but can this mutt stay awake till W is out of office???
Posted on 12/13/2006 4:45:27 PM PST by RWR8189
From the Evans-Novak Political Report: "The rumor around Washington -- originating from undetermined sources some time around the beginning of 2006 -- is that Justice John Paul Stevens wants to be replaced by a Republican President, just as he was appointed by one, Gerald Ford. Stevens, a consistent liberal voice and vote on the high court, was also rumored to have wanted to step down after the 2006 election, so as to avoid making his replacement into a political issue. Although there is no way to determine whether Stevens actually intends to retire, it is not unlikely that one of the nine justices will in the next two years."
To push a nomination through a Democratic Senate, Bush may choose a U.S. Senator, a suggestion once recommended by incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Ont he short list: Mike DeWine (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Mike Crapo (R-ID) or Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
"Another senator then on Bush's short-list -- and still on it -- is Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A member of the Judiciary Committee, Cornyn once served as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court and was also elected attorney general of that state."
Now that Dems. are in charge, we will see even more bloviating from the Senate Judiciary Committee if there's a Supreme Court vacancy. And they will have the votes to keep a Judge Alito nomination from getting out of committee. They will be "concerned" and "troubled" about this, that, and what the nominee thinks of Roe Vs. Wade.
elections have consequences, as we know. One consequence of Dems. in charge is trying to get judges confirmed now.
SCOTUS nominees go to the floor with or without approval from the Judiciary.
Clarence Thomas was rejected by the Judiciary Committee and approved by the full Senate. We'll how the rules of the game work this time around though.
Why is an unsubstantiated rumor worth a column?
Gun Owners of America grades them:
Cornyn: A
Martinez: A
Crapo: B
Graham: B
Dewine: F
Whoever supports 'open borders'.
Wonder why Bush doesn't put up about 10-15 conservative judges and let the congress auto-eroticate themselves fighting over it for the next two years? Remember, a govt. that does nothing is doing it's job.
Thanks for the correction. Then we'll have to see about the use of a filibuster if the Dems. are "troubled" and "concerned" about the nominee.
Isn't the "nuclear" option off the table now that Dems. are in charge? After all, they could vote that proposal down in a party line vote and still filibuster.
Dems. are hoping that Bush won't get anymore Supreme Court nominees. They look forward to Hillary or Barack appointing liberal judges.
I believe Cornyn is probably the best. As far as I can tell, he is conservative and does not waver from that position!
On other hand, I would Not want Lindsey Graham (R-SC) because according to one site, he believes in the following:
* Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
So, Johnson is replaced by a Pubbie, only to have Bush appoint a Pubbie to the Court who will be replaced by a Rat. Thus Bush fumbles again. Senate stays in RAT hands!
I would like to see Cornyn appointed. If Stevens does retire(and I pray he does) Bush may be forced to appoint a sitting Senator in order to avoid a filibuster. I don't see some of the more moderate Democrats filibustering one of their colleagues.
Right. And I wonder why Crapo was suggested -- if it was by the Dems, no go. They are very, very good at smelling out ideological weakness in Republican colleagues. Cornyn would be relatively OK, but far from ideal.
In any case, I have a hard time believing that Stevens or any other liberal will retire.
"So, Johnson is replaced by a Pubbie, only to have Bush appoint a Pubbie to the Court who will be replaced by a Rat. Thus Bush fumbles again. Senate stays in RAT hands!"
I would sacrifice Senate control for that magical 5th conservative S.C. Justice. We have Senate elections every two years. Justices serve for life and have more influence.
No one nominated by George W. Bush to serve on the Supreme Court will be ratified by the Senate, nor is it at all likely that any Bush nominee to certain appellate courts could be ratified by the Senate. We will see obstructionism and foot-dragging such as not heretofore experienced, on more than one legislative front but especially where the federal judiciary is concerned.
Cornyn not ideal because he's never been a federal judge, therefore is relatively untested.
If Bush thinks that sending "one of their own" through Senate confirmation will make it any easier, he's wrong. It will be a battle royale for the ages, unless Bush sends a pro-abortion nominee through. I do not expect him to do that.
Yes indeed. I agree - this means everything, and is a big motivation for a lot of GOP activists.
Bush doesn't have a prayer of getting a conservative confirmed. The best he can do is give us a recess appointment of someone like Bork, and a great campaign issue that will bring social conservatives out in droves in 2008.
I agree.
In fact who was the last senator to be appointed to the SCOTUS?
Shoot me if it's Miss Graham.
I tend to agree that if Bush appoints ANY solid conservative, even a senator, the nomination won't be confirmed by this Senate. The one possible exception would be an appointment that would shift a seat from R to D, but even then, I don't think it would happen. My guess is that in the unlikely event of a SCOTUS vacancy, Bush will appoint a moderate, whether a senator or a judge.
Stevens is in his late 80s. Ginsburg is in her mid-70s, but her health is poor. Either (or both) could quite likely retire (or even die) in the next two years.
The others vary in age from their early 50s to early 70s, and all appear to be in reasonably good health.
If Bush gets another chance to appoint, I hope he will try to do as well as he did with Roberts and Alito. If the Democrats block the appointment, it will be likely to hurt them in '08.
First of all, Johnson isn't out of the Senate, and even if he were, if Bush wanted a Senator on the Court, he'd just choose someone like Cornyn, who would have his replacement appointed by a Republican governor.
It doesn't have to be a Senator nor did I say it had to be. I just said I think a Senator wouldn't be filibustered by his colleagues, thus we would have a better chance of getting a conservative confirmed. Its been probably 50 years since a Senator has been nominated to the court.
It used to be very common in the 19th and early 20th century.
I think it would be a battle royale; I didn't say we'd lose. If Bush nominates a moderate, pro-choice justice, he loses conservatives forever, and the Republican Party will have a terrible time winning them back for 2008. It would be an utter disaster.
And he can win. It will mean using tactics that Republicans aren't used to using - like actually disrupt the operation of the Senate. Senate Republicans, who see politics as the maintenance of a working system instead of the changing of an old system, aren't comfortable with this. (Hence their capitulation to the Democrats during the judge battles, and the eventual Gang of 14.) But they will have to learn to do these things, because their political survival at the ballot box depends on it.
They can start by filibustering and holding every last bill that comes up for consideration, from Health and Human Services to renaming the local post office. They can have daily press conferences, demagoguing the Democrats shamelessly, talking about "this good man (or woman) who deserves a vote, who has a great legal mind, who loves his or her country, and the Democrats will not let her serve."
It can be done. But the President and the Republican Party must have the vision, and must learn not to be driven be expediency when principles are on the line.
"In fact who was the last senator to be appointed to the SCOTUS?"
Ok, the last person to have served in the Senate to be appointed to the Supreme Court was Sherman Minton however he was not a sitting Senator at the time of his appointment. He was an appeals court judge. He was appointed by President Truman in 1949. The last sitting Senator to be appointed to the SC was Harold Burton. He was appointed by President Truman in 1945.
It certainly "can be done" and might even work if it were done. But it won't be done. Republican senators are mostly spineless, caring more about relationships across the aisle, their image among the elites, etc., than almost anything else. Yes, a fight would be at least slightly helpful to the GOP in '08. But I don't believe that's how most of our senators think or prioritize.
I apologize for misstating what you said. You say it would be tough. I say it would be very unlikely.
I don't think Bush SHOULD appoint a moderate, but I think he will.
Yes I agree, that would be one of the best outcomes. Especially if the Senate wastes their next two years arguing over the next Supreme Court Justice.
Please. not Lindsay Graham.
vaudine
but can this mutt stay awake till W is out of office???
Why not Janice Rogers Brown?
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
Our Constitution does not require prior judicial experience or even legal experience to be a member of the Supreme Court.
An Historian could be named and approved since the role is to determine whether laws are in accord with the Constitition and the Founding Fathers meanings, that is the meanings of the thoughts and words at the time of writing.
Legalize is for the undergrads.
The Democrats could VERY easily dig in their heels for 2 yrs. and hold out against allowing anyone that Bush would nominate, liberal, conservative, or something in between. Every day that passes is one day closer to their opportunity to having an appointment made by a Democrat president instead, and no amount of public uproar could force them off the dime until they see if they can't get a Democrat president in '08.
Will Justice Stevens Retire?
This is the same a**hole that you could count on to vote communist or fascist, depending on the circumstance.
This is the same goosestepper who proclaimed: "we must rethink the concept of private property.."
This is the same sh*thead who wrote the majority decision in Kelo.
Stevens is at best a filthy hedonist Marxist. My opinion of what he really is would get me banned from FR for a thousand and one years. The f'n prick.
If Stevens retires I will laugh my head off every time an evangelical says they stayed home to teach the pubs a lesson.
Why is an unsubstantiated rumor worth a column?
Because it gives hope to those who believe in freedom that the bastard will die.
What does his position on immigrant visas have to do with his judicial philosophy?
No problem at all! I think you and I are on the same page. Very few Republican Senators are willing to go over the cliff on a matter of principle.
I don't get to talk about Stevens much here on FR, but I hope Stevens suffers in hell as much as he caused the good citizens to suffer in the northwest.
Stevens destroyed logging jobs with his asinine decisions. He destroyed schools. He destroyed restaurants, hardware stores, ice cream shops, churches and small towns all over America.
He ripped communities apart from his comfortable chair in Washington DC.
I consider Stevens and Bruce Babbitt to be on par with Heinrich Himmler, trying to establish Hitler's fascist lebensraum here in America.
Stevens is evil. Period.
GWB can nominate anyone, even someone who isn't in the Government. He selected Tony Snow to be his press voice and Mr. Snow is doing an excellent job. A person who could do an excellent job on the SCOTUS is Judge Napolitano.
ABP (Anybody but Pandsey).
If Graham goes to the SCOTUS, he would give up his Senate seat. His successor would be appointed by Governor Sanford, a proven conservative.
This would save Pandsey the embarrassment of loosing in the primary.
And I'm sure Gov. Sanford would appoint a solid conservative to take Pandsey's place.
But, Lordy, do we want uber-RINO Pandsey on the SCOTUS for life? I think not. For some of the reasons, see Anita1's excellent reply at number 9 above.
Personally, I'd rather keep the status quo and watch him get defeated in the primary.
Lindsey Ping
We need to know how a person has previously dealt with the Constitution while in an actual position to interpret it.
We need to see a real-world record of resistance to liberal interpretations in actual cases. Nothing else will do. The fact that the Constitution doesn't require a member to be a judge or even a lawyer is irrelevant. There are many minimal requirements in the Constitution. They shouldn't be our only guide. What you're giving us here is just thoughtless, knee-jerk populism. There is far too much at stake to put a largely untested amateur on the Supreme Court.
I don't know anything about what you wrote. What are you referring to, specifically?
>>Clarence Thomas was rejected by the Judiciary Committee<<
This isn't true. The vote was 7-7.
Hugo Black (1937-1971). By historical standards, there have been 5 distinct career paths to the SCOTUS, each about equally used until recent times.
As I recall they were:
politician
executive branch
private attorney
federal judge
I want to say the 5th was state court judge.
When Bork was rejected, several current and former US Senators names were bandied about. At the time it was thought that the Senate would not reject a former or sitting US Senator out of senatorial courtesy. I don't know if that feeling still exists on Capitol Hill.
A sitting US Senator nowadays would require enabling legislation to reduce the pay of the seat.
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.