ConfirmThem

I suggested it in the previous thread, and I'm becoming more convinced its a good idea.

is just a poor imitation of the appoint Ted Kennedy joke from years past. though I did like the touch of calling Vermont a rogue state ;)

I still think the most likley are Edith Clement and Maureen Mahoney.

also possible are Larry Thompson, Diane Sykes, or Lee Rosenthal, with lesser chances for Alice Batchelder, Danny Boggs, and Maura Corrigan. And I suppose some tiny chance remains for Gonzalez, Owen, and Brown, since Dubya likes them, despite the pretty much 0% chance of confirmation.

I have no inside knowledge of course. those names just make some sense given the balance of the Senate and the war replacing a liberal would set off. Clement would probably get Landrieu's support. Sykes might get Kohl's. Mahoney and Thompson I think could win fairly broad bipartisan support (Clement possibly could as well; much less likely IMO for Sykes since she starts off with 27 nays from her CCA confirmation).

we've GOT to retain the WH in 2008 (and hold or gain ground in the Senate, at least by 2010) especially if we don't get a 3rd vacancy. I figure the CCA balance will be about 105-65 in 08, with some (15?) seats to be created, and probably 10 R retirements or death, meaning by 2012 with a Dem prez, the balance would be about even, and many circuits lost (4th, 6th, 3rd, possibly the 1st. the 2nd and 9th would slip further away, and 11th and 7th could get much closer). not to mention the possible replacements of Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg with young liberals.

Bush should recess appoint all of the Michigan judges. I don't really think there is any doubt that they will eventually be confirmed given the deals already worked out.

Get them on the job and maybe even get a few props from the Michigan press over it.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich

as I predicted. that makes it almost certain that Kennedy has the PBA case, which is most likley very good news! (of course, Kennedy would probably be given the opinion by Stevens to keep him on the dark side if he was going to defect too)

If a Supreme Court vacancy becomes available in 2007, I think Sykes, not Edith Clement, gets the nod. The 27 Dems who voted against Sykes' COA confirmation wouldn't vote for any conservative anyway, including Clement. Clement would likely lose the same 27 Dems who voted against Sykes. Since the White House has had doubts in the past about Clement's supposedly blabby and haughty personality, I doubt they would backtrack now for her.

If a vacancy occurs in 2008, I agree that Mahoney becomes the front runner.

I think she is someone Bush would have given serious thought to a SCOTUS vacancy - Mahoney-like credentials but likely more conservative. I think that is one of the reasons the Dems have delayed her confirmation so long. They can't do it forever because she's highly respected and has Shumer and Clinton's at least tacit approval.

It is misleading to imply that the Michigan article is saying anything substantive about Kethledge and Murphy. It only mentions some Bush 6th Circuit nominations without even mentioning the nominees' names. The article isn't calling for their immediate confirmation at all. Rather, the article is only a call for the immediate confimation of the three West Michigan district court nominees.

Does anyone know yet if Sandra Ikuta has established a conservative track record on the 9th Circuit? I would think that her credentials could warrant a SCOTUS nomination in the future if Bush is afraid of a Dem Senate.

she STARTS with 27 nays. it is hardly inconceivable that the Dems could round up 14 more to filibuster (as silly as the majority filibustering would look, I put nothing past the Dems). Clement would very likely get some or most of those nays too, but she STARTS with 0, having been confirmed unanimously - by a 51-49 Dem Senate.

Two other nominees are to fill long-standing Michigan vacancies on the Cincinnati-based Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals. The nominees have been waiting up to two years for confirmation votes. The problem has been a political dispute dating to the first administration of former President George H.W. Bush. Republicans and Democrats both contend the other party has blocked nominees by presidents of the other party. A break seemed to occur last year when Sens. Levin and Stabenow relented, agreeing to a compromise slate of nominees. But then Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican, blocked a Senate vote because one of the nominees, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet Neff of East Grand Rapids, had given a homily at a lesbian commitment ceremony. Judge Neff did not officiate or wear judicial robes, and the ceremony had no legal significance. Nonetheless, Senate custom backed the senator and the nomination stalled. Sen. Brownback now says he will allow Neff's nomination to go forward, requiring only that there be an on-the-record Senate vote. Indeed, nothing wrong with that. Sens. Levin and Stabenow now have to be sure that the Senate Democratic leadership and the Judiciary Committee chairman waste no further time in moving the nominations ahead. The people of Michigan -- certainly in West Michigan -- have waited too long already for new judges to arrive.

Unfortunately, I think Estrada, Kuhl, Owen, JRB and Pryor are impossibilities in terms of getting confirmed simply because they all were filibustered in the past. That situation by itself qualifies as an "extrordinary circumstance" worthy of a future SCOTUS filibuster in the Democrats' eyes.

Edith Clement, Luttig and Wilkinson must all be eliminated because all have burned their bridges with this White House.

Edith Jones and Emilio Garza must be eliminated because of their anti-Roe statements in opinions will alienate the Dem-controlled Senate.

Larry Thompson is a no-go because his status as a minority nominee offers no new political rewards to Bush or Republicans in general. The Supreme Court already has one African-American male as a member. Thompson wouldn't be a first like JRB would be. As the first African-American female nominee, JRB's nomination would bring more political cachet with it than Thompson's would.

Williams is out because of her anti-Miranda decision.

McConnel is out because of his anti-law enforcement decision.

Batchelder and Boggs are both way too old.

Using convential wisdom that leaves Sykes and Mahoney as the clear favorites, although I do agree that the White House could surprise us with Callahan or Ikuta. I don't see Livingston getting the nod until she is confirmed to a COA seat. Ditto Keisler.

I doubt seriously that Edith Clement will be able to attract the Dem senators who voted against Sykes' COA nomination. I think Clement loses all of them. She might get Landrieu and Pryor's votes, but that's all. I think she is in as much danger of a filibuster as Sykes is. Given that Sykes has a more conservative track record, I think the White House will feel more comfortable with her than Clement, a woman whom they have already discounted as loose-lipped and haughty.

she would get the Senators that voted against Sykes. in fact, I said pretty much the exact opposite. you are simply wrong if you think Sykes stands as good a chance as Clement of being confirmed. you may be right that she stands a better chance of being nominated, but that seems to be based mainly on hearsay (again, not necessarily wrong).

what I'm saying is really very simple, and quite incontravertible: Sykes got fairly significant opposition the 1st time around, and it will only increase. Clement got zero opposition the 1st, and that too will increase, but there's a much greater threshhold there, from 0 to 41 than there is to 27 to 41.

I don't think that there would be much difference in the amount of opposition Sykes and E. Clement would get. I think they would both be confirmed, but Sykes is both younger and I think I might be more comfortable with her as well.

I continue to like Williams but agree that Miranda has the radioactive level of about a ton of Kryptonite.

However, do you think there's any way that she could finesse and backtrack from Dickerson during the confirmation hearings? Admittedly, the Democrat demagoguery on Miranda from Leahy, Schumer & Co. will be loud and shrill.

Perhaps she could give the Committee an Arlen pledge to respect Miranda as "Super-Duper Precedent". After reviewing Dickerson, I think she has some wiggle room.

I agree re Keisler and Livingston. I think had they been confirmed quickly they would have been SCOTUS possibilities in the last 2 years of Bush's administration if a vacancy opened. That is no longer the case.

You have a good post above re frontrunners, but you left out quite a few. How about Easterbrook? Cox? Gorsuch? Colloton? Holmes? Cornyn? Corrigan? Rosenthal? Eid? Owen? Dinh? Griffith?

I know - mostly male and mostly white.

Too bad Corrigan didn't want the job - certainly qualified and an avowed textualist.

It is not true that Luttig "must be eliminated."

Luttig was passed over by George W. Bush for reasons that, presumably, must be other than his qualifications, since he was, probably, the most qualified, intellectually, and ideologically, of the potential nominees.

The fact is that Luttig *ought* to have been nominated, already, and, *should* receive the next nomination.

Just because GWB slighted him, it is not reason for you to slight him, or suggest Luttig is to blame for a decision GWB took.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand uncompromising conservative action from "conservative" leadership.

Just a reminder: there has never been a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee having clear majority support in the Senate. More importantly, there has never been a perpetual filibuster of any SCOTUS nominee (Fortas withdrew after less than four days of actual Senate debate).

So, I think it would be counterproductive to make nomination decisions based on who would be perpetually filibustered and who wouldn't. The question should be who would get a majority vote and who wouldn't.

Even if the Democrats were to be so dumb as to break all tradition and launch the first-ever perpetual filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, it seems clear that the GOP Senate minority would filibuster everything else in the Senate, and the federal government would come grinding to a halt. This is a hugely powerful tool to prevent the first-ever perpetual filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee.

So, let's not rule people out based on who might be defeated by filibuster.

Dubya is not going to nominate Luttig. Ever.

Mitch McConnell would NEVER allow Democrats to get away with what Bill Frist allowed Democrats to get away with.

Easterbrook? Isn't he getting kind of old? He turns 60 this year, I think.

Cox? No politicans for SCOTUS!

Gorsuch? Excellent!

Colloton? Haven't heard anything about him, but I like his background.

Holmes? Excellent!!!

Cornyn? No politicans for SCOTUS!

Corrigan? Might be great, but would be susceptible to attacks on her credentials like no other.

Rosenthal? I think she'd be great. I wish we could see her on the 5th Circuit first, but given her age, we probably won't get that opportunity.

Eid? Excellent!!!

Owen? Good.

Dinh? Great, but would like to see him on the DC Circuit first.

Griffith? Excellent.

I think that if we get another opening, Allison Eid is the one who should be nominated.

Dienekes - When I make predictions, I base them on what I think the White House will do, not necessarily what I think is the best course of action. In general, I don't have any qualms with Edith Clement or her jurisprudence. However, via Jan Crawford Greenburg and gossip about the time of Roberts' nomination, it appears that she is not a favorite of Bush or the White House. Given the fact that it is likely that the Dems will uniformly oppose any and all future Bush SCOTUS nominees with a conservative track record, I think the White House will prefer to stick with a person like Sykes that they appear more to be more comfortable with. That's all I'm saying.

bigskybob - The same goes with Luttig. Although he may be the best qualified nominee choice, I think the White House will never nominate him after he tried to force them to deal with Padilla in a certain way with the Supreme Court. Again, I have no problem with his jurisprudence. I just think he will have to wait for another president to nominate him.

Matthew - As for the possibilities you mention, I think all the white male nominees have next to no chance of being the next Bush SCOTUS nominee. Like Luttig, I think Easterbrook, Cox, Gorsuch, Colloton, Cornyn, Griffith, Kavanaugh and Keisler will have to wait for the next Republican president to be nominated. I think Dinh is out with this White House for his odd liberal support of certain issues like D.C. representation in Congress. Holmes won't be nominated because he is like Thompson, his minority status brings no great political reward to Bush and the Republicans. As I have stated before, Owen is like JRB because she has already been filibustered once. Corrigan doesn't want the job and now her reputation has been severely damaged by the antics of Elizabeth Weaver. Eid still remains a possibility, but her Thomas clerkship may be more of a liability than a benefit with a Dem-controlled Senate.

Times are very partisan. The Dems are out for blood. They got rid of Rumsfeld, and now they are after Gonzales. They will unite, with the probable exception of Nelson of Nebraska, against a known conservative. They will have no problem uniting in a perpetual filibuster of an Estrada, Owen or JRB.

The White House will have to use some unique selling point to draw some Dem senators to their side in the next SCOTUS fight if a vacancy opens up in the next two years. It could be the person's ethnicity, religion or gender ( a hispanic and/or female). It could be their "moderate" image (Callahan or Mahoney). Even so, if the nominee can only draw one or two Dem senators to his or her side, I don't think Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, Clinton, Kerry and Obama will have any problem launching a perpetual filibuster. Why? There are two reasons. First, they know McConnell runs a huge risk in shutting down Congress over the matter. Remember that the Republicans got a lot of BAD publicity for shutting down the Congress before under Clinton. McConnell will probably will not want that type of publicity the closer it is to the 2008 election. Second, if the Dems can filibuster until a Dem president takes office in 2009, they will get a new liberal nominee that they can agree with. Remember that Earl Warren's retirement backfired on the Dems, just like a new retirement could backfire on the Republicans if a proper political evaluation of the nominee isn't done.

and I don't mean to say Sykes wouldn't potentially be worth nominating or that she wouldn't be confirmed, just that it would be tougher than some others given the fact that she had a fair amount of opposition already. its possible, even if they don't filibuster, that they could all hang together and vote her down (though I think it would be hard for them to keep Ben Nelson on board, and perhaps a couple others like Byrd and Landrieu). And it's possible they could scare some moderate or blue/purple state Rs to jump ship too, especially Snowe and Collins.

The key to Snowe and Collins is Collins. I think she's the one who sewed up Snowe for the Alito nomination. And if they voted for Alito, I find it hard to believe that they'll jump ship for any well credentialed Republican nominee.

I have enormous respect for Sen. Collins even though she's much more moderate than I am, but she'll have enormous pressure on her since she's facing reelection in 08.

on a tangental note, we could be in for several cycles of wildly fluctuating Senate margins, as imbalanced as the classes are.

"The court currently has only one active judge, Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell. He is assisted by three retired judges. Two of them have partial caseloads. One, Judge Wendell Miles, turns 91 this month."

I know a judge who turns 87 this month who'd be willing to pitch in and help.... ;)

91 years old! How the WH, Frist, & the Michigan GOP didn't use this as a rallying point is beyond me. And then there's Sam I Ain't.... >:(

If there is a SCOTUS vacancy I don't see the WH considering anyone they themselves previously rejected (Luttig, Clement, Williams). I also don't see anyone who's turned it down changing their mind (Estrada, Gonzo, Corrigan, Owen).

And Bush is, essentially, on record that it won't be a white male or a politician.

Sykes, JRB, Mahoney, Callahan.

Man, doesn't anyone have any info on Ikuta? She had a much more "constitutional" resume than O'Connor, and would appear to not have any of Kozinski's (or Mahoney's) eccentricities or ego.

She wouldn't be a Scalia, but if she's even a principled AMK that would be a huge improvement, and she'd sail thru far easier than Sykes, let alone JRB (who'd still be worth fighting for, IMO).

I really hate the way the MSM is playing up the EPA case, and the 5-4 split. "Bush judges refuse to solve Earth's crisis!"

Just gonna make the next confirmation that much worse. At least CNN said "Stevens was joined by his liberal colleagues and the swing voter" instead of "his moderate colleagues".

Fortunately, JRB has a pro-clean air vote on her DCC record. ;)

Diane Sykes and Allison Eid should be the finalists, and Allison Eid should be chosen. Allison Eid would be an amazing justice and she could not be successfully filibustered. I just see no way. She's exceptionally intelligent, has an outstanding resume, and she is extremely well spoken.

Not only would Landreiu, Pryor, and Ben Nelson all likely vote for her, but I think that Ken Salazar would face tremendous pressure to vote for her from his Colorado electorate. Tim Johnson at the very least would be unable to vote for a filibuster, and I don't think he would. Baucus would probably feel pressured to vote for her, too. Arlen Specter might even be able to twist Casey's arm into voting for her.

As a state supreme court justice, she won't have an extremely extensive paper trail, but we know that she has extensive experience working in and thinking about constitutional law. And given that experience, I think that it's safe to say that we know exactly where she stands.

Of course with Sykes, we'd probably get at least Herb Kohl, but possibly Feingold as well, but I don't think Sykes would be quite as good as Eid would be.

there is absolutely no way the Dems let someone younger than 45 (very probably no one younger than 50) through. In 5 or 10 (or even 15!) years though she'd be an ideal candidate.

She is almost the exact same age as Clarence Thomas when he was nominated. I don't think she's too young, and she is old enough that I don't think that could be successfully used against her as a primary source for sinking her nomination.

they'll never let that happen again.

I have no reason to believe that it was anything other than the Constitution, that "forced [Bush II] to deal with Padilla in a certain way." I was not Luttig.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand both conservative rhetoric and action from their "conservative" leaders.

I will agree with you that Bush won't nominate Luttig,

My point is that fact is further evidence of my contention below:

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservatives lead their movement.

That Dubya has given us justices that are "far to the left" of the conservative movement. No matter how much you may love Luttig, it's hard to argue that he'd be BETTER than Roberts or Alito.

When it has come to the judiciary, Dubya has delivered mightily.

I like Eid for the future, but there is absolutely nothing to justify her nomination AT PRESENT aside from her conservative credentials. I don't think she should be nominated, just as I don't think a 43 year old movement liberal sitting on a state supreme court (for about a year) should be nominated when a Democrat is president.

I don't recall age being a major issue with Clarence Thomas, but I was rather young myself at the time. I was only about 10 or 11 years old, and given what Justice Thomas's hearings WERE about, my parents were probably shielding me from it. LOL

From what I can tell, though, it was mostly about pubic hair and whether or not he has formulated an opinion on Roe v. Wade or not.

Well...I wouldn't want a "movement liberal" on the Supreme Court regardless of her age! LOL

The Dems are furious with the fact that certain Dems were dumb enough to let Thomas get confirmed because of his race. They also are well aware that Thomas' youthful age at confirmation has been, and will continue to be for decades to come, a boon to conservatives. The lesson of Roberts and his young age at confirmation has reinforced this feeling. Mark my words, the Dems will not willingly let another young conservative on the court, regardless of ethnicity and/or gender.

I think it would take them filibustering Allison Eid, and since she wouldn't even be one of the youngest justices ever nominated to the Supreme Court, I don't think that that's a sufficient reason for Democrats to claim to filibuster her. Filibustering a Supreme Court justice is preposterous to begin with, and the idea that they would do it because of her age when she wouldn't even be one of the youngest supreme court justices ever is even more absurd.

They would have to find another reason, and with her impressive background, it would be extremely difficult for them to find that reason.

Mitch McConnell would never allow them to get away with it.

Now if it was someone still in their 30s like Ted Cruz or Viet Dinh - more Americans might believe that that's a bit young.

But with the increasing youth culture we have, I think people are going to reject that all Supreme Court justices must be pushing 60 in order to be old enough and wise enough to be on the Supreme Court.

I agree with you that the Dems would not openly say that they are filibustering Eid because of her age, anymore than they would openly say they are filibustering JRB because of her race. Rather, they would find some other reason to filibuster her, a reason that would give them cover. Probably, Eid would tarred and feathered for her association with Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court justice she clerked for. She would be condemned as a Thomas clone and for her support of originalism. We would hear a million different versions of Kennedy's famous "Bork's America" speech by the likes of Obama and Clinton detailing how her jurisprudence would destroy the progress of civil rights in the United States.

But I don't think that that there is any traction there. And again, I think she would simply be far too impressive a Judiciary Committee witness for them to successfully mount an unprecedented filibuster of Allison Eid.

actually I think they WOULD attack her because of her age, or more directly, her "lack of experience"

they'd attack her for her conservatism and clerking for Thomas too, which would be enough for most of their caucus, but "young" part in the inevitable cries of "packing the court with young extremists" would likely be enough to bring in Robert "I like conservative judges" Byrd, and even Ben Nelson.

But I think you're wrong. :-)

I am very doubtful of people who think that the Dems would never mount a perpetual filibuster of a third Bush SCOTUS nominee. Currently, the Dems are feeling both desperate and confident of victory at the same time. With this type of partisanship, it seems very likely they will do everything possible substantively and procedurally to prevent another conservative being confirmed to the Supreme Court - "tradition" be damned. They got rid of Estrada, Kuhl and Pickering using the filibuster. Since they know it can be such a successful maneuver, they will have no problem using it again - especially since they know they only have to hold out until November 2008 when they hope to elect a new Dem president. If Bush doesn't choose the next nominee carefully, given of course he has another vacancy to fill, he might end up with another Earl Warren/Abe Fortas fiasco that gives the ultimate victory to the Dems.

Maybe we'll find out this summer...and maybe we won't.

I do not believe that there would be a filibuster with a Democratic majority. How would that even work? Reid would file a motion for cloture and then vote against it? Then he would not bring it up again?

I think it would be more likely that the nominee would be voted down in committee and not brought up for a vote as a result.

First, your praise of Bush's choices is based on the fact that conservative opponents of his moderate regime revolted over his nomination of Harriot Meiers. Appointing both Meiers and Roberts would have resulted in a court to the left of where he inherited it.

"Settled law" Roberts hasn't impressed me. His "buzz" is that he reaches for "consensus," which, to me, is merely an intellectual justification offering middle-of-the-road opinions acceptable to Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens.

When liberals had a majority, they imposed the rule of five.

Alito, likewise, is a question mark. First, there is his wife's involvement in "It's my party too!" [You know, that moderate, whiney, establishment group that fells violated by the fact that conservatives have only been 95% excluded from the positions of real power within the Republican party.] Second,
there is Harriot "Harry" Meiers characterization of him as the best nominee available under the circumstances, namely a conservative revolt. To me, that was code for "most moderate," or, more accurately, "most liberal."

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives accept only True conservatives as their leaders.

I don't know why, but when I read your post I couldn't help but think about how rediculous Bob Jones University was for kicking American Idol contestant Chris Sligh out of the school for attending a 4Him concert. If you know anything about 4Him, you know how completely mind-boggling that is. I'd always thought that liberals were just demonizing BJU, but when I heard that, I was kind of like, "uhh...maybe they really are just real whack jobs there."

Honestly, bs bob, while Harriet Miers was a terrible mistake by all accounts, she is NOT on the court. (THANKFULLY!!!)

And you obviously completely lack any understanding of John Roberts's "consensus" approach. He doesn't seek consensus by compromising the law, but when possible he seeks consensus by seeking the most narrow grounds that the most number of justices can agree on. That you can't appreciate that approach when conservatives have only 4 solid votes is confounding.

Would you rather have a 9-0, 7-2, or 6-3 decision that gets the law correct on a more narrow ground that you might desire, or would you rather lose a case 4-5 going for some landmark decision that falls short? Then that becomes precedent of the court that has to be overturned, and Arlen Specter starts telling nominees that there is "super duper" precedent that cannot be ruffled.

Or perhaps you can back up your claims about Roberts by listing all of his "middle of the road" opinions where he has demonstrated how eager he is to compromise with liberals.

And you think that Alito was the "most moderate" or "most liberal" nominee that Bush could come up with in the midst of a conservative revolt? You think that the dissenting vote in Casey is a Kennedy or a Souter? Oh puhleeze!!!

BS Bob - you have got to get in touch with reality.

I don't think we want a judge on the Supreme Court who throws temper-tantrums the way Luttig did when the Bush Administration pressed criminal charges against Jose Pedilla and asked that he be transferred to civilian custody for trial.

It was very "unconservative" of him, and the Supreme Court slapped him down 9-0. Unless you'd like to argue that so, too, are Thomas and Scalia way to the left of the country.

You also have to remember that while Luttig is in part responsible for Clarence Thomas's nomination, he is also in part responsible for David Souter being on the Supreme Court right now, too.

I wish Luttig would have remained on the 4th Circuit, but he would have needed to spend more time on the court making up for his blatant insurrection for me to be completely comfortable with him. I haven't been closely watching Luttig's career, but he doesn't strike me as the most stable guy for the job.

I'd take Edith Jones over Michael Luttig hands down, if she could be confirmed.

How was Warren/Fortas a disaster for the Dems? Fortas was replaced by Blackmun, who was ultra-liberal within five years, and Burger drove Stewart & Powell (and White to some extent) away almost from the moment he arrived.

I'm being facetious, of course. A little bit.

But let's say LBJ hadn't 'tricked' Goldberg to resign to get his crooked pal Fortas on initially, and then simply nominated the ultra-liberal, ultra-combative Bazelon as Chief.

Nixon still likely wins anyway, due to the war, and now the ground is completely different for the Black/Harlan vacancies, not to mention the internal dynamics viz. Stewart & White. The nominees likely would've been Burger & Haynsworth (the most unfortunate thing about this scenario is we likely never hear of Bill Rehnquist), and both prolly get thru.

Remember Greenburg saying how Thomas drove Sandy away, and how Tribe could've driven Kennedy away? JCG may have been unfair to Luttig, and in a vacuum I prefer him to JGR & Alito, but SCOTUS ain't a vacuum.

It's very hard to predict how these J's will react once they get up there (my biggest fear about Sykes, as the historical record is abysmal), or how the new personality will mesh. Whatever Bush's innumerable flaws, at least he gave these factors strong consideration in the selections of JGR & Alito.

The situation in 11/08 could be very similar to that of 11/68. An unpopular, poorly managed & explained war dragging on with no end in sight & a highly publicized SCOTUS vacancy.

Liberals have never won an election where SCOTUS is one of the top issues. Go down blazing w/JRB & Easterbrook, and then trust the American people. But if someone like Mahoney gets in, imagine what we'll all be saying in 2013.

As for Eid, she's looks to be absolutely fantastic (she's number 6 or 7 on my list), but I don't think the Dems would need to bother w/a filibuster to defeat her nomination to SCOTUS, at this time. She's simply too young & inexperienced for the general public to accept, compared to the last four J's confirmed. I think she'd lose all the Dems, and Snowe & Collins, at a minimum.

Years from now, we may well be saying that Frist's biggest error was caving into Salazar and keeping her off the 10th.

BUT, Bush (and Rudy or Mitt) MUST find her something better than where she's at now.

The Warren/Fortas fiasco was a disaster for liberals because it prevented liberal jurisprudence from completely taking over and being cemented as the ONLY method of constitutional interpretation.

Basically, LBJ's poor choice of Fortas to replace Warren allowed Nixon to appoint Burger. This proved more of disaster for liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. Although some conservatives might view Burger as a disaster because he was unable to create a conservative coalition on the court, he was in fact a consistent conservative vote (despite Roe).

As far as Blackmun goes, that is a whole new story separate from Burger replacing Warren. Yes, Blackmun was chosen because of his relationship with Burger but only AFTER two other more conservative nominees had been voted down.

Life would've been much worse if LBJ's plan to replace Warren with Fortas had succeeded. You might blame Nixon for not choosing better conservative nominees than Blackmun and Powell, but Nixon was able to stop the catastrophic turn left that a Fortas court would've continued.

Correction #1:

Michael Luttig exhibits no evidence of mental illness, whatsoever.

Correction #2:

When you faced criticism, you did not think "immediately" think of Bob Jones University. [Clinical psychologists would think that was a sign of shizophrenia.]

You thought, "How could I respond with ad hominem abuse?"

As a result, you concocted the most stupid and intellectually indefensible method of insinuating that I was a "whack job."

Since this is a forum, presumably, related to law, I would suggest the lawerly way of dealing with you would be to ask,

1)Are you aware of my having any association whatsoever with BJU?

2)Are you aware of my opinion of 4Him, or if I have an opinion of 4Him?

3) Are you aware of my opinion of the merits, or demerits, of BJU decision to expell Chris Sligh, or if I have an opinion of that decision?

In the absence of your ability to demonstrate any known you obviously don't have, the suggest "Objection! Irrelevent! ..."Sustained!"
is the most obvious outcome.

P.S.

Your post reminds me of a dog that has defecated on the carpet. One common method of dealing with such bad behavior is to rub the nose of that dog into the pile of feces. This can result in the dog improving his behavior.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand only real conservatives lead them.

1. I said that Michael Luttig threw a temper tantrum. I wasn't really thinking "stable" in terms of mental illness, but more "stable" as in "consistant" in his judicial conservatism. He got his feelings hurt, and so he rebelled by not faithfully applying the law as he should have, and he got b-slapped by the high court, unanimously. But, that said, I'm not so sure that being passed over for 2 Supreme Court nominations that we know he coveted dearly didn't affect him mentally as well - at least for a short period of time. Not permanently, though.

2. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a person who doesn't understand John Roberts's consensus approach also would be unable to understand why my mind did drift to the Chris Sligh/BJU story. Yes, my mind really did drift to that story when I read your post, believe it or not. Why? Because I thought, "wow...this guy is kind of crazy and extreme - even for me. BJU sounds kind of crazy and extreme if they kick people out for attending a 4Him concert. I can only wonder what they might have done to him if he'd gone to an Amy Grant concert!" Who do you want on the Supreme Court? Roy Moore? Someone like former Democrat Gov. George Wallace?

3. My comments about the BJU/Chris Sligh parallel were only an opening paragraph that was, at most, 1/8th in total of what I had written in response to your post. However, your response to the other 7/8ths of what I wrote is completely absent. You spent 95% of your reply responding to 12% of what I wrote. And you accuse ME of engaging in something "intellectually indefensible?" LOL

4. You also seem to think that the court is a place for "conservative leadership." It patently is not. The court is a place for the rule of law to reign supreme. The Legislative and Executive Branches are the place for "conservative leadership." The Supreme Court is the place for those conservative leaders to place justices that will enforce the rule of law with the Constitution reigning supreme. There is nothing politically liberal or conservative about that. Any opinion that differs from the law and the Constitution in liberal judicial activism, whether it deviates to the left or to the right of the law.

5. I'm curious - surely you can point to one person that we all know who best, if not perfectly, represents where the memberships of the left and the right stand in this country, can't you? And tell us why you think that these people stand in the mainstream of their movements?

In response to your 3:, your claim that it was merely 12.5% of your post insinuating that I was a "whack job," I will simply note was its purpose was to badly prejudice everything you wrote about me subsequently. Apperently, I am a little "too extreme" for your liking. You are a little too moderate, aka, "too liberal," for my liking. We have a disagreement.

First, disagreeing with you is not being mentally ill.

Second, the folks at Bob Jones surely had their reasons for their actions. They believe that we live in a metaphysical world that includes supernatural entities such as angels and the Devil. Intellectually, they take their beliefs seriously.
Whatever demerits their actions had, you forfeited all right to be considered an impartial observer and judge of their actions when you mocked them as "whack jobs!"

Third, I think that even you would have to admit at this point that the folks at Bob Jones would be self-hating losers to follow you as their intellectual, or political, leader after you called them "whack jobs!" [With which Presidential candidate are you associated?]

Fourth, in case you have forgotten, noone has elected you absolute dictator. Nor, has anyone appointed you as the moderator, jury or judge of the intellectual debate that occurs here. That means each and every participant here is entitled to draw their own conclusions about the arguments made and the people who make them. Presenting conclusions to the readership here, such as insinuating that those who dane to disagree with your are "whack jobs," is an insult to their intelligence, and an affront to their intellectual sovereigty.
If you think someone here is a "whack job," by all means present the evidence.

Fifth, there simply wasn't any "there" there in the remaining 87.5%. Stripping out the ad hominem, you did a very poor job of presenting your position, in my humble opinion.

In response to your 1):

There is not one iota of evidence that Micheal Luttig suffered any temporary lapse of sanity after being passed over twice by George Bush. Again, you make the most sleazy of personal insinuations without a single shread of evidence.

In response to your 4):

It is your own strawman that I believe that the Supreme Court is a "place for conservative leadership." Again, the conservative movement is an intellectual and political movement. The Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. Again, I have insisted that conservatives vote for Presidential candidates that vow to appoint judges that 1) respect the proper role of a judge as being to enforce the Constitution, not "intrepret" it; and 2) when faced with cases that are within the proper scope of the Court, take a conservative decision.

In response to your 2:

I think I showed a strong preference for Michael Luttig.

As to the merits and demerits of George Wallace: he is dead. His attendence would be spotty. He wouldn't ask questions of petitioners. And, he wouldn't smell very well.

As to the merits and demerits of Roy Moore: he would an interesting "diversity" pick. McConnell in the 10th would be another. I believe that once the government, through the schools, or elsewhere, crosses the line from facts to values [a false line since "facts = data + value judgments"] it either acts on, or teaches, a religious value, or religious free value. Taking religious-free positions is inherently the taking of an anti-religious position. Moore or McConnell, hopefully, could point out these facts.

Objectively, "What would Jesus think?," is no different in kind than asking "What would Karl Marx think?," or "What would Adam Smith think?" Jesus Christ did live. He did state certain things. That a couple of billion people believed that he rose from the dead, etc., shouldn't make him an unperson to be written out of history, and the schools.

As to your 5):

I must admit that I can't name a single person who is both the epitome of the left and of the right. Did you mean to ask if I could name two prominent figures that would be somewhat in the middle of where the average member of the left and right are?

To that question I would say that the left is populated with more populist heretics than libertarian heretics, while the right is by far my populated by populist heretics than libertarian heretics. I would say Lou Dobbs is in the center of where the average left-of-center Democratic voter is. There really isn't such a figure on the right.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives follow only True conservatives.

LOL, you're a piece of work, bs bob. I'll say that much.

1. As a Southern Baptist who certainly believes in things metaphysical (the Trinity, heaven, hell, angels, and demons,) I was an impartial observer of Bob Jones University until I heard that they kicked a guy out for going to a 4Him concert! It doesn't matter who I am supporting for president, because if Bob Jones University is going to kick a kid out of school for going to a 4Him contemporary Christian concert - whose lyrics to one of their biggest songs, Future Generations, includes the chorus, "So I won't bend and I won't break/I won't water down my faith/I won't compromise in a world of desperation/What has been I cannot change/But for tomorrow and today/I must be a light for future generations," (it still boggles the mind!!!!) - then I'm pretty sure that they think that every person who has run for president since 1900 is probably going to hell. They probably think that you, me, Michael Luttig, and Michael McConnell are all going to hell, too. Roy Moore might get in, though. LOL. Trust me, Bob Jones would never ask me to be their leader, and I'd never agree to be.

2. Of course, I never claimed to be "absolute dictator." But I do have the right to criticize the opinions of other commentators who I feel are way, way out of line. Evidently you're a bit sensitive to this and would rather your opinions be let through unscathed, no matter how rediculous they might be.

3. While most consider me to be quite conservative, most of all, I consider myself to be correct. :-)

4. Getting back to the Supreme Court, if you don't think that John Roberts and Sam Alito are the real deal, then I still think that...something is wrong!!! LOL

Honestly, I can't imagine what Bob Jones University finds in here that would lead them to kick someone out of their university for attending such a Christian concert. Now, if Berkeley, Columbia, or Yale did, then that would make more sense. But an ostensibly Christian university?? I can't imagine.

I've been looking everywhere for why they would kick someone out for going to a 4Him concert, but I've been able to find anything explaining it. It's just crazy!

The Measure of a Man - 4-Him Lyrics

This world can analyze and size you up
And throw you on the scales
They can IQ you and run you through
Their rigorous details
They can do their best to rate you
And they'll place you on their charts
And then back it up with scientific smarts
But there's more to what your worth
Than what their human eyes can see

CHORUS

Oh I say the measure of a man
Is not how tall you stand
How wealthy or intelligent you are
Cause I found out the measure of a man
God knows and understands
For He looks inside to the bottom of your heart
And what's in the heart defines
The measure of a man

Well you can doubt your worth
And search for who you are and where you stand
But God made you in His image
When He formed you in his hands
And He looks at you with mercy
And He sees you through His love
You're His child and that will always be enough
For there's more to what you're worth
Than you could ever comprehend

BRIDGE

You can spend your life pursuing physical perfection
There is so much more, more than ever meets the eye
For God looks through the surface
And He defines your worth by, what is on the inside

Again, your attempts to prosecute/persecute BJU are totally unfair.

To be treated fairly, the charges should be accurately stated, which you haven't done since you haven't stated their position as to why they expelled a student, and the accused should have the opportunity answer the charges.

Why are you belittling them to me? I am not a member of BJU. I have no knowledge of the case. And, I have no opinion as to whether, or not, having heard all the facts I would support decision, oppose their decision, or consider it an internal theological matter that I have no right to judge.

As to your claims that you are a Baptist: so was Jimmy Carter. Most Baptists are conservative. Many are moderates. Some are liberals.

What I do know is that you have disqualified yourself as being an impartial and credible critic. You have exhibited such a prejudicial view as to considered biased.

One of the differences between the left and the right is the right is perfectly content, and politically effective to call liberals "liberals." Liberals can't call conservatives "conservatives," since it doesn't care the baggage that "liberal" does.

The two of use mirror the same dynamic. You won't call be "conservative" since it isn't effective, so you try to label me as "extreme" and attempt to tar me with guilt-by-association tactics to folks at BJU.

Your tactics are as intellectually bankrupt as the liberals.

Finally, you are not the judge of whether my opinions are "rediculus" or not. You are the judge of whether, or not, you think my opinions are "rediculus," from your perspective.
Passing your subjective opinions are fact doesn't make them fact. It makes you appear to be dogmatic, and rude.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand conservative leadership.

1. Being accurate is not "intellectually bankrupt."

2. It is understood that statements that I make that are opinion are my own, so I don't know why you feel like you need to explain this. Just a LITTLE LOONEY. LOL

3. You are extreme. Bob Jones University is extreme. Being extreme is okay if you are extremely correct. You, however, are not. Bob Jones University also is not.

4. I will not make the mistake of attempting to engage you again. It is a futile endeavor.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that my position is "extreme."

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Bob Jones University is "extreme."

It is certainly true that Marx, Lenin and Stalin are properly characterized as being "extreme."

Logically, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the "extremism" of Marx, Lenin and Stalin are in any way a reflection upon myself.

Logically, it is equally true that it makes no sense to claim that the alleged "extremism" of BJU is a reflection upon myself.

Claiming there is link is the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

If you wish to claim that the alleged "extremism" of BJU, which you haven't established btw, is a reflection upon myself, somehow, would you care to establish that link?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives accept only true conservatives as their leaders.

BananaRepublican wrote:

"2. It is understood that statements that I make that are opinion are my own, so I don't know why you feel like you need to explain this. Just a LITTLE LOONEY. LOL

3. You are extreme. Bob Jones University is extreme. Being extreme is okay if you are extremely correct. You, however, are not. Bob Jones University also is not."

If we take your statement 2 to be True, and apply it your statement 3, what you are either saying is,

A) "In my opinion, you are not extremely correct, and that is not okay." In essence, you are claiming it is unacceptable to disagree with you; or

B) It is okay to couch subjective opinions in dogmatic, absolute language. Your are claiming "You are are wrong!," and "You are wrong, in my opinion!" have the same semantic meaning, which they simply don't.

Again, I am saying what is unacceptable is the trashing an extremely capable and brilliant jurist, Michael Luttig, by GWB, the Bush administration, and yourself. He was the most qualified nominee. It is a shame that he was passed over in the past. And, it would be a shame if he is passed over for the next vacancy.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders who are as conservative as they are.