ConfirmThem

What's the significance to this? Is it wrong for judges to quote principles from their own opinions? Is it wrong for them to be consistant with themselves?

What point are you making?

While Ginsburg's stance may not be surprising, I was still surprised that not one of the other dissenters made a privacy argument, or a due process argument. Those were the two main pillars of every one of the Court's prior abortion decisions. Now the dissenters all seem to be saying in unison, "never mind."

is anyone else disappointed that Scalia did not write in this case?

Abortion and Roe v Wade has been his number one issue on the court. He's written in every prior abortion case(Webster, Casey, Stenberg). Finally, after more than 20 years he's finally on the winning side. The Court finally upholds an abortion regulation, defers to the democratic process, does what he's been urging it to do for decades and all he does is sign on to a few sentence concurrence from Thomas? It's not like him to hold his fire for political reasons and I for one would have liked to see him write in this case. This is arguably the biggest victory he's had since he was appointed and he didn't have anything ot say?

I hope he at least writes in the school cases.

Due to the usually heavy dose of sarcasm in Scalia's decisions, I think it is clear why Roberts asked Kennedy to write Gonzales v. Carhart. Giving the opinion to either Scalia or Thomas could've easily pushed Kennedy back into arms of the liberals. In order to write more important majority opinions, I think Scalia will need to learn to write in a more tempered tone. You may not like the fact that Kennedy is the court's swing vote, but as long as he is Scalia will have to tone down his rhetoric if he wants Kennedy to join his opinions.

It's called judicial activism. She's taking her own personal opinion (that abortion SHOULD be about women's autonomy and equality, though that never been the actual law) and suggesting that's what the Constitution must mean and thus her position should have legal effect.

We can now expect this to be the mantra of the left re abortion jurisprudence. Andrew, that's why not one of the dissenters made the privacy or due process argument. It has been disgarded, as has Roe. Expect the equality argument to dominate the left when the next abortion case comes to the Court. God help us if the left ever gets to put another liberal on the Court (or we put another Souter on!).

i agree about the majority, but he could have written a concurrence. his Stenberg dissent was pretty vicious and he even said that he fervently hoped that one day it wouyld be overturned. well, it just was and he had nothing to say? I understand it, but I would have liked to at least se what he had to say. just a few words about how pleased he was, how he agrees, how the court finally took a step in the right direction, he could even make nice with Kennedy and praise him for a good opinion, maybe begin to make amends.

perhaps Ginsburg's dissent and the rest of the liberal editorials and criticism could signal the beginning of the liberals alienating Kennedy. Considering he'll be with the conservatives on the school cases and the wrtl case, hopefully they attack him some more and drive him more towards the conservatives.

that said, this won't make that much of a difference. the doctors will just kill the fetus first through injection or whatever and then do the dx, which the law doesn't affect.

it should open the door to future laws and they should be upheld, though.

for an open thread?

given that Scalia's Stenberg dissent mocked Kennedy's naivete about what he (Kennedy) thought others thought Casey meant, perhaps his NOT writing a concurrence IS his attempt to make amends.

OK, I'll convert this to an open thread meself!

Here's an interesting blog from a kossack:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/133947/906

Couple of thoughts on the PBA decision:

Doesn't AMK opinion, when you dig thru the muck, basically contradict his dissent in Stenberg? And aren't Thomas' join & concurrence in contradiction w/each other, as AMK goes out of his way to shore up Roe/Casey?

Funny how the four libs now have seemed to overturned the penumbra/undue burden arguments.

And yes, the MSM has dropped "moderate". Its the four LIBERALS now. I think the libs are overplaying the reaction to this decision, and it least the msm is listing the details of the banned procedure.

I thought AMK specifically wrote that Stenberg(and Casey) is NOT overturned..???????

Apologize if I'm wrong; I've not had time to read up on this decision, and neither of the main opinions are JRB/Silberman like models of clarity.

Kennedy said he was applying the Casey precedent, but I don't believe he specifically mention Stenberg at all (he didn't say it was not overturned, but he he didn't say it was, either). I could be wrong on the latter point though.

Gonzales v. Carhart does NOT overturn Stenberg. Rather, it seeks to show how the federal PBA ban is not unconstitutionally vague like the Nebraska law that was overturned in Stenberg.

Kennedy explains how Gonzales v. Carhart and Stenberg v. Carhart are both valid expressions of Casey. He claims that there is no tension between Gonzales and Stenberg.

I didn't imply Gonzales doesn't overrule Stenberg.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/weekinreview/22liptak.html?ex=13348944...

I think this article is meant to scare people into believing that we are soon to encounter "Bork's America". It tries to paint the confirmation of Sam Alito as the end of the world.

Although Kennedy never says it, I don't see how you can paint the 2003 Act as anything but a morals based law. Even if it doesn't save one baby, because abortionists will simply revert to the usual D&E method, the fact that Congress has said that this one aspect of abortion is morally repugnant signals a beachhead gained for pro-lifers that Planned Parenthood and their ilk have to be furious about. They've lost a tiny amount of real estate to be sure, but a significant piece. Maybe it's the Omaha beach of the abortion war.

Cubsfan.

Also, three cheers for BillM declaring an open thread. We kinda do that anyway on weekends and sometimes during the week!

that should be "I didn't imply Gonzales does overturn Stenberg". but I'm sure everyone here can figure that out. anyway.

the last few graphs of the NYT article save it from being apocalyptic (despite quoting Erwin Chemerinsky earlier, which really puts a thumb on the apocalyptic scale of any piece).

well said cubsfan, I hope you're right! certainly, this is a week for optimism on that front :)

"Although Kennedy never says it, I don't see how you can paint the 2003 Act as anything but a morals based law. "

There's nothing wrong with that. It's the legislature's job to pass "morals based" laws.

Did not John Paul Stevens turn 87 this weekend? Happy Birthday Mr. Justice. May you have a long and happy retirement.

Here is a nice video of JCG talking about the Gonzalez case.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?042207/042207_journal_crawfo...

As much as I would have liked to see Luttig on the court or some other buzzsaw conservative, it is obvious why that would not have been the best thing now. The key is Kennedy. All we need is to have Luttig up there dissing him in opinions or at conferences. Roberts and Alito look as if they have won the battle for Kennedy. Maybe JPS will get frustrated and retire!

We can dream. We can even hope. But I doubt JPS will retire any time soon. And re Kennedy, how much lamenting there was re Alito earlier last week?

That being said, we're getting closer to the games of summer--lead up to end of SCOTUS session. Let the fever swamp begin, but sans Insider and his/her ilk of course.

A little off-topic but I was curious as to y'all's opinion about something. I kind of follow politics a bit. I know many conservatives are against Roe v. Wade because it takes the power to decide whether an abortion should or should not be allowed out of the hands of the people (as represented by state legislatures) and puts it into the hands of a few judges. Correct?

How do conservatives reconcile this with President Bush's frequent use of signing statements? (Over 700 of them at last count.) Isn't this similar to taking the power our of the people's hands and placing it in the hands of a few people in the executive branch? What if you didn't like the president? What if President Hilary Clinton had some of these?

First, the executive is elected, while the judicial branch is not.

A lot of debate in the courts is what was intended by the legislature when the law was passed. To that extent, some say we should consider what was intended by the executive when he signed it.

This is what the Clinton administration said about them:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

Does anyone think that the school cases will come down this week?

I remember a while back that some posters were able to predict that Kennedy was going to write Carhart based on the other opinions from that session and who wrote them.

Has anyone looked at the cases from the December sitting and been able to predict who might be writing the school cases. I'd doubt Kennedy has it as it's unlikely that he'd write 2 big opinions in a row. Alito is also unlikely as he's a new Justice and hasn't really written any big opinions yet. I think it'll be Roberts as it gives him a chance to put his stamp on the Court with a big opinion. Perhaps Roberts would assign it to Thomas for political reasons. I'll guess that Roberts, followed by Thomas is the most likely.

Thoughts?

I just looked at the SC site and it appears that both Scalia and Thomas already delivered opinoins in cases from that sitting. This almost confirms that Roberts has the school cases, unless he gave it to Kennedy, which I doubt that he'd write two big cases in a row, although Kennedy is fine on aff action so if he writes it, no big deal. Plus, considering that racial issues are probably the biggest issue that Court deals with it would make sense for the Chief to put an early stamp on things.

It is pure "spin" to claim Luttig would push Kennedy to the left. Already, it is said that Scalia is doing likewise. Unless you are claiming Luttig is more talented and capable at hurling invection, I don't see the logic in saying Kennedy can stand firm to Scalia, but would crumple weak-kneed before Luttig.

When Alito votes with the gang of four liberals, forming a five-to-four majority against Kennedy and the rest, would you then, at that point, still prefer to have Alito over Luttig?

Luttig is the most qualified nominee. He should have been the first pick of Bush adminstration. He should have been the last pick of the Bush administration. He should be the next pick.

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 d

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18255941/

Some interesting stuff, but do we ever hear, say, Breyer criticized for the homeless problem in HIS hometown of San Francisco? Of course not.

TJ, well, most of us here are pretty single-mindedly concerned w/judicial confirmations at the expense of most everything else.

That said, some of the most vitriolic criticisms of Pres. W imaginable have appeared on this site, and they've been hardly limited to the Miers fiasco.

I've read only briefly read on the signing statements thing, and I don't have the legal or Constitutional knowledge to comment accurately, beyond saying at first blush I don't like the sound of them.

Here's a couple questions for you. Why do many liberals support the emanations/penumbra argument when it comes to abortion, but oppose it when it comes to Executive power?

Also, the e/p argument was essentially killed by O'Connor in '92, and completely buried by Ginsburg last week. Do you find it ironic that RBG's equality/stature argument will now apparently be the argument of pro-choicers, when she was nearly drummed out of the women's movement 34 years ago for the twin blasphemies of recognizing Roe's flaws on objective logical/Constutional levels, and stating the preferability of a legislative abortion rights act on a practical level?

All, it appears the abortion question will now come down to RBG's equality argument v Alito's hollow-out strategy. This should surprise no one, as Sam & Ruthie are far smarter than almost any politician, to say nothing of their staffs, advisers & the mainstream media, could even conceive of.

Thoughts?

I think that it is obvious that the cumulative impact of bullying by two is worse than the impact of bullying by one. With two, there are less places to turn. With both Scalia and Luttig ridiculing him, Kennedy would naturally have fewer conservatives to commiserate with. That allows the liberal bloc much more leeway in pulling Kennedy to their side.

Fortunately now, Roberts and Alito can act as buffers to Scalia and Thomas in keeping Kennedy's vote. That will mean more conservative opinions than would be possible with Luttig on the court.

With Roberts and Alito's nonintrusive personalities, I think Alito's slow evisceration policy will win out as long as the composition of the court remains as it it. A lot in the future depends on the personalities and ideologies of new SCOTUS justices.

As Jan Crawford Greenburg points out, Scalia early on alienated O'Connor but what kept her in line with the conservatives was her suspicion of Brennan. When Brennan left the court, she felt more comfortable joining the liberals. Her dissatisfaction with Thomas increased her transition from conservative to moderate.

A question conservatives need to especially concentrate on now is providing other reliable conservatives to the court who are collegial and not relentless flamethrowers. If the Dems win in 2008, it is imperative that any Dem nominees to the Supreme Court are examined in terms of collegiality as well as ideology. As long as Kennedy remains the swing vote, the addition of a collegial, friendly, non-threatening liberal could stop Kennedy from joining as many conservative rulings.

You know, if he wanted to be on the Supreme Court so badly, he probably shouldn't have pissed the President off.

Judge Luttig? Is that you??

'Nuff said.

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 d

I am a newbie lawyer but I see Roe v Wade as a political football. I would think liberals should want Roe v. Wade to be overturned for a few reasons. It would rally their base. It would force them to seek a more legitimate solution to enshrining their precious abortion rights. Like using legislators instead of judges. It would force "pro-life" politicians to cast actual votes against abortion instead of the theoretical ones they always talk about which would alienate the 67% of people who favor at least minimal abortion rights.

Of course, liberals don't think long-term. Not their bag, I guess.

there is a reason j michael luttig is sitting out in the boeing board room in rainy washington rather than in the chambers of the supreme court in the other washington. dissing wilkinson in opinions to try and get a leg up over him for a possible nomination was beyond the pale.

Zendari,

The moderate establishment has been on a vendetta against Michael Luttig for his "crime" of being one of the favorites of true conservatives.

The only thing that would qualify him in the eyes of the moderate establishment would be if he "grew" on several issues, like O'Conner and Kennedy did. The moderate establishment is intent on placing moderate judges on the Court. Only unrelenting conservative pressure stopped them from placing Miers on the Court.

If another vacancy happens during Bush's term, it is entirely probable that he will attempt to appoint another moderate like Miers. He might try "sell" this moderate to conservatives as an advocate of "judicial restraint." [Conservatives should prefer candidates who 1) only rule on subjects upon which the Constitution is not silent; and 2) takes the conservative position on cases upon which they do properly rule.] He might try to appoint a moderate with a brown complexion and focus on his skin tone [as if there isn't a single qualified conservative with such a complexion.] Or he might try to appoint a pro-choice moderate women, and focus on how this will be such "smart" politics for 2008.

The fact remains Luttig is an outstanding judge who would be an outstanding Supreme Court nominee. He would vote the right way, and provide a convincing rationale for his votes.

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 single-mindly determined to defeat liberals rather than moderates more intent on purging conservatives than fighting liberals.

Regarding Luttig's alleged superiority... Luttig is a great movement conservative, and has a flare for writing that -- if he made it to SCOTUS -- could possibly equal or surpass Scalia. That being said, I think it is incorrect to say Luttig is "the most qualified nominee."

Roberts and Alito at least equal him. McConnell as well. Not to mention less conventional prospects, such as Posner and Easterbrook. None of these men are necessarily superior to Luttig, but they surely are his equals.

And as nice it may have been to have Chief Justice Luttig and Justice Brown, Roberts and Alito are better for attracting the support of any current moderate (i.e., Kennedy) and any future moderates. Moreover, Roberts has pulled out majority opinions where a Luttig likely would not -- e.g., Rumsfeld v. FAIR.

Excuse me, Roberts has pulled out UNANIMOUS opinions where Luttig has not.

--FAIR

--Perhaps the buttons-for-the-victim-in-the-courtroom case from the 9th Circuit.

jtp7,

Did Michael Luttig state he "diss[ed] Wilkinson in opinions to try and get a leg up over him for a possible nomination?"

Or, do you have other proof of this personal contention?

Or, are you speculating on his motives, and then trying to present them as fact?"

Wait, I, now, realize that I have swallowed the Big Lie.

First, do you have any evidence that Luttig "dissed" him, as opposed to questioned his judicial reasoning, [which in entirely appropriate behavior for a judge]?

Making non-falsify speculations about personal motivations, and presenting them as fact, is a classic technique of sophistry.

Is it not?

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 more intent on defeating liberals than "moderating" conservatives.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07113/780217-176.stm

Looks like she is in the clear, for now!

I am writing under the twin assumptions that,

1) The primary virtue of a good judge is respecting the seperation of powers between judicial, legislative, Presidential and the rights reserved by the people; and

2) The second virtue of a good judge is casting the conservative vote on issues properly before the Court, when there is a genuine doubt between the liberal and conservative positions in question.

On the second aspect, Luttig is the superior candidate. Now, if you are part of a moderate establishment Presidency, the relative merits of an Alito, a Roberts, or a Miers would be judged differently.

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 leadership more intent of fighting liberals than purging conservatives.

You complained about Alito joining the four liberals in a case a few posts ago. What case are you referring to? Scalia joined an opinion with Ruth and JPS a few weeks ago, does that make him a liberal justice? I have no problem with Alito not always lining up with Thomas or Scalia. It adds to the diversity of the court in the ways at looking at a legal question. Two conservatives can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Most of the info I spoke about concerning Luttigator came from Jan's book. Its a good read, I suggest you go pick it up if you havent all ready. Anyways it obvious of Luttig's ambition and because of it we have Souter instead of Starr. People like that dont change. Thats the last thing we need on the court. Its too bad. There is really a lot to like about Luttig and he has suffered some persoanl tradegies in his life. However we need to look at the big picture. I really dont know what you have against Alito or Roberts. Alito wrote an antiabortion memo in 1985 and a controversial anti-abortion opinion in Casey (the last big abortion case) and we still got him on the court. And Roberts is said to be more conservative than Bork, Scalia, and Thomas according to Harry Edwards of the DC Circuit who served with all of them. Roberts has been rock solid in every opinion I have seen so far. There is no way or no case that you can cite that would cause you to pause with either Roberts or Alito.

Alito really recognized the correct way to destroy Roe. It is foolish to do a frontal assault like Scalia and Thomas want. Just assume the Gonzalez case went along with what Scalia wanted to do and overturn Roe. Can you imagine what would happen? Bush would get ZERO more judges through. The Dems would shut it all down - SCOTUS, COA, and DJs. This would totally energize the Dem base and many who are marginally pro-choice. Everyone would recognize it as overstepping. The media would crucify Republicans and their "extreme right wing judges" for forcing the return of Bork's America ala the Ted Kennedy speech. We would never get another conservative judge through cause the Dems would make 2006 look like a gentle wave compared to the tsunami that would happen in 2008. Pro-lifers would finally realize their dream and lose vigilance. Etc Etc.

Roe's death by a thousand paper cuts is the much better way to go. It slowly brings the general population more to a culture of life. It cuts down the number of abortions and eventually would have the same effect as an outright overturning of Roe. Roe gets eviserated without anyone noticing it. Last weeks decision was just a tiny blip compared to what overturning Roe would be. We must be smart about this and not let pure ideology kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Having Roe around raises money and mobilizes our people.

Lastly can you please remove that stupid saying you have at the end of all your posts. We get it already. Plus its really annoying.

I wrote,

"When Alito votes with the gang of four liberals,..."

I have no idea what you are saying about Alito joining the liberals in some particular case!

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 conservative leaders.

The way you wrote it, it sounded like you were saying Alito joined the 4 libs in some case. How can you just say you think Alito is going to join them? What shred of evidence do you have to support that? What about all my other points?

In Jan's book, was she,

1) Privy to some private confession by Luttig?;

2) Have some compelling proof for what seems to be conjecture?; or

3) is she presenting her speculations as fact?

Nor can I square your contention that,

"It adds to the diversity of the court in the ways at looking at a legal question. Two conservatives can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions."

with you assertions that when Luttig and Wilkinson disagreed it was negative, destructive and personal, on Luttig's part, of course.

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 leadership that respects them rather than belittles them.

1) It is to the credit of Micheal Luttig that he opposed Starr. Starr is, I believe, a moderate.

2) Because of Starr we had O'Conner.

3) Bush I chose Souter; Luttig did not.

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 chose truly conservative leaders for their movement.

When Alito votes with...

When Alito voted with...

Same semantic meaning? Different semantic meaning?

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 d

It is not really true that Alito wrote Casey. It is really the case that O'Conner wrote Casey.

Alito intrepreted the moderate, pro-choice O'Conner correctly. Or, more accurately, he correctly projected her ruling.

Pray tell why that is evidence of him being any my pro-life than O'Conner was? He might very well be, but the ruling in Casey isn't evidence of your contention.

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 principled conservative action from principled conservative leaders.

I like how you place the blame of Souter pn Bush I but blame O'Connor on Starr and not Reagan. Then you also credit Luttig for blocking Starr. You make NO SENSE!!!! I smell a troll.

Not to be rude, but I think it is of limited utility to engage bigskybob for an extended period.

Perhaps one of many reasons confirmthem shouldn't be so integrated with redstate.

"Just assume the Gonzalez case went along with what Scalia wanted to do and overturn Roe. Can you imagine what would happen? Bush would get ZERO more judges through. The Dems would shut it all down - SCOTUS, COA, and DJs. This would totally energize the Dem base and many who are marginally pro-choice. Everyone would recognize it as overstepping. The media would crucify Republicans and their "extreme right wing judges" for forcing the return of Bork's America [per] Ted Kennedy.... [Bush] would never get another conservative judge through cause the Dems would make 2006 look like a gentle wave compared to the tsunami that would happen in 2008. Pro-lifers would finally realize their dream and lose vigilance. Etc Etc. "

I'm sorry. That was a note jtp7 at redstate.com.

My mistake!

Can you see why conservatives always just seem to lose?

I do understand your last point, however. Overturning Roe vs Wade is the carrot the pro-choice, moderate establishment wants to keep dangling in front of the pro-life movement, forever. The point isn't to overturn Roe, or save unborn babies. The point is simply to have pro-life folk work to elect pro-choice Republicans.

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 purge their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives.

I agree with you. Im just trying to figure out whether this person really believes what he types or if he is just a troll from the dark side. Plus it diverts me from finishing this brief that is due tomorrow!!!

One last thing. Here is a new much more positive article on Mary Beth. Nice picture too!

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_504105....

jtp7,

Why don't you post your signature, and allow me the courtesy of writing my own?

The "annoying" signature I am aware of is,

"Conservatism without a conscience is idealogy without a purpose."

Try as I might, I can't parse any particular semantic meaning from the phrase. Idealogy presupposes a purpose, and a conscience is, if anything, an impediment to being ruthlessly idealogical. I just can't make any sense of the statement.

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 d

jtp7,

1) I am more conservative than you.

2) I write exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I write, plus or minus a dyslexic oversight.

3) If you had so blatently and ignorantly questioned my motives in a more civilized day, it would have resulted in your being challenged to a duel.

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 better, truer, and more effective conservative leadership.

David Duke and Eric Rudolph are also more conservative than me. They are also morons.

Bush positively acted to give us Souter. That makes him responsible. Starr positively acted to give us O'Conner. That makes him responsible. Luttig did not in any way positively act to select Souter. Luttig is, therefore, not responsible for Souter.

Claiming it was Starr, or Souter is a false alternative.

Claiming it was Luttig's criticism of Starr that is what is responsible for Souter is scape-goating.

Starr is, I believe, a moderate, establishment Republican. It was to Luttig's credit that he acted against a moderate. If he had acted in favor of a moderate candidate, I would fault him for doing that, just as I fault Starr for supporting O'Conner.

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 leaders to their right.

jtp7 wrote about Misters Duke and Randolph,

"They are also morons."

I may, or may not, be a "moron," but only a moron would state other people are "also" a moron!

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 reject leaders who gratuitously insult them.

I was not calling you a moron as much as I am tempted to. I was calling Duke and Rudolph morons. My point is you saying you are more conservative than me really means nothing.

To everyone else: Sorry for cluttering up this thread with this banter. I figured this thread was just about dead anyway and needed some entertainment for my allnighter, which Bob provided.

Macc wrote,

"Not to be rude, but I think it is of limited utility to engage bigskybob for an extended period."

Actually, it would be fair to state that my sole intent is to purge moderates from the leadership of the conservative movement. As such, it would only be of "utility" to moderates posing as conservatives to "engage" me if I were doing so in a counterproductive, or an ineffectual way. The shabby treatment Tom Colburn receives in the Senate, Michael Luttig receives here, and the fact that Supreme Court is decidely liberal after having seven of nine members picked by Republicans is compelling evidence that my thesis is in fact correct.

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 better, more conservative and more effective leadership.

jtp7 wrote,

"My point is you saying you are more conservative than me really means nothing."

Wouldn't it mean that your speculation that I was a "troll"
from "the dark side" was false?????????

Or is the "dark side" further to the right of you rather than further to the left of you?

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 purge their current ineffective leaders for better ones.

I am glad you think you are the next coming of Ronald Reagan but you really just have no clue.

Point to a case, any case in which you would have doubts about Roberts or Alito. Or any area of law where Luttig would prove a more reliable vote.

You could also tell us via the internet anything you want. That does NOT make it true.

I'm just an old country boy whose momma taught him the values of honesty and doing the right thing. I think there are lots of pro-life folk like myself who have been deceived and exploited by politicians for their own gain. I believe that many of those pro-life folk were raised by mommas who taught them the values of honesty and doing the right thing. As a result of their being raised properly, they are particular vulnerable to being deceived because their basic mode of dealing with other folks is to assume they, likewise, have been taught the values of honesty and doing the right thing themselves.

I'm just trying to help pro-life folk to understand what is really going on in today's "conservative" movement.

Frankly, I don't have the political ambition Reagan had. Nor, would I like to wade into the moral cesspool that is modern politics.

Frankly, you might think I don't have a "clue," but the fact that Republicans have appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court judges with only liberalism to show for it suggests otherwise!

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 better leadership.

jtp7 wrote,

"You could also tell us via the internet anything you want. That does NOT make it true."

And it equally true that thing you are telling us over the internet are not necessarily true just because you posted them on the internet.

Why didn't you add that qualification?

Radical skepticism is a technique of sophistry.

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 d

He editors .. how about a new open thread?

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

No one doubts Luttig's raw qualifications for SCOTUS.

The stuff about Luttig & Starr/Souter came from interviews JCG did w/people who were there at the time, inc. Luttig himself, and Mrs. Luttig.

Luttig himself admitted he performed very poorly in his interviews, and his written record while brilliant, is full of sharp elbows.

He'd have as hard a time as Jones getting confirmed now; certainly harder than JRB, never mind Sykes, Batchelder or one of the mush girls.

And it's highly doubtful IMO he'd take a 90%+ pay cut at this juncture.

Of course, I'm pushing JRB as strongly as you're pushing Luttig, so there ya go. :)

I think we both agree that steel is the way to go rather than mush, else leave the vacancy for the electorate to decide in 11/08.

Bill M wrote,

"No one doubts Luttig's raw qualifications for SCOTUS."

You don't seem to have read some the things I have read.

1) "Possible temporary lapse of sanity;"

2) "Professional meltdown;"

3) Diatribes about how his handling of the Padilla case disqualifies him from consideration;

4) Intense efforts to shift the blame for Souter from GHWB to Luttig; and

5) Rampant speculation that Luttig would, singlehandedly, deliver Kennedy into the arms of Stevens, et al.

And, this is before calls for a "moderate" judge in preparation for the 2008 elections.

P.S.

Are you, are you not, saying that Luttig told JCG that he deliberately "dissed" Wilkerson to receive "a leg up," etc?

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 action from truly conservative leadership.

You apparently think that there is a moderate/liberal conspiracy in the Republican Party to mislead and deceive conservatives. I disagree. Have various Republican presidents like Reagan, Bush I and Bush II made mistakes in nominating certain people to the Supreme Court? Most certainly they have. But there are other explanations than the ones you offer. You have offered your own speculations and inferences as to why as facts. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others are doing. You have offered no concrete evidence that Reagan maliciously nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, that Bush I maliciously nominated Souter and that Bush II maliciously nominated Miers. Each situation can be honestly explained by alternate means than you propose, in ways that have nothing to do with a concerted moderate/liberal conspiracy to defraud conservatives.

Talk about my believing in "conspiracy theories" is your simply raising the nutter card.

Here is the evidence I have already posted, and you have ignored:

Bush I: Appointed Souter. After Souter votes to affirm Roe vs Wade in Casey, Bush I publicly praised that decision. After leaving office, reflecting on his appointment of Souter, he uses his appointment of Souter as proof that he wasn't the right-wing ideologue trying to the stack the courts as he claims he was falsely protrayed as being.

What is really gaulling is your characterization of Souter as being a "mistake." Bush did not claim Souter was a "mistake."
That is a matter of the public record.

During his tenure as President, with his man in charge of RNC,the RNC declared 1990 to be the year of moderate, pro-choice women: Sakki, Whitman, Martin, Snyder ad nasceum. They all LOST.

Bush II: When debating Kerry, Kerry characterized Bush's judicial position as being one of selecting judges "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." Bush answered the question, not in any way correcting the record. Kerry's characterization was well founded.

When the stink of Miers arose, Bush's minions denied that Bush had ever said he would appoint judges "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." Turns out that was technically correct.

It was also an admission that Bush never made any commitment to appoint "judges in the mold or Thomas and Scalia."

Now, Bush could have claimed Miers was "in the mold or Thomas and Scalia," but he did not. Nor, do I believe that he could do so credibly.

Now, there are millions of conservatives who thought that Bush was committed to changing the courts by appointing judges like Thomas and Scalia, whom he laviously praised, BTW.

Nor, again has Bush II ever characterized Miers nomination as being anything other than an appropriate one, and her withdrawl a noble sacrifice.

As to Reagan, no where have I characterized him as being a moderate, establishment President. Unfortunately, when he was in trouble over Iran-Contra he turned to the moderate establishment, and ruined the balance of his Presidency. He made a hugh error in judgment when raised the question of O'Conner's pro-choice political stance and was reassured by Starr that that wouldn't matter because of some commitment to "judicial restraint." He was likely deceived about Kennedy,
["and he's Catholic...."]

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 the respect of conservative leaders.

"Are you, are you not, saying that Luttig told JCG that he deliberately "dissed" Wilkerson to receive "a leg up," etc?"

Of course not. Luttig told JCG nothing about Wilkinson, IIRC.

People who vetted Luttig told her that some of his opinions were sharply critical of Wilkinson's opinions. Luttig has a blunt, confrontational style a la Nino, w/no ulterior motive that I can see.

The accusations of "leg upping", IIRC, stem from his battles with Silberman for top clerks.

Whatever the truth, the *perception* of having made "enemies" of two judges as respected (and as radically different) as Wilky & Silby couldn't have looked good to WH staffers, never mind then-Chairman Specter or the Maine Twins.

Note how Alito has papers from his WH & 2nd Circuit days that at first blush are far more controversial than Luttig's IMO, yet they didn't stick to the nerdy former Little League coach.

Sometimes you can want something too badly.

It's possible a RPOTUS would nominate Luttig to replace Scalia in 2010, should the unthinkable happen, and he may well accept at that point.

I think it would take a mushroom cloud to get him thru, tho.

OT, if you purge all the Whitman types from the GOP by 11/08, Pres. Obama & his 59 Senators will thank ya hardy on 1/09.

Bigskybob, you seem to neglect the possibility that Bush I hasn't actively criticized Souter because such a criticism would also be a criticism of his poor vetting process (like allowing Luttig to derail Starr's nomination and Sununu and Rudman to convince him that Souter was acceptable). Notice how Bush I did a much better job with his second choice. Do you think he made a mistake with Thomas? Did you think Bush really thought Thomas was a pro-choice moderate and that is why he nominated him?

As far as Bush II goes, maybe he knew any direct statement promising Scalia and Thomas clones would not have been helpful in a debate with Kerry? Maybe he made a strategic move to downplay such judges because he wanted to concentrate on other issues at the time, not because he didn't really want conservative judges. For someone who nominated the likes of JRB, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor, it sure seems odd that you would characterize him as a person who really wants moderate, pro-choice judges. There is a real disconnect in your characterization.

You seem to ignore the possibility that Bush nominated Miers as a stealth candidate. May he wanted a conservative that the Democrats couldn't directly attack. He may have actually thought that she was a conservative he could depend on not to change over the years on the Supreme Court. The problem with Miers wasn't so much a problem involving the nomination of a conservative, it was a problem involving the nomination of a conservative with no known track record on issues that were important to the majority of conservatives. (BTW, I never opposed Miers because I thought she was moderate. I opposed her because I didn't think she was qualified. I never doubted that she would vote lock-stock-and-barrel with Scalia. I think she would've been a reliable conservative, but a mindless vote with no intellectual grasp of the issues she was deciding.)

Rather than accept any of these other possibilities, you seem bound and determined to accept only rationales that promote your conspiracy theory that conservatives are being hoodwinked by such moderates as Bush I and II. I don't think Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore and Leahy think Bush II is a moderate at all.

You have offered a speculation about the motives of Bush II that are clearly a break from reality.

Claiming,

"As far as Bush II goes, maybe he knew any direct statement promising Scalia and Thomas clones would not have been helpful in a debate with Kerry?"

is living in a fantasy land as opposed to reality.

You could have said,

"As far as Bush II goes, maybe he knew that any direct statement that he isn't promising Scalia and Thomas clones would not have been helpful [in attracting conservative voters.]"

Remember, the White House clearly disassociated itself from the position that Bush had promised to appoint justices "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."

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 d

I am advocating that moderates be purged from the leadership position they hold in the conservative movement.

I respect the right of moderates to chose their own leaders.

Liberals, moderates and conservatives are all welcome to join the party, or vote for the party. What liberals and moderates are not entitled to is power grossly disproportional to their numbers within the party. The conservative majority ought to be able to works its will.

In 1990 "pro-life" GHWB twisted arms to see to that pro-choice moderate women were promoted by the national party, while pro-life conservative women were not.

Conservative, pro-lifers were being purged, yet you scream bloody murder over the effect of purging pro-choice moderates.

That makes little sense.

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 pick truly conservative leaders.

my new policy certainly does save time and brain cells :)

You still have not answered my question. In what area of law would Luttig be more reliable than Alito or Roberts. You trash those choices, but how would Luttig have been better. Do you think the conservatives win if Luttig and another flame thrower is up there instead of JGR and SA?

Dienekes, I think more of us should adopt your policy. :)

Bigskybonb is right that our party has moved tremendously to the left, especially under out current president. Bush has set out to backstab conservatives from the get go. (E.g. Letting Kennedy write "No Child Left Behind"; signing McCain-Feingold after maintaining its unconstitutionality; his support for affirmative action in the Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger; his unabashed support for illegal aliens and pushing amnesty for them; prosecuting the innocent border agents for defending themselves against the illegal alien drug dealer; putting unqualified cronies in positions defying Federalist 76; drastically expanding the welfare state by pushing and signing Medicare prescription drug bill, etc.)

Bush wanted to defy conservative wishes with Miers. I figure that after SDO announced her retirement, Bush named Roberts because he wanted to have a phenomial nominee as his legacy (assuming he only got one Supreme Court appointment). Roberts, however, did not have a long paper trail that represented unabashed conservative jurisprudence. With Roberts, Bush went out of his way to denigrate the Federalist Society, thinking the Federalist Society was a dispicable organization. Even though Roberts was undoubtedly qualified, Bush never really considered nominating a "movement conservative" with a long paper trail like Luttig for Chief.

After Rehnquist died, Bush was much more willing to put his least qualified crony on the Court. With Miers, Bush went out of his way to nominate a person who had NO judicial philosophy, openly defying the wishes of his base. (Basically saying "screw you" to his base.) Bush put all his faith in Miers, who essentially said that the Federalist Society was a terrorist organization in the 1980s. He slandered those of us who opposed Miers as being "sexist" and "elitist". Bush also denigrated the orginalist/textualist approach and many nominees who shared that view during the Miers debacle. Bush maintained that Miers was the most qualified person for the Court. (An assinine assertion.) Bush did not ask for Miers to withdraw (nor would have he). In fact, Bush was mad as hell that Miers withdrew. Bush had every intention to maintain the "balance" (i.e. liberal nature) on the Court.

It was only when Bush knew that he could not get a nominee through without his base that he go with Alito. (Bush NEVER had any intention of going with an originalist. We got lucky Bush only went with Alito when he realized that he couldn't get a nominee through without the support of his base; he doesn't believe the conservative movement is worth fighting for beecause he is a liberal Republican. Bush has a long track record of being hostile to conservatism. I think you are wrong to assume that Bush's nomination of Miers was an innocent and/or misguided mistake.

I would add that Bush, from the get go, slandered real conservatives by labeling himself as a "compassionate conservative," strongly implying that real conservatives are "compassion challenged."

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 actual conservatives lead their movement.

The numbers, the facts, are starting to emerge, the rankings, which weren't described, but I assume were standard deviations from the assumption that judicial votes are random, are showing that Roberts isn't quite as conservative as Thomas and Scalia, and Alito isn't quite as conservative as Roberts, but more so than Kennedy.

Had Luttig been on the court, he, in all probability, would have been ranked as conservative as Scalia and Thomas, or perhaps even further to the right.

Of course, the sample is still rather small. Alito's and Roberts' could shift further right, or left. But, the prelimary numbers show Luttig, in all probability, would have been a more conservative justice, at least up to this point.

P.S.

I am still waiting for your answers to my questions, that will never be forthcoming because you are not a person interested in reasoned debate, but rather a sophist intent on rhetorically placing me in the position of being on trial, with yourself as the prosecuter, and judge!

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 more effective and principled conservative leadership.

It is futile to argue about matters that are water under the bridge.Let us hope this is the last of the bickering. Let me enjoy visiting this sight. Some of you here are behaving like a child throwing tantrums.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman, W

"He who does not study the past is doomed to repeat its mistakes."

And, another,

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

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 d

Which presidential candidate do you think would be the best person in terms of judges? How do you rate that person's ability to win in the general election?

By that I mean "we" true conservatives are screwed.

There isn't a decent candidate, at least one that is viable.

That is due in large part to the arrogance and incompetence of GWB. Iraq has poisoned the well for the entire Republican party.

McCain is pro-life, but too liberal. And, he has taken a principled stand in Iraq that will, with near certainty, destroy any chance he has in 2008.

Guiliani is for abortion. In terms of judges, that makes it choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle-are.

Brownback is for "comprehensive immigration reform." Real conservatives won't trust him, and moderates won't trust him, either.

Romney is the rehash of the Bush model: run right to win the nomination. I have no reason to doubt he would continue the Bush model by governing left.

Thompson is a pseudo-boomlet built on the old Reagan-was-an- actor model. There is practically no there there.

Tancredo would be knee-capped by the establishment. They would rather have Hillary than Tancredo.

George Allen badly hurt his chances in 2006.

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.

makes it easier for leberals to portray conservatives as wackos

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman, W

Because persons to the left of the typical conservative, such as eyedsman, are perfectly willing to give aid and comfort to those liberals who wish to slur the entire conservative movement as "wackos" just to gain a cheap debating point.

Bush did the same thing in accusing opponents of Miers of being "sexists." Likewise, his flaks have slured opponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" as being "racists."

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 d