Redstate

making strong arguments for Ted Olsen:

1. helped litigate Election 2000
   
   
2. 9-11 widower-- sentimental confirmation
   
   
3. loyal Bush friend
   

The only con is that he older than 60.

Another compelling choice is Mel Martinez:

1. hispanic from Fla.
   
   
2. Jeb can appoint Katherine Harris to replace him, which saves her an embarassing loss.
   
   
3. he's younger
   
   
4. and will likely be an easy confirmation

Based on all of today's info in the aggregate, I imagine POTUS will nominate Garza to fill O'Connor's spot, is using their fellow Texan Cornyn to play interference, and is floating Roberts and Clement again as possibilities for Rehnquist's imminent retirement.  If CJOTUS steps down while Bush is in Europe next week, that will free up POTUS to play some fancy footwork with the nominees, like nominating Garza for CJOTUS and Roberts or Clement for O'Connor's seat.  If I had to guess right now, I'd say Rehnquist steps down next week and Roberts and Garza will be the nominees.

Maybe.  I still don't believe Rehnquist will be back at the Court next year.  It's hard to believe he could actually make it through another year.

Question: When was the last time there were two vacancies on the Court at the same time?

And of course, he lacks the intellectual heft for many things. This is a profound case of that.

President Nixon had to replace Harlan (Rehnquist) and Black (Powell).

I don't know if there have been any occasions since.

One of the undersung giants of the Court.

Lacks intellectual heft or political heft? I can see the political argument (the Schiavo "memo", and still a novice to DC) but am unaware of the intellectual side to the argument.

Could you refresh the argument on this, or review his prior history in Florida politics for some background.

Here's one. "Rehnquist will resign on July 4th, around 11:00 a.m. He will make his announcement from home." Don't say RedState wasn't the first to know.

He is a trial lawyer and would would be unlikely to side with business on several important issues.  

That Erick's sources and information have been absolutely invaluable to understanding what's going on.  Great job.

I wanted to chime in on this two-openings business.  It sounds very plausible that that is what's going on.  Note that this comports precisely with everyone's expectation before the 2000 election that Rehnquist and O'Connor were itching to retire.  Once they intervened in Bush v. Gore, however, they had an institutional obligation to stay on until after the next election.  And that's precisely what they did.  They both should be saluted for their honor and commitment to the integrity of the Court.  (Incidentally, those who said at the time Bush v. Gore came down that O'Connor and Rehnquist were voting to stop the election so as to assure they'd be replacement with like-minded justices owe the justices an apology.)

With two openings, Bush needs to tread carefully.  There are two recent examples where a President had two shots to name justices to the Court.  As noted above, Nixon did it when Black and Harlan resigned for health reasons in the early 1970s.  And Reagan, of course, named two replacements when he tapped Rehnquist to succeed Chief Justice Burger.

I think conservatives would want Bush to emulate Reagan's approach, not Nixon's.  Faced with two openings, Nixon turned to a conservative and young Justice Department official, William Rehnquist and, in order to grease the way for this inexperienced but very conservative choice, he also picked a moderate Democrat from Virginia, Lewis Powell.  Powell was an establishment figure and well-regarded Southerner, and, by essentially offering Powell and Rehnquist as a package, Nixon could get a movement conservative on the Court and make strides in his ongoing Southern Strategy all at once.  Politically, Nixon's plan worked.  He was able to get Rehnquist on the court and sweep the South in the elections.  But, despite Powell's many admirable qualities, conservatives got a liberal justice who, among other things, voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.

Reagan, on the other hand, decided to grease the wheel not by packaging a conservative with a moderate, but by picking a very controversial figure to be Chief and replacing him with a jurist with unimpeachable credentials.  And, as we know, Rehnquist was approved on a close vote (like he was back in 1972), and Scalia sailed through (like Powell).

Fast forward.  Assuming Bush has two picks now, he clearly should follow Reagan's strategy:  Resist any temptation to package a conservative with a moderate in order to get the conservative through the Senate.  Instead, pick one person who will get the glare of most of the scrutiny and someone else who will continue to sail under the radar.

This isn't 1972 and it isn't 1986.

The Democrats controlled the Senate in 1972 - Nixon did what he felt he had to do to get at least ONE conservative.

In 1986, Reagan wasn't really filling two vacancies.  He was filling one.  Rehnquist had 14 years on the Court.  He may not have been entirely agreeable to the Senate but he was a very known quantity.  That was done specifically to keep Scalia under the radar.  Reagan knew rehnquist would draw fire but that the liberal opponents would only be able to take on one of the two.  The libs in 1986 were fools - they made a stink about Rehnquist (who would have been on the Court whether elevated or not) and let through someone who they have condemned ever since.

Bush is likely more in the 1972 situation - he is making two new appointments - to two vacant seats - and in all iklihood will be naming two people who are not currently sitting on the Court.  But unlike 1972, he has 55 Republican Senators who I believe will hold together (yes even the mushy moderates) and a public that is not receptive to a  Democrat filibuster.  So it looks like smooth sailing as long as the White House plays it right (by which I mean vigorously defending their nominee(s) against the baseless smear charges Sen. Chappaquiddick will certainly make).

Frankly, Martinez would be a horrible choice. He has no bench experience at all. Bush has two far-better-qualified Hispanics in the queue in Garza and Gonzales

As far as two vacancies at once, my guess is Bush goes with Garza for O'Connor, and picks one of the more-qualified justices in Luttig or Roberts to immediately take over CJ for Rehnquist, avoiding a fight over Scalia or Thomas to CJ, and getting a solid, conservative, and decidedly brilliant voice at the top.

leaving a wax head of Tom Daschle in Dirty Harry's bed.

I think Cornyn's editoral in the WaPo this morning (via RCP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR200507010
1788.html) pretty much shows he's "running interference," and not expecting to be nominated. It would be extremely pretentious to have published this editorial expecting to be picked...

Martinez is almost universally regarded among Florida Republicans as an idiot.  Given the "intellectual heft" of some of Florida's elected GOP officials, that's saying something.  

As far as the "easy confirmation" goes, he would have a real problem among Dems and Republicans alike because of the way he smeared Bill McCollum in the primary here.  McCollum is known all over DC as a solid guy, whether or not he was an exciting campaigner, and Martinez's gay smears won't be forgotten by anyone.

Oh, and there's also the fact that he's an idiot.

Thanks for the update. I'd forgotten the McCollum incidents. That, and I guess he's an idiot.

So there's Jeb, Porter Goss, a whole bunch of retired midwesterners, and then a dropoff to the locally elected GOP!?

Oh well.