ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Bill Kristol today, and they discussed a possible Gonzales nomination. I agree with both of them that Gonzales does not seem to be in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. It would be small consolation if there are two vacancies next week, and the other vacancy goes to someone more like Thomas and Scalia. The pertinent part of the transcript from the Hewitt-Kristol interview is below the fold.

BK: Hi, Hugh. How are you?

HH: Good. I was going to talk primarily, and I will, about the Vietnam syndrome outbreak in DC, but I was a little bit surprised to go over to the Weeklystandard.com site, and see that you have published a piece today, speculating that Rehnquist won't be retiring, but Justice O'Connor will be, and that Alberto Gonzales will be the nominee to replace her. How solid are your sources on this, Bill Kristol?

BK: They're pretty good, or I wouldn't have published it. But I do begin with a warning that this is speculation, and I think it's pretty well-informed speculation. There are some indications that it might be O'Connor rather than Rehnquist, or conceivably the two of them, and I'm worried, frankly, that President Bush wants to appoint Attorney General Gonzales, a decent man, but not, I think, a good appointment to the Supreme Court. So, that's what I'm hearing, so I thought I'd publish it, and see what happens.

HH: That's very interesting. I'm also hearing we will get a Monday announcement from Rehnquist and a Tuesday announcement from the White House. But let me ask you. If it was the two-fer, both Rehnquist and O'Connor, they went to school together at Stanford, they've served together for a long time, maybe they go out together. would you object to a Luttig Chief, and a Gonzales Associate Justice team going up to the Senate?

BK: Well, I love Luttig, and I don't know if I would object. I would be disappointed. I still think that Gonzales is unlikely to be much of an improvement on O'Connor, and I would prefer to really have two solid conservatives. So, yea, I wouldn't be real happy. But I think that is possible. But I think that if that happens, it'll be Gonzales as chief.

HH: Oh, that's interesting.

BK: I think that President Bush wants a Gonzales Court. He regards that as his legacy. He's very loyal to Gonzales, who's been very loyal to him. And, you know, Bush, for good and bad, is incredibly loyal to the people who come up with him. If you think about who he's promoted, and who he's, you know, kept with him over the White House years, and I think he wants to leave behind a legacy of Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic Chief Justice, which is not, you know, it's a good sign, in defense of Bush's character, that he's loyal to people that have been loyal to him. I just worry that he's not going to be the kind of Constitutional jurist that you and I would really want to have up there.
….
HH: Bill Kristol, I think it's going to be a long summer with both Supreme Court nominees and this debate, and I'll continue to look for that. I hope you're right about the O'Connor retirement, and wrong about her replacement.

BK: I do, too. And you know, with your influence, you can make it happen. You're a lawyer, you're a law professor. I'm just a mere PhD in political philosophy.

HH: We're both rooting...

BK: Hugh...you're the man, Hugh. I'm counting on you.

HH: We're both rooting for Luttig. Thank you, Bill Kristol. Talk to you again soon.

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News is also concerned about the prospect of a Gonzales nomination:

[I]t would be a huge mistake to nominate someone like Alberto Gonzales who's so moderate that a Gonzales for O'Connor swap would be considered by the base to be a wash. . . . Just imagine another brouhaha that the base perceives themselves to be on the losing side of after being sold out by the Senate --- again --- and by the President himself. That could be the sort of moment for Bush that breaking the, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge was for his father --- a complete political disaster that has the potential to permanently damage Bush with the base --- and turn a 2-3 seat gain in the Senate in 2006 into a 2-3 seat loss. The base is already generally unhappy with the Republican Party over the deficits, illegal immigration, and judges as it is --- Gonzales could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Bush made a promise to appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS both in his 2000 & 2004 campaigns and he better stick to it even though it means his buddy Alberto Gonzales won't get appointed. That applies, even if it turns out Kristol's hunch about O'Connor is completely off the mark.

If there are two Supreme Court vacancies next week, then surely two of the following would be good replacements: Alito, Garza, Jones, Estrada, Cornyn, Pryor, and Luttig. Or maybe Roberts. But please let's stick with originalists/strict constructionists who will not legislate from the bench, and who will repeal previous judicial legislation.