I think that it was a pretty shrewd move by the President and his people to pick someone not so controversial…and while the momentum was high (and the Country distracted)…to “ease” him into the Chief Justice spot…(I think that he will be confirmed)…
At the same time it was Conservative for Consevative in the CJ spot (and I’m okay with that…I’m for some sense of “balance” on the Court…)
But, but, but…
Was this “too” easy? Are we being “broadsided” by a shrewd political move?
I bring these questions to my “Nation” friends…because I’m just not sure…
This seems to me like a logical extension of the Roberts nomination- Roberts was Bush’s first pick for the Supreme Court, and although it was likely Bush would get more than one appointment, this was going to be The Guy in the event that Bush only got one. So it just makes sense that with the CJ vacancy opening up, Roberts gets the bump. If Bush came up with someone else for the CJ spot, it would look like a slight on Roberts, suggesting the Roberts was not the strongest candidate to begin with.
As for ‘shrewdness’, I think it is shrewd in the sense it is practical. Instead of three confirmations, you have two. Also, you get the Court - assuming that the seats get filled - for the beginning of the next term.
Roberts is an outstanding candidate, and I think Presidents now want a CJ that can have a while to put their ‘stamp’ on a court. As Roberts is pretty young, he has a chance to be a CJ for thirty years easily.
Yet another brilliant move by President Bush. After Roberts is confirmed (and he will be) Bush will pick another conservative Justice. Bye bye abortion rights!
I think that politically it was both expedient and brilliant. The Chief Justice slot had the potential to be a much more combustible nomination, but now, with Roberts nominated and with nothing having been turned up on him even remotely controversial to anyone not completely blinded by partisan rhetoric, Roberts should be confirmed for the Chief spot relatively easily.
That’s the analysis for the Chief spot, however, and not for the O’Connor slot. Now w/r/t the O’Connor slot I think it’s pretty much a given that the fight will be much more vicious, even though O’Connor was hardly a liberal and an appointment of even a true originalist would only move the USSC incrementally towards originalism, given Kennedy is still there.
Now if Stevens steps down or passes away, watch out – that will be the biggest fight since Bork or Thomas.
What the Bush haters fail to realize is that there would have to be an entirely separate nomination and confirmation process for anyone (including a sitting Justice) to be named Chief Justice. That is only one reason why this was a brilliant political move.
(My apologies to the Bush haters…I guess it’s just not your decade:)
BTW, the smart money would be on Bush holding off on naming a new nominee until Roberts is confirmed as Chief. It would seem easier politically for Bush to fill the vacancies one at a time. The more vacancies there are, the more unsettling the prospect of Bush’s filling all of them simultaneously would be to swing voters. It seems more likely that there would be greater political pressure for “balance” if two nominations are conisdered at once.
BTW, most of the talk now seems to center around the idea that Bush will appoint an originalist woman to fill O’Connor’s spot. If I were asked to make a prediction, I?d say Edith Brown Clement is the most likely nominee, as she was the one generating the most buzz last time around, with Edith Jones and Priscilla Owen also making the short-list. However, I do hope lots of consideration is being given to both of McConnell and Luttig.
This is very unseemly. I have a friend whom I call a poor winner… and what I see around here is very similar.
For those of you getting all gloatful, I’ll remind you that all bubbles burst, so be prepared.[/quote]
WTF? Who’s gloating? It’s a simple point of fact. Bush will be nominating 2 justices to the USSC. He has a majority in the congress. And, assuming everyone rides for the brand on something this important, it should be a fairly procedural confirmations.
Those are facts. No gloat. I guess those of us that voted for this should just sit down and be quiet? Sorry. We can cheerlead all we want.
FYI - the ‘bubble’ won’t burst until the left figures out how to dislodge their heads from their anal cavities.
Some interesting speculation that was sent my way:
“…here are a couple of new names to keep your eye on as dark horse candidates if the President tries to replicate the Roberts model: Steve Colloton, a judge on the Eighth Circuit, and Jeff Sutton, a Judge on the Sixth Circuit. Both are brilliant former Supreme Court clerks; both have long records of public service, Colloton primarily as a prosecutor and Sutton primarily as a Supreme Court and appellate advocate; both are widely respected, right to left, with plenty of supporters among Democrats of good faith; both are supported by influential home-state Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee; both are young men in their mid-40s; and both were originally appointed by this President and thus are seen as part of the Bush judicial “family.” Some controversy attended Judge Sutton’s confirmation, because he is closely identified based on his work as an advocate with the Supreme Court’s new federalism jurisprudence. Colloton sailed to confirmation with no problems at all. Whether their time is now or in a future Republican administration, they’re worth adding to the evolving lists of credible candidates.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
They are only likely to be selected if they are in the crony network or good friends of direct cronies.
I mean, lets be realistic about this…[/quote]
This is definitely realistic. The nominee is almost surely going to be a federal appellate court judge – it may be fun to speculate about Senators or White House counsel, or even State Supreme Court justices, but it’s going to be someone currently on one of the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
And it’s going to be someone who was appointed to his or her respective U.S. Court of Appeals seat by a Republican President.
Likely, it’s going to be someone appointed by either this President Bush or his father, simply because of age considerations – i.e. all other things being equal, for a life-time appointment they want someone likely to have a long lifetime.
That’s a pretty small, exclusive and almost assuredly connected pool of candidates. Now the speculation is just trying to narrow it further.
How does the ‘newbie’ get the top job? I like GW but doesn’t it seem strange that the new guy will be the leader? He is something of an unknown quantity. Maybe something is up we may not like. Very unlike the prez.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
How does the ‘newbie’ get the top job? I like GW but doesn’t it seem strange that the new guy will be the leader? He is something of an unknown quantity. Maybe something is up we may not like. Very unlike the prez.[/quote]
A lot of people think that Bush had planned all along to make Roberts CJ. Rehnquist has been ailing for about 3 years. When O’Connor resigned, Bush may have appointed him just to get him on the USSC, with the plan to elevate him to CJ when Rehnquist resigned.
BTW, Roberts is “unknown” in that he hasn’t written a lot on the Constitution, but he has received excellent recommendations from everyone he worked with in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and none of his opinions on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit was worrisome.
