Posted on 8/3/2007, 3:00:06 AM by Clintonfatigued
Most of the shortlists for the Supreme Court being bandied about (including ours) are predicated on the assumption that Bush is most interested in appointing a radical right-wing justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. That idea is supported by the names most often mentioned by the White House and people close to it. But what if the president decided to look instead for a conservative in the traditional sense of the word, a distinguished jurist who believes in moderation, judicial restraint, and deference to Congress? A shortlist that emphasized those qualities might include the following:
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I stumbled upon this editorial while researching something online. And while the arrogant bias of the authors is flagrant, the people they named struck my interest.
I’d like to hear the opinions from Freepers who pay close attention to the judicial appointment issue.
I hope Slate goes out of business.
“When they recommended John Danforth, I almost threw up.”
I agree, that was ludicrous. But some of the other people named bear a closer look.
Stale has very deep pockets. Bill Gates and his foundations could afford for it to lose $100 million a year on it forever.
Meh. In the event that someone dies in the next 2 years, many of these choices are too old to be considered, and many are flat out liberal.
The only purpose of this list is to forward the same names back to Hillary if it become necessary. I could tolerate another Anthony Kennedy, but nobody even seems to approach that here.
If Bush picked someone this liberal, Chuckie would bite. The alternative is taking the chance of Fred Thompson filling the seat.
As a list for SCOTUS goes, this reads something like a slap in the face to the President:
Mahoney - comfortable with A.A. (what else is she comfortable with?)
Raggi - Schumer: “Ideal”
Parker - former Clinton appointee
Posner - too controversial, too old
Danforth - squishy moderate, too old
Boudin - too old
Walker - cronyism, too old
FWIW here’s my shortlist:
Karen J. Williams
Jerome A. Holmes
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Kimberly Ann Moore
Ok, give me your feedback!
janice rogers brown-a real constitutionalist- defender of property rights which would become null and void if the stinking hildebeast gets elected
Didn’t John Danforth urge the bluebloods in the party, about a year ago, to reassert themselves and take back the party from conservatives?
Janice Rogers Brown-fantastic!
If justice is served, Kennedy would be replaced by another Rhenquist.
The lurch to the left has been so severe since Earl Warren started legislating from the bench, that only an equal movement of force in correction toward to the right would put things closer to an intended neutral view of the Constitution.
Kennedy is hardly neutral, he will sometimes appear to think in accordance with the Constitution, but in his overall ideology he has sided with the leftist activist revisions in many cases which someone with a neutral view would never have done.
This is the reason why the left was giddy over his voting pattern and even went so far as to write in liberal journals how much he had 'greened' and shown such great liberal enlightenment. Translation, he was voting in step with the radical views of the leftist activists.
If it's the best you can do, yes it would be "tolerable". If it were one who would be conservative when Kennedy is liberal even if liberal when Kennedy is conservative, the effect would be the same as having only seven members of SCOTUS since they would constantly cancel each other out. In which case the relatively reliable four - Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito - would be in the majority on every decision in which they all agreed.But you have to take O’Sullivan’s First Law into account. Which would predict that if you think you are settling for Anthony Kennedy, you are only too likely to actually be getting another Justice Souter.
IMHO the best that Bush could now do would be a recess appointment, which would be temporary. And in that case you would want someone who was very conservative, and wouldn't care that he would be ready to retire soon (actually, that would be a great gig - you could retire with full benefits instead of standing for confirmation by the next Congress).But my nominee for that role would be Thomas Sowell.
Go for the throat! JRB, Owen, Pryor, or Edith Jones. That would bring a knock down drag out fight that we really need to have. I think we would get a narrow confirmation, but a lifetime appointment nonetheless. I want Chucky throwing a temper tantrum like we have never seen. That would also take a little pressure off of the '08 election if a liberal was replaced by someone on my short list.
With 4 young healthy solid conservatives, we are always in the hunt, or at least one vacancy away from a reliable conservative majority.
If Kerry had won in '04, the Court would be lost for generations to come. We would be begging for a court with members like SDO. So, with that perspective in mind, I truly like our chances.
Actually I agree with you fully about your thoughts on recess appointment. It does well to be older because it may likely be the end of their career after their appointment is up!
However, I don’t think Posner is “very conservative”. If I’m not mistaken, I believe he holds a pro-drug position.
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.