19 Comments

1. Silicon valley Jim:

It occurred to me just now that that’s three Chief Justices in a row from the Midwest – Burger from Minnesota, Rehnquist from Wisconsin, and Roberts from Indiana. Maybe it’s the cold, or the humidity.

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:24 am 2. David Thomson:

Will it be much more difficult for President Bush to get his next nominee approved by the Senate? Nope, the Democrats simply do not have the votes. It has nothing to do with common courtesy and respect for tradition. At the end of the day, the White House would have to send over a stark raving maniac before any real trouble developed.

I was one of those who supported the

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:38 am 3. klrfz1:

I’m so ashamed (sob!) I bet Roberts would get less than 60 votes. Where do I send the money? Just post your home address ajf and the check’s in the mail. I promise (lip biting sob!) I won’t call you savage.

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:48 am 4. Bostonian:

Time for the next circus…

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:57 am 5. RogerA:

Bostonian–indeed: and I am betting the next nominee will be announced later today or tomorrow. Then we can repeat the judiciary committee comedy show. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: the ignorant in pursuit of the intelligent.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:16 am 6. jerry:

Bostonian and RogerA:

I am going to be blatantly political. Bush should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. It will be quite a show watching the Senator from Chappaquiddick attack a “woman of color” for being anti-woman and a racist lackey. If that wouldn’t break the Dems hold on the black vote then nothing will.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:49 am 7. Ed Poinsett:

I hope Bush doesn’t send up his next nominee until next week after the Supreme Court has convened for the new term and has seated Justice Brown. We could use a short respite from Biden, Kennedy, and Schumer. Make that a long respite.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:20 am 8. Rick Ballard:

Jerry,

I have nothing whatsoever against Brown but my pick is Garza. Second would be Estrada – and it’s a tight second.

I agree with making a blatantly political pick. No strong conservative pick, no dough for the RNC. He wasn’t hired to compromise.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:21 am 9. Silicon valley Jim:

At the end of the day, the White House would have to send over a stark raving maniac before any real trouble developed.

And then only for certain types of stark raving maniacs; the Democrats would really like a stark raving maniac like, say, Ralph Neas or Chuck Schumer or Barbara Boxer or . . .

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:29 am 10. RogerA:

Jerry and Rick–the prospect of a major fight is appealing to the political animal in me–and given the right pick (again no pun intended) such as Brown it would create a genuine spectacle: can you see Senator Obama calling Brown not a real black woman for example? and general hypocracy all around. It would also involve the gang of 14 in dealing with a filibuster which could finally eliminate the filibuster as well as expose their collective hyprocracy.

OK OK–I am on for a major fight–I talked myself into it with your prodding.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:29 am 11. jerry:

RogerA:

I think Sen Obama has enough class and intelligence not to pursue that line of reasoning…he will let Chuck Schumer make a fool out himself instead. Obama is much smoother then Lani Guenier, who was actually Jewish ( because her mother was) who was into faux authenticity.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:40 am 12. Michael_B:

78-22, and Roberts is as qualified as they come. By contrast Ginsburg and Breyer, Clinton’s two picks, each received 90+ votes and received 100% coming out of the judiciary committee.

As the Chicago Trib put it:

“Will [Roberts] receive overwhelming approval from members of both parties, as did President Bill Clinton’s nominees to the high court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer? Or are we in a zone of desperation where it is more important for Democrats to placate the interest groups now demanding that they vote against Roberts?

“How senators react to that pressure will demonstrate how they’re likely to treat Bush’s nominee for the O’Connor seat. Can he or she be evaluated in fairness? Or is this game rigged?”

Precisely, the ideological war will almost certainly be ratcheted up with renewed fervor with the advent of the second nomination. Ginsburg and Breyer each were nominated in relatively quick succession as well (’93 and ‘94 respectively), and they each received advise and consent reviews, as reflected in their votes.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:49 am 13. Kevin P:

Roger:

The Dems have given President Bush no reason not to pick Brown or Garza. By making the mistake of going after Roberts with charges of racism and other slanders with the slimmest of facts9a twenty year old memo with the phrase illegal amigo?) they have pleased their base but Roberts made them look the fool. Since it is apparent that any conservative that Bush picks will be tarred as a combonation of Jesse Helms and McCarthy he has no reason to pick a “moderate.”

If the Dems had been smart they would have let Roberts pass without the overheated partisan attack. They knew that they could not fillibuster him and they knew that he was going to sit on the court. When they go after the Bush pick with all the same charges that they lobbed at Roberts, and the public did not buy their slime attack, the dems will have a serious Boy Who Cried Wolf problem.

Bush should pick Brown and force the White members of the Senate to charge her with not being the right kind of African American or the right kind of female. The republican’s will take all the speech’s and op-ed pieces that slammed bush for not picking a female when he selected roberts and read them back to them. They can point out the shallow nature of those charges and point out that “a woman” really meant a liberal. And slightly off topic, how did Ginsburg get away with her blantant political meddling when she claimed that it should be a woman, but “not just any woman.” If she wants to campaign for Senate and get involved in the selection of SCOTUS picks she should resign her spot on the Supreme Court.

If the dem’s reject Brown, then Bush should follow with Garza. Let the Dem’s reject high quality judges from the African American and Hispanic communities and then go out on the campaign trail and claim that they are champions of the minority.

Kevin Peters

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:22 pm 14. RogerA:

Kevun–actually its not off topic at all—I listed to Ginsburg’s speech at Wake University on NPR–interestingly she affirmed Roberts position about not commenting on future cases; more to your point she was blatently politicking for a “certain type of judicial nominee” and not just a woman. Shows quite a bit of judicial NON-restraint to me. As the former Army Chief of Staff Gen Abrams said: never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.

OK: and as to listening to NPR–there are simply NO other sources of news in Grant Couunty.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:50 pm 15. Kevin P:

RogerA:

One of the major propaganda lines from the dem’s and many of the opposition pundits is that President Bush is picking “right wing idealogues”. Yet I do not hear the same phrase attached to Ginsgurg, who was given a near majority bi-partisan approval vote. Her “right kind of woman” phrase coupled with her assertion that her kind of woman is for Human rights and the wrong kind of woman, one who dares to think for themselves and is conservative, is against human rights. This is the worse kind of partisan dogma and the fact that a Supreme Court Justice put herself so openly in the political dogfight, against all tradition, shows that she is a idealogue yet that phrase in never attached to her. Ginsburg has the right to say whatever she wants and the dem’s can vote anyway they want but they can’t claim that they are not totally politicizing the selection of judges and that they are not using specific litmus tests regarding who they vote for. Yet just today, Sen. Boxer, in a response to a question from Chris Matthew’s as to whether the dem’s had set pre-approval of Roe v Wade as a litmus test said, “No, of corse not.” Many on this site may agree with doing that but the bald faced dishonesty by Boxer and many of her like minded colleagues is stunning.

Kevin Peters

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:19 pm 16. Knucklehead:

Is it just me or does Ruth look an awful lot like Margaret?

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:31 pm 17. Anthony (Los Angeles):

The Democrats have decided to “Bork” and filibuster anyone Bush sends next, partly in apology to the groups they’re beholden to for money. (NARAL, PFAW — to think I was once a member of the latter! Ew!) Bush might as well pull out the stops: nominate Rogers-Brown, or Luttig, or McConnell, or Garza, or any constitutionalist judge. Let’s have this fight and have it now.

To quote a man who I’m glad will never be president: Bring. It. On.

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:07 pm 18. Stacy's Mom:

Who would’ve thought the Senate contained 78 right wing extremists?

Sep 30, 2005 - 7:43 am 19. Knucklehead:

Stacey’s Mom,

There’s this, ummm…, mature woman who sometimes uses the same parking lot I do who has her car all done up with bumper stickers (Let’s Not Elect Him Again in 2004, Quit Bitching and Start a Revolution, Developers – Go Build in HELL!, US Troops Out of the Middle East, Think Global – Act Local and a few others I can’t recall) who might peg the number of right wing extremists in the Senate a bit north of 78.

Sep 30, 2005 - 1:31 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: