Redstate

It's a good thing we have RedState for this kind of information.

The mainstream media can't be bothered to investigate stories like this; they are too busy sneaking pictures of Bush writing notes to Condi at a UN Summit so they can laugh at the fact that, clearly unlike those in the business, the President sometimes needs to use the bathroom.

The MSM will wait until the nominee is announced or the name is confirmed here (or at another Republican blog), then put out the standard "[Nominee] May Shift Court To Right" article.

lacking...It's all based on Republicans won Democrats lost...but the hyperbole that "Democrats are saving their fight for O'Connor's replacement" is wrong.  Democrats do not have a fight left in them...The tenor of these hearings is showing a Democratic party in compliance with a moderate conservative view of the planet...the only issues that the left brings up, that is indicative of their traditional platform, is privacy and the commerce clause...

because liberals are not terribly interested in expanding the privacy rights and the extension of the commerce clause farther - they have no fight...

What are the thoughts from the RedState crowd on Thompson?

This is the first time I've seen his name come out of your sources.  Does he have a record outside of government advocacy?  Has he published any views on the Constitution or on the important legal issues of today, i.e. executive authority in wartime, abortion, marriage, etc.?

Since I know nothing about this Thompson fellow, I'll go ahead and say I'm all in for Jones for O'Connor.  That would make my week.

(see above)

THOMPSON IS TOO OLD

MORE OF A STEALTH CANDIDATE

DONT APPOINT A BLACK MAN JUST TO APPEASE THE BLACKS, BUSH HAS PUT MORE BLACK PEOPLE IN PLACES OF POWER AND ALL HE GETS IS "GEORGE BUSH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE."

LUTTIG or ESTRADA are the way to go.  They are younger than both of these people.

Jones is not a bad choice..she is in my top 5...but I think Ownes might be a better pick because she is younger.

Jones' age worries me

Owens's judicial philosophy worries me.

but Judge Roberts will be really hard to follow--he is one smart guy--blew everbody out of the water...

Erick,

Roberts came pretty much out of nowhere at the last minute.  

Are you expecting another appointment like that?  Lots of names to keep guessing or is this one a short list to begin with and the white smoke will be seen sooner?

Roberts name did not really come "out of nowhere."  He initially got active consideration, but fell by the way side.  I expect, however, that whoever is the pick will be someone we will not have actively thought of.

That said, most of the field is weak, with the exceptions of a Jones, an Owen, or a Luttig.

The President is not going to pick based on demographics, but he could make a pick based on sound philosophy and bolster that with race or gender.

Besides, picking Jones would be a subtle signal to conservatives that he is addressing his father's wrongs.  Jones and Souter were both in the White House the day Souter was picked.

Matter and Anti-Matter.

Erick,

What about Owens judicial philosophy bothers you?

Did something show up on the radar in the vetting and is that why she's fallen back from the other names?

Please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones please pick Jones

... AND HE'S NOT TALKING. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

yeah he did

no notes, just sat their and ran circles around everybody

HE IS A PHENOMENAL MAN..lets just hope he works out well for us

agreed, what is wrong with owens?

i agree i like jones better than ownes, but I PREFER LUTTIG OR THE GREAT ESTRADA BEFORE ANYONE WOMAN

he got accused of outing a CIA agent

Jones has spoken out critically of Roe, Owen has not.  But Owen is seen as extremely conservative and DEMs would put up much more of a fight (e.g., Owen's decision okaying Texas abortion restrictions that Gonzalez criticized in strong terms).

So bottom line: why pick an Owen who is going to get just as much opposition as a Jones (who happens to be more experienced on the bench) when Jones is a sure vote to overturn Roe whereas Owen is only a sure vote to approve some restrictions on Roe?  

BTW, that really is a question, hoping to hear from some who have done some more in-depth analysis of the two ladies than I.

A Thompson pick will (unlike Roberts who slipped by conservatives' notice of his true lack of originalist color) turn out to be a disaster for Bush with conservatives, no legal heavy credentials with no academic professorial background or judicial background and no reason for faith in him as a constitutional legal conservative, would not score many identity politics with those looking for a woman to replace O'Connor, and I can almost guarantee he (or his closest advisors) is smart enough to figure that out in the end (like I think he eventually was in the case of Gonzalez and Clement) when push comes to shove.

Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, William Pryor, John Cornyn, Emilio Garza.

The field is pretty strong if you look in all directions.  I don't deny that some of those people would be harder to confirm than others, but they're still viable candidates.

With the names Jones and Thompson floated, I am going with Estrada.

Bob Novak picks 'em? I didn't know that.

With this President, maybe God AND he pick them, but God's initials are NOT K.R., or D.C.

Why not Karen Williams of the 4th Circuit?  Her decisions on cases like Miranda suggest that she views the Constitution in the same way as Thomas and Scalia, but she doesn't have any rulings on abortion for Democrats to use against her.  She's a confirmable version of Jones and Owen.

I'm a new poster, but I've lurked here since last August.  Larry Thompson would be a huge disappointment to me.  He's old and has no track record.  Based on Novak and others, I thought Bush would go with a woman.  I think Karen Williams would be a geat choice.  She's very conservative and she's not nearly as controversial as Edith Jones.  As Novak stated, she's one of the most conservative federal judges.

1. Roberts was a very big mistake. He has tricked the Administration into thinking he's a conservative, or the Administration tricked us into thinking they wanted to nominate a conservative. He's a "brilliant" fellow and all, but it's now clear that he is an Establishment, Don't Rock the Boat kind of guy who is much too impressed with the "Institution" and its recent history. We need conservatives in philosophy but not in temperament, we need the most radical nominee we can get confirmed. Roberts obviously isn't even close to it.
   
2. Bush has betrayed us, the conservative movement, without which he would not be in White House. This from the man whose father who gave us Souter. He owed us, big time!

So let me put it in clear terms to them:

YOU MUST NOMINATE A HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE, WITH THE PAPER TRAIL TO PROVE IT, OR CONSERVATIVES WILL NOT COME OUT TO VOTE FOR THE GOP IN '06 and '08.

If Jeb Bush ever wants to be President, W needs to give us:

Edith Jones

Garza

Pryor

Larry Thompson is a LAUGHABLE suggestion.

that it's likely that the President will nominate Michael McConell.

... of the Thompson trial balloon before it even got to have a few hours of life to float out of the blogosphere (assuming Bush advisors are not clueless enough to ignore places like RedState and confirmthem)?

This post is one of the strangest I have seen to date here at RedState.

If Jeb Bush wants to be President? What does that have to do with anything? Jeb Bush is not running for President in 2008.

Conservatives will vote for the GOP in 2006 or 2008 even if a non-"hard core conservative" is nominated for O'Connor's seat. What, are they going to let the Democrats, who are so much worse, regain control instead? Or will they vote for the Constitution Party? Is there any difference in the ends?

Finally, you are being way too tough on the President and Roberts. What do you expect Roberts to do, go up there and tell the Democrats on the committee to shove it in their eye and yes he will rule against Roe and so on? He knows if he does that, he will very likely run into a lot of trouble in getting confirmed.

Let the man get to the bench first and make some decisions. No one knew Souter would turn out this way at this stage in his nomination, I don't think. Roberts seems like a good choice. He's just being prudent in his responses.

Take it easy. I'm kind of worried about you. These should be good times, don't get too upset. We're going to win this and put a good judge on the highest court of the land. Breathe easy.

On Roberts. That's all I'm sayin'.

When we assume bad news before it is realized, we deprive ourselves of enjoying the good news and, then, should our fears prove unfounded, we have forever lost the time we spent in a state of upset.

dr. sigmund gamecock freud

This attitude is an interesting hold-over from the period, oh I don't know, from about 1932 to 1980 where we really just did a whole lot of losing -- as conservatives, that is, but Republicans too to a lesser extent. Especially in terms of the Congress.

And so, despite the fact that we have had several years of total party control of the House of Representatives, Senate, and the White House, and we've won the vast majority of recent presidential elections, we still think that somehow we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

All we can really do is be ourselves, do what's right, and govern as best as we can. If we win elections, great. If we lose them, that stinks, but we will learn from them and win again soon. It's just one of those things where we can't let a potential loss in the future deter us from using the power we have now.

It's been a long time coming to have Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches at the federal level, and we've done a fair bit of good with it. Let's be proud of the good things we've accomplished and not taint them with premonitions of failure where there is none.

well said

I favor unabashed bold reaganite 60% majority producing conservatism.

And there is no reason to self-flagellate over someting we can't control, ie how Roberts will judge.

I trust Dubya until I'm betrayed.

5 years and counting...

@ Tim Saler:

I disagree profoundly. Roberts disavowed originalism in the hearings. He affirmed Griswold and Eisenstadt (the latter unprompted). He praised Justice Jackson. When asked how conservative he is, he reminded Schumer that he voted more often with Democratic judges on the DC Circuit than with Republicans. He said he believes in a right to privacy, and in substantive due process. He said President Reagan would have supported affirmative action. He said Roe deserves respect as a precedent and it would be a jolt to overturn it. Ad nauseam, he bowed to the Democrats, while there are 53 pro-life Senators.

He didn't give the Right anything, nothing whatsoever to suggest he is one of us.

Several of his memoranda suggest he had disdain for the conservative movement (think Weyrich, the O'Connor nomination memo), and he refused to join the Federalist Society.

What should I continue to adhere to the fiction that Roberts will be a Justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas?

where is ESTRADA and LUTTIGS NAMES?

them and PYROR would be the best choices

he is not in there mold,

he is in the mold of rehnquist

old school conservative, not movement conservative

what rulings has graza made that has makes him more conservative than gonzalez? this isn't a question to make a point, it literally is just a question

Yes, he's old school conservative, which is just fine with me.  Not sure why some want a fire-breather who has zero chance of being confirmed.

Just total unmitigated disaster, and I was the one trying to cheer his cause 3 days ago.  But what a total sad day this is. He's moving the court to the left, not the right.

I bet you right now Bush is wishing he hadn't picked Roberts after today.  He'll probably go with Edith Jones in an attempt to save his conservative bacon.  He has really blown it with Roberts.

he's smart , skilled, and walked circles around every Senator up there.  I pray that I am wrong, but I dont trust him at all.  total disaster waiting to happen.  

I just heard roberts, on and off, on griswold and the due process clause, and while I did not hear it all and have not read the transcript, what I did hear,

I DID NOT LIKE AT ALL!!!

But, he usually couches his statements in what the present circumstance is, what the law is now.

But, I do see a basis now for concern. His previous privacy and roe statements were not a problem. He may be trying to be too cute by half to hoodwink the dems and slipped up and was too clear when he meant to obfuscate.

But, we won't know till he rules.

i will agree with you that I would prefer an on the record originalist and a full court press on the issue, rather than cute games.

or if you can't do that, at least give me Janice Rogers Brown.  Can you say beyond brilliant?

It can still be done...

Roberts for Renny may, just may, move the Court left.  If that's true, the O'Connor replacement would have to be a true Scalia conservative in order to have the net effect of moving the Court to the right.

A better way to think about it is like this.

Renny and O'Connor are no longer on the Court.

Provided Roberts gets confirmed and Bush nominated a true conservative to fill the O'Connor spot, Roberts and Owen or Jones or whoever will be in their places.

Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor.

Owen or Jones or whoever is more conservative than Renny.

The result is a half-step to the right by SCOTUS as a whole.

It's not a dramatic conservative transformation.

But it will probably still be enough to uphold bans on PBA, get rid of racial preferences in public institutions, and avoid future Kelo type decisions.

Note that all of this is contingent on the president nominating a true originalist to fill the O'Connor spot, as well as one that can make it through the Senate.

We'll ignore the GOP like we did (to our peril) in 1992 ... and when the GOP loses a few Senators then we'll lurk and wait for the GOP to remember that its the conservative party and then we'll come back in 2008 or 2010.

We didn't (as conservatives) spend thousands of our own dollars and thousands of hours of our time to elect a President and Senate that does nothing for our core issues.

They've left the "small government" label behind.

If they leave the "conservative justice" behind as well, well, what's the point.

If Bush puts nominees on who aren't going to at least uphold partial birth abortion laws (i.e. aren't to the right of O'Connor) and end up not even interested in overturning Roe, then there is no point in going out and voting for the GOP until the get a message.

I don't see Thompson.  

I have no idea how conservative he is, but he's black and he's a man.

If Bush goes with someone other than a woman, it's going to have to be a latin.

On top of that Thompson is old, although at 59, he's closer than I had thought before I looked it up.

I think the person who said that given the names floated are Jones and Thompson that he expects Estrada is probably close.

Edith Jones make sense at this point in time though as well.  The window is closing on her, age wise.  

She doesn't come across as much of an originalist/federalist to me.  

I like Jones though, and think she would be an excellent pick.

pretty strong comments on record.  Gonzalez' comments on record also are what makes many conservatives concerned about him.

my breath.

I would be happy with Jones though.

why you would believe that. Granted, I'm not an attorney and don't know as much about him as some here, but I've listened intently to the hearings and haven't seen or heard anything from him that would lead me to your conclusion of despair at the prospect of his nomination.

I see Roberts as a strict interpreter of the Constitution, with no over-arching idealogy one way or another.  He has often spoke of his high regard of original intent, but also, it seems to me, does not do so in ignorance of ever-changing law and progressive time.  To me, his comment on Brown makes perfect example of this:  that he came to the same progressive or modern correct conclusion in Brown by strict interpretation, i.e., he saw through the issue of seperate but equal (even equal, perfectly) and posed that the inequality was derived, not because white and black schools were not perfectly equal, but because of the separation itself was unconstitutional.  I take comfort in that.  It says to me that he is indeed modest, studious, and will have the courage to interpret the law without an idealogical end in mind.  I could be wrong, but is that not the very definition of conservatism?

Bush needs the Base right now. He has been under relentless attack by the Running Dog press and the Democrats for the Mass Murder of Innocent Black Folks. He and the Sith Lord (that would be Karl, the Shape Shifter...) need to rally the Base to Crusade.

Nothing calls the Republican Base to a campaign of extermination, pillage, rapine, and plunder like Janice Rogers Brown.

Come on, guys. The Base needs a good fight to help Bush on the rebound. I'm thinking he knows this.

This is a job interview for Roberts. He is selling himself. That's what you do at a job interview. He knows that he already has at least 50 votes from GOP Senators, but I'm sure he doesn't want the Dems to filibuster.

It would be unwise to anger 45% of the people you are trying to get to hire you.

For copyright violation.

It doesn't matter if you include the little copyright sign. Reprinting an article verbatim without the copyright holder's permission is a copyright violation.

The system sneezed while I was trying to delete it. I've never been logged out while deleting a comment before.

The comment I was replying to is already gone.

I'm not saying Brown.  I'm saying Jones or someone like Jones who is not a stealth nominee.

I have problems with Brown's skill at jurisprudence.

I want someone who is conservative and who got an ABA rating of unanimously well qualified their last go around in front of the Senate (cuz they will probably get the same again).

I am incredibly disappointed in Roberts' performance at the hearings (I've felt this way since day 2) and have come to expect nothing from the president.  It sickens me that I worked so hard to get this man elected and re-elected -- never again.  I'll focus my political energy on state matters.

Also, those who say that Roberts is just having a job interview now are dead wrong in my opinion.  Why should one be ashamed of a commitment to save the lives of millions of babies?  The whole attitude that one should is an elitist Beltway attitude.

not really that well versed in this , so I'd like to ask questions if that's o.k.?

First, how long do we all think Roberts knew of his impending appointment?..Surely, it wasn't out of the blue.

Do we (RS'ers) think Roberts himself might have been consulted already as to the next appointment?

Finally, I think that Bush should be "setting the table" thinking about the upcoming SCOTUS minefields that lay ahead.  What are those major issues we here at Redstate think will be on the front burner, and do we think appointing someone youthful like Roberts should have weight in this appointment?  Thanks, just trying get more rounded and informed.

I'm giving Roberts (and Bush) the presumption that he is a conservative in the lines of rehnquist, scalia, thomas.  I hope not to be proven wrong.  If you read through the transcripts from thomas' hearings, and scalia's you'll see that he has not deviated from their statements to any great degree.

What he's doing is all about the math of confirmation.

Right now he needs to get 60 votes to break a filibuster.  If he were to openly come out against Roe or Casey, he'd lose almost all of the Dem caucus except maybe Nelson of Nebraska.  That only gives him 56 votes, not enough to break a filibuster.

If Frist were to then engage the nuclear option, he would need 50 votes (and then Cheney breaking the tie).

At that point he'd lose Nelson (if we really had him).  So we're at 55.

There are 4 pro-choice Republicans in the Senate.

Chafee of Rhode Island

Snowe and Collins of Maine

Specter of Pennsylvania

Presumably they would probably refuse to kill the filibuster for Roberts in this situation.

That puts us at 51 votes.

But no one is entirely sure how some of the other squishy senators would vote in this circumstance.

Where would DeWine stand?  Voinovich?  Smith of Oregon? Warner?  Others?

If frist were to try to break the filibuster, and fail, it would be viewed as a disaster and Roberts would be withdrawn and Bush would have to appoint someone more in line with Kennedy than Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas or not get anyone at all.

It's not a great method, but until we can get rid of Red state Dems in the senate, and get Reps with some backbone, that's the way the math works.

You're right about the math.  I've always wondered why we don't run conservative candidates in the primaries at least in Maine (but that's another story).

But I think that someone with the record of Roberts who was also affirmatively pro-life would be worth the fight.  Get someone with impeccable credentials who is not afraid to fight the good fight.  We should never be ashamed of our position on life issues and it bothers me that, at the very least, the Bush administration's choices seem to reflect shame before the Beltway elite.

Also, I think that we would win this fight.  Times have changed since Bork was rejected.  We have the power to win now.  Let them filibuster, let us use the constitutional option, I'll take my chances that the true and the right position on life will win out.

He's a white man from Alabama.  Can you imagine what Kennedy would say about him?  It would be a Bork like tirade again.  That being said, I love him.

Please pick Jones Mr. President.  A bright conservative woman will at least remove the complaint that we are not replacing O'Connor with another woman and she will drive the libs crazy.

There are 8 pro-choice Republicans in the Senate:

Chafee

Collins

Hutchison

Murkowski

Snowe

Specter

Stevens

Warner.

Most of them would back a nominee who is on record against Roe either because they do not impose a litmus test or because they have higher priorities, such as the Alaska Senators' willingness to do anything to get votes on drilling in ANWR.  Having a nominee state opposition to Roe would either make conservatives more comfortable with a nominee who would get confirmed or expose the fact that RINOs are useless and that conservatives have no reason at all to support them in general elections.  Either way, we win.

First, look at his opinions in the LA abortion statute cases.  He voted to strike down the statute based on Roe & Casey but specifically said he would let the states decide these issues.

Second, look at his opinions in the sec 1983 cases.

etc. etc.

I truly don't think it's shame.  I think it's strategy.

Bush, to me, has never seemed like a guy who really cares what others think.  He sets his sight on a goal and moves forward to achieve it.

He rarely uses the pomp and circumstance of the office, unlike some of his predecessors, and focuses more on what he thinks his job is.  (I know lefties will disagree.)

I don't disagree that it would be nice to have an unvarnished constitutionalist (or originalist or conservative), but I just don't think that the math is there.  I'm not convinced that the moderates would go ahead and support an unvarnished constitutionalist in a filibuster fight.

You are right, though, that we need to examine state and local issues and candidates to continue to set the stage for continued victories.

Clearly no one wants to answer either of us. I've heard "too old" from below but that's hardly a substantive critique.

does O'Connor have on her replacement?  She obviously has SOME input otherwise she would have simply resigned effective immediately.

Is it possible that O'Connor may be tempering the President's choice?

She has none as far as I'm concerned otherwise we would have a woman instead of Roberts up for the first nomination.

Note how SDO commented publicly that she was displeased that Roberts was not a woman.

she also said that she couldn't think of a BETTER nomination than John Roberts.  

It may be strategy, but I think that it's a bad long-term strategy.  If we want to get rid of Roe, I don't think that we can do it by stealth.  Even if the RINOs defeat us, we at least know where they stand.  We can make long-term plans to replace them with conservative Senators.  Now is the time to get the ball rolling.  We have healthy majorities in both houses and we can use that to build for the future.  President Bush's approval ratings have bottomed out.  This gives him the freedom to stand up for the right thing on the most important issue in America.  At worst, we would get the bland, centrist nominee (who he is going to probably pick anyway) as a second submitted nominee.

Posted at the Corner:

The Next Nominee

[Jonathan Adler  09/15 09:38 AM]

Like Erick at RedState, I have heard that Judge Edith Jones is under serious consideration for Justice O'Connor's seat, but I had not heard that Larry Thompson was also a serious contender. I've also been led to believe that Priscilla Owen is in the mix, and Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit may be in the mix as well. Clement is out. Gonzales is not a likely nominee right now either, but that could change. Were the President to nominate someone who the base would prefer to him (e.g., Jones), and were that nomination to fail in the Senate, Justice Gonzales would become a real possibility.

All this "disappointment" because John Roberts hasn't come out taken the liberal members of the judiciary committee head-on is kind of funny. 1) he's just not that kind of guy and 2) his confirmation prospects, or margin of victory, would be compromised.

Y'all need to relax. His answers have been nothing short of brilliant. Even though I'm not out of law school yet, I've always presumed that I'm simply far too much of a flame-thrower myself to ever actually get to a confirmation hearing. However, I've thought about what my answers would be when watching the hearings on TiVo...and I really, really like John Roberts' answers and his performance.

I think he's going to be an excellent conservative, strict-constructionist justice who will strengthen our side because with his keen intellect together with Scalia, Thomas, and the next nominee (I pray to God it is Estrada or Jones), the legal arguments that they end up making will simply shred previous liberal activist rulings (on the occasions that they are able to coax Anthony Kennedy over to cast his lot with them) whose only basis in law is wrongly-decided precedent stacked on top of wrongly-decided precedent. Add to that, he puts forward a much more handsome image on the face of modern conservatism.

Loved his answer about not using international law to interpret U.S. law. That should absolutely be a litmus test for Republicans voting on a nominee. O'Connor failed it in her tenure, and I have heard Jones speak EXTREMELY critically about O'Connor's citation of foreign law.

Side note: Hannity got spanked by Catherine Crier last night on Hannity & Colmes. Geesh...it was so embarrassing, it was so painful to watch I was physically cringing. Several times I tried to fast-forward on TiVo, but then rewinded deciding that I should hear what she had to say so I can be prepared to hear other liberals mouth it.

He needed to have Ann Coulter or Mark Levin there to make actual legal arguments instead of bumbling about how great Reagan was and how many people voted for such and such. That's all great, but has no business in a legal discussion. He should have shredded her definition of "conservative judicial activism." Judicial activism is legislating law from the bench that has no basis in the text, not holding up legislation to the harsh light of the text and declaring that they don't comport based on the meaning of a plain reading of the Constitution.

No word on Michael McConnell?  I realize the demographics are against him, but he really is a dream candidate in terms of qualifications and philosophy, and is relatively young.

Good post.  

p.s.  You may be a flame thrower now, but you'll get old too.  Don't hire any illegal aliens, don't do business with crooks, generally keep your nose clean and someday, I hope to see you in the hot seat.

I am a new poster, but all I have heard are really good things about Thompson.  He was Dep. AG under Ashcroft and seemed to be very conservative. I'm not saying I hope he is the pick, what I am saying is that I think the President would have a good idea of his views and beliefs if he is the nominee

I know she is very unlikely, at least it so appears, but below gives a flavor of why Corrigan would be perfect (also posted at confirmthem, after a request for posters to provide this sort of information on Williams and Corrigan so one could get an idea of their jurisprudence):

Corrigan "textualism" / "originalism" quotes (a few on a brief look)

CORRIGAN, C.J.

In this case, we must determine when the right to counsel attaches to corporeal identifications. We adopt the analysis of Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 98 S.Ct. 458, 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), and hold that the right to counsel attaches only to corporeal identifications conducted at or after the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings. To the extent that People v. Anderson, 389 Mich. 155, 205 N.W.2d 461 (1973), goes beyond the constitutional text and extends the right to counsel to a time before the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings, it is overruled. The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.

People v. Hickman 470 Mich. 602, 603-604, 684 N.W.2d 267,*268 (Mich.,2004)

This Court has repudiated nontextual modes of interpretation. For example, in McIntire, supra, we rejected the so-called "absurd result" doctrine of avoiding the text of a statute when judges view the result as absurd or unjust. We agreed "with Justice Scalia's description of such attempts to divine unexpressed and nontextual legislative intent as `nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.' " McIntire, supra at 156, n. 2, 599 N.W.2d 102, quoting Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 21.

Courts do, of course, routinely state that discerning legislative intent is the goal of statutory interpretation. The Legislature's actual intent is not, however, the true object of inquiry. Rather, courts should attempt to "ascertain the legislative intent that may reasonably be inferred from the words expressed in the statute."

Maier v. General Telephone Co. of Michigan 466 Mich. 879, 645 N.W.2d 654, **655 (Mich.,2002)

The analysis of the statutory text in Paulitch appears to be sound. A policy basis is not apparent for the legislative choice to require an award of interest on damages that have not yet accrued. Nonetheless, courts are bound to apply the statute as written. This Court lacks authority to rewrite statutes to conform to our view of sound public policy. Indeed, we must apply statutory text even where we view the result as "absurd" or "unjust." People v. McIntire, 461 Mich. 147, 156, n. 2, 599 N.W.2d 102 (1999). In short, the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and not rewrite the law. [FN2]

FN2. United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has explained

forcefully the importance of judicial restraint:

The philosophy of interpretation I have described above is known as textualism. In some sophisticated circles, it is considered simpleminded-"wooden," "unimaginative," "pedestrian." It is none of that. To be a textualist in good standing, one need not be too dull to perceive the broader social purposes that a statute is designed, or could be designed, to serve; or too hidebound to realize that new times require new laws. One need only hold the belief that judges have no authority to pursue those broader purposes or write those new laws. [Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, p. 23 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997) (emphasis supplied).]

Accordingly, I urge the policy-making branch of our government to examine the provisions regarding prejudgment interest on future damages. The Legislature may wish to consider the concerns expressed in Paulitch in determining whether the statutory implements a sound public policy.

Buzzitta v. Larizza Industries, Inc. 465 Mich. 975, 641 N.W.2d 593, **594 (Mich.,2002)

It may well be sound policy to deter persons on supervised release from violating our criminal laws; judges may not, however, rewrite a statute merely because we think the Legislature meant to say something other than what it enacted. When courts try to divine an unstated, but probable, legislative intent, we invariably inject our own policy preferences and disregard the Legislature's constitutional role in our system of government. McIntire, supra at 153, 599 N.W.2d 102. The people's elected representatives can easily amend the statute if they wish.

People v. Williams 463 Mich. 942, 621 N.W.2d 214, **215 (Mich.,2000)

In construing our constitution, this Court's object is to give effect to the intent of the people adopting it. Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko, 444 Mich. 579, 606, 513 N.W.2d 773 (1994). "Hence, the primary source for ascertaining its meaning is to examine its plain meaning as understood by its ratifiers at the time of its adoption." [reference is to Michigan constitution]

People v. Bulger 462 Mich. 495, *507, 614 N.W.2d 103, **108 (Mich.,2000)[overruled by Halbert v Michigan]

Her age would seem to be an issue.

...unlike you or most of the people here, Pres. Bush and his legal team actually personally know Larry Thompson.  And I think they believe he's plenty conservative.

Unlike you, they also know John Roberts.  Known him, in fact, for a long time.  And they know he's plenty conservative.

If the fact that both John Ashcroft and Clarence Thomas would vouch for Larry Thompson doesn't move you, I really don't know what you're looking for.

One significant problem with her: I understand she has, er, a rather unpleasant personality.  In fact, when she interviewed for Brennan's seat back in the day, the word is Bush Sr. didn't personally like her at all.  If what I've heard is right, I'm surprised the Administration is even considering her: first, we all know that Bush really values people who he gets along with -- you know, people whose souls he can see.  John Roberts is a mensch, and we all could see how much Bush personally admired the guy when he nominated him.  Second, I really doubt the political people at the White House want to hand the Democrats another nominee with a prickly personality who--like Bob Bork--can be unfairly maligned as a nasty person who wants to "roll back" all of our rights.

This, of course, has nothing to do with Jones's qualifications.  But, from what I know, she's doesn't interview well.

Larry Thompson, on the other hand, is extremely popular on Capitol Hill, well-liked by Bush, and he's a good guy with an agreeable personality.  Plus, I trust he's very conservative--being, you know, John Ashcroft's number two guy and all.

Oh, and for those of you who are wringing your hands at Roberts's endorsing Griswold: knock it off.  Clarence Thomas said in his confirmation hearings that he believed that there was a right to privacy in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment, and he went on to endorse the court's decision in the Moore v. East Cleveland case--which explicitly rested on Griswold and the privacy liberty interest.  He's since gone on, of course, to rule that that doesn't extend to abortion, and, in Lawrence, he went so far as to deny that the 14th Amendment contained ANY general right to privacy.  (Whether this is contrary to what he testified to in 1991 is open dor debate.)

What Roberts was saying is that he sincerely doubts that the issue of whether state laws banning the use of contraceptives by married couples will ever be before the court again--and he accepts Griswold as settled law.  It's quite another thing to jump to the conclusion that Griswold should be extended to strike down laws regulating abortion, sodomy, incest, or marriage.  With his continued assurances that he believes judges should be modest and respectful of the political branches, I don't think he could have been clearer in showing he has no appetite to follow the liberals on the court down that path.

I am outraged at Roberts lending of credibility to the substantive due process theory.

One more (for now) Corrigan quote, this on stare decisis:

Our decisions since January 1999 reflect our adherence to our respective oaths to support the constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. Const. 1963, art. 11, § 1. To preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch, this Court must not exceed the limits of its constitutional authority. I agree that too rapid change in the law threatens judicial legitimacy, as it threatens the stability of any institution. But the act of correcting past rulings that usurp power properly belonging to the legislative branch does not threaten legitimacy. Rather, it restores legitimacy. Simply put, our duty to act within our constitutional grant of authority is paramount. If a prior decision of this Court reflects an abuse of judicial power at the expense of legislative authority, a failure to recognize and correct that excess, even if done in the name of stare decisis, would perpetuate an unacceptable abuse of judicial power.

Robinson v. City of Detroit 462 Mich. 439, *472-473, 613 N.W.2d 307,324 (Mich.,2000)

remember, Rehquist and O'Connor were both on the minority of 4 that got it right. their replacements will only hold the status quo. Bush will need to get it right on a 3rd pick, if he gets one. and if he gets one, I think he will.

I also don't think Roberts will be noticibly different from Rehnquist.

I have only heard Edith Jones speak once, and while it is true that she's not an effusively charasmatic individual - since when did that become a qualification to be on the Supreme Court? I realize you said you weren't arguing her credentials, but then you suggested that she should not be chosen because of this. She's a very nice lady who is generally polite, but you can tell that she is so brilliant because of how strongly this impression imminates from her, she simply has no time to suffer fools and idiots. She is also renowned for her work ethic and how she really throws herself into her caseload.

In fact, in her speech, she was quite proud that she didn't and had no interest in travel to France for regular cocktail parties like she says O'Connor did frequently. She attributes O'Connor's evolving affection for the injection of foreign law into the interpretation of American law to O'Connor's attempt to win her accolades durig her tours on the French social circuit.

She did yelp at one of her law clerks when she couldn't recall something and demanded that her law clerk come up with the answer, but it wasn't like she did anything like what the Democrats accused John Bolton of doing or anything. LOL

In the end, I think the confirmation hearings would have to be sold on Pay Per View because watchin her tussle with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would be far more interesting than any boxing match or WWF Super Duper Slam Down. :-)

Estrada would be the perfect pick, followed closely by Viet Dinh & JRB.

As far as Generalísimo Franco being still dead, that may not be a good thing. All you have to do is look at the anti-American socialist hack who is the present head of the spanish disgovernment and compare him to the man  who on the way to becoming one of our most trusted cold war allies outsmarted Hitler and saved more than 50,000 jews from the nazi death camps.

Lobo

I was a one of the hand wringers over roberts' griswold offering  and did cconfirm your thomas comparison. You are right. i just see no reason to play these games, except i guess due to the weak moderate repubs that number more than 6, and the difficulty of educating the american people, after so many years of judicial rule and liberal dumbed down eduvcation to repel the attcaks that would come that we were trying to outlaw trojans.

thanks for the slap in the face

i needed that