Kristol: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? (Will Bush nominate a conservative?)

The Weekly Standard ^ | September 6, 2005 | William Kristol

[RWR8189]

WITH JOHN ROBERTS sailing toward confirmation last week, President Bush had the O'Connor seat "won." The Court was set to move one click to the right (so to speak). Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist died. The president chose to move Roberts over to fill the Rehnquist slot--thereby re-opening the vacancy created by Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement.

One understands the attraction of Roberts as chief. But with this action, in one fell swoop, the president deprived himself and his supporters of the easiest argument for his next nominee: that surely a reelected conservative president is entitled to replace a conservative justice--Rehnquist--with another conservative.

So now everything rides on Bush's nerve. Is he willing to fill the O'Connor seat with a conservative, and can he then make an effective case for that nominee to the Senate and the country? Bush will have three huge advantages in such an effort--a 55-seat GOP Senate majority, popular support for a more restrained and conservative Court, and a plethora of well-qualified conservative candidates (consider Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, Maura Corrigan, and Miguel Estrada, for starters). And there are in fact attractive arguments to be made for each of these candidates that go beyond the generic ones and that would make prospects for confirmation good.

So there is no good reason for Bush to flinch. But he could. He may be rattled by the criticism for mishandling hurricane Katrina, and he may think it would be better to avoid too big a fight over the Court. He's always wanted to nominate his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales--he likes him, is loyal to him, and would appreciate the symbolism of putting the first Hispanic on the court. So he might be sorely tempted to do so now.

Would any of his aides have the nerve to tell him that as Supreme Court jurists go, Gonzales would be mediocre--and not a solid bet to move the court in a constitutionalist direction? Would any of them have the nerve to explain to the president that a Gonzales nomination would utterly demoralize many of his supporters, who are sticking with him and his party, through troubles in Iraq and screw-ups with Katrina, precisely because they want a few important things out of a Bush presidency--and one of these is a more conservative court? Would any of them tell the president that risking a core item in the conservative agenda for the sake of either friendship, diversity, or short-term political spin, would be substantively wrong, and politically disastrous?

Maybe. And maybe Bush doesn't need all these reminders.

But even astute presidents occasionally make big mistakes. And one worrisome straw in the wind is the comment by Bush loyalist John Cornyn (R-Tex.) in today's Washington Post, who, according to the Post, thinks the nominee will likely be "a woman or a minority." Cornyn offered what the Post described as "a vigorous defense of Gonzales." "He would be a very good nominee and one that I would be happy to support," Cornyn said. "I've read about these concerns from some conservatives, and I really wonder where they are getting some of these strange ideas."

Yikes. One hopes Cornyn is just being polite to Gonzales and Bush. Or has he been asked to lay the groundwork for a Gonzales nomination? Did Cornyn talk with Karl Rove yesterday, between the Roberts announcement and his interview with the Post? If so, we conservative constitutionalists are in real trouble. More important, so is Bush.

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

[Always Right]

I'm not personally a big fan of Bill Kristol, but he is a good political analyst.

Yep, and besides it matches what I have been saying.

[pollyannaish]

Good post. I am often amazed at the disparate groups of people who misunderestimate the President. Nearly everyone does...over and over again.

[Ol' Sparky]

One understands the attraction of Roberts as chief. But with this action, in one fell swoop, the president deprived himself and his supporters of the easiest argument for his next nominee: that surely a reelected conservative president is entitled to replace a conservative justice--Rehnquist--with another conservative.

Precisely. And, if Bush doesn't name an originalist and conservative with a proven track that is pro-life, all political hell should be unleashed on the Republican party.

There is absolutely NO reason for anything but someone that verifiably has the views of Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas to be nominated. If conservatives don't demand and get anything less, we're wasting our time supporting the Republican party and nothing is going to significantly ever going to change in this nation.

[Dog Gone]

It's not up for debate with me.

[peyton randolph]

I'm not personally a big fan of Bill Kristol, but he is a good political analyst.

Yep. Per Kristol, we're entering the second term of the unbeatable President McCain....oops...guess that didn't happen.

[Always Right]

If Bush was prepared to nominate a conservative for the O'Connor seat then, there is no reason to believe he won't nominate a conservative now.

Because Roberts is undeniably a brilliant legal mind and is well liked even by his adversaries. Roberts was a brilliant pick to replace O'Conner because he has a boy scout background and is untouchable by his opponents. I don't think there is another real conservative who could get the free ride that Roberts got. Bush may very well go with a conservative, but the fight will be as bloody as they come. If it were the Rehnquist replacement, it would have made it much easier. It seems silly, but it is a fact. Liberals have been setting up this arguement to maintain the balance on the court for years now.

[ontos-on]

Regarding the appointments to the Court which the President is making this year, I have a question which is puzzling to me. Who is it really that we know is an adviser to GW on the Supreme Court nominations, AND whom we can count on to give him the message as to the importance of who to pick in directing the court to a constitutional [conservative or rightward] direction. For eg, if Luttig is the best choice available, who in the inner circle of the President, is likely to advise in this direction --even with regard to individuals or as to what the President should be trying to accomplish and how to do it? Is it Rove or Cheney? I don't really think of them as knowledgeable in the realm of judges. How did W arrive at Roberts? How can we hope that he will go further now and choose Luttig or Edith Jones? Who is the person behind the scenes?

I mean, GW appears to have a close personal relation with AG Gonzales, and it is obvious that the AG could not be counted on to counsel in the manner which we would believe appropriate. So, my question is, who is it that is close to the President and whom we can be counting upon to be making the case to the President?

[altura]

And some people don't have enough faith in him.

[RobbyS]

Olsen, if I had a vote, which I don't.

[ontos-on]

Regarding the appointments to the Court which the President is making this year, I have a question which is puzzling to me. Who is it really that we know is an adviser to GW on the Supreme Court nominations, AND whom we can count on to give him the message as to the importance of who to pick in directing the court to a constitutional [conservative or rightward] direction. For eg, if Luttig is the best choice available, who in the inner circle of the President, is likely to advise in this direction --even with regard to individuals or as to what the President should be trying to accomplish and how to do it? Is it Rove or Cheney? I don't really think of them as knowledgeable in the realm of judges. How did W arrive at Roberts? How can we hope that he will go further now and choose Luttig or Edith Jones? Who is the person behind the scenes?

I mean, GW appears to have a close personal relation with AG Gonzales, and it is obvious that the AG could not be counted on to counsel in the manner which we would believe appropriate. So, my question is, who is it that is close to the President and whom we can be counting upon to be making the case to the President?

[YaYa123]

Kristol has lost his edge in recent years. It began with his John McCain love affair. And Kristol is really messed up with this article. He doesn't even mention "Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. She is one of the class of 2001; among the eight Bush nominated appellate court justices from 4 years ago that the Senate confirmed."

I'm predicting Clement. She's got all the conservative credentials, the real deal, she's a woman, and she's from Louisiana..what great timing. I don't think Senate democrats on the committee can attack her without hurting themselves.

[Soul Seeker]

Well, some people just hate the President for their own misguided reasons that sound good in their head but sound stupid to everyone else.

While Some people refuse to believe he's smart. This includes people from both aisles, as with the previous example, that are constantly humiliated when the "simpleton" shows them up. This only makes them hate him more.

Then there are others that seem to thirst for betrayal. Say they trust the President, then look for ways he'll sell them out. The President doesn't generally sell people out. He lays his cards on the table. May not like all his positions, but rarely does he ever track from them. That is not a sell out. Having a different position, alerting people to it, and sticking to it is not a sell out. A sell out would involve promising one thing, encouraging trust, than delivering another.

I don't live my life expecting betrayal. I assess the nature of the people involved, then make a judgement call. In the President's case His Judges have been rock solid. he's never wavered from a Judge that would respect the three branches role and stick to strict interpretation of the Constitution.

It is not reasonable to think he'll do differenlty based on established record. And I refuse to join those that prefer to live their lives expecting a knife in the back from everyone. It's paranoia, it isn't attractive.

[NeoCaveman]

Let it be,
Michael Luttig or
Edith Jones or
Emilio Garza or
Janice Rogers Brown

[A'elian' nation]

"What about James Rogan ?"

You are so right on ! That guy rammed it home during the Clinton impeachment hearings. The Clinton guns and pimps made sure he lost his seat in California.
Sadly, his totally HONEST and forthright presentation of the charges against Clinton makes him PC kryptonite.
Impassioned (ala Bork ) and bold leaders need not apply.
I'm so tired of the squooshy eggshell walkin' republicans who wouldn't back up a man of principle like James Rogan.

[Soul Seeker]

Clement is unacceptable to most conservatives.

[California Patriot]

"President McCain ... didn't happen."

Everyone is entitled to be wrong now and then. Novak made a terrible blooper in July when he predicted Rehnquist's imminent retirement, right down to the day, hour, and minute. But he's still much better than most conservative pundits.

[Dog Gone]

I mean, GW appears to have a close personal relation with AG Gonzales, and it is obvious that the AG could not be counted on to counsel in the manner which we would believe appropriate.

Get real. Gonzales was in charge of vetting all of Bush's nominees during the first four years, and there was not a single complaint from conservatives on the type of judges being selected.

And if Gonzales was so liberal and awful, why did he allow such good judges to be nominated?

[jscottdavis_for_48th_district]

I myself sent a letter to President Bush and reminded him of how Hollywood's left has trash talked him throughout his Presidency. It's now payback time! I expect President Bush to certainly go with Conservatives.

[You Dirty Rats]

So there is no good reason for Bush to flinch. But he could. He may be rattled by the criticism for mishandling hurricane Katrina.

Bush rattled? LMAO!!! What a stupid comment!!

[YaYa123]

Clement is not unsatisfactory to me.


"Edith B. Clement
Biography
Judge Clement was sworn in as a United States District Judge in 1991 and is presently serving as Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana. She was a maritime attorney in the New Orleans firm of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre from 1975 - 1991.

Judge Clement received her undergraduate degree from the University of Alabama in 1969 and her J.D. from Tulane Law School in 1973, and served as law clerk to the late U.S. District Judge Herbert W. Christenberry. She is a member of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, the Federal Bar Association, the American Law Institute, the Federalist Society, the Tulane Law School's Inn of Court, the Committee on the Administrative Office of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and she serves as the Eastern District of Louisiana Representative on the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council.

She is married and has two children."