Next Pick May See Tougher Fight

FOXnews.com ^ | 30 September 2005 | Jane Roh

[Aussie Dasher]

President Bush's pick for chief justice of the United States was confirmed and sworn in as expected on Thursday, but Bush's next nominee to be a Supreme Court justice is unlikely to get as smooth a ride.

Beneath the bluster over John G. Roberts' positions on abortion and civil rights, Democrats found very little to squabble about, owing largely to Roberts' pristine resumé, breadth of legal precedent and scant divulgence of personal views.

Most if not all of the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts' confirmation on Thursday had no quarrel with the judge's qualifications. They said they opposed him because they couldn't get a clear read on his views of the social issues likely to come before the high court.

That surely will matter to more Democrats in Round 2 of Bush's quest to rebuild the Supreme Court.

"This is the time for a consensus nominee. I know that there will be people who will pressure the president from one side to have a nominee who is way over to that side, but I don't think that serves the president or America well," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who opposed Roberts' confirmation.

[Aussie Dasher]

I think this clown is suggesting Dubya nominate a Dem to avoid the filabuster...she must be on some pretty strong drugs!

[marmar]

For some reason the demon-rats think they are still running the show...........

[ncountylee]

Schumer will check their credit reports, Im sure.

[Fenris6]

Where do the Dems/MSM get the fiction that a SCOTUS nominee must resemble the justice he's replacing?

Would Hillary replace Scalia with a staunch conservative to maintain "balance and diversity" on the court? LOL.

[Clintonfatigued]

I agree with the part of the article that the Harriet Miers is a diversion to catch everyone off guard. I'll bet that Miers herself doesn't expect to be chosen.

[dgallo51]

God I hope he picks a fight with the Dims…MAKE MY DAY!

[M-cubed]

They said they opposed him because they couldn't get a clear read on his views of the social issues likely to come before the high court. <<<

Translation:...Re: "They"........F**K the Constitution!....I'm here to keep my job!

[flashbunny]

I have a hunch the pick is going to be diane sykes.

First, it fits the 'woman/diversity' angle.

But mainly, she's from wisconsin. And the only state with two senators on the judiciary committee is wisconsin - and they're both democrats who voted for her last time when she was appointed to the appeals court.

They'd have a hell of a time explaining why she was a good pick then but not a good pick now - both to the press and the voters in wisconsin. Who just lost their other 'local' Supreme court member Rhenquist.

Plus, Biden and Schumer also voted for her last time around.

[jwalsh07]

Bush should nominate the most conservative originalist he can find. Somebody exactly in the mold of Clarence Thomas. Jancie Brown will do quite nicely. I look forward to the cries of the banshees.

[Clintonfatigued]

I agree with your posting. Democrats never considered filibustering her. She was confirmed by a vote of 70 to 27, including 31 Democrats. She has a good resume, serving on the Milwaukee County Superior Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court before winning her current post last year. Also achieved acedemic distinction in college. And an advantage for conservatives is that she's only 46 y/o.

She has two potential pitfalls. In 1993, she gave a lenient sentence to some pro-life protesters who blockaded an abortion clinic, and praised them for their "pure motives", which could give Democrats ammo. Also, her ex-husband is the Michael Savage of Wisconsin, with a penchent for controversial remarks. They could come back to embarrass her in a confirmation hearing. Hopefully, if she's the choice, Rove, Miers, & Co. will have prepped her well.

[p23185]

>>God I hope he picks a fight with the Dims…MAKE MY DAY!<<<
Oh I so hope he does this also! Let's rumble and get the judicial advise and consent "filibuster" rules changed once and for all (back to pre-Tom Daschle days).

[Mr_Moonlight]

I know that there will be people who will pressure the president from one side to have a nominee who is way over to that side, but I don't think that serves the president me or America my party well," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y

There ... I fixed it ......

[badpacifist]

Bush's next nominee to be a Supreme Court justice is unlikely to get as smooth a ride.

Ya Think?

[flashbunny]

charlie sykes isn't the michael savage of wisconsin - he's rather tame compared to mark belling, who manages to fill in for rush several times a year.

They'd try to make something about her being (formerly) married to him, but there's not much they can do, unless they wanto to start tarring everyone with the sins of their spouse - then feinstein had better watch out.

[goodnesswins]

"Tougher Fight?" I'd like to see it.

[TitansAFC]

Agreed.

The President made a promise, and it's time to keep it. He never promised an "easy to confirm" candidate, he promised a Thomas or Scalia. I'm tired of the White House just trying to avoid a fight and please everybody. Once an election is over, they all go from "I'm going to fight for you (Thomas and Scalia, uncontrolled spending, Marriage Amendment)" to "gosh we'd really just like to avoid a fight....."

There is a large pool of candidates he can choose from who would be a promise well kept, without the questions from his base:

1.) J. Michael Luttig (50-51 years old, solidly Pro-Life and Conservative)
2.) Michael McConnell (50 years old, a favorite of Christian Conservatives)
3.) Edith Jones (56 years old, solid Pro-Life Conservative)
4.) Miguel Estrada (44 years old, unlikely but great pick)
5.) Emilio Garza (57 years old, solid Pro-Life Conservative)
6.) Samuel Alito (54 years old. So Conservative he is called "Scalito" due to his similarities with Justice Scalia)
7.) Janice Rogers Brown (56 years old, solid Conservative activist)

And that doesn't even count a John Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, or Rick Santorum.

The only tough choice should be which bona fide Conservative should get the nod. If he's looking to avoid a fight on the SCOTUS, then I will be looking not to make Democrats angry at us in the 2006 elections. After all, why should we provoke a fight? We should just let the elections go smoothly, without all of the fighting and controversy. Who needs the drama?

I hear a lot of names like Sykes, Williams, etc. But they all leave us wondering and hoping for the best. They are not a promise kept, period. A promise kept means there will be a battle, specifically because the judge is in the mold of a Thomas and Scalia.

I am serious when I say it. If the President is just looking to avoid a fight when he goes to bat for us, then I will be among those returning the favor for years to come. Maybe I'll change my mind and vote and volunteer again - after his mistake of a Justice should die or retire.

This is a very important pick, and a very important promise. I (we) will not soon forget........

Sykes and Williams and the bunch may or may not be decent choices, but we do not know that they are in the mold of a Thomas and Scalia - neither does the President. So there is simply no other way to read such a nomination as anything other than a broken promise. It will make Bush a liar, just like the Democrats have said.

Nobody likes a liar.

'Nuff said.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

Lemme hear an 'Amen'!

AMEN!!!!!

[Clintonfatigued]

"They'd try to make something about her being (formerly) married to him, but there's not much they can do, unless they wanto to start tarring everyone with the sins of their spouse - then feinstein had better watch out."

Not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Clintonfatigued]

I think you're overstating your case. The fact that someone doesn't have a high public profile, outspoken demeanor, or extensive paper trail doesn't necessarily mean that he or she doesn't have strong conservative convictions. Just because we don't know a lot about a judicial nominee, it doesn't mean the White House doesn't know a lot about him or her. They have an extensive vetting profess, after all. Though Bush's spending and immigration policies aren't stellar, on judges he has come through for conservatives time and time again.

Isn't it better to oursmart the Democrats than to outshout them?

[Fenris6]

I am serious when I say it. If the President is just looking to avoid a fight when he goes to bat for us, then I will be among those returning the favor for years to come. Maybe I'll change my mind and vote and volunteer again - after his mistake of a Justice should die or retire. This is a very important pick, and a very important promise. I (we) will not soon forget........

Bush is taking heat from his base [us] for alot of reasons - immigration non-control, pork spending for corrupt politicians in Lousiana, etc. I'm betting he's going to go with a staunch conservative - and I agree that if he fails to follow up re SCOTUS, alot of people I met in our GOTV effort will be sitting at home in 06 & 08.