Skip to comments.Confirmation politics
Posted on 09/23/2005 10:29:22 PM PDT by Crackingham
The vote by Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice surprised Bush administration officials. But it fit Democrats' Supreme Court grand strategy.
Leahy is not really at odds with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who came out against confirmation. Leahy opened the door for yes votes by Democratic senators (including two Judiciary Committee colleagues) who believe Roberts is going to be confirmed anyway. Reid's position puts the party formally in opposition to Roberts, satisfying People for the American Way and other anti-Roberts liberal activist groups.
A footnote: Speculation in legal circles is that federal Appeals Court Judge Priscilla Owen of Austin, Texas, will be named to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. But sources close to President Bush warn he has not made up his mind whether to pick a woman for the vacancy.
The dems are fools. Rather than play their cards close to the chest, they have made their strategy so open.
Now, Bush simply should nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
If the idiot Dems block her, then he should nominate Roe hating Garza.
If the super idiot Dems block him, then Bush should nominate Luttig.
He should then declare to America that blacks and hispanics have no chance of winning confirmation with Dems and therefore he chose a white male.
And many would believe it, too. Not a bad strategy.
Just like them saying during their filibusters, "This is not a filibuster. "
Herman Cain is right, "They think your stupid. "
I think Bush might nominate Alberto Gonzalez at some point.
Novak points out, further in his article, that Ed Gillespie might be his party's senatorial nominee for Virginia in three years.
Given that Barbour in Mississippi was an establishment insider, and once a lobbyist too (like Gillespie), is it much wonder that this party can't enact much of a conservative agenda, even when it has majority in both houses of congress *and* has the presidency? This kind of incestuous relationships between lobbyists (who advocate for all sorts of federal government activism) and elected officials in government will not help in the long term.
I see where you are coming from. However, that would take the process out to 2006 and Bush doesn't want that.
Bush should nominate Miquel Estrada and bring up the whole memogate the RATS and Kennedy pulled with the Affirmative Action college business in Michigan. The RATS would hate for this to become public knowledge.
They have nothing on Estrada and that is what scared them.
This strategy did not satisfy the far left groups. They are fit to be tied at Leahy.
Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown.
President Bush can pick anyone from the above list of judges and I will be happy. If the demonRATS filibuster... "nukular" option. They have been "misunderestimating" our beloved President for years and he always has a surprise for them, something that they cannot comprehend... he does what he said he would do. What great "strategery", tell what you are going to do, then do it. It really does work.
There are indeed worse people who could be on the Supreme Court but in my opinion she is not the "Best Choice." Sadly, the Best Choice (actually the top two) are White, Religious, Conservative, OUTSPOKEN, Males. If I were president my list would look like this, in order:
1. J Michael Luttig
2. Michael McConnell
3. Janice Rogers Brown
4. Edith Hollan Jones
888 Mickey Mouse
889 Alberto Gonzalez
I agree with your analysis but being practical the President will appoint a woman and since JRB is also black, he will get a two-fer. The extreme lefties will object but they would object to ruth the ugly if GWB appointed her.
I do not think the President is going to overlook the best qualified male to appoint a female JUST LIKE he will not look over the best qualified female to appoint a male.
Luttig really isn't that outspoken. I don't think he's ever given a speech or written an article where he states any of his views. Aside from his opinions on the bench, he's pretty much a closed book.
I agree. I added the word "outspoken" because Michael McConnell is number 2 on the list.
Don't you think Gonzalez is a bit high on you list.
Democrats and John Roberts
September 25, 2005
John Roberts is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed chief justice of the U.S. by the full Senate this week. Republicans control the chamber, and those on the Judiciary Committee unanimously backed him last week. But five committee Democrats voted no, and several other prominent Democratic senators announced their opposition as well. Their objections are worth considering, if only because they raise the question: What would it take to please them?
When it comes to judicial appointments, Senate Democrats have long accused the president of favoring sharp-edged ideologues with unimpressive resumes, chosen without due regard for Democratic sensibilities. Given that, you would think they would have jumped at the chance to vote for this nominee, whose record suggests he is passionate about the law but not about ideology, and who is known as possibly the most talented Supreme Court advocate of our time.
When President Bush originally chose Roberts to fill the seat of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he was clearly meeting the Democrats halfway. He passed over several candidates who would have been much more popular with his conservative base. And after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he might have tried to elevate either of the two most conservative members of the court, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Instead, he made a comparatively conciliatory choice, which some liberals praised as the best they could have hoped for.
Some Senate Democrats concurred last week, despite the protests of liberal lobby groups. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) surprised many on the left and the right when he voted for Roberts, citing his "impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, showed similar courage in supporting the nomination.
No one expected such independence from Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, a reflexive partisan. It was disheartening, though, to see Barack Obama (D-Ill.) fall in line with the Democratic leadership--and do a poor job of justifying that position. Admitting that the nominee has a host of sterling qualities, Obama essentially said he couldn't vote for him because Roberts doesn't seem to share Obama's views on racial issues--in short, he just isn't as enlightened as Obama. Who knew of that constitutional requirement?
If Obama and other Democrats want more liberal justices on the court, there is one way to get them: Convince voters to put a Democrat in the White House. This tortured opposition to Roberts isn't likely to improve their odds of doing that. They instead might have tried extending to John Roberts the fairness they profess to value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.