Skip to comments.Merrillville [Indiana] native might have shot at Supreme Court
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 thetimesonline.com ...
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.
Funny, Roberts is a Long Beach, IN native. Is it something in the water?
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
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Not in the water, Hoosiers are just a smart lot!:)
Not in Valparaiso during the early 80's, in my experience. :)
John Roberts was born in Buffalo, NY, but grew up in Indiana.
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.
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.
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.
Education: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.
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.
Sounds impressive. Now is she a judicial conservative?
What the hell's wrong with Bush ?
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.
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.
...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....
I like the woman at the Michigan supreme court. She appeals to my midwestern sensibilities.
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 Slate.com's "shortlist" of possible Republican nominees who believe in "moderation."
Correction.... Joseph Farah, not Steve Farah.
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.
A certain Vice President chosen by GHW Bush was from Indiana, if you recalle. :o)
When did Jonah Goldberg get married? I missed that one.
That last point is a killer right there, if the first points weren't already killers.
International law? You mean whatever Kofi Annan and his tinpot dictator friends cook up among themselves?
The problem with international law, idealistic as it sounds, is the same as the problem with Eurolaw. It's a product of leftist intellectuals and bureaucrats. It has no accountability to the voters. It can't be voted out of office. It is laid down by people who can say whatever you like, and us peons are expected to lump it.
That was part of the problem with Sandra Day O'Connor, and if Mahoney is what you say she is, then she would be even worse. A clever, attractive, persuasive advocate of subordinating our Constitution to the UN. That's decidedly not what we need.
I've got my old 1975 Michigan City phonebook and his dad's name is in there.
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.