NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, I have just been absolutely fascinated by the whole SCOTUS nomination process.

Since it looks like the John Roberts nomination is all but secured, I want to speculate on Bush's next choice.

The poll I set up is not for a specific person, but rather a category, as there is a lot of speculation whether Bush will nominate a woman or minority. The poll is to guess what Bush would do, not what you personally would like him to do.

After you make your poll choice, please state your specific prediction, and, if you'd like, and if it's different, what your personal choice would be and why.

Please no flaming, baiting, etc.

I believe Bush will select:
Janice Rogers Brown - she's conservative, a woman, and black. That should mute some Dem criticism of civil rights issues, and possibly help Bush's standing in the black community. Also, she has some specific quotes on eminent domain that are particularly relevant since the Kelo v New London case.

My personal choice is the same.

If you want a list of potential nominees, TradeSports.com has odds on the next SCOTUS nominee, with a list (navigate to Legal, Supreme Court):
http://www.tradesports.com/

Also some good info:
http://www.scotusblog.com/

And interesting judicial gossip:
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/

No way Brown gets the nod--she's got less experience than Roberts on the federal level and the Dems would filibuster her, and with Bush weak and the '06 elections coming up, she'd never make it through.

My guess for category is white woman or hispanic man--and don't ask me to choose between the two, because I don't have a clue which one.

Well, that's interesting. I just made up 100% of the votes on that poll. It sounds like Diablod all over again, doesn't it?

I think he'll probobly try to get a woman- more speciffically, an African-American to try to get more minorities on his side and pertend that he does not beleive in supremacy. (Incidentally, I didn't mean white supremacy. I don't think he beleives in that. I meant that he beilves that neoconservatives, evangelical Christians, and, above all, people who aren't gay are above everybody else.). However, I would like him to pick (although he would never in a million years) Gavin Newsom.

No way Brown gets the nod--she's got less experience than Roberts on the federal level and the Dems would filibuster her, and with Bush weak and the '06 elections coming up, she'd never make it through.

My guess for category is white woman or hispanic man--and don't ask me to choose between the two, because I don't have a clue which one.
But she is an appellate court judge, and many candidates mentioned have fewer qualifications that that. For example, Miguel Estrada (Hispanic nominee that was filibustered) and Larry Thompson (black lawyer prominent in the Bush administration, former Pepsico executive) both have never been judges. And the Dems actually suggested looking outside the judiciary for a candidate.

As to the filibuster claim, that's possible, but it would be more difficult since she is black, and I think her stand on eminent domain in the light of the recent Kelo ruling might make them take pause. I found the exact quote:

Theft is theft, even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a klept-ocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.

And here's an interesting article:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane519

It appears this topic has died. Did it have anything to do with this? :mp5:

But she is an appellate court judge, and many candidates mentioned have fewer qualifications that that. For example, Miguel Estrada (Hispanic nominee that was filibustered) and Larry Thompson (black lawyer prominent in the Bush administration, former Pepsico executive) both have never been judges. And the Dems actually suggested looking outside the judiciary for a candidate.

As to the filibuster claim, that's possible, but it would be more difficult since she is black, and I think her stand on eminent domain in the light of the recent Kelo ruling might make them take pause. I found the exact quote:



And here's an interesting article:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane519
The Dems will basically argue--or should, anyway--that Bush got his conservative justice when he replaced Rehnquist with Roberts. Make no mistake about it--based on his writings, Roberts is no moderate, except perhaps in comparison with Thomas. So, they'll say, Bush needs to appoint a true moderate to replace O'Connor, and Brown may be many things, but there's no way she can be considered a moderate.

I think he'll probobly try to get a woman- more speciffically, an African-American to try to get more minorities on his side and pertend that he does not beleive in supremacy. (Incidentally, I didn't mean white supremacy. I don't think he beleives in that. I meant that he beilves that neoconservatives, evangelical Christians, and, above all, people who aren't gay are above everybody else.). However, I would like him to pick (although he would never in a million years) Gavin Newsom.
Why would you want him to pick Gavin Newsom?

He is the mayor of San Francisco, but from what I've read of his limited bio, has absolutely no legal training or experience.

The Dems will basically argue--or should, anyway--that Bush got his conservative justice when he replaced Rehnquist with Roberts. Make no mistake about it--based on his writings, Roberts is no moderate, except perhaps in comparison with Thomas. So, they'll say, Bush needs to appoint a true moderate to replace O'Connor, and Brown may be many things, but there's no way she can be considered a moderate.
True, they'll say that, and the Repubs will argue that elections have consequences, that there is no quota system of a certain number of liberals vs moderates vs conservatives on the court, and that the Democrats are being racist (a specious arguement, I agree, but it will be made).

They will also argue that qualifications and respect for the law, not political leanings, are what matter, and I think the American people really won't take kindly to a filibuster unless some real dirt is found on her.

As a practical matter, if this did trigger the filibuster as an extraordinary circumstance under the Gang of 14 agreement, I believe the Repubs will trigger the nuclear option.

Why would you want him to pick Gavin Newsom?

He is the mayor of San Francisco, but from what I've read of his limited bio, has absolutely no legal training or experience.
He's a restauranteur, and a fine mayor, even though I voted for his opponent while I lived there--a choice between a Democrat and a Green, what a beautiful day in the voting booth.

And I may be selfish here, but I'd like to see it happen if only to watch the heads of about 30 Republican Senators simultaneously explode. :D

He's a restauranteur, and a fine mayor, even though I voted for his opponent while I lived there--a choice between a Democrat and a Green, what a beautiful day in the voting booth.

And I may be selfish here, but I'd like to see it happen if only to watch the heads of about 30 Republican Senators simultaneously explode. :D
:D

In all honesty, I am very worried about the Supreme Court. Bush is the most currupt president scince Nixon (and then, before that, Warren G. Harding), and he is also the most deeply neoconservative president we have ever had. He's going to appoint two people to the Supreme Court, and they're going to be there for life (and this new guy is relatively young). He will have a majority, and the constitution might as well have set itself on fire for all the difference it's going to make. Bush does not beleive in liberty or equality, and he also believes that people's genetic composition makes them unequal and even "evil." He has no idea of even the meaning of the word. The germans in World War II were evil, the Klu Klux Klan is evil, and perfectly normal people are most certainly not. I think, if he he gets his nominees, life in America will never be the same, and we will by no means be "the land of the free."

I am very deeply concerned. We can only hope that whoever he picks will be a sensible human being and will beleive in what America stands for: liberty, equality, and the chance to succeed. However, I fear that he will not.

True, they'll say that, and the Repubs will argue that elections have consequences, that there is no quota system of a certain number of liberals vs moderates vs conservatives on the court, and that the Democrats are being racist (a specious arguement, I agree, but it will be made).

They will also argue that qualifications and respect for the law, not political leanings, are what matter, and I think the American people really won't take kindly to a filibuster unless some real dirt is found on her.

As a practical matter, if this did trigger the filibuster as an extraordinary circumstance under the Gang of 14 agreement, I believe the Repubs will trigger the nuclear option.
There's a part of me that really wouldn't mind if they did trigger it, and I'll tell you why. The Republicans won't control the Presidency and the Senate forever, and make no mistake--if the filibuster dies for judges, it'll die all the way around, because a precedent will have been set, and in the long run, the filibuster is always used more often to stop progressive legislation than it is to stop conservative legislation.

So trigger the option, and when, in ten years or so, there's a vote on Supreme Court Justice Dennis Kucinich, the Democrats in the Senate can tell the Republicans in the Senate "up or down, baby."

As for dirt on Brown, all you have to do to find it is to look at her rulings and her utter distaste for the New Deal--she's referred to it as communism, as I recall.

There's a part of me that really wouldn't mind if they did trigger it, and I'll tell you why. The Republicans won't control the Presidency and the Senate forever, and make no mistake--if the filibuster dies for judges, it'll die all the way around, because a precedent will have been set, and in the long run, the filibuster is always used more often to stop progressive legislation than it is to stop conservative legislation.

So trigger the option, and when, in ten years or so, there's a vote on Supreme Court Justice Dennis Kucinich, the Democrats in the Senate can tell the Republicans in the Senate "up or down, baby."

As for dirt on Brown, all you have to do to find it is to look at her rulings and her utter distaste for the New Deal--she's referred to it as communism, as I recall.
Many conservatives share her distaste for the New Deal - but that's more an argument over judicial philosophy than "dirt". By dirt I mean evidence that she kicks puppies on the way home from work, a falsified resumee, or something juicy in the gossip sense.

As to the filibuster, the precedent will be set for judicial nominations, not for legislation. Though I must admit some trepidation about it myself. The oldest nominee is Justice Stevens (80), and the next oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg (65), so, the next Justice to be replaced (if by age) would simply preserve the status quo. See list of Justices by age (John Roberts is 50 and not included): http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htm

Why would you want him to pick Gavin Newsom?

He is the mayor of San Francisco, but from what I've read of his limited bio, has absolutely no legal training or experience.

I would want Gavin Newsom, because, unlike about ninety percent of politicans, he remains completely uncurrupted. Also, he does beleive in liberty and equality, and he values highly the constitution. As experience, I think being mayor (no less, a very good mayor) of a mjor city is generally enough. Additionally, I would want Gavin Newsom, because he's basically a genious. Have you heard of the Care Not Cash system? In (I beleive it was just one year.) found homes for 73% of San Francisco's homelss without costing anything extra in taxes. To clarify, it got apartment vouchers and food vouchers for roughly three quarters of what was once a very large homeless population. I also seriously agree with the marriage liscence issue, because (I'm the scientific type, and I follow these kinds of things.) homosexuality is actuality genetic (not hereditary, but nontheless gentic), and everyone deserves equal rights. Finally, he is very honest, frank, and, unlike basically every other politician, not only takes responsibility for his mistakes, but also mistakes that definiately had nothing to do with him (such as the lack of urban planning in the Bay Area), and then he comes up with solutions to fix these things. I think it would be nice to have a regular human being in office for once.

By the way, I agree; it would be run to watch the Republicans' heads explode.

I would want Gavin Newsom, because, unlike about ninety percent of politicans, he remains completely uncurrupted. Also, he does beleive in liberty and equality, and he values highly the constitution. As experience, I think being mayor (no less, a very good mayor) of a mjor city is generally enough. Additionally, I would want Gavin Newsom, because he's basically a genious. Have you heard of the Care Not Cash system? In (I beleive it was just one year.) found homes for 73% of San Francisco's homelss without costing anything extra in taxes. To clarify, it got apartment vouchers and food vouchers for roughly three quarters of what was once a very large homeless population. I also seriously agree with the marriage liscence issue, because (I'm the scientific type, and I follow these kinds of things.) homosexuality is actuality genetic (not hereditary, but nontheless gentic), and everyone deserves equal rights. Finally, he is very honest, frank, and, unlike basically every other politician, not only takes responsibility for his mistakes, but also mistakes that definiately had nothing to do with him (such as the lack of urban planning in the Bay Area), and then he comes up with solutions to fix these things. I think it would be nice to have a regular human being in office for once.

By the way, I agree; it would be run to watch the Republicans' heads explode.
Similar to my amusement at Dem exploding heads if Bush nominated Karl Rove. :D

Many conservatives share her distaste for the New Deal - but that's more an argument over judicial philosophy than "dirt". By dirt I mean evidence that she kicks puppies on the way home from work, a falsified resumee, or something juicy in the gossip sense.

As to the filibuster, the precedent will be set for judicial nominations, not for legislation. Though I must admit some trepidation about it myself. The oldest nominee is Justice Stevens (80), and the next oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg (65), so, the next Justice to be replaced (if by age) would simply preserve the status quo. See list of Justices by age (John Roberts is 50 and not included): http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htmMy point about the filibuster is that once you get rid of it for one thing, it's not much of a step to argue that you ought to get rid of it for other stuff as well--and it will happen, mark my words.

My point about the filibuster is that once you get rid of it for one thing, it's not much of a step to argue that you ought to get rid of it for other stuff as well--and it will happen, mark my words.
You could very well be right.

I'm just not so sure that's a bad thing. When the people elect one party or the other to majority in Congress, they expect the majority to put through that platform. The filibuster is an artificial tool to thwart the will of the majority.

And before you say anything about protecting the rights of the minority, the legislative branch in our country is elected by majority rule, and thus should rule by majority. The House works that way. Why is the Senate special?

Not to say that I wouldn't be very afraid of that if my favored party weren't in power ... ;)

You could very well be right.

I'm just not so sure that's a bad thing. When the people elect one party or the other to majority in Congress, they expect the majority to put through that platform. The filibuster is an artificial tool to thwart the will of the majority.

And before you say anything about protecting the rights of the minority, the legislative branch in our country is elected by majority rule, and thus should rule by majority. The House works that way. Why is the Senate special?

Not to say that I wouldn't be very afraid of that if my favored party weren't in power ... ;)
The Senate is special because the Constitution allows it to be if it so desires--each house gets to make its own rules, and so they do, and I have to admit that I like that. Much as I think getting rid of the filibuster would be a good thing in the long run for progressive causes, I also have to say that I think anything that slows down the legislative process is probably better for the country as a whole. Less chance to fuck things up terribly if you move slowly.

The Senate is special because the Constitution allows it to be if it so desires--each house gets to make its own rules, and so they do, and I have to admit that I like that. Much as I think getting rid of the filibuster would be a good thing in the long run for progressive causes, I also have to say that I think anything that slows down the legislative process is probably better for the country as a whole. Less chance to fuck things up terribly if you move slowly.
You know, I have to agree with you there. As a conservative believing that less government is better government, that makes sense. Amazing! :D

You know, I have to agree with you there. As a conservative believing that less government is better government, that makes sense. Amazing! :DWhat I'm really in favor of is divided government--the whole absolute power corrupts absolutely thing. Right now, the Republican party smells like a dead fish as far as I'm concerned, but put the Dems in a similar position of power and you'll have the exact same situation. Divided power keeps both sides relatively honest, as honest as politics can be, that is.

What I'm really in favor of is divided government--the whole absolute power corrupts absolutely thing. Right now, the Republican party smells like a dead fish as far as I'm concerned, but put the Dems in a similar position of power and you'll have the exact same situation. Divided power keeps both sides relatively honest, as honest as politics can be, that is.
What do you mean by divided? Are you meaning something different than the divisions between the legislative/executive/judicial branches?

Maybe something like electing SCOTUS justices, just like we do the legislative and executive? With certain restrictions on qualifications, that might be workable. Or perhaps limiting their term on the court?

What do you mean by divided? Are you meaning something different than the divisions between the legislative/executive/judicial branches?

Maybe something like electing SCOTUS justices, just like we do the legislative and executive? With certain restrictions on qualifications, that might be workable. Or perhaps limiting their term on the court?
I mean divided between parties--right now, the Republicans control both houses of congress, the presidency and the courts. That's a recipe for corruption, because there's no one there to stay their hands. By divided, I mean at least one house of Congress in the control of an opposition party.

Think of it this way--if the Dems had controlled one house of Congress, there would have been legitimate investigations of the Plame affair, of the response to the 9/11 attacks, to the intelligence gathering in the lead up to the Iraq war, to the Halliburton no-bid contracts, to the Katrina response--you name it. Since there's no threat of an independent investigation, the Republicans act with impunity.

And if the tables were turned, I'm sure the opposite would be the case, because that's the nature of political power. I'm partisan, to be sure, but I'm not a fool.

I mean divided between parties--right now, the Republicans control both houses of congress, the presidency and the courts. That's a recipe for corruption, because there's no one there to stay their hands. By divided, I mean at least one house of Congress in the control of an opposition party.

Think of it this way--if the Dems had controlled one house of Congress, there would have been legitimate investigations of the Plame affair, of the response to the 9/11 attacks, to the intelligence gathering in the lead up to the Iraq war, to the Halliburton no-bid contracts, to the Katrina response--you name it. Since there's no threat of an independent investigation, the Republicans act with impunity.

And if the tables were turned, I'm sure the opposite would be the case, because that's the nature of political power. I'm partisan, to be sure, but I'm not a fool.
I see - basically extending your argument for the filibusters. Opposite party control of the chambers of Congress would, in addition to more aggressive oversight, also slow the pace of legislation. Maybe that's not such a bad idea . . .

I see - basically extending your argument for the filibusters. Opposite party control of the chambers of Congress would, in addition to more aggressive oversight, also slow the pace of legislation. Maybe that's not such a bad idea . . .
It also forces moderation in legislation. Neither side gets everything it wants, which is also a net plus in my book.

It also forces moderation in legislation. Neither side gets everything it wants, which is also a net plus in my book.
I've got to stop agreeing with you like this ... :D

I want Janice Rogers Brown, or that other guy, the white guy, I forget his name (it's late here). However, I'm kinda predicting he nominates Gonzales, which would be a mixed blessing, most likely.

I want Janice Rogers Brown, or that other guy, the white guy, I forget his name (it's late here). However, I'm kinda predicting he nominates Gonzales, which would be a mixed blessing, most likely.
White guys:
Luttig
McConnell
Alito
Wilkinson

Why not Miguel Estrada over Gonzales?

White guys:
Luttig
McConnell
Alito
Wilkinson

Why not Miguel Estrada over Gonzales?

Luttig was the guy I had in mind, thanks. Estrada already caused a catfight in the Senate.. I didn't think of him mainly because I don't think anyone wants to relive that.

I've got to stop agreeing with you like this ... :D
I've got this rep as a wild-eyed liberal, and it's somewhat deserved--I think we ought to have a single payer health care system and a stronger right to organize. I'm vehemently opposed to the Iraq war, and I think Bush is the worst president in modern history and perhaps in US history.

But what I care about most of all is competence and openness in governance. Right now that makes me a Democrat, but I'm also open to the potential for change. I've voted Republican before--a long, long time ago--and would do so again if the party rediscovered its soul and kicked the asshole theo-cons running it to the curb. I'm a pragmatist and I distrust ideologues.

I heard Clinton in a speech a couple of years ago talk about the difference between pragmatists and ideologues. He said that when a pragmatist finds himself in a hole, he stops digging. An ideologue asks for a bigger shovel. And right now we're being led by ideologues.

You may disagree with all this. I may be wrong. But I honestly think that a divided government has the benefit of keeping the worst elements of both parties at bay.

Luttig was the guy I had in mind, thanks. Estrada already caused a catfight in the Senate.. I didn't think of him mainly because I don't think anyone wants to relive that.
But the main reason he caused a catfight wasn't for his judicial philosophies (although that was part of it), but because they knew Bush was setting him up for a SCOTUS appointment as a Hispanic, as evidenced in some internal memos that got leaked.

If they easily confirmed him on the appellate court, and a couple of years later they turned him down for SCOTUS, that argument would be hard to make, and they would risk pissing off their Hispanic constituents, many of whom endorsed him (including LULAC, believe it or not).

But the main reason he caused a catfight wasn't for his judicial philosophies (although that was part of it), but because they knew Bush was setting him up for a SCOTUS appointment as a Hispanic, as evidenced in some internal memos that got leaked.

If they easily confirmed him on the appellate court, and a couple of years later they turned him down for SCOTUS, that argument would be hard to make.

In any case, the dems already have a strategy of attack set up should Estrada be nominated. I'd prefer Bush send them someone whose positions are a bit ambiguous, but whose core beliefs are mostly known.. not another Roberts, but someone like Brown or Luttig, who haven't been forced to make any earthshaking decisions yet, but are relatively dependable, ideologically. Here's hoping. :)

In any case, the dems already have a strategy of attack set up should Estrada be nominated. I'd prefer Bush send them someone whose positions are a bit ambiguous, but whose core beliefs are mostly known.. not another Roberts, but someone like Brown or Luttig, who haven't been forced to make any earthshaking decisions yet, but are relatively dependable, ideologically. Here's hoping. :)
Amen to that, brudda. :D