ConfirmThem

via SCOTUSblog

Finally, there are two upcoming events to highlight. First, according to this post at USA Today, Chief Justice Roberts will be giving his "first network television interview since taking office" on ABC's Nightline tomorrow night (Monday) at 11:35 PM. Set your TiVo.

I am amazed at the naivete of certain people on this site who keep insisting that the Democrat victory last Tuesday did NOT spell the end of conservative judicial confirmations. Let's face facts: Patrick Leahy will keep all conservative COA nominees bottled up in committee just like he did from 2001 to 2002. He will also do everything possible to make the confirmation process of any conservative SCOTUS nominee in the next two years a living hell filled with delays galore and a million witnesses defaming their character. Harry Reid will add to the horror by also creating huge delays in the full Senate debate and the final vote. In the end, he will also make sure that any such conservative SCOTUS nominee is either voted down or filibustered.

When I hear people say Bush will nominate Conservative Nominee X or Y, I just want to cry. We need to be realistic in our analyses, not living in a dream world. Besides the new power of the Democrats, we need to be cognizant of the fact that Bush has shown no interest up to this point in fighting a war over a SCOTUS confirmation. Bush knows that anybody with documented anti-abortion and/or anti-Roe statements would inevitably be voted down by ALL the Democrat senators. This eliminates Edith Jones.

He also knows that anyone with a documented originalist record would run afoul of the Democrats. Noticeably, Roberts, Miers and Alito had no originalist credentials on paper. That would eliminate McConnell and Janice Rogers Brown.

Bush also knows that another white male nominee after Roberts and Alito would NOT be easy to justify to either the American public or the newly Democratic Senate. Strategically, the new nominee will undoubtedly have to be either a woman or Hispanic. Easterbrook, McConnell and Paul Clement are not viable under these circumstances.

People who claim that somehow certain moderate Democrat senators can be convinced to vote for a documented conservative seem naive to me. Who are these "moderate" Democrat senators anyway? So-called moderates Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman, Pryor and Salazar all voted against Alito. Would Byrd, Conrad, Johnson and Nelson vote for another conservative after Alito - especially if everyone knew it would sew up the Supreme Court for conservatives? As far as the new crop of six Dem senators go, they will be too afraid of the liberal Dem leadership to show party disloyalty so earlier in their freshman term.

I'm afraid that any confirmation vote on a new SCOTUS nominee will be strictly partisan and along party lines if the nominee is deemed to be just as conservative as Roberts and Alito. During Alito's swearing-in ceremony at the White House, Clarence Thomas is reported to have said that Alito never would've been confirmed if the Senate had been controlled by the Democrats. I have a tendency to agree. Anyone who is as conservative as Roberts and Alito will not be able to be confirmed in the 110th Congress.

But for a slightly different reason. Presindet Bush will, I think, go along to get along. He was, after all, willing to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. 'nuff said. He's got nothing to lose at this point.

Don't you think Bush learned his lesson with Meiers? Dem. squeaky majority or not, I think he'll nominate a known conservative. Easterbrook's been debated on this site, with the by far heaviest weight coming down on his side of being confirmable. I do see the possible need for a woman and/or minority. Bobo, I love ya and understand what you're saying (I have no illusions re Leaky Leahy or Dingy Harry) but I have difficulty believing the Dems will keep JRB, for instance, from joining the SCOTUS>

I think the lesson that Bush learned with Miers was to be angry with conservatives. He capitulated, against his sense of loyalty, with the risk of GOP vote loses nipping at his heels. Now that that risk is "gone," because there is no mid-term for the President to be partially responsible for, he has nothing to lose. In fact, he seems determined to get comprehensive immigration passed, which tells me he counts the so-called "conservative" voters as being insignificantly small in number, or having "wrong" judgment on the issue, or both.

I think he'll look for a nominee that is nominally agreeable to the DEMs, one that won't create a block due to cloture, one that can clearly get 60 votes. This is the hurdle that he will accept. The Democrats can more easily block, now, and the GOP isn't able to obtain a majority to reverse the abuse of cloture.

The DEMs know that power is wasted, if not used (and sometime abused). The Republicans had their chance with Bolton and a handful of other nominees, but didn't want to risk it.

As far as I can see, the opportunity is gone, probably for my lifetime.

Yes. I am bitter about it - and hope to be proven wrong in my negative prediction.

I think you will be proven wrong by the next nomination to SCOTUS, if it comes in the next year and a half.

Remember, a SCOTUS nom. will get an up or down vote. Yes, the climate's changed, but I don't see the Dems shooting themselves in the foot by voting down a woman and/or minority.

Yes, I could be wrong. Let's see....

Remember, even when the new senate convenes, there will still be 52 senators who voted for both Roberts and Alito. The prospect of Casey, Webb, and possibly Tester voting for an originalist for scotus can not be ruled out either. JRB would be the most obvious choice for Scotus, since she is an originalist and the left will not be able to attack her due to race/gender, and she will get a vote and will be confirmed with at least 52 votes. Scotus nominations have so much light on them, the Dims just can not attack her in a campaign mode like with Bork due to race/gender, even though they will not want her on the court. Remember, even Bork got a floor vote after the committee voted 9-5 against him, so certainly JRB would. It would also make political sense to nom. an African-American female, while still getting a constructionist on the court to please the base. This makes so much sense that I am not surprised to see this scenario already being talked about. COA nominees will be much tougher to get through, but Keisler, and ones like that that are so brilliant etc. will still make confirmation.

And the last time they tried this, her speeches were so ripped out of context by the media that the public had no sympathy for her. "Social Security makes grandparents cannibalize their young..." "The New Deal was the height of socialism!" JRB is the freaking Titanic in search of an iceberg.

Funny thing about them, even when ripped out of context. I've known several people who have Googled her out of curiousity, read excerpts on a site, said "Wow, this is great!", then only later realized that those excerpts were supposed to be used AGAINST her. Happens over & over and would happen on a mega-scale were she nominated.

Regardless of who retires when and who gets nominated when, the next SCOTUS opening will be the most publicized & controversial one ever. It won't just be tiny excerpts printed in USA Today's 8-page special section, and for every person truned off there'll be two or three inspired. If the 'fight' can be reduced to her speeches & Sowell's articles versus Reid's slanders & Teddy's slurring, it'll be over quick.

Occam's Razor sez Bush won't get another pick, and if he does he'll go mushy, but he may be the most Occam-proof Prez in history.

As far as Stevens considering W illegitimate, rumor always was that all nine J's had a tacit "no retirement" agreement during Bush's first term, else Sandy would've gone in 2002. Unless Stevens subscribes to Rolling Stone he probably considers the 2004 election legitimate. I doubt he considers Roberts & Alito bad picks, either, although I'm sure Miers made him & everyone else up there roll their eyes.