NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry guys, I just keep being fascinated by who the next SCOTUS nominee might be. On the eve of the Roberts confirmation vote, speculation is running wild, with many expecting Bush to announce the next nominee as sooon as Roberts' confirmation vote is finished. I've narrowed it down to those in the poll, but feel free to add your own in a post. Please vote for who you think it will be, not who you want it to be, and state your reasons why.

My prediction: Janice Rogers Brown
Chuckie Schumer has stated he will vigorously oppose anyone who would roll back civil rights, abortion rights, etc. I think the Dems would have a real problem filibustering a black woman with her background, who grew up in poverty and overcame it.

Plus it would greatly improve Bush's standing with his base. All his elections have been about getting out the base, not necessarily converting independents or Dems. The base would be very excited at her nomination.

Bump.

Bump.

Is this really that boring, or is there another thread I didn't see already out there about this?

I Have no clue on who it would be..I pray to God its a moderate or liberal justice though..If not..Bye bye privacy and any rights any one ever had...:(

Lunatic Goofballs must be the next Supreme Court Justice or I will lose all faith in America.

Is this really that boring

Well, to non-USians it generally is.

Well, to non-USians it generally is.

So what would interest you Swedians?

Richard Posner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner)

Wouldn't even surprise me anymore....

I wish Bush would pick Janice Rogers Brown, but it's a 10-1 shot, at best.

I'm guessin' "other..." Voted accordingly... I've got a few hunches, but it won't be Miers, hopefully, and it won't be one of the old batch, that's all I'll say, 'cause I'm not certain outside of that.

Richard Posner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner)

Wouldn't even surprise me anymore....


Despite being the most cited living judge, it will never happen.

Edit: Though now I think about it, that's probably not true, I would guess whoever wrote Anderson v. Liberty Lobby is probably the dude.

I heard today they're going to hear Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance case soon...

I vote for Anna Nicole on the bench. She'd be entertaining, and could probably find another 900 year old husband there pretty easily. :p

~FLG

Tradesports.com has a line on who the next nominee will be. Harriet Miers received quite a jump, but this morning seems to have leveled off. Looks like the current favorite is Karen Williams, a conservative appellate court judge from the Northeast.

I too voted and predict Janice Roberts Brown. Pricella Owens is the other. However, I have my fingers crossed and am hoping to be wrong on this and hopefully having Michael Luttig getting through. He is my favorite by far, even more so than John Roberts.

Miers got a bump last night because Drudge "reported" that she was going to be the nominee. If Bush nominates Brown or Owens, there will be a filibuster, no question. And it won't be another white guy, so take Luttig off the list.

Gonzales is an option, as is Edith Clement, who was rumored to be the nominee before Roberts, not that I would find either acceptable, personally.

I started a thread on this back before Roberts was nominated, and I still like the idea. Part of the germination is simply based on the fact that Bush has yet to nominate a competent person for a post unless his hand is forced on the issue--his track record is shit, to put it kindly.

The Senate ought to get together in a bipartisan way and come up with a short list of names they'd be willing to confirm overwhelmingly--call it the "advise" part of their duty--and give it to Bush and tell him that they won't consent to anyone not on the list. He gets to nominate anyone he wants to, but if they're not on the list, they won't get out of committee.

Clinton did something similar with his two nominees--he went to Orrin Hatch and asked about who he could get through the Senate. Hatch gave him two names--Ginsberg and Breyer. (By the way, next time a right-winger bitches about those two justices, remember that Orrin Fucking Hatch recommended them to Clinton over Bruce Babbitt.)

...If Bush nominates Brown or Owens, there will be a filibuster, no question.
...


Let them filibuster.

I picked Brown in the poll above (but Owens is fine by me). I can’t wait for the Democrats to filibuster to keep an African American woman, a widowed single working mother off of the bench. :p Oh the irony! :D

An OP/ED I agree with about Brown...
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031102-111357-1927r.htm

Let them filibuster.

I picked Brown in the poll above (but Owens is fine by me). I can’t wait for the Democrats to filibuster to keep an African American woman, a widowed single working mother off of the bench. :p Oh the irony! :D

An OP/ED I agree with about Brown...
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031102-111357-1927r.htm
All the Democrats have to do to defend themselves is use Brown's own words in an ad--she's a fucking nutball who would rule every New Deal program unconstitutional. The Democrats wouldn't lose a single African-American vote over this. Do Republicans really think that African-American voters are stupid, that they don't know when a person who shares their skin color doesn't share their values and would fuck them over the way Brown would?

All the Democrats have to do to defend themselves is use Brown's own words in an ad--she's a fucking nutball who would rule every New Deal program unconstitutional. The Democrats wouldn't lose a single African-American vote over this. Do Republicans really think that African-American voters are stupid, that they don't know when a person who shares their skin color doesn't share their values and would fuck them over the way Brown would?

Justice Brown has enough liberal leaning positions to make the Democrats filibuster look like sour grapes, such things as criminal sentencing, freedom of speech and gun control. She was the lone justice to argue that a provision in the California Constitution requires drug offenders be given treatment instead of jail time (for example).

Obviously these positions will prove to be very unpopular topics in the African American community and they will shed their support of her simply because of a few anti-conservative white groups hate Bush. Just like they did for OJ.

*Thinks about what a happy day that would be, watching that fiasco of a smear campaign fall to pieces - even if successful in keeping her off the bench, it will crush their long term aspirations because they filibustered the first ever African American Woman from the bench!* :p

I Have no clue on who it would be..I pray to God its a moderate or liberal justice though..If not..Bye bye privacy and any rights any one ever had...:(
You're overreacting. Those selected for the Supreme Court have a way of surprising those who nominated them. Giving someone tenure for life has a way of making them very, very independent-minded.

You're overreacting. Those selected for the Supreme Court have a way of surprising those who nominated them. Giving someone tenure for life has a way of making them very, very independent-minded.
I hope you're right--that has certainly happened in the past, a la Souter, and I hope it's the case with Roberts. But the opposite has happened as well--Clarence Thomas, for instance, turned out to be way more of a wingnut than anyone expected him to be.

I hope you're right--that has certainly happened in the past, a la Souter, and I hope it's the case with Roberts. But the opposite has happened as well--Clarence Thomas, for instance, turned out to be way more of a wingnut than anyone expected him to be.
LOL! Well, just for the record, I was opposed to placing Thomas on the bench. Just for the record, you understand. ;)

Is this really that boring, or is there another thread I didn't see already out there about this?

People just don't understand how important this is. Plus there isn't much information circulating about the different potential justices. I want a justice with a strict interpretation of the constitution. I can't stand judical advocacy (neither liberal or conservative). I do tend to like the conservatives more. I think they are less likely to legislate from the bench and more likely to protect state rights. If congress has not made a law dealing with a particular issue its the State's right to do so, not the Court's.

So what would interest you Swedians?

Pop-tarts. Those are exotic.

I don't think there will necessarily be a filibuster of JRB. I believe she was filibustered for the appellate court for the same reason Estrada was: they feared a black woman on the appellate court who could be later nominated to SCOTUS.

Aside: Now that I think about it, I would love to see the Judiciary committee's faces if Estrada was nominated. I would love to hear them cite his lack of experience, after their own memos showed they were specifically denying him an appellate court position because of fears he could be put on SCOTUS.

And I don't believe it's all that extreme to be critical of the New Deal as she has been. There are more people than you think that agree with her.

Recent reporting has it that Priscilla Owen has asked to be withdrawn from consideration for SCOTUS. The top two now seem to be Maura Corrigan, on the Michigan Supreme Court, and Sam Alito, nicknamed "Scalito", as well as some rumblings about Alice Batchelder.

LOL! Well, just for the record, I was opposed to placing Thomas on the bench. Just for the record, you understand. ;)
I'll give Thomas credit that I won't give Scalia--he's ideologically consistent. Now, I happen to believe his ideology is ridiculous--he's an originalist--but nonetheless, he's consistent. Scalia, however, would sell his mother to get the answer he wanted, no matter how badly he had to twist himself in logical circles to get it.

And I don't believe it's all that extreme to be critical of the New Deal as she has been. There are more people than you think that agree with her.
I can see the ad now--"The Republicans want to put a person on the Supreme Court who would call Social Security unconstitutional--don't let it happen."

Bush discovered first hand what that buzzsaw felt like earlier this year, but in case he didn't learn, we'll be glad to remind him. And quite frankly, if it means either O'Connor serves until after the '06 elections or that we have an 8 person court, I don't mind. The whole scenario changes if the Dems close the gap or take control of the Senate in 2006.

The latest: Luttig, Alito, or Karen Williams from the 4th Circuit. Someone on Drudge (John Fund, WSJ) came up with Consuelo Callahan, but that's very doubtful. Will probably announce name Monday or Tuesday evening in primetime.