Redstate

.....I suppose I could support her.  I don't trust academics as a general rule.  Teaching, and especially research, requires a lot of thought about what isn't - hypotheticals, "utopian" idea of law (what should be rather than what is), and such.  This is not particularly good practice for applying the Constitution as it was meant to be applied, and leads to lots of academics with grandiose visions of making ideal public policy through law.  Many have little, if any, practical work experience, and the good ones have been isolated from any practical application of the law for perhaps decades.

But of the academics, I would sooner see Glendon on the Court than McConnell (true he's now a judge, but I still think of him as an academic).

I don't know that much about her, but I hope she is not the one.

Nothing personal, but she is too old.  If my math is correct and the dates in her bio are correct, assuming she was not a child genius, she is approximately 67-68 years old.

There are several other well-qualified candidates that could serve on the bench far longer than her.

Erick, not for anything, but your credibility is questionable at best after the CJ fiasco.  It was very surprising after you called O'Connor when nobody else did.  Care to explain what happened?

I think I would like to see him nominate Luttig.  

But I think that there is now this impression that forever more the O'conner seat must be a woman's or at least a minorities, so I doubt he will nominate a man, especially a white man.

I think Bush would do well to choose a strong originalist conservative, or the base that wants one is going to hit the roof.

Never been a judge, older than most of the other candidates, known only from legal articles. Abortion stance that abortion is only  necessary because we don't give enough support to pregnant women...

Not gonna happen.

Would we have such an interesting discussion about the role of Catholics in government. Because, you see, Glendon really has answered to the Pope. (When she headed the official delegation of the Holy See to the U.N. Conference on the Status of Women.)

Can't see how you focus the confirmation debate any more on abortion that it already is, but her nomination would give it a good shot.

I don't think this going to fly with the base myself, but who knows.  Maybe it will.

Oz

If Bush appoints Glendon, I swear I'll start voting for the Dems.  She would be an awful choice, and Bush once again will have screwed the base royally.  I can just see her "comparative approach" infecting the opinions of the Court and bringing us ever closer to a Constitution interpreted pursuant to worldwide norms, as called for by Glendon's study of "comparative legal traditions."

Sorry for the rant, but Glendon over Garza (or a number of other extremely well-qualified people) is just plain crazy.

like a Souter appointment.

Bush needs to bite the bullet, take a stand, and nominate a strong conservative, PCness, and the dems can go jump in a lake on this one.

As long as we're talking about law professors, how about Lillian BeVier, who teaches at UVA law?

http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/lawweb2.nsf/pages/lev2calc?OpenDocument&
amp;Fr1=yyy/lawweb/Faculty.nsf/FHPbI/2474&Fr2=/home2002/frames/lf_facul
ty.htm

Here are some interesting articles written by Mary Ann Glendon:

• Glendon on gay marriage
• Glendon on the Federal Marriage Amendment

And here's an interesting take on Glendon, reproduced in full from In Catholic Circles, a newsletter for pro-choice Catholics:

The Tablet, a liberal Catholic weekly magazine published in the UK, recently described the Vatican's appointment of Mary Ann Glendon to be head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as "a welcome appointment." The new post makes her, according to the Boston Globe, "the highest-ranking female adviser in the Catholic church." She was also the first woman to lead a delegation of the Holy See, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. She has previously served on the Pontifical Council for the Laity, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and as a consultant to the Pontifical Council on the Family. She is on the US President's Council on Bioethics and the editorial board of the conservative Catholic journal, First Things. Glendon refused, however to serve on the US bishop's National Review Board that is investigating the sexual abuse scandal citing her fear that "the bishops may not have informed themselves adequately concerning whether the members of this important board understand and accept the Church's basic teachings on ecclesiology, the role of the laity, and human sexuality" and complaining that the Board's existence made it possible that "the bishops will be held accountable to lay people...."

The Tablet's support for Glendon is surprising, as she is a frequent spokesperson for the Vatican party line on feminism (she's against it), gay rights and obviously most reproductive health measures.

Glendon's understanding of feminism is certainly onesided. She described 1970s feminism as "an anomaly ... a puzzling combination of two things that don't ordinarily go together: anger against men and promiscuity; man-hating and man-chasing." And she turned most people's understanding of reality on its head when she described the Catholic church as "one of the world's most energetic champions of the freedom and dignity of women."

Glendon has been one of the leading legal experts for gay marriage opponents in the Massachusetts legislature.

At the UN conference on women, Glendon unequivocally condemned the use of condoms, even to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. A delegation statement that she presented noted, "The Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programs."

Ok, well she's apparently too old and I -- a Liberalesque Dem -- really liked the quote she has on her home page. She's doomed and I'm guessing all the chatter you're hearing is springing from the same fad addiction that brought us stylish slap-bracelets and Eagle Eye Cherry.

You said:

"If Bush appoints Glendon, I swear I'll start voting for the Dems."

I'm assuming this is just a piece of ironic humor... Because if your concern is that she is too liberal then helping usher Hillary into the White House will cause you a major surprise as to the kind of Justices we'll have...

Sorry, I just think the whole threatening to become a dem if I don't get 100% of what I want thing is immature, short-sighted, counter-productive and useless.

Conservatives will not stop supporting someone because she is old.  Liberals will be happy for an old appointment.

Reid and other Democrats will be very hard-pressed to filibuster her.  She is a female, and Democrats need female votes.

She has taught for some time at Harvard Law School, those qualifications make it harder to say she is not qualified.  Further, she is well published, and internationally known.

Pro-Choice Catholics will support her even though she is pro-life.  She won't tip the balance of the Court, and is the type of person Traditional Democrats would be happy for.

Likewise, moderate Republicans should like her very much too.  She should be a favorit of the Snows, Collins, etc.

Well, you've been overly prolific on Red State pushing for Glendon, so I really can't trust or value your analysis very much.

You're probably right that the Democrats would not filibuster her, and she might even get the 90+ "yea" votes garnered by Scalia and Ginsberg (I'd need to hear her confirmation hearing to be certain about that).

She is qualified, sure.

As for the short shrift you give to the major concern: comments on this thread show that conservatives care very much about her advanced age -- not because they think she's not worthy of support but because they want a longlasting conservative influence on the court.

You've already posted 5 diaries in a single day on the woman, so I have to believe that though you're correct about her pros, you're  willingly and unmistakably blind as to her cons.

Glendon is interesting, but she is too old and, if someone that old is to be appointed, Posner is a much better choice.  In fact, I think that I'd take 15 years of Posner over 30 years of nonentities like Clement and Jones.

Appointing a youngish woman to the Court is very dangerous.  They are still pioneers on the Court and ready to be lionized by female law associations.  The problem with this is that most of these associations are liberal and it would be very hard for a woman justice to resist their awards and honorary dinners, etc.  If the female justice overturned Roe, those honors would stop.  There is, in short, a subtle pressure on female justices to conform to Roe that does not exist on male justices.  It was this pressure, I think, that turned O'Connor soft.  

She does have some cons; such as:

-no experience as a judge

-age

-Smarts (She is very smart, that concerns me)

-Proffessor (always a concern)

-a feminist (calls herself one)

But those potential cons are mitigated by the following:

-She will be one of 2 women on the court, and one should be a traditional feminist

-She may lack experience as a judge, but has a great knowledge of the law

-She may be smart, but she is consistant, which is a good quality.  Smart people who are consistant are more trustworthy than average people who flip-flip alot.

- Age is a problem, but she is replacing O'Conner; so how good of an appointment can one expect?  

Age is her only real problem for the right.  That, however, makes her much better likeable for the left.

Also, Stevens (who is 85) or one of the other liberal justices will likely retire before she does.  If that judge is replaced with a decent other judge, Roe is reversed.

If we can't reverse Roe in 10 years, we may lose our chance.  The time is now.

You've made some good points about the nature of academia, but I would distinguish academics from all-around intellectuals.  I'm all for bright, intelligent people being on the Court.  And there are plenty of conservative intellectuals out there.  The thing is, and I've never been able to figure this out, smart conservatives tend to go into fields like law, business, medicine, etc, while smart liberals gravitate towards academia.  I'm not sure what it is about academia that attracts liberals.  Perhaps the points you've touched on have something to do with it.  Liberals by their nature are idealists, and would much rather worry about a world that's never existed than the one that does exist.

And while some generalizations are often correct, there's always an exception.

Would a 49-yr old Margaret Thatcher have changed her views for a few women's groups?

Point made.

So, Dubya needs to go out there and find, well,  the judicial equivalent of a 49-yr old Margaret Thatcher.

That's how they'll paint Mary Ann Glendon, if she's the nominee.

Don't fool yourself that she'd be easily confirmed just because she's a woman.  Her paper trail makes her confirmation a nightmare.

It would be much easier to confirm a Luttig or Roberts, who haven't written anything that would be perceived as "extreme," concerning such hot-button issues.

Any word on why things fell apart with the Chief and did it shock the White House?  With only one spot, I think Bush will be pushed into naming woman or hispanic or both.  

You're right on Thatcher, of course, but Thatcher, in my opinion, is a once in a generation-type figure.  From what I can see, none of the rumored female candidates have any of Margaret Thatcher's strengths.  To be in the mix, they need aid from an affirmative action mindset -- something Margaret Thatcher certainly didn't need.

Oddly, Glendon strikes me as the most Thatcher-like choice by far (she retained her conservatism in the face of Cambridge liberalism), but she does have the age problem.  I guess that, if the choice has to be a woman, I would choose her.

"Professor" is the correct spelling.  There are plenty of online dictionaries to avoid bad spelling errors like this.

I'm in business, not in law, so please excuse me if I'm missing anything. But the first article says that she thinks civil unions (or nothing) can stand in stead of gay marriage if the law simply states a rational basis for doing so. However, in most of these cases, the inability of the state to provide a rational basis, or at least a compelling interest for the state to deny gay marriage, has been the reason for courts to rule against them. Even some Republican judges have taken that stand.

In the second article, she comes up with what she apparently thinks are these rational bases, but they have all been tried and many have failed.

I am most impressed with her biography. However, if the two articles are supposed to convey her smarts, then I must be missing something. In the first she simply tries to find a loophole (which may or may not exist), and in the second she trots out all the old canards about special rights, playing the class war card in the process, as though gays and lesbians are all well-to-do.

Sorry to be so hard on her, as her background clearly indicates that she is qualified.

At least with the Dems, I know we will have a crazy, messed up Court and I won't hold out any hope.  My own view is that we have squandered a significant opportunity over the last few years to dramatically move this country away from entitlements, high taxes, bigger government, etc.  If Bush can't even put a worthy Justice on the Court, I am going to be beside myself.

Do you not realize that Bush has cut taxes five times since taking office - each time over incredible democratic opposition?  

Entitlements? I agree that he biffed the Medicare issue, but he is trying to get incremental change rolling on social security. But your democrat buddies have demagogued the issue to try killing it...  In any event, he has started the effort at injecting market forces into both Medicare and Social Security. Even Reagan was afraid to do that.

Why don't we wait for Bush's appointment for SCOTUS before we threaten to leave the party.

Mr. Bush has been a great president.

Sounds like too much of a wild-card. Apparently pro-life, but would she be an originalist or like O'Connor and rule based on what her "heart" tells her?

Of course, we'd have to know a lot more about her to make a really informed judgment, but reading the previous links just gives me an uneasy feeling about her.

Constituency seats on the Court sometimes disappear for a season before reemerging, thus there would be a precedent for passing on a female appointment at this time (e.g. the Jewish seat disappeared with Fortas's resignation, leaving no Jewish Justice on the court until Ginsburg).  

So, if O'Connor were not replaced by a woman, the POTUS could replace Rehnquist or Stevens (when they retire) with a woman.  At that point, Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, or Janice R. Brown would have had time to get more experience as federal appeals court judges.

Of course, Laura's public opinions put the POTUS in an awkward position, but perhaps she intended to do that...

If the Dems want to argue that certain seats on the Supreme Court, like O'Connor's, are absolutely reserved for a woman, then let them, the public won't go for it.

And who voted for Laura? As much as I like her as First Lady, she wasn't on my ballot.

After ruminating on this potential SCOTUS pick for a few hours, I feel that the major disqualifier is her age.  As someone upthread pointed out, she has to be close to 70.  Why appoint her for a 10-year stint only to be replaced by some "moderate" southern Democrat who just happens to win the presidency campaigning as a centrist yet who still appoints uber-liberal judges to the bench?

The interesting thing is that out of all of the names that the WH has deliberately floated (Cornyn, AGAG, etc), none really scream "originalist legal star power."  I'm not sure why that is.  I would think that if POTUS really is committed to changing the direction of the country, he'd find a young, proven originalist to appoint to SCOTUS, especially given that this is the swing vote.

The White House needs to start focusing on what a potential judge would actually do once on the bench as opposed to simply playing ID politics.  I personally don't have a big problem with ID politics, but only when it's sort of an added benefit.  For example, the fact that the last two GOP Secretaries of State have been African-American certainly has an added political demographic benefit, but that was simply a side-consideration, as both Powell and Condi were ultimately qualified to do the job.

With SCOTUS, I feel like the ID part of it is becoming the most important factor.  First, it was Cornyn: a guy from Texas.  Then, it was AGAG: a Hispanic.  Now, it's Glendon, a conservative Catholic who's so Catholic that she actually worked for the Vatican.  And we know how important the Catholic voting bloc is (and I say this as a proud member of that Catholic voting bloc from a long line of members of that Catholic voting bloc!).

The point is, I really get the feeling that the WH is treating this SCOTUS vacancy like it was some mid-level ambassadorship and not the deciding vote on scores of social policy for the world's most powerful nation.

Give me Luttig or Roberts.

She's around 50, from Texas, a woman, and a proven conservative.  She has the votes to confirm and she would drive the left crazy and probably put to rest the judicial filibuster or at least make conservatives feel better about the Gang of 14 and their deal.  She'd be a good pick if, as the above poster points out, Dubya is set on picking a woman.  

I would love Posner on the Court.  While I would probably be called a center-left individual, I think from a pure Court quality standpoint he would be fantastic.  A different view like his on the Court can only improve the intellectual quality of the decisions.

It will never happen though, because the GOP base is so hell-bent on an "originalist" that someone like Posner and his law & economics methods doesn't stand a chance.

Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out why the focus is on reading the minds of a bunch of white men in the 1700's.  First, it's impossible to read the minds of what the Founding Fathers intended, so it results in no more valid of reasoning than any other put forth by the other Justices -- it's simply a method to claim validity for whatever result said justices want to reach.  Second, it's a simplistic argument, but these same people thought that Africans who were transported here were only 2/3 of a person, and were validly kept as slaves.  The Founding Fathers weren't infallible perfect geniuses, so it is reasonable for a civilized society to perhaps move forward on things and away from barbaric practices like executing minors and mentally disabled people.

I will say this for Glendon -- she got her start at a law firm of the highest quality.

Ah!  You're stating a common misconception of originalism that exists on the left (and probably also with a few on the right).  Originalism, IMO, does not mean that the Founders were infallible and that the specific values they chose to put into the Constitution are eternally sacrosanct.  As liberals often point out, if that were the case, individuals of African descent would still be treated under the law as second-class citizens or worse.  How, then, can we conservatives defend originalism?

Here's how: originalism isn't about looking at the values of the Founders.  It's about looking at the process.  You see, the process that the Founders put into place by which America is governed is the true genius of this republic, as it gracefully balances the primacy of the individual with the majoritarian nature of democracy.  As such, things like the authority of the Constitution, the means by which to amend it, separation of powers, etc, are all the things that are sacrosanct to an originalist, not any specific provision in those laws or in that Constitution.

Example: liberals often accuse originalists of opposing any gun control in the name of the Second Amdt.  Well, that's often true, as the Second Amdt guarantees the right to bear arms.  But, if tomorrow, two-thirds of each house of Congress and 38 states were to sign off on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to bear arms to deer hunters, an originalist would have to view that move as consistent with our constitutional republic.  This is also the reason, for example, that when a state legislature institutes civil unions, you don't hear outrage over the conservative blogosphere.  But when a state court forces the people of a state to institute gay marriage, outrage it is.

Now, of course there are probably some conservatives who couldn't care less about process and who are originalists simply because the ends brought about by originalism match their political goals.  But this is true in any area of politics.  I'm sure if the originalist process started bringing about, say, gay marriage all over the country, many conservatives would start to rethink their judicial philosophy.  But so would many liberals.  The point is, originalism is not about worrying about what a bunch of guys 250 years ago thought about what society's values should be.  It IS about figuring out how they thought the governmental aspects of society should be structured, as something that's worked so well for over two centuries would be foolish to change.  

A number of posters have commented on lack of bench experience.

SCOTUS has brief bios of all sitting members.  You'll note that

most had very limited time on the bench, in some cases only a

year or so just before their appointment.  Rehnquist had none.

The document is here  

Of the current women supposedly on the "short list", the two I would feel most comfortable with are Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown. I realise both are controversial and have a long paper trail, but they both represent the type of justices that GW Bush claims he likes. (ie,,Scalia..Thomas) Priscilla Owen, although well qualified, might not be as much of an "originalist" as some suggest.

Now is not the time for GW to nominate "unknowns" who have "potential" to become originalists. Nor is there any reason for GW to cave to pressure from the democrats. Bush has 55 republican votes, and even if you subract the "RINOS", he still will have 50 votes + Cheney.

I'd take Luttig, but wouldn't be happy with Roberts. Unlike Luttig, Roberts doesn't have much of a judicial record on the bench. There is no way to know what his judicial philosophy really is at this point. Roberts could very well be another Justice Kennedy over the long term. With Luttig you get a judge with a long record and you know where his judicial philosophy is.

Of the men on the short list, give me Emilio Garza or Luttig.