| 0 |
Subject: SCOTUS Nominees 2005-2008
Posted by: Toral
- [22731114] Tue, Sep 28, 2004, 15:24
Thread for media speculation on likely SCOTUS nominees in the next 4 years like this short article in Newsweek and discussion. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 651 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:24
|
now that Bush knows that he has his party's full support to nominate someone much more conservative. No Luttig please.
Razor I fail to see why he wouldn't have had that support before. I think that someone "much more conservative" was exactly what the party was expecting following the Roberts confirmation. I imagine Madman disagrees but I believe a primary motivating factor for congressional Republicans who opposed her was that she lacked a comprehensive history of evidence of strong legal conservative convictions. I believe they saw another Kennedy. A staunch conservative in the Scalia mold is what they've wanted all along.
|
| 652 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:24
|
just dont let this happen;
Before Bush chose Miers, speculation focused on Miers and two other Bush loyalists: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s longtime friend who would be the first Hispanic on the court...
|
| 653 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:37
|
I find the timing of this withdrwal rather curious, given that there is a very good possibility that Libby and Rove will be indicted today or tomorrow.
The impact of a Supreme Court nomination being withdrawn might well relegate these indictments to below the fold status.
|
| 654 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:38
|
Razor I fail to see why he wouldn't have had that support before
I didn't say that, MITH. I said that he knows, after the outcry over the Miers nomination, that he has his party's full support to nominate a strong conservative rather than just speculating. Bush underestimated how much support he has and how important it is to his base. I doubt he makes the same mistake twice.
|
| 655 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:41
|
I find the timing of this withdrwal rather curious, given that there is a very good possibility that Libby and Rove will be indicted today or tomorrow. Yhe impact of a Supreme Court nomination being withdrawn might well relegate these indictments to below the fold status.
The timing of these events were bound to coincide, more or less. Miers was set to go before Congress by November 7, so she had to be withdrawn soon or not at all. The indictments, if any, will have to come today or tomorrow. I think you are reading too much into it. When the administration has f'ed up so many things, there are bound to be days where the bungles overlap with the scandals.
|
| 656 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:44
|
I agree with Razor re the timing coincidence. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the grand jury in the CIA leak case extended.
|
| 657 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 10:53
|
If you'd like to see 500 words of pure BS, click here.
Thank you for withdrawing your nomination in order to protect "confidential" White House documents. Harriet Miers, you are a true American hero.
|
| 658 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:06
|
Where in the constitution are there provisions for executive privilege?
Is there such a thing as judicial privilege? Congressional privilege? Why is it that only the White House seems to have this privilege that allows it to have secret workings that deny our citizens their constitutional right to know how our government officials arrive at their decisions?
|
| 659 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:13
|
Razor 646 -- many, many, many pundits on both sides speaks to you having either a high level mistrust of everyone else's reasoning skills or an extreme overconfidence in your own ability
"I'd bet a fair amount of money that Bush got word from Capitol Hill that his own party's senators were prepared to defeat this nomination if it came down to it."
"I doubt enough GOP Senators have the guts to go against the President"
Hmmm. Why would I not blindly accept your *unsupported* opinions. Perhaps you have an extreme overconfidence in your reasoning skill.
[and, for whatever it is worth, the best evidence still suggests that she'd be an "ultra-conservative" on some issues, specifically with respect to being deferential to the executive branch, with respect to executive power. Her 1993 speech can be interpreted as being a judicial activist in favor of "solutions" in the face of problems. In terms of consequences, that's perhaps in the mold of Thomas but not of Scalia, but it's not in the mold of either in terms of process, something that your "well-reasoned" simplistic "there's an ultraconservative Scalia/Thomas mold" might have difficulty with.]
.............
Bush underestimated how much support he has and how important it is to his base. So you are saying that Bush nominated an "evangelical crony who has stated unequivocally that she would work for a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all abortion" in order to win Democratic support because he only *speculated* that his base might support a conservative candidate and he couldn't take that chance. Oy.
Contrast that well-reasoned position to the most obvious alternative ... that Bush wanted to nominate a woman, and the entire Bush family is loyal and tends to support and encourage cronyism; Miers is vehemently pro-life in her personal life and mouths a bunch of mish-mash platitudes that ring true to a relatively ignorant President.
Nah, that can't be it.
|
| 660 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:16
|
Regarding the timing, she had to submit a questionnaire by midnight last night. That questionnaire specifically asked for those documents.
If the "we can't release private documents" trick proposed by Krauthammer was going to hold any weight and win the newscycle, she had to withdraw at a time when she could plausibly claim that this made her change her mind. Fill out the questionnaire and claim that the documents aren't relevant, and that 'out' is weakened.
If they wanted it to coincide to "hide" indictments, they should have waited util the timing of after Fitzgerald's press conference was announced.
|
| 661 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:25
|
BTW, I will also point out that we are only assuming that she withdrew because of political pressure.
She also was asked for specifics about her two bar suspensions, lawsuits that her firm had been involved with that she had not reported, and there were significant warning signs about her time at the Texas Lottery Commission and a host of other ugliness.
It is also plausible that the WH realized that she wasn't going to be able to fill out the questionnaire in such a way as to protect both her and Bush. Rather than going through another round of non-answering, they had to pull the plug.
I'd like to think that blogosphere pressure had something to do with this, but maybe not. In other words, there could be more than just the appearance of corruption. Not saying it's likely, but it is possible and I'm surprised Democrats aren't pointing that out.
I suppose the more effective storyline is that the ultraconservatives in the Republican party made the moderate and sensitive Bush withdraw a moderate and sensitive nominee.
|
| 662 | Tree
Sustainer
ID: 599393013
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:29
|
It's high time he draw the line in the sand and nominate a real conservative someone who will erode women's rights, ignore the beliefs of non-Christians, and prevent further strides in equality from homosexuals. I don't expect it but if he has any conservative leanings at all...
|
| 663 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:31
|
Andrew Sullivan this morning:THE KRAUTHAMMER SOLUTION: In the end, the Bush team decided to deploy what seems to me a transparently phony argument that executive privilege over confidential papers forced them to withdraw Miers. The Bush statement is particularly lame: "It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her." All of this was scripted in advance in Charles Krauthammer's latest column. Either he's brilliant and clairvoyant - and he is, of course - or he was nudged to air the strategy in advance. Or both.
|
| 664 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 11:50
|
disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers
If the Seante were seeking candid counsel that occured when Miers was Bush's personal attorney, then I would agree that it would violate lawyer/client confidentiality.
However, as White House counsel, she is a public employee, paid by taxpayers, and therefore all advice should be public record.
Again, where in the constitution is a provision for the executive branch to operate under a cloak of secrecy whenever it sees fit not to release what is the publics' business?
Scalia skirted this issue with Cheney's back-room energy shenanigans because the participants were private citizens, not public employees. It could then be validated that these private citizens were immune from having their meetings publicized for confidentiality purposes - even though, in reality, they were in the process of molding public energy policy. Still, this advice came from the private sector and still had to be ratified by congress before becoming law.
|
| 665 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:18
|
Praise the Lord.
|
| 666 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:21
|
technically, wouldnt client-attorney privalege be limited to an attorney and their client? Since as White House Counsel, the attorney in question is serving the US Government, and the Legislature is clearly a part of that, then the Legislature would also be party as a client. Only if the attorney were representing strictly the President (as in a civil matter for ex) would atty-client rights be applicable. Right, wrong??????
|
| 667 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:53
|
Tom Bevan @ Real Clear Politics A more speculative interpretation of the timing of the withdrawal is that the President knows there are indictments coming down tomorrow and needs to have his base support consolidated. He can use news of a new appointment to deflect attention from any possible bad news from the Fitzgerald investigation.
Indictments or not, expect Bush to nominate someone who will immediately set off a firestorm from liberal special interest groups and provoke a major battle on the hill that will get his administration off the defensive.
|
| 668 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 13:13
|
The President's ideal goal is a nominee for whom sufficient GOP members of the Gang of 14 would vote to break a filibuster should one occur.
Lots of reasonable choices. Luttig, McConnell, Alito, Williams, Batchelder, Sykes, Corrigan, Olson, Garza, Wilkinson, Owen, 2 different people named Clement.
The other option is to go for 1 of the 2 unconfirmable people who would REALLY unite the base: Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown.
Toral
|
| 669 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 13:54
|
McConnell would be a solid choice in the mold of Roberts. He would sail through the nomination process because he's extremely qualified, extremely brilliant, and has the same stoic demeanor Roberts displayed when grilled by the Senate.
His conservative credentials are solid, yet not too far right(Luttig, Alito, Brown) as to allow for a united Democratic opposition.
Why Bush won't nominate him, though he's the most qualified on the list - male and white. That slot went to Roberts.
|
| 670 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 14:07
|
I agree that McConnell is the most qualified choice. He is an originalist however, and Specter hates originalists. He's not in personality "Bush's type of guy".
The hope, my hope, is that Bush has learned something -- that the above things aren't important. Pick the most qualified person. In particular, Bush needs to forget looking for someone he's 'personally comfortable with'. Bush's not going to have to work with the person. Just look at qualifications.
I believe that such a nomination makes sense from Bush's own political perspective. He lost a lot of trust, 100% of it in some cases, picking Miers, and took personal heat. If he nominates McConnell he gets that trust goes back. If McConnell loses -- so what? (from Bush's point of view). Conservative anger will be focussed at the RINOs who won't break the filibuster. I don't buy that such a loss somehow saps Bush's political strength. If Miers' loss hurts Bush it's only because Bush 's personal knowledge and trust of her was the only selling point for the nomination. Bork's loss hurt Reagan not a whit.
I really don't think Bush should even be interviewing the nominees. Reagan's total personal contact with O'Connor before the nomination: a 15 minute talk.
Toral
|
| 671 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 14:16
|
He is an originalist however, and Specter hates originalists.
What's the difference between originalist and constructionist?
|
| 672 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 14:27
|
"Originalist" is a fairly precise term indicating belief that the constitution's provisions should be interpreted according to its original meaning or original intent.
"Strict constructionist" is a vague term with no agreed meaning. Scalia for example says that he is not a strict constructionist. The term I believe was popularized by Richard Nixon in 1968 and has been a mantra of every GOP president since. Insofar as it has any meaning, it suggests "someone who doesn't agree with expansive liberal opinions".
Toral
|
| 673 | Mark L
ID: 23914710
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 14:44
|
McConnell has written an originalist defense of Brown v. Board of Education. If that article is persuasive, then he is unquestionably brilliant.
|
| 674 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 14:47
|
Mark L -- do you know anything about Sykes?
|
| 676 | Mark L
ID: 23914710
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:10
|
You probably have to discount this because I have a pretty high opinion of Diane Sykes, but here goes.
She started her career as a law clerk for [then] federal district judge Terry Evans, who is now her colleague on the Seventh Circuit. She then worked for the law firm where Gumby [of the basketball boards] and I are now colleagues. At the time she was married to the very conservative radio talk show host Charlie Sykes. From what I remember (I have only talked with her a few times and the last was quite a while ago) she was conservative well before she married Charlie, though. She was active in the Federalist Society, again to the best of my recollection while she was still in private practice.
Fairly early on (about 8-10 years out of law school) she was appointed to the state trial-level court here in Milwaukee. She was inexperienced but acknowledged that, and it did not take her long to become one of the better trial judges in Milwaukee County. Hard worker and always prepared; not only read the briefs but would do research on her own and have questions for counsel if the briefs didn't answer her questions. I never tried a case before her, though.
She was a trial judge for six or seven years, then was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1999. She is unequestionably conservative; her opinions are well-reasoned and well-written. She was a match or more for the Court's leading liberal light, Justice Shirley Abrahamson. She has been on the Seventh Circuit for about a year. She was strongly supported by both senators - Feingold and Kohl. Some believe that their support was a political play because her departure from the state Supreme Court allowed the governor, a fairly liberal Democrat, to appoint a replacement, but it was clear to me that although there was a political angle, there was more to their support than just that.
She hasn't been a federal judge for long, true, but she's been a judge for almost 20 years and an appellate judge for 6 years. She's definitely qualified.
|
| 677 | Mark L
ID: 23914710
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:12
|
OK, I miscounted. Thirteen is not "almost twenty." Flame away.
|
| 678 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:22
|
[flame on}stoopit lawyers. only time they can add, is when they're working on your bill. [flame off]
:)
|
| 679 | Mark L
ID: 23914710
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:29
|
Not add, multiply.
|
| 680 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:35
|
Compare the statements of Kennedy and Reid to Schumer's.
Kennedy managed to call me an extremist 5 times; I wonder how he feels about Schumer, who argued that this was clearly not the position for her. If I'm an extremist, then I can only imagine how radical he thinks Schumer is.
|
| 681 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 16:18
|
"Strict constructionist" is a vague term with no agreed meaning.
Whatever it means,
Pat Robertson is praying that the next Supreme Court justice is one.
* Pray that the person God desires would be appointed to the Supreme Court.
* Pray that the President would have courage and rely on God's wisdom in nominating new Supreme Court justices.
* Pray that the justices of the Supreme Court would rule according to the Constitution as written and not man's opinions.
* Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
* Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.
* Pray that truth would reign supreme during the Senate confirmation hearings.
* Pray that any plan of the enemy for the Senate confirmation hearing would be thwarted. Take authority over the schemes of Satan concerning the Supreme Court.
* Pray for the physical protection of Supreme Court justices, the current nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee members, and all those involved in the confirmation hearings.
* Pray the biblical prayer, "But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (Amos 5:24) in the United States of America.
* Pray that the Ten Commandments would be more than just an historical memorial for the justices of the Supreme Court, but that their truth would reign in their hearts.
* Pray that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
* Pray that justices who believe in a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution be replaced by those who are strict constructionists.
So, according to Robertson, a strict constructionist would believe that the 10 Commandments are more than just a historical memorial, but that they are truth.
I take that to mean that strict constructionists do not believe in the part of the constitution that states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In other words, the 1st amendment, or the most important amendment. Any promotion of the 10 commandments is an establishment of religion.
One can only conclude that a "strict constructionist," at least as defined by Robertson(and probably Dobson) will put their religious beliefs ahead of any constitutional considerations. That would seem to make them unsuitable for a Supreme Court tasked to uphold the constitution.
|
| 682 | Toral
ID: 10858715
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 16:31
|
Pat did not actually say that strict constructionists believe in all the things above the bolded quote. He might beieve that. I doubt it, since Pat has supported every GOP SCOTUS nominee including people like Souter and O'Connor, not to mention Bork, who was not a religious believer of any kind.
But anyway, ask 50 conservatives to define "strict constructionist" and you'll get 50 different answers, or more likely 10 answers and a lot of hemming and hawing from 40. There is no agreed meaning, which is why it so easy for GOP candidates to promise to nominate strict constructionists.
Toral
|
| 683 | Madman
ID: 114321413
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 17:30
|
PV -- We can't be certain if Pat is actually making any sense here. However, he could be referring to the recent move to approve of the 10 commandments only in cases where they are largely interpreted to be historical. This refuses to acknowledge their religious character, and he could be against this denial. (IIRC, see specifically Breyer's rationalization for keeping the stone monument donated in 1961).
I presume that he does not believe that the 14th amendment fully incorporates the first. And/or the 10 Commandments is not an establishment of religion so much as it is a set of rules referenced either now or at a point in history a set of religions and therefore conveys with it as much if not more significance to society than it does to any singular religion.
It is not clear to me why the first amendment on its own merits automatically incorporates an individual right to freedom from symbols used in religion, nor do I see a clear and convincing case that the 14th amendment should incorporate the first to bind it to make it so.
I won't defend all of Robertson's statements, but your criticism here, specifically, doesn't strike much resonance with me.
|
| 684 | Pancho Villa
ID: 57582616
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 18:23
|
I won't defend all of Robertson's statements, but your criticism here, specifically, doesn't strike much resonance with me.
What criticism?
How can one not conclude that Robertson's definition of a strict constructionist in conjunction with the other qualifications he seeks isn't based on an established religious criteria?
Specifically, the framers of the Constitution went out of their way to prohibit the establishment of religion as part of our governmental structure. They didn't avoid or ignore the subject so that it could be addressed at a later date, like slavery.
As Toral pointed out, there's no consensus definition of strict constructionist. Is it someone who:
would rule according to the Constitution as written and not man's opinions.
Pretty clear to me that you and Pat are actually not in favor of the Constitution as written, but in your opinion of it, especially when you state:
It is not clear to me why the first amendment on its own merits automatically incorporates an individual right to freedom from symbols used in religion
We're not talking symbols. The 10 Commandments is a set of laws from the Bible, a religious text. When Robertson encourages people to
Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law
isn't he endorsing the establishment of religion in SCOTUS? Isn't he endorsing
that the Ten Commandments would be more than just an historical memorial for the justices of the Supreme Court, but that their truth would reign in their hearts.
Does this mean that we can expect his strict constructionists to rule that adultery, cherishing, working on Sunday and having no God before me can one day be the law of the land, since he evidently believes these to be truths?
|
| 685 | Seattle Zen
ID: 179472013
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 20:02
|
Here in Seattle, we don't like any of the supposed top nine candidates Bush is contemplating.
Vote on who you think should be nominated.
|
| 686 | Madman
ID: 114321413
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 20:18
|
PV -- you are totally missing my point, hopefully not on purpose.
Read McCreary and Van Orden.
I think that Pat's comments are directed entirely at Breyer's opinion -- a liberal who voted in FAVOR of displaying the ten commandments -- in Van Orden. Breyer's rationalization was that the 10 Commandments in that context were predominantly secular in nature.
When Robertson says that the 10 commandments should be "more than just an historical memorial", he is taking a hyperbolic swipe at Breyer's flip-flopping opinion. Amazingly, you trash Robertson as some religious nutcase for saying something that you and I both agree is true (that the 10 Commandments are predominantly religious symbols).
Interestingly, in the particular instance and on that particular issue, he is very much in-line with Ginsburg and virtually the entire court ... except Breyer whose vote held sway in that single instance.
isn't he endorsing the establishment of religion in SCOTUS? I have no idea what this particular statement means. The SCOTUS is governed, as best I know, on a principle of respect for a benign deity, loosely speaking. There are Judeo-Christian phrases throughout the building, they open with a prayer, etc. I don't know that Robertson has asked for that to change, if this is what you are getting at.
|
| 687 | Madman
ID: 114321413
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 20:42
|
Another perspective on Sykes ... seems to mirror yours, Mark L.
|
| 688 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 25337239
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 21:03
|
I bet RvW is too much of a priority for Bush to nominate her unless he can get near confirmation that she disagrees.
|
| 689 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 3601149
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 00:27
|
MM 687 - interesting. McBride is a former reporter for
the Milwaukee paper (and a good one - she covered
the courts for a while and interviewed me with what I
thought was better background knowledge than some
others that I've talked to). She is conservative and was
then, but AFAICT did not have a bias in her reporting.
From her days as a reporter she has good connections
(and she is married to the district attorney for the fast-
growing county immediately west of Milwaukee) and
she worked sources well - sometimes I could tell she
had called some knowledgeable people for
background on the subjects she was discussing with
me. So I give her Sykes tip some weight.
Left the paper a few years ago during one of their many
reorganizations - her blog, interestingly enough, is
often cited by Sykes's ex-husband Charlie on his talk
radio program and in his blog.
|
| 690 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 3601149
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 00:37
|
Here's Senator Feingold's introduction of [then-]Justice
Sykes to the Senate Judiciary Committee early last year
(cut and pasted from the Senate website):
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to welcome Justice
Diane Sykes to this hearing and to introduce her to the
Committee. Justice Sykes is a true product of
Wisconsin. She was born in Milwaukee and attended
Brown Deer High School. She left our state to go to
college at Northwestern University, but she returned to
work as a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal and then
to attend Marquette University Law School, where she
was a member of the law review. After law school, she
clerked for Judge Terry Evans, then a U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. If Justice
Sykes is confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, Judge Evans
will be her colleague on that court.
After clerking, Justice Sykes practiced law for seven
years with the Milwaukee firm of Whyte & Hirschboeck.
In 1992, she was elected to a circuit court judgeship in
Milwaukee County. In September 1999, then Governor
Tommy Thompson named her to a vacancy on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. She was reelected in the
year 2000, and she continues to serve on the highest
court in our state.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that Justice
Sykes' nomination is the result of a collaborative
bipartisan process of judicial selection in our state. The
Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission was first
formed nearly a quarter-century ago by former Senators
William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson. It has been used
continuously since then by Democratic and Republican
Senators under both Democratic and Republican
Presidents.
The Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission is an
independent panel selected by Wisconsin elected
officials and the State Bar of Wisconsin. The
Commission charter provides that it will review
applications for federal District Court and Court of
Appeals vacancies in Wisconsin, as well as United
States Attorney vacancies. Senator Kohl and I have
worked very hard to maintain and strengthen the
Commission throughout our time in the Senate. The
composition of the Commission assures that selections
for these important positions will be made based on
merit, not politics. Over the past 25 years, the
Commission process has yielded very high-quality
nominees and has served to de-politicize the
nomination process in our state.
Despite some initial resistance, the Bush Administration
ultimately agreed to have candidates for this Seventh
Circuit vacancy go through the Commission process.
Under the joint leadership of Dean Joseph Kearny of
the Marquette University Law School and Professor
Frank Turkheimer of the University of Wisconsin Law
School, the Commission worked extremely hard under
a very tight deadline. It recommended four highly
qualified candidates, including Justice Sykes. Senator
Kohl and I, working with Rep. Sensenbrenner, the
senior Republican officeholder in the state, decided to
forward all four names to the White House, and the
President selected Justice Sykes from the four.
I have always maintained that with cooperation and
consultation between the President and home state
Senators, the judicial nomination process can be far
less contentious and, frankly, far less frustrating, than it
has been over the past several years. Recognizing that
ideological differences are inevitable in this process as
control in the Senate and in the White House change
hands, it would serve those who choose and confirm
federal judicial nominees well to follow the example of
the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission.
I met with Justice Sykes last summer as part of the
Commission process. I had a chance to question her
closely about her background, her qualifications, and
her judicial philosophy. There are a number of topics
on which we do not see eye to eye, but I found Justice
Sykes to be candid and forthcoming and I believe she
is well qualified to fill this seat on the Seventh Circuit. I
have great respect for Justice Sykes' commitment to
public service. Talented young lawyers have many
more remunerative options that they can pursue. I also
have great respect for the Commission process. I fully
support Justice Sykes' nomination.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the work of the
Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission, the
nomination of Justice Sykes, and her smooth
confirmation will send a signal to the White House, to
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and to the
country, that we can, in fact, work together in a
bipartisan way to fill judicial vacancies.
I want to again welcome Justice Sykes to the
Committee, and I look forward to her taking the federal
bench. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
|
| 691 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 09:09
|
Miers' supplemental responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
59 pages. Her supplement dwarfs her initial answers in size. Some of this is a total waste of paper, I suspect (like the listing of all her votes on the Dallas City Council).
However, one is indeed struck by the appearance of detailed due diligence. It really is bizarre ... so much care and effort put into the SECOND questionnaire, and a withdrawal before questions begin to arise. My head is dizzy with all the times her firm has been sued. Most of that is probably totally unrelated to her, specifically, but the GTech case is in there, among others. I guess we'll never know if there was real dirt in all of that, or not.
For those like Tree who want Barnes' accusations and Bush's time at TANG to resurface, it's got to be perceived as a seriously missed opportunity.
|
| 692 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 11:59
|
Hmmm. Why would I not blindly accept your *unsupported* opinions. Perhaps you have an extreme overconfidence in your reasoning skill.
There is a difference between a hunch thrown out as sheer speculation and an opinion intended to be supported. Regardless, I was wrong about enough GOP Senators opposing the President on Miers. I was hoping I would be, but I had seen enough instances where the President was able to get all of his soldiers in line to be worried that it would happen again. I, however, don't see this as a contradiction worth noting.
[and, for whatever it is worth, the best evidence still suggests that she'd be an "ultra-conservative" on some issues, specifically with respect to being deferential to the executive branch, with respect to executive power. Her 1993 speech can be interpreted as being a judicial activist in favor of "solutions" in the face of problems. In terms of consequences, that's perhaps in the mold of Thomas but not of Scalia, but it's not in the mold of either in terms of process, something that your "well-reasoned" simplistic "there's an ultraconservative Scalia/Thomas mold" might have difficulty with.]
Nice one on the Scalia/Thomas jab. So you know exactly how I view them? Interesting. I also think it's interesting that you try to qualify how on top of the situation you are by taking a stab at how she might've ruled after saying just earlier that you don't really know how she'd rule given her level of idiocy, a sentiment I agree with and already put forth in this very thread.
Bush underestimated how much support he has and how important it is to his base. So you are saying that Bush nominated an "evangelical crony who has stated unequivocally that she would work for a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all abortion" in order to win Democratic support because he only *speculated* that his base might support a conservative candidate and he couldn't take that chance. Oy.
That's not what I said. What I said was that Bush now knows that he has the party's full support to nominate a true conservative, which was to imply that having seen the outcry over the Miers nomination, I think Bush will now offer a more conservative nominee as he has since seen the overwhelming desire of his party to nominate a genuine conservative. He was so worried about a big, drawn out fight with the Democrats that he didn't realize that he'd have to deal with a big, drawn out fight with members of his own party if he didn't nominate someone conservative enough for their tastes. I would (and many others have) argue that Bush picked Miers partially because he thought she'd get through without much of a fight.
I question your position on Miers' abortion stance. For every conservative out there like you who insists Miers is anti-abortion AND would use her personal beliefs to steer her vote in SCOTUS rulings, there is another conservative out there ripping Miers for not having a substantial enough anti-abortion track record. I'm not going to beat a dead horse about the issue, but there is sufficient disagreement there to justify my position that Miers is not hardline anti-abortion.
And that's really my beef with your claims in this thread, Madman. It's not whether I think you are right or wrong. You often give some insightful commentary, even when I don't agree with it. It's your insistence that you are right, and that opinions to the contrary must be wrong. You accept certain theories and steadfastly maintain them while dismissing counter-theories out of hand. There's too much uncertainty and contradicting ideas here to claim certain rightness.
Contrast that well-reasoned position to the most obvious alternative ... that Bush wanted to nominate a woman, and the entire Bush family is loyal and tends to support and encourage cronyism; Miers is vehemently pro-life in her personal life and mouths a bunch of mish-mash platitudes that ring true to a relatively ignorant President.
I agree with most of this: Bush wanted to nominate a woman, he wanted a conservative and he wanted someone confirmable without much of a fight. He was wrong on some of the counts with regards to Miers, but I believe that was his thought process. The cronyism charge comes into play after the initial criteria have been met. There were many people that fit his initial criteria, but I believe he chose Miers because the Bushes love them some cronyism.
|
| 693 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 13:21
|
Razor, you claim that I steadfastly hold onto theories in the face of countertheories, an accusation that arises because Toral presented good evidence that convinced me to abandon one of my prior theories. Oops. You call your erroneous predictions a "hunch" early in the post, but then they rise to the level of "counter-theory" that I should presumably acquiesce to at face value because ... you have some unnamed pundits on your side?
I allude to her 1989 questionnaire responses to cast doubt on why Bush wouldn't think Miers would appear attractive to Democrats, and you take that opportunity to mischaracterize my position on Miers and abortion.
The reason I made the Scalia/Thomas swipe is that TWICE in this thread you have blurred their positions. You do that for a third time implicitly later in your previous post when you say that Bush now has a mandate to nominate a 'true conservative'. As if chicken-bleep Bush caved in pre-emptorily before. Democrats make him quake in his boots, that's one lesson we can take to heart.
So I ask you, is a "true" conservative someone like McConnell, who attacked the SCOTUS opinion in Bush v. Gore? Is a "true" conservative someone like Mahoney who argued with the administration in the U of M law school case? Is a true conservative someone like Gonzalez who at least some thing wouldn't overturn Roe? Is a true conservative someone who attacked executive war powers in Hamdi like Scalia? Is a true conservative someone who attacked federal power to regulate marijuana in Raich like O'Connor (or Thomas)?
You tell me which direction he has now been pushed, and be more specific than "true" or "ultra" conservative in your description.
But without supporting evidence or recognition of nuance, don't expect me to jump onto your "counter-theory" position. You can accuse me of stubborness and elitism all you want. If you don't have reasons for your positions, I don't care what those positions are. It's that simple.
|
| 694 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 13:28
|
One last thought ... without combing through my posts, I don't recall ever saying that someone's opinions were "wrong". What I do recall saying was things like this, from post 470:
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Miers is a "moderate" by your definition? I presented an argument for why she is likely a Bush-type policy conservative, at the least -- namely she has devoted her life to this administration for many years. Further, we have substantive evidence that she may be one of the most avid pro-lifers to ever sit on the Court. All other views are buried beneath a veil of secrecy. If you have other arguments, please present. But mindlessly asserting that she is moderate over and over is a rather unpersuasive argument.
I tend to attack factual statements and reasoned linkages as being wrong or erroneous. Not opinions. If I have overstepped that rule, I do apologize.
|
| 695 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811
Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 15:11
|
MM,
Sorry I didn't respond to #686 last night. My computer died, had to buy a new one this morning.
The entire reason I brought Robertson into the mix was in reference to the question regarding the difference between "originalist" and "strict constructionist."
Robertson's wish list for a Supreme Court justice includes that he/she be a strict constructionist. His wish list also includes they honor God's law, accept the 10 commandments as truth, as well as references to biblical truth and Satan.
Now, Robertson is an evangelical Christian leader, so it's no suprise that he would endorse these religious beliefs for nominees. The question is,
"What is a strict constructionist, and why does Robertson think the nominee should be one?"
He implies that a strict constructionist is one who strictly interprets the Constitution, without letting their personal beliefs, opinions sway their decisions. IMO, Breyer is completely correct in his decision that the 10 commandments can be displayed because of their historical context. Any strict interpretation of the Constitution that would allow that the 10 commandments is a truth is no interpretation at all, but the complete opposite of what is stated in black and white in the 1st Amendment.
You can't reconcile "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which would include not only Congress but all states in the 14th Amendment.
So I didn't miss your point, I just think it's irrelevant in dicussing Robertson's perception of what constitutes a "strict constructionist."
I find it completely disingenous to pretend as if a literal interpretation of the Constitution is a litmus test for a nominee, except for the important part of the 1st amendment which he chooses to ignore.
|
| 696 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 09:01
|
Razor, you claim that I steadfastly hold onto theories in the face of countertheories, an accusation that arises because Toral presented good evidence that convinced me to abandon one of my prior theories. Oops. You call your erroneous predictions a "hunch" early in the post, but then they rise to the level of "counter-theory" that I should presumably acquiesce to at face value because ... you have some unnamed pundits on your side?
I never asked anyone to entertain the idea that the Senate might not confirm Miers, which is the hunch in question. The theory-countertheory is reference to Miers' conservativeness. You claimed she must be very conservative given her Evangelical faith, a theory countered by many pundits named in this thread.
The reason I made the Scalia/Thomas swipe is that TWICE in this thread you have blurred their positions. You do that for a third time implicitly later in your previous post when you say that Bush now has a mandate to nominate a 'true conservative'. As if chicken-bleep Bush caved in pre-emptorily before. Democrats make him quake in his boots, that's one lesson we can take to heart.
I never blurred the distinction between Scalia and Thomas, but you apparently think I did by simply mentioning their names together (which has happened way more often than not in this thread). To clear it up, when I say someone in the "Scalia/Thomas mold," I mean a strict constructionist or an originalist or whatever you want to call it who will tend to vote with Scalia and Thomas who often vote together. And yes, I know Scalia and Thomas do not always vote together. As if all that needed saying...
So I ask you, is a "true" conservative someone like McConnell, who attacked the SCOTUS opinion in Bush v. Gore? Is a "true" conservative someone like Mahoney who argued with the administration in the U of M law school case? Is a true conservative someone like Gonzalez who at least some thing wouldn't overturn Roe? Is a true conservative someone who attacked executive war powers in Hamdi like Scalia? Is a true conservative someone who attacked federal power to regulate marijuana in Raich like O'Connor (or Thomas)?
You tell me which direction he has now been pushed, and be more specific than "true" or "ultra" conservative in your description.
We can argue all you want, but one or two decisions does not a judicial philosophy make. I think it's at least fairly clear what gives a judge a reputation of being conservative or liberal, so I'm not going waste your time or my time by participating in this pointless exercise.
|
| 697 | Madman
ID: 114321413
Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 09:34
|
PV -- if you want me to say that Robertson's interpretation of a "Strict Constructionist" has elements of "Judicial activism" in it, I'll go ahead and agree. Neither term is well defined. But Robertson would, for example, have probably liked the court to hear the Schiavo case, a position that is inconsistent with most "conservative" legal theories like originalism, textualism, etc.
As Toral noted, the words "Strict Constructionist" are political words, and Robertson is wanting a judge who will rule ideologically in his favor on outcomes. As an aside, that was yet another reason I thought Miers would turn out to be "conservative" in a consequentialist sense ... her reference to strict interpretation of the Constitution in her nomination speech was striking. I thought it was meant specifically to signal to conservatives that she would vote with them.
Obviously, I now think she is just mostly confused about the term.
........
Razor -- I think it's at least fairly clear what gives a judge a reputation of being conservative or liberal I think that comment about says it all. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I don't follow unless you are talking about opposing the *outcomes* of Roe and Lawrence. If so, that's a mindnumbingly simplistic view of the world, but it is probably the paradigm that the MSM uses to frame the battle.
|
| 698 | Seattle Zen
ID: 179472013
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 23:49
|
Re 605
Payment sent.
|
| 699 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Nov 10, 2005, 08:36
|
SZ -- ;) Thanks.
FWIW, I was a bit surprised at how quickly it all happened. There's still a story in there somewhere, although I'm not sure anyone is willing to tell it yet.
At any rate, you did the right thing to make me put up or shut up.
|
| 704 | Seattle Zen
ID: 91172012
Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 13:16
|
This thread brought back memories, and scared the crap out of me. All of us, and legal commentators as well, obviously had no idea how horrible Alberto Gonzalez really is. Can you imagine how devastating it would be having him on the "ultimate bench" then learning of all the horrible things he has done the past seven years?
|
| 705 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020
Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:53
|
I don't know what terrible things he's done in Washington but I know what unforgivable failure he presided over in Texas.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|