Who will replace Miers? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 10-27-2005, 04:45 PM

After extremely widespread criticism of her lack of qualifications, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to SCOTUS. Now, Bush must select a replacement. Who will that replacement be?

Here's my best guess:

I want Bush to nominate Michael McConnell. He sits on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, is a fairly moderate conservative, and is one of the best constitutional scholars in his generation.

However, Bush has proven with this last nomination that he has a poor understanding of what makes a good Justice. Soooo....

I predict he will nominate Edith Jones from the 5th Circiut Court of Appeals. She is a very, very experienced Judge and a staunch conservative. I would object to her nomination only on the grounds that she is somewhat overly conservative, although she at least has the solid qualifications that Miers was lacking.

That's how I see it.

Thoughs?

samcol · 10-27-2005, 05:08 PM

I don't know anyone by name, but whether the person is black, white, hispanic, male, female, all that matters to me is that the person is very conservative. Even though this looks like a really rough 2nd term for Bush, he has a chance to leave a lasting conservative impression on the supreme court at least.

Elphaba · 10-27-2005, 05:18 PM

To form an opinion I will need to know more about the two. I found this information from Wikipedia which is simply a start. Let me do more research before I offer an opinion.

Michael W. McConnell (born in Louisville, Kentucky, 1955) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, having been nominated by President George W. Bush on September 4, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 15, 2002.

McConnell graduated from Michigan State University in 1976. McConnell receivied his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1979. He was a law clerk for James Skelly Wright, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Brennan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He was an assistant general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1983, and an assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1985. He was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, 1985-1996, and then at the University of Utah College of Law, 1997-2002.

External link
A selection of McConnell's essays for the Wall Street Journal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell"
Categories: 1955 births | Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Edith Hollan Jones (born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1949) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Jones graduated from Cornell University in 1971. She received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1974. She was in private practice in Houston, Texas from 1974 until 1985, working for the firm of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, where she became the firm's first female partner. She specialized in bankruptcy law. She also served as General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas from 1982-83.

She was nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan on February 27, 1985, and confirmed by the United States Senate on April 3, 1985. She received her commission on April 4, 1985, at the age of 36.

She sits on the board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America, the Garland Walker American Inns of Court, and is a member of several American Bar Association committees.

Elphaba · 10-27-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I don't know anyone by name, but whether the person is black, white, hispanic, male, female, all that matters to me is that the person is very conservative. Even though this looks like a really rough 2nd term for Bush, he has a chance to leave a lasting conservative impression on the supreme court at least.

Samcol, I agree that the "quota" system should never apply to the Supreme Court. But I believe you are adding a new quota "class" of "very conservative." My wish is for a nominee that is a constitutional scholar with real life experience in litigation.

Elphaba · 10-28-2005, 12:41 PM

Politico, McConnell does look good and he seems likely to win approval from both parties. I don't see Jones any more likely than Maureen Mahoney or Edith Brown Clement.

Bush has indicated that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a woman or minority this time, so I don't think McConnell has any less chance than anyone else.

politicophile · 10-28-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Politico, McConnell does look good and he seems likely to win approval from both parties. I don't see Jones any more likely than Maureen Mahoney or Edith Brown Clement.

Bush has indicated that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a woman or minority this time, so I don't think McConnell has any less chance than anyone else.

Here's what we know about the candidate:
1. He/She will not be a member of the President's inner circle. Alberto Gonzalez is definitely qualified for the job, but Bush will not choose him.

2. He/She will not be a quota hire. This means that it is more likely that a man will be nominated, as there are more males on the short list than females.

3. He/She will have at least some experience as a judge.

4. He/She will placate the extreme conservative Senators that derailed Miers' nomination.

With these criteria in mind, Edith Jones seems a natural choice. The only thing that could derail her nomination would be lack of support from moderates in the event of a filibuster attempt.

McConnell, on the other hand, is equally qualified, but has an interest first and foremost in upholding the Constitution, not in advancing conservative doctrine. Reminds me of John Roberts, actually. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick my man...

Elphaba · 10-28-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

McConnell, on the other hand, is equally qualified, but has an interest first and foremost in upholding the Constitution, not in advancing conservative doctrine. Reminds me of John Roberts, actually. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick my man...

But, golly gee. I thought conservatives opposed legislating from the bench. /sarcasm

Elphaba · 10-28-2005, 05:05 PM

Political Pundits Propose Potential Phalout

Sorry, I'm loopy from a long week. The entire Miers thing puzzles me and I keep wondering WTF was Bush thinking? I honestly believe that Bush has been using his evangelical base, and believes them to be "happy fools" that he can manipulate. He has yet to produce anything more than platitudes and small gestures to that segment of his base. It seems a personal "trust me on this" no longer holds and his base openly revolted and appears to have fractured the party. This article speculates that the damage engendered by the Miers nomination may have long term effects. What say you?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102805O.shtml

Quote:

Can the GOP Make Lemonade out of Miers?
By Michael Scherer
Salon.com

Thursday 27 October 2005

The radical right's veto of Bush's lawyer has left the GOP scarred. But if the president pushes through a reactionary, the real losers may be the Democrats.

White House counsel Harriet Miers will now fade into history as an also-ran, a presidential acolyte who was set up to fail. But that is not all that will be said of the president's loyal Texas attorney. In the wake of her withdrawn nomination, Miers has left a legacy of tumult that will help shape Washington politics over the next year and beyond.

In just a few weeks as a Supreme Court nominee, Miers unwittingly accomplished what Democrats have still failed to do: She single-handedly called into question President Bush's electoral mandate and helped redraw the political landscape. She fractured the Republican Party's impenetrable front. She rewrote rules of judicial confirmation battles. And she exposed both the legal agenda and the power of the modern-day conservative movement. The lawyer who devoted her life to defending George W. Bush proved to be a political wrecking ball.

The scope of the damage will depend largely on President Bush's next appointment to the high court. Conservatives, still enraged by the Miers pick, have promised to cut the president little slack, despite a perfect storm of crisis draining Bush's political capital: the crescendoing CIA-leak scandal, high gas prices and deepening disapproval of the Iraq war. Simply put, conservatives will not forgive, or forget, what they see as the betrayal of the Miers nomination. "Conservatives going forward will never again have the same relationship with President Bush," says Richard Viguerie, a conservative activist who helped lead the opposition to Miers.

Those threats from an emboldened right wing have renewed fears among Democrats that Bush will appoint a more radical nominee, which could prompt a fierce fight in the Senate with lasting effects for the 2006 elections. "If President Bush does send up a radical right nominee, after the Miers debacle, the Democrats will rise to the occasion," said Nan Aron, the leader of the liberal Alliance for Justice, an umbrella organization for civil rights, consumer and women's groups. "I'd say this is a very grim and dangerous moment for the courts and this country."

One thing is clear: Whomever the president chooses, it will be seen as a reaction to his failed nomination of Miers. One need only look back to last month's confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts to see how dramatically Miers has already shifted the political debate. Roberts was introduced to the nation as a public sphinx. He had a sterling résumé and a gleaming smile, but came to the Senate with no substantive record of his personal legal views.

Still, leaders on the right rallied to his defense, quietly squelching dissent within their own ranks. They dispatched a platoon of talking heads to deliver meaningless platitudes, saying Roberts would use "judicial restraint" and "not make law from the bench." They told the American people, again and again, that it was not proper for the Senate to know what Roberts really thought about anything specific. "The Senate traditionally has respected the nominee's judgment about where to draw the line," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on the first day of Roberts' confirmation hearing.

But with Miers' nomination, a radical transformation occurred. Conservatives initially distanced themselves from the president. A week later, after dozens of conference calls, they decided to declare total war on their own political leader. Even more remarkably, the Republican insurgents were victorious.

"It's not often that you go toe to toe with the president of the United States of your own party and beat him," says Viguerie. "It is very satisfying." The truce that has long held the Republican Party together - uniting ideological conservatives, corporate interests and the religious right - fractured completely under the weight of the Miers nomination.

At the same time, Miers inadvertently changed the rules of debate over judicial nominees. A coterie of conservative Republicans, including Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., began demanding answers to fundamental questions about her personal views. Republicans who once resisted attempts to get White House documents authored by Roberts now demanded the White House documents authored by Miers. Conservatives began to criticize the entire premise of nominees without clear judicial records. In a statement released Thursday, Manuel Miranda, a conservative legal activist, sounded like a Democrat, calling for an end to the "corrupting practice of stealth nominees." The president's next nominee to the Supreme Court will have a far more difficult time hiding his or her views.

Miers also exposed in plain terms the political goal of the conservative movement. It goes far beyond "judicial restraint" or even the willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade. The conservative movement wants to transform legal thought in America. It seeks to accomplish what it has failed to do ever since Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, was rejected in 1987. This is now explicit: "The President should now make a qualified nomination that overcomes the stigma created by Bork," Miranda announced in Thursday's press release.

"This event really cracked the code, unmasking the true intentions of the radical right," says Aron. "This is a president who has been denying for five years that he has a litmus test. It's now clear that his base has one, and his base is not willing to settle. The fight is now out in the open."

Yet there is an irony in the Miers fiasco. Despite the trouble Miers has created for President Bush, there is little reason for liberals to cheer unless Bush's next nominee proves to be a mainstream conservative. But activists like Aron are worried that the next pick, expected within days, may be the sort of radical legal revolutionary they have long feared. The current political atmosphere echoes 1990, a disastrous time for those who oppose a conservative takeover of the Supreme Court. "After a few years of George Bush Sr. being called a moderate on a number of social issues, he finally needed a way to shore up his base before an election," says Aron. "He sent up Clarence Thomas."

Senate Democrats have also expressed concern. On the Senate floor Thursday morning, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., came to the defense of Miers, calling her a "gentle and kind" woman. "The only voices heard in this process were the far right," he said. "President Bush should reject views of these extremists."

But Miers' political legacy may be too powerful to give Bush a choice. As Viguerie put it Thursday, the president's selection of another mainstream conservative like Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would be a "political suicide." With three years left in his second term, the president has been forced into a corner by his own base. He may have no choice but to do what he is told.

politicophile · 10-28-2005, 05:32 PM

Scherer is totally wrong. That article completely misunderstands both why the Miers nomination failed and what the consequences of that failure will be.

Miers didn't make the cut because she was unqualified. Sure, Brownback and others from the foolishly named "religious right" opposed her: but so did Hatch and he certainly wouldn't fall into that category. Scherer is conveniently noting that religious conservatives opposed Miers without noting that a lot of conservatives, religious and otherwise, were opposed.

Secondly, the consequences of Miers' failure will be these:

1. Bush must nominate someone that the Republicans are sure has the proper qualifications. Thus, we'll get a judge.

2. Bush must nominate someone who the far right hasn't yet labeled as a moderate. That was true with John Roberts and it will be true again now.

3. Bush must not nominate a woman if doing so makes it seem like she is an "affirmative action" choice. Republicans will not stand for anything but the best qualified candidate.

A very unimpressive article, overall.

CShine · 10-29-2005, 12:47 AM

politicophile,

You share one thing in common with Michael Scherer. Both you and he have completely failed to grasp the political consequences of the Roberts and Miers nominations.

You are wrong when you say the Miers nomination failed because she was unqualified. It failed for TWO reasons, she was both unqualified AND ideologically unproven. This is the criticial point. If she had a long record of publicly championing a broad range of social conservative causes, christian conservatives would've fought tooth and nail to confirm her even in spite of her lack of professional achievement. On the flip side, if Bush had nominated someone who had both sparkling, top-notch judicial credentials and a sparse ideological track record, the christian right would've grudgingly accepted that nominee the same way they accepted John Roberts.

I think we all have to agree that Justice Roberts was and still is a complete unknown on the ideological issues most cherished by the christian right. There are only 3 areas of law where Justice Roberts had clearly-written judicial views prior to his nomination. Those are found in his written appellate opinions which (1) strongly favored a broad expansion of Presidential power in the war on terror, (2) allowed individual property rights to trump federal environmental laws, and (3) expanded police powers while at the same time limiting the rights of criminal defendants.

While those positions are certainly agreeable to mainline conservatives, there is not one single instance where Justice Roberts has publicly championed any of the issues that are considered most crucial by the religious right. He has never taken a professional stance on the abortion question. He has never taken any kind of public stand on the role of religion in the public sphere. Furthermore, he actually gave legal assistance to the team of lawyers who went on to win a major victory for gay rights advocates in the case of Romer v. Evans.

Here's the reason all of that has major political significance.

Remember back to the early part of this year when Congress was fighting over the judicial filibusters that faced Judges Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown, among others. All three of them were well-known christian conservatives with well-established professional credentials. In the face of Democratic filibustering the christian right argued that professional credentials should automatically guarantee confirmation. They said that ideology should play no part in the confirmation process and that christian conservatives should all be confirmed on the basis of their proven professional resumes. Then, in the face of that constitutional crisis, we saw the so-called bipartisan "Gang of 14" diffuse that quandry by approving some of Bush's appointees but rejecting others and, in doing so, ultimately leaving the question of the importance of the political ideology of judges to be resolved another day.

For some unknown reason, the religious right thought this left them with total and absolute control of the courts. Then George Dubya Bush threw them a fast one.

When John Roberts came into the spotlight he had sparkling professional credentials of the highest caliber but at the same time he had no publicly-stated opinions which appealed to the christian right. Nonetheless, the christian right could not oppose him because his career reflected the absolute highest level of achievement. They had fought long and hard to get nominees approved on their professional records alone, and John Roberts had the best professional record of anyone who had come along in many decades.

To this day, no one can say for sure if Roberts believes for or against abortion rights, gay rights, or religious rights. Nonetheless, Republican Senators united to approve him because his professional record was top-shelf. Those Senators knew that if they opposed him for his lack of publicly-stated conservative views they themselves would be attacked for hypocrisy. How could they oppose a nominee of the highest professional qualifications? They couldn't. Even though the christian right had no reason to think he agreed with them on their most important issues, they were forced, for political reasons, to support him because he was the living embodiment of their view that anyone nominated by the President should automatically be confirmed based upon professional qualifications alone.

Harriet Miers changed all of that. Her professional credentials sucked. That freed christian conservatives to attack her ideology. They didn't have to consider her credentials because she had none. Bush made an enormous error by nominating someone who could be attacked by his own party without them fearing an appearance of hypocrisy. If Bush had nominated a judge with a great background, christian conservatives would known that they could not attack her because they would've appeared to have a double standard. Here they had been saying all along that the ideology of judges should be ignored if their professional qualfications are great. Yet, they attacked Harriet Miers for being insufficiently conservative. Bush let that happen. By nominating Miers he opened his Presidency to attack from those who wanted to push it to the extreme right. His one and only failure was nominating someone of dubious credentials. That opend him up to political attack. He will not make that mistake again.

John Roberts had absolutely no openly-stated christian conservative views. Harriet Miers was no different. She had shied away from publicly stating her ideology in exactly the same way that John Roberts had. The only difference was that Roberts had a great resume while Harriet's resume sucked ass. Roberts skated through because a man with a near-perfect record of amibiguity could not be challenged by conservatives for being insufficiently conservative. No one knew what he was. Conservatives had already staked their political message on confirming people of proven credentials. Roberts's super-resume made his confirmation automatic. Miers's rejection was automatic for exactly the same reason. Her non-existent resume meant that arch-conservatives could attack her at will without fear of looking hypocritical. They never could've done that to Roberts.

Despite the fact that the Bush administration is under attack by the Fitzgerald investigation, it has not managed to unseat Karl Rove. You can bet your boots that Rove is still in his position of power and calculating the political costs of any Supreme Court nominee in exactly the way he did for both Roberts and Miers.

There is one thing that both Roberts and Miers have in common. They are strong defenders of Presidential power in the war on terrorism. That is what most matters to Bush. He will not allow that power to be compromised. He will appoint judges who will preserve his power. He still has more than 3 years left to go in his Presidency and he's facing major court battles over detainees in the war on terror. He will not give an inch on those cases, and he will appoint anyone and everyone who will preserve his Presidential power to fight terrorism. If an appointee happens to agree with the christian right, he won't mind, but it will be of secondary importance to him. He'll take it or leave it. As long as he gets a nominee who preserves his power, that's all he'll care about. If he can get that kind of person approved, he won't care if they're agreeable to the religious right or not.

Don't think for one second that the christian right is going to dictate George Bush's choice of the next Supreme Court nominee. He is facing ongoing court cases where terrorist detainees are challenging his authority. He will not stand for that under any circumstances. If that means appointing pro-abortion judges, he will do it as long that judge preserves his power, but if he can get his Presidential power by nominating an anti-abortion judge you can bet your boots he will do it. Pure power is absolutely the most important thing in the world to President Bush and every single one of you knows it.

Any Christian consevative who thinks he/she has somehow seized the upper hand in the Supreme Court war is really, REALLY delusional. Bush will fight to the very end to preserve his power, and if that leads to some sort of religious conflict over abortion or gay rights he will tell christian conservatives to stick it. He will ALWAYS go for power first and foremost.

Bank it.

politicophile · 10-29-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

You are wrong when you say the Miers nomination failed because she was unqualified. It failed for TWO reasons, she was both unqualified AND ideologically unproven. This is the criticial point. If she had a long record of publicly championing a broad range of social conservative causes, christian conservatives would've fought tooth and nail to confirm her even in spite of her lack of professional achievement. On the flip side, if Bush had nominated someone who had both sparkling, top-notch judicial credentials and a sparse ideological track record, the christian right would've grudgingly accepted that nominee the same way they accepted John Roberts.

I think you have it absolutely backwards here. You say that Miers' nomination failed both because she was unqualified and ideologically unproven. However, we have already seen a case of an ideologically unproven, but well qualified, nominee get confirmed without difficulty. This does not support your hypothesis that unqualified, but ideologically proven candidates would be supported by the religious right. In fact, I daresay that Miers would have been rejected by the Republicans even if she had a solid conservative paper trail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

I think we all have to agree that Justice Roberts was and still is a complete unknown on the ideological issues most cherished by the christian right. There are only 3 areas of law where Justice Roberts had clearly-written judicial views prior to his nomination. Those are found in his written appellate opinions which (1) strongly favored a broad expansion of Presidential power in the war on terror, (2) allowed individual property rights to trump federal environmental laws, and (3) expanded police powers while at the same time limiting the rights of criminal defendants.

While those positions are certainly agreeable to mainline conservatives, there is not one single instance where Justice Roberts has publicly championed any of the issues that are considered most crucial by the religious right. He has never taken a professional stance on the abortion question. He has never taken any kind of public stand on the role of religion in the public sphere. Furthermore, he actually gave legal assistance to the team of lawyers who went on to win a major victory for gay rights advocates in the case of Romer v. Evans.

This is just more evidence that the religious right is concerned with qualifications over ideology. Brownback, Graham, etc. didn't know Roberts' position on the issues that mattered most to them, but they still voted to confirm him. What better proof is there that today's Republicans value qualifications over ideology?

Elphaba · 10-29-2005, 02:54 PM

The Washington Post (via anonymous sources) wrote that the short list of potential nominees includes Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza, Priscilla Owen and Edith Jones.

All have previously won Senate confirmation for the federal appellate courts, whose intellectual qualifications would be unquestioned and who have a conservative paper trail. Frankly, I don't see how either party could find objections to any of these nominees without revealing an ideological litmus test is being applied. On what legitimate grounds could the Democrats choose to filibuster a nominee that is obviously well qualified?

maximusveritas · 10-30-2005, 10:13 PM

If a potential justice's views are far out of the mainstream, I don't think the public would be opposed to a filibuster of that nominee.
With the President's approval rating in the 30s, he simply doesn't have the political clout to win a battle like that.
If he were to nominate an extremist like Alito, Luttig, or Owen, he is asking for a fight. Whether or not the Democrats rise to the challenge will be a test of their relevance as a political party and their chances for a revival in 2006 and 2008.

asaris · 10-31-2005, 05:36 AM

Well, with the nomination of Alito this morning, I guess we'll see.

trickyy · 10-31-2005, 12:08 PM

i'm also leaning toward alito.

pan6467 · 11-01-2005, 08:41 AM

I find it funny how the GOP degrades the Dems for asking how nominees feel on certain issues to try to see how they'll vote, while when a judge is nominated the very first thing the GOP does is talk about how conservative he/she is and how they'll end abortion and yada, yada, yada.

Yet when the Dems use those as arugments against their voting for a judge.... the GOP start claiming that the Dems. don't know how these people will vote, that their personal stances won't come into play on their decisions and blah, blah, blah.

Ah the fight for power, when neither side gives a damn about what the true problems and true issues facing America are, but cares about how they can control people more.

Aw well, we get what we deserve because we voted these people in, believing they woulkd represent us to the best of their ability.

politicophile · 11-01-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I find it funny how the GOP degrades the Dems for asking how nominees feel on certain issues to try to see how they'll vote, while when a judge is nominated the very first thing the GOP does is talk about how conservative he/she is and how they'll end abortion and yada, yada, yada.

Yet when the Dems use those as arugments against their voting for a judge.... the GOP start claiming that the Dems. don't know how these people will vote, that their personal stances won't come into play on their decisions and blah, blah, blah.

Ah the fight for power, when neither side gives a damn about what the true problems and true issues facing America are, but cares about how they can control people more.

Aw well, we get what we deserve because we voted these people in, believing they woulkd represent us to the best of their ability.

You're absolutely right that the Republicans are being hypocritical. What this underscores, in my mind, is how politicized the confirmation process has become. While there is a significant faction of the Senate (and me!) that believes ideology should not be a factor in confirmation votes, many of these same people use the ideology of the nominee to whip up support from party loyals. I chalk this up as politics at its finest, or worst depending on your perspective...

trickyy · 11-01-2005, 11:05 AM

i'm surprised that so many PACs can take a strong stand on this guy minutes after his selection. it seems to be based primarily on one case very loosely connected to abortion, although alito has has written hundreds of other opinions and sat on (tens of?) thousands of cases. seems like a lot to digest so quickly.

equally puzzling is the press, billing this as el showdown grande before anything has really happened.

pan6467 · 11-01-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

i'm surprised that so many PACs can take a strong stand on this guy minutes after his selection. it seems to be based primarily on one case very loosely connected to abortion, although alito has has written hundreds of other opinions and sat on (tens of?) thousands of cases. seems like a lot to digest so quickly.

equally puzzling is the press, billing this as el showdown grande before anything has really happened.

PACs usually keep up to date on every judge opinion out there somewhere, since they knew he was one of the finalists I'm sure they knew his record real fast.

Ah yes the press, they need to whip up everything as a battle between the parties because quite simply it sells papers and interest in their shows. Be pretty boring if they reported both sides were happy with the selection.

I think the press, from the local papers, to the networks to the talking radio heads on AM radio stations, is part of the partisan warfare problem we have. they feed into it, either intentionally to sell and profit from it or unitentionally by the puppet masters who want control.

I think there are a lot of issues out there that both parties could find middle ground on and work out compromises that would benefit the nation.... instead they use the press to raise cockles and talk about how their views are the only way and that there is no compromise. But that sells papers, raises interest (or deters interest), and makes a lot of money for people.

10-27-2005, 04:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Who will replace Miers? After extremely widespread criticism of her lack of qualifications, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to SCOTUS. Now, Bush must select a replacement. Who will that replacement be? Here's my best guess: I want Bush to nominate Michael McConnell. He sits on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, is a fairly moderate conservative, and is one of the best constitutional scholars in his generation. However, Bush has proven with this last nomination that he has a poor understanding of what makes a good Justice. Soooo.... I predict he will nominate Edith Jones from the 5th Circiut Court of Appeals. She is a very, very experienced Judge and a staunch conservative. I would object to her nomination only on the grounds that she is somewhat overly conservative, although she at least has the solid qualifications that Miers was lacking. That's how I see it. Thoughs? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-28-2005, 05:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Scherer is totally wrong. That article completely misunderstands both why the Miers nomination failed and what the consequences of that failure will be. Miers didn't make the cut because she was unqualified. Sure, Brownback and others from the foolishly named "religious right" opposed her: but so did Hatch and he certainly wouldn't fall into that category. Scherer is conveniently noting that religious conservatives opposed Miers without noting that a lot of conservatives, religious and otherwise, were opposed. Secondly, the consequences of Miers' failure will be these: 1. Bush must nominate someone that the Republicans are sure has the proper qualifications. Thus, we'll get a judge. 2. Bush must nominate someone who the far right hasn't yet labeled as a moderate. That was true with John Roberts and it will be true again now. 3. Bush must not nominate a woman if doing so makes it seem like she is an "affirmative action" choice. Republicans will not stand for anything but the best qualified candidate. A very unimpressive article, overall. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-29-2005, 12:47 AM	#10 (permalink)
CShine Crazy	politicophile, You share one thing in common with Michael Scherer. Both you and he have completely failed to grasp the political consequences of the Roberts and Miers nominations. You are wrong when you say the Miers nomination failed because she was unqualified. It failed for TWO reasons, she was both unqualified *AND* ideologically unproven. This is the criticial point. If she had a long record of publicly championing a broad range of social conservative causes, christian conservatives would've fought tooth and nail to confirm her even in spite of her lack of professional achievement. On the flip side, if Bush had nominated someone who had both sparkling, top-notch judicial credentials and a sparse ideological track record, the christian right would've grudgingly accepted that nominee the same way they accepted John Roberts. I think we all have to agree that Justice Roberts was and still is a complete unknown on the ideological issues most cherished by the christian right. There are only 3 areas of law where Justice Roberts had clearly-written judicial views prior to his nomination. Those are found in his written appellate opinions which (1) strongly favored a broad expansion of Presidential power in the war on terror, (2) allowed individual property rights to trump federal environmental laws, and (3) expanded police powers while at the same time limiting the rights of criminal defendants. While those positions are certainly agreeable to mainline conservatives, there is not one single instance where Justice Roberts has publicly championed any of the issues that are considered most crucial by the religious right. He has never taken a professional stance on the abortion question. He has never taken any kind of public stand on the role of religion in the public sphere. Furthermore, he actually gave legal assistance to the team of lawyers who went on to win a major victory for gay rights advocates in the case of Romer v. Evans. Here's the reason all of that has major political significance. Remember back to the early part of this year when Congress was fighting over the judicial filibusters that faced Judges Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown, among others. All three of them were well-known christian conservatives with well-established professional credentials. In the face of Democratic filibustering the christian right argued that professional credentials should automatically guarantee confirmation. They said that ideology should play no part in the confirmation process and that christian conservatives should all be confirmed on the basis of their proven professional resumes. Then, in the face of that constitutional crisis, we saw the so-called bipartisan "Gang of 14" diffuse that quandry by approving some of Bush's appointees but rejecting others and, in doing so, ultimately leaving the question of the importance of the political ideology of judges to be resolved another day. For some unknown reason, the religious right thought this left them with total and absolute control of the courts. Then George Dubya Bush threw them a fast one. When John Roberts came into the spotlight he had sparkling professional credentials of the highest caliber but at the same time he had no publicly-stated opinions which appealed to the christian right. Nonetheless, the christian right could not oppose him because his career reflected the absolute highest level of achievement. They had fought long and hard to get nominees approved on their professional records alone, and John Roberts had the best professional record of anyone who had come along in many decades. To this day, no one can say for sure if Roberts believes for or against abortion rights, gay rights, or religious rights. Nonetheless, Republican Senators united to approve him because his professional record was top-shelf. Those Senators knew that if they opposed him for his lack of publicly-stated conservative views they themselves would be attacked for hypocrisy. How could they oppose a nominee of the highest professional qualifications? They couldn't. Even though the christian right had no reason to think he agreed with them on their most important issues, they were forced, for political reasons, to support him because he was the living embodiment of their view that anyone nominated by the President should automatically be confirmed based upon professional qualifications alone. Harriet Miers changed all of that. Her professional credentials sucked. That freed christian conservatives to attack her ideology. They didn't have to consider her credentials because she had none. Bush made an enormous error by nominating someone who could be attacked by his own party without them fearing an appearance of hypocrisy. If Bush had nominated a judge with a great background, christian conservatives would known that they could not attack her because they would've appeared to have a double standard. Here they had been saying all along that the ideology of judges should be ignored if their professional qualfications are great. Yet, they attacked Harriet Miers for being insufficiently conservative. Bush let that happen. By nominating Miers he opened his Presidency to attack from those who wanted to push it to the extreme right. His one and only failure was nominating someone of dubious credentials. That opend him up to political attack. He will not make that mistake again. John Roberts had absolutely no openly-stated christian conservative views. Harriet Miers was no different. She had shied away from publicly stating her ideology in exactly the same way that John Roberts had. The only difference was that Roberts had a great resume while Harriet's resume sucked ass. Roberts skated through because a man with a near-perfect record of amibiguity could not be challenged by conservatives for being insufficiently conservative. No one knew what he was. Conservatives had already staked their political message on confirming people of proven credentials. Roberts's super-resume made his confirmation automatic. Miers's rejection was automatic for exactly the same reason. Her non-existent resume meant that arch-conservatives could attack her at will without fear of looking hypocritical. They never could've done that to Roberts. Despite the fact that the Bush administration is under attack by the Fitzgerald investigation, it has not managed to unseat Karl Rove. You can bet your boots that Rove is still in his position of power and calculating the political costs of any Supreme Court nominee in exactly the way he did for both Roberts and Miers. There is one thing that both Roberts and Miers have in common. They are strong defenders of Presidential power in the war on terrorism. That is what most matters to Bush. He will not allow that power to be compromised. He will appoint judges who will preserve his power. He still has more than 3 years left to go in his Presidency and he's facing major court battles over detainees in the war on terror. He will not give an inch on those cases, and he will appoint anyone and everyone who will preserve his Presidential power to fight terrorism. If an appointee happens to agree with the christian right, he won't mind, but it will be of secondary importance to him. He'll take it or leave it. As long as he gets a nominee who preserves his power, that's all he'll care about. If he can get that kind of person approved, he won't care if they're agreeable to the religious right or not. Don't think for one second that the christian right is going to dictate George Bush's choice of the next Supreme Court nominee. He is facing ongoing court cases where terrorist detainees are challenging his authority. He will not stand for that under any circumstances. If that means appointing pro-abortion judges, he will do it as long that judge preserves his power, but if he can get his Presidential power by nominating an anti-abortion judge you can bet your boots he will do it. Pure power is absolutely the most important thing in the world to President Bush and every single one of you knows it. Any Christian consevative who thinks he/she has somehow seized the upper hand in the Supreme Court war is really, REALLY delusional. Bush will fight to the very end to preserve his power, and if that leads to some sort of religious conflict over abortion or gay rights he will tell christian conservatives to stick it. He will ALWAYS go for power first and foremost. Bank it. __________________ "We don't see things as they are. We see them as we are." -- Anais Nin Last edited by CShine; 10-29-2005 at 02:18 AM..

10-31-2005, 05:36 AM	#14 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Well, with the nomination of Alito this morning, I guess we'll see. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-01-2005, 08:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I find it funny how the GOP degrades the Dems for asking how nominees feel on certain issues to try to see how they'll vote, while when a judge is nominated the very first thing the GOP does is talk about how conservative he/she is and how they'll end abortion and yada, yada, yada. Yet when the Dems use those as arugments against their voting for a judge.... the GOP start claiming that the Dems. don't know how these people will vote, that their personal stances won't come into play on their decisions and blah, blah, blah. Ah the fight for power, when neither side gives a damn about what the true problems and true issues facing America are, but cares about how they can control people more. Aw well, we get what we deserve because we voted these people in, believing they woulkd represent us to the best of their ability. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-27-2005, 05:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I don't know anyone by name, but whether the person is black, white, hispanic, male, female, all that matters to me is that the person is very conservative. Even though this looks like a really rough 2nd term for Bush, he has a chance to leave a lasting conservative impression on the supreme court at least.

10-27-2005, 05:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	To form an opinion I will need to know more about the two. I found this information from Wikipedia which is simply a start. Let me do more research before I offer an opinion. Michael W. McConnell (born in Louisville, Kentucky, 1955) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, having been nominated by President George W. Bush on September 4, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 15, 2002. McConnell graduated from Michigan State University in 1976. McConnell receivied his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1979. He was a law clerk for James Skelly Wright, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Brennan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He was an assistant general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1983, and an assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1985. He was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, 1985-1996, and then at the University of Utah College of Law, 1997-2002. External link A selection of McConnell's essays for the Wall Street Journal Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell" Categories: 1955 births \| Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Edith Hollan Jones (born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1949) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jones graduated from Cornell University in 1971. She received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1974. She was in private practice in Houston, Texas from 1974 until 1985, working for the firm of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, where she became the firm's first female partner. She specialized in bankruptcy law. She also served as General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas from 1982-83. She was nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan on February 27, 1985, and confirmed by the United States Senate on April 3, 1985. She received her commission on April 4, 1985, at the age of 36. She sits on the board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America, the Garland Walker American Inns of Court, and is a member of several American Bar Association committees.

10-28-2005, 12:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Politico, McConnell does look good and he seems likely to win approval from both parties. I don't see Jones any more likely than Maureen Mahoney or Edith Brown Clement. Bush has indicated that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a woman or minority this time, so I don't think McConnell has any less chance than anyone else.

10-29-2005, 02:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The Washington Post (via anonymous sources) wrote that the short list of potential nominees includes Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza, Priscilla Owen and Edith Jones. All have previously won Senate confirmation for the federal appellate courts, whose intellectual qualifications would be unquestioned and who have a conservative paper trail. Frankly, I don't see how either party could find objections to any of these nominees without revealing an ideological litmus test is being applied. On what legitimate grounds could the Democrats choose to filibuster a nominee that is obviously well qualified?

10-30-2005, 10:13 PM	#13 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	If a potential justice's views are far out of the mainstream, I don't think the public would be opposed to a filibuster of that nominee. With the President's approval rating in the 30s, he simply doesn't have the political clout to win a battle like that. If he were to nominate an extremist like Alito, Luttig, or Owen, he is asking for a fight. Whether or not the Democrats rise to the challenge will be a test of their relevance as a political party and their chances for a revival in 2006 and 2008.

10-31-2005, 12:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'm also leaning toward alito.

11-01-2005, 11:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'm surprised that so many PACs can take a strong stand on this guy minutes after his selection. it seems to be based primarily on one case very loosely connected to abortion, although alito has has written hundreds of other opinions and sat on (tens of?) thousands of cases. seems like a lot to digest so quickly. equally puzzling is the press, billing this as el showdown grande before anything has really happened.