२३ सप्टेंबर, २००५
"It's Armageddon."
Said Orrin Hatch, referring to the upcoming confirmation battle over whomever George Bush picks to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. But aren't the Democrats hoping they've signalled to Bush that he must pick someone more moderate than John Roberts for this next slot? Hatch seems to already know that he won't: "I don't think the president is going to be bullied into putting somebody up that he doesn't believe in."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
Eddie: But he doesn't seem to have done that with his first nomination. Why would he start now?
Ann: I must be missing something about Roberts. I did not notice any answer from him that differed from what I would have expected Rehnquist to say. Now, I realize that a Rehnquist is not quite the same as Scalia or Thomas, but I don't know that I expect either (1) the President to pay that much attention to the distinction or (2) the distinction to make a practical difference in many actual cases.
Stealth: I think Roberts showed himself to be a pragmatic reasoner, open to the notion of a living Constitution, and never said anything that made him seem like he adhered to "strict constructionism" or the sort of textualism/originalism that Scalia and Thomas rely on. I think Rehnquist in his final phase was not like Scalia and Thomas either. Bush said he'd nominate someone like them. So far, he hasn't.
Eddie: So you think Roberts is really a political ideologue, who misrepresented himself to the Committee?
aren't the Democrats hoping they've signalled to Bush that he must pick someone more moderate than John Roberts for this next slot?
As mentioned previously, I'm sure that this was their intention - but because they have not been able to determine whether that message is sent by voting yes or no, I would say that their hopes are in vain.
Sadly, I think Eddie's flat out wrong - or at lesat, exceedingly optimistic. Roberts is a conservative, sure. And he even has penchant for the wry turn of phrase in his writing. But that doesn't make him a Scalia or a Thomas, and if he's a Rehnquist, he's the Chief, not the Lone Ranger. But for my money, we have an O'Connor/Kennedy.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong on this. I hope he really was being too clever by half in misleading the committee, even if that means creating the unbearable public perception that Joe Biden may have been right. Scalia wrote his Morrison v. Olson dissent - his first genuinely brilliant - sit-up-and-pay-attention opinion, IMHO - in his second term on the court, so we'll see how long it takes Roberts to fly his colors.
I'd say that the Democrats already got someone moderate in Roberts, and that those who believed Bush's campaign promise have far more of a claim -- that the next nominee should be more distinctly conservative!
I think Roberts showed himself to be a pragmatic reasoner, open to the notion of a living Constitution, and never said anything that made him seem like he adhered to "strict constructionism" or the sort of textualism/originalism that Scalia and Thomas rely on.
Perfectly stated. Exactly my concern.
I hope it's Janice Rogers Brown
But, didn't JRB give a speech a couple of years ago endorsing Lochner? Or is that an urban myth? A chap over at Centerfield recently asked me if I "really want[ed] the sort of guy that [I]'ve identified as simply a different flavor of dead wrong?", which I thought was a very good way of putting it, and to which the answer is "hell no". The goal is not a conservative - the goal is an originalist, and at this point, if we can't have a Scalia, I'd settle for a Hugo Black.
- all this huffing and puffing when we know George wouldn't dare nominate his pal Karl, but there is a certain Black female Judge who will be next on the bench and I got a crisp $50 says I'm right
Remember that Roberts started out as O'Connor's replacement and later became Rehnquist's. Republicans warned of the potential downside of moving up Roberts to Chief: that Democrats can now claim Roberts is the conservative who replaces Rehnquist, so therefore we need a moderate to replace O'Connor.
In favor of a conservative: If he doesn't, there will be even more open discontent in the conservative ranks, and he may weaken the party long-term. The GOP can no longer claim to be the party of small government and fiscal conservativism, and Bush has disappointed social conservatives by not being more practically supportive of their goals (despite talking the language). He risks having a good portion of the base ask "Why bother?" and stay home.
In favor of a moderate: Second-term Presidents think a lot about their legacy and how historians will write about them.
I'll give 3-2 odds in favor of a conservative.
I think what eddie meant to say at the top is, Bush means what Cheney says, and does what Cheney tells him to do.
As for the next nominee, look to the money. I predict a judge who appears to be socially moderate, but who leans heavily in favor of business interests. The Court can tilt in more directions than just left and right.
Roberts is as good a nominee as could be expected by any reasonable person and yet Hillary, Reid, etc will vote against him. So what the hell, just nominate who you want, let them fillibuster (you know they want to now). It will only enhance the image, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, whatever George Bush is for, I'm against it.
Jim... It depends on where being against Bush comes from. The left default hatred is quite irrational and borders on the insane. Embarrassing for sure. The right has more reasonable dislike (spending, immigration -- issues -- not Georgie boy hates Blacks or unleashed the Kraken on La. like a modern day Poseidon).
I think Roberts will be a textualist -- not quite like Scalia, but not wishy-washy vain like O'Connor either. Activism is not necessarily a bad thing if it's keeping Congress and the Executive to their Constitutional responsibilities.
Did anyone here happen to catch CourtTV last night, when Alan Dershowitz was on?
They were commentating on the Senate Committee vote when Nancy Grace (a solid social conservative...but one whose persona often irritates me) asked him for his opinion on Roberts.
Dershowitz' politics, of course, are well-known. He had, to date on the show, said things which left no doubt as to his slant.
But I am must say, I was completely taken aback by the ferocity and bitterness he displayed about Roberts' nomination.
Like so many on the Left, he is outraged that someone like GW Bush will leave his political mark on the Supreme Court with not one, but TWO jurists.
I'm not sure he was implying this, or simply hoping for a legal wish-fulfillment, but he intimated that no president should have the power as to pick such a YOUNG candidate for the Supreme Court!
He was extremely unhappy that Roberts might be on the bench for "35 years", injecting his own particular conservatism into it.
He mentioned Term Limits that presidents have, but that Dubya's "targettting" very young judges for the Supreme Court shows a devious scheme at work, to deliberately extend his term in office.
Good Lord.
And Roberts is a moderate too.
Can you imagine Dershowitz if Edith Jones is chosen? Yeesh.
(Why is it that Repubs have to pick moderates for the Supreme Court, but President Clinton can appoint an ACLU lawyer to the Court? *sigh*)
It truly will be Armagaddon with the next nominee because few people doubt Bush will appoint someone unambiguously Conservative with his next pick.
In fact, that well may be the most important personal reason why I voted for Bush.
He owes me. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
Bush owes me a glassy parking lot in Pyongyang.
However, that being said, I think that the idea that Bush is somehow obligated to produce a nominee who is politically moderate is deeply offensive to the spirit of the Constitution. Why can the Senators be political about the nomination, but Bush can't? It's totally bogus, and it gives the Senate an oppressive level of authority over the other two co-equal brances of government.
Nominations worked a lot better when a few pertinent questions were asked and answered following the ABA recommendation, and then they voted. This long process is turning the judiciary into a travesty of epic proportions.
The American people are not entitled to a judiciary that fits certain policy stances. They are entitled to a judiciary filled with smart, talented people with a passion for the law and an understanding of the judicial role.
Troy:
Activism is not necessarily a bad thing if it's keeping Congress and the Executive to their Constitutional responsibilities.
But that's not activism! Merely undertaking an action is not being activist! Doing what the court is supposed to do cannot, practically by definition, be activism. I wrote about this at more length previously; see Dodd, Less nebulous than you'd think, §I(a), pp.2-4.
I think that what the Democrats who oppose Roberts have signaled is that they cannot be satisfied by any candidate acceptable to Bush. Their votes are owned by left leaning interest groups and constituents. They're not interested in performing their duties faithfully; they're fundraising.
So, he should ignore their expressed concerns.
Just remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Roe v. Wade dissenter, Byron White, on the Supreme Court whenever anyone (including, notably, her) suggests that President Bush should nominate someone as moderate as O'Conner to replace her.
Clinton is the guy worried about his image
Yeah?
Then he should get on to Ann immediately, and file a lawsuit on his behalf.
Excerpt (via Ace of Spades):
''The Clinton condom will be the top of our line,'' he said. ''The Lewinsky condom is not quite as good.''
Ouch.
Cheers,
Victoria
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा