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?
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.