Next high court pick anyone's guess

As President Bush weighs viable candidates for a second Supreme Court vacancy, Republican allies close to the process agree on one thing: Expect the unexpected selection. Top Republicans say liberals are playing politics by warning that a fierce Senate fight will erupt if the president nominates a conservative to replace the high court's moderate female, and that Mr. Bush won't be pigeonholed by Washington pundits' calls for a woman or a Hispanic. "The idea that he has to move left is a ludicrous, inside-the-Beltway type of thinking, coming from people who want to do him harm," said Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families. "I'm confident the administration will ignore that advice."

I still can't believe everyone is assuming it will be a woman. John Roberts isn't a woman, and he was originally slated to replace Justice O'Connor.

If the President didn't listen to all that "quota" nonsense when he picked Roberts, why would he listen now.

Man, woman, black, white, polka-dotted. I don't care. Give me a contructionist.

Man, woman, black, white, polka-dotted. I don't care. Give me a contructionist.

I concur. I want the most conservative, capable, strict-constructionist nominee available. If whoever it is can handle him/herself as well during the confirmation process as John Roberts has, even better.

A new name has emerged on the longer list of candidates -- Judge Consuelo M. Callahan of the Ninth Circuit, the liberal San Francisco court, one of whose judges recently ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution.

Why in the world would such a justice be a candidate? Unless the Republicans want to be a minority party and Bush wants approval ratings under 30%, I can't imagine why.

"There is no doubt that the Constitutional Option will be needed for the next one. "

Actually, I am intrigued by the possibility that Bush is carrying out a great strategy, and will nominate either Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. The MSM and the Dems will go beserk, but Bush's argument will be, "You just found them fit a few months ago, what's wrong with them now?" JRB is my favorite because she is rock-solid conservative, and black women will demand her approval. The Dems will not be able to filibuster without egg on their face, so they will let her in.

I think this has been Bush's approach all along. He can avoid a filibuster or the invoking of the nuclear/constitutional option until the 3rd SCOTUS nomination happens, when John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves office feet first.

He could also do a recess appointment of the third justice. This has been done more recently than we remember. We all often forget that three of Eisenhower's SCOTUS nominees, including Earl Warren, were made without Senate approval. From an online source:

"President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). Each later received Senate confirmation."

I think even Oliver Wendell Holmes was a recess appointment.

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.