Redstate

"Three-quarters of Washington says the Stevens rumor is garbage. The other quarter is right. "

I want more.

I'm glad we'll finally get some good conservative judges to interpret the law and stop the homosexual agenda from taking our children into Sodom & Gomorrah.

Smarter trolls, please.

And I'm hoping we get some good conservative judges to read what the framers wrote in the constitution and stop the Calvinists from taking our children into Puritan New England.

In other words, the Dems want to make sure the conservative who is appointed is reasonable, but they intend to also clean the floor with him to show the base they aren't kids getting spanked by the Republicans, though that is what is happening.

I understand that you'll criticize the Democrats for their fight because you'll disagree with the merit of their argument, but aren't you generally happy with this scenario? I mean, surely you understand the politics of the base as regards the SCOTUS nod, and if it's all Dem bark and no bite, I think it's a pretty reasonable (non-despicable) strategy by Reid.

The poster was warned that his comment was inappropriate. Understanding that yours was a retaliation, the next time please let it slide and know that we are paying attention, and out of line comments will be dealt with.

The Chief needs to go ahead a step down, I'm sorry; "God Bless Him", but its time.  

Stevens leaving would be fun to watch, you think the left was upset about Sandra D. leaving they would lose it if Stevens or Ginsburg stepped down.  

I have suggestion for the bench who hasn't been talked about.  Plus its a non-judge person the current hot-talk trend.  Former head of the RNC and Bush-Cheney 04 Gov. Marc Raciot.  

I'm not sure that a professional partisan is the way to go.

"little deep throat" source been so far?  I haven't been able to track all the predictions.

t.h.

ps. I'm aware that these current "updates" are not solely from "the source"

The staff is focusing on both female and racial minorities for the O'Connor pick.

I miss the days when politicians actually made arguments to persuade voters, rather than symbolic appointments.

I guess that I have to become resigned to this, but I expected better from President Bush

why is the search expanding to the state level and non-judges now?  I figured that all of the candidates would have been well looked at by now.  Is all of this "contemplative" stuff for real or just PR spin?  I always assumed the former as this has been the moment that the WH has been waiting for for more than 4 years.

Is running at 90% accurate -- and I'm pretty sure is right about the other 10%, which just is slow to transpire.

I'm inclined to give GWB something of a break since no less a conservative authority than President Reagan committed during his campaign to install a woman to the bench.  So long as GWB sticks to his primary pledge of appointing someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, who cares if he or she also happens to be black, hispanic, or polka-dotted?

"Needless to say, most of the speculation has centered on the question of whether I would consider a woman to fill this first vacancy. As the press has accurately pointed out, during my campaign for the Presidency I made a commitment that one of my first appointments to the Supreme Court vacancy would be the most qualified woman that I could possibly find."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/search/speeches/speech_srch.html

The White House had conducted a cursory review of non-federal bench judges, but was focusing on federal level and, in particular, circuit court level judges to mitigate concerns of experience.

However, the White House very much wants to catch the Dems off guard and not give them a chance to destroy a nominee in the process.

I wrote a diary about this yesterday.  To summarize, I think that the female and Hispanic candidates mentioned so far have weaker qualifications and that, thus, they would be less effective in persuading other members of the Court and less reliable.

Reagan's appointment of O'Connor is a little different.  She was the first woman and that was important.  I don't think that means though that her seat should automatically become a woman's seat.

I can understand the concern about catching the dems off-guard, but that cuts both ways...worst thing would be to go after someone who has not been as thoroughly vetted as someone like Luttig and get caught off-guard yourself.  

If the WH picks someone that the dems can destroy, the WH will have no one but themselves to blame...they know the stakes and they know better than anyone how the game is played...if they are stupid enough to pick someone that could be blocked when they have a 55 seat majority in the senate, I have no sympathy for them (unless they do it for political reasons, but that's a whole 'nother topic).

thanks.

I'll take 90% over reading tea leaves any day.

t.h.

"I can understand the concern about catching the dems off-guard, but that cuts both ways...worst thing would be to go after someone who has not been as thoroughly vetted as someone like Luttig and get caught off-guard yourself."

Absolutely.  Can you say Souter?  Thanks, John Sununu.

If I were the White House, I'd stick with one of the four above.

Yes, I know the Dems are "prepared" for whoever, but it doesn't matter WHO the GOP picks, you gotta think that they are going to fall into one of two categories:

1. Acceptable to the Dems but not the base
   
2. Acceptable to the base, but not the Dems.

Cornyn seemingly would be acceptable to BOTH, but then you're replacing SDO's slot with a man.  If you are going to do that, might was well get Luttig or Roberts on board.

They're not going to pick someone out of the Grapefruit Leagues for this. The whole Laura Bush thing may be a tipoff to the fact that Bush may be looking at a woman to fill O'Connor's seat.

That's my suspicion, and I'm sticking with it. Luttig for CJ.

"Senator Reid has, in private, conceded that the Democrats are going to lose this fight, ..."

Where did THIS concession come from?

Souter looked good under similar logic...

If Bush is limiting his SCOTUS nominations to "one white guy", then I hope they know enough about Cornyn if that's their choice over Luttig, Roberts, et al.  Also, I hope they don't spend their "white guy" nominee on an lifelong academic like McConnell.

to me why you are willing to so readily accept the "one white guy" formulation.  If the Democrats are going to fight no matter what, why not swing for the fences by trying to appoint a justice who has the chance to be influential?

Also, McConnell is not just an academic.  He's all ready sat on the 10th Circuit.

First choice, followups in order of preference...

Replace O'Connor with...  Garza/Estrada/Jones/Owen

Replace Rehnquist with...  Luttig/Alito/Cornyn/Roberts

Replace 3rd position with... JRBrown/Jones/Owen

Replace 4th position with... Estrada/Cornyn/other originalists not already attempted.

Souter was a guy NOBODY knew well.

President Bush and his people might want to pick somebody that THEY know well, but is a cipher to the Democrats and their allies.

If Bush picks a guy nobody's thinking about and comes out with a full-steam push for him, perhaps they can bowl over Specter and get the process moving quickly.  The Democrats will take a little time to dig up attacks on the nominee, giving Bush a head start in describing the nominee to the public.

I lack the knowledge and discipline to come up with a list, but perhaps it would behoove a conservative and/or Red State poster with both to develop a roster for the best possible court, that is, the nine justices who through their jurisprudence, leadership and perhaps personal examples would constitute the perfect Supreme Court.

A purely theoretical exercise, I suppose, but it still might illuminate. Don't forget to provide intellectual ferment.

And diversity. Have to have diversity.

Three may retire, and you want more?

If the President really does get to pick three, then we could very well see Roe and company overturned next summer.

A 5-4 majority would satisfy me until the next Presidential election.

I'm starting to expect this:

  Replace O'Connor with a woman

  Replace Rehnquist with Luttig/Roberts/Cornyn

  Replace third with Al Gonzales

love affair with Priscilla Owen for SCT justice.  Putting all else aside, I just don't think she is in that league of intellect.  She's fine for the 5th, but the Supremes are a whole different ballgame.

Scalia

Thomas

Luttig

Alito

Garza

JRBrown

Jones

Estrada

Roberts

- but the justices do have to face an ultimate term limit eventually.

Garza/Estrada for O'Connor

so the pressure for a woman in the 3rd pick keeps Gonzales off the table.  

Gonzales is not suitable as one of the first 3 picks.

Assuming 3 excellent picks, I could see Gonzales as the 4th pick at the end of Bush's term such that recusal issues are minimized.  

Still would prefer a more reliably conservative pick than Gonzales.

Scalia

Thomas

Posner

Easterbrook

McConnell

Luttig

Roberts

Wilkinson

Alito

I'd rank Thomas over Scalia, but that list looks good to me, from what I've read.

I just mind if they do so to the extent that they ignore good white male jurists.

I would much rather have a white guy who is an originalist than a woman, african american, hipanic or ? who is a schitzophrenic moderate judge who doesn't realize the constitution is supposed to anchor their decisions.

I would also like to see them avoid appointing just a conservative.  Sure I might agree with the conservatives decisions, but I probably won't care for how they reached them, if they aren't grounded in the text of the constitution.  There is very little difference between a living breathing conservative or liberal when it comes to the damage to the constitution.

today.  His recent decision in Kelo wasn't appreciated much up here in his home state.  

Have to say that if there is any mistake Bush 43 needs to avoid it is the Souter mistake.

Judd Gregg's father, other than that nobody really had much of a clue what he was like.

I agree vetting is important, but I would much rather Bush risk a borking and appoint a known entity than go for the stealth one to have an easy appointment proccess and get bitten again.

I do want more in that sense as well.

But I was referring to more information in my comment.

and I am not sure he would be suitable anymore by a 4th pick to the dems.  

I am also not so sure I like Owen as a pick, although if I had to choose between her and Gonzalez I would take her.

Well-stated.  It's not clear to me that Owen, Jones, etc. even have a judicial philosophy.  They're dangerous picks.

surely you understand the politics of the base as regards the SCOTUS nod, and if it's all Dem bark and no bite, I think it's a pretty reasonable (non-despicable) strategy by Reid.  

All the while the Dems are critizing Bush and telling him not to name an "Extremist"(their words not mine)and that Bush should nominee at Moderate and if he does not Bush will be the one that starts the fight.  In effect, The Dems are saying they are allow to satisfy their base but Bush is not.  

I say to you, surely you understand the politics of the base as regards the SCOTUS and campaign promises.  What is good for the Goose is also good for the Gander.  

I looked up his biography today. (One version here. A fine man and thinker, but 65 years of age.

I seem to recall that he's not.

was a lefty troll posing as an "evil conservative" (especially when I read his previous comment). It that's the case, then the "retaliatory" trolling was even more unacceptable. (I wonder how much lefty vs. lefty trolling RedState can handle before everyone reasonable just quits reading.)

Um, right. That's exactly why I assumed that he understood the politics of the base re SCOTUS. Republicans are having to deal with it too. Bush will appoint a conservative because of his base's demands. Reid will fight the nominee to some degree no matter what because of his base's demands.

I never said the Republicans couldn't satisfy their base -- in fact the acknowledgement that Bush HAD to do so was implicit in my comments -- so please don't play gotcha or frame me as some sort of hypocrite with invented positions or statements. I understand this site isn't "for me" and my protestations justifiably carry no weight, but that sort of thing is a little annoying nevertheless.

Posner has one of the sharpest intellects in all of the country.  He's so smart that I'll even forgive him his agnosticism.  He is too old, but this was a dream lineup for me.

with this scenario"

If the result is we get a good nominee confirmed, I suppose we'll take what I can get.

But the "politics of personal destruction" isn't a good way to get good people to serve the people of the United States. It makes it that much hard to find a qualified nominee next time. Not every enjoys having their private life scrutinized and being slandered on the floor of the Senate.

Being mean just for the sake of the Democratic base, isn't fair to any of the nominees. I know life isn't fair, but we should expect more from our elected representatives. I'd expect the same from the Republicans if it's a Democrat President making nominations. If you don't like a candidate, state your case and just vote against him or her. No need to yell into the camera or call names. They're supposed to be adults.

I have to say that I have little respect for Thomas though I like the way that he votes.  He's not the type of justice who tries to persuade his colleagues.  He doesn't speak during oral arguments and he doesn't write many opinions.  All in all I consider him a minor disappointment (not in Souter- Kennedy territory though).  This is why I'm concerned about an affirmative action appointment.

"If you don't like a candidate, state your case and just vote against him or her."

I agree. I think that the filibuster should be on the table, but absolutely this needs to be on merits and not a smear job for smearing's sake. Every nominee is going to have something that can be built up into a filibusterable offense -- anything can be puffed up into a Manichean red meat factory -- but that would be juvenile.

I'm hoping Reid has a (limited) list of absolutely untenenable candidates who will be filibustered and he's shared that with the president. That way the president knows, and the Democrats aren't tempted to decide to filibuster first and ask who the nominee is later.

But overall I think most of the nominees deserve a fight and an up or down vote.

He's also been an active litigant on religious freedom issues.  Plus, he's perhaps the leading scholarly critic of Roe v. Wade, which has to count for something.

If the Democrats don't know anything about Bush's nominee, I can see them stalling for more time to dredge up allegations on the person.

They'd say something like, "Yes, President Bush, we're trying to confirm him as quickly as possible, but he hasn't told us what he thinks of Roe v. Wade yet and we're still trying to get access to all of his medical records. Oh, and we really need to address the 'serious allegations' that he harassed a couple girls back in elementary school."

Good points. I've usually only evaluated the judges by paying attention to what they do say and write, and using that to evaluate how they think.  I like the way Thomas thinks.

Influencing fellow justices isn't something I've considered yet, but if President Bush only gets two picks, that could be very important.

The only nominee being mentioned who I can see deserving a filibuster is Gonzales.  That would be because it is arguable that he is being nominated for loyalty and cronyism reasons rather than because he is the best judge available.  But since he has TX Supreme Court experience, even that case is weak.

The others are all long-serving, respected judges or Senators who have judicial experience.  If the President nominates Paris Hilton, then fine, filibuster.  But that is the type of "extreme circumstance" that it exists for, not because the minority doesn't like a certain nominee's views.

I'll leave that determination to the people who know -- on both sides -- until the nominee is announced. Then I'll do some research. Until then heck if I know who does or doesn't "deserve" to be filibustered, and I'm not going to research three dozen potential nominees ahead of the announcement, cause Lord knows Bush'd pick someone I didn't think of.

"He's not the type of justice who tries to persuade his colleagues...he doesn't write many opinions."

Do you know what you're talking about?

Thomas wrote 34 opinions last term, more than any other justice and nine more than Scalia.  Thomas wrote the most concurrences (12) and the most dissents (14; Scalia, 7).

Thomas isn't as vocal on the bench, but his prose is more influential.  He helps create a body of law in concurrences and dissents that don't get the attraction of the majority opinions but that influence the historical look at the law for future generations.

Also, do you really think that Scalia, who does "try" to persuade people off the bench, is more successful in persuading his colleagues than Thomas?  Or, should I say, is Scalia successful at all in persuading, any more than Thomas?

Totally agree with your defense of Justice Thomas.  The libs say he's a lapdog of Scalia, but nothing could be further from the truth.

He is the only true originalist and we're lucky to have him on the Bench.

Plus, Scalia wasn't exactly defending federalism in the Wine Shipment case, or in the Medical Marijuana case where he ended up letting Wickard thrive and rule the several States....

Well, I want the more that you did not intend...heh.

Erick,

Is JRB anywhere on the radar for O'Conner's spot?

I have to admit that I wasn't up on the data from the last term.  

Still, I can speak from a certain perspective.  I teach Con Law and I can say that I have witnessed many students who I could see were persuaded by Scalia's arguments -- that's a good thing.  The same can't be said concerning Thomas.

You make a good point about Scalia.  On the Court itself, written opinions usually come too late to persuade other members. Other CJ in the past have used the discussion time on the Court as a means to forge agreement.  (Rehnquist hasn't been too great in this regard.)

I think that we could probably come to agreement on the perfect nominee.  I would like an intellect with an affable disposition -- someone like McConnell.  (Scalia's biting sarcasm isn't a wise strategy.)

I think it's doubtful for the same reason that promoting Thomas or Scalia to chief is doubtful - it means that another lengthy battle must be fought over a qualified nominee.  JRB just took two years to get the bench, so let's open another vacancy again?  I don't think it's a prudent choice.

Republicans in Congress did a poor job in her confirmation.  They focused only on her life story in order to distance themselves from her controversial ideology.  

Substantive due process in all forms must be avoided and, personally, I'm not comfortable with her defense of Lochner.

I don't even think it is just the base here (for Supreme Court judges)...it is the totality of the majority that elected Bush.  Most of these believe that the constitution has been streched well beyond its original meaning and want to go back to the original interpretation.  I can understand why this would be irritating to those on the left.

A judge's personal opinions don't matter if the judge will follow the Constitution.

The question I would ask is:  Do we have any way of knowing he won't be a right-wing activist on the bench?

I disagree that most Americans want anything of the sort. I assume you feel the justification for Roe v. Wade is not admitted under an originalist view of the SCOTUS' purview? If so, here's a poll regarding American's "desire" vis-a-vis the "stretching" of the Constitution by the SCOTUS:

If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?

6/24-26/05

Overturn: 29

Uphold: 65

Unsure: 6

Source. This poll was an NBC news poll, but there's a Pew poll with similar results on that page, and all of this in spite of the fact that half of Americans don't agree with abortion. So they appear to be going out of their way to say the SCOTUS should uphold Roe.

The majority of Americans absolutely don't want to go "back to the original intepretation" because they don't view the SCOTUS in the same ideological framework -- originally, evolutionist, whatever -- as do committed partisan flacks on either side. They don't care, and generally only care when it effects them or could effect them, and even then there's generally no real stable ideology behind their viewpoint. It's usually what they think of as fair.

Your assertion on the wishes of the American people, even Bush voters, vis-a-vis the new SCOTUS justice is thus at the very least partly incorrect and a Known Fact.

If you feel the Roe v. Wade decision was constitutional, then nevermind.

...but I'm not a lefty at all.  I'm a Republican with some libertarian leanings.  I should not have been so quick to rise to the bait of that troll and will take a few deep breaths before popping off again.

while he may not be vocal, he is definitely a thinker, although he marches a bit to his own drum, I often find myself nodding to that beat.

I will take a reticent Thomas anyday over another O'Conner or Kennedy.

Polls change over time...and they have been progressing upward against the Roe v. Wade ruling since it was made.  That does now affect the idea that the Constitution should be adhered to rather than managed as a changing/living standard.  

It's a darn shame that the picking of Supreme Court justices has become so political.  That said, it should considered that the practically of adhering to the wording of the constitution would be the norm rather than political expediency.  I have a difficult time understanding why the leftists so discount the originalists of the constitution and they will advance a justice that (via previous decisions) obviously goes against the original constitutional writings to promote their agenda.  Know that what you cheer for now you will protest later as their definition of the constitution changes against your current beliefs...

The original interpretation has done us very well for 200 years...why the sudden need for change?

"somebody that THEY know well, but is a cipher to the Democrats"

Yeah, 'cause this White House is so leak-proof that their internal appraisals will NEVER make it into the hands of Harry Reid, Charlie Rangle, and the MSM.

Uh huh.

Off of me and off of the country.

Imagine a world without Stevens and O'Conner on the high court...

The constitution would be interpreted as though the words actually meant something.

People, even wealthy people, would have the right to freedom of speech.

Religious people would have the right to express their beliefs, even if they happen to be employed by the government.

Americans would be less burdened by racial discrimination in public colleges and government agencies.

Unborn children would have a new lease on life.

This seems too good to be true.

Sounds really grand to me....must be in another world!

Polls on Roe have absolutely not being doing that. On that site you can see that levels of support for abortion has remained fairly static since 1973, with no overall trending over thirty years. 24% say abortion should always be legal, 55% sometimes legal, 18% always illegal, and 3% unsure. And that's over 30 years.

And specifically to do with Roe, here's a Fox News poll found on that site:  

date   overturn  uphold   not sure

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

1/02   26           59        15  

1/01   29           62        9  

6/99   29           63        8  

1/98   30           64        6

Obviously a narrow sample, perhaps you can find a polling sample specific to Roe that goes back farther? Anyway, at least since 1998 the people who are against Roe, who want to overturn it, are becoming even more of a minority. People who know they want it upheld and dwindling too. People who are "not sure" are the ones gaining in the post-Clinton era.

That said: the more justices stick to the constitution, the better. Obviously rulings that reach outside of the constitution can be dangerous and eventually manage to vex both parties.

Any list that doesn't include Posner, Easterbrook and Kozinksi has something other than judicial brilliance as its goal -- results-oriented jurisprudence, perhaps?

Okay, you've proved my point...downward trend over the last 7 years.  The rest depends upon the poll question...

My major point is not with abortion but with the trend toward actual intrepretation of the words of the constitution.  You are over-reading into my comments one aspect of a poor constitutional interpretation.

Trade Kozinski for Alito.

Totally agree... Thomas is much more influential than the left will recognize.

You said: "Three-quarters of Washington says the Stevens rumor is garbage. The other quarter is right."  It can't be his own health.  A contact at the SCT says he has been very active, even playing tennis (and winning).  Do you have any idea why he might step down?  If not that, what makes your source believe a move is imminent?  (Other than the fact that he is 85.)

The judge who was removed from the list, just might work his way back on.

Who??  McConnell?

Wow... 85 and winning tennis matches!  Who the heck is he playing?

I'm not on the left, but I'd like to see some evidence that Thomas is "influential."

If he had a clear judicial record that indicated fealty to the Constitution as written, I wouldn't care.  But a politician who lacks the courage of his convictions to be pro-life is unlikely to be a conservative on the bench.

All the White House needs is a head start.

Some of us haven't studied every possible nominee. We pick the best from those we've heard of.

Okay, that was an opinion...okay?  I think most of the right thinking Americans will agree that it is better to read the Constitution from a more literal standpoint than from a "breathing" standpoint... so...?

#1 Questions are often phrased very poorly for these issues.

#2 This is especially true of abortion, because the pro choice people often speak of an overturn of Roe as abortin being made illegal.  This isn't the case-an overturn of Roe would simply put the matter into the hands of the states for them to decide.

I would trust more a poll that asks if they think Roe should be a matter for states to decide or a matter for the Federal courts.

Also, back to the poor phrasing of questions, the majority of people are for restrictions on abortions, and many of these restrictions have been overturned by the courts-just quote a poll on partial birth abortion, and you will see high numbers opposed to this, but the courts have been overturning partial birth abortion laws all over the place.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/justices/cantero.shtml

Cuban American Catholic, 45, Appointed to the Fl S. Ct. by Jeb,cum laude grad Harvard Law.  

Not sure if anyone in this thread has posted on him, but I started hearing about him from Florida folks today.  

Imagine a world without Stevens and O'Conner on the high court...

For all the knocks SDO has taken recently, I have actually come to conclude that I'd almost rather have Kennedy gone <u>more</u&gt.

At least SDO was on the right side of Kelo. And it seems to me that, lately, she's been behind fewer lame-brained decisions that Kennedy.

YMMV.

for making my point much more succinctly...  At any rate, it does not affect my original premise on the original meaning of the constitution and its intentional expansion via the lefts interpretation.

Bush is saying he's actively considering people "who have never been judges". Miguel Estrada is seriously in the running.

To annoy you.  I was merely pointing out that the Dems are saying if Bush nominees a Conser. that Bush will be the one starting the fight.  WHich is silly and we all know it.  We all know each side will play to their bases.

I disagree that this site is not for you.  I appreciate a debate and debates are boring if everyone agrees on most issues.  With people of all stripes on board it keeps the boredom away.  

I'd like to see the results of a question worded something like:

If Roe V Wade is ever overturned by a Supreme Court the decision would automatically go back to each state and it's voters.  Would you prefer the Supreme Court not overturn Roe V Wade or overturn it allowing each state's voters to decide this issue?

Bush is a conservative... Not a liberal... Bush nominates a conservate (mercy, what a surprise), Democrats take offense... fur will fly...politics goes on as usual...

This is discouraging...  I sure hope that if this comes up in the US, it will be fought with a vengenance.  Talk about freedem of speech laws, this would top them all...

Overturning Roe on almost any constitional reason other than finding a right to life for the fetus would automatically result in the issue going back to the states for them to decide.

Where it should have been left in the first place!

if Reid has privately conceded that they'll lose but still plan to mop the floor with our nominee for show- why would the president play ball?

In other words what's the incentive for tempering your choice for someone appearing more moderate when they're going to get painted as an extremist anyway?

I say go whole hog bc in the end 1/2 of the country is going to think he picked a right wing nut job anyway.

Bush should go ahead and choose the best candidates for the positions, and back them to the fullest.

There is going to be some level of Borking no matter what happens, the difference is this time the GOP is holding all the cards, and unless a nominee truly is extreme, the Dems aren't going to get away with holding up Supreme Court nominees.

The electorate may not care much about a vacant court seat in podunk Montana, but they will notice a roadblock at the supreme court level, for one thing the media is going to be putting up the big tents for this circus and they won't miss a beat.

You are right here...go for the gold.  If you leave it up the media, you'll lose every time.  It does not matter who is selected, they will be an extreme right winger!

I really think this is a whole new ballgame at this point.  It sounds like they've thrown out the shortlist.  I wouldn't be surprised if somebody totally off-the-wall ends up as one of the nominees.

I still think Bush goes for either Luttig, Roberts, or Cornyn for Chief (the white guy pick), AGAG for Stevens, and a woman or other minority pick for O'Connor.  I think the O'Connor pick is the one that will be the most interesting.  The Renny replacement is a fair trade.  AGAG may me more conservative than Stevens, but that's not hard.  For O'Connor, I think Bush is going to throw a real curveball.  Maybe Michael McConnell or someone quirky like that.  Maybe Janice Rogers Brown.  Maybe someone sitting on a state court in Alaska.  Who knows.  I think the message we're getting is sort of what I said the other night: Bush will want to make everyone so confused with a triple-play like this that by the time anyone figures out just exactly where each of the prospective Justices stand and how the balance of the Court would be altered, they'll all already be confirmed.

Ted Olson (CJ)

Scalia

Thomas

Luttig

Garza (or Estrada)

Clement (or Jones)

Roberts

Rogers Brown

Kozinski

Pryor

In addition to being a well-qualified group, the key factors included youth (except Olson), ideological diversity (from conservative to libertarian), and gender/racial diversity (largely for political reasons).

Chief Justice.

I think he should nominate Thomas or Scalia for that one.

OK, I goofed.  Bill Pryor is my bonus Powerball pick.  Ted Olson would retire in 10-15 years, and then Pryor will be ready for his job.

are Political Junkies!  Most people are LEAD to believe that if the SC overturns RvW it would be illegal.  My point is put that info in the question and you'd get a much different outcome.  

One has to be more of a thinker to appreciate the nuance of Thomas' opinions. Thomas is a true originalist and thus tries to always keep in mind the historical context of the framers and their original intent. For a very good reason. What they did was good. It was flexible. It allowed for balances of power, checks. They came up with this crazy chic kind of deal where if noone likes the way things are going, you can get a 2/3 majority of congress in there and make an amendment. Like that School House Rock song, I'm just a bill...

So Thomas thinks it. He stretches it, he works it. What would this have meant to the fundamental principles of liberty and that pesky preamble. Thomas looks at these issues through a prism of his own experience compared to the ideal. And he goes for the ideal, wonderful, pure original intent. It's beautiful in its simplicity, but much like the mainstream left likes to denigrate GWB's thinking ability, they love to just roll their eyes, and make asinine comments. I.E. Thomas is the token. Just doin what the white folks on the bench want him to do.

I know I'm not the only person waiting for the decision to come down so that I can get to that Thomas or Scalia concurrence or decision. It is always a thing of elegance and beauty to behold.

thinks of Thomas as nothing more than an idiotic token who shouldn't be on the court.  

I sometimes think liberals hate him so much because he doesn't fit inside their box of what an intelligient African American man should be.

Thomas certainly won't be shoved inside any boxes, but the ridicule he endures, because he refused to be boxed in is undeserved.

Perhaps it's a whole new game because the White House is now considering 3 picks over 12 months instead of 2 picks over 6 months. Erick alluded to this in this post....

Thanks for saying what I was thinking...but could not put in words...NormaJ and Just Me...  Well, maybe I'mn just over my head here...heh.  Thanks...

Judicial decision-making by polls!

And quick to anger to boot. Thanks for the clarification.

Since I recognize a lot of the usernames these days,  when I see an unfamiliar one spouting off some strong rhetoric in opposition to one of my positions I tend to jump to the conclusion that it's some obnoxious liberal begging to be banned. Unfortunately, that often seems to be the case. I'd much prefer it to be a Republican/libertarian.

Sorry for the outburst of mistaken identity.

sodomy, baby killing, and burning the flag are not protected rights, but freedom of speech (campaign finance), freedom of religion (commandments, prayer at football games, etc), and the right to property are.

imagine that.

I was so impressed by his arguments in the 2000 election case. Don't know much about his legal background though, or his view of the constitution. But I loved the way he was unintimidated by the tough questions and I thought he came off as much more scholarly then his opponent in that case David ???.

Is the Stevens rumor the same one Prof. Bainbridge reported on his blog, that Stevens is going to submit his resignation but only if Rehnquist resigns first?

In Lawrence v. Texas is a thing of beauty.

At some point, we will not be able to get qualified, normal people to serve in appointed/confirmed positions.  Most people don't want their names turned into a verb.  ala Bork.  

I read, in the WSJ I believe, that NARAL had hired one of Reid's former staffers and they have filed Freedom of Information Act requests on the financial disclosures for all of the potential nominees they are concerned about.  Apparently, they are trying to find private and embarrassing financial information so as to hit hard where it hurts.  

After watching the Bolton nomination, I can't imagine why anyone would consent to serve if they had to go through that.  Private sector jobs aren't that hard to come by.

The media constantly portray Thomas as a lightweight.  I wonder if students are harder to convince if you tell them they are reading second class arguments?  

(okay, I don't wonder, I think it is true that they are easily convinced by Scalia because the have been convinced that Scalia is smarter.)

You know, by now, if Thomas is only reading the Subject Lines, or lastest comments box, he is getting the big head.

Maybe to knock him down a notch, someone should write a "Thomas Stinks" comment.

most of my students can't even name a Supreme Court Justice -- let alone know anything about their reputation for smarts.

Most of the comments here concern why people like Thomas (I like him too).  But, being influential is different -- that means having an effect on the other justices on the Court, lower federal court judges, or the legal community at large.  I've seen no evidence that he is influential in this regard at all.

to get a nominee from the outside.  From a pragmatic point of view, a Thomas or Scalia nomination would mean one more confirmation battle that would bog down legislative priorities.  It would also allow the dems another 6-8 weeks to hammer the "extreme" nature of Scalia or Thomas.  Given what Bush would like to accomplish, I just don't think it makes sense to put Scalia or Thomas in as CJ.  

While the CJ has some procedural powers that allow him to guide the substantive development of the law, IMHO they are not significant enough to justify Bush going through a Scalia/Thomas CJ nomination fight.

the WH is likely considering is the legislative agenda that is going to get hijacked while the Supreme Court drama plays out.  The more extreme the nominee, the longer the drama will play out and the longer things like social security, tax reform, etc. will fall by the wayside.  Bush's best chance on some of those issues is going to be in the next 9 months...once we get into the full swing of the '06 election cycle, the more controversial proposals will likely die a quiet death and won't fare much better after '06.

I think this is a good point.  Nobody wants to put themselves through the meat grinder the dems have planned.  

This is one reason I think Estrada just gave up, he got tired of the politics games.

I can honestly say I don't know that I would want to sign up for something like this, and I also think some things should be off limits-there is no reason an abortion group-or some other interest group should have access to detailed information about anyone.  

I wonder what the president of NARAL would think, if all of her/his financieal informatoin was published in the NYTimes.