MyDD :: Bush Expected to Name Next SCOTUS Nominee

Bush Expected to Name Next SCOTUS Nominee

by Scott Shields, Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:45:12 AM EST

Tomorrow, President Bush is expected to nominate a new judge to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who at this point must be wondering if she's ever actually going to be allowed to retire. The far right's campaign to destroy the nomination of Harriet Miers was extremely successful. And with Miers out and the CIA leak investigation taking down the Vice President's Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President Scooter Libby, the right is loudly crowing that the President needs them more than ever. I tend to think that bowing the far right now puts the nail in the coffin of the Republicans, frustrating moderates who already see the GOP as being dominated by the extremists. But then again, I don't work for the President for some very good reasons.

Right now, there are a few names of potential nominees floating around the political ether. Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig are the definite front-runners, but there were other 'definite front-runners' named when O'Connor first announced her retirement who amounted to nothing. So just so you aren't caught by surprised tomorrow morning, here's a list of probable nominees with a bit of information and some important links. Enjoy...

Samuel Alito

Everything you need to know about Alito can be found in this 2003 profile at The Legal Intelligencer:

There's a nickname for federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito Jr. that captures two things at once -- his particular brand of legal conservatism and a recognition that his credentials are strong enough to put him on any Republican president's short-list for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some lawyers call the judge "Scalito."

Roughly translated, the nickname means "Little Scalia," suggesting that Alito, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has modeled himself after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
. . .
As with Scalia, lawyers say that Alito's vote is easy to predict in highly charged cases.

The key there is not the cute little "Scalito" moniker, but rather the fact that his "vote is easy to predict in highly charged cases." In other words, Alito knows exactly what his right wing masters want from him and will deliver.

Michael Luttig

Lutting may wind up being a more interesting pick than Alito, as he's less predictable. As Armando pointed out, since Luttig is the godfather of the "super-stare decisis" view that Roe v. Wade represents a superprecedent, his nomination could be a "stink bomb" for the far right. However, they've seemingly already vetted him, so perhaps he thinks "super-stare decisis" is something that only applies in the lower courts.

Luttig has perhaps the highest name recognition on this list, so Googling him will probably teach you a great deal, but there's also his Law.com bio if you want to learn more.

Michael McConnell

According to Legal Times, McConnell's something of a wildcard. He's clearly a conservative, but like Roberts, he's still managed to win praise from liberal legal academics. However, his paper trail much thicker than that of Roberts and his fair conservative decisions don't necessarily outweigh the objectionable ones. He didn't agree with Bush v. Gore or support a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, but when it comes to the pet issues of the religious right, he's anything but a liberal.

...McConnell's portfolio bristles with conservative views that might fit better on The Wall Street Journal editorial page. In fact, they sometimes have, as in a 1998 Journal op-ed column calling Roe v. Wade "an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously." He also once criticized a Supreme Court ruling that stripped Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status because of its racially discriminatory policies, and he argued that the Boy Scouts should not be compelled to keep a scoutmaster who is gay.

And from his view of the history of the Constitution, McConnell takes a hard line against any government action that slights religion. In an American Enterprise Institute speech in 1992, he called the Supreme Court's decisions against aid to parochial schools "the most serious blow to freedom of religion that the United States has ever seen," and he wondered aloud why religious parents should have to "pay [parochial school] tuition on top of property taxes" to support nonreligious children's secular education.

McConnell, a skilled Supreme Court advocate, argued successfully in favor of public financial support for religious publications in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia and in favor of supplying federally funded school equipment to parochial schools in Mitchell v. Helms.

"Michael McConnell would be my choice," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, an influential leader of the Christian right. Sekulow hastens to add that others deserving equal attention include D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. and 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig. Even though McConnell, as an academic, parted company with Christian groups over prayer at graduation ceremonies, as a justice, "he is more likely to be with us than against us," Sekulow says. "We tend to share his views."

There is not a clearer example in the world of 'legislating from the bench' than securing government funding for private religious schools. If anyone was wondering why Bush nominated the relatively quiet Roberts and the loyal-to-a-fault White House counsel Miers, here it is. McConnell's words will likely come back to haunt him if he's nominated.

Edith Jones

Quite recently, Jones has called for the Supreme Court to "re-evaluate Roe and Casey," which screams filibuster to me. Here's an excerpt of a profile from The Supreme Court Nomination Blog

A majority opinion and concurrence in McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1387 (2005). Judge Jones' majority opinion held that plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment declaring Texas statutes criminalizing abortion unconstitutional was moot where statutes were repealed by implication. Her special concurrence took the position that, "if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew." Judge Jones also stated that "[o]ne may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge" the findings of post-Roe research on women's mental and physical health following abortion "and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly." In conclusion, Judge Jones noted "[t]hat the Court's constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

Interestingly, a report was just released that found no link between abortion and depression, undercutting the point Jones was trying to make. Still, Jones hits all of the right wing points in this opinion, which speaks volumes.

Alice Batchelder

There is very little information that I was able to dig up on Batchelder, but there is an interesting story on why she would be a second choice after Harriet Miers from John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, while a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, Batchelder's husband William, a hardcore conservative, made an enemy of Jo Ann Davidson, another Ohio House member who's now a co-chair of the RNC. Would that hurt her any less now?

The other strike against Batchelder is that her husband is apparently going to run again for the Ohio House now that he's stepped down from the Ohio Appeals Court. My opinion is that a Batchelder nomination would inject too much partisan (obvious) politics into the mix.

Tags: Judges (all tags)

Permalink :: 5 Comments :: Post a Comment

Here's hoping Bush is stupid enough (none / 0)

to nominate a true winger

by bruh21 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:51:56 AM EST

It's "Scalito". (none / 0)

CNN says Samuel Alito.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

by wayward on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:36:22 AM EST

No-op (3.00 / 1)

Its important to remember now, that one can be very deliberate, and respectful of a very long tradition of nominating people with a resume.

In this case, the guy has hundreds of public documents - his is a total non-stealth nomination. Rove's influence has been completely removed - and for good reason:

He wants a bright shiny thing to dangle before your eyes.

My respect for the SC goes well beyond my partisan leanings. I realize that to have some kind of opinion about this one, I have to think before I speak. And I have things to do.

Such as, for example, go against the Bush administration and the office of the Vice President with everything in my proverbial book.

My friends - we should not be focussing on the bright shiny thing they will dangle before you as if it will line our nest and keep us warm.

We should focus on the light of truth. Prosecutor Fitzgerald has stated clearly - as in his conference last friday -

"We don't just stop there. If we investigate the theft of a million dollars, and find fraud - but then find evidence of embezzlement we go after the embezzler as well."

That is a signal that the rabbit hole goes very deep. Fitzgerald had handlers in the audience - and he was timed to announce his indictment of the man who authored the UN speech Colin Powell had read - the man who interfaced tightly with Karl Rove and the gears of the Bush Administration - with not one but FIVE FELONIES.. that could total 50 years without parole in a federal prison.

The supreme court can wait. There's no way the nomination can be stacked in time for an impeachment. Call for congress to take action -

http://www.truemajority.org

Follow the white rabbit, neo.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:34:07 AM EST

Ps... maybe the good lord is trying to tell us.,, (3.00 / 1)

Maybe the good lord is trying to tell us something about the evangelicals who are going to be used to push this out (or why else would Cheney be meeting with Ralph Reid yesterday..)....

A baptist minister in Texas.. In fact, less than 30 minutes away from Bush's Crawford Ranch... gets zapped by a bolt of electricity when he walks up to the altar..

Let us pray not that god is on our side, but that we are on the side of God.

(and thanks to John Edwards for bringing that line back to us from good old honest abe..!)

Wow...

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:51:12 AM EST

I HOPE it will be (none / 0)

interesting as this shapes up.

Not as a distraction, but as additional evidence for the Bush Administration's tactics and transparent deceptions. Maybe examining the new candidate will even provide more fodder for Fitzgerald's investigation.

by Athena on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:20:31 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.