Redstate

Can we start the Draft Boggs movement again?  That was fun!

Deanell Tacha! Deanell Tacha!

Sorry, self-interest getting the better of me . . .

on when we can expect an announcement?

Wouldn't that be a huge relief?  

I remember the Monday morning Miers was announced.  I was excited, like I used to get on Christmas morning when I was 8 and the presents around the tree beckoned my name.

That Monday I got not a lump of coal, but a very lovely sweater that was totally not the bike I was hoping for.  At first I was confused.  What?   A sweater?  I live in Florida!  It doesn't even get cold here!  Then the disappointment set in.  A lovely gift, but wholly inappropriate and unsuitable.  That's exactly what it felt like the day Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

This time around, I feel no excitement; just hope that this time around can't be as bad a mistake as last time.  The best I can hope for now is to avoid disappointment.

If the Alito rumor is true, I can't say I would be excited like I would have been a few weeks ago, but I definitely would not be disappointed.

 Besides simply preferring another nominee, is there any reason why conservatives would not be happy with Alito?

With a nickname like Scalito, how can you go wrong? He's been on my A-list for quite some time, and I think that's true of most conservatives who pay attention to the Supreme Court debate.

The other 5% won't be happy unless the confirmation hearings turn into a knock-down, drag-out battle royale between Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Janice Rogers Brown.

Put simply, there will be some conservatives who will ONLY be happy with a nominee that is unconfirmable in our current Senate.  But those few are made up for by the scores of moderates and independents who will embrace a man with the utmost qualifications of Samuel Alito.  Like Roberts, Alito will start out with 95% of conservatives and a huge swath of moderates behind him.  I don't see how the guy gets less than 60 votes.

OK over at the Volokh Conspiracy is quite warm in his praise for Alito, but says the "Scalito" moniker isn't fully deserved.  Alito is more of a process-oriented judge (as opposed to an idealogue), apparently.

...available over on SCoTUS blog.  A good read and a good reference.

From the Slate link of 8 profiles on the CT homepage. WH Interns, I love Luttig but Alito is fine.

--------------------------------------------------

Age: 55

Graduated from: Yale Law School.

He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.

He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).

His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it. As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State

For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 2001)

Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law

Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

Habeas Corpus

Granted the habeas claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)

Abortion

Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

----------------------------------------

WH Interns - Luttig would be the real deal for the base.

I think he made a horrible decision in the Paladin Press case.

Miers was fine, but you'd oppose Luttig.  Wow!

Either way, I think you'd be looking top shelf.

The problem with all of this talk is that the left is going to go nuts with the "he's not a woman" talk.

to all for the excellent feedback. Since I'm not qualified to give an opinion on any nominee's qualifications, I trust in the opinions of better informed conservatives like yourselves. Just hope we can maintain a strong unity on the next nominee, whoever it is.

I think that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the press is a pretty clear that even a non-lawyer figure out.  His ruling in the Paladin Press case raises serious questions about that.

In addition, suing the publisher of a book because someone who read it committed a crime just defies common sense.

What makes you think Bush is even interested in pleasing the right. He could very well be quite disgusted and angry with them at this point for their treatment of many of his closest associates- Gonzales, Miers etc. I suspect he has finnaly grown tired of the whinning spoiled attitude of the christian right that seems to think they somehow own him. Hes probably more concerned about his legacy and his friends, anyways I suspect he has basically been using the religous right just as so many other cheap charlitains have done in the past for personal gain resons. When will they learn. If you stop thinking for yourself, there will always be someone there more than happy to take advantage of you.

We need Luttig

I'd hope he'd nominate Kozinski from the 9th Circuit.

I've liked him a lot, and he's got a good story (immigrated here from Romania back when Ceausescu was dictator).  Heck of a good story, knows that the Constitution means, and he also applies common sense.

This is a rather auspicious 2nd post, luke.  You may find more than a few folks here who will not take a liking to newcomers jabbing folks with Pointy Sticks before establishing any sort of cred with the community.

Happy trails.

..you support a nominee who is utterly devoid of the most minimal qualifications for the job, yet would oppose a supremely qualified candidate on the basis of a single decision you disagree with.

And you have the nerve to call other conservatives ideologues.

Un-be-lie-va-ble.

I think that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the press is a pretty clear that even a non-lawyer figure out.

Yes, it is, including the very first word of said Amendment. But eventually the lawyers got ahold of it and essentially effaced that word, making the Amendment mean something very different than what it was written to mean.

In addition, suing the publisher of a book because someone who read it committed a crime just defies common sense.

Nonsense. Proclaiming that the self-governing people of a republic have no recourse against a publishing house that prints a book like the one in question, defies not merely common sense, but the principle of republican liberty.

under your belt you are establishing quite a rep for yourself. So lay off the namecalling until you can spell "hypocrisy" and "charlatan".

Consider this to be your first and only warning.

In Post #16.

It's a performance/qualifications issue.  I think the First Amendment is pretty clear.  The Paladin Press ruling he made goes against what the language of the first amendment says, but common sense as well (how in the world can a publisher of a book be responsible for a crime committed by a person who bought said book?).

 didn't know where to post this, so I'll just drop it here

From CNN

(On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has moderate or liberal views -- with 34 percent choosing "moderate" and 24 percent picking "liberal."

Only 14 percent thought the nominee should be "very conservative" and 23 percent chose "somewhat conservative)

Hey CNN  14 + 23 =  37 want a conserative, why didn't you ask respondents if they want a "staunch" liberal or "somewhat ?" liberal.  I'm sure this was an honest mistake, you guy always shoot right down the middle

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/poll.miers/

Ok Doc, fair enough. I guess I should just stick to the subject and lighten up on the editorialism.

Kozinski than Alito or Luttig, but that's just me.

...just drop your holier-than-thou attitude towards those of us who opposed Miers simply because she is utterly unqualified to hold the job.  Thanks.

why don't you lay off the subject especially when your argument is a huge non-sequitur.

If Alito is nominated, I'll be extremely joyful - the Christmas bike that we hoped for: delivered!

I'd like Luttig even better, but either Alito or Luttig would be just great!

Everyone lay the [expletive] off? Ok? Now.

Paul, if your standard for banning books is the one you propose here then John LeCarre', Frederick Forsyth, Andy McNabb and a whole library of authors who describe with some specificity how to commit a variety of illegal acts based on their personal experience should be banned. Not to mention Army field manuals on making explosives, sniper operations, etc that are available from the Government Printing Office or free online.

The Paladin decision was an awful and a strictly PC decision against an unpopular publisher, rather the thing that we shouldn't want the government doing.

At CNN, 37 is clearly less than 24.  Sounds like new math to me.

Should a publisher be liable for the actions of the people who buy books?

No.  It's like holding GM responsible if someone driving a Corvette with a .16 BAC smashed into a bus stop and killed/injured people.  Or suing Glock because a criminal took a cop's gun and used it to kill people.

It's common sense.  IIRC, the trial court tossed this - the right thing to do.  And should have stated that it was doing so because the publisher cannot be held accountable for the unlawful actions of a third party.

It's touchy here at work ..let's not use those two words "lay" and "off" in the same sentence please.

How about instead, let's just give everyone a BIG <expletive> RAISE in compassion.

Don't ya know...

I think it's silly to sue gun makers because people commit murders with guns. I think that if gun companies tailor their product to meet criminals' requirements and specifically market and sell to criminals, they certainly should be liable.

Ditto books, to a lesser degree. If the book is sold as a how-to for criminals, I think that's different from a detailed spy novel. FWIW, Luttig said "Paladin has stipulated both that it had knowledge and that it intended Hit Man would immediately be used by criminals and would-be criminals in the solicitation, planning, and commission of murder for hire."

It would be nice to avoid the murky "intent" stuff that makes hate-crime legislation controversial, but I really think there should be a distinction. I'm just not sure how best to draw a bright legal line.

The history is here

Is presently going all out to portray Bush administration as going down in flames regardless of what happens in the Plame investigation or the SC pick. Here is another objective quote from CNN article:

Impact of indictments

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."

Aside from being a horrible person, which it seems you almost certainly are, you are also wrong about the First Amendment.

The Paladin Press was sued in civil court-- there was no prior restraint that prevented them from publishing the book. The relatives of the victims have rights too, as you apparently are unaware, and they had a very convincing case that this book was instrumental in encouraging and allowing the killer to commit triple homicide.

If a scientist wrote a book, for instance, that gave instructions on how to develop a biological weapon... and that weapon was then used by another party to kill a number of people... would that scientist be not liable in civil court, at the least? I mean, this is a very basic case of the "but for" scenario, which is why the Paladin Press was civilly liable.

Luttig is so much smarter than you that, even assuming you were properly educated on legal issues (which you aren't), you have little grounds to claim he does not belong on the Supreme Court because of ONE case, which, by the way, was unanimous.

Honestly, mods... why is HH still posting on Redstate?

Notice what Nina Totenberg thinks is important for the Luttig bio blurb. For her, the (fraudulent) Anita Hill episode never ended.

From:

Possible Successors to Chief Justice Rehnquist

by Nina Totenberg

NPR.org, July 6, 2005

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442

J. Michael Luttig, 51, has been on the appeals court for 14 years and is one of the most conservative judges in the country. He is extremely plugged in politically, having served in top jobs in both the Reagan and first Bush administration. Nationally recognized among conservatives as a brilliant proponent of states rights, he is far more conservative on some questions -- national security and civil liberties, for example -- than Chief Justice Rehnquist, and even the man he clerked for, Justice Antonin Scalia. Luttig's biggest confirmation problem could be that he served as the behind-the scenes maestro for the Bush administration during the controversial Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991. At the time, Luttig had already been confirmed, though not seated, as a federal judge. His presiding over a politically explosive strategy of attacking Thomas' accuser Anita Hill when Luttig was already a confirmed federal judge has raised questions from some ethics experts.

Alito 22

Luttig 12.5

McConnell 12

Williams 12

Do you think insiders bet on this site? They could make mucho dinero.

Garza only trading at 5.5 :(

I would love an Alito or Luttig nomination though.  Williams sounds pretty solid.  McConnell said something un-originalist about abortion once I read in some previous post here.  Can anybody refresh my memory on what that was?

Having read more about this case, I realize that my initial reaction may have been hasty.

But my point about the judicial expansion of the First Amendment still stands.

If it is Alito,then great!  Any thoughts on how the nomination of a white male impacts any JPS decisions on retirement?  

Is there any way to leverage a white male nomination today, and a promise to nominate a female or minority tomorrow (any new vacancy), in order to encourage a JPS retirement during a republican administration?  Does JPS care whether his successor is

#1: a female?

#2: a minority?

#3: a liberal?  

Can Bush offer him #1 or #2, without compromising on #3.

for instance, would have a hard time convincing a jury that their sniper and booby traps manuals aren't intended to be used for those purposes. So I'm not sure, given the extremely small number of people who commit murder for hire, that Paladin's stipulation should be read as significant.

But let me end my own threadjack here.

From NRO

Yes, obviously so. Of course the Novak column came out a year after the war began and the indictments would be for perjury about leaking to the press (or obstruction of that investigation into said leak) which also took place long after the war. So, obviously in Gergen logic, such indictments would directly and immediately raise the possibility that criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war.

Should have been tossed - expanded First Amendment or not.

Common sense needs to temper the academc/intellectual side of things.  We don't hold GM for people who drive while intoxicated.  A law was just enacted saying that gun manufacturers cannot be sued for misuse of their products by a third party.  There's an effort to prevent lawsuits against food companies for obesity.  How a publisher can be held responsible for the criminal actions for a book they published defies logic.

Let's all just put away our Pointy Sticks™, shall we?

There's a lot of disappointed people out there, Harold being one of them. One of the other mods talked to him, and it seems that he's willing to at least contain his frustration, so let's recognize that there are raw feelings here and try to move forward, k?

 Why don't you fellows find a virtual dueling ground, a diary say, gather your seconds, and fire away at each other until one side either apologizes or is so exhausted it cannot continue. Maybe the editors could even relax the no profanity rule for such a diary, just so the rest of us can have a minute's peace from this bickering.

They can't even get the numbers they want by skewing the question, so they misrepresent the result.

Huge selloffs on: Estrada, Clement, Batchledor.

The President has decided to give conservatives the fight they were looking for

Finally!  To your battlestations!  All hands on deck!  Fire ze missiles!

It's not like HE was forced to withdraw from the confirmation process. He's thrown A LOT of stones over the past few weeks for no real reason... why so emotional over HARRIET MIERS? It just seems very odd to me.

Sort of like someone that wants to attack certain people, and finds an excuse to do it.

make it a private diary only for the participants (can that be done?) so the rest of us don't have to see the ugliness.

And, FTR, I don't think his concerns were so much for Miers personally as they were for a number of other considerations.

We've allowed a little stone throwing by folks on both sides, considering the emotional nature of this fight. But, there's going to be a new nominee on Monday, and we need to try and put all that behind us as much as possible.

We don't want to fight like the French!

That's is pretty good! Didn't check the Corner when I posted but reading that CNN article just made me mad. :)

It's the general tone and attitude of your posts that we have a problem with. This is not Speaker's Corner, it's our house. You come here, and you agree to play by The Rules. My advice is just to be polite and non-confrontational, at least until you get "street cred".

If while typing, you feel nasty toward someone, take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard, and calm down. Comments hammered out in a moment of anger or spite gnerally hurt you more than the other person.

 If you want to respond to my post with acusations the least you could do is explain your position instead of just throwing out generalized claims.

I fail to see the source of your discontent, perhaps you dont like the tone of my post but I hardly think it rises to the level of name calling. I also fail to understand just what your "warning" is suppose to accomplish.

Warnings are supposed to serve the purpose of giving you notice that you're about to be tossed out on your ear.

In your case, I doubt they'll be effective.

I don't respond to nonsense. Fortunately, for you, posting nonsense isn't bannable. In two different posts you wielded Pointy Sticks™ first concerning "hipocracy" on judicial activism (which did more to reveal your lack of understanding of the conservative position on the judiciary than acting as a vehicle for discussion) then you segued into calling the Christian right "whinny" and Bush a "cheap charlitan" in using them.

Neither post did much to establish your credibility here. You were warned and now you've decided that you didn't deserve to be warned. Well that just isn't your choice in the matter.

Re-read the mission statement and then decide if this is the right site for you.

And i dont see why this site is not appropriate for me. I am a Republican and I support many of the parties positions, however I dont support the influence of the christian right and I think whinny is hardly a name calling incident as well I didnt call Bush a charliton, I said he was acting like one, it was a descriptive designed to illustrate a concept. I think the premiss is quite reasonable for anyone who wishes to view it with an open mind.

I think if you go in that direction again you're gone.

in fact it is Joy Clement buzz level right now

I think this news is unlikely to be a Clement-style head fake, but instead a genuine trial balloon.  While the White House may have had an interest in faking out Senate Democrats on John Roberts, there is no such interest now, since the nominee will almsot certainly be an already known quantity.

The interest in the White House now is to avoid the kind of nasty surprise it got with Harriet Miers.  If Miers had been floated the Friday before, Bush would have known about the toxic reaction from the base in time to switch to another.  By floating an Alito pick now, the White House can assess the reaction in time to avert a second disaster.  

Hello again my fellow comrades...Here is a Friday update from my sources.

There are some very interesting developments today, here's what I'm hearing. There are three finalists on the short list. Luttig, Karen Williams, and Alito. Alito's name is being "leaked" as a trial balloon, as he is most likely at the top of the list today. Contrary to what many have been stating about Alito, his judicial philosophy is NOT like Scalia's, nor Thomas's. My sources are suggesting that Alito has more in common with John Roberts than Scalia/Thomas. While Alito would be a strong conservative vote on "parental notification" my sources doubt he would overturn Roe.

Just as importantly, when democrats sent Bush the list of about 10 names that would be filibustered, Alito's name was not on that list. There is a reason for that...democrats think Alito is not as ideological as Luttig and some of the others.

Bottom line is Alito could very well be the nominee, not because he is a Scalia/Thomas clone, but because he would be the least difficult nominee to be confirmed that is not on the filibuster list.

Personally, I would much prefer Luttig at this point, but based on what I'm hearing it probably will be Alito. And if not Alito, Karen Williams, because Williams wasn't on the filibuster list either.

What happened to consideration of Emilio Garza and Edith Jones?  I have a hard time believing its a matter of age, since both are younger than Miers, and are only 2-3 years older than Alito.

Is it simply that both have had the courage to publicly criticize Roe?  

Is either on this list of nominees the Dems would allegedly filibuster?