ConfirmThem

I bet Sonia Sotomayor than Kim Wardlaw has a better chance of being the first Dem nominee to the Supreme Court. Regardless of ideology, I think it would be much harder to spin Kim Wardlaw as the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court than it would be to spin Sotomayor as such. Wardlaw is only-half Hispanic and with her blond hair quite WASPy looking. In this case, I think the more ethnic candidate wins. There would much more propaganda potential with the average Hispanic in the nomination of the darker coloring of Sotomayor. After all, we do live in the television age.

My predictions would be that Sotamayor is the first nominee, Elana Kagan the second and Seth Waxman the third.

I think that your predictions are more accurate than Goldstein's.

...is that Goldstein expects Souter to be the first to leave, followed by Stevens and then Ginsburg in successive years.

Does this not scare those of you who would like a conservative majority? Now do you see why you must vote for the R next year, even if you don't support the nominee in the primaries? If you don't, you have no business on this site. Just look at the name and what it's goal is. Fight hard, not dirty, in the primaries for your candidate, but come home in the general. Otherwise, you will get these names and not the one's on the previous thread; Clement, Estrada, et al.

Goldstein may be basing his assumption that Souter will retire before Stevens on the fact that Stevens has hired all of his law clerks for the 2008-2009 term but Souter has not hired any.

I recall that Goldstein was quite accurate in his predictions during the Rehnquist/O'Connor-openings season.

He is the worst name on that list. He is well beyond unacceptable. I am actually a little shaken right how. I have never seen his name on a list before. Show me that name the day before the 2008 election and I will vote for whoever the GOP nominates. I just can't believe it! He is well to the left of even Sens. Kerry and Kennedy.

That's right, aurel, he hit the Roberts nomination right on the head.

I've been warning about Wardlaw for some time....

Yep, he's a curious name to see up there. I mean, if they want a liberal black Justice, certainly they can pick from several judges out there already? Why would they have to go with a governor who has no judicial experience?

Governors have worked out well for them.

This is probably fun and all for liberals like Goldstein to dream about what might be, but ultimately it's pointless: none of these worthless, amoral, empty-suit Democrats is going to win the presidency. It'll be President Giuliani/Thompson/Romney successfully appointing Justices Janice Rogers Brown, Diane Sykes, and Raoul Cantero (or Justices Paul Clement, Michael McConnell, Neil Gorsuch, or Steven Colloton).

They would easily win if they had a worthwhile candidate....heck, if I was Chuck Hagel, I'd toss my hat in with their primaries.

Matthew, Bush's successor is unlikely to replace Souter/Ginsberg in his first term, IMO. And I don't think its very likely to see the GOP win in both 08 and 12.

If he was willing to leave under an R President, seems like the time is now, with an unpopular President and a partisan Democratic Senate.

I see no logical reason to quit under Romney in 09-11 and now quit under Bush in 07. Senior status paychecks and the GOP Senate shoving Alito through might have made 06 unattractive to him, but those concerns are invalid this year.

As for the hypothetical topic of this thread, I'm not going to dignify it by speculation. If a Democrat is elected in 2008, the judiciary is lost for a generation and there is little further purpose for this site. The specific identities of which individual judicial activists would be appointed to subvert the Constitution and this nation are immaterial (except to those with morbid tendencies).

[Editor: could you please remove comment #18 of the thread "Save Southwick". It is filled with nothing but obscenities and should not be left in the archives. Since you removed a comment of mine last month because it supposedly did not comply with very recently imposed Marquess of Queensberry rules concerning another poster, it should be possible to remove this one.]

Days elapsed since last CCA confirmation: 64

Barring a Byron White 'mishap' on part of the next Democratic President, anyway.

I don't know if we lose the judiciary though, in a single Dem term. All the appeals courts except the 2nd and the hopeless 9th are majority R. We'll lose control of the 3rd, and any advantage of the 6th, and certainly lose the opportunity for SCOTUS reform, but the O'connor > Alito shift will remain.

The only reason I do it: If a Democratic President wins in 08 and gets re-elected in 12, he might replace Scalia.

Scalia is irrelevant for the rest of his career.

This discussion is proof that George W. Bush will go down as a horrible President. Were it not for John Roberts and Sam Alito, Bush would be nothing more than a Wilsonian liberal. Seriously, everything should have been in place for a Nixon/Reagan style victory in 2008. Had Bush sent enough troops into Iraq, cut spending, and truely secured the Mexican border, Repubicans would be approaching 60 seats in the Senate. If that were the case, just imagine who the next Republican President might have named to the Supreme Court. A true conservative majority would have been cemented for 40 years and the law changed for 100 years. Sorry for the rant, but those names make me angry and scared.

We have a 5-4 majority in a large number of cases. Not everything we wanted, but it has to count for something.

where Scalia or Kennedy gets replaced by a lib, along with all the younger libs who'll replace older libs. At that point anyone left on the right (Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, plus Scalia or Kennedy) become irrelevant because they'll be in the minority for the rest of their terms. People talk about Scalia's age but he's only a few months older than Kennedy. They'll both be 72 when the next President is elected.

Scalia has never been and never will be irrelevant, whether or not he's in the majority.

Please see Comment #5. SOme of you seem to be scared by the prospects of these potential justices and swings on some courts. Do what must be done and vote for the R nominee, even if he is not your first choice, in the general next year.

Kennedy was in the majority on almost every case. Kennedy is a moderate. Therefore, we have a moderate court.

There needs to be a least one more conservative before we begin to have a semblence of a conservative court.

The country 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 real conservatives lead their movement.

.

I think that Souter might leave under the next R president (if there was one in 2008), but not Bush simply because of the rallying cry of "No More Souters" that conservatives have slammed him with over the years.

Why give Bush Jr a "victory" and have Bush be seen as "getting it right this time."

On a side note, is there any precedent for a December of the last year of a president's retirement in SCOTUS(has it been done before and if so, did the nominee get through or get delayed).

Romney or Fred.

I am all for voting for the GOP candidate next year.

However, the need for compromise isnt on MY shoulders it is on the GOP to nominate a pro-life candidate.

Rudy, Romney and Fred are absolutely disqualified in that respect.

Want my little vote? Find a standard bearer who stands for the unborn.

The same BS they pump out trying to scare pro-life voters with the boogeymen of the Dems wont work on me this time.

Reagan and Bush 41 gave us this pro-abort SCOTUS.

After voting GOP for 22 years, I wont fall for the lies again.

Want my support? You have a year to find and nominate the right guy.

So, if the Republicans don't give you the pro-life nominee you desire, you will abstain from voting in 2008? That seems very short sighted. Every lost vote for the Republican nominee in 2008 will result in a larger margin of victory for the Dem candidate. Does anyone here actually think Hillary or Barack will be MORE pro-life than Giuliani, Romney or Thompson? If so, dream on! Whoever the new Dem president may turn out to be in 2009, it is guaranteed that they will isolate and destroy the pro-life movement quicker than any "liberal" Republican president could or would.

I think it is a certainty that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will retire under the next president if he is a Dem. To wait for another election before retiring could potentially be ruinious to her health. If she truly is as frail as has been rumored, would she really want to wait 4-6 years after a Dem victory in 2008 before retiring? That doesn't make sense, especially since a Hillary or Barack in 2008 is likely to have a Dem-controlled Senate that could easily confirm the liberal of her choice to replace her.

In addition, I think actuarial tables demand that Stevens retire during the next president's first term, regardless of whether or not that president is a Republican or Dem.

Meanwhile, Souter would retire for similar reasons as Ginsburg. In order to guarantee a suitably liberal replacement, there would no better time to retire than under a Dem president with a Dem-controlled Senate. If he is as desperate to get out of Washington, D.C. as some claim he would want to do it at the first available opportunity. That would be in the first two years of the first term of a new Dem president.

As I have said before, I think both Stevens and Souter have no allegiance to the Republican Party that put them into to power. Rather, their allegiance is to the liberal precedents of the Warren Court. If a Republican is elected in 2008, I think he only gets to replace Stevens. Souter and Ginsburg will hold out for 2012 in the hope of a Dem replacement. Ginsburg will stay on life support if necessary in order to achieve this goal.

You are wrong.

If the GOP doesnt nominate a pro-life candidate for President, the BEST choice for pro-lifers is to let them lose BIG TIME and then pick up the pieces of the shattered GOP and then return it to the conservative/pro-life position.

Again, the GOP has a year. I would rather have a Dem in the WH for 4 years, than a RINO for 8!

So...one of the leading pro-life Supreme Court advocates, Bopp, is supporting Romney whole-heartedly and you wouldn't vote for him? Wow...that's...interesting. A Pyhrric victory for the pro-life cause is what you seem to be advocating.

Meanwhile, Souter would retire for similar reasons as Ginsburg. In order to guarantee a suitably liberal replacement, there would no better time to retire than under a Dem president with a Dem-controlled Senate. If he is as desperate to get out of Washington, D.C. as some claim he would want to do it at the first available opportunity. That would be in the first two years of the first term of a new Dem president.

I am in complete agreement with this. It seems like the only logical course of action.

Another question is whether Scalia is comtemplating retirement in the next R administration.

A Dem in 08 will get to replace 2-3 aging liberals with younger liberals, so that gang of 4 will be set for many years. If God forbid age catches up to Kennedy or Scalia and either of them is replaced by a liberal as well, we'll have an untouchable liberal block of 5 justices for the next 20+ years and we'll be in worse shape than we've been in many years.

So there is A LOT at stake in the 08 election. Is it worth paying a price for a President Hillary from 2008 until 2025 or beyond?

You assume that Bopp and any other NRLC person speaks for the pro-life movement...he doesnt and the NRLC doesnt.

The NRLC and all folks are more interested in gaining/keeping access and influence rather than stopping abortion.

I am not being critical of you but obviously you arent a pro-life activist...as I have been for 22 years.

NRLC is one of the main reasons abortion is still legal...if you want pro-life leadership check out Human Life International, American Life League and Operation Rescue.

I think it's just the opposite. Souter might have be more favorable to the Bushes for putting him on the Court in the first place (and who haven't really bashed him AFAIK) and less favorable to another conservative R President.

I see no reason for Souter to harbor any specific personal ill will towards the Bushes.

As for your other question, I'm not sure whether 'last year' is 2007 or 2008, but:

Anthony Kennedy was nominated on Nov. 30, 1987 and confirmed on February 3, 1988.

Homer Thornberry was nominated on June 26, 1988, by lame duck LBJ (in similar circumstances to the current President) and no action was taken. Supposedly Earl Warren tried to quickly spite the incoming Richard Nixon, but it did not work out in his favor.

You have to go all the way back to FDR to see a successful Presidential year nomination, and all the way back to Woodrow Wilson to see a successful June onward nomination.

"Another question is whether Scalia is comtemplating retirement in the next R administration."

IMO, contrary to those who describe him as a Stevens-type who will die on the bench, I can't see him staying on past the 3rd year of a new R administration, if there should be one.

I agree with Bobo in #28, as I stated in #5 above. No conservatives on the bench, just liberals is what we will get. Vote R and do not stay home. Even if you view it as the lesser of two evils.

That depends. We have no way of knowing whether Stevens really wants to stay on the job or if he is thinking politics of retirement.

If he immediately bolts in 2009 after a Dem gets elected, we'll have our answer.

That depends. We have no way of knowing whether Stevens really wants to stay on the job or if he is thinking politics of retirement.

If he immediately bolts in 2009 after a Dem gets elected, we'll have our answer.

In 2008, you will have a choice between a Republican, who is more likely to put pro-life judges on the court, and a Democrat who will ask nominees point blank to uphold Roe and judicially-constructed abortion on demand. If you withhold your support for the Republican, you will be giving advantage to the Democrat. I don't see how a "pro-life activist" could live with giving such aid to the pro-choice cause.

Are you willing to sacrifice progress for the next 20-30 years because you weren't willing to vote for the Republican?

The enemy of good is perfect, Albert. I understand your sentiment, but you have got to wake up, man.

There is no real reason to believe that Thompson, or Guilliani will appoint anti-Roe judges inasmuch as they are both proponents of abortion-on-demand [at least for their home states.] McCain is the primary reason it now takes sixty votes to confirm an avowed anti-Roe nominee, while it only takes fifty votes to pass a Ginsburg. Romney was for abortion before being against it, like GHWB. On the issue of abortion, choosing between Hillary and any one of these gentlemen is the choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle-are.

The better pro-life position is not to hold the nose and vote for the "pro-choice" moderate who *might* appoint judges that would keep our sandbox of 24-hr waiting periods, etc., but, rather, vote for a pro-life third party candidate under the assumption that a pro-life nominee is more likely to win in 2012 if the Democrat wins.

Albert's analysis of the NRTL committee is, unfortunately, dead on the money. The pro-life movement is yet another movement in which the leadership is decidely to the left of its rank-and-file.

Banana Republican,

Your analysis fails when you ask, "What is the probablity that a Guilliani appoints an anti-Roe judge?" I would place that probablity at less that one-tenth of one percent. Clinging to that miniscule chance is pointless and counterproductive: no anti-Roe judges will be appointed, but you have conceded the principle that pro-lifers will allow themselves to be "lead on." You might be satisfied with lying to pro-lifers in perpetuity, be they shouldn't be.

Bobo,

Your analysis fails when you realize the choice you are presenting Albert is the choice between emasculating the pro-life movement, or ending it.

Maintaining an emasculated pro-life movement might serve the interests of abortion-on-demand moderate Republican who wish to exploit pro-lifers as shock troops on election day, but it won't save any babies for being killed before birth.

The country 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 pro-life leaders who are actually pro-life.

Bigskybob:

I am glad someone here agrees with me!

For all the others, no the choice isnt whether or not pro-lifers should suck hind-tit and vote for the GOP because they allegedly will, maybe, hopefully, what-have-you...pick more pro-life justices than the Dems will.

The choice is rather is the PARTY going to take the UNBORN seriously and PUT a stop to these RINOs masquarading as pro-life to try to deceive people BEFORE it is too late to get a strong pro-lifer nominated.

Ignore this at your peril, GOP. I will happily vote for the Constitution Party and wont look back until 2012 even if it means the DEMS win control!

To the myopic among you who focus on Roe to the exclusion of anything else -- would you really rather stay home (adult voting equivalent of holding your breath until you turn blue) or vote independent if you do not get the outspoken anti-Roe candidate that you want? Even if it means that, on other things you might care deeply about, the Country, and the Court would be better off with a GOP president?

Principle is so important -- agreed. Great. But keep your eye on the prize. The prize is control of the government, not being able to point to how it is not your fault the party did not get it as right as it should have in your opinion re the candidate. Work for your preferred candidate. And then vote for whoever the GOP candidate is -- regardless. Roe is undoubtedly important. But it is one issue among many, many, many.

Some pragmatism would be nice.

Ginsburg retires in 2009 if a Dem wins. I think its very possible Souter does so if a Repub wins, and 2010, after RBG, if a Dem wins. Stevens will stay on until he dies or can't continue, which means he could leave before Bush leaves office, or he might last through the entire next presidential term on the other end.

I am a conservative, pro-life voter that votes in accord with traditional Catholic values.

I do not give a FLIP about any political party except as a means to an end.

No more lies...no more bs...no more voting against strawmen.

In my opinion, 1.4 millions abortions to surgical abortion is issue 1-99....more important than all other issues combined.

If the GOP abandons them, any attempt to demonize the Dems wont work on me this time.

The GOP has plenty of time to get it right....if they dont do so, I will assume they WANT me to vote for the Constitution party...and I will happily oblige.

Since I've said so before, I'm certainly not going to disagree with those saying Sotomayor and Kagan would be Hillary's first 2 picks. :)

I do think Wardlaw is also a strong possibility, as might be Diane Wood, but probably only for a 2009 vacancy. in the latter's case.

Some of the names Goldstein apparently doesn't think are extreme are pretty laughable. Harold Koh? Kathleen Sullivan? Barack Obama? Not to mention the failed governors Deval Patrick and Jennifer Granholm (though she'd provide for some interesting trivia, in that she would be the first foreign-born Justice since Frankfurter - though I doubt there's any chance she turns out anything like he did)

No, you are pro-life. That is neither a political party nor a political agenda. Respect your view, but the perception that a view on abortion alone is either does nothing good for the political debate, no matter which way you come out on the issue.

My perception on the pro-life issue is the ONLY way we can ever provide legal protection for the unborn...it is YOUR approach that keeps abortion legal in this country....we have come to expect that from the Dems but it is ever worse when the GOP turns its back on the unborn...those of us that want to save those children have to keep the GOP pro-life and not let ANYONE divert us from that prospect!

Advocating that judges be appointed that overturn Roe, and then proceeding to outlaw abortion-on-demand certainly reads like a "political agenda" to me!

The country 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

No more lies...no more bs...no more voting against strawmen.

The Dem candidates and how they will handle SC appointments is certainly not a strawman (or strawwoman) situation in my opinion. It's guaranteed they will nominate - and get confirmed - the most liberal justices possible. Is there any doubt about that whatsoever in your mind?

Given the current crop of GOP candidates and the lack of backbone of many GOP Senators, you could argue that a GOP president may not nominate the justices you or I would prefer, but sheesh having another O'Connor or Kennedy would be 100x preferable to having another Ginsberg or Breyer even if it's not as good as having another Scalia or Thomas. Replacing any of the libs with 20-30 year younger clones would be a long-term disaster.

Did you maybe mean to say you'll sit this one out rather than vote for a strawman?

Albert and Bigsky are obvious Trolls can't we do something. Their drivle has diminshed the enjoyment of this page since they appeared. Comments
Let me gues we will here some speech about how true they are to the beliefs we have at this page.

Steelerfan:

I was posting here before you even heard of this place!

And if being pro-life makes one a troll in your circles, I would venture that you are hanging around a very motley crue of liberals!

Steeler fan,

Speaking in such a condescending fashion about my posts is clearly designed on your part to "diminsh[] [my] enjoyment of this page." As such, can you begin to see why I don't care one iota whether you approve or disapprove, or enjoy, or dislike, my participation here.

Calling me a "Troll" is a mendacity. Whether, or not, you agree with my position is one thing. Whether, or not, I am sincere in my beliefs is another.

What has clearly reduced the quality of the postings here is your attempts to resort to the ad hominem fallacy by questioning the sincerity of my beliefs. Logically, the merits, or demerits, or an argument are orthaganol to the sincerity of the arguer. Practically, advocating censorship is an admission of intellectual bankruptcy: the admission the only way you can win is by rigging the debate.

The country 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 intent on speaking on their behalf, rather than censoring them.

storm back in 2012 for at least 2 reasons: gross mismanagement and abuse of power by Dems; and increased favorability of electoral college after 2010 census.