ConfirmThem

If so, is this JPS or RBG? I thought JPS was the "superhumanoid" justice, who would live to be 106...

_In a world full of twists and turns, the ultimate twist...is a straight line._

While this certainly could be true, the timing smacks of a GOTV effort to me. If it is true, I hope JPS retires immediately and then recovers for a long and health retirement. If it is not true, and a GOTV ploy, I hope it works.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

Insider?

Heh heh.

Speaking of which-- LMK, Aurel, and Justice Brad, you guys definitely got the last laugh on that one. After 5 months of crying I can admit it now.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

If it is a ploy, then it started on the other side to generate Dem votes (see the second link in the post).

Classic.

I'm back! I had great difficulty in registering after the change, but I just went through the hoops to get back in.

And none too soon, with this new rumor racing around town. If Santorum loses (and I hope he doesn't), I hope President Bush nominates him for the next opening on SCOTUS. He might be a bit squirrelly on some labor matters, but he's spot on when it comes to the Global War on Terror and the Sanctity of Human Life issues.

I've heard from a source that, as long as the senate stays in GOP hands (and I think it will, with anywhere from 51-54 GOP Senators), any SCOTUS nominee will receive an up or down vote.

Hey, welcome back. :)

Hey, this is Evan, from before the overhaul.

By the by, apparently Rudy is a Scalia Fan:

http://redstate.com/blogs/mbecker908/2006/nov/02/rudy_on_scotus

Click on Andrew's link for more info. Democratic Underground says it's Stevens, and those crazy leftists are not happy!

I wish the best for Stevens, but only after he retires forthwith.

Funny, though not surprising, how they use the term "good vibes," rather than "prayers."

JPS prolly played three sets of tennis this morning, then swam a couple miles. At worst, he has a bad case of flu. He'll be fully recovered by Thanksgiving and he's not going anywhere anytime soon. This rumor is 99.999% likely to be a last minute GOTV troll from the Kos fringe. The comments on that site are amusing & revealing, tho.

**HOWEVER**, on the .001% chance that JPS does retire in the near future, here's what Bush should do, no matter how dearly his incompetence costs the Repubs on Tuesday:

Nominate JRB, put her on Oprah & 60 Minutes, and let the Dems make racist fools of themselves filibustering & slandering her. Then nominate McConnell, and let the Dems make idiots of themselves trying to explain how one of the most qualified nominees in history, one with wide support from the entire legal & academic spectrum, is somehow too "extraordinarily extreme" to be confirmed.

Then nominate Cruz (followed by Cantero) and let the Dems spend all of the '08 Campaign explaining how they 'high-tech zoot-suited' an outstanding, accomplished member of the Hispanic community, who would never steal the public's rights & mandates by legislating from the bench.

Then nominate Easterbrook, then Pryor, then Jones, then Luttig, and on and on and on and on. Scorched earth, nothing else gets done until its over, one right after the other.

No Trojan Souters like Mahoney. No mush like Prado. No mediocrities like Callahan. No hacks like Santorum. (Classic, I don't support Santorum for any judicial seat for a wide variety of reasons, among them IMO his inability to retain his Senate seat entitles him to nothing, and also there are plenty of superstars who mirror him on Life & WOT issues and are far more qualified in every other aspect)

Of course, Bush will nominate Connie and she'll be confirmed 98-0. Hillary/Obama will get 330 electoral votes in '08, and the Dems will have 60+ seats in the Senate & 250+ in the House.

We'll all just love the politicians, psychologists, philosophers, & journalists Hillary appoints to fill the seats of RBG, Scalia, Luttig, Alito(CCA), Van Antwerpen, Wilkinson(presumed), the Fatal Five & 12th on the DCC, Kethledge & Murphy, and every other open or pending opening.

Amnesty, open borders, insta-citizenship, gay marriage & adoption, & mandatory Understanding & Appreciating Islam public school classes among other things will be the law of the land by 2011.

Hysterical? Maybe so, but on 1/20/01 where did you think we'd be on 11/5/06? Why take a chance? GTFOT and vote.

Speaking of Wilkinson, here's a great editorial he wrote recently on gay marriage & "amendment fever":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR200609...

Oh, yes, recall that if Poppy had won in '92 Wilkinson would likely now sit where RBG does.

VOTE!!!

Well, we've got to hold on to at least 50 seats. I still think we can get any SCOTUS Justice confirmed as long as the repubs keep 50 seats.

I agree. It is absolutely necessary for the Republicans to hold onto the Senate. Not only for any future SCOTUS nomination, but also for the likes of Keisler, Kethledge and Murphy,

GKCfan:

While this certainly could be true, the timing smacks of a GOTV effort to me.

If it is, it's a terrible effort. A good GOTV november surprise should motivate your people without unduly motivating the other side's people; spreading rumors of a Stevens retirement is as likely to motivate GOP voters as democrats. Still, I never credited the kossacks with an overabundance of brains, so you never know.

~Simon

"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)

You're quite the optimist.

By the way, let's see how the Saddam verdict plays out.

Does anyone think Bush added his comment on judges at the C. Burns rally in Montana because of what he's hearing? More likely, he knew it would be a good statement in Big Sky Country.

shut up and go find acroso if you want to have a conversation about how incompetent you think Bush is. I repeat: SHUT UP.

the DUmmy post was 10/27. the Court was in session this week, no? I've heard nothing to suggest that Stevens was not on the bench, and if he was so gravely ill, I highly doubt he wouldn't be taking a sick day.

I'm inclined to go with the GOTV angle. It's good for everybody to get more people out - this can be spun either way.

If impending retirement is true, I wonder if he'd pull a "date contingent" stunt like O'Connor did. Would need to look into "what cases are hanging out there?" to evaluate the politics of that possibility.

I like the notion of nominating a string of known "traditionalist jurists," and really like the JRB idea, that would be fantastic. But I see a more "compassionate conservative" pick coming. The DEMs have everything to gain by obstructing - it energizes them.

I figure the GOP can talk itself into nominating a lukewarm, empty slate sort of nominee - and blaming conservatives for not voting enough GOP to get any better nominee.

Deinekes, Would please explain what you mean by a dummy post. Sorry to be such a dummy on this.

I think many of us learned our lesson (how long, O Lord?) this past summer re the frenzied speculation of one or two retirements.

On the other hand, someone can receive "grave medical news" and not be feeling physically bad at the time. For instance, someone can have a pretty far advanced brain tumor and not feel pain.

Just read the 10/27 post. But is Dummy Post some kind of slang?

DUmmy = a funny little derogatory nick-name for DU, the Democrat Underground.

Kinda on par with "Kossacks" or "Dems."

After reading the post at Human Events, the timeline appears to be:

1. Several weeks ago, a US Supreme Court justice recieved a bad bill of health. This news began spreading among the top-guys in DC.

2. At 10/27 the post on DU was made, and the posters there began convulsing into a fit of nervous and profane rage.

3. In campaign appearances this week for Montana's Conrad Burns, President Bush used the judicial-appointments line to marshall the faithful for GOTV efforts.

Whether or not this is all circumstantial is tbd. I, too, was very disappointed that the Stevens/Souter dual retirement rumor of the past Spring and Summer didn't come to pass. I've learned my lesson, and I'm now going to be more skeptical of this stuff in the future whenever it starts coming down the line.

But, admittedly, when you're 86 years old, things can go south, health-wise, rather quickly. Also, to all of the Court-Watchers, what's the status of Justice RBG's health, to the best of your knowledge?

-Evan

and to Bill: apologies for the shut up, but I beg you, for the sake of our blood pressure, could you please tone down the kos-like hatred of our President? thanks.

20--Thanks. I can be kinda slow on these things.

21--Thanks for the timeline. You're right about the coarseness of some of the DU postings.

you are of course correct that a serious health problem may not manifest itself overtly right away (however, the DUmmy did say "very ill" which has overtones of a current and noticable physical ailment). I thought about that by the time the parallel thread appeared over at RS, but I still am skeptical, and its just as likley to be RBG in that case, or (God forbid) even one of our crew (that is to say, the HE and DU rumors may be completely unrelated).

Casey, Webb, Ford & Tester Agree To Filibuster Pact

The point of the stuff at the link is pure GOTV "scare" tactics. Pretty funny, if you ask me.

GOP Senators who have signed "judicial oath"

Just as a point of comparison with Stop ACLU's comment, which was ...

Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees

Seems all we have are Senators on both sides who are reluctant to sign up for taking a position.

You're crazy to assume Bush will appoint someone good. If the GOP gets down to a 50/51 majority, the temptation to go for someone acceptable to the moderates will be intense.

Don't believe it? Remember Harriet Miers?

I updated the post.

Anything in particular that we're looking for in the OA transcript?

All the justices are present and asking questions, except of course Justice Thomas who is undoubtedly in listening mode as usual.

(nt)

I didn't see Souter ask any questions in the transcript of Environmental Protection (1st link).

And we did note that he looked like death in the photos of Alito's (or was it Roberts's (Roberts'? heh)?) swearing in...

he did speak in Nevada though, so even if I didn't miss him in the 1st case, he was in the 2nd.

Perhaps Stevens received grave medical news about his wife and he'll need to retire to be with her, a la SOC.

It wouldn't effect his appearance or attendance, but it could lead him to announce his retirement

Perhaps Ginsburg received news about her husband

Maybe it's Kennedy. He has looked old lately and he is 70. I believe his father died relatively young.

Perhaps someone is ok but has been told they'll need surgery within 6 mos to a year that will necessitate their retirement.

Just because attendance is good doesn't mean there aren't any problems

If it is a liberal and the GOP ends up with around 51-53 in the Senate which I think they will, a hard core conservative could be tough.

You'll have Specter, Chafee(if he wins), Collins, Snowe and maybe Warner or someone like that not being too pleased with someone they know would be the 5th vote on Roe. That takes us down to 50 or below.

Then you have Nelson(NE), Johnson, Landrieu and Byrd as possible Dems who'd vote for a conservative.

It'd be very tough to break a filibuster and with diminished GOP numbers in the Senate it might be tough to just get 50 for confirmation.

Therefore, I'd suggest either an uberqualified guy like Easterbrook who has an impeccable reputation and no real Bork-like decisions or writings in his past or you'd have to play the Gender/Race card and go with JRB or maybe a Garza and force the Dems to filibuster/reject the first black woman/hispanic on the Court(it would be very tough for them, especially guys like Obama, Hillary and Biden who plan on running for President).

The Dems could forget winning any Red States/Southern States if they filibuster JRB and if they filibuster Garza, they can say goodbye to the Hispanic and Catholic vote, which would pretty much seal the election for the GOP.

I'd be happy with any of those three

CJ Roberts
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Brown/Garza/Easterbrook

Bush's whole Presidency would be worth it if that is the makeup of the SC the first Monday of October, 2007.

Securing a conservative Court would also immensely help Rudy in 2008. We wouldn't have to worry about his Court picks and he'd win major points by supporting Bush's 3rd pick. Rudy is our best hope in the General other than McCain and McCain is too hated by the base and too old to really be a viable candidate.

I also note that there's more posts about this than any topic since the revamp. This site loves our SCOTUS rumors

helviticus, your last statement is right on. just proves it wasn't the new digs that lowered post volume, it was lack of SCOTUS news.

as for the rest, I think Bush will have to go for a woman or Hispanic (and maybe both, which worries me since the best known to fit that bill is Callahan, the only potential nomine I oppose). sadly that rules out Easterbrook, and JRB and Garza don't give the squishy republicans any plausible deniability, so I don't think either is a go unless the Republicans gain seats in the Senate (and they're both nearing 60 anyway).

Williams, Corrigan, Clement are probably the best bets of the known names (though the last 2 are getting near 60 as well I think). Maybe Cantero as well.

If we hold the WH in 08, Luttig and McConnell (probably the only white male with over a 0% probability that Bush could get away with making his 3rd pick) are still top picks for the new President (though I don't trust Rudy on judges, McConnell might be just the kind of guy that would appeal to him, so that's not so bad even though McC does still make me a little nervous). and P. Clement too, especially if Bush can get him on a COA.

After two white males (Roberts and Alito), I really think that the next SCOTUS nominee will be either female or minority or both. The chances of this increase dramatically if the Democrats gain substantial strength in the 110th Congress. That considerably narrows the field.

As I have oft times stated in the past, I also think that Bush will refuse to nominate anyone who has made direct statements to the effect that Roe was incorrectly decided and should be overturned. That would eliminate both Edith Jones and Emilio Garza. The nominations of "stealth" candidates like Roberts, Miers and Alito in the past I think proves my point. None of these three had direct statements in their backgrounds regarding the merits of Roe which could inflame the Democrats, only marginal statements that could be explained away.

That leaves JRB, Corrigan, Williams, Sykes, Callahan and Mahoney as female nominees and Prado, Gonzales and Cantero as male nominees. I suspect that their are other possible Hispanic nominees we are not presently aware of.

I probably would remove the name of Cantero. He has made statements overtly critical of abortion in the past.

Bobo, so did John Roberts. Big deal. And how many democratic SCOTUS nominee made statements overtly in favor of abortion rights?

The White House did everything possible to explain away memos that John Roberts and Sam Alito wrote concerning the overturning of abortion. In both cases, it was claimed they were merely representing the views of their client, the government. At no time did the White House promote a direct confrontation with the Senate Democrats over the merits of Roe by saying either of them personally thought Roe was morally wrong and should be overturned. Cantero wrote an newspaper editorial condemning abortion if I remember correctly, an editorial which directly states his personal beliefs on the topic. It would not be something he could easily run away from.

For better or worse, in today's politics it is okay to promote pro-choice views but not pro-life. I know this is not just, but that seems to be the accepted wisdom. The White House has done everything possible to remove abortion from its SCOTUS nominations. If they had wanted a fight over the topic, Jones and Garza would've been nominated over Roberts, Miers and Alito. They weren't, and the President went "stealth" with essentially abortion-free nominees Roberts, Miers and Alito.

Helveticus, The numbers are still way below typical open threads and SCOTUS rumors in the past. I wrote 5 or 6 e-mails to the chiefs of this site AFTER I thought I'd re-registered, but wasn't allowed (technologically) to post anything.

Senate scenarios.
Worst case--GOP loses net 6: OH, PA, RI, Missouri,Virginia, Montana
Best case--lose only OH and PA (though I grieve for Santorum; and wouldn't mind a Chaffee loss) and pick up MD, with a total of 54 GOP. Could well be between 49 and 54, though I think there'll be at least 51.
Wild case--Liebermann gets sworn back into Senate. Rummy retires. Liebermann becomes Sec. Def. GOP Conn. governor appoints replacement--probably a moderate, but still helps numbers.

Cattywompus (sp?)
Dow over 12k
Unemployment down to 4.4
Saddam convicted and sentenced.
And there's talk of Dems taking over the House?!

cattywampus is a variant spelling of catawampus, "Evil, malicious." First def., which I take here as figurative, "cater-cornered, slantwise." In other words, "Huh?"

Classic, all I hear on the television nowadays is about how these midterm elections are a referendum on Iraq. No one talks about how good the economy is. I think liberal mass media is trying to convince the American people that we are in another Vietnam. Unfortunately, I think that some people will believe them and vote Democrat.

BoBo

The nominations of "stealth" candidates like Roberts, Miers and Alito in the past I think proves my point.

I suppose Roberts was arguably a stealth candidate, and miers simply didn't have enough substance for radar waves to bounce off of, but it's pretty hard to make the case that a 15-year veteran of the Court of Appeals was a stealth candidate.

I think it's a mistake to assume that Dems will have any compunction about voting against a minority candidate, and I don't think we should even try to go after them on those grounds if they do - to do so is to accept their frame, to concede the legitimacy of identity politics.

I agree that the next nomination is a "no white males" enterprise, but I'm not especially concerned about that. If that's the political reality, then fine - we have a top-tier stable of candidates who don't fall into that demographic.

Two Republican incumbents in serious trouble: Santorum and DeWine
Four Republican incumbents essentially tied with their challengers: Allen, Burns, Chafee and Talent. Four toss-ups that could turn into Democratic gains.
Three Democratic incumbents with leads: Cantwell, Menendez, and Stabenow.
One Republican incumbent ahead of his challenger: Kyl.
One Republican open seat with the Republican leading: Tennessee.
One open Democratic seat virtually tied: Maryland

Here's the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15547023/

Cautionary note: Polls almost ALWAYS tighten in the last week. Remember Dole actually was ahead of Clinton at the end in some polls. It would be highly unlikely that Allen, Burns, Chafee, & Talent all win, although the generally mediocre opposition & John Kerry make anything possible. Occam's Razor sez Allen & Chafee barely win & Talent loses by the consistent 3% he's trailed thru out.

Man, if Bush's visit to MT & comments on judges can somehow squeak Burns across the line....

And, WOW, wouldn't a Steele come from behind win in MD be huge?

The NJ race is just very disappointing, no other way to put it. Shoulda been a tough but doable pick up. Poor job there.

TN shouldn't surprise anybody, for obvious reasons that don't bear stating.

I've always thought from Day One that Iraq was much more comparable to Yugoslavia than Vietnam. Centuries old enemies thrown together by Euros drawing lines on a map, held together only by a charismatic, superpower-supported dictator. Soon as he's gone it all erupts.

Only comparison I see to Vietnam is that it hasn't been as quick n' easy as first promised, and the enemy's resolve was badly underestimated.

he's been up by 1-3 pts as or more often than he's been down 1-3. its going to be the tightest race in the country (though RI, MT, and MD may all make a push for that title), as I predicted over a year ago. my concern with this is it may be close enough for fraud to swing the election, like Washington's governor's race in 2004. and after the Dem-controlled state supreme court struck down the voter ID law, what chance is there that they won't look the other way and install McCaskill in such an eventuality? I still think Talent wins by the narrowest margin of any victor as I've said all along, but the ACORN mess really does have me worried. That said, I still think the worst case, even with a stolen seat in MO is a loss of 3 (or 4 on the outside). Things are definitely starting to swing to the side of the good guys!

I didn't mean to imply that Roberts, Miers and Alito were "stealth" in general (although Miers specifically was), but rather that they were all "stealth" in specific concerning direct anti-abortion and anti-Roe statements.

No apology needed, and in fact I apologize to anyone offended by my Doomsday scenario.

I am not rational on the subject of a Callahan nomination. Any teeny gain from moderate Hispanics would be obliterated by conservatives', intellectuals', & Evangelicals' abandonment.

I don't trust Bush on SCOTUS nominations, based on how he had to be very much forced to take Roberts & Alito over Gonzo & Miers. Only bright side to his supposedly making initial SCOTUS picks purely on "liking 'em", is that he supposedly picked Miers after Owen turned it down, and supposedly likes JRB. He supposedly doesn't like Luttig & Jones. Whatever.

Here's my idea of a compromise pick if Tuesday goes bad: Wilkinson. Yeah, he's 61 years old (hell, thought he was 67), but he's highly qualified, respected(esp. by Hatch & Specter), & conservative; impossible to paint as an extremist; and easy to sell as a kindly grandfather who'll Heal and Unite Our Great Nation after this Bitter Election & Justice Stevens' Tragic Passing.

The public, the legal community, and the RINO's wouldn't tolerate a Borking of Harv, and I think even Schumer & Hillary would have difficulty looking in the mirror before trying it.

White male, shmite shmale. Diversity is wildly overrated in both SCOTUS & VPOTUS picks, though I concede RBG would pretty much 'have to be' replaced by a woman. So what, JRB is my #1 pick regardless.

There ya're. To reiterate, I don't believe a word of this latest rumor, and think it's 10% at best that Bush gets another pick.

Now, don't tempt me to drive up to Butte & Billings & then fly into Baltimore to roust ya'll out to the polls... :)

Re the "polls"--consider the source, it's MSNBC which Rush only half jokingly talks about as having week long marathons to rid the country of the dread disease of Republican control. Even Scarborough bought the NYT's skewed party poll.

And speaking of skewed, remember how many of the internals show that many of the polls aren't close to being accurate--way over on Dem representation. Zogby's well on his way to being a joke.

Re possible filibustering, I want to reiterate that a source (not in government, but very well connected) is convinced with GOP control maintained in the senate (50 and up), there will not be filibusters of SCOTUS nominees.

I think Stevens and RBG are hanging on, hoping the Dems will take control of the Senate. While I know others at this site over the months have opined that neither will leave while Bush is prez, I think one or both of them will retire while Bush is president. Who knows about Souter. Life happens. So does death.

Even as I wrote them, I realized the last two sentences sound too much like the oracle Insider. I probably should have deleted them. But they're out there. Ich bin nicht Insidere (or however you say I am not a donut hole)!

I, too, am troubled about Democratic fraud in Missouri. Several counties have more people registered than alive to be registered! I heard this evening that St. Louis county has set a record for absentee ballots in. I don't think that's a GOP enclave. How many of those absentee ballots are fradulent? Can they tell?

I hope that right wins out and the GOTV overcomes the fraud, enabling Talent to return to the senate.

There's also a question re possible fraud in Montana, and I would imagine some other states, too.

but I completely agree on Callahan. which is why we need to keep as big a lead in the Senate as possible. I might reluctantly accept her if she's part of a package to replace both Stevens and Souter if the other is a great pick, but I'd rather have Miers than her.

but I think you are being unfair to Bush with the Gonzo&Miers over Roberts&Alito talk. EVERY indication is that Roberts was ALWAYS going to be a Bush pick. If he had his way, we'd probably have Roberts and Gonzales. and while Gonzales and Miers aren't nearly as impressive as Alito, I think its also a bit unfair to them to suggest they would be Souters, when it seems pretty clear Bush's pick of Miers was a conscious attempt to NOT pick a Souter. I guess the fault line here is that I trust Bush and you don't.

LOL

Breathe a rumor about a SCOTUS retirement and we all come back like flies to honey. :-)

This would be an absolute battle royale if John Paul Stevens stepped down.

If Bush is hellbent on a Hispanic nominee, then

1. Miguel Estrada
2. R. Ted Cruz
3. Emilio Garza
4. Raoul Cantero

while I concur that the absentee #s portend no good there, the county includes both the city itself, one of the hotbeds of fraud in the country, and the much redder suburbs, which helps balance it out some. St. Louis probably needs a 110% turnout to win it for McCaskill, but if any city can do it, St. Louis can.

Puhleeze people. Sam Alito wrote the dissent in Casey. He was NOT a stealth nominee. He faithfully applied the law, and whenever there was wiggle room in the SCOTUS precedence, he ALWAYS wiggled in the RIGHT direction. :-)

Alito was indeed "stealth" as regards to the topic of abortion despite his dissent in Casey. Alito went out of his way not to comment on the merits of Roe in Casey. Unlike Jones and Garza, he never made explicitly anti-Roe statements in any of his COA opinions.

No Vacancy? No Problem

President Bush isn't looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed in May. Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there's no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it's his seat they hope to fill.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/061029/6whisplea...

Hat tip: http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/2006/11/janice_rogers_brown_tops_bush...

"One can only hope this is true" doesn't even begin to describe it!

Good news from the Washington Wispers column!

thanks Bill. JRB doesn't top my list the way she does a lot of folks here, but needless to say, I won't be crying if she gets the nod!

I wonder if that tidbit lends a bit more credence to the latest rumor?

It's a moral quandry. I desperately want JRB to replace JPS, RBG, or DHS. It appears only a health crisis will allow for that to happen. That's why I so badly wanted to believe Souter was comitted to "15 & done".

Well, ya can't make an omelet w/o breakin' a few eggs. We're all gonna die some day, so if CubsFan & Ruthie wanna go out on the bench, so be it. Imagine if this alleged crisis had publicly broke two weeks ago. THAT woulda made Tuesday interesting.

C'mon, Georgie boy! You can do it, get your back into it! Swing The Hammer! Roll The Hard Six! Gather The Storm of the Century! (I can't believe I'm falling for this retirement nonsense again)

BTW there's lotsa good JRB links nested w/in that Pit Bull page.

I love the idea of either Janice Rogers Brown or Peter Keisler on the Supreme Court. Both have excellent credentials. However, as I stated before I don't think white males have a chance as the next SCOTUS nominee.
One person I don't want as a nominee at this point in time is Brett Kavanaugh. His confirmation hearings can be described as lackluster or worse. He came across as nervous and inarticulate - not Supreme Court material. Keisler in comparison was smooth, calm and articulate - a real treat to watch.

Still sceptical, though I appreciate a little published additional material. Until those sources were cited, I was beginning to wonder whether BillM was Insider redivivus! Or do we have an echo chamber? The same whisperer to the Times whispering around town and to yearning CT folks?

Polls--I think the Pew is the most telling poll. Gallup on the other hand has Ford closing to within 3 and Ford claiming his poll has him by 1. How convenient. Corker quite confident on Hannity and Colmes.

Still no where near the numbers with the previous site.

I didn't grasp the full import of that Whisper right away. Imagine JPS, RBG, & DHS replaced by JRB, Kavanaugh, & Keisler... I'd prefer McConnell & Pryor to the latter two, but any of those three replaced by any of those five would be extraordinary. Whatever, it's nice to see some revamp of the List, w/all the nonsense & impossible old warhorses dropped.

Here's the best article I've ever read on JRB: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505170812.asp

Mandatory talking points if she's ever nominated.

Oh dear, she's "a passionate advocate of a radical, anti-regulatory vision of judicially enforced property rights far more absolute than can be squared with the Supreme Court **precedents with which judges are supposed to comply**." LOL.

As opposed to "a passionate advocate of a radical, anti-family vision of judicially enforced abortion rights far more absolute than can be squared with the Supreme Court precedents with which judges are supposed to comply"?

Good luck running with that, Dems, post-Kelo/Stenberg.

Dienekes

but I think [Bill's] being unfair to Bush with the Gonzo&Miers over Roberts&Alito talk ... If he had his way, we'd probably have Roberts and Gonzales. and while Gonzales and Miers aren't nearly as impressive as Alito, I think its also a bit unfair to them to suggest they would be Souters, when it seems pretty clear Bush's pick of Miers was a conscious attempt to NOT pick a Souter. I guess the fault line here is that I trust Bush and you don't.

Not to speak for Bill, but for me, the Miers debacle pretty much ended any hopes I had of getting a Scalia or a Thomas out of Bush. So no, I don't trust him on this issue. He might accidentally make a good pick, or he might do so under pressure, as with Alito, but I think any illusions that Bush really understood what I thought we were trying to do here went out of the window when he announced that nomination.

that's probably because your default position was to doubt to begin with. you're not saying anything new, just repeating the same paranoia. again, I think the fair reading is NOT that Bush was trying to betray you, but that he was consciously trying not to do so. this is certainly not to say that Miers was an inspired choice, or even that Bush was right about her, only that Bush's intent is pure here.

I really have no desire to redebate this ugly incident, I reply only since I was directly addressed.

By the way, any news of Insider? Andrew, have you or any other site admin tried to contact him after this summer? Perhaps now, or after tuesday, might be a good time to shoot him an email to verify this rumor.

I dont think he was out to con us... I think he believed what he was saying, but things took an unexpected turn. Of course, i could be dead wrong.

my guess is if Bush picks a 61 year old white male, it'll be Ted Olson