Redstate

No more "moderates"!

We've had quite enough of them this term, thank you very much.

Between the expansion of the Commerice clause and the expansion of Eminent Domain, we're in it up to our eyeballs already.

If GWB wants "Moderates", I want a third party!

It's getting deep really fast out here in flyover land.

It's almost midnight gang.  In short time we should see if W. follows a Texas saying and "Dance with the one who brung ya."  In this case, he needs to stick to the conservative dance card, and no matter who retires, nominate a solid and trusted conservative to fill the void.

Recent speculation here at RedState and abroad has centered around Alberto Gonzales, and although I understand Bush's desire to reward the loyality of our current AG who has served in so many compacities for the President, many here and elsewhere would chastize that choice.  My hope is that Gonzales' position as AG and thus his involvement in issues that may come before the court during his tenure may exclude him from the list.

News outlets, and online pundits everywhere have been running potential short lists for a while now.  My preferred choice would be one of the following:

Emilio Garza, 58, is a judge on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The former Marine and Texas state judge was considered for a Supreme Court seat by the first President Bush.

Appointed a federal judge by President Reagan and elevated to the 5th Circuit in 1991, he has become most known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures.

From an AP article.

......

U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Cornyn, 53, who was a state district judge, attorney general and state Supreme Court justice, has carved a high profile in Washington since his election to the Senate in 2002. He is a central figure in efforts to overhaul immigration laws and was an outspoken supporter of Bush's beleaguered judicial nominees in the recent Senate fight.

From a Ft. Worth Star-Telegram story.

Both these men are trusted conservatives, and would be appropriate dancing partners for Bush and the conservative voters who put in him office with a mandate for judicial reform.

Is another Sandra Day O'Conner.  What we'll get is another Scalia.

I have never once seen our current President open his bidding with someone farther to the left than he, himself, currently stands.  It's pretty much garanteed that whomever steps down will be replaced by the most right wing judge on the bench that can be allowed.  The Bush White House doesn't know what the word 'moderation' means.

And it tears my heart to think that opinions on dead babies and gays are going to be the prime requisites for becoming a new Supreme Court Justice.  It would be nice, just for a change, to see someone nominated due to a career distinguished by level-headedness, lack of partisanship, and a focus on the ANY interpretation of the constitution.  But the days of strict/loose construtionism are long gone.  Now, we only pick the judge who will give us predictable verdicts on hot-button issues.  There is no justice in the US.  Only politics.

Yes, a pity that the overriding moral issues of the day will play such a role.  If only the body politic were possessed of, say, your capacity for moral apathy.

My question is that if the President decides to nominate Estrada, how can we be sure that he is not another Souter?  He has no record, and we can't be sure that he won't be another liberal.  

what I would love to see is another Thomas with a Renquist or Scalia thrown in.

Definitely no more Souter's, Ginsberg's or Stevens'-they have done enough damage to our constitution thank you very much.

We need help documenting all of the examples of the Democratic minority making ridiculous demands of the Republicans that they would never consider themselves if the situation was reversed.

Just like the dems' demands for consultation before nominating anyone to the SCOTUS, we want everything documented for when the tables are turned.

When the Dems regain a Senate majority/presidency we want to have well-documented proof of their hypocrisy. If you think of more examples, please add them in the comments section of this site.

stacked 10 miles high, and the Dems wouldn't care.  

I am willing to bet that the minute the Dems are in a similar situation, they will excersize the nuclear option and not even miss a minute of sleep over it.

the difference between estrada and souter is that estrada is well known within the conservative washing dc community. thats why democrats were willing to fight his dc circuit nomination to the death. his friends, business associates, and connections are all true blue conservatives. souter was unknown entity from a small state whose conservative cred were vouched for by one guy: sununu, a usually very astute and perceptive pol, but who was way off on souter. it was almost as if once souter got to wash dc, he decided he could stop pretending to be a conservative, which is obviously what he was doing all those years in NH so he could move up in state politics and sit on the NH Supreme COurt. estrada has been mingling in conservative circles for his entire life and done so without the incentive of moving up in politics (although of course, everyone engages in politics to help themselves to a degree). I would compare estrada more to priscila owen, someone whose entire social environment consists of conservatives, and who has manifested those conservative values all her life.

moreover, while I'm all for having friends who are liberal, but i'm skeptical of cerebral, intellectual scholars who garner vast praise from the other side. example: michael mcconnell. the fact that liberals praise his "open mindedness", and his colleagues label him an intellectual makes me  extremly suspicious of him. he could morph into a stevens, powell, and blackmun, three justices who were thought to be conservative, but transformed into liberals. I would add kennedy too, but he's lighter than a feather and more of an egotist with a mediocre legal mind.

if rehnquist retires, bush should go with Roberts, Luttig, william Pryor, or some other staunch conservative white guy. if o' connor retires, he should tap priscila owen. janice brown and estrada could be dark horses. no way jose on alberto. and garza has made conflicting statements on abortion. he supposedly went out of his way to make "pro-life" statements after he had made a pro-choice decision in a court case a few years back. that sort of maneuvering makes him untrustworthy.  

I think he could be a good justice.  For one thing, he doesn't let what he "thinks" should be the correct response get in the way of what is the legal thing to do.

I think I would like that in a justice, but his statements on Roe would send the Dems in the senate into hissy fits-I am almost certain several heads would explode.

I think they would vote for Pryor before the would vote for Brown-although she seems to have a pretty good feel for bad law.

Have never before suggested the Nuclear Option even when they did control both Houses and the Presidency.  Why?  Because it's insane.

To be fair, the Republicans have never before suggested the idea either.  Probably for the same reasons.

It needs reminding, again, that 95% of Bush's judges were confirmed.  It was only the nutty ones that got held up in committee and filibustered.  But when 46% of the Republic opposes something, who cares.  53% of our Senate is Republican and everyone knows if you've got the votes, you can do whatever you darn well please.  And if that means gay bashing, warmongering, and instituting state religion with Jerry Falwell and Tom DeLay as head priests, who are we to stop them.  We're just a bunch of pansy liberals.

They changed the rules.  Cloture used to require 70 votes, not 60.

But the Democrats, Robert Byrd prominent among them, changed the rules.  Why, one could ask, did they do this?

Because they could get 60 votes, but not 70.  Interestingly, that was hardly remarked on at the time.  Just the Senate making a change in it's own rules, which was considered to be a perfectly legitimate thing for them to do.

But if the Republicans want to change the rules, it's suddenly "insane".

OK.  I see how this works now.  One side can change the rules and it's fine.  If the other side does, it's "insane".  How enlightened and even handed can you get?

If the nominees who were filibustered had been objectively problematic by dint of poor qualifications and so forth, then you might have a point. Except they weren't, so you don't: you filibustered these guys because of ideological differences. They're "extremists" only if you count Ralph Neas and Nan Aron as the political center.

Faust, are you willing to risk such a huge position (supreme court) to someone who you aren't positive is a conservative just because he has conservative friends?  I'm not doubting you, and trust me, as a hispanic american, i desperately want bush to nominate a hispanic, but i'm not sure i'm willing to risk such an important position on a someone who i'm not 100% sure is a conservative.  This is too important to risk.  I want Luttig, Rogers-Brown, or Owen.  I'm not for Pryor because while he is a good social conservative, i'm not sure he is a good business conservative.

You've got me there.  I was unaware of the Senate rules change from 70 to 60.  That said, I'm hardly in agreement that such a rules change was good or fair.  Which is to say, I don't think such a rules change is 'ok'.

The problem is this revenge mentality.  Johnson redistricted Texas when he was Governor and gerrymandered the districts for the Democrats.  When DeLay sponsored redistricting for the Republicans, as clear a gerrymander as ever anyone's seen, one of the arguements for it was "Johnson did it 40 years ago, so we have the right to go back and take revenge."  It's this two-wrongs-make-a-right ideology, prevalent strongly in both parties, that disturbs me.

As for the filibustered nominees being centerist, you must be joking.  A number were big campaign donors to the Republican Party.  The judge from Texas had a reputation for poo-pooing the State Constitution.  These judges had routineely opposed  environmental standards and workers rights.  They had a clear political agenda, and it was far outside the mainstream.

With a strong Republican Congressional control and a Bush White House, the spectrum of politics has definately shifted to the right, but not this far right.  There is a reason that out of 200 nominees, these seven were held up.  I count Supreme Justice O'Conner as a moderate, and none of these nominees was an O'Conner.

have to nominate moderates only to the bench?

Clinton didn't limit himself to moderates, good God, he nominated the queen of the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and whe is anything but a moderate.  Guess what, she was overwelmingly voted for (I think only three GOP members voted against her).

Senator Helms (NC), Senator Nickles (OK), and Senator Smith (NH) were the only three Republicans that voted against her confirmation.

let me first agree that "It's this two-wrongs-make-a-right ideology, prevalent strongly in both parties, that disturbs me."

I'd much rather see a Schwarzenegger "let's make re-districting as non-partisan as possible" to a Delay "I want more Rs in the House" redistricting.

That being said, Ds never tried the "Nuclear" Option because Rs never filibustered a candidate who had majority support.  Find one.  Even Ginsberg got 95+ votes when she was appointed despite being an ACLU poster girl.  They did use the same procedure to change the cloture limit from 67 to 60 (I believe it was 67 not 70 before).

The main point is that if the President appoints someone who is actually "out of the mainstream" then Ds should be able to convince 6 Rs to vote against the person.  With the history of the "Deal" and the tendency of Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Specter, DeWine, McCain, and Hagel to vote against the party, it is entirely possible.  The problem is that these nominees are not outside the mainstream.  They are supported by a majority of Senators and yet they are denied a vote.  That continues to be unprecedented and wrong.

Mel Martinez? Seeing as how the guy is considered a firm conservative, and Harry Reid (in a move he may soon regret) pretty much already endorsed him for the job.  For more information, read my last diary on the subject.

I see your point about estrada's uncertainty. My main point is that you can NEVER know for sure, regardless of how many opinions they've written. and I am extremely skeptical of the "paper trail argument". As the SC is a lifetime job and human nature is unpredictable, there is never sure thing no matter what someone has written in the past (just look at that snake Kennedy, who changes his mind year to year). But Estrada hangs out with Ann Coulter. McConnell had a hundred liberal academics testify for him. You tell me which makes you more uneasy. My point is, if I'm Bush I want to put someone who will be conservative 25 years from now, the "open-minded" (I mean that strictly in a pejorative manner) scholastic jurist is not trustworthy. Whether it's Estrada, Owen, Pryor, LUttig, or Roberts, give me someone who was born, bred, and raised in conservative culture.