Redstate

As Orin Hatch stated today, republicans MUST be prepared to defeat the upcoming filibuster. He seemed to suggest one of the reasons Miers was chosen was to avoid a filibuster. If Bush is still thinking in those terms, you can forget about a Scalia/Thomas type judge. But, if Bush has been influenced by the huge conservative backlash, he will have no choice but to honor his campaign pledge, which means nominating a true originalist WITH A PAPER TRAIL.

I'm not so sure I agree with those republicans who are now misstating why the Miers nomination was pulled.

Make no mistake, it was CONSERVATIVE OPPOSTION that was primarily responsible for the Miers withrawal. In that respect, the democrats are correct. (Although labeling conservatives as right wing extremists is a little much) Lets not pretend what occured and lets not feel ashamed or guilty that Miers withdrew. The fact is she should never have been nominated in the first place. Conservatives like David Frum, Robert Bork, George Will, Pat Buchanon, Rush Limabaugh, and Sean Hannity are owed a debt of gratitude for their public opposition of the Miers nomination, even though that nomination was made by a republican president.

If President Bush fails, again, to nominate a suitable candidate, the decibels of protest must be raised to a higher level until he gets the meassage.  This nomination is too important not to fight for all Americans, born and unborn.

As someone close to the process has said about the Left, they are: "spinning that the right-wing killed the Miers nomination and the GOP is captured entirely by the "extremists", claiming that the next nominee must pass their ideological litmus test."

Sadly enough, from many posts on this site, it isn't just the Left that's claiming the Miers' nomination was derailed by extremists.

It is just staggering to think that Republicans have a large majority in the House, a sizeable majority in the Senate, a conservative in the White House, and yet the notion that we should appoint an outspoken conservative is just out-and-out anathema. What will it finally take? A Republican mirror-image of the LBJ era when Democrats controlled the White House and had a 68-32 edge in the Senate?

In the 2004 election, about 15 states passed state constitutional initiatives that outlawed gay marriage. How exactly is such a position "out of the mainstream"? Many states would undoubtedly enact Partial Birth Abortion bans and require Parental Notification Laws. These people are "out of the mainstream"? A large percentage of the population, but less than a majority, would ban abortion. This 25-40% of the population is "extremist"? By defintion, a position held by one-third of a group cannot be defined as "extreme."

I'm sadly reaching the conclusion that the Republican establishment (the administration, the Senate, the RNC, etc.) just doesn't want Roe or Lawrence overruled. It may be for purely political reasons (i.e., if we don't have abortion or gay marriage to roil up the base, then, by God, how will we win next election?). But I strongly suspect that these people have about as much commitment to socially conservative positions as Elizabeth Taylor does to marriage. In other words, none.

Lucius, I agree with you. I'm starting to sense that the same "establishment" republicans who supported the Miers nomination are now trying to hide from the fact that conservatives forced Miers out. Conservatives represent the majority of the republican party. Yet from the way some talk one might think otherwise. I don't ever recall GW Bush running on the virtues of gay marriage, Roe v Wade, or affirmative action. Do you ?

Hey if the small percentage of "establishment" republicans don't feel comfortable inside the republican party because of conservative social isues, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

But I'll make a prediction here, if the next nominee isn't in the mold of a Scalia/Thomas as Bush promised, in 2007 the democrats will control congress.

Sounds more like Kos than RedState. Just my $.02, this would have been better as a diary than a front page story (or even better left unsaid).

That is why you nominate Miguel Estrada or Viet Dinh -- believe me, in legal circles these two have spectacular repuations.

Any attempt to tag them as "extremist" just aren't credible.

And beyond that, they're not just "conservatives," these two are thoughtful, persuassive advocates that can move the entire court.

I second the motion........intellectual heft, persuasive, originalists, and absolutely wonderful life stories

With all due respect, another paperless trail candidate, ie, Estrada, is not going to cut it. If we have learned anything from the Miers fiasco it is this. The base of the party that put GW Bush in office wants a nominee with experience as a judge which shows a clear philosophy similar to that of Scalia/Thomas...Just as GW Bush promised during the campaign.

Why did the Democrats block him the first time? Documents. Why did Miers w/d? Documents. It ain't gonna be Estrada (as much as I would like that). It won't be JRB (as much as I would LOVE that and predicted Robert/JRB if 2 opening happened back in July). It won't be Pryor or Owen. Garza would be good, Dinh would be awesome.

If Estrada is not an originalist, why did the Democrats filibuster him?

Power is intoxicating.  I hope the next nominee is as temperate as Roberts and Miers seem to be.  

Perhaps she can hit the circuit blaming the Dems for the real reason SHE withdrew, basiclaly they were asking for personal legal advice to her client.  They didn hold back Roberts, but the sexist Dems were asking a woman for them.  That will get traction, esp if Miers is the one telling the trutah about it.

"a nominee that has impeccable credentials" - Joe Cella in this post

"GOP Senators privately communicated to WH CoS Andy Card that unless they had access to hard evidence that Miers was conversant in constitutional issues, there was no way she would be confirmed." http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/_the_tipping_po.htm
l

It's not only the dems who wanted to know the true views of Ms. Miers.  

And you're pulling out the sexist card that even the WH gave up on already?

That could end up sounding like the same "sexist" nonsense the WH was spouting when the first serious opposition to Miers began to appear.  Plus, I don't think Miers has any real credibility at this point -- the demand for papers protected by the executive privilege (if such a demand has even been made at this point) was forseeable prior to the nomination.  The use of this issue as a basis for withdrawal is an obvious crutch for a WH trying to beat a dignified retreat.  Let's leave them to their  game on this, pretend we believe them and move forward.  Claiming sexism just invites some kicks while they're down.

to have a post with the KosKiddies.  But there brand of free speech means they delete my account when I dont toe Markos line.  But we are happy to have you anyway.

The Dems are playing this as all about Rep extremism with them sitting by as choirboys.

And NO Rep Senator was asking for privileged information; maybe we should ask if they agree we should get to see the info passed between Chuckies credit stealers and their counsel?

The more Mikulski and Harkin yelled we were sexists, the more you sat back and believed it Im sure.  Forgetting that it was a REP President who put her up and Phyllis Schafly was one of her harshest critics.  Remarkable.

As for the sexism, is there any doubt that Feinstein was not going to vote for her?  Afterall, if she had to vote against Roberts cuz she got no sense of him as a father, imagine an unmarried woman.  Or in the end any DEM Senator?

Of course u read it in a blog so that makes it true.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid friend, it goes down smoother the longer you drink.

Interesting how the Democrats, who suddenly broke the silence, are now expressing outrage over a "radical right wing influence."

And as usual, the MSM is covering this as more bad-for-Bush news.

If you want to see a big giant hissy fit from the left, he would be your pick.  It would be knock down drag out battle from the beginning.

Yoo clerked for Thomas, and stands out as one of the only conservative law professors at Berkeley (there are a couple others but none are quite as vocal about it as he is).  You have to be tough to stand up in that environment (students recently circulated an petition calling for him to resign his tenured (I think) position).

Plus, he is just as affable and good natured as Roberts, and can through in a good joke or two here and there (I took a couple classes from him).  Also he is non-confrontational and soft-spoken, which will come across well to the public (Ted Olson, also a good pick, doesn't quite get there on this score).

Anyway, just thought I'd throw him out there.

On top of everything else, if Bush were to name him, it has the ancillary benefit of making Harold Koh who seems to believe he's the designated First Asian American Justice choke with envy.

Go for Viet!

-TS

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47075

Wow, it looks like the opposition to miers never really even got started.

although he probably would have been a lowly law student at the time.

John Yoo probably would drive liberals up the wall as well, and he's a tribesman.  Would be a decent choice there as well.

And boy is he young.  Talk about generational impact.

-TS

Jan Crawford Greenburg just said on the News Hour that her sources say the nomination could come as soon as tomorrow.  Could be very soon now...

as she is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal with strong anti-Bush leanings IMO.  But rocket science wasn't required to predict the blowback on the withdrawal.  I think where the MSM loses sight of the ball is in overestimating how much the average voter cares about the entire issue of who untimately takes O'Connor's seat.

I hope that the Republican party and the Bush White House understand how much is riding on the next nomination.  I hope they have heard the voices of the conservatives that put them in power and that they will nominate a strict Constitutional judge because if they don't, we conservatives are not finished speaking yet, and come the next election, they will hear from us again.

I heard earlier today that it could be "as early as tonight and by mid next week at the latest."

Given Bush's track record, I'd say mid next week, but I sure hope it could be tommorrow.

Anyone keeping track of the physical location of the prospective nominees like Alito, McConnell, Williams, Sykes, and JRB.  

I guess JRB is in the capital since she's on the DC circuit.  Sort of handy :-)

Anyone else know if the others were at work today?

I like this discussion, because it highlights the magnitude of the opportunity for President Bush - do the right thing for the Constitution and the future of America AND potentially gain politically as well.  This is why JRB seems so irresistible - the image of Schumer and the Gang filibustering her after beating her up in Committee hearings is delicious.  Getting through a Dinh or a Garza would be a big-time Two-Fer.  I think the push for a female might have some political benefit - but the libs categorize a conservative woman as not being from their gender - and I don't think the electoral pull is as strong as ethnicity would be.  

Nuff Said.

I knew J. Michael Luttig when he was in law school and went to his wedding, which was presided over by Chief Justice Warren Burger.  He is absolutely rock solid in character and integrity, has a Roberts-like intellect, and a nice bit of southern genteel in his speech and interpersonal style.  his confirmation hearings would be a pleasure and an education.  almost too much to hope for.

I must disagree that we have a conservative in the White House as other than cutting taxes (a decidedly good move), this President has done nothing that supports or resembles small government. If your analysis extends to the proposition that republican leaders do not want Roe overturned because thereafter conservatives will flee the party, then I agree with you.

I love the fact you are ready to rally around the President when he will do what you want. You sound like Ann Coulter who said she was ready to rally around the President. When asked if the President nominated Alberto Gonzalez would she rally around the President. She clarified her remarks by saying she would rally if the president nominated someone she approved of.

I rather all of you stay off the bandwagon!  

I'm not too sure about Estrada's paper trail but the Democrats primary purpose for fillibustering him was his age (42 at the time) and the fact that he's a latino.  The Dems knew that Bush wanted to nominate a Latino, and thought that Estrada was specifically being "groomed" for a vacancy.  

My favorite latino candidite is (and I've said this before): Emilio Garza.  Strong originalist papertrail and it would be tough for the dems to fillibuster a latino, particularly since latinos have left their party in droves to vote for the President.

Williams

Callahan

Corrigan

Sykes

What's the skinny with this group? Who would be the best? And the worst?

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/10/27/matthewswordsallen/

from the Chris Matthews show (George Allen and Turbin Durbin).  Check out the reaction of Turbin when Allen names his recommendations Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams then JRB and Owen.  Turbin wince's as Allen says Janice Rogers Brown.

Anyway have any question who the best nominee would be is?  When Turbin is pained that much just at hearing her name, I am in love with the thought of Justice Janice Rogers Brown.  How nice would it be to see Kennedy telling a black woman from Alabama that she doesn't understand civil rights.

2:30 into the clip.  sorry, forgot.

I believe a key issue has been overlooked.  Bush is not a stubborn as has been reported.  He did not ride this nomination into the ground.  In all likelihood, she would have been confirmed if Bush wanted to push it.

Don't get me wrong, I opposed Miers' nomination. And, I think it would have been tough.  But there are plenty of GOP senators who would have been too afraid to vote against him, not to mention all the Dems who would have voted for her because of her apparent left leanings.

Instead, I am hopeful.  Hopeful that he will pick a solid originalist.  If he does, I will be with him shoulder to shoulder ... well, as much as one little man out here in cyber world can be, that is.

How is that the ultra religious faction of the republican party believes that they should have the right to impose their minority (look at the poll numbers on Roe v. Wade) on the other 65% of Americans who feel that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.  As a pro business classical Republican (before the religous fanatics took over) I am horrified at the highjacking of the party by fundamentalists.  I think Nixon and Eisenhauer would be horrified if they were around today.  To the evangelicals: you are part of the base, but you do not have a monopoly on conservatism.  Political labels of left or right or liberal or conservative do not apply to you if you do not believe in the process and advocate ad hoc theocracy!

Bush should put his foot down before he alienates the rest of his base by pandering the the religous zealots. How is it that the ultra religious faction of the republican party believes that they should have the right to impose their minority (look at the poll numbers on Roe v. Wade) on the other 65% of Americans who feel that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.  As a pro business classical Republican (before the religous fanatics took over) I am horrified at the highjacking of the party by fundamentalists.  I think Nixon and Eisenhauer would be horrified if they were around today.  To the evangelicals: you are part of the base, but you do not have a monopoly on conservatism.  Political labels of left or right or liberal or conservative do not apply to you if you do not believe in the process and advocate ad hoc theocracy!

cut out Card.

How could the Dems stop Estrada??  He has the exact same credentials as Roberts.  Look at their bios, they are nearly identical except that Miguel was a poor immigrant and actually had BETTER grades at Harvard Law.  Even, the Dems' complaint about them was both the same (WH refusal to release DOJ records).   How could the Dems explain giving Roberts a pass and blocking Estrada??  Do they really want to risk looking like they were unequal treatment to a Hispanic immigrant with the whole country watching??  There is no way in the world Estrada would not get in.  

How could the Dems stop Estrada??  He has the exact same credentials as Roberts.  Look at their bios, they are nearly identical except that Miguel was a poor immigrant and actually had BETTER grades at Harvard Law.  Even, the Dems' complaint about them was both the same (WH refusal to release DOJ records).   How could the Dems explain giving Roberts a pass and blocking Estrada??  Do they really want to risk looking like they were unequal treatment to a Hispanic immigrant with the whole country watching??  There is no way in the world Estrada would not get in.  

You write:

"I don't ever recall GW Bush running on the virtues of gay marriage, Roe v Wade, or affirmative action. Do you?"

I remember GWB coming out in support of civil unions about a week before the 2004 election and his running mate Cheney has said publicly that "freedom for everyone means freedom for everyone."  I think many posters here have their finger on the pulse of what's actually going on by recognizing that the establishment GOP, by and large, isn't actually committed to the pro-life or anti-gay movements.  They just tease them every couple years with promises of a more hard-edged conservative Court and it never materializes.  The anti-Roe anti-Lawrence Court is forever biggest dangling carrot of American politics.  

Accuse a chunk of this Party of advocating theocracy and forget posting here again. Cool? (That question was rhetorical.)