Supreme Court Sushi Surprise
Posted 27 Oct 2005 by lukasWith the latest nominee down in flames the question on all our minds is who will Bush nominate next? Another crony? A woman? Moderate? Coservative?
Harriet Miers didn't have the qualifications to be a a member of the Supreme Court. But that's not why she withdrew. Will Bush nominate another fawning crony? Will he make sure that the next fawning crony with no experience he sends up at least has some bonafides to keep the religious extremists quiet? Will it be a woman to replace Sandra? Can he nominate himself? All eyes are on the president as the last pick didn't set well with anyone except for mabye Bush and Miers. Democrats are ready to fight for a moderate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Republicans, especially those on the far right fringes of the party, are ready to fight for a conservative who will overturn Griswold, Roe, etc.
For some ideas check out the original shortlist from Slate. You can also read about some speculation from September about who's next and a shortlist of the top female candidates although it excludes a few recent Bush appointees I wouldn't be surpised about.
Who do you think will get the nod? Who would you like to see get the nod?
first guess, posted 27 Oct 2005 by lukas »
As a first guess, my money would be on someone like John Roberts. Someone that would be hard to fight against based on good qualifications and just enough of a record to make conservatives happy but not enough for liberals to have anything to latch on to. That's why I like Michael Luttig or Harvie Wilkinson to get picked for the post. Wilkinson denied the appeal of Yaser Hamdi deferring to the power of the president. Luttig denied an appeal to that claim but actually cited Wilkinson for not going far enough to defend the full authority of the president.After reading his bio, my money is on Luttig.
luttig, posted 27 Oct 2005 by lukas »
CNN profile of Luttigtiming, posted 27 Oct 2005 by inkblot »
i think the timing of the withdrawal is fascinating, and not just for the reasons everyone is talking about. the one timing oddity that everyone is talking about is that it's over a week until the hearings were set to begin, and that's revealing. it shows that someone had bush's ear, and we can't know who it was, so score one for the special intrests. unfortunately, that's not really news, and that aspect of the timing probably it's even politically relevant.what i think is really fascinating are two things, one how the withdrawal coincides with fitzgerald's end game, and two how it plays straight into a standard-issue political news cycle.
everyone knows fitzgerald is wrapping up the plame grand jury investigation. everyone is pretty sure there will be indictments. and the white house is pretty scared that they might end up losing rove. if that were to happen -- and if it does it will happen today or tomorrow -- the white house would lose a powerful arbiter for recommending a nominee to replace miers. i personally think that the replacement deliberations have been going on behind closed doors for at least a week, and the withdrawal happened today at least in part because the white house is close to picking a new nominee, and wants rove there to help make that call. conveniently for the white house, this also ties right into the news cycle.....
miers has been headline news on and off for a few weeks now. people are starting to glance right past it as they scan the papers (and what do their eyes land on..... indictments, wilma, casualties, deficit, etc). nothing trumps current events like a scotus nomination, but the miers story is tired and the congress doesn't like her enough to approve her anyway. so the white house needs a new distraction and that makes this the perfect time to first of all, remake the miers story into a withdrawal instead of a nomination, and then very quickly follow it up with a brand new bright and shiny nomination.
as far as who will be nominated.... the white house is treading on very thin political ice these days. they can't have another fiasco or bush's currently-pending lame duck status will immediately set in stone. what the white house needs is a shoe-in, and to fill that position, they will have to pick someone who appeals to the broadest swath of congress they can get. that means they'll have to tune out the extreme right and compromise with the middle, something that's so remarkable in this administration that it's almost heartening.
wish i shared your optimism for compromise, posted 28 Oct 2005 by pedro »
I don't think it will be Robert Bork back from the dead, but I would really be surprised if they actually go moderate. I think that Roberts was a great ace in the hole because he is so hard to argue against -- but bush wouldn't have picked him if he thought he was moderate. (Although, you never know what the scotus robe will do to people once they get there.) I expect the bush camp to pick a new candidate that appeals well across the conservative board and hopefully (in their mind) won't have too many attackable facets on the liberal side. I think that bush sees this as too important of an opportunity to "cave" on with a "moderate".sam alito, posted 31 Oct 2005 by lukas »
bush nominated Sam Alito, I guess considering they nicknamed him Saclito, he's no moderate.side note, posted 2 Nov 2005 by blvdgirl »
When playing 20 Questions with 30 sophomore students, not a single one knew "Sam Alito" even though he's been in the news for the past few days....sophomores, posted 2 Nov 2005 by inkblot »
i can't say i would have been any different in high school.