Who could we deal with as a replacement for O'Connor?

[lawyerlee]

Well, the inevitable, awful day has arrived . . . the day Dubya gets the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice. :mad:

If you're sad to see Sandra Day O'Connor go and/or are worried about who Dubya will appoint to replace her, this is your thread!

Of the possibilities being discussed, who the heck could we live with?

[maggieb]

Here are some of the potential nominees as reported by cnn:

President Bush will nominate a new justice now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned. The only clues about possible nominees came during the 2000 presidential campaign, when he cited Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the court's most conservative members, as model justices. He also said in one of the 2000 presidential debates that he favored "strict constructionists" or as he put it, "people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy." Click on the images to below to see some people who have been publicly mentioned as possible candidates.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/alito_samuel.jpg
Judge Samuel Alito
Alito is a former U.S. attorney and lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department who was nominated by former President Bush to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. Some liberals have dubbed him "Scalito" or "Scalia lite" for his similarly conservative views. But unlike the often-feisty Scalia, Alito is known for a calm, polite presence on the bench. He was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the appeals court struck in 1991 down a Pennsylvania requirement that women inform their husbands before getting an abortion. The Supreme Court eventually upheld that ruling, affirming Roe v. Wade. Born in 1950, Alito attended Princeton University and Yale Law School.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/brown.jpg
Justice Janice Brown
Regarded as a judicial conservative and a rising star in GOP circles, Brown was confirmed by the Senate on June 8, 2005, for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Born in Alabama in 1949, Brown's father was a sharecropper, and she attended segregated schools before moving to Sacramento. She worked in the state attorney general's office, was Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs secretary, and later a state appeals judge. She became a California Supreme Court justice in 1996 after two nominations and both times a state judicial review rated her "not qualified" because she had "not yet attained sufficient experience to serve as [state] Supreme Court Justice." Her words and opinions are biting: in separate dissents, she referred to the majority justices as "philosopher kings" and "wimps," and once compared their legal conclusions to that of high school students. Such bluntness has attracted both admirers and detractors. One ruling outraged civil rights groups: her 2000 majority opinion affirming Proposition 209, which essentially banned race and gender preferences in state hiring and contracting. Some legal experts say her rulings are hard to categorize, ranging from conservative to liberal. She supported parental consent for minors seeking abortions, but also backed a state ban on assault weapons. Brown is a single mother, losing her husband to lung cancer in 1988. Her May 24, 2003, speech at the law school commencement at Washington's Catholic University revealed strongly held religious convictions. Democrats had blocked Brown's confirmation in the Senate for two years by threatening filibusters. Opponents were particularly critical of Brown's views on corporate liability and abortion rights.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/easterbrook_frank.jpg
Judge Frank Easterbrook
Easterbrook sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and teaches part-time at University of Chicago. In 1999 he wrote the majority opinion upholding a ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion, saying the laws do not place an undue burden on a women's right to privacy. A fellow conservative judge on the circuit, Richard Posner, himself a possible court candidate, led the minority view in the highly publicized case.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/garza.jpg
Judge Emilio Garza
Many court watchers believe Bush is likely to nominate a Hispanic as the next Supreme Court justice. If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not nominated, then Garza could be the pick. Garza is a solid conservative known to strongly oppose Roe v. Wade. Born in 1947 and a former U.S. Marine captain, he was appointed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by the president's father in 1991. He also was a finalist for the Supreme Court seat that went to Clarence Thomas.

[maggieb]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/gonzales.jpg
Alberto Gonzales
Until President Bush tapped him to replace for John Ashcroft as attorney general, Gonzales' name was the most frequently mentioned, not only for his close personal ties to Bush, but he would also be the first Hispanic justice. Whether he would still be considered for the court now that he is a top cabinet secretary is not clear. There are some fears among conservatives Gonzales is too moderate. But in defending White House legal policies, he impressed many influential Republicans. However, he faced widespread criticism of his handling of administration policy over Iraqi prisoners, and whether he endorsed torture or physical abuse as a proper interrogation and detention method. Gonzales became White House counsel in 2001 and he has a long history with the president, who named to the Texas Supreme Court in January 1999 when Bush was governor. Born in 1955, Gonzales was raised by parents who only had an elementary school education. He served in the U.S. Air Force, and received his law degree from Harvard.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/jones.jpg
Judge Edith H. Jones
If there is political pressure to appoint another woman to fill O'Connor's seat, Jones is a possible candidate. She is considered a staunch conservative, especially on death penalty appeals. Born in 1949, she was 36 years old when President Reagan nominated her to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1985. She also was a finalist in 1990 and 1991 for Supreme Court seats that eventually went to David Souter and Clarence Thomas, respectively. She has spoken out against what she calls a rapid decline in legal ethics. "The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing," she said in a February 28, 2003, speech at Harvard University.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/kozinski.jpg
Judge Alex Kozinski
A mainstream conservative, with libertarian views on free speech, Kozinski sits on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Born in 1950, he emigrated from communist Romania when he was 12, became a federal district judge by 32, and a federal appeals judge by 35. He is considered a brilliant writer -- his court opinions provide a lively read -- candid, articulate, and has a sense of humor. His long paper trail and public candor on a variety of issues, however, could hurt in the confirmation process. He is one of the few federal judges who regularly give media interviews, even once writing an online "diary" for Slate.com.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/luttig.jpg
Judge J. Michael Luttig
A longtime favorite in the neo-conservative movement, Luttig is considered one of the strongest voices on the conservative 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Before his 1991 nomination, Luttig headed the National Advisory Committee for Lawyers, and served in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. Luttig has ties to three of the justices. He clerked for Antonin Scalia when Scalia was an appellate judge, and he advised Clarence Thomas and David Souter during their confirmation hearings. Years later, those justices recused themselves from a highly controversial case with personal ties. Luttig's father, John, was murdered in 1994 during a botched carjacking outside his Texas home. The then-17-year-old killer Napoleon Beazley was executed in May 2002, after the remaining justices refused to intervene. The case divided the court and raised anew concerns over executing people under 18 years at the time of their crimes. Luttig is also known for his close ties to many leading conservatives and his desire for privacy. His only recent off-the-bench remarks came at the eulogy for Barbara Olson, the wife of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson who was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Another rare public appearance was a 1995 eulogy for his mentor and former boss, Chief Justice Warren Burger. Luttig was born in 1954.

[maggieb]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/story.mcconnell.jpg
Judge Michael W. McConnell
The Senate confirmed McConnell to the Denver, Colorado-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2002 after Democrats delayed his nomination for more than a year. While he opposes prayer in public schools, McConnell has advocated shifting U.S. law away from a strict separation of church and state, critics say. He also has criticized the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling legalizing abortion in the United States. At the time of his confirmation hearings, McConnell nevertheless said the abortion law was settled. Born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1955, he graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1979 and clerked for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. From 1981-1983, he was assistant general counsel for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget before being named assistant to the solicitor general. In 1985, he left that position to become a professor at the University of Chicago. He joined the faculty at the University of Utah law school in 1997 and still teaches there part time. McConnell's relatively young age also may factor into a possible nomination if President Bush wants to leave a long judicial legacy.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/story.olson.jpg
Theodore Olson
Olson was the U.S. solicitor general for most of President Bush's first term. The solicitor general is the federal government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court. Olson himself argued many of the biggest cases before the justices, and he is considered a master of the freewheeling, give-and-take style of Supreme Court arguments. Olson has argued more than 40 cases at the court, including his representation of Bush before the Court during the 2000 Florida ballot recount. Democratic bitterness stemming from that may in itself stop any White House effort to nominate him, but his impressive resume stifled any talk of political payback during his confirmation hearings for solicitor general. Olson is one of the nation's top constitutional lawyers, and has long experience with conservative causes. He worked in the Reagan Justice Department, and later represented him during the Iran-Contra scandal. In private practice, his clients included Paula Jones, Whitewater figure David Hale and convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. His wife, Barbara, was killed in the hijacked plane that slammed into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks. In July 2004, he left government to resume his private practice in appellate and constitutional law as a partner in the Washington law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/story.roberts.jpg
Judge John G. Roberts
Nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts joined the bench in June 2003 after Senate Democrats initially stalled his nomination. The appellate court in Washington is considered the most prestigious in the country, and several justices have moved from there to the U.S. Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Roberts has argued 33 cases before the high court. A Harvard Law School graduate, he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. In 1982, Gordon served as associate White House counsel under President Reagan, leaving four years later to join the Washington-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson. He became deputy solicitor general in 1989 under President George H.W. Bush before returning to Hogan & Hartson in 1993. Gordon was born in 1955 in Buffalo, New York. Like McConnell, his relative youth may prove attractive to Bush if the president wants to leave a long judicial legacy.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/wilkinson_harvie.jpg
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
A leader of the right-leaning 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Wilkinson was appointed in 1984 by President Reagan. He has written on a variety of subjects, including the Supreme Court itself (which could come back to haunt him if nominated) and integration. He would likely be given serious consideration to replace Rehnquist if Bush decides to choose someone outside the current justices. But the very mention of a Supreme Court nominee from the conservative 4th Circuit could be enough to stop the White House from even putting the name out. Considered courtly, a well-respected manager -- he was chief judge of the 4th Circuit for some years -- he has a consistent conservative background. The law journal Judicature rated Wilkinson as the most conservative of top replacement candidates in a recent case-by-case analysis. On the bench, he upheld several state restrictions over access to abortion. Born in 1944, his age may be a drawback if Mr. Bush is looking for a justice who can stay longer and thereby have a potentially greater impact on the court's direction.

[flygirl]

Very, very scary. And not at all expected. I mean, there were rumors, but no one expected her to actually step down. Based on the candidates maggieb posted, I think our best bets are Alex Kozinski (though I have a special place in my heart for Romanians) and Michael McConnell. The latter's postion on the constitutionality of Roe V. Wade is shared by many liberals (regardless of the outcome), and to make choice based on "what critics say" regarding his position on the seperation of church & state is not prudent. If he remains against prayer in public schools, then that's good enough for me.

And a young age is not necessarily a bad thing. Both parties have appointed judges who ended up leaning toward the other side, and I can see either of these two doing the same.

[lawyerlee]

Well, conservative or not, I consider Judge Easterbrook an imminently qualified jurist and a great legal mind. I think he deserves the appointment, and I could live with him receiving it. That being said, I would be pleased if a woman were chosen to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. If a woman isn't chosen now, I am afraid it might be a long time before another one is chosen for the Court. I just don't see a woman being appointed in place of a man now that we've passed the hurdle of actually having two serve on the Court. I wish this wouldn't be the case, but I think it is probably true.

Alberto Gonzales is not unqualified, but I don't think he is qualified enough, if that makes sense.

My second choice to Judge Easterbrook would be Judge Luttig. I feel that he's a "true" conservative, in that he supports state's rights, which I can respect.

Finally, I think Judge Wilkinson would be an acceptable choice for much the same reason as Judge Luttig. I find his views reasonable, even though I may not agree with them.

[Delta]

I had to register just to post on this thread. I keep seeing Dem/liberals freaking out over her retirement and making blanket statements about all the potential nominees like the sky is falling.

So I am glad to see some rational discussion about who would be most acceptable to you. I am glad to have your perspective!

McConnell is an intriguing choice. I personally think I'd like him to replace Rehnquist as Chief. (At this point, I really don't think Rehnquist is going to actually retire. I think he wants to just die as Chief Justice.)

I have a feeling it is going to be Gonzales. While the PR 'fight' is still going to be fierce, I feel like his hearing would be much less volatile than many of the others, if only because he is very soft-spoken and pleasant. I think that should he get the nomination, there are going to be some upset conservatives as well.

I *also* think that there is a 50/50 chance we could see an additional retirement/death before the 2008 elections, which would give Bush 3 seats.

[lawyerlee]

I have a feeling it is going to be Gonzales. While the PR 'fight' is still going to be fierce, I feel like his hearing would be much less volatile than many of the others, if only because he is very soft-spoken and pleasant. I think that should he get the nomination, there are going to be some upset conservatives as well.
I agree. This is what I've thought all along - that given the chance, he'd nominate Gonzales to the Court. So while I'm not at all OK with this, at least it is expected.

On the upside, if he does nominate Gonzales, at least that wouldn't leave a vacancy in a lower court for him to fill. ;)

[Delta]

Hmm. I didn't mean to sound condescending in my post and I just reread it and I think I did. I dunno. But truly, it is interesting and informative to hear your take on the potential nominees.

[lawyerlee]

I didn't take your post that way, Delta, so don't even give it another thought. :)

I'm glad to have someone to talk with about this, too!

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

IMO, putting Gonzales up would not be a positive PR move on a global basis. There's too much bad feeling about him and the use of torture, regardless of whether it's true or not, perception is reality.

[mamahammer]

What scares me is that BUsh has said more than once that he admires Scalia as an ideal Justice. Another Scalia on the bench is unnerving to me, and I think puts the SC in a precarious position.

For that reason, Alito would be totally unacceptable in my eyes (like my eyes really matter :p).

Easterbrook, though I don't know him all that well, doesn't disturb me.

I don't think Garza is actually in contention. Quite frankly, I think the only reason for his name being thrown in is to have more than one hispanic in the mix, and if it came down to him or Gonzales, Gonzales wins out.

Gonzales - well, I certainly don't think he's unqualified, but neither do I think he is highly qualified. Outside of his seeming opinions on the war and our detention facilities, I think he's as close to a moderate as we are likely to see. Of course, that could be because, here in Texas, it is hard to come by a moderate, so anyone with even slightly moderate/centerist leanings appeals to me :p And like Delta said, after some questioning about the war, I don't think there would be all that much the Dems could do to oppose him because they would come out looking like bullies in comparison to his temperament.

Outside of that, I don't know enough about the other mentioned here to say one way or another.

[lawyerlee]

Q&A: Bush wants justice of 'great integrity and intellect' (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-04-qanda-bush_x.htm)

President Bush spoke Monday with USA TODAY's Judy Keen about filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court. These excerpts have been edited for length.

Q: Do you want to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction?

A: This is a responsibility I take very seriously, and I have indicated in the course of two campaigns that I intend to nominate a person with great integrity and intellect and experience who will faithfully interpret the Constitution.

Q: Do you believe the court is not conservative enough?

A: I'm making the pick based upon the criterion I just outlined. I'm looking at a wide range of candidates, people from different walks of life. I will begin to hone in on a handful of candidates over the course of the next few weeks and then will submit my nomination. But I am looking for an individual able to do the job, of course, who will bring great judgment to the bench and one who has the philosophy that I just outlined.

Q: Are you considering waiting until August to announce your choice so opponents don't have a full month to attack while Congress is recessed?

A: I have reached out to members of the Senate and will continue to do so. And then there will be a period of time in which I myself will sit down with the prospective nominees. But I was very serious when I said we need to have this person on the bench prior to the beginning of the next session.

Q: Would you like the Senate to return in August to deal with the nomination?

A: Part of the consultative process with the Senate, of course, will be to determine how best to get a speedy resolution to the nomination. I look forward to consulting with the Senate to make sure that the dialogue and tone of the debate is one that will bring credit to the country. This is a good opportunity for the Senate to get rid of the bitterness and rancor that seem to have been prevalent in a lot of the recent debates.

Q: Should the Senate's agreement not to block votes on judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances" apply?

A: I think all my judges should get an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. I think there ought to be a good, fair hearing. I know there will be. I hope the language and tone of the debate is one that is uplifting. I would hope that the groups involved in this process — the special-interest groups — will help tone down the heated rhetoric and focus on the nominee's credentials and philosophy.

Q: You said Friday that you want a dignified process, but already interest groups are working hard to pressure you.

A: I feel no pressure except the pressure to put somebody on the bench who will bring dignity to the office, somebody who's got the intellect necessary to do the job, somebody of great integrity and somebody who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of the country.

Q: What do you make of the tone of the dialogue already and in particular the attacks on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who's considered a possible nominee?

A: My call to the senators who will be leading the debate on either side is to help elevate this rhetoric so that the country will take a prideful look at the process, recognize there will be differences of opinion but that we can step back after it's over and say, "That's the way we ought to conduct a debate on something as serious as a Supreme Court nominee."

Q: Do you think the attacks on Gonzales are out of line?

A: Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it. We're lucky to have him as the attorney general, and I'm lucky to have him as a friend.

Q: How many people are on your list? Does it include women and minorities?

A: I'm considering a pretty good-sized group of people right now, and of course, there's a diverse group of citizens.

Q: Do you feel any obligation to appoint a woman?

A: I feel an obligation to make sure I reach out to all our society, to people from different parts of our society. It's very important for the people to know that I'm interested in diversity on the court, and I'm also interested in making sure that the person I pick, regardless of who he or she is and regardless of the background of that person, is a person of great integrity, somebody who can do the job.

Q: You have said the American people are not ready for a change in Roe v. Wade. Do you still believe that, or is this your chance to overturn it?

A: As I have repeatedly said, I do not believe in a litmus test for my judges.

[amew]

How sad is it that out of the possible nominees, Gonzales would actually be the most palatable choice, IMO?

Alito and Garza just plain frighten me, and though I admire his intellect, I would really not be comfortable with Easterbrook being elevated to the Supreme Court (and I actually think his nomination would be unlikely anyway given the immense volume of his scholarship -- they want someone with less out there to criticize). The 4th Circuit guys (Luttig & Wilkinson) both strike me as too staunchly conservative, though I think Luttig is consistent and less of a judicial activist than some of these others. I put McConnell in the same category with Easterbrook -- though he is incredibly smart, he is not someone I want on the Court, and I think some of his scholarship would make cofirmation difficult, anyway. I could deal with Kozinski, if only for the entertainment value, but I don't think there is anyway in hell that is going to happen. I am not informed enough about some of the other potential nominees to form an opinion, but at this point, my pick is Gonzales, torture and all.

As far as the woman thing, I think that in all likelihood the seat will go to a member of a historically underprivileged group, whether that is a Latino man or a woman. I would be somewhat surprised to see O'Connor's seat go to a white man, which is another reason I think Easterbrook, Luttig, and McConnell may be somewhat unlikely picks.

[lawyerlee]

Bush picks guide for Supreme Court nominee (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8485102/)
Former Sen. Fred Thompson will advise whoever is nominated

NBC News
GLENEAGLES, Scotland - President Bush has named former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to help shepherd his yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

Thompson, an actor on the NBC television series “Law & Order,” agreed to accept the post in a telephone conversation with the president on Monday, McClellan said.

He said Thompson, a Republican, would serve as an informal adviser to shepherd the nomination through the Senate.

“Senator Thompson will guide the nominee through the confirmation process,” McClellan said.

The White House said it will use the model that former Sen. John Danforth served during Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991.

[AttyGrl74]

I think it is going to be McConnell.

I'm not sure what I think about it.

[lawyerlee]

Is that because of something you've heard, Kelly, or just your intuition? ;) And if you had a good reason to suspect something because of something you learned at work, is that the kind of thing you might share with your good journal buddy Diana? Pretty please? :p


Bush Solicits Supreme Court Advice (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush&printer=1;_ylt=AvtETryMOFhuMjD.zW2uLFtAw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-) AP

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

Aiming to demonstrate an openness to all views, President Bush sought the advice of Democratic as well as Republican senators on Tuesday about whom to pick to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. He also got a little unsolicited advice from his wife.

Over breakfast at the White House, two key lawmakers urged Bush to consider nominating someone other than a judge. Democrats floated the names of three Hispanic judges, but advocates on both the right and left said they might be too moderate for the president's liking.

Bush even heard — all the way from South Africa — from Laura Bush, who said she'd like to see him replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman.

Through it all, Bush gave no clues about whom he might be considering.

"Closer than I was yesterday" was all he would say about how near he was to making his first pick for the nation's high court.

His White House meeting was attended by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the committee. Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card also attended.

Reid told Bush he wanted the president to share the names of his candidates so senators could evaluate them.

The Democrat said he didn't want to "wake up in the morning and see a name in the paper." The president's process of consultation should continue, he said.

"If the president sends us a consensus nominee, the Senate will confirm them easily," Reid said. "If he sends us a divisive nominee, we will use all procedural tools at our disposal to protect the American people."

The meeting was intended to reinforce White House contentions that Bush was consulting widely in filling the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years. Democrats have complained bitterly for years that Bush has ignored their views on lower-court judicial nominations. The White House said it has solicited the views of more than 60 senators.

"Senator Frist came to the Senate floor and said it is unprecedented what the president has done," Reid said about the consultation. "That is a bunch of flimflam," he said, adding that presidents have often consulted with leading senators about Supreme Court nominees.

Officials said Reid signaled that several of the contenders supported by conservatives could trigger a confirmation battle. The Nevada Democrat did not mention names, but among those backed by conservatives are federal appellate judges J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Samuel Alito and J. Harvie Wilkinson III.

Several officials familiar with the hour-long meeting said Democrats suggested Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Ed Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, all Hispanics.

"The question is how seriously will the president take these or any other names suggested, and we don't know the answer to that," said Elliott Mincberg, legal director of the liberal advocacy group, The People for the American Way. Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said the three Hispanic judges' judicial philosophy might not "meet the president's bedrock criterion of faithfulness to the Constitution."

Conservative groups also are leery of another Hispanic said to be a top contender, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush but whose views on abortion and affirmative action have raised questions among them. Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said he was trying to arrange a meeting with Gonzales this week to explore his judicial philosophy.

[lawyerlee]

I have a hard time forming an opinion on McConnell. I think there could be worse picks, as far as his positions are concerned, and I do think he's quite qualified. But when it comes down to it, I hate the idea of Bush appointing someone who is hostile to Roe and its progeny. This is a big reason I have a hard time believing Bush would appoint McConnell. But what the the hell do I know?! ;) :D

This is an interesting article about Judge McConnell:

On the Trail of the Latest High Court Contender (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117789517125) Law.com

A fellow judge on the 10th Circuit, who insisted on anonymity, sees these qualities now on the bench years later.

"He's been a terrific generalist judge, without any agenda at all," this McConnell colleague said. "He works like crazy and writes beautifully. And he's the nicest guy in the world."

[kris97]

Several officials familiar with the hour-long meeting said Democrats suggested Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Ed Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, all Hispanics.

Totally juvenile aside, but I used to go to the same gym as Judge Sotomayor, who I often ran into in the woman's locker room. It would be so weird if she were appointed -- how many people get to say they've seen a Supreme Court justice naked!? ;)

[Delta]

Now I the name I am hearing to replace O'Connor is Luttig. But that may all change should Rehnquist and/or Stevens resign soon.

[lawyerlee]

Now I the name I am hearing to replace O'Connor is Luttig. But that may all change should Rehnquist and/or Stevens resign soon.
Would you consider Judge Luttig a good replacement pick?

[Delta]

Heck yeah. The more I read about everyone the more I think he'd be the best choice, but I'd rather him be Chief, actually. Just glancing at his resume anyone can see he's practically been groomed for it, as much as one can be.

[lawyerlee]

I'll say up front that I don't direct these comments at you, Delta. But I cannot exactly understand why he is such a favorite of neocons. :confused: When I read about Judge Luttig's more high profile decisions, the only one I seem to disagree with him on is the partial birth abortion one. And even in that context he seemed more than able to set aside his personal views and to respect the power of stare decisis.

In my own humble opinion, most neocons seem unprincipled to a fault. Yet, Judge Luttig is the exact opposite. And I don't see how his desire to return some meaning to the Commerce Clause could *ever* be considered a neocon value. To me, that seems much more like a traditional conservative value. If anything, most neocons seem to want the exact opposite outcome. Personally, though I am a bleeding heart liberal politically, I also value the study of law and feel that his view of the Commerce Clause is dead on. Now, it could be argued that neocons love him because his view of the Commerce Clause killed gun control and women-friendly federal laws, but his views line up with the Constitution, IMHO. And it has been possible to enact a different version of the VAWA without the portions of it that killed it in the first place.

Anyhoo, I don't really see him as another Scalia, as so many commentators have him pegged. I think he would be his own Justice and be a damn fine one, with all the intelligence and law expertise he would bring to the role.

[lawyerlee]

I thought I'd post this because it's pretty interesting - not just because I 100% agree with it! ;) :D

The Laura factor. (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/07/laura-factor.html)
Why is Bush homing in on Alberto Gonzales for the Supreme Court appointment, despite all the noisemaking by social conservatives who worry that he might not be pro-life? Maybe it's the Laura factor. Don't you think Laura Bush is telling him that he can't put someone on the Court who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Appointing Gonzales is so perfect: he can pick his dear friend, he can have the distinction and the political advantage of appointing the first Hispanic Justice, he can deflect criticism from Democrats (who have to realize that Gonzales is the most liberal possible choice Bush can make) and from Republicans (who just don't have enough information to pin Gonzales down as pro-abortion), and he can do what his wife is (probably) telling him that he simply must do.

Put the Laura factor into the equation and the answer is obvious: Bush will pick Gonzales.

[lawyerlee]

This is a pretty interesting article about Judge Luttig:

Well-Connected Judge on Supreme Court Short List (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1118999119492)

If Luttig is named to the high court, it won't be just because of his well-placed allies. Friends and detractors agree that Luttig has a sharp and rigorous mind and can build a well-documented case for strongly held, mostly -- but not always -- conservative positions.

"He's a very brilliant person," says Georgetown University Law Center professor Peter Rubin, founder of the liberal American Constitution Society. Rubin also credits Luttig for his open-mindedness, which he saw firsthand when Luttig accepted Rubin's invitation to speak at the ACS 2003 convention. "He was very well received," says Rubin, who adds that "I would be very surprised if he were not very controversial" if nominated.

In his remarks to the liberal group, Luttig attacked judicial activism by both liberal and conservative jurists. "There is no such thing as good or defensible judicial activism," he said. "All activism is in defiance of law -- 'law' that is defined as the politics of the people, not the politics of individual, unelected, life-tenured judges."

In a 2004 speech before Yale University's China Law Center in Beijing, Luttig also said judges of all stripes should welcome searching scrutiny from the public and the press as a beneficial kind of accountability.

"Properly understood," Luttig said, "criticism of the judiciary and the judicial product by a free media is more of a safeguard of, than a threat to, judicial independence."

[lawyerlee]

George Mitchell: The Dems' Supreme Point Man? (http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf20050712_4402_db038.htm?chan=db&)

The former Senate Majority Leader, now a noted peacemaker, may be tapped to help lead the party's strategy on a new high court nominee

The battle on Capitol Hill over filling one, possibly two, U.S. Supreme Court vacancies is heating up fast. Faced with a high-powered lineup of GOP tacticians and advisers, Senate Democrats are now working to assemble their own team.

One key person under consideration to lead the effort, several Democratic sources tell BusinessWeek Online, is former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, chairman of the board at Walt Disney (DIS ) and chairman of law firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. He has offices in New York and Washington, D.C. Mitchell also serves on Staples' (SPLS ) board of directors.

[AttyGrl74]

Is that because of something you've heard, Kelly, or just your intuition? ;) And if you had a good reason to suspect something because of something you learned at work, is that the kind of thing you might share with your good journal buddy Diana? Pretty please? :p


heh heh heh - NO ONE is talking about it here at the 10th Cir. You'd think it would be a hot topic - but I haven't heard a thing about it. Which I think is bizarre.

I got my info from a friend who is Ginsberg's former law clerk and lives in DC.

[lawyerlee]

O'Connor Urged to Reconsider Retirement (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050714/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_senate;_ylt=AmkPgd3lpDvjlc41vEXAj0ms0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-) AP

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago

Four female senators called Thursday for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on the court and try for chief justice if the ailing William Rehnquist steps down.

In a letter to O'Connor, Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Barbara Boxer of California asked the nation's first female justice to consider staying on the high court if Chief Justice Rehnquist relinquishes the top spot.

Rehnquist was discharged Thursday after two nights in the hospital for treatment of a fever. O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1, but has made it conditional on a replacement being confirmed.

"We urge you to reconsider your resignation and return to the Supreme Court to serve as chief justice, should there be a vacancy," the senators said in the Thursday letter.

The four senators also said they will "strongly recommend" to President Bush that O'Connor become the next chief justice if Rehnquist steps down.

"We believe such a history-making nomination by the president would demonstrate leadership that unites Americans around the shared values of liberty, the rule of law and the preservation of our constitutional freedoms," they said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont first publicly stoked speculation about a possible O'Connor candidacy for chief justice on Sunday.

"I think it would be quite a capping to her career if she served for a time, maybe a year or so," Specter said.

Given the praise O'Connor has received since her retirement announcement, she would be a lock to be confirmed as chief justice, Leahy said. "I think it would be a very doable thing," he said Sunday.

[Sophia]

I heard on CNN today that Rehnquist has stated he will not be retiring anytime soon. I can't find a story, thouh.

[miel]

Gonzalez--would he be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice? Damn! I wanted my brother to be the first Hispanic SCJ! ;)

[kris97]

I don't know if anyone has seen this, but the AP is reporting that Edith Clement is garnering speculation that she's the nominee.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush


Does anyone know anything about her?

[meganth]

Here's what i read in my local news about her:
Clement serves on the federal appeals court in New Orleans. She was confirmed in a 99-to-zero vote in 2001.

Legal experts consider her a conservative and strict constructionist.

She has said "the law is settled" on abortion. She has stated the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's right to privacy as guaranteeing the right to have an abortion. But, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice America says Clement's record raises "seriously troubling" questions.

[amew]

I was just coming in here to see if anyone else was hearing the Edith Clement rumor. I don't know a ton about her. It sounds like she is a a pretty classic federalist and fairly pro-defense. She hasn't attracted attention with any big decisions regarding abortion or similarly controversial issues (just what Bush wants). I think at best, she could end up being somewhat O'Connor-esque --a good federalist who's tough to pinpoint. At worse, well, we all know where that could lead. I just wish she were older than 57. Here's what People for the American Way has to say about her:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13514

[camberne]

I don't really have a "favorite" among the rumoured; however, I certainly hope that the person(s) elected to the SCOTUS are what I call myself - conserveral. Where I'm more a conservative than liberal, I want someone who will listen to the case and apply the law reasonably and fairly... not someone who is about furthering issues.

That said, I don't want Roe v. Wade to become an issue again.

[meganth]

The news is saying that the White House will probably make the announcement today.

[Delta]

Announcement at 8 pm CDT tonight. Everyone is speculating that it is Edith Clement. Who the frick is she?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900138_pf.html

[bookworm]

Boston.com has a page with bios of some of the possible nominees (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/02/possible_candidates/)

Here is what they say about Clement (not much)
<quote>
Currently: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; New Orleans
Age: 57
Bio: Law clerk in US District Court before entering private practice in New Orleans. Nominated by George H.W. Bush to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.

Discussion: Authored a 2003 opinion that reduced damages awarded to the estates of a woman and her 3-year-old daughter killed in an accident with a truck. A pain and suffering award was also eliminated because there was no evidence the daughter was aware of the impending collision. :
</quote>

[lawyerlee]

Announcement at 8 pm CDT tonight. Everyone is speculating that it is Edith Clement. Who the frick is she?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900138_pf.html
I know! Talk about someone out of no where! :rolleyes: :)

[amew]

I know! Talk about someone out of no where!

So true! I practice law in Texas and I still know little to nothing about her.

[lawyerlee]

Here is the little the Washington Post said about her after Justice O'Connor's retirement:

Judge Edith Brown Clement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/07/05/PH2005070500581.jpg

Clement was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1991 and was elevated to her current post by the current President Bush in 2001.

Clement, a graduate of the University of Alabama and Tulane University Law School, worked as a lawyer in private practice in New Orleans for 16 years before beginning her tenure on the federal bench. She specialized in civil litigation involving maritime law, representing oil companies, insurance companies and the marine services industry in cases before federal courts. She is a member of the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization.

As a district judge, Clement presided over such high-profile cases as the 2000 trials of former Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D) and former state insurance commissioner Jim Brown (D) on fraud charges. Edwards was acquitted; Brown was convicted of lying to the FBI and sentenced to six months in prison.

Lawyers who know Clement or have tried cases before her describe her as a judicial conservative who leans toward the defense in civil cases, and as a no-nonsense judge who is strict about deadlines and insists on professionalism from lawyers.

Analysts say Clement has not attracted attention for her judicial opinions, so it is unclear which of her decisions, if any, might become the focus of a confirmation battle.

-- Christopher Lee

Her affiliation with the freaking Federalist Society makes me want to barf, but I guess I shouldn't be suprised. :(

[lawyerlee]

So true! I practice law in Texas and I still know little to nothing about her.
What did you think about those three cases that keep coming up next to her name? I guess I'm not convinced they are as heinous as PFTAW is trying to make them out to be. I do have a hard time understanding how, in US v. McFarland, she and the others could accuse the majority of “withdraw[ing] from the field of reasoned dispute”, when the majority was following precedent. But as for Coggin v. Longview Independent School District and Vogler v. Blackmore, I'm not convinced that her view would have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. I would definitely need to read those opinions and dissents to form a solid view.

[lawyerlee]

And here's what Slate said about her back on July 1st:

Edith Brown Clement: (http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais)
Age: 57
Graduated from: Tulane Law School.
She clerked for: Judge Herbert W. Christenberry.
She used to be: a judge on the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
She's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (appointed 2001).

Her confirmation battle: Clement doesn't provide much ammunition for opposition groups, but perhaps not much for conservatives to get excited about either. She hasn't written anything notable off the bench (or at least nothing that's come to light yet), and most of her judicial decisions have been in relatively routine and uncontroversial cases.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, allowed a plaintiff who sued the police for violating his right to due process to proceed with his claim that the officers who arrested him used excessive force when they allegedly injured him by slamming the door of their car against his head. Reversed the district court's finding that the plaintiff could also sue for unlawful arrest and excessive force involving the use of handcuffs. (Tarver v. City of Edna, 2005)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for the 5th Circuit to rehear a decision blocking developers from building on a site where six endangered bug species lived in a cluster of limestone caves. Clement joined a dissent that argued that the decision's rationale for protecting the bugs—to preserve the interdependent web of species—bore no relationship to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. (GDF Realty Investments v. Norton, 2004)

Criminal Law
For a unanimous panel, rejected the claim of a man flying to Nigeria that his luggage was unlawfully searched at the border. Clement ruled broadly that customs inspectors need not have probable cause to search the bags of people who are leaving the country. (U.S. v. Odutayo, 2005)

Agreed with a unanimous panel that an asylum applicant who was 20 minutes late to a hearing because he'd taken the wrong highway exit should not have been ordered deported in absentia and was entitled to a new hearing. (Alarcon-Chavez v. Gonzales, 2005)

Habeas Corpus
Over a dissent, ruled that a death-row inmate who claimed to be mentally retarded was entitled to a lawyer to develop that claim in a habeas petition. Clement's ruling followed the Supreme Court's 2002 decision barring the execution of the mentally retarded. She followed up with a second opinion that limited the significance of her ruling by stating "this is a fact-bound case." (Hearn v. Dretke, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, reversed a decision of the district court finding that a police officer convicted of civil rights violation, for hitting a drunk suspect in the head with his baton, was entitled to a new trial because his lawyer was ineffective. The officer argued that his lawyer erred by failing to call character witnesses to rebut testimony that he'd complained about the need to control Mexicans in the United States. Clement said the rebuttal evidence would have been irrelevant because the officer was not charged with a hate crime. (U.S. v. Harris, 2005)

Damage Awards
Over a partial dissent, in reviewing a jury verdict in favor of a man whose wife and 3-year-old daughter were killed in a car crash, affirmed damage awards of $1.9 million for the man's loss of his wife and $1.5 million for the loss of his daughter. Reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 an award to the wife's estate for her pain and mental anguish before her death and eliminated a $200,000 award to the daughter's estate for her pain and mental anguish. (Vogler v. Blackmore, 2003)

[lawyerlee]

This is an interesting article from today's Post about the Fifth Circuit, which the the Court of Appeals Judge Clement sits on.

Five From the 5th Circuit Mentioned for High Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801251_pf.html)
Southern Appeals Bench Known for Conservatism

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; A08
It wasn't all that long ago that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit was on the cutting edge of the civil rights movement, a liberal pocket of scholars aggressively enforcing the Supreme Court's demand for speedy desegregation in the Deep South.

But things have changed mightily in 20 years. Today, the New Orleans-based appellate court is considered among the most conservative in the land -- but it is still at the center of politics and history.

As both sides dig in for what is expected to a be contentious ideological struggle over a successor to Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, five of the judges mentioned as possible nominees are on the 5th Circuit: Edith Brown Clement, Emilio M. Garza, Edith Hollan Jones, Priscilla R. Owen and Edward C. Prado.

"A court is made up of more that just individual judges. It has a tone or a mood. The fact that the president is looking at so many judges from the 5th Circuit tells us more or less what he may be looking for," said University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman. "He may not want just a conservative judge, but one that comes from a conservative environment and is more likely to think in those terms."

The five judges will face varying degrees of opposition. Democrats say two, Jones and Garza, are unacceptable because the judges have denounced Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion. Clement has fewer opinions on social issues to parse, and Prado, who was appointed by Bush, is considered moderate by many Democrats.

The court -- which covers Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana -- is known for its independence, and the Supreme Court has reversed it in a number of high-profile cases. The high court has also openly rebuked the 5th Circuit in death penalty cases, signaling that the appeals court crossed the line in denying defendants' rights.

On one occasion, O'Connor, writing for the majority, accused the lower court of applying its own "restrictive gloss" to the standard set by the Supreme Court for establishing a condemned convict's retardation. In another recent capital case, the Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit 6 to 3, stating that the appeals court was wrong not to order a new trial in the face of strong evidence that prosecutors deliberately excluded blacks from the jury. The majority opinion, by Justice David H. Souter, said the 5th Circuit decision was a "dismissive and strained interpretation" of how the Supreme Court had previously ruled.

In that case, some legal analysts said, the high court expressed its frustration because it had sent the same case back to the circuit court two years earlier with an 8 to 1 majority, directing the court to review its decision.

In another key case, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to reverse the 5th Circuit and overturned the conviction of accounting firm Arthur Andersen over jury instructions.

Still, the lower court shows no sign of backing down.

"It really is quite unusual for a lower federal court to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court so explicitly," said Peter B. Edelman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University law school. "If you look at some of the other courts, I doubt you'll find the same kind of flaunting defiance."

Theodore M. Shaw, the director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said it is "extraordinary" how many times the Supreme Court felt it necessary to chastise the 5th Circuit. "We are not talking about a liberal Supreme Court," he noted. "We're talking about a conservative Supreme Court that apparently became frustrated with the 5th Circuit's failure to meaningfully review criminal convictions for constitutional infirmities . . . cases involving prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, racial discrimination. Those problems were not being addressed by the 5th Circuit, so the Supreme Court had to step in."

Others suggest that too much can be read into the high court's reversals and reprimands. "Reversals are overrated," said John S. Baker Jr., who teaches criminal law at Louisiana State University. "A court should follow Supreme Court rulings as precedent dictates. But there can be a value in a judge adding a viewpoint that encourages the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, said of the death penalty reversals: "It tells me the Supreme Court is to the left of the majority of Americans, which favor the death penalty. The 5th Circuit's rulings reflect the majority."

Of the five judges mentioned for the Supreme Court, Jones, 56, is considered by lawyers who practice before the 5th Circuit to be the most intellectual, the most abrasive and the most ideological. Although she is a favorite of the Christian right, both Democrats and Republicans question whether Bush would risk the inevitable Senate fight if he nominated her.

In an opinion last year, she criticized the Supreme Court on Roe , writing: "The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy . . . is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a court so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year."

Both Jones and Garza, 57, were serious Supreme Court candidates for Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. Jones was interviewed for the appointment that went to Souter, and Garza was brought to Bush's home in Maine to interview for the seat that went to Clarence Thomas. This go-round, some conservatives have pushed Garza instead of the president's friend and attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, if the president wants to appoint the first Hispanic to the court.

Clement, 57, is considered conservative but has not left much of a paper trail. Lawyers interviewed for the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary described her while a district judge as pro-government, pro-business and pro-defendant in civil cases.

Democrats consider Prado, 58, to have an even temperament and a balanced approach to the law. As a district judge, he once overturned a death sentence and ruled that background checks for handgun purchases did not violate the Constitution. Democratic lawmakers who met with Bush to discuss the court reportedly told him that Prado could be confirmed.

Legal scholars have been studying the ideological change in the 5th Circuit, which they pinpoint to 1981, when President Ronald Reagan committed to appointing conservative judges.

In his 1981 book "Unlikely Heroes," writer Jack Bass described how a group of four legendary judges dominated the court in the 1950s and '60s, aggressively interpreting the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings to accelerate racial equality in a resistant South.

The 5th Circuit of today is made up of 16 active judges, 12 of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Because it covers Texas -- which has the highest execution rate in the country -- the court sees a lot of death penalty appeals. Most frustrating to foes of the death penalty and to civil rights lawyers is that the court has a record of rarely siding with defendants.

Last year, even conservative lawyers paused when a three-member panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that a death penalty defendant was not entitled to a new trial even though his attorney had slept through part of his trial. "It would seem to anyone in support of the death penalty that a defense attorney ought not sleep through a trial," Shaw said.

The majority, which included Jones, wrote that it "cannot determine whether [the defense attorney] slept during a 'critical stage' " of the trial. When the full 5th Circuit reviewed the decision, the court reversed itself.

"It is not a happy place for civil rights lawyers to be," said Mary Howell, a lawyer in New Orleans who has argued before the court. "For many of us, practicing before the court means avoidance. What's unfortunate is that lawyers are becoming very selective about which cases they chose to take to the court, and many cases that have merit don't make the cut. It has had a chilling effect."

Staff writer Peter Baker and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

[amew]

What did you think about those three cases that keep coming up next to her name? I guess I'm not convinced they are as heinous as PFTAW is trying to make them out to be.

I had the exact same take on things. If these are her most offensive decisions than I am really not that appalled. But I haven't read any of the three cases closely, so I would hate to speak too soon. I think I will take them home and read them tonight.

My (cautiously optimistic) feeling at this point is that it could be much worse. I don't think we have another Souter on our hands or anything, but with any luck, she will be better than Garza. I wonder how the level of her analysis compares to some of the intellectual heavyweights like Easterbrook and McConnell, though.

I have to say, all else being equal (and assuming it is not Priscilla Owen), I would prefer to keep two women on the Court, so I am somewhat pleased from that perspective. Having less than that would just seem ashame.

[lawyerlee]

I have to say, all else being equal (and assuming it is not Priscilla Owen), I would prefer to keep two women on the Court, so I am somewhat pleased from that perspective. Having less than that would just seem ashame.
I agree completely. I do hope that she is the nominee because I think nominating a qualified woman is the right thing to do.

I do think it is a shame that her body of scholarship is so sorely lacking, though. I'd like to see more legal thought from someone who is being considered for the highest legal position in our democracy. Still, I'm sure this bumped her up on the list because it would make her a much easier confirmation, just as it seemed to when she was nominated for the Court of Appeals. I can't even remember her being nominated or confirmed, and it was only in 2001!

[amew]

Have y'all seen this yet?

"Bush to announce court choice
Sources say nominee will not be 5th Circuit's Edith Clement"

Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Posted: 6:09 p.m. EDT (22:09 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html

The speculation continues! I told DH to secure some good takeout and get ready for the watch party.

[cakes]

Well it's John Roberts

[meganth]

AP: Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush)
Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[lawyerlee]

How typical of GWB to select someone who has been a judge all of two years. :rolleyes: Of all the truly acceptable (and perhaps even good) picks being discussed, it is astounding to me that this is the choice he has made. I'm really dissapointed.