Bush will announce nominee for Supreme Court tonight!

[granada]

From www.signonsandiego.com:

By Deb Riechmann
ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:18 a.m. July 19, 2005

WASHINGTON – President Bush settled on a nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the White House made arrangements for a nationally televised prime time announcement.
"I'll let you know when I'm ready," he said at a midday news conference where he declined to tip his hand.

That only intensified speculation on his choice for the first opening on the court in more than a decade and a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The announcement was set for 9 p.m. EDT from the East Room of the White House. The nominee's family was expected to be with Bush and the candidate.

One list that circulated was top-heavy with the names of women. Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans was among them. Another female candidate thought to have been under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Bush said he had considered "a variety of people, people from different walks of life."

The tension was palpable in the West Wing of the White House; after a day of intense speculation, White House press secretary Scott McClellan walked into the press briefing room and said bluntly: "The president has made a decision and will be announcing his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 o'clock." McClellan said the American people expected that the Senate confirmation process would be a dignified one.

Other names that have been mentioned are Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Bush had said ever since O'Connor's July 1 announcement that he wanted to move with some speed and that he wanted the new justice to be seated before the court begins its fall term in October.

The dynamic might have changed a bit when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist last week put out word that he had no intention of stepping down and that he would continue on the court despite his battle with thyroid cancer. Nevertheless, with Congress nearing a summer recess and then a busy September, some time pressure was unavoidable.

Though Washington was abuzz with speculation about Clement, the president ignored a question about what he thought of her.

"I guess the best way to say it is, I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is," the president said. He jokingly acknowledged that he was trying to dodge the question.

"I'm comfortable with where we are in the process," the president said. He said he has considered a variety of people from different walks of life, some of whom he knew before and some he had never met.

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds that have shared the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. He spoke at a press conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

At Clement's office in New Orleans, a man who identified himself as a law clerk said the judge was not available. "That's what I've been instructed to say," he told a caller who asked if she were in Washington.

In anticipation of a selection, officials said the White House had contacted selected Republican senators they hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee in media interviews in the initial time following an announcement. Democrats scoured the rulings and writings of leading contenders, including Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.

White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered as a replacement for the departing O'Connor, who was the first woman appointed to the court.

[Aimee]

I'm excited - just because 2 of the possible candidates are local "girls!"

How interesting that they're both named Edith. Not that common of a name.

[villanelle75]

Hang on tight to your uteruses, ladies! I can't believe we have to wait until tonight!!!

[granada]

I know! I'm scared and nervous.

Is it ok to be a little hopeful, too? Maybe it won't be so bad? :o

This is the first Supreme Court nomination that I'm really anxious about. I think I was too young (or oblivious) when Thomas was nominated.

[AttyGrl74]

I don't think she was mentioned in that article, but Chief Judge Deanell Tacha from the Tenth Circuit is not in D.C., so she's obviously not the nominee.

Sadness!

[oceaneast]

Oh I'm nervous about this.

[lawyerlee]

I don't think she was mentioned in that article, but Chief Judge Deanell Tacha from the Tenth Circuit is not in D.C., so she's obviously not the nominee.

Sadness!
Wouldn't it be so awesome if she was?! A KU Law girl on SCOTUS would be so kick ass. Oh well. ;)

[Delta]

Post your predictions.

Mine? No clue. I want Luttig but I think they are holding off on him to replace Rehnquist.

[lawyerlee]

Post your predictions.
I guess I still go with Gonzales as GWB's choice. I think all this other talk is a smoke screen.

However, I'd rather see the nomination go to just about anyone being discusssed - Easterbrook, Luttig, McConnell, or Wilkinson.

At this point, I think I'm more excited than nervous. I don't expect to agree with the choice, so I'm just ready to know who the hell it is! ;)

ETA In case anyone was wondering, I have NOT received a call about the position. I think I'd do a great job, but I guess they aren't interested in me. Too bad. :p

[granada]

In case anyone was wondering, I have NOT received a call about the position. I think I'd do a great job, but I guess they aren't interested in me.
lol, I have a feeling you'd do a great job, too, and I would have wholeheartedly supported your nomination. :)

[gayle]

Bush's nomination is John G. Roberts. He's young, and said to be VERY conservative.

Here's a brief Bio
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm

[lawyerlee]

Lame pick. I'm incredibly dissapointed, and I think I've tried to be as open minded about this process as possible. :(

[mrs_pell]

"Fast facts about John Roberts:


EXPERIENCE

— on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003.

— one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench.

— former Rehnquist clerk, Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93.

— during the Clinton administration, became a highly sought-after private lawyer in Supreme Court cases, representing clients such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a discrimination case, and carmaker Toyota in winning limits on a disabled workers claims.

— had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

— 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration.

EDUCATION

— received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.

PERSONAL

— 50 years old

— native of Buffalo, N.Y.

[Sophia]

Lame pick. I'm incredibly dissapointed, and I think I've tried to be as open minded about this process as possible. :(

You've been very open minded.

I, on the other hand, haven't said much (or anything, actually) because I felt all my comments would be too negative. I was sure he'd pick someone young & conservative in order to shape the court for as long as possible and to as severe a degree as possible.

As least I have the hurricane to distract me right now. ;) :p

[Delta]

Me likey! I really, really do. Yes, he is conservative. But from everything I've heard he is a great guy and an excellent lawyer and judge. I am excited. The hearings are going to be rough, but I think he'll get through because he is smart and fair and pleasant.

I think the President went with his heart on this one. Completely.

From someone who used to work with him -
A couple of decades ago in the Reagan White House, John Roberts and I had adjoining offices, and we've kept in touch, in a desultory way, ever since. What can I tell you about him? That he's one of the nicest guys I've ever met. Devout but light-hearted, a devoted husband, and the doting father of two adopted children. And so thoroughly modest that I had no idea of his reputation for brilliance within the legal community--I'd supposed he was a pretty good lawyer, but knew no more--until the President nominated John to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

We'll all have to wait for the slicing and dicing of John's legal work to form views of his judicial philosophy, but I can tell you from personal knowledge that what we have here is a thoroughly marvelous human being.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070056

[lawyerlee]

I think the President went with his heart on this one. Completely.
With all due respect, I think he went with an easy confirmation. Period.

I think it's great that he's a nice person, but I don't think that makes him among enough the five best picks for this position.

[amew]

I am less than thrilled with this pick. I am too annoyed right now to say much more than that.

[Delta]

With all due respect, I think he went with an easy confirmation. Period.

I think it's great that he's a nice person, but I don't think that makes him among enough the five best picks for this position.
Yes, barring something shocking he will be confirmed but there will be a fight no doubt. I honestly believe though that Bush really likes the guy because he is conservative 'enough' and he is young, and is a great lawyer, yet as you said, will be relatively easy to get through because there is not much to hold against him (that we know of, yet.)

[granada]

He clerked for Rehnquist. That says a lot.

Well, at least he didn't clerk for Scalia. That's my positive comment.

ETA: I agree with lawyerlee. I think it was an easy nomination, much like a few judges he's gotten through in the Ninth Circuit.

[oceaneast]

I don't know I'm disappointed. Beyond the entire issue of his conservatism I wanted to see a woman on the Supreme Court to take her place. This country is over 50% female our legislatures and courts should begin reflecting that.

[lawyerlee]

My positive comment is that at least we don't yet have any real reason to believe he's so hostile to the Roe/Casey line of cases that he'd overturn that precedent at first opportunity. And it sounds like he is staunchly against it, so that might say something about his ability to be a fair minded jurist.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Here's my positive comment-
What I've read so far about him doesn't seem unbearably scary... ;)

[meganth]

He's only 50!?!?! That right there scares me almost more than anything. Something has got to change about these lifetime appointments.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

So, why do you think the nomination came so early? Wasn't Bush supposed to be interviewing people all this week? I could make a guess as to the reason... :D

[lawyerlee]

So, why do you think the nomination came so early? Wasn't Bush supposed to be interviewing people all this week? I could make a guess as to the reason... :D
No kidding. :rolleyes:

[laura]

With all due respect, I think he went with an easy confirmation. Period.

I think it's great that he's a nice person, but I don't think that makes him among enough the five best picks for this position.

ITA w/ this. I'm not surprised he went this route, but it isn't my best-case scenario. That's about as positive as I can get at the moment. :)

[Delta]

What makes you guys uneasy about Roberts? That he doesn't have much of a track record as a judge?

Because I am struck by the fact that his well-liked and admired by fellow 'liberal' attorneys and even his former courtroom opponents. They say he'd make a terrific Justice. The more I read the more I like him and do think he was the best pick for this time and this place.

I do wonder what is going to happen with Luttig. The Bush Administration tries not to worry about 'quotas' but there is a political aspect to this and I find it hard to believe that he would appoint another white male when Rehnquist resigns. I think he may move up Scalia or Thomas and then appoint a minority (woman or racial minority.) Just my prediction. Who knows. :confused:

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I'm concerned because all we really have to go on is what he's done as a lawyer. And here's some of the stuff he's been involved with:
It's from People for the American Way, (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19272) so it's biased toward a liberal viewpoint, but an article in the the Columbus Dispatch gave the same basic facts.
Reproductive Freedom

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) and Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)
Roberts has a record of hostility to women’s reproductive freedom and has sought to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1990, for example, Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored a brief for the government in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). Rust concerned the so-called “gag rule” that prohibited federally funded family planning clinics from discussing the option of abortion with patients, and did not directly concern the validity of Roe itself. Nonetheless, Roberts argued that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled . . . [T]he Court’s conclusion[] in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion . . . find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”2

Also as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the government in support of the radical anti-choice group Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics. The government was not a party in the case and need not have filed a brief. The case, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), was brought by clinics that perform abortions and organizations supporting reproductive choice for women, asserting that Operation Rescue and the individual defendants had violated a federal civil rights statute by conspiring to deprive women of their right to interstate travel. This claim required a showing of a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” on the part of the conspirators.” 506 U.S. at 268. Roberts’s brief in Bray contended that the protesters’ conduct did not constitute discrimination against women, “even though only women can have abortions."3 The Court majority held that the requisite showing of discriminatory animus had not been made in the case. Soon after Bray was decided, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to protect women and health care providers from harassment and violence.
Free Speech

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored the government’s brief in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), contending that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized flag burning, was constitutional. Although Roberts’s brief conceded that the conduct at issued constituted “expressive conduct,” the brief claimed that “[t]he First Amendment does not prohibit Congress . . . from removing the American flag as a prop available to those who seek to express their own views by destroying it.”6 In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia, disagreed, holding that the law violated the First Amendment. As the Court explained in striking down the law, “[p]unishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.” 496 U.S. at 319.

Significantly, although the Act was specifically written and passed to seek to distinguish an earlier Court ruling striking down a Texas flag desecration law, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Roberts’s brief urged the Court to reconsider the Johnson ruling, which it had handed down only the Term before, rejecting the claim that flag burning does not enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment. This calls into question Roberts’s views of stare decisis. The Court expressly declined the government’s invitation. 496 U.S. at 315.

[Delta]

Yes, but he was arguing those POV on behalf of his client (the government.) It doesn't really go to his personal views.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

It's all we have to go on though. Besides, it doesn't seem to me to be illogical to assume that if a lawyer writes a brief on something, that they think that the brief has merit.

[kris97]

An interesting article from today's NYT. I'm pretty moderate, but I'm beginning to like what I read about him.

Roberts article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?hp&ex=1122004800&en=3e6d2bbcdacc8242&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory
Court Nominee Said He Has No Memory of Membership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html) Washington Post

No memory of membership? C'mon... :p

[msnicolea]

To be fair, LF, I don't remember my membership in my college's chapter if NORML, but apparently I was on the roster! ;->

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Heh heh heh! :D