Redstate

But Zwan totally sucked.

mentioned Alito today.

HAPPY, HAPPY, JOY, JOY!!!

Oh and Pass the popcorn....

never was a big pumkins fan though

...I'm just hoping that it's NOT someone that I don't like more than I'm hoping that it will be someone that I'm wild about.

I think Alito would be great, but when there are women and minorities like Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Miguel Estrada, and Viet Dinh who are every bit as qualified if not more so than Alito, I'd consider it a lost political opportunity. I know the court isn't supposed to be about politics, but...if there are other imminently qualified women and minorities, why not? I'd love to have Alito on the court, and he'd definitely be the conservative intellectual heavyweight that we're looking for.

As I've said before, I feel like this Administration is running out of steam, and it doesn't seem to realize that what it needs to refuel is to re-energize its base. Here's hoping that they wake-up to this before Monday.

I don't know how much more I can take. Anyone know how a Pepto & Ketel One tastes?

& Vodka.....a Pink Russian?

Maybe Cherry Pepto would be better (ick either way)

Based on how inaccurate these kind of leaks have been in the past.....

It is probably Clement :)

Either of these picks would make me very satisfied.  They're not my top choices, but they're sterling conservative judges, who are well-respected and confirmable.  I think the base will be very pleased if the next justice is Alito or Corrigan.

An interesting pick.  He could potentially be on the court 40 or more years.

That the WH is putting these conservative-friendly names out there because they've already decided on someone like Gonzales and they can say "Well, you all know we were considering some conservatives, but AGAG was our guy"?

Has anyone else commented about these statements by Senator Leahy on Judge Callahan's nomination to the Ninth Circuit in 2003:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051603a.html

The Judiciary committee index of Leahy's comments is here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/statementsrelease.html

Note that a week after the initial statement, he briefly added to the comments with even more praise.

I know next to nothing about Judge Callahan, but if she were the nominee, it would be fun to watch Senator Leahy try to disclaim these prior statements. Not that it would prevent him, but it sure would be amusing to hear Senator Coburn slowly recite these into the record.

I doubt the Dems would oppose Judge Callahan very strongly; she would be considered a favorable outcome for them.  No need for Senator Coburn to put down the crossword puzzle.

She's on some lists floating around. Why is she unobjectionable to the left?

If anything she's objectionable to the right... I would rather have AGAG (minus the recusal issues).

OK....understand he is excellent....but, if we are picking a caucasian male, then why not go real young and brilliant....Steve Colloton....from innocent, bland Iowa

Positions, prior opinions, unknown views, from California, first name ending in a vowel, . . .what?

Is she a Souter-like unknown, a Kennedy clone, another O'Connor?

Is there anything specific which RS'ers object to?

Except that Feinstein and Boxer helped come up with her name when she got her nomination.

Same argument could be made against Sykes.

Its sad that Clinton was able to nominate two obvious liberals (one obvious extremist in Ginsburg), and they sailed through with hardly a peep of protest from Republicans.

Now, our allegedly conservative President seems afraid to nominate a well-known, obvious conservative/originalist/strict constructionist even with a 55 seat majority in the Senate, and with a strong likelihood that enough of the 7 GOP members of the Gang of 14 would drop out of that club and vote to pull the constitutional/nuclear option should the Dems filibuster a candidate on purely ideological grounds.  

Not only must this make the base question why they worked so hard for Bush and the GOP (because the judiciary is the superior branch), but it also fails to take advantage of an opportunity to lead the public in a debate about the proper role of the judiciary.  Trying to un-demonize Scalia and Thomas would be difficult, but an attempt must at least be made at some point to explain to people that contrary to the Left/media's lies about them, they will not impose anything on anyone, and would instead be neutral in the Culture War by not elevating above the normal democratic processes those things the Constitution does not protect from those normal democratic processes.  

Its not enough to simply point to a candidate's qualifications, or to point out how Clinton's nominees were held to a different standard (even though its true).  Nor is it enough to simply speak of wanting judges who won't legislate from the bench; you have to give concrete examples.  Point out how liberal judges are hostile to religion and private property.  Point out how liberal judges make even the most popular and mainstream restrictions on abortion almost impossible.  Point out how gay marriage/civil unions will be imposed in the near future unless conservative judges are appointed.

A solid grad of "A" if the President picks him!

Please, oh please....!!!!

go for either, Mr. President! Go go go!

Zwan totally sucked.

They didn't get along, see? That's why.  ;)

choice.

Asian Americans are too often overlooked.

I think that Professor Dinh has impeccable credentials.

Besides, the dems would look like a-holes if they tried to block him.

Conservative majority is altering court's methods

Four justices who joined the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997 form a solid, conservative majority, a Free Press analysis of cases decided in 2002-03 shows.

Chief Justice Maura Corrigan, and Justices Stephen Markman, Clifford Taylor and Robert Young Jr., all nominated by the Republican Party, formed the core of the majority opinion on almost every decision, the analysis found.

Their ascendancy -- after nearly 40 years of liberal and Democratic control of the court -- has produced a significant shift in the way the court works. And sharp disagreements about what it all means.

In the court majority's view: the new court is more likely to follow the Legislature's intent when it wrote laws and less likely to impose its own policy preferences.

Michigan courts formerly had "almost divorced themselves from the statutes, from constraints of any kind. Many times, they were just nakedly doing policy from the bench," Young said in a recent interview.

The critics' take: the court is dominated by reactionaries who do the bidding of the rich and powerful and run roughshod over the rights of the accused.

I have mixed views on Corrigan. I think she'd be great for SCOTUS, but Michiganders will have to pay a price with Granholm choosing her replacement.