Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some thoughts on the next probable SCOTUS nominee.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:34 AM
Original message
Some thoughts on the next probable SCOTUS nominee.
So buh-bye, Harriet, it's been nice knowing you. Who's up on deck next? George and the gang have two possible ways to play this:

1) Pick someone as much like John Roberts as they can find: Known consitutional scholar, position on the issues relatively murky or middle of the road.

2) Go for the gusto and pick the true ideological winger: someone who is out'n'proud about their positions on the issues and it's a far right one indeed. (This person will also doubtless have to be a well-qualified constituational scholar to avoid Miers, redux.)

Now, the advantage to #1 is that that person, like John Roberts, might actually get confirmed. The disadvantage is that this nominee would probably annoy the far right wing again, who see the appointment of a winger firebrand as their God-given right for having helped elect this POTUS.

The advantage to #2 is that it would make the wingers happy. The disadvantage is that it would precipitate a shitstorm confirmation process. My feeling is that the Democrats on the Hill are spoiling for a fight; they sense blood in the water and they're ready to rumble. Actually, I think the wingers would also like a fight. The true wingers are, like us, political junkies and confirmed partisans and a nice bloody battle (which I am sure they think they will win) would be a sight to behold. And in fact a nominee put up in this way has a very real possibility of losing.

Now, the REAL question here is: Which way will the WH jump?

To answer that, I think about two tendences of the Bush WH. The first is that they like to look good. Flight Suit boy and all that. And they DO like to get things done (albeit, things like screwing the poor and destroying the environment). So to me this augurs for choice #1. And my gut tells me that George will in fact move this way.

I can see someone in the WH making the political calculation that they need to pick a true winger to appeal to the base, and trying to persuade George of that fact. Especially in reference to the 2006 elections. And that line of thought may prevail. But a SCOTUS pick is also about George's legacy, and I really don't think that he's truly, ideologically speaking, in the winger camp, as much as he WANTS them to think that. I think he really thinks that Miers was qualified, and I think he wants to put someone truly qualified on the Supreme Court, and I think that GWB actually *doesn't* want a big ugly fight. So I'm voting for choice #1. Although I reserve the right to be terribly, horribly wrong. :evilgrin:

Thoughts? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Gonzales: Bush's favorite, and * doesn't like being pushed around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Does he fit the "qualified in constitutional law" criteria?
I'm not sure.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Links to Gonzales + Delay in notifying WH

CIA leak inquiry probes delay
Gonzales and Card spoke hours before all White House staff told
Dafna Linzer, Washington Post
Monday, July 25, 2005
 

Washington -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday that he spoke with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card immediately after learning that the Justice Department had begun a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. But Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, waited 12 hours before officially notifying the rest of the staff of the inquiry.
Many details of the investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald are unknown. Sources close to the case have said Fitzgerald is looking into possible conflicts between what President Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury, and the accounts of reporters who spoke with the two men.
Gonzales said Sunday on "Fox News Sunday" that he is among the group of top current and former Bush administration officials who have testified to the grand jury about the unmasking of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Gonzales, who has recused himself from the case, would not discuss details of his testimony but said he learned about Plame's work from newspaper accounts.
In the Sunday New York Times, columnist Frank Rich reported that when Gonzales was notified about the investigation on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, he waited 12 hours before telling the White House staff about the inquiry. Official notification to staff is meant to quickly alert anyone who might have pertinent records to make sure they are preserved and safeguarded.
Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" about the report, Gonzales said the Justice Department had informed his office around 8 p.m. and that White House lawyers said he could wait until the next morning before notifying the staff. He did not say why he called Card.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/25...

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 3, 2003
SCHUMER: JUSTICE DEPT MISSTEPS AGAIN IN CIA LEAK PROBE BY TELEGRAPHING TO POTENTIAL CULPRITS THAT IT WILL SEEK RECORDS
Justice Dept made public its plans to notify Defense & State Dept officials to preserve records before it actually did so, giving potential targets time to destroy evidence
Schumer: Justice Dept's week of errors enhances case for special counsel
US Senator Charles E. Schumer today said the Justice Department had made another mistake in its investigation into whether Administration officials illegally disclosed a covert CIA operative's identity by leaking its intent to require the Defense and State Departments to preserve all relevant documents and records. Schumer said that by giving advance notice that it would expand its probe to target those Departments, the Justice Department gave potential targets of the investigation time to destroy evidence.
"There have been a series of serious mistakes in how this matter has been handled this week by the Justice Department," Schumer said. "First, the Department waited four days to tell the White House to preserve documents and then allowed another delay in actually notifying the staff. Yesterday, we heard about the intimate ties between the Attorney General and the White House. Now we're learning that the Justice Department telegraphed its plans to expand the probe to the Defense and State Departments, allowing potential culprits to get rid of anything incriminating. If there are this many questions just in the first week of this investigation, it makes you wonder what's next."
Yesterday's news accounts quoted Justice Department officials saying that they plan to notify Defense and State Department employees to preserve documents and records relating to Ambassador Wilson's wife. They also said that they had already asked CIA employees to do so. Schumer said by telegraphing their plans, the Justice Department appears, for the second time this week, to have done a poor job of preventing the destruction of evidence in this investigation.
In a letter being sent to the Justice Department today, Schumer wrote that he did not understand why "the Department of Justice not immediately send evidence preservation requests to the handful of agencies where individuals have access to this kind of sensitive classified information. If it was not the first step taken, at a minimum the evidence preservation requests to State and DOD should have gone out when the White House requests were issued."
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/pres...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Ish. I'd forgotten about all that.
Yeah, I don't think it'll be Gonzales, then. Too controversial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's hard to say which way they will go...
#1 would be safer and I suspect most of the repuke party leadership will be pushing for it behind closed doors.

I actually hope the go with what's behind door #2. not only because it will precipitate a fight, but because a filibuster actually presents the Dems with a great opportunity to tear into bushCo and lay out an alternative populist platform for 06.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Me too. I'd like a fight.
Nothin' but nasty headlines for months. It would be politically very favorable to us. Which is another reason why, I agree, the R party leadership will be pushing for the "safe" choice. They are nothing if not politically savvy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elfin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ted Olson Aargh eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Bush's handlers will decide
I think Bush himself picked Miers, and his handlers, though distracted, know how that turned out. They will have to skate a careful course on who is brought up next time, especially if they want to appease the reicht wing and Bush AND get someone confirmed with a minimum of bloodshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU9598 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't see anyone from within the administration
I think it will be Luttig. Another Scalia, only younger and more appealing to the TV audience. So, we end up with more conservative and younger - meaning no replacement for the nominee in 7-10 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. I agree. The Miers nomination smells like
unvarnished Bush decision making. Loyal to his friends and with a minimum of thought. He goes "by the gut" so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. Bush will go hard right, Reid will lead a filibuster, Frist will go nuke..
and 55 Bush-bot Republican senators will close ranks to salvage his faltering presidency. The filibuster will be destroyed, there'll be another Scalia on the court, and the Republican base will be energized as they haven't been since 1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ew.
Gawd. I hope not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I hope to God I'm wrong but thats what I see coming.....
Someday we may wishMiers had been confirmed, cause some of the alternatives are truely frightening. Sure, she was an unqualified crony, but at least she would have been ineffective on the court. The next nominee will be both younger and more conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. I don't think so. Bush is pissed with the wingnuts. They must pay for
their disloyalty. I think it will be Gonzales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I hope you're right-not that I care for Gonalez
but I really hope he takes it out on the wingnuts by appointing someone we can live with.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on it, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yep - my thought also. You know Georgie is pissed and somebody
Edited on Thu Oct-27-05 10:37 AM by yellowcanine
has to pay. It's retribution time for the conservatives who torpedoes Miers.

Miers and Iraq and Plamegate, Oh my! Pass the popcorn already!

On edit - I meant to reply to the suggestion of Bush nominating Gonzales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
14. Ann Coulter or Rush have as much expierence at ruining the ...
country as Bush's other cronies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
15. If he wants safe he might go to Edith Clement
The person that the media originally thought got the nod before Roberts. She seemed moderate-right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC