Possible Bush high court nominees

[MidasKnight]

Link

(AP) -- The following are names that President Bush may be considering if there there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court:

# Samuel A. Alito Jr., a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia who has been nicknamed "Scalito" because he has views similar to those of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

# Janice Rogers Brown, the first black woman to serve on California's Supreme Court. Her nomination to a federal appeals court has been blocked by Senate Democrats.

# Miguel Estrada, a native of Honduras whose nomination to an appeals court was also blocked by Democrats. He's a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

# Emilio Miller Garza, judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Bush's father, the first President Bush, considered the Hispanic judge a Supreme Court prospect.

# Edith Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and former general counsel for the Texas Republican Party. Bush's father considered her for the high court.

# J. Michael Luttig, put on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, by President Bush's father. Clerked for Scalia when Scalia was an appeals court judge.

# Theodore B. Olson, who was Bush's solicitor general until this summer and represented him in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. Olson's wife, Barbara, was killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

# John Roberts, a former Rehnquist clerk named by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

# Larry Thompson, who was deputy attorney general and the Bush administration's highest-ranking black law-enforcement official until he quit in 2003 to join a think tank, Brookings Institution. He is a longtime friend of Justice Clarence Thomas.

# James Harvie Wilkinson III, judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and author of a decision that gave the government broad authority to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without constitutional protections. The ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.

# Alberto R. Gonzales, White House counsel and Bush confidante, may instead be tapped as attorney general.

 

[Gravity]

They will all be filibustered, regardless.

Can you appoint supremeys during recess?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Gravity
They will all be filibustered, regardless.

Can you appoint supremeys during recess?

Yes, the appointments will then last until the end of Congress's next session. Eisenhower actually appointed three judges this way.

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Gravity
They will all be filibustered, regardless.

Can you appoint supremeys during recess?

Good question.

 

[MidasKnight]

I think some of the Dems voted out of office this election were a result of endless filibustereing. So if they go that route again I'd say Dems better watch out in 06.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I think some of the Dems voted out of office this election were a result of endless filibustereing. So if they go that route again I'd say Dems better watch out in 06.

What's your basis for this?

 

[MidasKnight]

Dems voted out this election.

But I said " some of the Dems " not all and should qualify the previous statement by adding that " it may have played a role " in there being voted out of office. Since these will be high profile issues many, many voters will be watching how the Dems react to the appointments.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I think some of the Dems voted out of office this election were a result of endless filibustereing. So if they go that route again I'd say Dems better watch out in 06.

hardly. the democrats that Got voted out because they were Trying to hard to Be republicans to Pander to their States voting Population ala Tom d.

Plus Zell Miller in Georgia, the only thing that changed there is the Letter next to the senators name.

Plus not to mention all the Jerrymandering in Texas in the Congressional races.

list your so called Democrats in the senate that you feel were voted out due to "fillibustering"

 

[MidasKnight]

Trying to hard to Be republicans to Pander to their States voting Population ala Tom d.

So the people voted in a Rep. instead ?

Voters will watch this and those deemed unreasonable in the process ( R or D ) better watch out in 06. Was, not trying to only single out Democrats but my post ended that way ... sorry bout that.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Since these will be high profile issues many, many voters will be watching how the Dems react to the appointments.

Actually I think it might work out well for the Democrats if they can frame the issues properly, which in my opinion has been a tremendous problem for them the past few elections.

Look at the issues which will be the sticking points, civil rights, civil liberties, and reproductive rights. All three is properly framed and spun by the Democrats and the DNC could benefit them even if they eventually lose. If it's Rehnquist if they lose and an ultra conservative is eventually appointed, the balance on the Supreme will remain the same and they can score political points with both their base, and moderates.

 

[Pliablemoose]

IIRC, it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, there are now hopefully 55 built in votes with (IIRC) 1 independent.

 

[NesuD]

I don't think the Dems are going to be as hard line in blocking Bush's court appointments as they were in the past. I think Daschle getting the boot will have an effect on what some of them do. I think if Reid gets the Minority Leader job he will be more likely to work with the pres on possible compromise candidates. I also think it is much more likely that a few Democrats could cross over to give the Repubs the sixty they need to push an appointment through. Remember all the possible dem crossovers have to do is vote with the repubs to end a filibuster. They don't actually have to vote for the appointment, they could still vote against it and it would still be passed by the repub majority so they get some mileage with moderates and conservatives in their state yet still be able to tell their liberal bases that they opposed the appointments. I think there may be a few Dem senators that will be looking over their shoulders after seeing Daschle get shown the door and may be willing to give in on some of these appointments to appeal to a broader base in their own states when they are up for reelection. Of course I could be completely wrong. I truly thought that the Democratic party would have moved more to the center after their reverses in 2002 but they actually ended going even further to the left to my surprise.

 

[Jhhnn]

Get real, NesuD. Dems will fight even harder over the SCOTUS.

Dems will likely walk out if necessary, denying the Repubs a quorum, paralyzing the govt, in order to force compromise. That, or Dubya can declare martial law, lay his cards on the table...

Attempts to appoint ultra- right wingers to the high court will signal that Bush has no intention of "earning our trust", other than our trusting he'll screw us to death.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Get real, NesuD. Dems will fight even harder over the SCOTUS.

Dems will likely walk out if necessary, denying the Repubs a quorum, paralyzing the govt, in order to force compromise. That, or Dubya can declare martial law, lay his cards on the table...

Attempts to appoint ultra- right wingers to the high court will signal that Bush has no intention of "earning our trust", other than our trusting he'll screw us to death.

Well your entitled to your opinion. If you actually read my post you will see that compromise was one of the scenarios i presented. I just think the Dems are going to be more inclined to work out some compromises than they have bee in the past 4 years. Lets face it any candidate Bush has put forth that is the slightest degree right of center has been completely stonewalled with absolutely no attempt at compromise of any kind. The left does not have or deserve a monopoly on the makeup of the courts. It is the presidents prerogative to appoint federal judges and his choices should be given fair consideration by virtues of the majority of the voters in this country voting to reelect him. That is something known as the will of the people. In addition the people have given him a clear majority in the senate. That also bolsters his right to select judges as he sees fit. Any attempt to prevent the president from selecting the judges he deems best suited through filibuster or denying a quorum is clearly nothing more than an attempt to subvert the will of the people. Personally I don't think he is going to offer up all solid ultra right wingers. My general feeling is that he will be willing to make some compromises if the Democratic leadership is also willing. Once again I could be wrong but only time will tell. Lets not make the mistake of condemning what hasn't yet taken place and could very well not take place at all.