Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Merrillville [Indiana] native might have shot at Supreme Court
Northwest Indiana News ^ | 29 October 2005 | Deborah Laverty and Brandon Honig

Posted on 10/29/2005 7:35:51 PM PDT by Racehorse

Merrillville native Maureen Mahoney's name being considered as a U.S. Supreme Court nominee doesn't surprise her mother, Marian Mahoney.

"I talk to my daughter or e-mail her every day. I've known for some time," said Marian Mahoney in regard to her 51-year-old daughter being mentioned as a potential nominee.

Maureen Mahoney confirmed Friday she is a potential nominee, but she said she can't talk about the process leading up to her accepting the nomination.

"I already have a dream job, but it's extremely flattering to be considered," she said.

She said she has been compared to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts because they are both from Northwest Indiana and had worked as a clerk for late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist.

[. . .]

News of the possibility Maureen might be considered for a post on the nation's high court leaked out last weekend in The New York Times and The Washington Post, Marian Mahoney said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: bush; judicialnominees; justice; mahoney; maureenmahoney; miers; nomination; overmydeadbody; senate; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Just a gentle reminder not to get too caught up in the hype. Who knows what's really going on in the background.

Mahoney, though no judge, is no slouch. Even with her University of Michigan baggage, she'll not be an easy target for either the left or right.

1 posted on 10/29/2005 7:35:53 PM PDT by Racehorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Funny, Roberts is a Long Beach, IN native. Is it something in the water?

2 posted on 10/29/2005 7:37:09 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Do you think social conservatives will accept somebody that is not sure about Roe and at the same time is positive on supporting affirmative action? She may have great credentials, and her party affiliation is Republican. But I don't think that's enough for conservatives. We may see the Battle of Miers 2.0

3 posted on 10/29/2005 7:38:57 PM PDT by paudio (Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse
She's been mentioned by Joseph Farah as a likely Bush pick. If you love an affirmative action Republican, she's your woman. If Harriet Miers was David Souter In A Skirt, Mahoney is compared to John Roberts In A Skirt. The Bush White House has a penchant for stealth candidates... the stealthier, the better.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

4 posted on 10/29/2005 7:40:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Not in the water, Hoosiers are just a smart lot!:)

5 posted on 10/29/2005 7:42:23 PM PDT by JRochelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

Not in Valparaiso during the early 80's, in my experience. :)

6 posted on 10/29/2005 7:44:13 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
When I saw the headline I wondered what kind of weapon he used to shoot at the Supreme Court.

John Roberts was born in Buffalo, NY, but grew up in Indiana.

7 posted on 10/29/2005 7:50:31 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus (No blood for Brussels sprouts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Wow! I read the article, but no where did I find what type firearm was used to do the shooting. Why should someone who might have shot at the supreme court be rewarded with a job at the same institution she shot at?

Just not enough info to make an informed decision--but if the White House staff vets this candidate properly then it is as sure a deal as the last one.

8 posted on 10/29/2005 7:50:55 PM PDT by tarepeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

I confess this makes me extremely uneasy. I really, really don't want to have to read everything Maureen Mahoney has written to figure her out, the way I did with Miers. I have other things to do the next couple of days.

As the article suggests, the sine qua non for a lot of us is willingness to consider reversing Roe v. Wade, both because it has been responsible for the killing of 40 million unborn children, and also because it is the single worst piece of legislating from the bench that SCOTUS has ever done.

9 posted on 10/29/2005 7:57:02 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarepeter
Just not enough info to make an informed decision--but if the White House staff vets this candidate properly then it is as sure a deal as the last one.

There's plenty of info out there for you to browse through.  Should she get the nod from Bush (Oh how the man does love his surprises), meet your new Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

From her Latham & Watkins professional biography.

Litigation Department
JD, University of Chicago, 1978
With Honors; Order of the Coif; Member, University of Chicago Law Review

BA, Indiana University, 1974
Highest Honors; Phi Beta Kappa

Maureen Mahoney is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins, and leads the firm's appellate and constitutional practice. Ms. Mahoney originally joined the firm in 1980, but left in 1991 to accept an appointment as a United States Deputy Solicitor General. During her tenure in the Solicitor General's Office, President Bush nominated Ms. Mahoney to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Senate did not act on her nomination prior to the election. Ms. Mahoney returned to the partnership of Latham & Watkins in 1993.

Ms. Mahoney has handled a broad range of constitutional and appellate litigation in the Supreme Court and other courts throughout the country, representing clients as varied as the United States House of Representatives, Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Government of Saudi Arabia. She represented the University of Michigan before the Supreme Court and won the landmark case upholding the constitutionality of admissions programs that consider race as one of many factors in order to attain the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The Legal Times reported that this ruling was a “personal win” for Ms. Mahoney and called her “a skilled appellate advocate, unruffled and poised.” The Daily Journal awarded Ms. Mahoney the “Best Oral Argument” in the individual category accolade for that Supreme Court term and went on to say that she “withstood withering questioning from Justice Antonin Scalia while stressing the points relied upon by O'Connor in her opinion for the 5-4 court.” Most recently, she successfully argued her thirteenth case in the Supreme Court on behalf of Arthur Andersen in a challenge to the firm's criminal conviction. The Legal Times described the argument in Andersen as “one of the term's best.”

Ms. Mahoney argued her first case before the Supreme Court in 1988, when the Court specially selected her to argue a case. She won the case in a 5-4 decision, and the American Lawyer reported that “her presentation was so well-schooled, poised, and disciplined that, according to one justice, the justices passed notes among themselves during the argument praising Mahoney and asking questions about her background.” In 1993, Ms. Mahoney successfully defended a highly publicized challenge to US immigration policies. The American Lawyer reported that Ms. Mahoney used “forensic magic” in the argument, and David Broder's Washington Post column called her argument “superb.” She also represented the House of Representatives in its successful Supreme Court challenge to the Commerce Department's plans for the use of sampling in the 2000 census.

10 posted on 10/29/2005 8:04:25 PM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Yes, but according to the WH hype and sales pitch the last few weeks, Miers was 'the most qualified female in whole wide world'.

So Maureen Mahoney or any other woman would seem a distant runner-up candidate.

11 posted on 10/29/2005 8:08:20 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Sounds impressive. Now is she a judicial conservative?

12 posted on 10/29/2005 8:08:40 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

What the hell's wrong with Bush ?

13 posted on 10/29/2005 8:16:21 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Janice Rogers Brown is the only High Court nominee that is acceptable to me, period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Now is she a judicial conservative?

Is Roberts?  :-)

I hear tell some folks over at National Review like her.

Jonah Goldberg thinks she'll be conservative enough to satisfy your conservative longings:

MY NEW FAVORITE [Jonah Goldberg ]

If they've got to go with a woman, I vote Maureen Mahoney (my first pick remains McConnell).

Much of the commentary about her is that she's super qualified, brilliant and conservative. The only drawback according to many is that she took the pro-quota position in the University of Michigan case.

Well, maybe I'm making a smidgen of news here, but I think that's been overblown. Here's why: Mahoney took a very strong anti-gender preferences position on Title IX arguing on behalf of Brown University. You'd know that if you'd read my lovely bride's pathbreaking book Tilting the Playing Field. Taking an anti-Title IX position is, in some quarters, even more of a heresy than taking on racial quotas. In other quarters it's a close second.

Of course, one could simply argue that she was being a good lawyer for Brown and showing her true colors in the Michigan case. But, after an exclusive interview with my wife -- she took my call! -- I can say that she thinks Mahoney's views are more anti-quota than working for Michigan might superficially suggest.

Since the Michigan thing is the only argument I've ever heard against Mahoney (See Red State, for example) I figured it'd be worth throwing that out there.

14 posted on 10/29/2005 8:35:13 PM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I don't think there is any question that Mahoney is held in enormous esteem in the legal community. But I think that after the Miers debacle, the time is probably not right for someone who defended affirmative action and took on a Texas law against homosexual sex. It just doesn't make sense to pick someone who probably won't play nearly as well with good portion of the base as other options.

This is not to deny how accomplished and impressive she is. She has a cheering section over at NRO.

There is a brief summary of her strengths and weaknesses at the link below. I'm excerpting just a bit of it.

Confirmation Strengths
...Privacy advocates applaud her defense of the fundamental right to privacy in the bedroom. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The court identified, "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

One would expect her to be a strong advocate for inherent rights to privacy, women's rights, and U.S. obligations to international law. She could attract support from the Democrats interested in confirming a conservative nominee likely to defend and protect human rights, the right to equality before the law, and a diverse docket....

15 posted on 10/29/2005 8:45:33 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I like the woman at the Michigan supreme court. She appeals to my midwestern sensibilities.

16 posted on 10/29/2005 9:03:47 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
She looks like another potential stealth liberal-moderate candidate. Let's hope Bush doesn't repeat the same mistake by nominating Maureen Mahoney that he made when he nominated Harriet Miers

From Steve Farah at WND....

....She told the university news service: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action. I care deeply about the issue."

Mahoney is no stranger to nominations for federal judicial posts. The first President Bush named her to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Senate did not act on her nomination before the end of Bush's term.

She seems to be the favorite of liberal analysts hoping for another stealth Supreme Court nominee – someone along the lines of David Souter or Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. She was No. 1 on's "shortlist" of possible Republican nominees who believe in "moderation."

17 posted on 10/29/2005 10:36:04 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup; ClaireSolt

Correction.... Joseph Farah, not Steve Farah.

18 posted on 10/29/2005 10:40:46 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

In a debate with Breyer Scalia pointed out that while the English judiciary might be a meritocracy, the same was not true of the American judicary. He pointed out that the choices are political. John Marshall was a political choice. Roger Taney was a political choice. Earl Warren was a political choice.

19 posted on 10/29/2005 10:42:38 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

A certain Vice President chosen by GHW Bush was from Indiana, if you recalle. :o)

20 posted on 10/29/2005 10:46:22 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson