Next Nomination Cheat Sheet and VOTE
October 27, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest
NOTE: Updates added, please scroll.
Who's next? Take a minute and VOTE! Look left (on the sidebar); Vote right.
Ironically, the President this next time needs to nominate a divisive figure: someone, that is, who is drawing fire from the right quarters.
Or actually the Left quarters.
Someone whose name is not anywhere near Harry Reid's short list.
Janice Rogers Brown
Someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. People for the American Way hate her. Need I say more? This would be what someone referred to as a "bench-clearing fight." Bring it on.
Ted Olson
Or, someone like Ted Olson. I sat next to Ted at a luncheon honoring his wife, Barbara, shortly after she died on 9/11. He is such a gracious gentleman. I realize that has little to do with qualifications for the Supreme Court. (Or does it?) But there's plenty more that does. The Left hates him too.
Edith Jones
Or, someone like Edith Jones. "I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century ... we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution," Jones said in a speech at the University of Texas. She thinks Roe v. Wade was an exercise in "raw judicial power."
More coming. . .
Or someone like Alice Batchelder.
Alice Batchelder
Not sure who she is? Christopher Flannery, from Claremont, makes the case for her.
Michael Luttig
Or, Michael Luttig. Graduated from UVA, worked for Reagan and clerked for Scalia. A triple-threat. And upheld the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. [corrected] That should be a no-brainer, but in these judicial times, that makes you pretty gutsy.
Michael McConnell
And Michael McConnell. Talk about guts -- and intellectual honesty: he's on the record calling Roe "an embarrassment to those who take consitutional law seriously." PFAW hates "strongly opposes" him too. Still, like John Roberts, even many on the Left concede that he is "one of America's most distinguished constitutional scholars."
Samuel Alito
And finally, Samuel Alito. Another Reaganite who is on the Left's hit list for a ruling in an abortion case. Alito was the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in the Third Circuit, arguing in favor of a Pennsylvania law that required wives to notify their husband's prior to an abortion. Again, not exactly, a wild-eyed idea, but enough to get him in trouble.
* * *
UPDATE: For the POLL, use the comments, or email me, with your write-in candidates. . . I will tally and add these in with a final report.
FRIDAY UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers (Thanks John!) And welcome Captain's Quarters readers; thanks Ed.
Chris Cox
Lowell Brown wrote and reminded me of Chris Cox. At the Hedgehog Blog Lowell makes the case for Chris. As does Quin Hilyer at NRO.
Lee Jenkins writes in with Karen Williams.
MORE WRITE-INS: (The complete list -- links to follow)
Chris Cox
Maureen Mahoney (Background post from law-blogger, A3G)
Karen Williams
Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit (1995 George magazine profile, via A3G)
Judge Roy Moore
Miguel Estrada
Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit
Richard Posner (A blogger on the Supreme Court!)
Emilio Garza, 5th Circuit
. . . and John Cornyn
And note to the White House: the ultimate stealth strategy is floated in the comments -- both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are attorneys. Turn one of them loose on the Judiciary Committee.
* * *
Here are profiles of Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown and others from WaPo.
Confirm Them has profile links down the right sidebar.
Thanks to Mudville's Open Post. Hey, milbloggers: take a minute and VOTE!
Captain Ed says this is "No Time to Celebrate." He also has a whole post on Maureen Mahoney -- the Drill Sergeant brings up her name in the comments below as well.
GOPUSA did an overnight poll, Bobby Eberle at the Loft reports, of 1,000 conservative Republicans and found the majority felt the Miers withdrawal was the right thing. Who did they want as the next nominee? Janice Rogers Brown.
The Washington Post has an overview of possible candidates this morning.
Comments
Okay, since I was absolutely wrong about Miers, this time I'll go with a nominee that wears glasses. Good as reason as any.
Posted by: Pat Patterson | October 27, 2005 3:09 PM
I like Maureen Mahoney
Posted by: The Drill SGT | October 27, 2005 7:53 PM
WHOEVER the next nominee is, you can expect them to get smacked with the same playbook the Dems have used since Bork. We had some fun with it and made a flowchart here. The word "extreme," which we heard so much today, figures prominently.
Posted by: A Senior Administration Official | October 28, 2005 12:20 AM
All those people look gay.
Posted by: Jim Jones | October 28, 2005 6:09 AM
Luttig, Luttig, Luttig
Posted by: romm1313 | October 28, 2005 8:53 AM
Almost any of them would be fine. My top three preferences, in order:
McConnell
Brown
Luttig
Posted by: CatoRenasci | October 28, 2005 9:28 AM
Why not put Hitler there, oh he's dead. How about Saddam! I hear he is available. The list above are about as a radical as those two.
Posted by: Jane | October 28, 2005 9:28 AM
I still like Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit. A libertarian of sorts, a fine writer, hard to pigeonhole. Would give the Democrats fits.
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man | October 28, 2005 9:58 AM
I would nominate the following:
- Ann Coulter
- Michelle Malkin
- Robert Bork
Give them free reign to say whatever they think, then stand back.
Afterwards, the Senate should be much more reasonable.
Posted by: olddawg | October 28, 2005 10:02 AM
Michael McConnel or Janice Rodgers Brown
Posted by: DD | October 28, 2005 10:16 AM
Edith Brown Clement... She was confirmed 99-0 four
years ago.
Posted by: shaft | October 28, 2005 10:25 AM
I vote for: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Posted by: LuckyBogey | October 28, 2005 10:40 AM
In order to cause more confusion and dismay in the democrats' ranks, as well as solving some other niggling problems, look for President Bush to nominate Ronnie Earle.
Posted by: Peyton | October 28, 2005 10:51 AM
The Miers thing has wet my appetite for a non-judge, and non-constitutional scholar. If the Supreme Court is going to wield such power in the US, I think it should have someone who hasn't worn a black robe or pored over lawyer-speak for the past 30 years. Someone who could say "Maybe I'm missing some pages, but I don't see the word privacy or abortion in my copy of the Constitution. But I did find arms (i.e. guns)."
I like the idea of Ann Coulter, because she would make the confirmation process more fun to watch. (Tho I'm a little put off by her anti-Miers vitriol of late.)
Phyllis Schlafly would be good, tho she might be a bit older than I'd like. Laura Ingaham would be interesting. Or what about Newt Gingrich who would bring a historian/teacher outlook.
In any event, I'm still kind of drawn toward a someone who doesn't think it takes intensive law schooling and archane scholarship to understand our constitution.
Posted by: Tom | October 28, 2005 10:52 AM
Luttig or Mcconnell
Posted by: marion wormer | October 28, 2005 11:13 AM
Something goofy in the program. Grumpy Old Man was for Kozinski, not Ann Coulter. Seems the comments slipped a bit.
Although Ann would make the hearings a lot of fun.
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man | October 28, 2005 11:17 AM
McConnell. The youngest and maybe the brightest of the bunch. And a Spartan!
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | October 28, 2005 11:34 AM
Tom,
I think that would be an excellent approach...for the next nominee, not this one.
John Paul Stevens is 85 now. We'll see how much longer he's around. I would be more than happy to replace a liberal on the court with any of your suggestions.
Posted by: Sheik Yur Bouty | October 28, 2005 11:34 AM
Take the "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach and throw Janice Rogers Brown in there. I'm tired of waffling on those the Left will "accept". They'll "accept" whoever gets confirmed, and all she has to do is make it out of Committee to get confirmed.
Besides, it'd be hilarious to watch the Libs' antics as they tried to disprove her qualifications without alienating both blacks AND women!
Posted by: Terry Dillard | October 28, 2005 12:26 PM
Brown is my dream pick, but Senator Hatch would be an excellent strategic manuever. He's a devout Mormon and it doesn't get much more conservative and prolife then that. Plus, the chummy senators would not attack one of their own the way they would a judge.
Posted by: Curt LaRose | October 28, 2005 12:48 PM
Brown
Luttig
Alito
Maybe Jones
Posted by: anon | October 28, 2005 1:25 PM
Why isn't Diane Sykes ( http://mcbridemediamatters.blogspot.com/ ) listed?
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic | October 28, 2005 1:54 PM
Nine words:
Janice Rogers Brown
Janice Rogers Brown
Janice Rogers Brown
Posted by: Lugnut | October 28, 2005 2:04 PM
ALEX KOZINSKI is far-and-away the best choice. Unfortunately he's a longshot at best. At least I and the rest of his fans can take comfort in the fact that he will remain a sane voice on the Ninth Circuit.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | October 28, 2005 2:11 PM
Hasn't anyone asked James Dobson who he wants?
"It is with great excitement and enthusiasm that we announce today the results of some informal polling done at Focus on the Family headquarters, regarding the next Supreme Court nominee," said Dobson. "Our consensus is that one potential candidate stands above all the others for his ability to be confirmed, and to stick to an American 'pro-family' view of the court. That man is Jerry, back in our information technology department.
Posted by: David B. | October 28, 2005 3:11 PM
I'm surprised that Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit is absent from most lists. He certainly seems to be of a conservative, originalist persuasion, and is an experienced appellate judge, a former Marine officer (not irrelevant in light of national security issues likely to reach the Court), by all accounts hardworking and clean as a whistle, and relatively young (57,I think). Given that, the fact that he would be the first Hispanic Justice doesn't hurt. And besides, Bush Likes Texans!
Posted by: Courtwatcher | October 28, 2005 3:53 PM
John Cornyn???????
Posted by: jfk_1 | October 28, 2005 5:16 PM
Brown
Luttig
McConnell
Posted by: Harley | October 28, 2005 6:47 PM
1. Garza
2. Jones
3. Chris Cox
Posted by: GrenfellHunt | October 28, 2005 9:53 PM
Bork doesn't like the IXth Amendment. Calls it an ink blot.
Talk about legislating from the bench.
Posted by: M. Simon | October 28, 2005 10:38 PM
There is nothing about sex in the Constitution either. Do you think it is legal?
Doesn't any one know how to read the IXth Amendment?
BTW privacy is mentioned. Do you know what "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," means?
It turns out citizens are no better at reading the Constitution than a lot of judges.
For good or ill the Constitution is in the main designed to limit government not the people. I always thought that was a conservative bedrock. Evidently when it conflicts with some conservative desires for regulation we just ignore the document.
How liberal.
I like Brown. She conforms most closely to what I'd like to see from the court. More Thomas, less Scalia.
Posted by: M. Simon | October 28, 2005 10:54 PM
M. Simon:
There is nothing about sex in the Constitution either. Do you think it is legal?
Did you see the picture of my five kids?
Do you know what "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," means?
Yes, but I think "persons" includes the unborn. I interpret "secure" to mean the government has the responsibility to limit other "people" from killing you while you are in the process of being born.
Thanks for the comment.
Posted by: charmaine | October 29, 2005 8:49 AM
JR Brown
Alex Kozinski
Posted by: TriggerFinger | October 29, 2005 12:26 PM