Redstate

if Owen is nominated, but I can't say I would be super duper pleased.  Owen is quite what Bush promised me back during the election.  I would be much more pleased with Luttig, or if Bush has just got to have a minority pick-I would rather see Jones (who would cause the mouth frothing as well).

I suspect that if Bush goes for somebody known or perceived to be to the right of Roberts, the dems are going to come full force forward in attack mode.  I think it will be difficult for any justice to get confirmed, but I hope the GOP and the WH stand their ground and that the gang of 14 doesn't screw things up.

"...that the White House is keeping its cards hidden very well."

It's a good strategy: keep 'em all guessing, then feint and see who reacts.  Roberts caught everybody off-step; the WH would love to do that again.

As to who... I choose to have no dog in this fight and the base has earned a pick that'll make 'em "Heck yeah!" (or something earthier), methinks.  The question of which would be more satisfying - a confirmation, or a knock-down drag-out slugging match* - I'll leave up to my more conservative colleagues.  :)

Moe

*Seriously.  Each scenario has its points.

Eric, as I posted a couple of weeks ago, after the great job of misdirection the White House pulled off concealing Roberts prior to President Bush's July 19th announcement, I wouldn't bet the farm on Owen.

it's time for Bush to govern.  His approval rating is approaching nonexistent and the country is just plain not behind him.  Roberts was a great pick because he was an honest to goodness conservative that no sane person could afford to oppose too much.

Owen would be a disaster.  If the president wants to splinter his party and lose any chance he has of governing for the next three years, there aren't many picks better than Owen.

For my money, though, McConnell is a better choice.  He's conservative but not in lockstep with the right wing ideological project, and he has the credentials and support to make confirmation a walk in the park.  Not only that, but I actually think we would be better served by a real thinker like McConnell than another ideologue like Owen.  The Republican Party today is pretty much an experiment in what unthinking yesmanship will do to a party.

Erik, as solid as your commentary can be, and though you were the first definitive source to stick with Roberts hours before it was confirmed, this post is utterly meaningless.  It reveals nothing but that there's a lot of speculation in a lot of circles going on.  I appreciate the effort.

Does anyone not think that the President has known he wants to pick for some time?  I would think he announces the pick along with Roberts' swearing in.

Of course this doesn't stop me from speculating.

Owen is a so-so pick.  If he wants to pick a woman go with Jones or Janice Rogers Brown.  Luttig or McConnel are the top of the heap in my book.

Even Brown may be better served until Justice Stevens is dragged out of the Supreme Court building.  She can spend some more time on the Appeals Court.

Why wouldn't she be confirmed?  First, we know that Owen was non-extraordinary a couple of months ago, so any attempt by the Democrat 7 to filibuster will allow the GOP 7 to go nuclear.

On confirmation, even if every single Democrat votes no, there are only four Republicans with both the personal desire and political impetus to vote no: Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins.  That still leaves us with 51 votes.

This is not the deciding vote on Roe.  Owen's primary sin with the left on abortion is the parental notification case, which is an issue most Americans agree with conservatives on.  That means the abortion-moderate GOP senators, like Murkowski, Smith, KBH, etc, won't oppose because doing so would hurt them politically in their red and purple states.  Unless a skeleton lies in Owen's closet, I suspect most of these would vote yes.

At this point, there are three senators who would decide the success of the nomination.  The first is Stevens of Alaska, who voted Present on Owen's confirmation last time.  Stevens probably is retirng, meaning he doesn't have to worry about what Alaskans will think of his vote.  He can do as he pleases.  The second is retiring senator Warner of VA, who is long known to have been moderate on social stuff.  He too will likely never have to answer to red state voters again.  If those two vote no, we're at 49.  If, however, Nelson of NE who is up for reelection next year votes yes, we're back at 50.  And then Dick Cheney casts the deciding vote.  Others who may flip include Smith of OR (minus 1) and Nelson of FL (plus 1).

It would be a close vote, but I can easily imagine the result being something to the effect of, "The vote is 50 in favor of the nomination and 50 opposed.  The vice president votes aye."

I don't see what possible advantages Owen has over Brown, but I see several advantages for Brown.

It seems to me that Brown's personal story is very compelling.  You cannot say that she is a child of privilege, or that she has never faced adversity, etc. etc.

I think it would be more difficult for the Senate RINOs to vote against Brown than to vote against Owen.  

Having seen both of them on TV, my sense is that Brown has more "charm" than Owen.  Not a fair measure of a SCOTUS Justice, I know, but a factor in  figuring how she would come across during Sen. Jud. hearings.  

Why wouldn't she be confirmed?  First, we know that Owen was non-extraordinary a couple of months ago, so any attempt by the Democrat 7 to filibuster will allow the GOP 7 to go nuclear.

On confirmation, even if every single Democrat votes no, there are only four Republicans with both the personal desire and political impetus to vote no: Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins.  That still leaves us with 51 votes.

Yes, but Dems will argue that a SCOTUS appointment is different, since there will be no review of her decisions.  And not entirely without merit.

This is not the deciding vote on Roe.  Owen's primary sin with the left on abortion is the parental notification case, which is an issue most Americans agree with conservatives on.  That means the abortion-moderate GOP senators, like Murkowski, Smith, KBH, etc, won't oppose because doing so would hurt them politically in their red and purple states.  Unless a skeleton lies in Owen's closet, I suspect most of these would vote yes.

That won't stop NARAL et al from demogoguing the issue.  And given Kennedy's opinion in Stenberg, I think it is safe to say that he regards Casey as being somewhat narrower than does O'C.  In other words, she's probably the swing vote on some things.

Again, most Americans agree with the GOP on PBA, but it won't stop Dems from demogoguing the issue.

At this point, there are three senators who would decide the success of the nomination.  The first is Stevens of Alaska, who voted Present on Owen's confirmation last time.  Stevens probably is retirng, meaning he doesn't have to worry about what Alaskans will think of his vote.  He can do as he pleases.  The second is retiring senator Warner of VA, who is long known to have been moderate on social stuff.  He too will likely never have to answer to red state voters again.  If those two vote no, we're at 49.  If, however, Nelson of NE who is up for reelection next year votes yes, we're back at 50.  And then Dick Cheney casts the deciding vote.  Others who may flip include Smith of OR (minus 1) and Nelson of FL (plus 1).

Again, you assume that Dems wouldn't decide that she is extraordinary.  Only two of their gang of seven need to flip (Landrieu, Inouye, Salazar, Byrd) before the nuclear option is to be destroyed.  And if we're going to nuke them, why not go for a 44-year-old Estrada or a rock-solid conservative like Jones?

1. We are going to nuke them if they filibuster.  It is inevitable.  McCain wants to be president.  DeWine wants to win reelection and he sees what's happening to the GOP in Ohio.  That's 2.  That's enough.  Along with the other 48 GOP senators, the votes are there to go nuclear.
   
2. So then the question becomes why not nominate, as you said, someone as far to the right as possible, like Brown or Jones?  The answer is that even after we nuke them, we still need 50 votes to confirm.  As you pointed out, the Dems will demagogue any nominee who is put forth, but the demagoguery will be far less effective if we don't give the Dems much to work with.  Unfortunately, both JRB and Jones have lots of fiery quotes that many Americans may find mean-spirited or harsh, especially as part of a 30 second ad.  The Dems will hope to hold their ranks and turn the average American against the nominee, giving RINOs and moderate Republicans cover to vote no.  

This becomes far harder with Luttig, Owen, Williams, McConnell, etc.  None have the types of writings or quotes that suggest a personal vendetta against the tenets of liberalism.  But all appear to be conservative from past rulings.  They'd be harder to demagogue, meaning that it would be less likely that the American people would turn against them, meaning it would be less likely that socially moderate GOP senators from red states would be able to vote against them without hurting themselves politically.  This nomination will be decided by senators like Warner, Stevens, Murkowski, and Smith.

It's a fair analysis, but ultimately I think the only one who would have trouble getting through would be Janice "Lochner was the good ol' days" Rogers Brown.  Barring her nomination, I don't think the "no" votes in the Rs ultimately go any deeper than Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter, with Nelson a possible "yes" vote no matter what happens.  Even if we put Jones in the "unacceptable" category, I'd still rather see the nuclear option deployed on behalf of Luttig or Estrada than Owen.

FWIW, I doubt Bush would ever nominate JRB.  Her libertarian leanings make her an uncertain vote on the War on Terror cases, which is probably Bush's most important issue.

Edith Jones, Joy Clement, Viet Dinh, and Michael McConnell are all good selections, IMO.

I've always thought Bush wanted to put Owen on the Supreme Court... he just seems to like her. Bush has shown a consistent tendency to go with those he knows over other options... though in this case politics looms large.

My memory might be off, but I think JRB actually got 56 yes votes after the filibuster was ended, as opposed to Owen at 55-- and JRB was nominated to a more important Circuit Court (DC). I highly doubt Bush would nominate Brown, of course, but nonetheless she isn't quite as DOA as some claim (though it would take the nuke to get her through).

One thing I am fairly certain of is that Bush will not offer up Owen as a sacrificial lamb. He will only nominate her if he believes she has a good chance at getting through, even if it takes the nuclear option. JRB, on the other hand, could be offered up with, say, Karen Williams as the backup plan... but that's extremely unlikely as well.

My guess is that he goes with Williams, unless via contact with key Senators the White House thinks Owen gets through.

ConfirmThem just posted that rumors are abounding on a Sykes nomination.  I think the Dems would flip over that!

I think that a Priscilla Owen would be a wonderful justice who would make conservatives like me very happy in her rulings, and if she were nominated I would of course fully support her.

That said, I do believe that Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, and Edith Jones are all better choices.

Edith Jones far and away has the most intellectual gravity of the women, which has earned her the reputation of "Scalia in a skirt." She's also a Houstonian and a Texas Ex :)

Miguel Estrada is probably as brilliant as Edith Jones - and his Hispanic ethnic heritage is equally .

Janice Rogers Brown I believe is almost equally intelligent while having more charisma than Edith and an even more compelling life story than Estrada. You get a brilliant conservative firebrand that satisfies both the female and minority checkboxes. Estrada is young enough that we can nominate him to replace John Paul Stevens, and JRB wouldn't cause either any more or any less outrage on the Left than Priscilla Owen would.

Priscilla Owen's only advantage over Estrada is that she would be a woman replacing a woman on the Court, and she's younger than the other two women who are the darlings of the Conservatives. Other than that, I think that she would be a generally bland nomination, and it would be hard to make the case that there was no one more qualified than her for the seat.

But again...she would still be a good justice who would vote the right way. And after all of the heartburn we've given ourselves having to worry about Alberto Gonzales and Brookings-affiliated Larry Thompson

...that's no small thing.

Which reflects an increasingly uninspired administration.

If Chief Justice-to-be John Roberts is the new standard, as I think he should be, then we should be talking about potential nominees with that kind of legal acumen and stature. Judge Luttig has that kind of stature, it seems to me, as does possibly Judge McConnell. I do not think the other names being talked about, including Judge Owen, have that kind of stature. If so, then these other names reflect political choices and identity calculations, which by definition demean the process and Court.

This Bush presidency is adrift. Ironically, for an administration that plays politics with everything, the answer is to show political courage. Nominate the best jurist for the second SCOTUS opening (Luttig) regardless of what anyone else wants or thinks and then start getting the federal government's fiscal house in order by pushing to rescind earmark projects in the recently passed transportation bill and delay the prescription medication bill coverage in order to pay for disaster relief.

Bush and the country would be helped by a huge dose of conservative Truman-style populism; start fighting the Spend Everything Congress, even if it is run by your own party. There are rump factions in the House and Senate that would rise up and support such action, as well as much of the citizenry.

Lastly, Karen Hughes should be brought back into the White House as someone with an ear for what people on the street think and a facility in communicating such.

would be an early Christmas present for the Democratic Party.  

She is clearly a politically driven justice and the Democrats would make sure that every American knew that the Administration was trying to force an ideologue onto the bench.

There is no way that the Republicans could push through the nuclear option with Brown.  

Of course the administration knows this and isn't going to let their plummeting numbers plummet further by picking Brown.

I would be surprised by Owen as well.  While not as contentious as Brown she is very troublesome for Democrats.  Given that they filibustered her for 2 years I would be surprised to see the President go with her.

I thought Sykes was a Democrat.. will she be acceptable to Brownback and Coburn?

Bush today was talking about Diversity in the court pick so that eliminates Luttig / McConnell from likely consideration, at least until Stevens goes (soon please).

I suspect we'll see a woman ... any of the huge list although I think Batchdelor WONT be it because of age and I don't think Brown will be it, because she's NOT confirmable as SCOTUS nominee.

So despite the filibuster threat, I think we're likely to see:

Edith Jones

Or one of the group of :

Sykes

Karen Williams

Clement

Callahan

Owen

or if he means "hispanic" then we'll see:

Estrada

Gonzales

Garza

although I think Gonzales would be very unlikely.

Details, please...

I've never heard of her before today, but as I google her she is looking pretty good. The dems would certainly try to filibuster her though, as they will anyone who is nominated. FreeRepublic has some stuff about her. Apparently she also used to be married to a right-wing radio host. My only problem with that is "used to be," but I think Owen is also a "used to be" married.

She is definately worth looking at, so if anyone can find anything on her... please do.

No way.  Maybe in a former life or something.

Saying that Bush "needs to govern" is one of those cheap, high sounding phrases that liberals (and liberal Republicans) love to toss about, but which really mean nothing. So, what do you mean when you say that?

I interpet it to mean "quit working on what other people want, and start working on what I want". A secondary meaning, the cowards meaning, is "Quit fooling around! Someone's going to notice us over here!".

If taking the time to line up and confirm conservative Justices ain't governing, then there is no point to governing at all.

governing involves getting some legislation passed.  And Bush is having a pretty tough time of that.  Whatever happened to Social Security reform?

I won't deny that "governing" is the kind of thing liberal Republicans talk about.  It's also the kind of thing conservative Democrats talk about.  That's because moderates, regardless of which party they're in, realize that leading a nation isn't supposed to be a contact sport.  We're here to lead and make sure people are happy, healthy, and free.  In the aftermath of Katrina, it's pretty clear that the one thing our governments (federal, state, and local) aren't doing is governing.

The Republican Party went to the mat over Terri Schiavo but can't bother to muster up even a "harrumph" over reforming Social Security or Medicare.  What exactly are we doing here, other than using petty partisan politicking to alienate Americans from the party?  I realize that we've been getting away with it because the Democrats have been so impotent, but that's hardly the point.

Politics shouldn't just be played to win, and for those of us who are conservatives (or liberals) first and Republicans second, the winners mentality is especially disgraceful.  When Tom DeLay says there's no more fat to cut, we should be putting a Democrat in his seat.  It doesn't matter if the Democrat will be worse; the point is to teach the Republican Party a lesson.  We're here to govern - and let that mean what you want it to mean - not to win, not to "energize the base", and not to score cheap points.

Stevens and Ginsburg will be gone this term, with at least one by Christmas. So, Bush gets to replace at least two of the liberals. The moonbats are going to go bananas this term.

There is no reason to pick someone so politically indefensible.  Owen and Brown would only make the Democrats look sensible.

Please God, let this this be true! And please my good friend, enlighten me to your sources so that when I go sleep tonight I can dream of a fantastic conservative SC so rapidly coming about.

My dark horse for the pick is Charles Pickering but if longevity is  the strategy my dark, dark horse pick is Missouri Governor Matt Blunt who is 35 years old -- if he lived as long as Renquist we would have half a century of a solid conservative justice on the bench.

time somebody threw the name of Viet Dinh in the mix.

a Democrat in Tom DeLay's seat kind of in direct conflict with making "sure people are happy, healthy, and free"?

I think that if one believes that Tom DeLay should be replaced, it ought to be with a more pork-cutting Republican.  Replacing him with a Democrat that would be worse just to punish the GOP is in direct conflict with the spirit of your post, which was do what is best for America regardless of politics.

and that you will nuke us.  At the very least, it's likely that the vote to nuke will be held.  But it may not be quite as simple as McCain Graham and DeWine.  Specter and Hagel stayed out of the Gang, but their votes still can't be reliably predicted, at least not by an outsider like me.  And I was surprised to learn from you upthread that Stevens voted "present" on Owen.  What is that about?  Since he's retiring and his vote may be vital, he has some power to dictate.  I imagine he's being consulted through some channel or other.

How did Stevens vote on JRB, Pryor, et al?  Anything you know about this would be interesting.

Thanks for your hospitality.

"And I was surprised to learn from you upthread that Stevens voted "present" on Owen.  What is that about?"

Sen. Inouye was unable to attend the vote, and Sen. Stevens voted the way he did out of deference to him. Had Sen. Inouye been present to vote, Sen. Stevens would have voted "aye"; in fact, he originally did vote "aye" but changed his vote before the final tally.

McConnell wrote a page long ope-ed eviscerating Roe in the Wall St. Journal.  Unlike Roberts, he can't say, he was just a lawyer, it waws clearly his personal opinion.  He also supported Bob Jones University in saying they have a religious right to be racist.  You don't think the Dems would love to nail him on that?  As for the others, I largely agree with you.  Although Williams and Sykes both have stuff that would be easy to go after.

Having watched their hearings, neither Brown nor Owen came across really well.  They both stammered somewhat and seemed to whither under the lights.  And that was only for an appeals court position when half the committee asn't even there and no one was paying attention.  Just an observation.

would probably vote for the nuclear option even if he planned to vote against the nomination. Hasn't he given indications he thinks the filibuster of judicial nominees is wrong?

He's got to be the hardest guy to figure out. In the Thomas hearings, his destruction of Anita Hill's credibility was absolutely masterful. And while allowing limited flexibility to the Dems in the Roberts hearings, he kept to the schedule he set and did not screw around with any attempted delays.

to each other.  And it extends to serious policy questions; the Hawaiian Democrats defected and voted for drilling in ANWR, and their votes were consequential (the margin was less than two).  They've got a non-mainlander alliance going.

Thanks for the explanation of Stevens' vote.  Turns out he's a wholly reliable R as far as judges and the nuclear option.

... a reliable vote, that I cannot speak to. I could answer what was up regarding his vote on Owen, however, as I remembered it from when it happened. Here is the CNN story:

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska changed his vote from "yea" to "present" because he said he had originally agreed to pair his vote with Inouye's intended "nay" so each would cancel out the other.

I have to agree, one thing that bugs me most about Owen is that while she may not be horrible, she just isn't outstanding, and a lot of excellent jurists would be overpassed.

Brown in reality is on the extreme end of the spectrum-probably even more than Thomas.  She would be an easy target to attack.

jones has the credentials and bonafides, but you can't argue that she is extreme unless you are Chuckie Schumer or Ted Kennedy, but in their case anyone to the right of Breyer is extreme.

I'm not as nakedly partisan as the vast majority of folks here at Redstate.  I don't agree a priori that Democrats are all worse for the country than Republicans.  Especially not Texas Democrats, who are a pretty conservative bunch.

My Senator hasn't cared what Alaskans thought about him since his 3rd re-election.  And he'll continue not caring when we have to send some of our own to drag his body from his office when he dies there at whatever age he finally gives up the ghost.

We love him and his work that much.  We TRUST him.

How many other senators can say that about their constituents?

Long story short, if Stevens votes a given way, he has a reason, and we'll support him.

Reliable Republican he is not.  Reliable to vote his and Alaska's conscience, he is.  Just so happens that said conscience is pretty tight with most Party positions.

Going to suck when he finally Does succumb to whatever.  Maybe he'll hang around long enough for me to campaign to replace him...

This must be the 3rd reference to Stevens retiring in just this one thread.  I'm sure I may be reading into it a little (not to mention a tad uninformed) and that this particular Stevens is a judge, but just in case you mean Ted Stevens of Alaska, I'd like to know who is behind the rumours of his retirement.  That'd be rather big news in Alaska considering his re-election campaign comes down to 1 speech that amounts to: "Hi.  It's me.  I'd still like to be your Senator.  Have a nice day."

Stevens can't last another 3 years.  There is no way!  He'll be almost 90!  Time will take its toll... Ginsburg might be a stretch.  If her health turns poor again, we may see things blow up in DC.

Stevens

Don't forget the Shelia Jackson Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Hightower, and Mollie Ivans are all "Texas" Democrats.

Unfortunately, the days of conservative Democrats in Texas like Charlie Wilson are long gone.  We killed off the last bunch of them with the '04 redistricting.