No On Gonzales
By Erick Posted in The Courts — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Estrada is possible, but not probable.”
This is not from the White House. I'll put that out there first. But, what I'm told is a reaffirmation of earlier reports -- Gonzales is not going to be the pick. The caveat as always is that "POTUS is POTUS." He will do as he wants.
Here, however is what we know we know. The White House (Rove & Co.) attribute much electoral success to conservative energy focused on the court situation. Appointing a moderate or perceived moderate like Gonzales (moderate) or Clement (perceived moderate) would undermine the base and hurt support going into 2006.
We also know that the President does not bow to pressure. While there is lots of pressure for him to appoint a woman, he had the same pressure going into the O'Connor pick the first time; yet, the President went with John Roberts. While the odds are perhaps increased that he will go with a female or minority, those odds are not certain.
What I'm told this afternoon is that the President is leaning towards a particular pick, but has not made up his mind. The vetting process continues. The White House is also weighing its options regarding the pick as to whether it should wait until John Roberts gets on the bench or run two simultaneously. There is a growing sense that it would be politically more effective to have both going at once. Democrats can be expected to hurl the same charges at both, the effectiveness of which would be diminished if they were confronted with two picks at once.
I'm told not to pin hopes or fears on Gonzales or Clement or even Janice Rogers Brown. But, I have also been told not to write off Luttig. Jones is a possibility, but not a probability right now. I'm also told that Corrigan's name is being floated intentionally.
Lastly, several conservative groups are pressuring the White House to look again at Miguel Estrada. Estrada, who withdrew him name and ([editor's note, by Erick] Thanks to James Taranto for correcting my oversight. Mrs. Estrada died in 2004, after Mr. Estrada withdrew his nomination.)saw his wife die while he was in limbo before the Senate, had at one time expressed an absolute desire to never be considered again. Sources tell me that in the past few months, Estrada has hinted that he changed his mind and that individuals assisting in the vetting process are aware of this.
Estrada would be an interesting pick. Easily ignored by the press during his nomination for the D.C. Circuit where he was one of many blocked circuit court nominees, a high profile nomination to the Supreme Court would be hard to ignore -- particularly the nomination of the first Latino justice. It would rally the conservative base and help move the Latino vote. Nonetheless, like Jones, I'm told Estrada is possible, but not probable.
What we know we know is that the President's mind is mostly made up, but the White House is closely guarding both the timing and the name. Says a friend near the scene, "Don't be surprised if it is someone whose name has not been widely mentioned."
« BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law — Comments (21) | Kristol Caveats — Comments (6) »
No On Gonzales 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
keep on it! (That's why you get the big bucks, heh)
"Don't be surprised if it is someone whose name has not been widely mentioned."
Probably the most likely pick.
Memo to White House...ESTRADA! ESTRADA! ESTRADA! ESTRADA! ESTRADA! ESTRADA! ESTRADA!
The situation regarding Estrada's wife is both tragic and irrelevant, and would never have been made public had Karl Rove not discussed it during the New Yorker profile on Harry Reid.
I don't know what relevance you believe it has here.
Figuring back from when she got her BA, she's 67 (BA in 59 at age 21 or 22?).
I really can't see Bush going with someone that age if he wants to affect the Supreme Court for years to come.
Just off the top of my head, it might have some relevance in explaining why, once upon a time, he never wanted to go through another confirmation process again.
It is an issue not in the sense that the Dems would dare to broach it or would back off because of it, but it is in issue as it effects Estrada's desires and needs and availability to take the position.
I'm also told that Corrigan's name is being floated intentionally
Do you mean floated intentionally as a possibible candidate ?
Or
Floated intentionally to attract the sharks (ala Clement) prior to the naming of someone else ?
We know that POTUS is POTUS, but... ;) With your sources you seem to be well-connected. Any idea which way the wind is blowing?
The guessing games continue! Erick's stuff is so fun to read though, I could take a new post like this every day.
Yes, Adam, reprehensible. You bet it is reprehensible. It's reprehensible what Democrats did to Estrada and his family. From that New Yorker article:
For Rove, the most painful example was Miguel Estrada, who had worked in the Solicitor General's office, and who was Bush's first appellate-court nominee, in 2001. Estrada withdrew his name twenty-eight months after being nominated. During the confirmation struggle, Estrada's wife miscarried; in November, 2004, she died, of an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills. The death was ruled accidental by the medical examiner. Rove said that Mrs. Estrada had been traumatized by the nastiness of the process. Reid told Rove that he empathized with Estrada, but said that the Republicans' treatment of President Clinton's nominees--more than sixty were never voted on by the Judiciary Committee--had created victims, too. Rove, according to Reid, replied, "We need to sit down and talk about this," adding that the ugliness of the confirmation process had reached a new low.
Miguel Estrada should be on the D.C. Circuit today, and he should be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Remind me again (I must be going senile at 35) what the Dems wanted re Estrada - some papers, right? Solicitor General memos? Same things they are not getting re Roberts?
If Roberts gets a pass even though the Dems didn't get to see his Solicitor General memos, how could they hold up Estrada on the same grounds now?
That's the beauty of appointing Estrada. It kills 6 birds with 1 stone.
- Appointing a solid conservative
- Appointing a Hispanic
- Appointing a very young Justice
- Appointing someone w/o much paper trail but who is known to be conservative
- Killing Gonzles' hopes should there be another vacancy (there would alredy be a Hispanic on the Court)
- Poking a finger in the eye of Dems and getting some sweet revenge
The Dems used the red herring of Estrada's Solicitor General memos as a pretense to block the nomination. He was filibustered. Interestingly, if Roberts is approved, it'll be over similar objections to the Administration's refusal to release his own SG memos. Seems like good ammo in a fight over Estrada.
And, by the way, I HAVE heard of Vietnam.
. . . if you believe in Rove's claim of cause and effect.
With almost five (5) full years of evidence to review, I find it amusing how much time and effort is expended on this site PUSHING for Candidate X or OPPOSING Candidate Y for the Supreme Court.
Seems to me that the best way to PRECLUDE a preferred candidate from getting the nomination is to spend a lot of time and energy PROMOTING that candidate in the public arena. GWB cannot STAND that.
Also, seems to me that the best way to invite GWB to pick, say, Alberto Gonzalez, is to expend a tremendous amount of time and energy ripping him to shreds. Frankly, the more that some here and elsewhere ripped AGAG for the O'Connor seat, the more likely I felt like GWB would pick AGAG.
You guys dodged a bullet there, but apparently, you like playing with fire.
Keep up the static on AGAG, and just watch GWB step-up to the microphone with AGAG next to him.
There has been a tremendous amount of BAD ANALYSIS here on how GWB runs his personnel selection process. I mean, just a TON of bad analysis for most folks who have repeatedly commented on this matter.
Perhaps some here have forgotten: GWB asked Cheney to help him vet VP selections, and at the end of the process GWB asked RVC to be his VP.
Sure, AGAG has signaled to the POTUS that he doesn't want to be "on the list." For some of you folks who might not have figured this out: that's a very selfLESS and LOYAL thing for AGAG to do. Don't think that escaped GWB's notice.
I have a lot of respect for Erick's work on GWB's Supreme Court nomination process. I know that he worked it hard, and continues to work it very hard. I check his work on these matters REPEATEDLY.
But, the fact remains: GWB picked Roberts and NOBODY saw it coming, even in the afternoon of the formal announcement.
The White House, and its many sources, will intentionally float a lot of names to MISLEAD the press, Democrats, and even Republicans.
No one will see the next pick coming, until a few hours before the formal press conference begins. Guaranteed.
I'm sorry to say, but GWB doesn't read Red State. He's, er, a little too busy to catch up on the blogs, y'know...
Fair enough, Larry, although the commentary on RedState tracks the commentary elsehwere, not precisely, but certainly close enough.
There's isn't a huge gap between the commentary on RedState and the MSM's reporting on the White House process for picking a SCOTUS nominee.
To wit: the daily ripping of AGAG as a SCOTUS nominee for the O'Connor seat on RedState was duly noted within the MSM.
The POTUS doesn't have time, nor the need to read RedState. But, that doesn't mean that he's unaware of the back-and-forth commentary.
Sorry if I didn't make that point more clear.
For what it's worth, I saw the Roberts nomination coming. He's been being groomed for the Supreme Court since old man Bush first nominated him for the DC Circuit back in the day. It was only a matter of time.
Well done, Larry. I missed your email on RedState making that prediction before the formal announcement.
Erick: next time, check with Larry. Don't worry about working the phones or your sources.
Speaking of, Larry, who is GWB going to pick for the O'Connor seat?
Bush will shock the world and pick Larry Tribe. Book it.
If Bush were to do that, Schumer and Kennedy would probably accuse Tribe of being a racist. They wouldn't be able to help themselves.
I was, of course, joking about Tribe. To be honest, I predicted here that Bush would pick a woman to replace O'Connor and a politician to replace the Chief. Alas, I was listening to Erick and the CW. I (and other people I know, by the way) predicted that Roberts would get the tap for a future, likely-more-contentious position, such as Ginburg's or, more likely, Stevens. Bush apparently didn't want to gamble that those geezers aren't sticking around.
My guess for the O'Connor seat is Larry Thompson or, if he wants it, Estrada. I just don't see a female candidate out there who meets the young-conservative-brilliant-confirmable criteria discussed above.
P.S. And, for the record, I am not Larry Tribe. Although I have, as I've said, heard of Vietnam.
Thanks for the inside tip.
I just wagered $50 on Tribe from Harvard to get the nod from GWB.
If I were to wager any money at all on who GWB will pick (I'd never do that; he's way way too unpredictable), Larry Thompson would be the horse I'd lay a wager on.
I just don't want to read much about Thompson in the MSM, cuz that's the Kiss of Death for GWB.
http://americansforfreedom.blogspot.com/2005/09/speculation-on-next-scotus-
pick-is.html
Speculation on the next SCOTUS pick. Is the Administration setting the table for an Estrada nomination?
Sepculation is rampant about the next pick. I figure I might as well give it a shot.
Here are some of the credible candidates
Michael McConnell
Michael Luttig
Emilio Garza
Janice R. Brown
Pricilla Owen
Edith Jones
I think none of these will be chosen, though all are good options.
I think the President will nominate Miguel Estrada.
He is young, 43, which is one of the most important factors.
His resume is impeccable. Nominated to the DC Circuit by President Bush in 2001 and was fillibustered until he withdrew in 2003 before the Senate agreement of 14 approved most of the previously filibusterees. Estrada was filibustered for the precise reason that the White House had not provided access to documents prepared when he was assistant solicitor general. My interest comes in this point. Estrada and Roberts have almost identical resumes, experience and the most important thing, duplicate experience in the Solicitor General's office. If solicitor's general office documents are not released and democrats vote for Roberts, how can they vote against confirming Estrada?
Go Mr. President, nominate Miguel Estrada, a young, strong conservative hispanic, and watch the left literally, spontaneously combust.
More at the link....http://americansforfreedom.blogspot.com/2005/09/speculation-on-next-scotus-
pick-is.html
Which prospect is the safest pro-life bet? It seems to me JRB is the best bet, and I just don't believe Schumer and Kennedy have the belly to put her through a Thomas-like confirmation, with everyone watching. Estrada would be good too, but they won't hesitate to Thomas him; I've already seen photos of him in a restaurant with a big cigar hanging out with Ann Coulter.
Just after I post things in his last (older) post that we might as all relax for a month, he posts something new and I lose another hour of my life reading and re-reading about every nominee he lists.
Based on recent comments, Estrada's stock may have risen to the top. True constitutional originalists should not be pleased.
Estrada is indeed a `conservative', I know, and will be far more originalist than Souter Kennedy and O'Connor indeed. But if Bush is reaching for a Hispanic, why by pass Garza who's been mentioned more often who has far more experience on the federal bench (which although makes him about a decade older makes him that more immune to the charge of not being properly qualified, and there's not all the bad blood with DEMs that Estrada's history invokes) and more importantly, is about as close as you can get to a sure vote to overturn Roe (having said its "inimical to the Constitution").
Estrada in contrast seems to me even a blanker slate than Roberts on whether he'd overturn Roe, and a more probable vote NOT to overturn it: He has specifically testified that he has not had occasion to consider whether Roe was rightly or wrongly decided, having never faced an actual case or controversy requiring such an evaluation, and said at one point "I haven't given enough thought to that question." There are other nominees most mentioned that have had the courage to speak up or at least to admit to have thought through (e.g. Jones if we're looking for minorities) the one case most responsible for constitutional jurisprudential mischief and decay which is one vacancy away from having the votes to overturn it if we don't blow this opportunity with someone like him who (like with Roberts) we are taking UNNECESSARY (I'll take 2:1 odds with anyone on a Jones or Garza getting confirmed) risks as Republicans always did before with as we did with O'Connor Kennedy and Souter and Thomas (one risk that worked out) who we all winked to each other just ASSUMING be votes to turn things around. Maybe Estrada is being coy because he just wants to get past the liberals for an eventual nomination, maybe just as likely he knows that since he put his marbles in the Republican basket long ago, he'd be signing his own death knell for Supreme Court hopes if he dared say positive things about Roe or said it shouldn't be overturned at this point, WHO KNOWS. We shouldn't take chances when someone like Estrada would be heavily opposed by liberals anyway; it they're going to fight the nominee tooth and nail anyway, and you want to go for a minority, for goodness sakes pick a sure anti-Roe vote who is already on the tip of everyone's tongues like Jones and Garza. With all thats at stake and the importance of Roe for reasons NOT solely for reasons of that specific substantive policy but as a test of how important originalism is to a person and their intellectual courage, being an "originalist" in general shouldn't be enough, when they are not strong enough originalists to override their respect (and political pressure) for stare decisis of Roe and its progeny and there's no reason to 'settle' for compromise.
If we lose on a Garza or Jones, SOOO WHAAAAT! I don't think we will, but at least try and if you lose THEN put up an Estrada who will SEEM much more moderate in comparison, MOVE THE BAR/STANDARD TO THE RIGHT!
Looking back at ALL GOP nominees for the Supreme Court since Bork, I dare someone (like Bush himself) to challenge this sad truism:
REPUBLICAN Presidents have a litmus test disqualifying any nominee who dares ever speak the truth about the hideous abberation to Roe. But despite this sad situation, so called grass roots conservatives will all get in line and cheer when we fumble this golden opportunity.
I'd be happy to be shown where I'm wrong on Estrada and Roe.
Difficult family times can make politics take a back burner for a lot of folks, and it has nothing to do with whether politics were the root cause of those problems. See Owens, Bill.
I agree Bush should move the bar to the right as much as possible and leave Estrada as second string. However, given the President's undefeated winning strategies, including his strategy to shift the nation to the right, I'll trust the Prez with pretty much whomever he nominates.
That if he gets it wrong, my unhappiness would be immeasurable.
But sorry to say, if there's another (non-Scalia non-Thomas) vacancy, you better plan on it going to Alberto.
Bush cares, deeply, about doing the right thing. But he also believes in his heart and soul that Alberto is plenty conservative. He won't do it now, but if another vacancy opens up in 07 or 08, he'll appoint Gonzales and dare the senate to block a hispanic right before the presidential. They'll all flinch.
Doesn't make me thrilled, but I'd put 5 bucks on that if a ginsburg-stevens-souter-breyer-kennedy vacancy opens.
Is Viet Nam anywhere near Iraq? The names are familiar, but it seems that some people just can't tell them apart.
which is why an Estrada nomination is unlikely.
Think about it.. if Bush really wants to put Gonzales on board SCOTUS and he thinks he might get a third vacancy from Stevens or Ginsburg, can he afford NOT to put a woman on in one of those THREE slots ?
Seems unlikely which means, he takes care of putting a woman on now and then puts Gonzalez on if he gets a third spot.
What worries me more is, in the same vein that people have said that Estrada would have it in for the left should he make it on the court, will Gonzalez have it in for the right if the right opposses him and he makes it onto the court.
If Bush DOES get it wrong with Gonzalez or another blank slate, where does that leave us?
As conservatives, the lament I've heard is that if Bush doesn't put a conservative up for this second slot that we will stay home and let the Senate go back to the Dems in 2006 .. fair enough, but then what horse do we back in 2008 and do we really want to let the Dems get control of the Senate in 2006 and limit what Bush can do on judicial nominations (even if they are non-Supreme court nominations).
in 2008. If the President blows this one, we have to go with someone who, over time, has established a socially conservative record.
The worst thing I could have heard given that I find Brownback about as compelling as an old bar of soap.
Admittedly, I am ignorant on most of his positions and my reaction is based on watching a 15 minute, very painful speech (as well as feeling like he has NO national exposure).
I'm trying to think what would make me feel good about Brownback....
Maybe some immigration sound bites or cut spending sound bites.
From what I'm observing, John Roberts will almost certainly become the next CJ. This will create a vacancy on the DC Circuit. I think Estrada should get that if he's ready.
I did not realize the full extent of Estrada's personal tragedy. Harry Reid does not have a soul.
Regarding Brownback or any other Repub Senator in a state with a Dem Governor......absolutely no way W will appoint a Repub Senator knowing he/she will be replace by a Democrat
After Roberts is confirmed, Kavanaugh's appointment will be moved forward.....The Dems are using the excuse that not all of the DC seats need to be filled....Estrad would need to await a retirement/death on the DC Circuit for an appointment that would be moved forward
Several GOP Senators feel the same way.
This is also the reason I DONT think that Estrada's name will be put forward. He doesn't need any more ambiguity in his life (a SCOTUS nomination would happen in a due course of time as oppossed to the forever delay of the DC CircuS nomination).
How old is he and what are everyone's thoughts on him?
Nick
He's 59 or 60, African American who worked under Ashcroft, my understanding is that he is a total blank slate (e.g. no scholarly opinions, never been a judge) when it comes to ANYTHING on Roe, substantive due process, social issuess etc. Hardly qualified for the Supreme Court at all, let alone as a conservative originalist although often mentioned in the lists of those being considered.
The sudden death of Miguel Estrada's wife was not a secret; it was reported on NRO and elsewhere, and condolences were expressed, pretty much when it happened. (I know, because I myself posted on the subject here at RedState at the time). Howard Bashman and other lawbloggers ran a bunch of items on the funeral arrangements, etc., for the benefit of Estrada's friends in the legal community.
Ignore my comment below; I hadn't seen that about the circumstances of her death.
So, if that is the standard by which some want to "judge" Larry Thompson, tell me now how CJ nominee Roberts is being judged?
For example, tell me specifically about where the paper trail makes crystal clear how John Roberts will rule on cases in the future (cuz, that's what we're talking about) on Roe, Griswold, and other key legal questions? How can anyone believe that Roberts has "met this threshold" but Thompson has not?
Last time I checked, Larry Thompson served for 4 years as Deputy AG to John Ashcroft. Surely no one would suggest that Thompson in 4 years as Deputy AG of the United States of America did a poor job of advancing President George W. Bush's agenda at the Justice Department. Are they?
Is it me, or is it just convenient to hold a possible Thompson nomination to a different standard than the Roberts nomination?
The only comment that I would make is that if he's 60 than he's older than Bush would be likely to go (although Bush did interview Wilkerson a while back).
I don't think his recusal issues are as bad as Gonzales', but Thomas does have significant recusal issues, which should elimate him in my book
Sounds to me like this crowd is looking, looking, looking for reasons to cross certain folks off the list. Fair enough.
The perfect can frequently be the enemy of the good. However, in the political arena, that stragegy is usually ignored for very good reasons.
GWB thinks very highly of AGAG. He also happens to think very highly of Larry Thompson.
GWB does not think as highly of Miguel Estrada, JRB, Luttig, McConnell, Garza, Alito, or some of the other names that get thrown around this place a lot.
Time will tell. I eagerly look forward to his decision, and returning to this location and topic then.
Sir YA --
You seem to have some inside info re: Bush's attitudes towards AGAG and LT versus ME, ML, and JRB.
Can you give us more details ?
I don't think Estrada will go through another confirmation process for the lower court (I may be wrong), since he already bowed out voluntarily. He would, I'm sure, accept a Supreme Court nomination, because this time the only person bearing the brunt is himself, not his wife.
Miguel Estrada is about as solid a conservative as there is. He absolutely would not become another Souter. The guy hangs out with Ann Coulter! (I have the picture to prove it.)
Which means that someone else has the picture and its sure to pop up at his confirmation hearings.
Zikes!
... and Mary Matlin married James Carville. So that means, exactly WHAT, when it comes to picking a legally mature reliable originalist/textualist of Supreme Court justice quality who has said he has not thought through Roe to have an opinion on it?
SirYapAlot, you mention the Cheney pick with much truth. It is the one data point that makes all conservatives truly fear that GWB will go for AGAG. However, this is only key player and only one of a number of nominations Bush has made. On many other key nominations, Ashcroft, T. Thompson, and especially now with Roberts, Bush has gone with people he wasn't intimately familiar with.
And moreover, for close readers of RedState, the Roberts pick was not unforseeable. You don't have to believe me, and I didn't publish it anywhere, but I personally thought Roberts would be the pick. The reasoning was this: Erick said Luttig & Roberts were the favorites at the time for the WHR slot, which GWB thought would be first. But since actually SOC announced, it would be a tougher confirmation fight than if WHR went first. Therefore, go with the easier fight (Roberts) since that's where the solid research was already done.
Now, if Erick's sources are still correct, they've provided roughly 3 distinct hints: 1. That as of today perhaps Luttig, Jones, Estrada & Corrigan are the front runners. 2. GWB mostly has his mind made up. This would indicate Luttig, because the interviews for the 1st round are widely thought to be Roberts, Luttig, Wilkinson, & Clement and the latter 2 are out. 3. "Don't be surprised..." indicates either Estrada or Corrigan or someone totally unknown.
Based on that, I'd bet on Luttig mainly on the strength of hint 2, but I reserve my right to change my guess based on Erick's further posts.
I have no different standard which you claim by dissing Thompson as a pick... I have continually been critical of Roberts as a pick because he is a blank slate candidate (unless you count the sucking up he did to originalist bosses back in the 80s in formerly hidden memos that were just part of his job) when there are several candidates mentioned at the top of the list (e.g. Garza, Jones) who would be definite votes to join Scalia and Thomas to overturn the most disastrous case law for prospects for future originalist constitutional jurisprudence.
Additionally, notice I mentioned the age, which is another big difference between Roberts and Thompson even if I were in support of him. Roberts at least has some tea leaf evidence of being an originalist (although he denied being an originalist or having ANY guiding principle of constitutional interpretation in 2003 confirmation testimony) with some strong language in memos even if its 2 decades old; with Thompson, we don't even have tea leaves. Case closed.
Fair enough.
If you're applying a consistent test to any and all such nominees, and possible nominess, that's perfectly fine by me.
If he does go with Luttig, there will be more screams about racism or white males or ....
James Taranto has a provocative suggestion: former DOJ official Viet Dinh. It's not a terrible idea, although Dinh is 37 and has never been a judge, so he would presumably draw fire for insufficient experience. As with Roberts, Estrada and some of the other candidates, his paper trail is very thin, which is both good and bad.
He has been very outspoken on talk shows in days gone by...he would be excellent, but is a fire breather likely to raise the hackles as much as Janice would
I just don't think that Bush can name another white male to the court, and I don't think he wants to, either. He's got to look at the court and say, "aren't there enough already?"
It would be one thing if there weren't any brilliant women (Edith Jones), minorities (Miguel Estrada), or even a combination of the two (Janice Rogers Brown). Of course if Bush I had only gotten it right and put Edith Jones on the court instead of David Souter, not only would we still have our property rights (with Kelo going the other way), political free speech rights (with Campaign Finance Reform declared unconstitutional), and affirmative racism outlawed in the University of Michigan case, but we would also be down to deciding between Brown and Estrada already.
Dubya would be asking himself if he wants to put either A) the first hispanic on the court or B) the first black woman on the court.
George H.W. Bush's presidency just keeps on coming back to bite us in the...rear.
...so that if we can't get him on SCOTUS this time, Prez Condi can nominate him during her 8-year tenure to replace either Ginsberg or Stevens. :-)
Loyalty is usually very admirable and noble...but in the case of Alberto Gonzalez...I think that it is simply blinding him. I don't trust AGAG.
Now...if Hillary were nominating AGAG in a Republican-controlled Senate, I'd say that he is the best we could hope for (which is, ironically, what the Democrats say of Gonzalez today).
Harvey Wilkinson and Bush know each other from Yale too. Wilkinson is one of those old-timer respected Republicans who has been a Republican leader his whole life. But the age thing and signs he's turning a bit flimsy on issues ensures he won't go far.
someone to put on a circuit court though once the SCOTUS picks settle down.
There is a growing backlog on the Circuit Courts because Bush put off naming anyone new until the previously filibustered group was dealt with and then when he would have put up some other people, you had the O'Connor retirement.
I agree that we can't refrain from voting. Last time we hesitated on our candidate, Clinton got elected... twice. And he appointed two Justices, enough that we could have overturned Roe by now. I will always vote and I will always vote Republican, but if he appoints a Justice who doesn't help overturn Roe, I will still dissent. I will dissent like a madman. But while I'm conservative through and through, I know many pro-life people who believe the Republican party will never do anything or be able to do anything about abortion. Thus, you're right about the problem; if Bush appoints a pro-choice Justice, we will be fubar (that doesn't count does it?) in 2008, especially with Hilary et. al. claiming they are the gods of the real pro-life movement.
While I agree the Clinton debacle was bad, the question I have if we will still go out and vote is what leverage do we have to affect the party.
The people at the top are out of touch with the party on immigration and spending in huge ways.
How can we communicate if we don't have the threat of witholding our vote?
I'm not trying be smarmy here, I'm geniunely asking the question.
It works for little kids in the store.
...is apparently very good friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Discuss.
Harvard Professor and Vatican Advisor. Perfect to make the Democrats bash Catholics some more and turn Catholics more to the GOP. A double edged sword pick to harm liberal activists ability to fight. A unquestionable smart Harvard female with impeccable credentials meets a left wing dying to fight. Watch the fireworks begin.
The timing is likely after Roberts hearings.