Redstate

I hope that is untrue. I am having a bad day and that would make it a lot worse.

Given how things unfolded the last time, is this another feint to throw the Dems (and their MSM mouthpiece) off track on the real nominee?

Wouldn't it just be fantastic if Alberto Gonzalez turned out to be a strict constructionist and originalist in the Thomas mold?  Wouldn't that just be swell?  

     Evidence that suggests this is the case - zip. zero. zilch. nada.  Please don't go there Mr. President.    

When I cross out the political events.

If this is true, I can now go to that sneak peak of Serenity tonight!

Word in legal circles, eh?  If I know anything about my fellow lawyers, it's that they all have this strange irrational notion that they know more than they actually do.  Point is, I wouldn't put a dime on something a bunch of lawyers are chattering about, unless those lawyers are hanging out in the West Wing.

If it IS Owen, I'm reposting my correct prediction from a few months ago that Roberts and Owen would succeed Renny and O'Connor.

No need to thank me for my advice, Karl.

Just kidding.

Sort of.

Let me begin by stipulating, for the sake of argument, that this is, indeed, the case. Let's look beyond the typical complaints over Gonzales-- it would be a monumental strategic mistake.

One should never undertake a political action which gives the opposition a clear path forward. So let's assume that Rove does believe that he "will have time to prove [he's a conservative] before midterm elections," thereby placating conservatives who might be put-off by the nomination. What would the Democrats do?

They would undertake the fight their liberal wing has been begging them to undertake. They'd be able to undertake the fight their base wants them to undertake while our base is dispirited. If they defeat him, portraying him as a right-wing torture-loving boogeyman, they will have moved the bar for nominations. If they cannot outright defeat him but can delay confirmation, then there would be no such time for him to "prove" he's a conservative and mollify our base. They would head to the 2006 elections with their side fired up and ours dispirited.

I am extremely skeptical that Rove would be so blind as to not realize this, and as such I am very skeptical that his thoughts are accurately captured in this post. Instead, my reading of the tea-leaves is that, prior to the announcement of the nominee, there is a desire to get the conservative base stoked up so as to keep the pressure on Specter and other wobbly Republicans.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Either Dubya know that AGAG is more conservative than he is given credit for...

or...

He will nominate a true conservative with such great credntials that he will be fillibuster proof like Luttig or McConnell.

Seems to me that Dubya is a quick learner in these things. He has had wonderful success with the Roberts nomination, so the most likely scenario would seem to be to try again with the same formula.

That means Luttig or McConnell.

Cuz I sure as heck will stop contributing to the republican party.

did you beat quin at confirmthem?  he called it too at least by July 20, 2005.

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=908

So he intends to use his role as AG to make political statements and campaign for the SCOTUS nomination?

Good to know.

Makes it easier to dismiss his upcoming shenanigans as the PR stunts they look like anyway.

But observe geater context:

given the current docket, will have time to prove it before midterm elections

YMMV.

"You are welcome to my house, you are welcome to my heart ... my personal feelings have nothing to do with the present case. ... As George Washington, I would do anything in my power for you.  As President, I can do nothing."

- George Washington, to a friend seeking an appointment

Even if the assumption is he wouldn't have changed how he conducts himself whether up for the nomination or not, the idea that what he does will be spun by his supporters to prove how conservative he is is hardly admirable given his responsibilities.

That would be an interesting hearing.

Y'all might find this old post relevant.

Well, I sent an email highlighting the recusal problems that an AG SCOTUS nomination would cause as well as the morale problems it would cause.

I really will be very upset by this.

Hoping for Sykes, Williams, Estrada, or Owen.

If Gonzales is nominated I would urge all conservatives to initiate a fillibuster. This would be an incredibly poor choice. Every right wing group out there would oppose this nomination.  

This afternoon I contacted my White House source who says Karl Rove "believes that Gonzales is conservative and, given the current docket, will have time to prove it before midterm elections."

does not mean

the idea that what he does will be spun by his supporters to prove how conservative he is is hardly admirable given his responsibilities

Now, either that mouse in your pocket is giving you reading material the rest of us can't see, or you're just flogging an off-topic hobby horse. Either way, it's a waste of perfectly innocent pixels.

I don't think "W" is that tone deaf.

http://myelectionanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-i-would-do-if-i-was-bus
h.html

Nah, you know full well that many of them would support Gonzales. Whether they should, well... that might be another issue.

stupid typos.

had Rove pushing AG, too.  If nothing else, it greases it a little for the real nominee.  "Hey, s/he wasn't who Rove wanted, anyway!"

And this business about Bush "dropping hints" by saying "diversity is one of the country's strengths" -- what is he, a Navajo Code Talker now?  He isn't apt to nominate another white Eurpoean man without saying something like that, is he?  Followed by "but"?

The problems with Gonzales are obvious: his thin record and his shaky views on life issues.

Owen is just as bad though.  She has very little chance of getting through.  The main problem is that , with a national audience, the Democrats could play the sympathy game on Owen's Miles v. Ford ruling for all that it was worth.  The portrait that they draw of Owen would be made worse by the fact that she is a fairly unattractive woman.  I think that Robert Bork's looks played a decisive role against him and I think that this superficial factor would loom even larger for a female nominee.  

Luttig, McConnell (with a makeover), or Sykes would be far preferable candidates to Owen and Gonzales.

This is the first time I have posted on your site but I have read this blog almost everyday for quite some time. I just wanted to point out that before the Roberts nomination this site had recieved rock solid information that Clement would fill the open spot. I suspect that the WH is using this site to throw the Dems off target just like they did the last time around. Perhaps the directors of RS are in on this tactic or they are just being used as a political tool. Either way, don't get too worked up yet . . .

If it got out that K. Rove was saying ANYTHING about Gonzoles then he wanted it to get out. The nominee will be hispanic it just wont be AGAG. ESTRADA!

Wow... That's a new one in terms of qualifications for A SC appointment. I wasn't aware that not being a hotty was a deal breaker.

I have always been more concerned with a persons carerr achievement and intellectual capabilities...But that's just me.

I do think that P.O. is kind of cute though...for what it's worth.

I'm thinking it means Estrada, Garza, JRB, or Thompson personally.

I'm not sure Viet Dinh is all-around connservative enough for me to be happy with.

He's a little goofy, but he's pretty solid. Solid enough? Open question. But pretty solid.

The Senate needs to do its job, and give each nominee a vote.

If you want conservatives to vote against him, so be it, but a filibuster should be out of the question.

if Gonzalez gets it, I will feel lied to, because Gonzalez doesn't come close to Thomas or Scalia.

I am irritated with the determination of the WH to avoid any kind of fight and look for some moderate or unknown.

Give me a known and fight for that person thank you very much.

Kidding aside, I'm not inclined to disagree with the point (I think) you were making -- that the MSM would create a caricature out of her that includes an image of unattractiveness.  Reminds one of the 2000 Florida fiasco where the MSM and their enablers made SecState Katherine Harris out to be some kind of Cruella Deville -- when in fact she was and is actually quite a little looker.

I would be interested to know where he would come down on the important issues. Does anyone know?

Garza is too old, JRB is unconfirmable and Thomson...no. Estrada Estrada Estrada

For people despairing over the possibility of a Gonzales pick (or who, like me, aren't too impressed with Owen either), check this out: One recent MSM  article (and, drat, I can't find it online as I write this) reported that Bush was committed to a woman, and that he was so happy with the way John Roberts was received that he's directed his staff to find him a "female John Roberts."  The White House is accordingly looking everywhere, including state courts and in law firms, for a conservative woman who shares Judge Roberts's credentials and modesty.  The source in this article assured the writer that the ultimate pick would be one that no one is expecting.

This sounds plausible to me--certainly more so than throwing up a sacrificial Judge Owen or spitting in the Right's face with Gonzales.  Unlike his dad, Bush has never shown a political tin ear before.  Why would he start now?

Oh, and if someone could please explain to me why Carolyn Kuhl isn't being mentioned at all, please do so.  Has she told the White House she's not interested at all in the federal bench after Boxer blue slipped her to death?

The Senate needs to do its job, and give each nominee a vote.

Just like they did under Chairman Hatch from 1995-2000?

Every single SCOTUS nominee did get a vote on the floor.

In a few of the big divisive cases this Term, the conservative position involves upholding federal power:  to preempt a state assisted-suicide bill, to force law schools to allow military recruiters on campus over protests of don't-ask-don't-tell, to uphold Bush's policies on detainees, perhaps to uphold Congress' enactment of a partial-birth abortion ban.

It may be that Gonzales is seen as sympathetic to broad use of federal power; this may not, however, translate to a conservative record in other areas.

I still think Gonzales is likely to be neither a Souter nor a Scalia or Thomas; he seems most likely to be Anthony Kennedy Part II (Kennedy is conservative on business and federalism issues, liberal on social issues, generally in favor of expanding the power of the courts, and not an intellectual leader on the Court), which isn't the worst thing in the world but certainly isn't what social conservatives have fought for.

confirmthem is talking Sykes as the female John Roberts.

I beg to differ:

• $400 billion (and counting) Medicare prescription drug benefit (before it has even begun); the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ's failed "Great Society"
  
• Dept. of Homeland Security ends up being a $41 billion/yr government bloat instead of the "re-organization" it was touted as
  
• Signing the unconstitutional restriction on political free speech (also known as McCain-Feingold)
  
• Nominating Mike Johanns to be Ag. Secretary, stealing from the GOP it's best chance at beating Ben Nelson in Nebraska
  
• Tax cuts over real tax reform such as a flat tax to replace all taxes, period (okay...he met us halfway on that one)
  
• Letting Social Security Privatization die on the vine instead of putting forth a plan and start lobbying behind it (instead of a general, amorphous concept), and letting other entitlement privatization like Medicare die with it
  
• Absolutely no movement on privatizing government services like the U.S. Postal Service and the park service that could be done better and cheaper in the private sector
  
• Refusing to push for real budget constriction through the elimination of unnecessary government programs like the National Endowment for the Arts (whose budget has actually increased under Bush) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Need I go on? I'm sure I could if I looked a little harder. Bush has been a brilliant visionary in his foreign policy objectives, and I'll him credit that he appears to have done well on judicial nominations so far - presuming that Roberts will be the Supreme Court Chief Justice that I hope he will be. But if he lets us down and shows a political "tin ear" in his next nomination much like he has on nearly every other domestic front, we can all be disappointed, but only the naive will be caught off guard.

Next time, we need to stand up and get behind a presidential candidate who is an unabashed Conservative, proud of it, and willing to stand up for it. No compromises. That way, we can relax in the interim 4 years, assured that our leader will do the right thing, and our heartburn limited to the general election. Unfortunately, I don't see that candidate in the current field of Giuliani, McCain, or Frist. Times like these, you wish Ron Reagan, Jr. hadn't fallen so insanely far from the great tree his father was.

Before the announcement, lots more of these potential nominees (in no particular order) might get their 15 minutes in the spotlight. I think Bush loves sending pundits down the wrong trail.

Maybe the only fun he has these days.

Priscilla Richman Owen, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Emilio Garza, Edward Charles Prado, Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, Larry Thompson, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell, and Samuel Alito.

I don't think that Ginsburg (perhaps the homeliest woman in public life) would have been concerned if she had been a conservative.  The MSM wouldn't have caricatured her.  

Still, Owen is fairly attractive in her official picture, but looked quite unattractive during her hearings where her face looked haggard and almost mannish.  

I think that Edith Jones is also too unattractive --   she seemingly has the worst qualities of both Peppermint Pattie and Marcie combined.

Sykes or Clement are the only female conservatives who I think would be confirmed.  I definitely dislike Clement and would prefer an intellectual male over Sykes.

i'll second that, ESTRADA!

There is no way Owen will be nominated. Nothing against Baylor, but I'm fairly confident that there is little chance that a Baylor grad will sit on the SCOTUS any time soon.  

I highly doubt it will be Gonzales this time around.

What is going on today from the White House spinmeisters is DEFINITELY a Head Fake... Gonzales scares the right wing, Owen scares the left wing, so when Bush chooses Karen Williams, the conservatives will be relieved and the liberals will feel they dodged a bullet. Should be a good replacement for O'Connor, hopefully a female Rehnquist.

Karen Williams should get at least 65 votes in the Senate, on looks alone !  She's 54 years old, but looks younger.  Should bring along the Gang of 14 and a few others.

Her credentials seem "strict constructionist" enough, from what I've seen posted on ConfirmThem and other sites.

There were no Supreme Court nominations during Chairman Hatch's tenure.  There was during the Clinton years, however, consultation with the Judiciary ranking minority member and full vetting of nominees.

I'd like him as a replacement for a liberal, but not so much a conservative.

Is zero all of zero? Or is all of zero zero? Or neither?

...but it's not always politically smart.  Bush did most of things you listed above because it was popular or expedient.  In other words, he sticks with his base when it results in a net political win, and he sticks it to his base when it results in a net win.  This is what Reagan did, and why he was great.  Poppa Bush listened to much to Dick Darman, and that's why he was a loser.

...even when the numerator is zero, leads to unintelligible results.

I suppose you could say that all of the SCOTUS nominees got floor votes, but that seems to imply there were floor votes, which would be wrong.  Or you could say that none of the SCOTUS nominees got floor votes, but that seems to imply there were nominees, which would be wrong.

So maybe it's best to just leave it at "the situation didn't come up during Hatch's chairmanship".

Keep it on the down low!!  I'm a USC (South Carolina) law student and would LOVE to see Williams nominated... but let's not talk about it lest the word get out before the announcement.

People really don't expect uber-feminists like Ginsburg to be attractive.

For conservatives, however, the bar is set much higher.

Wasn't there some ethical questions that the liberals threw at Williams in connection with her service on the three judge panel that considered the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold?  I recall that there was no fire there, but do you think the White House wants that headache?

I have walked where you now walk. Wofford, then the J.D. at The School of Law. Now in Atlanta, home of the Braves. You must simply be a great person!!

First, did you know that So. Cal. actually sued to ave exclusive use of the "USC" acronym? They lost. We pre-date the LA upstars quite a bit. They were still in caves. hahaha

Also, back in the 80's, interstingly, before Bork was nominated in 1987, he was referenced often by several USC Law professors as one of the greates legal minds of our time and the leader  of a movement to get back to originalism. Read Bork's books!!

But, who is Karen Williams?

I trust Erick with my whole heart.  But there is no way in Hades that this AGAG stuff is true.  It just is not floating with me.  How can this possibly make any sense what so ever?  It doesn't.  That's why I REFUSE to buy this.

Bush is NOT an idiot.  He is a clever politician and is very calculative in what he does.  STOP FREAKING OUT BRETHREN!  Take a deap breath and prepare to be amazed by our President.  I trust him.  Does anyone else on this blog?  

Roberts will be everything we wanted him to be, and so will this nominee.  I feel like I am alone on this!  Bush is not deaf, blind, or stupid when it comes to stuff like this.  Have you no faith??

That neither party has behaved honorably with regards to judiical nominations?

In separate and unequal ways.

...but I'm a whacky leftie.

I do give a slight edge to the Republicans, at least with regards to SCOTUS nominees, in this area.  When it comes to lower court nominations, I think you're right that there's plenty of fouls on both sides and it seems to be getting worse not better.

I think the Dems have taken it to new levels.

The slow down that the GOP did, while I'm not proud of it, is not unheard of in the history of the Senate.

The mass filibustering of judges that the Dems did is.

You never saw the GOP minorities filibustering during the Clinton/DEM controlled Senate days or filibustering (or threatening to) a left wing shill like Ginsberg.

The NFL has a rule that when a team is looking for a new head coach they are required to interview minorities. The NFL uses this requirement to show that they are sensitive to diversity and not a good ol' boys club, etc etc.

Teams, however, often interview minority candidates just so they are technically in compliance with the rule even though they, and also the minority candidate, know full well that the interview is only to keep up appearances.

It is possible that here, Bush is doing the same thing. This AGAG leak story serves the purpose of showing that Bush is at least considering minority candidates. AGAG is the most visible one, so this story demonstrates this purpose. Bush's diversity remark also furthers this notion. Even if Bush chooses a white guy or gal, at least he can say, "Hey, I considered minorities."

Just a thought.

Bush is also likely trying to lower expectations so when he does name a candidate (please Luttig, please Luttig, please Luttig!) he can far exceed them. This has been his M.O. since he first ran for the office.

the judge that sua sponte considered a 30-year-old statute that superceded the Miranda warnings in United States v. Dickerson. I'm not sure that she was wrong, but I think that the fact that she was reversed 7-2, and the fact that this could be spun so easily to make her look like a loon makes it highly unlikely that she gets it.

Read your war weary yesterday as it related to the exhausting discussion on the war I was in, and loved it. Would like to discuss some ideas later on it.

But I need to send you an e-mail and was unable to get thru with the address on this site.

Can you send me one so I can reply later this pm on a matter I want discuss off this site?

madusclaw@comcast.net

Cornyn was as good as in too, as I recall.

Read an Orangeburg newspaper article about her here.

She wrote the 4th Circuit opinion upholding the Pledge of Allegiance: Myers v. Loudon County Public Schools, 418 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005).

GO COCKS!!

but the fact that Bush's se;fproclaimed role models Nino and Clarence were the two that agreed with her would give her support from the base and pump her up in GOP circles.  Who cares what the Dems think, they're going to go batty regardless of who it is.

nm

Think about what happens if the President does nominate him. Suddenly, everyone who is kicking and screaming about Gonzales (including perhaps myself) will then be saying the President knows what he's doing because there is no way he is THAT stupid to nominate someone with such a shaky record on things like abortion. The only miscalculation he could make in this is the people who would still think he went moderate because of low poll numbers.

is if he is trying to make Ginsberg or Stevens comfortable with resigning by continuously leaking how badly he wants to nominate AG. Either way I don't think AG gets the SC this time around.

If GWB wants intellectual firepower combined with a textualist philosophy, he could do no better than Frank Easterbrook. He has the U. of Chicago Law and Economics philosophy, with little of Posner's philosophical unpredictability. Plus he's the best writer in on the appellate level of the federal judiciary. It would be nice to have someone other than Nino who can unleash a wicked pen against the lefties.

Don't tell me he's too old either. He's 57. Souter and Kennedy we're in their early 50's when nominated. I would have rather have had 10-15 years of a true conservative than 30 years of Souter and Kennedy.

Williams has 14 years on the Federal bench (appointed by Bush 41). She is 54 years old. She has the brains and the beauty to win over the Gang of 14. Who cares what the Left Wing think !  

Either Luttig or Jones would be just as good, but would be more contentious, especially with Maine's two female Republican Senators.  Williams should lock up at least 54 of the 55 Republicans (exept Chafee) and a handful of the Democrats (Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor & others).

Expect Karen Williams to appear with Bush on Wednesday or Thursday.  That's my opinion.

First: Is Williams from SC or do you know? And is she on the 4th Circuit?

Let me ask you this. I simply cannot believe that Bush w/Rove as the confirmer!, would appoint any one unless he knows will reverse Roe and many of the church-state cases, not mention the exec power cases. Bush is such a man of his word and this issue is amjor part of his agenda and that he would not be pres and the congress would not be gop. And so, if he appoints Gonzales, with whom he has been friends so long, I assume they have discussed all this. I'm certain they have.

Do you think my confidence is misplaced?

Secondly, as to the danger of a spin as aloon that would threaten confirmation.

I guess this concerns two issues. Are there 6 senators that would bolt and under what circumstances?

One caveat. Polls showed that Roberts' popularity went way up when the Reagan years docs came out. Reagan won two landslides as an unapologetic conservative. With bork, the congress was dem and we had no alternative media.

I guess my point is that I do not fear an all out fight in which we plainly take conservative positions on judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretatin esp since we can't lose unless 6 sens bolt.

I wanted us to be aggressive with Roberts because thie is a teacheable moment and the people are with us.

And we have Fox, talk radio and the web.Ever since the 2000 election Bush has been unmercifully attacked all but for a few weeks after 911. The msm really is now a political party that frames every issue to hurt Bush.

But we won in 2002 and 2004, even when combat in Iraq was worse than it ever was or has been.

Do you think 6 could bolt?

Now, I wish we would appoint a judge that had been outspoke for years so conservatives would feel better. I would feel better. But even outspoke conservatives have betrayed us. I feel good because I trust Bush and Rove to make sure.

your thoughts?

I know I should trust Rove and that if he thinks someone is conservative, then he/she must be, but too many others just don't think so in regard to AG. As to "confirmability", the GOP has the majority which they didn't have when Judge Bork was "Borked". Surely, that should count for something (I know it might be hard to get all the votes needed, but not as hard as it could be). What's the point of us electing the GOP to a majority, of praying blood, sweat, and tears for the GOP to get elected if they're going to be weak?

Well, I got that out of my system, I'm going to go pray really hard for President Bush to have wisdom on this, I know he's praying too.  

I see you think that is a bad comparison, since as you noticed, there were no SCOTUS nominations when Hatch was the chairman.

That's fine, I can accept that it is not a good analogy, especially since there is not a Democrat holding the Judiciary Chairmanship right now, Specter's equivocations notwithstanding. A much better analogy would be when Hatch was the ranking minority member of the committee, as he was earlier in Clinton's tenure.

As you are well aware, Hatch did not block any of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees, and the Republicans did not deny them floor votes. Heck, barely any Republicans voted against them.

So I think it is very much a positive that you are looking back on the way Orrin Hatch conducted himself, and the way Republicans conducted themselves, when the roles were reversed-- a Democrat President with a Democrat Senate. And I wholeheartedly concur with the point you were obviously trying to make-- namely that is the precedent which should be followed.

See my comment below.

Do you post on Gamecock Central?

COCKS!

Thanks. I'll read in a few.

By the way, 13 years of private trial law is crime and divorce (with some med mal and prod liab can almost kill a man!! I'm in corp law now.)

more later

nm

done in committee, if a nominee was passed from the committee, they did get a floor vote.

The dem games have been to prevent the floor votes, which is unprecedented.

I think that Bush can hardly be accused of acting "politically smart" on domestic affairs. He was lucky that the last election was primarily about America's position in the global community and securing America in that context. Otherwise, if he had to run on his domestic agenda alone, he would have been creamed on the right for being too liberal and creamed on the left for not being liberal enough - leaving him without a constituency.

Reagan was great not because he did what was always expedient. I'm a bit too young to remember this time period, but from what I understand, Reagan colluded with Paul Volker to do some things that weren't very popular until it turned out that they worked! Governing like a real Conservative WORKS! The more unemployment there is in DC, the better off the rest of the country is.

The greatness of a president - and his corresponding popularity as we saw with Reagan - is measured by leaving the country better off than you found it by affirmative policy initiatives of your own. By this standard, Bush's entire presidency hinges on the two things that he hasn't completely screwed up yet 1) his Middle East Strategy which hinges on the outcome in Iraq and 2) how he shapes the judiciary.

Save for his tax cuts, he has left America worse off than he found it on every single other domestic initiative - and I believe that his poll numbers relfect this track record. If he were really "politically smart" his governing philosophy would look more like his election strategy - SHORE UP YOUR BASE and do what's right! He hasn't, and so he has added disaffected members of his own base to the disapproval numbers along with the liberals who would still hate him, even if he had nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be Chief Justice.

In an attempt to offset his hawkish foreign policy, I believe that he has run to the left on domestic policy in order to attempt to placate the Liberal Left and be a president that EVERYONE loves - because he likes being liked by people (who doesn't?). However, in the current political climate, that is simply impossible, and since Liberalism DOESN'T WORK as a governing philosophy, it is simply dumber than stupid to attempt. In the process he has alienated large swaths of his base, led his party in the wrong direction on fiscal matters, and all of this has left him currently as one of our least popular presidents.

Need I even mention how unpopular his absolute REFUSAL to enforce the integrity of America's borders is with an increasinly overwhelming percentage of American voters? You think that is either the right thing to do or the politically expedient thing to do??

Conservative governance leaves the country better off. His abdication of Conservatism has neither left the country better off nor made him any friends. I hope more politicians will learn these lessons from the Bush Administration's almost complete failure. As a Texan and a real Conservative, I must say that Bush's presidency has generally been an enormous disappointment to date. It makes me wonder why I cared so much whether he even won or lost in November.

This seems like an attempt at justifying bad behavior.  If the effect is the same, does it really matter where the shennanigans are taking place?

Lousy personality.  The 7th Cir. federal bar thinks (unfairly, I understand) that he's a arrogant jerk, and he's not likely to come off too well in televised hearings.  Too academic, too bearded, too sure of himself.  Sound like someone familiar?

Too bad, because Easterbrook is a great judge, an expert on business law (sorely lacking on the current court), and not likely to be as ideologically extreme as some liberals fear (and some conservatives hope).

...in large part I cared whether or not he won because I care about judicial nominations. Which is why he better not screw us over with an Aleberto Gonzales-type nominee for SCOTUS!

...no Bush nominees have been blocked by the Democrats.  I'm going to assume for the moment that Roberts is going to be confirmed by the full Senate, which doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.  Just to make sure we're not dividing by zero again.

So far, so good.

And let's hope the following of tradition and courtesy continues!

...vote for anyone else who quacks like a weak-kneed domestic-Conservatism capitulator.

It's time that Republicans paid a political price so that they fall in line better. They need to be shown who is boss.

That would be...?

Those orchestrating this past week are master spinmeisters.  Bush's choice will make the conservatives thrilled he did NOT choose Gonzales, and the liberals will be relieved he did not choose Priscilla Owen or JRB.

In my humble opinion, it will be Karen Williams --over 13 years on the Federal bench with both brains and beauty & able to win over Nelson, Pryor, & maybe Landrieu, and Maine's two female Republican Senators.

She is 54 years old and has a very solid strict constructionist record.  Not quite as good as Luttig or Jones, but good enough for 60+ votes.

Do you have any basis for this prediction?  Or is it just a gut feeling or speculation?

on GC, but will look it up. Guess I'd need a new alias eh!

It's funny I don't remeber her but my 13 yrs after law school were in the Upstate. My best friend, also here in ATL probably went to USC with her during part of his matriculation.

I have also appeared before th 4th C in Richmond 8 times, but that was early in my career. Was she ever a Dist Ct judge? Cause I think she may have considered one of my Soc Sec DIB claims by briefs only.

Think it's unlikely that six or even five will bolt with anyone other than JRB.  If Rove's goal is to fire up the base, Williams is a good choice.  But she would provoke all-out war, with the Dickerson opinion being brandished (at least with Luttig you can show that Morrison was upheld at the Supremes) as evidence that she is outside the mainstream.  Plus, my inside sources from the Fourth Circuit tell me that she's a good judge and smart enough, but not nearly as mentally agile as, say, Roberts.  In other words, there is some risk of her getting dinged up pretty good in the hearings.

My guess is Gonzalez is much more conservative than he gets credit for.  There might be a few issues where he squishes, but then again, from a pure lib-conserv. standpoint, even Nino or Thomas squish on occasion (eg Raich).

She went straight from private practice to the 4th Circuit.  Graduated in 1980 (from law school) if that helps determine who you might know that went to school with her.

I'd like to see a Republican win a race without them (Christopher Shays, Arlen Specter, Maine girls, and Lincoln Chaffee aside).

See my posts above

This is my theme on many matters, esp the war and judges.

Unlike Reagan, who was betray ed by his James baker staff when he had to unite the rockefeller wing bacl then, plus the pool of real conservative women was small and he had made that promise to appt a women. I'm sure Baker was behind that too.

And 41 was a lib by gop standards and Sununu was in charge of Souter. Thank god for Thomas!!!

But Bush has Rove. And is buddies with Gonzales.

Heck, if Bush appointed Hillary I would confident he had confirmed her REAL view. hahaha

I'll trust till betrayed and lose no sleep.

Clinton's nominees that didn't get moved to the floor objectively did not have the capacity to get a majority vote, either in committee or on the Senate floor.  That's democracy in action.

Bush's nominees, otoh, have the capacity to get majority vote in committee and on the Senate floor.  But the Dems won't let a vote occur by using the byzantine Senate procedures.  Not very democratic of them.

it wasn't so much that Roberts was mentally agile, it was that he had nothing to get him on.  he's a complete blank slate.  quite honestly, i'll take someone who's more demonstrably like Scalia and Thomas as opposed to a blank slate, prettyboy, establishment lawyer any day of the week.

More than just a gut feeling; last week a "trial balloon" was sent out -- read the article linked http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1295.  

There have been a number of trial balloons sent out in the past few weeks for various female candidates, and it is my "perception" that this one is a top-notch winner.

I could be wrong, because Sykes (Wisconsin) and Corrigan (Michigan) have potential, and of course Luttig, McConnell, Jones, Brown, and Owen are all popular with the base.  But the key is the two female Republican Senators from Maine and a few Moderate Democrats, such as Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor.

There are already 4 Catholics on the Court (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Roberts), and Williams is a southern evangelical, and will be a huge hit with much of the base and should be hard to attack, unless you are a left-wing crazy, such as Kennedy Schumer Boxer etc.

Expect Karen Williams to appear with Bush on Wednesday or Thursday http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1295 of this week (inside Sources).

She was appointed by Bush 41, over 13 years on the Federal bench from South Carolina, has beauty and brains, is a southern evangelical, and has a solid strict constructionist records.

That's my considered opinion, for what it's worth.

I'm with you on that and wish we would not play these cute games on judges and make judicial philosophy an issue not just  as Roberts did but also discredit the Ginsburg philosophy in the hearings and apologize for voting for her. This deference on JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY is ridiculous. Of course, judges's personal preferences shouldn't matter and they shouldn't promise to overturn a past case in a future case. But to not give an opinion on a past case is not the same.

Now, I too wish we would do the above with a longstanding public Bork clone but i trust that Bush Rove will only appoint a real conservative based on what they know behind the scenes. So we must wait until they rule on cases to justify any idea we have been betrayed.

I can't agree Bush has left us worse off than before on any issue except maybe due to the  med icare Px bill. But I think that will end up being a part of future reform and I think they have concluded that reform of programs to reflefct conservative principles is the only way to eventually  reduce their size, reach and cost given the national addiction that inclides mnay reoubs at the grass roots. Even many conservatives might balk at major cuts in medical care.

And medicare/medicaud/soc sec reform will reduce spending significqntly.

These pork bills a re wrong but not signicant ovevr time and with resoect to the major encroachment of govt on freedom.

The border is the same, not worse, but I agree it is a disgrace.

But I could be wrong on the soending. I do favor these house gopers proposal.

OTOH - given that POTUS loudly proclaimed wanting judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold, is there any other candidate who meets the literal criteria she does (the 7-2 vote, with Scalia/Thomas siding with her)?

Interesting database search, or mining project to determine if so.

First, are you going on the record defending the notion that Senators should vote against nominees they don't like for whatever reason, as opposed to deferring to the President and only objecting in exceptional cases?

Second, although I'll give you that a nominee that there's a distinction between a filibuster and a floor vote or even a committee vote, I think you've got a pretty tenuous argument when you're talking about blue slips, holds, or refusing to schedule to vote within a committee.  In those cases, the effect is the same--using procedural tools to avoid a vote.

I agree that JRB, due to the socialism line could be a problem. Its a shame we ca't all agree on that any redistibution of income by government is, ipso facto,  socialism to a degree and then have the debate on how much and the principles that apply to the level we do have.

But, I do think we should be aggressive on the dem code words, and not just in this context. Our senators let the dems get away with all kinds of language like that w/o taking on their premises and conventional wisdom all the time. And also with the msm's repetition of lies on news stories every few months, esp the whole saddam and ties to terror going back to clinton when he tied bin laden to iraq to justift the sudan bombing.

oh well

off subject

.... it's a good thing we are up for it.  From the freepers, and JerseyGOP.

... that such things are bad? If so, you should be pressuring the Democrats and Republicans to both forgo such tactics in the future.

Or is your argument that such things are not bad? If so, then you probably should not be criticizing the Republicans for using them-- and should not complain in the future if the Republicans use them to block Democrat nominees. Especially since Democrats are unlikely to ever get a filibuster-proof majority in the rest of your lifetime.

Of course any senator can vote against for any reason. But, yes, senators should not defer to a nominee, no matter the party, if that nominee will not agree to the limited role the constitution confers on judges, which does not include applying a judicial philosophical view of a so-called "living constitution" where they re-write it based on evolving standards blah blah blah

The GOP should have voted against Ginsburg and lost.

The days of pre-1973 or pre-1963 when most judges did understand their role.

The only legitimate philosophy is originalism.

Otherwise the judges are an oligarchy and WE THE PEOPLE no longer are governed thru our consent.

The constitution says with the consent of the SENATE. That means that a president has to deal with the Senate he faces. A senate controlled by the opposition party is simply too bad. Its THE SENATE and control means 50 votes and a VP or over 50 votes.

So, only the filibuster violates the constitution as a minority check.

The check on the judicila appointment power in the SENATE not a minority of the senate.

And so when the American people chose a GOP pres and senate...voila.

Maybe the president is tone deaf, but I doubt it. More likely, he either disagrees with conservatives' assessment of Gonzales, or he just doesn't care either way. This latter part is a scary possibility. After all, what does the president need us conservatives for? It's not like he's running for reelection.

Dales, I think so far I've mostly been trying to put out that there is some equivalence between the way that Republicans acted during the Clinton administration and the way that Democrats are acting now.  I don't find either set of behaviors very appealing.

In an ideal world, both parties would nominate reasonable judges and both parties would not engage in procedural games to avoid votes.  We're not in such an ideal world, so some trust is going to need to be built to get there.  I think the Roberts nomination was a good first step in this direction.  So far the Democrats seem to be responding in kind.  Hopefully the next nomination will proceed in a similar manner, and we can start to have a broader conversation about continuing to appoint judges based on the quality of jurisprudence rather than issues of ideology.

What's your argument?

If something is broken, advocate for the fix.

If something is not broken, don't blame the other guys for breaking it.

I find arguments over equivalence to be tedious and ultimately destined to fail. You can point to evidence that things were done under Republicans. I can point to evidence that before things were done under Republicans, they were done by Democrats. There has been an escalation that both parties have engaged in, and it started with the Democrats under Reagan, but that's neither here nor there.

So what's my argument? Things were not too broken. Supreme Court nominees were getting their votes (although the process engaged by the Democrats against Bork successfully and against Thomas unsuccessfully were shameful). Things were also not too broken down with the Circuit Court nominations, except the game of one-upsmanship got out of hand and then actions had to be taken to get things back in control. They are now. If there  is never another blue slip, that's fine with me. I think that nominees should get votes, and I am comfortable with that happening if a Democrat ever is elected President.

What's yours? I didn't really see an argument presented by you, other than trying to justify the continuing doing of what you were on the other hand were arguing was wrong to do in the first place.

...is that the President should consider to nominate highly qualified, non-ideological judges, and that the Democrats should confirm them.

An assumption of my argument is that it's not reasonable for the Democrats to suddenly unilaterally disarm after years of escalating obstructionism with regards to judicial nominees.  If the Democrats were to announce "okay, we're playing nice from now on" and the President were to use that opening to install a bunch of wild-eyed ideologues that would be bad.  On the other hand, if the President nominates reasonable people and the Democrats block them, that's a bad thing too.

My argument is that the President should continue to nominate highly qualified, non-ideological judges*, and that the Democrats should confirm them.

* Roberts being the model for this.

Many of Clinton's nominees were held up in committee for months or years, and when they finally got to the floor, were approved unanimously or by votes like 98-2.  Most of these nominees were blocked by the action of a single Senator.  You can't seriously suggest that every one of the dozens of nominees who never made it out of committee would have been rejected on a floor vote.

The reason why the Democrats never made a motion to bring these nominations directly to the floor was due to comity and the fact that these blocking maneuvers were part of accepted practice at the time.  There is no evidence, and no serious reason to believe, that 51 Senators would have gone on record to block the nomination of each and every one of these nominees, had the Democrats broken with tradition and forced the issue.

Under the system you suggest, would another Scalia or Thomas ever be confirmed?

And would the left be willing to accept, assuming the answer to the above is 'no', that no Ginsburg or similarly liberal justice would ever again be confirmed?

The Republicans did not start this war. The Democrats did when Republicans started winning elections. At some point, the SCOTUS will reflect this.

Scalia certainly would be confirmed.

I know less about Thomas and his judicial temperment.  I find him to be fairly bright, but also fairly ideological.  You could probably make the same argument about Ginsburg.  So I think you could reasonably conclude that they should both be confirmed or neither of them should.  Under my system, I'd opine that neither should be nominated but if they were both should be confirmed.

FWIW, CNN is tonight reporting that "administration sources" expect an announcement Friday.

(Yes, I know, CNN.  Chalk it up to oppo research.)

. . .I'm guessing that AG Gonzalez is going to seek out and destroy every copy of that photo he can, given its repeated use as a virtual dartboard here and possibly elsewhere.