Redstate

1. Rehnquist is going to step down Tuesday as planned.
   
2. Dubya is saving a non-white-male nominee for the CJ spot.  That's the only way he could get away with replacing O'Connor with a WASPy male from Texas.

FWIW, I'm quite surprised, as such a move basically removes both Luttig and Roberts from the equation.  Considering that one worked for Scalia and the other for Rehnquist, I thought at least one would end up on the Court.

You know.... the 'no Gonzales - Gonzales later - it's gonna be Gonzales' source.

Honestly if Prez noms Gonzales I quit. Not one more dime, and I could care less about 2006 or 2008. Gonzales is exactly like Kerry "Personally opposed" (suuuure) but will vote to support it always.

HE VOTED AGAINST PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR A MINOR, MR. PRESIDENT.

NO!!! to gonzales.

I hope the President has guts enough to appoint the best judges, and if they are nine white males, that's the way the chips fell (I am a woman, btw).

they will float the name this weekend, this seems early. But I'll take Cornyn here and JRB for CJ :)

Interesting choice, if it comes down that way...

1. As a sitting senator, its POSSIBLE (might even be probable... although I wouldn't hold my breath) that the democrats in the senate might give him a pass, or at least not threaten a fillibuster.
   
   
2. Not a lot of legal opinions floating around to get him into trouble... as AG in Tx he can defend his positions as chief prosecutor for the state.
   
   
3. Texas Senate seat is reasonably safe, and wouldn't likely change hands.

Just a few thoughts.

Now makes eminent sense.

To be sure, I think philosophical grounds alone would have moved Cornyn to sponsor the bill forbidding the use of federal dollars to seize private property for private economic development, but the timing now becomes, shall we say, propitious. Eminent domain is sure to be a topic at the confirmation hearings in light of the Kelo decision.

Perry appoints Rove to the vacant TX Senate seat.

Hahahahaha.

Then he really will be Mark Hanna, the strategist of 100 years ago who helped usher in a few decades of GOP dominance.

(Hanna helped McKinley win the White House twice and then won a Senate seat in their home state of Ohio)

I think Sen Cornyn will be a better senator than SC jurist. I don't understand why Bush wouldn't go with a rock solid conservative like Luttig, Roberts, JRB, etc. Maybe he knows Sen Cornyn is great on all of our issues and will be able to through the confirmation process easier. I really don't know. I do know that I love being an armchair political consultant!

Powder Blue Report

As a conservative, former Republican congressional staffer, and person burdened with a law degree, a nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would cause my support of President George W. Bush to be lost. I think the nomination of Senator Cornyn would be almost as bad.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court deserves and demands the best legal minds our country has to offer. Since when has anyone opined that Attorney General Gonzales or Senator Cornyn fall in that category? Putting buddies from your home state on the U.S. Supreme Court smacks of the worst instincts a President could have.

While it is sad that such terrific conservative legal minds as Judge Posner, Judge Kozinski, and former Attorney General William Barr have ostensibly failed to make the short-list as U.S. Supreme Court candidates, it is amazing that we are talking about Cornyn and Gonzales.

Second, the last thing we need on the U.S. Supreme Court is a politician. We need jurists. And the less political, the better. That the good old boys and girls in the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle are suggesting that one of their own is precisely what our country needs on the U.S. Supreme Court is disappointing but not surprising. That President Bush is considering go along with that sentiment is disturbing.

Once again, we witness the triumph of politics. That should not happen in appointing justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I bet there are enough smart, well-qualified, constructionist judges out there that there are a handful or two of "best" picks.

We do have years and years of Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush appointees on the district and appellate courts to work from, just for starters.  Then when you add in state court judges (like Brown was), the choices start to add up.

"Maybe he knows Sen Cornyn is great on all of our issues and will be able to through the confirmation process easier."

Makes the most political sense of any explanation.  

What precisely was wrong with AG's decision in that case?

Did he mis-interpret the law?  Did he incorrectly follow precedent?

Keep in mind that judges below the Supreme Court don't have the freedom to do what they want.

Luttig will be the choice. Announced mid to late summer perhaps earlier, but not likely.

A CATO institute affiliate recently testified before Cornyn, proposing opening the borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Cornyn has not to my knowledge condemned his testimony, but Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) did. I'm going to assume that since the plan is so outrageous, and Cornyn has not condemned it, he supports it.

See also:

Sens. Cornyn, Kyl Prepare Massive Guestworker Plan.

He's also opposed to the Minuteman Project coming to Texas.

What does immigration policy have to do with the Supreme Court?

What possible Constitutional issue is there?

This is hillarious

"Bush Temporarily Nominates Judge Judy Until A Real Justice Is Nominated"

Here is the link http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

Once again, we witness the triumph of politics. That should not happen in appointing justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You could point to the last time when appointments to the SCOTUS weren't driven largely by politics?  Seriously while the level of intensity within the Senate over the confirmation process seems* to have escalated, it seems to me that the idea of a non-political or a nomination not driven largely by politics court is perhaps wishful thinking.

* I say "seems to" because we didn't have 24-7 media coverage for most of our nation's history and so many justices (as well as the circumstances surrounding their appointments) are pretty obscure to most people.  We have certainly had controversial judicial decisions in the past although IMO a lot of the reason for the contentiousness of judicial nominees today is because so many decisions that were previously left to the State legislatures now seem to be the province of the federal courts.

But cut the self-promotion or say goodbye. Add something substantive, please.

I'd think you'd want Cornyn out of the Senate and into the Court, given that in the latter area he'd play almost zero role in setting our nation's immigration policy.

Once again, we witness the triumph of politics. That should not happen in appointing justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

When hasn't politics been played in appointments, no matter what level?  

Meanwhile another source I've seen claims Cornyn was offered the nomination but turned it down!

Who knows, it's all rumor, could be a trial balloon, head fake, etc.

To be honest, I don't like the idea of Cornyn being nominated. Better than I like the idea of Gonzales, obviously, but still I'm not a fan. Luttig is a better option, and he'll get through just fine.

On FOX, he said "He'd do an outstanding job" of Gonzalez.

Does that pretty much mean Cornyn knows Gonzalez is a no-go? Otherwise, would Cornyn give the non-conservatives fodder like that to force him to support Gonzalez?

is just focused on Gonzalez because it is easy to speculate about him and people have heard about him thanks to him being Attourney General.  Most of the other names that are bandied about here are ones that the average FOX viewer would have no clue about - myself included.

While the confirmation process in the U.S. Senate guarantees a huge political component, ideally the politics of U.S. Supreme Court appointments should be minimized. I would hope we could all agree on that.

For the President to start the process off by making a purely political strategic nomination dooms the result to be overcome by politics, which triumph. I can see where nominating someone with a brilliant legal mind and judicial background is pure folly if the person has no chance of confirmation and will only divide the country. But surely the President can find someone who is considered to be among the best our country has to offer from a legal perspective and can also be confirmed, especially with a 55-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. Cronyism should be a non-starter, which makes it extremely disappointing to hear that Alberto Gonzales and John Cornyn are at the top of the President's short list.

Why are we allowing the process to be dumbed down by acquiescing to the strategy of nominating persons who are merely politically confirmable? Shouldn't we start with the best lawyers and jurists as candidates and then look at political viability as a secondary rather than primary factor? In the absence of such an approach we have gotten Justices Souter and Kennedy from conservative Presidents.

Perhaps if we expected more from the nomination and confirmation process we could begin to expect more from the U.S. Supreme Court itself. While I am not so naive as to think we can rid the judiciary of all politics, I am enough of an idealist to believe we should strive for such as goal. Ultimately we get the government we deserve.

I heard that too. My guess is Cornyn would get behind Gonzales, and indeed may be the point man on such a nomination. Usually there's a home state senator (if one is in the same party) that acts as a go between with other senators. My guess is that Cornyn would play that role in a Gonzales nomination since he has good conservative credentials. I have serious doubts that Cornyn would say 'no' should the president and a fellow Texan ask.

it's Cornyn's way of saying he won't be a nominee, here is the better choice. Again, I think the fight comes earlier rather than later and it will be Luttig that get's the first go at it as it might take more than one, if the first get's Borked. When the "fili's" come in there may be no choice but the launch the "nuke" and the hottest summer since 34 comes into play.

Yet, there may very well be a situation that arises many have not considered. Rehnquist could resign within the week or month as well making way for the posibility that 2 Justice seats would become available at, or essentially at the very same time.

Who do you think would be the nominees in this scenerio? For me...?

Luttig first.

Then between 3 for the other seat in order of ideal selection:

1. Alberto R. Gonzales
   
   
2. Edith Brown Clement
   
   
3. Janice R. Brown

The rest are toast.

Other than being from Texas, I mean?

Bush's history with Gonzales is why I still think the's the odds-on favorite. Bush promotes people that he knows and trusts. That's in place with Gonzales, but I really don't know about Cornyn.

Erick:

You asked " Could we be chasing a red herring? Could it be that Cornyn is doing POTUS's work on Owen?"

That is indeed going on; as I type the wires between DC and Texas are burning up, but just for the purpose of adding her into the mix.  She might well be the pick, or might not, but I am told POTUS wants to have her vetted.  Other women might be added as well, but I have heard nothing but the reportp re: Owen, which is real.

I believe Rove consulted on both Owens' and Cornyn's campaigns for the Texas S.Ct.

Does that mean I endorse X?

Or, perhaps, that X is so far-fetched as to not warrant notice. Like much of what Cato does.

Aren't there multiple non-squishy true strict-constructionist/conservatives already sitting as a federal circuit judges? Or maybe a Senator -- who is aware of what the Constitution actually says -- of a state with a Republican governor?

As often as Justice O'Connor has misread the Constitution, surely Bush would be able to place someone in the court who is much better. I'm not saying we should replace a moderate with another moderate, but there should be enough conservative legal minds available that the President should have some good options for a nominee. It's not like he hasn't had 5 years to think about this.

I'm a former paid staffer in Cornyn's 2002 campaign polling/oppo-research shop. Talked to two top sources in Cornyn's camp-- one flat out denies the rumors, the other is less declarative (but certainly doesn't confirm the speculation).

Full story here-- http://lonestartimes.com/?p=1117

It was too insane.

Cornyn may not know that he is the nominee yet.  And even if he did, he can't ppossibly say yes right now.  That would completely spoil the President's announcement, and would suck all the attention today away from honoring the first woman to be a SCOTUS Justice and focus it on the nominee.

Whether he's the guy or not, he has to deny it until Bush makes it official.

Cornyn was one of the most outspoken supporters of President Bush's nominees in the Great Filibuster Fight this year.  It is quite possible that Bush was only consulting Cornyn on choices of O'Conner replacements as it will be Cornyn who will once again take up the torch for Bush in the Judiciary Committee battles.

I just hope that whoever Bush nominates, they only take ONE cloture vote, and have Cheney waiting in the wings to unleash the Constitutional Option on day one.  Don't give the Dems weeks or months of bickering and pandering to the MSM and their base to destroy a nominee's character through baseless - and usually completely false - character attacks.  Get it out of the way Day 1 and bring an end to the un-Constitutional judicial filibuster.

UPDATED 4:54 PM- Source number two is now being more declarative- and says there is no indication whatsoever that Cornyn will be getting the nod. With a 99% degree confidence level, LST is prepared to call this rumor OFFICIALLY DENIED.

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=1117

It wasn't hard to call.

I didn't see this thread earlier, but I have heard, independently, the same rumors.

I tend to disagree with the theory, but I think Cornyn is awesome.

Here's why:

Cornyn for Supreme Court?

Still, I just think it'll be someone currently "in-robe."

However, in this case, please read the second link:

The witness list for today's hearing was remarkable for its extraordinary on-sidedness [sic]. The deck was stacked in favor of a massive and unlimited guestworker program. The topic of the hearing ostensibly was "Immigration and the economy". Leading off the hearing, deputy labor secretary Stephen Law proposed a wide-open foreign worker program, for every sector of the U.S. economy. He was joined in supporting this proposal by the other witnesses, including Tom Donohue president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Dan Griswold director of Trade Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, and Princeton sociology professor Douglass S. Massey.

Based on that one-sidedness, I think we can assume that Cornyn mostly agrees with those he hand-picked to testify.

Cornyn did even have the decency to sign on to the lynching apology which passed through the Senate a couple of weeks ago.

Furthermore, as a lawyer, I find his vailed threats against judges to be disturbing and uncalled for.

as a lawyer, I find his vailed threats

Don't even try to drum up business here. We only hire lawyers who can spell.

going to limit your comments to my late night typing, or will you actually address my point?

Seriously... What do you think of Dewine.  I really like the guy.

will you actually address my point?

OK, I addressed your point. I gave that note a "troll" rating. Satisfied?

I did that because you tried to spear Cornyn with the 'lynching' thing, which is widely despised in these parts as the use of the U.S. Senate as a toy to stage a publicity stunt. It is the act of creatures of type politician.

"use of the U.S. Senate as a toy to stage a publicity stunt."

So you think the majority of Republicans were engaged in a Publicity Stunt?

I have more respect for them than that.

Both Republican and Democratic office holders are politicians first, and party members second.