Redstate

CNN put up something mentioning Harriet Miers rather prominently today. I don't know if that means anything, since they're not exactly the most reliable source in the world, but they could have heard something that we haven't heard yet.

Link

Judge Danny Boggs, born 1944 in Havana, Cuba. Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit. Definitely conservative.

Allison Hayward would be pumped.

---"The President is not going to name anyone who has specifically written that Roe should be thrown out. It's not going to happen and people should deal with it."---

So if this source is correct, the President has dismissed all justices from consideration who would clearly be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia!?

Kind of going back on his word, is he not?

Careful, Mr. President.  When you put your honor and reputation on the line during election season at every campaign stop making a "Thomas and Scalia" promise, it's hard to believe much of what you say should you reneg on that promise.

Once you go back on your word, your word is worthless.  Remember that, please.

I for one will continue to believe the President is a man of honor and will appoint a judge in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.  But if we don't get one, or get another cop-out "stealth" candidate, don't bother campaigning for anybody in 2006, Mr. Bush.

Nobody likes a liar.

Were Scalia and Thomas on public record saying Roe should be overturned before they were appointed?  I don't think so.

Had a paper trail about five miles wide. And all of it entertaining to read, to boot.

I'm glad to finally get another scrap from the table to tide me over until tomorrow.

This post seems to indicate that all nominees will be in the mold of Roberts--i.e., pretty unknown.  That's not what conservatives want, but maybe that's just the way it has to be.

In the end, though, I don't think it does have to be that way.  Someone on ConfirmThem said that this is a conservative country, and this country wants, even needs, a homerun conservative nominee.  I'm more inclined to believe that.  I think people are waiting for a new Bork, and I don't think the battle would end the same way today.  The constant nomination of unknown judges is ultimately dispiriting to the base, to the law--and, most importantly, to the voters.

People who should be on the Court will be passed over if the White House sincerely believes they have to play peek-a-boo with the nominees.  Hopefully, that's not the case.

Here's an Internet quiz to help.

They won't announce tomorrow, they'll give the leader of the third branch a day in the sun.  I don't get the bit about the administration being too secret about things lately.  No one knew it was Roberts till three hours before, either, and that fact doesn't seem to have screwed anything up.

There are three events in which his voice comes out.

First, he was the dissenting voice in the 6th Circuit's 2-1 decision to strike down Ohio's law against Dilation and Extraction (1995).

Second, his appendix to the dissent in the 5-4 decision to uphold Michigan Law School's affirmative action rules (Grutter v. Bollinger) was a big root of the subsequent questions of judicial misconduct by the then chief of the 6th, Boyce Martin.

Finally, he's one of the four Judges of FREE - Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment.  That is, one of the four who are (or were till Andre Davis resignation) on the board of the foundation.  Davis resigned after a question of conflict of interest was invoked.  Boggs (and fellow chief judge Douglas Ginsburg, plus judge Jane Roth) are waiting till their case is decided by 8th circuit chief judge James Loken.

I'm sure there are other items, but those are the ones that come to my mind.

Roberts will end up being as conservative as Scalia, et al. and yet some nutjobs on this and some other sites aren't happy.

Why the heck should the prez care what social conservatives say when he nominates one of the most conservative nominees ever and still gets trashed.

Some people need to grow up.

This may harken back to kremlinology but I believe the white house's insistence on not releasing Robert's documents from his time in Ken Starr's solicitor general's office indicates that Estrada may be in the mix.  The white house released documents from when he was a punchy young conservative lawyer in Reagan's white house.  I frankly suspect those documents had more juice in them than anything that was generated while he was in the solicitor general's office.  Estrada, was filibustered on the basis of the White House's refusal to release his documents from his stint in the solicitor general's office.  Since the white house did release documents from the time he was white house counsel it is difficult to see what principle they were trying to forward vis-a-vis attorney client privilege or executive privilege.  Anyhow, just more reading of the tea leaves, it is probably mcconnel or somebody nobody is anticipating.

You have Boggs who may or may not have said anything about Roe V. Wade but DID vote to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion.  

Fodder for the Dems, but since congress has also passed a ban on partial birth abortion, it shouldn't cost him votes.  It will generate a lot of questions about Roe.

The Michigan case will cause a lot of Dems to go against him and would give Kennedy a place to tee off, but it would make the base happy.  Depending on its reasoning, it might or might not give the Dems something to rally around, but unlikely to sustain a filibuster.

The last issue raised above might cause problems if that organization is considered a "right wing" organization.

Age does become an issue, but the base will support someone they think.  Also, if age isnt an issue then it adds Batchelor back to the list that most of have in our heads.

Batchelor

Williams

Sykes

Boggs

Estrada

"The President is not going to name anyone who has specifically written that Roe should be thrown out. It's not going to happen and people should deal with it."

Hey, no disrespect, but here's my way of dealing with it: f#$% you.

Thomas, too - as I recall.....

Consuelo Cunnigham!  Never heard of her!

W was out on the stump promising a strict constuctionist.  Those are the promises I heard.  And if he indeed promised Thomas or Scalia, well, Thomas is about as constructionist as one can be.  

Conservatives have become the depressed party.  Not that they don't have reason for concern.  But CONSTANTLY discrediting the president is driving me up the wall.  Shut up! Some of you sound like he has appointed Satan to the court.  Roberts will be great.  Sheesh.

I thought that Bush said there wasn't going to be a litmus test on abortion for a SCOTUS nominee.

If this article is true about eliminating anyone who has written against Roe, then it turns out Bush lied - there is a litmus test; and he's favoring the wrong side of the test at that.

It would really be a shame to have both parties employing a litmus test on Roe - eliminating nominees from the same side of the issue in unison.

I'm ready to see some smash mouth politics.

Callahan.

Corrigan, which I find strange as, based on my answers, it would seem like I should have gotten Luttig, Batchelder or Jones...

Alito too vocal on abortion?  All he did was apply a very confused body of law to the Pennsylvania laws in question in Casey.  And guess what the position he took in dissent was basically vindicated by the Court (except for the spousal notification provision).  But the point being is that he attempted to discern what the hell the Court had been saying in its cases in the late 80s on abortion.  He got one point wrong.  Why that would keep him from being nominated is beyond me.  He and Luttig are clearly the most qualified of the bunch.  And of the two he clearly has the better disposition.  He is a humble, self-effacing guy who is also legally brilliant.  He is a distinguished public servant who has argued a dozen Supreme Court cases, been the US Attorney for New Jersey, a deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel and a judge for 15 years.  He is universally liked on the Third Circuit by his fellow judges.

I'm not going to judge the nominee before Bush names him or her. I'm not going to question Bush's honesty with regard to judicial appointments until then either.

After all, Bush's record-- at least in terms of nominations-- has been pretty good at the Circuit and District levels, from what I understand.

That said, if he doesn't appoint a strict constructionist, that would be a betrayal of his base. He could have said, when asked about who he would nominate, just "strict constructionists" which would have left some wiggle room. But by including Scalia and leaving out Rehnquist from his response, he gave a fairly precise description of any and all nominees he would consider for the spot.

...wouldn't that tend to leave out Miguel?

OTOH, the guy is a certified genius, plus, he has the Ann Coulter Seal Of Approval (apparently, she is one of his drinking buddies).

The guy is a Roberts clone. First in his class, up by his bootstraps, etc., etc....Roberts without the money.

Bush really needs the Base. Estrada does that and gives him the Ethnic Dogfight that he needs.

up Jones.  When I changed my "in the mold of" from Scalia to Roberts, I got Estrada. Interesting.

Bring it on, Schumer...

I got Callahan ...

When I put in that I didn't want a minority, I got Williams ...

Frankly, I think the different is quite a bit larger than that, but ....

I fiddled with several more settings, but the quiz basically equates Callahan as a hispanic Williams.. whereas I think Williams is a good deal more conservative...

We won.  The democrats lost.  We have been winning and we keep on winning.

Have doubts about that?

Ask yourself what kind of judge John Kerry would've nominated?  A strict legal fictionist like Lawrence Tribe?

A partisan liberal like some of the 9th Circuit judges?

Count your blessings, folks.  John Roberts will be a voice for conscientious conservatives on the Court.  He will vote with Scalia and Thomas 90 to 98% of the time.

Best of all, he will be the Chief Justice for 15-25 years.  

This is why we knock on doors and work the phone banks.

is definitely the conservative leader on the Sixth Circuit and has been for a while.  It's really a screwed-up court, but that's more judicial politics than anything.

He wrote an opinion against me once on a civil rights claim.  Ooooh, was I steamed.  You guys would like him.

Too many conservatives let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

NEWSFLASH: Perfection does not exist in this world.

My post was not meant to be a slam against Roberts.  I'm as optimistic as one can be about him, though, like all sensible people, I have to take it on faith because he does not have any kind of judicial record on many important issues.

There's no problem.  Wish I had a link, but I know the decision is out.

If Bush names someone as firm as Scalia, that seems to give Roberts three votes to work with plus his own.

With four dependable liberals and the unpredictable Kennedy, how does Roberts build a majority? Is he reduced to prevailing primarily only when they can convince Kennedy to join them?

Or, would Roberts have more flexibility to build majorities if the new nominee were someone a little more flexible like him? Might Roberts and a clone be better able to bridge to other votes than three Scalias?

thought I'd get Jones, lol. Even after I played around with it, I still got Owens a few more times, and I once got Ted Olson. Interesting quiz!

It's possible that the Miers talk might be a distraction from focusing on another female attorney in DC who might get the nod.

Here's an intriguing thought: What if Bush's comment that "diversity is one of the country's strengths" has a very clever double meaning that folks have yet to pick up on?  Specifically, what if it was a thinly veiled reference to Maureen Mahoney and her handling of the Michigan affirmative action case?

The more one thinks about a Mahoney nomination, the more plausible it becomes.  She embodies so many of the traits Bush seems to be looking for.  She is without a doubt the female candidate most similar to Roberts in terms of educational and professional pedigree as well as her experience as a respected and well-seasoned Supreme Court litigator.  We also know that like Roberts, she was nominated to the bench by GHWB but had her nomination expire.  She also has a limited paper trail, comes across as the very poised and composed woman she seems to be, and as a lawyer, not a judge, she meshes well with Bush's other signs that he is considering folks who have never been on the bench.

Of course, THE issue with Mahoney is her handling of the affirmative action case.  This case, however, could be a great strength for her as well as a weakness.  As a former Ken Starr deputy, etc., her handling of this case could innoculate her well from charges of being to far to the right.  It is difficult to imagine Schumer et. al. being able to filibuster the woman who saved affirmative action and not appear obstructionist.  While Mahoney's involvement with the affirmative action case was of course much more involved than Roberts' brief work on the gay rights case, it could have the same impact of helping to undermine full-throttle democratic opposition to her nomination.  

Relatedly, while her handling of the Michigan case will undermine her support on the right, the damage might be limited.  Affirmative action is not a core or hot button conservative judicial issue these days in the way that abortion is.  The Bush administration in particular has shown some sympathy towards affirmative action, with the White House having forced Olson to take a moderate tack in his briefing of the Michigan case.  Thus, it is easy to conclude that from Bush's prospective, the benefits of Mahoney's handling the Michigan case far outweigh the pitfalls.  If Bush has received other indications that she will go the right way on other issues, or even on future affirmative action issues, it would be a great move to nominate her.

While all of this is admittedly reading a lot into Bush's comments, if he does go with Mahoney, his earlier telegraph was pretty darn clever.

Except that I think Roberts will be a Scalia.

But if you don't have the cojones to fight for a judge who has criticized Roe vs Wade, then I am done with you.

all I read today moves him to the top of my wishlist.

The top thread over at ConfirmThem, poster Bilbo just put up some deeply heartening stuff on her.

Sykes

Boggs

Luttig

and I hear Miers is reliably pro-life. If so, add her.

with all his current problems i bet bush nominates

an unknown who can`t be pinned down.it`s a sure thing   he won`t try for a known commodidy who is hard right.the dems are going to fight with all

they have on the next nomination because they have to coddle their base.when you get down to it we really don`t know what we are getting with roberts, i`m sure he`s conservative but i doubt he is in the scalia mold.this next choice is very important and bush  will need a stalth  candidate.

Thomas had never thought about or discussed Roe before.  At least, that's what he testified.

the quiz

The downside?  His personal arrogance may not sit well at a confirmation hearing.

Thomas outright lied when he said that.

At the time, I was office manager at right to life in nc and we had a copy of a speech he gave at a right to life convention regarding that.

But, I am glad he got confirmed!

You've just accused the man of willfully committing perjury under oath to a senate committee.

Is that really waht you intended to do?

He will vote with Scalia and Thomas 90 to 98% of the time.

You assume that Scalia and Thomas agree that often.

All I can tell you is that the documents existed and whether or not it is perjury is beyond my ability to discern.

Perhaps he forgot, maybe someone else ghost wrote it for him and he submitted it but didnt actually write it.

All I am telling you is what I know and saw with my own eyes back in 1992.

Dont know what else to say. And he remains my favorite Supreme Court justice.

in OT2004 were Rehnquist and Kennedy, who voted together 77 percent of the time.  Followed by:

Rehnquist/O'Connor (72 percent)

Souter/Ginsburg (71)

Stevens/Ginsburg (70)

O'Connor/Kennedy (70)

Stevens/Souter (69)

Ginsburg/Breyer (69)

Scalia/Thomas (68)

Link with more data.

Thomas was confirmed in 1991. Are you saying that you saw, in 1992, a copy of a speech he gave prior to July 1991? Or that you saw the speech in 1992?

Does that include instances where a justice signs on to part of an opinion, or when they agree with a decision and write a separate concurrence? Or just instances of signing onto an opinion with a particular justice, in which case the number is more than a little misleading.

...whenever they were in the majority together or the minority together, regardless of if they were 'signed on' to the same exact opinion. At least that is the impression I took from some of the explanations on SCOTUSBlog from the previous years' data.

I went back and skimmed the Casey dissent by Alito.  I remembered it incorrectly.  But it is totally defensible.  He merely applied what he thought was the standard to the spousal notification provision at issue.  He admitted that if the majority was right its constitutionality was doubtful.

The promise was for that kind of judiciaal temperament, not a Roe litmus test.

Which I doubt, since she's never been a judge and isn't a high-profile litigator like Ted Olson or Estrada . . . but if it is, a hat tip is due to David Frum, who said months ago to keep an eye on Meiers.

Way to embarass yourself.

The President never promised that.  So if you can't deal with it, then you're the one who's out of step here.

I think it's going to be Olsen.  It's a very Bush-like pick.

Can you imagine?

Democrats will literally try to justify voting against him simply on the fact that he is a man.

Then you might as well do Luttig.

I like Olsen better than Luttig (although I would have no objections to Luttig) and in terms of Bush's track record, he would be a curveball surprise.  And even better, an excellent and appropriate pick.  And a devil for the Dems.  It's just like Roberts if you think about it.

But maybe they don't want to do another Roberts, so I might be wrong according to my own logic, imagine that...

Estrada comes from a well-to-do Honduran family. He's not the "pulled himself up by the bootstraps" story that JRB or AGAG are.

...I find it hard to believe that Erick doesn't know who Danny Boggs is.  How are we to take his commentary and analysis seriously if he doesn't know the identity of one of the leading conservative/libertarian judges in this country?

much up to you to make that choice, isn't it? Maybe he isn't that "leading" if Erick hasn't heard of him?

just told Ron Reagan that President Bush may sleep on it at Camp David this weekend and make an announcement Monday.

He may, if he hasn't decided yet.  But if he has, I think he'll announce it tomorrow afternoon.

Estrada really seems to fit the Roberts mold and would make a great pick.  He would give the democrats fits.  Further, he really hasn't been a big part of the rumor mill which bodes well for him as we recall the certainty with which Clement was reported as Bush's pick.

But that doesn't make it wrong.

Oh, and he's leading.  You just never hear of him because he's out of the Sixth Circuit.  But, may I ask, how many courts of appeals judges have you heard of?

Olson is seen by Dems as part of the vast right-wing anti-Clinton project from the 90s (although it would be funny to see them try to hang the whole Ken Starr investigation on the man who tried to get the Supreme Court to invalidate the Independent Counsel statute).  Plus, he argued Bush v. Gore.  And he's pretty gruff on TV, not soothing like Roberts.

If we were to get a white male nominee, I'd still prefer McConnell, who is soft-spoken, very academic and personally well-liked by liberal law professors.  Of course, McConnell has a Bork-sized paper trail including extensive criticism of Roe.

I should probably spell Olson's name right.

I'm not sure of the basis of your comment.

He's a perfectly affable fellow, and has been through two Senate confirmations (one when he became Deputy Secretary of Energy).  Plus I'm pretty sure his fellow judges wouldn't have elected him the Head of the Appellate Judges division of the American Bar Association if they had questions about his temperament.

This has always been a mystery to me, but I have a theory. I'm sure the MSM, etc., never pay attention to anyone that lives in Kentucky; it could vanish into another dimension for a month before the NY Times would notice. So being "the smartest man in Kentucky" as Boggs is sometimes called, doesn't exactly impress them (it should, but there you go...). So that's a factor.

Attitudes like this should ONLY be seen on liberal blogs. They use these phrases all the time and their politicians listen to them and end up saying off the wall things like comparing Guantanamo to nazi Germany, which has kept them on a long losing streak. Let the politicians (a.k.a. Bush and Rove) do their job. They know what they are doing and it's not like Bush is a power hungry liberal who is willing to comprimise on his core beliefs. He knows how to win AND do the right thing, two attributes that aren't often seen together in pols. We ARE sure Roberts is pro-life: his wife was VP of an organization dedicated to the cause. Bush knew this and knew the Dems would know too but couldn't touch him. So again, let him do his job and quit assuming everyone else is a Souter. He was a mistake. A costly mistake but only a mistake nonetheless. We were right on Thomas. That's 50/50. If we can keep that up long enough Roe will be overturned. But we can't keep it up with your kind of language. There is no issue more dear to my heart than the pro-life issue, but we are acting like fools. I would love a fight, but if we want to keep up our cause for the long term, which is what we need to keep Roe overturned, then we need to exercise patience. It may have been 30+ years, but I'm willing to fight this issue for as many as it takes. You should be too. So wise up everyone. It will take wisdom to continue winning national elections long enough to abolish abortion to the point of making it a non-issue. Bush has that wisdom. Being the Christian that he is, I believe he asked for that wisdom before he became President. He is certainly wiser than you and I and knows how to keep winning better than you and I. He wants to win to eradicate abortion. If you notice how moderate he is on every issue (he even supported leaving gay marriage up to the states when he first ran for Prez), then you will see that the only two strong reasons he is Republican are to cut taxes and eliminate abortion. He's done one. He's poised to begin the other by overturning Roe. Let him do that without swearing him out.

Roberts doesn't look like a Scalia-type. I don't think he's that conservative. Roberts, in my opinion, is too intelligent to mold himself into a certain ideological position. However, we won't really know until he writes some major opinions.

I've met with him several times and interviewed for a clerkship in his Chambers.

I think Roberts will be different from Scalia. But, we'll see.

First, I think he will be more collegial and not as sharp.

Second, knowing Roberts is precise, his comments indicate he will be more open. He wants strong majorities. I believe he will be more like Reinquist. But, we never know.

hispanic.

Although Garza is definitely on record regarding Roe.

Let it be tomorrow afternoon.  I can't take much more of this.

What, and been turned down for a job? Doesn't that make you a little biased?

Good work on getting to the interview stage via the quiz, though.

I wasn't expecting to be hired by him because of our obvious ideological issues.  There are other judges who didn't hire me (including Republicans like Stewart Dalzell) whom I worship.