Bill Kristol: Mrs. Bush said this week that she hoped her husband would name a woman. I think that was her way of gently letting down Attorney General Gonzales, signaling that he probably wasn't going to get the pick.Interesting that he mentioned law schools second, before state courts. How stunning it would be to pick a lawprof. Who are the female constitutional law professors who are not only "at distinguished law schools," with the highest level credentials, but whose writings will stand up to the intense political scrutiny that all sorts of people will subject it to? I think it's much easier to find judicial candidates among judges, because judges behave like judges. Lawprofs don't seem judgely enough. There's too much personal freedom in the lawprof game. One plays with ideas and enjoys intellectual exercises too much not to lay the basis for a formidable attack by your opponents.
Brit Hume: So the President suggested she do this?
Bill Krisol: I think... well... The President afterwards: Gee, she said that? I wasn't aware of that. I talked to her on the phone yesterday, but I didn't know she was going to say it in public. She's pretty careful, and they're pretty close. I think he wants to pick a conservative woman. There are plenty of conservative women -- on the federal appeals court, at distinguished law schools, on state supreme courts...
But what's really interesting in that dialogue is the notion that this seemingly off-the-cuff statement by Laura Bush was deliberately planned. I'd assumed Laura really had influence with her husband about the substance of the choice, but Kristol portrays her as a brilliantly useful mouthpiece. I wrote that Laura's influence would be in favor of Gonzales, based on what I presumed was her concern about preserving abortion rights. But that doesn't conflict with what Kristol said: her behind-the-scenes influence and her public statements are two different things.
In the NYT, Elisabeth Bumiller confirms Kristol's take:
When Laura Bush said in a television interview last week that she hoped her husband would name a woman to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a lot of people saw it as a top item on the first lady's "honey-do" list. But Republicans close to the White House said that people had it reversed. Mrs. Bush, they said, was not so much nudging her husband as reflecting his thinking.Kristol didn't seem to mind blabbing.
The current consensus among Republicans with close access to the White House is that President Bush is interested in picking a conservative woman for the court. Mrs. Bush's words, they said, were the most powerful evidence so far.
"It says that they're looking very carefully at a woman," said a Republican with longtime ties to the White House. "I don't think she would have said it without knowing something." This Republican, like a number of others interviewed, asked not to be identified because the White House had ordered its allies not to talk about a Supreme Court selection process that it is trying to keep confidential.
By the way, Bumiller's article includes the name of one woman lawprof: Mary Ann Glendon.
Posts
9 comments:
For all the speculation I've done about the President possibly nominating an easily-confirmable Senator, perhaps politically, it does make sense that the nominee will be a woman and there are no easily-confirmable women from the Senate who would pass the conservative litmus test.
As to your main question about whether Laura Bush is a valued adviser or a mouthpiece for any White House strategy, I daresay that she is both. There's no reason why she couldn't have input on a decision like this and then give an advance public hint once the White House has decided on its basic direction. (My guess is that the President hasn't decided on a specific nominee but has decided that he must nominate a woman to take O'Connor's place.)
It does appear that Laura Bush's statement puts the definitive kibosh on a Gonzales nomination.
Well, you did vote for her husband last election. But, in the end, I suspect that you are not nearly conservative enough (actually, not sure if you really much conservative at all - just logical).
Two reasons that this line has come up, both interrelated. First, Mrs. Bush is supposedly mildly pro-choice, or at least not militantly pro-life. And secondly, she is supposed to be quite a bit more moderate politically than her husband.
So, no surprise that you are getting a lot of wishful thinking here.
I concur that the paper trail of an academic is more likely to be pretty clear, as opposed to that of a judge.
But that is as likely to cut against the candidate than in favor. Any candidate who openly espouses adhearance to Roe v. Wade, and predecessors, is unlikely to get to first base.
Far better if there is a bit of judicial ambiguity.
Bruce: I voted for Bush based on national security issues. I'm not a social conservative. In any case, you haven't read my articles. Anyway, the big problem with an academic is that you see how the person behaves in an academic context, not how they would behave in the role of judge. Frankly, I have no idea how I would act if I actually had the power and authority of being a judge. The role change would change me.
Isn't Glendon too old? Her bio makes her appear about 67. I think the administration wants someone about 45.
Re age: I've heard 60 and alternatively 55 as the Bush age cut off. Maybe it should be higher for women, since we do live longer. Is anyone on the short list only 45? Maybe one. It's scary to think that someone appointed this year might still be making decisions for everyone in 2050!
Professor Lillian BeVier was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by the elder Bush, although that nomination died in Congress. I've heard her name thrown about as a possible S.Ct. candidate, but she may be a bit too old at this point.
Ann,
Haven't read that much of your stuff, but not the least bit surprised from your blog that you are not a social conservative. Despite my family's suggestion to that effect, neither am I. I consider myself a national security hawk, a fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and somewhat libertarian.
Let me suggest however that academics do have much more of a paper trail than do most of us in private practice. Sure, some of what you disclose when you "publish or perish" is your legal reasoning ability. But also, I would suspect that much legal academic writing gives away the writers political biases, if, for no other reason, than for the subject written upon.
Yes, being a judge would change most of us. I would suggest though that I, and probably most of us, could survive as an appealate judge much better than as a trial judge, as they are the ones who really make the day to day hard decisions - whether to send someone to jail for a big chunk of his life, etc.
Growing up somewhat in the legal community west of Denver (my father practiced here for 47 years), I knew a lot of trial level judges. Most are retired by now, but still know a couple of that generation still on the bench. I, for one, would have a very hard time with their jobs.
Post a Comment