Owen is actually about which we have the least information.  The Texas Supreme Court doesn't hear criminal cases and, despite her well publicized sparring with AGAG on the Texas parental notification law, her opinion on Roe itself is unknown.  FWIW.  

Please, if they indicted the old lady who scrubs the WH floors it would be treated as perdition from hell itself.  Let's sit back and see what the reaction is but I'll be suprised if I'm wrong.  SCRUB WOMAN INDICTED, WHITE HOUSE IN DISARRAY.

whether people aren't tired of the Supreme Court. I know I am. Call us ignorant, but it's not a very tangible issue for all but the most involved activists. For the president to really recover, I think we'll need to see good news on other fronts.

And you can't bank on a conservative nominee and a huge fight in the Senate restoring the popularity of the government, I'd guess, even to Nov. 2004 levels. That's simply not what most people want to see, and they'll be displeased with both parties for it--Bush for pushing it when he's shown the ability to choose a moderate, the Democrats for pushing it when they've shown the ability to vote for a Bush nominee. Neither side has much wiggle room in public opinion.

I am still waiting to hear what crime was originally,allegedly commited to get this thing going; if it's over the CIA leak? Then where is the crime, Joe Wilson identified Plame as is wife at least a month before the Novak column and she [Plame] was giving money to Al Gore and ACT using the name of CIA front company so they can't claim

she's covert. The grand jury should never have been called in the first place.

you apparantly do not understand the concept of undercover.  When Bruce Wayne uses his name Bruce Wayne in Public that doest break his cover.

this info that Wilson somehow outed his wife before Novak's column.  Does anyone have a link for that?

And in any event, as I read the IIPA, it wouldn't matter if Wilson did so, there is a defense if the agent has been outed, but it must be done by the United States.

I came to a conservative site to get a honest response to my question. Can anyone please explain to me what seems to be a huge hipocracy by the right.

I constantly hear the right say how much they value the constitution, and then they go on and say that they are only trying to persue the wishes of the American people, implying I assume they mean a majority of the American people. They complain about judicial activism as though it thwarts the majorities wishes, but if you understand the real basis for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, its sole purpose is to prevent the tyrany of the majority, this is why there are judicial checks on the executive and the rep branches of our govt. This is why Justice Roberts was such a profoundly refreshing voice recently when he told the senate committee if you dont like the results of a law, dont look for me to judge as you would like, "change the law".(or something to that effect).

Really, come on, what really is judicial activism, but judges interpreting the law as they see it.

I am so tired of hearing this from the right, its such hipocracy about the true nature of our country and its Constitution.

and Second, I'm not inclined to argue this all over again, so let's put it in simple terms.

Kelo v. New London = classic case of judicial activism, otherwise known as "Amending the Constitution On the Down Low".

If you think that's judges interpreting law as they see it, or think that they were preventing the tyranny of the majority, you have bigger issues than so-called hypocrisy from the right.

-TS

I guess your quoting some case law that tries to get around the Constitution or the bill of rights. I personally think this is part of the process of refining the laws that apply to us. But still this isnt a response to my original question. Your complaining about the process, which may be long and laborious, but you cant defend the right wing position of invoking the Constitution and then complaiming about the power checks that are inherent in the document.

Forgive me for any snarkiness that may or may not be intended.  It's difficult to have a debate about judicial activism with someone who does not appear to know some fundamental facts about the Constitution.

But let me answer your question directly.  If you believe that conservatives are complaining about power checks inherent in the document, I would like to direct you to the said document.

If you can find in the Constitution anywhere the power of the judiciary to nullify acts of legislatures or the executive, you are probably reading some Constitution other than the U.S. Constitution.  The power does not exist in the document.

The power of judicial review was established by a case called Marbury v. Madison in a brilliant stroke of political power grabbing.  We as a society accepted and continue to accept judicial review because we believe that the Constitution is preserved as a result.  In other words, the Judiciary is supposed to preserve the Constitution from predations by the other two branches.

So when the Judiciary does the predating itself, it poses a serious problem.  Liberals don't appear to see the problem, in large part because there is a major anti-democratic streak in contemporary liberalism: liberals do not trust their fellow citizens, and prefer "well-edumacated judges" to make policy decisions.  And there we have the conflict.

-TS

to the website for the forum at which Wilson gave the speech.  Check out his bio at the bottom of the page.

LINK

The Foxnews.com photo shows Scooter Libby on crutches. What did Fitzgerald and the grand jury do to him? Did they mistake him for Nancy Kerrigan? ;)