Reliable Source -- Rehnquist to Step Down - Bush to Nominate Michael McConnell (10th Circuit Judge)

In The Agora Weblog ^ | 06-03-05 | cww

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Judging by this "dossier" assembled by a "women's rights" group, McConnell is a true conservative:

http://www.legalmomentum.org/congress/judicialnominations/McConnell.pdf

[Graymatter]

I can believe this...as long as the source is a Grand Poobah, and not just a Standard Poobah.

[Williams]

Find it hard to believe this blogger knows when Renqhuist will step down and the name of the replacement, and the decision on Chief Justice. For one thing I don't think Bush was ever considering making Clarence Thomas Chief Justice, and I'm not sure they would shy away from Scalia as "divisive."

[CWW]

I can assure you that the Dems will consider the nomination of McConnell as an "extraordinary circumstance."

[CWW]

Blogger Feddie is well connected with the federal appeallate bar and his blog is widely read by federal law clerks.

[petercooper]

YEEEEEAAAAARRRRRHHHHH!

[GarySpFc]

This could be true. I just did a search on his name, and People for the American Way oppose him. NOW, NARAL and the other pro-aborts are going to go into hystronics. Here are a couple of paragraphs from their site:

People for the American Way Report in Opposition to the Confirmation of Michael W. McConnell

McConnell Strongly Opposes Roe v. Wade and Legal Protection for Reproductive Rights

McConnell’s numerous legal writings and statements evince a strident opposition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive choice. 410 U.S. 113. Describing the Roe decision as conferring a “private ‘right’ to use lethal violence to ‘solve’ personal. . . . problems,”47 McConnell has consistently stated that the decision was wrongly decided and illegitimate. He has called Roe “a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution,”48 an “embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously,”49 and a “grave legal error[] in the service of an extreme vision of abortion rights that the vast majority of Americans rightly consider unjust and immoral.”50 Equating Roe v. Wade with the infamous Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions which upheld slavery and the segregation of African Americans, McConnell has openly called on the Supreme Court to reverse and overturn Roe as “it did [with Plessy] in Brown v. Board of Education.”51

In addition, McConnell has advocated a constitutional amendment that would reverse “the doctrines of Roe v. Wade and [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.] Casey, and establishing that the right to life protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extends to the unborn child.”52 Whether achieved by court decision or constitutional amendment, such action could justify federal or state legislatures banning abortion in all cases, except perhaps to save the life of the mother, including cases of rape and incest, and impose criminal sanctions against women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them.53 In fact, McConnell’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause should protect fetuses suggests that government not only would be permitted to ban abortion but actually would be constitutionally required to do so in most cases.54 Finally, McConnell has expressed the view that a “right of privacy” and of “personal autonomy” does not exist under the Constitution, which could threaten the right of women even to have access to birth control in some cases, new emergency contraceptives, and early “medical abortions” such as use of RU-486.

[NeoCaveman]

The Supremes had no choice but to take the case, and a 7-2 majority agreed. Their alternative was to let a rogue FL Supreme Court trampel all over the rights of the Floridians and their legislature.

Not necessarily. The state legislature could have pledged the electors to Bush. Inserting any court, including the Florida Supremes, into an election is just asking for trouble.

[KenmcG414]

God help us if he's another Souter.

[jwalsh07]

A report opposing McConnell, from the left.

A rebuttal.

Make of it what you will.

[jwalsh07]

See #30.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Forget it. Frist botched the chance he had.

[InterceptPoint]

Scalia was viewed as too divisive within the court (also entirely plausible)

Scalia's age (70) is a reasonable consideration here but being "too divisive" wouldn't matter a hoot if John McCain would have left well enough alone. If Scalia doesn't get the CJ job then the Dems have won and they couldn't have done it without good old Johnny Boy.

[katieanna]

"Remand it back to FLA for a recount that met constitutional stndards."

I thought the Florida court had established a terrible lack of ability to find a standard. They continuously stated 'where the intent of the voter is evident'. The remedy they continued to offer was always one open to personal interpretation. That was the whole problem.

A standard had already been defined by Florida law, ie, a legal vote is one that can be read by the machines. If the machine cannot read the ballot, it is not legal. The Florida court did not follow their own law, hence, the intervention by the Supremes.

[OldFriend]

If he's such a great mind I'd like to know exactly why he criticized the Court for it's BushvGore decision.

Did he think we needed another 36 days of uncertainty and more time for a Washington State type solution?

[sladilard]

For the record, I never claimed to have inside knowledge about who President Bush will select to fill Rehnquist's seat on the Court or as Chief, I only said that an extremely reliable source informed me that Rehnquist would be stepping down in the next four weeks. I merely made an educated guess as to who I believe the president is likely to choose.

And FWIW, I will truly be shocked if my source is wrong.

[NeoCaveman]

And FWIW, I will truly be shocked if my source is wrong.

Freddie,

Why McConnell over Luttig, in your opinion?

[CWW]

You Da Man, Feddie!

[Redbob]

Bush may also be thinking that putting a younger man of the Court will guarantee many years of conservative influence, while Scalia will likely be replaced within a decade.

[sladilard]

Because as conservative as McConnell is, he is admired and respected by liberal legal scholars. Now that's not a reason to select him, mind you, but it is a factor that must be considered if President Bush wants to get a judicial conservative on the Court (gotta give those spineless moderate Republicans some cover, you know). It will be tough for PFAW, NARAL, and their ilk to defeat McConnell without help from the liberal law professor network. This is one instance where the elitism of that crowd actually works in our favor ("Well, McConnell may be conservative, but at least he is one of us"--that's the mentality of the law profs).

But don't get me wrong, I think Luttig is an excellent jurist. And I'll be thrilled if Bush chooses him.