Redstate

The libs would no doubt use Luttig as a chance to refight Anita Hill's harassment-charge fraud, because Luttig helped Thomas discredit Hill. That probably doesn't help Luttig get nominated, even though he didn't do anything wrong.

A very winnable fight Indeed.  If we can't get a Supreme Court nomination through the Senate now, WHEN are we EVER going to be able to do it?  The Republicans said they would do this if we would elect them. It's time for them to step up now and get it done.  No more excuses, just do it!

Lets hope this isn't another head fake and Bush nominates the White House janitor!

But does this rumor now mean it definitely WON'T be Luttig or Alito?  

"In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3."

"Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says."

LINK

President Bush said that he would nominate a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and from the looks of things, Alito is certainly cut from the same cloth.

Getting him confirmed will be difficult, and the Democrats will be going on the warpath with him, but we have the votes, and I think a filibuster will not go over well - and if the Democrats try, it will be time to go nuclear.

Alito's a good choice, and I think he'll have no problem in getting the base together and united once again.

Alito would be a great choice. Consider:

Scalia

Thomas

Roberts

Alito

That's a very nice foursome to build around. Roberts and Alito are both very personable and hopefully can drag Kennedy or the occasional Breyer into some 5-4 decisions. They could really change the dynamic of the Court in ways that it's hard to quantify.

Luttig would also be good, but I'm thrilled with either after thinking Miers would be on the bench.

With the ball going to Alex Kozinski.

Few on the outside saw either of the first 2 coming (a few put Roberts in the list of 10, but few were using his name in the last days). No reason to believe otherwise this time.

My guess is it will be another woman nobody's heard a lot of -- Sykes or there was a lady with an Irish name (can't remember) that got some play early but had an affirmative action problem -- Monahan, Holahan...

With the past track record the nominee must be Larry Thompson. A small joke on a busy Friday.

I would rather Luttig but Alito will do.

Doesn't Alito have nickname like Scalito?

that there is good reason for this news to leak out, since the WH surely wants to reassure the base as quickly as possible.  If they plan to make a pick the base will like, why be coy about it?

Of course, that's not to discount Erick's Kos-like winning percentage when it comes to predictions.

The question I have is this:  Assuming Alito is the pick, can anyone give a good reason, or even a bad reason, why he wasn't the pick the first time around?  Alito over Miers seems like a no-brainer on every level.

A once water-tight White House has sprung a lot of leaks in the Miers affair.  I'm betting many of those leaks are still genuine.

has a chromosone problem.

But not particularly displeased, either.  If it is Alito, I'll reserve judgment until the hearings:  I just don't know much about his track record.

Is the Republican party's erosion in approval ratings from the hard right of the base or from the moderates and independents?

Alito's been called "Scalito" in the past.

Keep an eye on Maureen Mahoney.  She's connected, qualified, conservative and Catholic.  She's nominated on alliteration alone...

as the ultimate toss to the far right.

MSM will start articles like this:

Sam Alito, the lone dissenter in the Carey v Plannend Parenthood case that reinforced the Roe v Wade decision, etc etc

Feinstein and others will yell that he is the enemy of women everywhere.

I also think that any man will have to deal with the "see I told you it was sexism in the Miers case."

Still hoping for Williams although a confirmed Alito would thrill me.

As for those of you holding out for JRB, she will not get the ABA rating needed to cover her conservatism while Alito, Williams, Sykes, or Luttig probably would.

and u dont want her, a more liberal version of souter.

She's pro-affirmative action and a total stealth candidate.  After the Miers debacle Bush can't afford to nominate another nobody with no paper trail.

I can't see them taking a non-judge at this point.

Would be Kozinski from the Ninth Circuit.

Reagan appointee, did some time in the White House counsel's office, got here from ceausescu's Romania.  Good credentials, smart, but he tempers academic stuff with common sense.

Does anyone have anything really solid that proves Alito would vote to overturn Roe? Garza and McConnell have clearly said it, but I haven't found anywhere where Alito has. Yes, we've got the spousal consultation bit, but doesn't seem to obviously entail him being anti-Roe. Everyone seems to say he's super-conservative, but do we have anything more on Roe? If not, shouldn't we ("we" being all us wacky RedStaters who voted for Bush almost entirely so that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe) still grumble?

But if you follow Rasmussen, Bush has lost 5% or so since the Miers nomination.  It breaks down like this:

Two weeks ago:  38% were in the "Strongly disapprove" column, and the overall rating was 45-47%.  The 38% has been unchanged for a looong time, and is probably hardcore Democrats and Bush haters.

Today: 44% are in the "Strongly disapprove" column (up 6% for the numerically challenged). And approval is at 40% (ouch).  That's incredibly low for Rasmussen, which tracks 3-4 points higher for Bush most of the time because they sample differently.

"Strongly approve" is unchanged at 20-22%.

The shift seems to be from "Somewhat approve" for "Strongly disapprove".  I can't prove it, but it's not ridiculous to attribute a move of that description to angry conservatives leaving the reservation.

Novak says she was the runner up to Miers.

A footnote: President Bush had advised senators that his probable choice for the Supreme Court was federal Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of California. Bush touted Callahan's diversity as a Hispanic woman, but she is liberal enough to be recommended for the high court by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

But it would be a twofer -- an Hispanic Woman.

Pulled (admittedly from PFAW since they came up first in google):

Brown received a low ABA rating of "qualified/not qualified" for her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.

Compare that to McConnell:

Well Qualified (WQ) by ABA

Or Roberts

Unanimously Well Qualified by ABA

Alito, btw, was unaniously WQ when he got the circuit position.

I don't think the Dems will put up that much of a fight over Alito.  JRB?  War.  Alito?  They'll posture, but I don't think it will be that much more difficult than Roberts was.

...like a confirmable nominee. Judges shouldn't be "prosecutorial" from the bench -- that's what prosecutors are for -- and handing the Democrats a nominee who thinks it's OK to have a law requiring the consent of the husband for a woman to have an abortion would be the best Christmas presient the Democrats ever got. Not even Howard Dean could mess that up.

... that when it came to Roberts, they debated creating a new designation, OWC (obscenely well qualified), but decided against it out of conviction that they would never again have reason to use it.

The President promised Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

Judge Alito is known as "Scalito" because of his judicial philosophy.  That's a promise kept in my book.  And I'm willing to put time, money, and effort into helping the President get a deserved up-or-down vote.  I believe Alito can get a majority of votes (although not 78).  And I believe the Gang of 14 will not allow a filibuster against him unless there are skeletons in the closet that we do not know about.

<nt>

You and Carboni.

Frankly, as I've said all along, I'm just putting out there what people tell me.  I'm not a professional reporter -- I just happen to have developed people willing to talk.  Sometimes it gets right (O'Connor resignation and the Roberts pick) and sometimes it gets wrong (Rehnquist retirement).

In my defense, I was one of the first people to get it out that the WH was circulating Miers -- but nobody believed it.

Remember that Alito won unanimous support in 1990 for his spot on the Circuit Court.  This is no JRB or Owens.

In fact, according to ConfirmThem.com, these current Senators were around and voted yea on Alito's nomination:

Christopher Dodd

Joseph Lieberman

Joseph Biden

Daniel Inouye

Tom Harkin

Paul Sarbanes

Barbara Mikulski

Edward Kennedy

John Kerry

Carl Levin

Max Baucus

Harry Reid

Frank Lautenberg

Jeff Bingaman

Kent Conrad

Patrick Leahy

Robert Byrd

Jay Rockefeller

Herbert Kohl

They would have to explain why they went from a yea vote to a no vote.  Or to actually stop Alito, why they went from a yea vote to an unprecedented partisan filibuster on the same person.

Alito is confirmable and has a strong track record against judicial activism.  He seems to have been the #2 or #3 choice after Miers.  And that may have been for gender discrimination reasons.  Alito would be a slam dunk and a great choice.  If this is true, the President deserves major kudos just as he did with Roberts.

Alito is the next Roberts, period.

I'll be the first to congratulate you. Right before we send you to the Pile.

... comments as gold, but as someone who you'd think would run into the judge again, I have to figure that Lustberg thinks the characterization is both fair and  not something that would bother the judge much.

Not a red flag. We can go with pink.

The abortion ruling is bizarre. I can not believe that any president, no matter how out of touch or stubborn, would put forth someone who made a ruling like that.

...to remind me of the Nixon debacle, with Carswell, etc., about 35 years ago.

Leaving your hearts and souls out of it, thinking just with your cold, political head, do you really think that Bush is going to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court who came down on forcing women to consult with their husbands (and/or boyfriends?) before having an abortion?

That's a batting practie fastball, politically speaking. The Democrats are going to make Albert Pujols look like Bud Harrelson if they get that pitch.

 I think NKBG is suggesting that Alito was not selected ahead of Miers because he's a man, in response to the previous post.

Christopher Dodd       yea

Joseph Lieberman       yea

Joseph Biden           no way

Daniel Inouye          nay      

Tom Harkin             yea

Paul Sarbanes          yea

Barbara Mikulski       no way

Edward Kennedy         NO WAY

John Kerry             NO WAY

Carl Levin             nay

Max Baucus             yea

Harry Reid             no way

Frank Lautenberg       no way

Jeff Bingaman          yea

Kent Conrad            yea

Patrick Leahy          nay

Robert Byrd            yea

Jay Rockefeller        yea

Herbert Kohl           yea

...is no Democrats, and he loses five Republicans. Cheney breaks the tie and puts him on the court.

Alito does have a Chromosome problem...He only has half the number of X chromosomes that are needed for this nomination.

Sad fact, but women have/will get highest consideration for this.

Bush needs an out-of-the-box nominee like Alex Kozinski for several reasons:

1. He needs a justice who will be pretty well-qualified for SCOTUS.  Kozinski is that.
   
2. This justice needs a good story.  Kozinski made it out of Ceausescu's Romania.
   
3. Bush also has to assert some independence from the "base" that went after Miers.  Kozinski could do that as well (he clerked for Kennedy and Burger, plus a few of his opinions would leave the base fuming).
   
4. He eneds a definite improvement over Miers in terms of communication.  Read Kozinski's opinions - as well as other writings.  Clear, concise, and incredibly hilarious at times.  His dissent in U.S. v. Ramirez-Lopez is awesome legal writing.

first off, to b a supreme u dont have to have ANY qualifications, actually first CJ was a drop-out. Theoratically any 18yr old or over can be it. Back in the day, the senate barely advised and consented, they either went for it or not. As recently as the 50s and 60s, many nominees didnt answer any questions or barely a few. None of this several month process of quizzes and hearings etc. Amazing

"Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito is in the mold of a Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. A person who will strictly interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench."

Nelson-NE would vote yes.

Both of whom are more qualified than Roberts was, which is saying a lot.  Ditto Ken Starr, not that that would help him.

That is, why is the ABA giving her (JRB) or gave her somethig less than the top rating.  

...just had a big plus run on some blogger named "TitansAFC" for the Supreme Court nod.

I did some reaserch and found some potential problems:

First, TitansAFC has a sharp-tongue propensity to refer to Liberal members of the court in his dissents as, "Communists," "mind-numbingly stupid," and "less than chimp-worthy."  In many of his professional writings, he has been known to categorize the logic of the left-leaning court opinions as, "five times dumber than a brick," and "very similar to the thought process of those lemming creatures from the computer game that fall off ledges and kill themselves."

He'd definitely be up for a major filibuster fight in the Senate.  Rumor has it he might use the Senate Confirmation hearings to simply call Ted Kennedy names and display hybrid photographs in an attempt to proves that Chuck Schumer is, in fact, a genuine sphincter."

Betting is still going on.

He did not "came down on forcing women to consult with their husbands."  He ruled that the state may have a rational reason for passing the law.  If you want the law changed, talk to the legislature.  That's their job, not his.

Go read his concurrence in Parents Involved.  We do not need Kozinski on the Supreme Court.

We have higher standards these days. LOL

I took it that way too.  It seemed like a good answer.

Alito strikes me as pretty confirmable.  Possibly marginally more so than Luttig.  If your resume is strong, you've got to be pretty extreme to get the Bork treatment.  And I don't think one case gets you there.

You should also not assume that the position that a father should receive notice before his unborn baby is aborted is such a dead-bang loser in the court of public opinion.  Let alone the position that the legislature has the right to pass such a law.

Just teasing, my friend.  Keep working those sources.

Speaking from the other side of the moat, I'd expect Alito to clear 70 votes at a minimum.

Kozinski would be an awesome choice, but he is essentially a Western Libertarian in the Goldwater mold and I just don't think that's the type of person we should expect to be nominated from this administration.  Reagan yeah, but not GWB.  He's also Jewish, and there may be political reverse discrimination considerations which would lead the WH to decide against putting appointing a third Jewish member to the Court.  

Read his dissent in the 9th Circuit's refusal to hear Silviera vs. Lockyer.  Also take a good look at his work on the CA recall election.

Looks like a more libertarian Scalia to me.  Quite a maverick, too.

that if Roberts got 78, that is probably the high-water mark.  70 sounds about right.

I expect the unexpected from the President.

A great line from a Legal Affairs profile:

'If you, as a judge, find yourself too happy with the result in a case, stop and think,' he has written. 'Is that result justified by the law, fairly and honestly applied to the facts? Or is it merely a bit of self-indulgence?'

And Kozinski, while I like him, is too libertarian for me.

Hello again my fellow comrades...Here is a Friday update from my sources.

There are some very interesting developments today, here's what I'm hearing. There are three finalists on the short list. Luttig, Karen Williams, and Alito. Alito's name is being "leaked" as a trial balloon, as he is most likely at the top of the list today. Contrary to what many have been stating about Alito, his judicial philosophy is NOT like Scalia's, nor Thomas's. My sources are suggesting that Alito has more in common with John Roberts than Scalia/Thomas. While Alito would be a strong conservative vote on "parental notification" my sources doubt he would overturn Roe.

Just as importantly, when democrats sent Bush the list of about 10 names that would be filibustered, Alito's name was not on that list. There is a reason for that...democrats think Alito is not as ideological as Luttig and some of the others.

Bottom line is Alito could very well be the nominee, not because he is a Scalia/Thomas clone, but because he would be the least difficult nominee to be confirmed that is not on the filibuster list.

Personally, I would much prefer Luttig at this point, but based on what I'm hearing it probably will be Alito. And if not Alito, Karen Williams, because Williams wasn't on the filibuster list either.

As for when the announcement will be made, I'm hearing that it could come as early as Sunday night in prime time, but most likely on Monday, at the latest Tuesday. The White House wants to allow the Libby story to cycle through the media and give themselves time to respond. When thats out of the way they will start fresh with the announcement of the new nominee.

To respond to those who are confused by the nickname given to Judge Alito, let me tell you this. No one who knows or works with the Judge refers to him as Scalito. That nickname was given to him by a few knuckeheads in the media and it stuck. The reasons are because Alito and Scalia are both Italian, and both judges have ties to the republicans. But its important for you to know that Scalia's judicial philosophy is NOT identical to Alito's. In fact, Alito's philosophy has more in common with John Roberts than it does with Scalia/Thomas.

"consult," rather than "consent." But in this case, I think it's a distinction without a difference. If the law can require consulting, why can't it require consent, too? And is there really any doubt that there are number of jurisdictions that would take the law directly to "consent" if they thought it would pass judicial muster?

that Luttig was on the filibuster list.  I don't doubt you, but that surprises me.

If Williams is on the short list and would not be filibustered then I really have no clue why she is not the #1 pick, as she strikes me as more conservative and she also has that chromosome thing going for her.  I wonder why the WH would like Alito better.

...the judge is a "state's rights as long as they don't get in the way of my political vision" kind of guy -- if that's the case, he'll be crucified in the Senate -- or if he's a genuine state's rights guy who made his ruling on husbands and wives and abortion because of his belief in an older version of federalism, having nothing to do with the abortion issue. (In which case I think he gets confirmed on a very, very close vote.)

I think it would be a mistake to softpedal the hot-buttonness of the husband notification thing.

I think Kozinski is a great judge.  This President will never appoint him to the Supreme Court, however, due to his extremely pronounced libertarian views.  If I were President, Koz would be on my short list.  But I'm not President, George Bush is.  And he's not going to elevate Koz.

and no one believed he would make such a choice.  hard for me to believe that the WH is allowing so much buzz about the Top 3 or the Top 4 if they were planning to roll out Consuelo Callahan

this was done when Bush saw the HM nomination was in trouble - and he was trying to tell the base that we wouldn't like his nominee, so take Harriet.  this was also said at the same time that the WH was saying that the SCOTUS spot had been turned down by a number of top female candidates - which proved to be another, at best, exaggeration

I've been wondering the same thing.  With Williams I think you get a lot of what you get with either of the Big Two, but two additional 'sweeteners' - the gender thing and Confirmability Factor.  Lindsey Graham is ready to charge over San Juan Hill for Williams, and I believe his outspoken enthusiasm for her is signaling the WH that he can bring enough of the Rodney King Caucus (Gang of Fourteen) along to get her through - for sure.  

If GWB does this, it is essentially an end run around Specter who - I have not seen this discussed at all - is, in my view, not a sure yes vote in committee for ANY clearly originalist judge.

I am a married woman and don't really like to have to compromise on everything, but...  I can't believe that our courts have the right to say that we the people (through our legislatures) don't have the right to at least require a wife to TELL her husband.  For heaven's sake, he has a stake in this little project too.

I'm betting that I'd really really really like to watch the hearing!  :O]

Sen. Graham may have made some points back by not flaming in the direction of HM, but I understood that GWB was not pleased with the Gang of 14 and was not likely to nominate her because of Graham's presence in that little party.  I may, of course, be wrong.  GW has not called yet this week to let me know the new skinny.

Alito would satisfy me and be a great pick in lieu of my personal favorites for the job... I have dreams at night about the SCOTUS with the nine sitting justices on my perfect court being: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia AND... Janice Rogers Brown, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Savage for a diversity of perspective... Three women, two minorities, varied religious and ethnic perspectives... talk about diversity--and an orignalist court as well--most, constitutional scholars and former clerks to SCOTUS justices! Am I asking for too much?  Still, what pleasure I would get from Ann Coulter's responses at the Senate hearings when she was being grilled by Teddy Kennedy... I guess I am just a dreamer... but for now Alito would be great...

On what basis do you group Scalia and Thomas in one category and Roberts and Alito in another? There is a huge difference between Scalia and Thomas.

Rule #1 of political gossip:

Bob Novak is always wrong. Always, always, always.

What happened to consideration of Emilio Garza and Edith Jones?  I have a hard time believing its a matter of age, since both are younger than Miers, and are only 2-3 years older than Alito.

Is it simply that both have had the courage to publicly criticize Roe?  

Is either on this list of nominees the Dems would allegedly filibuster?

I don't think Robert Bork would have gotten 42 votes if he looked like John Roberts --just throwing that out there.

I think that this is the order that they'd peel off. (Although I'm not predicting this would definitely be the case for Alito)

Chaffe

Snowe

Collins

Spector

Nelson

We Can lose those 5.  What other Republican did you think we'd lose?

I believe Thomas puts originalism before conservatism, and Scalia does the opposite.  (Thomas's Medical Marijuana dissent was consistent with originalism, Scalia's vote was more consistent w/ conservatism.

He's in the mold of T/S, he'd be a slam dunk politically, and he'd be hard as heck to fillibuster being a hispanic.

I'm very dissapointed that I'm not hearing his name mentioned more often and that he's only trading at 3 on tradesports (lower even than TITANS AFC)

I'd think that virtually all wives would tell their husbands with or without legislation.

But what boyfriends? Fiancees? How serious a relationship does it have to be before you're required to tell? If it's legal to require someone to tell, is it also legal to require consent?

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (3rd Cir.), the principle supported by Judge Alioto was a mere consultation with the father prior to an abortion (Webster's - to seek the advice or opinion of someone).  The dictionary definition of "consent," the term which you use, is a completely different concept (Webster's - to give approval to a proposal).  This shows to me that Alioto is quite reasonable on this point and that few, if any, jurists would misconstrue these two simple dictionary definitions.

I guess I do find it very hard to accept that a man has absolutely no input into whether or not his child will be killed.