The Next Supreme Court Vacancy

National Review ^ | June 21, 2007 | Edward Whelan

[gpapa]

If a Supreme Court vacancy unexpectedly develops this summer, the conventional wisdom is that President Bush will find it extremely difficult or impossible to get a strong proponent of judicial restraint confirmed by the Senate....snip....This conventional wisdom is unsound.

[theDentist]

I’m sure he’d love it though, get our attention off that pasky terrible immigration bill he’s foisting on us.

[TSchmereL]

I predict that if a Supreme Court vacancy develops this summer, President Bush will not even nominate a strong proponent of judicial restraint. If you thought Harriet Miers was lame . . .

[indcons]

You think he’ll renominate Harriet Miers? ;)

[Joe Boucher]

correct you are.

[theDentist]

These days I just wouldn’t put it past him.

[sergeantdave]

He’ll nominate Souter’s live-in Irish maid or the Salvadoran lawn maintenance man.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

With the way Boosh is going....I bet Mike Nifong gets nominated

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

With the way Boosh is going....I bet Mike Nifong gets nominated

Now there's a frightening thought!

[subterfuge]

To be sure, there will be plenty of timid voices counseling President Bush to go wobbly. A number of Republican senators, for example — including some conservatives — will encourage the hopeless illusion of a consensus pick. Confident that they will win an issueless reelection campaign, they would prefer to avoid the controversy of a contentious confirmation fight, even if that controversy will most likely redound to their benefit. Why, they ask themselves, incur even a small downside risk? Some White House advisers may fear that political capital will be diverted from their own favored priorities, and others may believe that the benchmark of a successful nomination is a quick and quiet confirmation, rather than the appointment of a quality justice.

[Sloth]

Vicente Fox, maybe?

[alicewonders]

What a bunch of ineffective weenies we’ve elected for ourselves.

[Obie Wan]

GW’s days of appointing SCOTUS justices are over. This article has suspended reality !!!

[MinuteGal]

Rosie will still be looking for a job.

Leni

[hunter112]

There's only one solid strategy: Appoint conservative judges that will NOT make it through Congress, from minority groups that the Rats can anger by not confirming. There are Asian-American judges, black judges, Hispanic judges, Polish-American judges, and just for good measure, another Italian-American judge.

End result: we have a SCOTUS that is composed of eight Justices at worst, the majority of which are conservative.

[LonePalm]

I like that strategerie.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[dynachrome]

“Appoint conservative judges...”
A strategy he should have been following all along.

[jwparkerjr]

As exciting a prospect as another supreme court nomination opportunity might be for us conservatives I think we need to return to reality by watching the Black Knight skit from Monty Python’s Holy Grail movie! The machinations the Black Knight went through to continue the fight will be nothing compared to what the liberals will do to keep one of theirs from leaving the court during the current presidential term! Imagine a combination of the Black Knight and Weekend at Bernie’s, and then double it.

Historical precedence is of no value when considering what the liberals will do in the Senate in order to get their way. Look how they broke with precedence to stop the President’s nominations to lower courts. Don’t get me started on that though, I will NEVER forgive the Republicans that joined “The Gang” to deprive us of an opportunity to put a stop to that silliness once and for all.

[Chuck54]

A strategy he should have been following all along.

Yep Roberts and Alito sure don't follow the conservative ideology. Right?

What planet you been inhabiting?

[mikeus_maximus]

He only appointed a srtict contructionist last time because the party heads and his advisers pushed him to listen to us sexist biggots that comprise the base.

He won't do it again.

[dynachrome]

My point was a reference to the Harriet Myers fiasco and the withdrawal of good candidates from consideration to lower court vacancies. Pres. Bush had to be nudged to appoint a good conservative even with a’pub majority, if not the 60 votes needed for confirmation. I hope he does not try for the most inoffensive candidate if there is a vacancy.
(and I did support the Harriet Myers pick at first. Thanks to FR I found out how mis-informed I was)

[albie]

“Rosie will still be looking for a job”

...Bob Barker for SCOTUS!!! He’s free.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Actually Vincente Fox has donned a toupee and became Carlos Guiterrez

[sr4402]

The democrats will simply try to delay until her Heinous is president. Bush will simply do a recess appointment saying that the U.S. Senate failed to do it’s job.

[Andy'smom]

Who is retiring, Stevens?

[JohnnyZ]

My guess would be the Hispanic woman from Cali(?)

Sotomayor?

[hunter112]

Bush will simply do a recess appointment saying that the U.S. Senate failed to do it’s job.

Can you do a recess appointment to the SCOTUS? I thought that was only for appointments to the executive branch.

[Sybeck1]

Ruse to get conservatives minds off of amnesty.

[highball]

I predict that if a Supreme Court vacancy develops this summer, President Bush will not even nominate a strong proponent of judicial restraint. If you thought Harriet Miers was lame . . .

Bingo.

Now that term limits have freed W from ever having to face the voters, he's not even bothering to give lip service to conservative ideals anymore. He can nominate his inept cronies all he wants, and the Dims will gladly confirm them.

I wouldn't put it past him to nominate Fredo to the Court, just to show how much he supports the clown.

[only1percent]

I predict that the Senate won't confirm any Bush nominee.

A third white male was probably always out of the question.

The election of a Democratic majority in the Senate made out of the question a Latino or woman with any kind of movement conservative credentials.

But the 2006-2007 Supreme Court term, with its series of staunchly conservative 5-4 decisions, Roberts and Alito lining up behind Thomas and Scalia and bringing squishy Kennedy along, has probably put even a no-track-record Latino or woman out of the question.

Unless Bush sends up a nominee with a proven moderate track record -- we're talking about recent money-where-his-mouth- is opinions, speeches, or law review articles adopting at least a Sandra Day O'Connor moderation if not even more left-leaning inclination -- the Senate will just shoot it down. The dynamics of the 2008 Senate races make it unlikely the Democrats will lose their majority, meaning that even with a Republican succeeding Bush they won't be any worse off.

I think that, after the Harriet Miers fiasco, Bush won't dare nominate someone so liberal, and thus we'll see two or three shot-down nominations of conservative women and/or Latinos.

The battle would be over a recess appointment. Whether, or when, Bush would dare to do so, and whether Reid would try to frustrate it by not recessing the Senate at all.

[ZULU]

Chances are he’d nominate Alberto the pro-alien, anti-gun, pro-affirmative action fruitcake who claims he runs the Justice Department - or a similar Administraion or Bush family flunkie.

I have lost all confidence in this President.

[MattinNJ]

Can we at least give the President the respect and credit he deserves on Supreme Court and judicial appointments? I am as adamantly opposed to the amnesty bill as anyone, but sheesh, Roberts and Alito were superb picks.

Flame away

[sr4402]

Can you do a recess appointment to the SCOTUS? I thought that was only for appointments to the executive branch.

Yeah, it would set off a firestorm. But one that needs to be settled. Can the U.S. Senate hold off voting on a Supreme Court nominee for the four years of that presidency? Currently the answer seems to be yes.

Wonder what the Supreme Court would think if both parties denied any new SCOTUS members for a generation?

[Cyber Liberty]

The author makes a lot of suppositions with which I cannot agree. Mostly, it's a lot of rosey-eyed optimism in regards to the Democrats. He constantly states that there has never been a "partisan filibuster", which is technically true, I suppose, but it's also a distinction without a difference. A candidate filibustered for any reason, like Fortas, doesn't write very many Supreme court decisions.

He thinks it unthinkable the Democrats would ever break with "tradition" and filibuster a SCOTUS candidate, nor try to block a candidate through technical means. To believe this is the height of naivete. I'm still laughing at the thought that past practice matters to Harry Reid, even as I am previewing and hitting "post".

He says Bush would "stand by" his court pick. Like heck he will, he's too busy trying to overcome his conservative base. He'd pick a San Francisco liberal just to spite the base he's come to despise. Besides, who'd shepherd the candidate through a Senate that is now much more hostile? Fred's a little busy this time.

Cane anybody name a Democrat incumbent running for Senate anywhere that wouldn't pick up a huge windfall of points from their base by opposing Bush no matter what he does with a new SCOTUS pick? The "redness" of the state be damned. He even goes so far to suggest that Landrieu would support a conservative court pick. Hello? She was in the top 5 politicians making hay of Katrina, and the issue has stuck with her voters whether we FReepers like it or not. Stopping the evil Bush in any way, by any means, gets her numbers up, no matter how illogical it seems.

This article is so rose-colored that I'd swear it were written by Donald Lambro.

[JSDude1]

My advice: Nominate ROY MOORE! ;)!!!!!

[ken21]

i don’t understand why pubbie u.s. supremes

drift to the left.

but convesely, democrap u.s. supremes go

even more socialist.

[hunter112]

Wonder what the Supreme Court would think if both parties denied any new SCOTUS members for a generation?

I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have trouble staying non-dead (or at least awake) for that long!

[Clump]

I disagree. This would be his chance to rally his base, especially at a time when they are so pissed about illegal immigration. Furthermore, I think he truly understands his opportunity to establish a SCOTUS that will prove him to be the most accomplished conservative president in the last 50 years. 3 out of 3 will be much better than Reagan’s 1 out of 3 and his father’s 1 out of 2. A legacy like this would last for generations to come.

[TSchmereL]

My belief is that George W. Bush actually despises his base. It is not easy enough to be a conservative. It is much easier as an elitist to pursue a liberal agenda. George W. Bush fears the conservative base. He actually would prefer it to be powerless and dependent upon him which explains his attempt to destroy the electoral power of the conservative base through amnesty for illegal Democrat voters.

However, I acknowledge that Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and John G. Roberts, Jr. appear to have been good nominations. But I note that the conservative base had to raise hell and object loudly to others to get Bush to nominate them.

[William Tell]

hunter112 said: "Can you do a recess appointment to the SCOTUS? I thought that was only for appointments to the executive branch."

Recess appointments automatically expire at the end of the next session of Congress. The value of Supreme Court appointments is that the justices serve for life, changing the direction of the Court for a generation or more.

Making a recess appointment to the Supreme Court not only gives up the lifetime appointment opportunity, but much worse, it provides that same opportunity to the administration in power when the recess appointment expires.

For this reason, I can't see anything but bad coming from a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.

[hunter112]

For this reason, I can't see anything but bad coming from a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.

What if a recess appointment is made of an older moderate who could clear the Senate? Then, presuming we get the Congress back, and keep the Presidency, we can simply let the Republican President nominate someone more conservative.

If the Rats retain the Senate, and even (heaven forbid!) take the Presidency, they'd be faced with a choice of renominating and reconfirming the recess appointee, or just nominating and confirming their own, which is what they'd get with refusing to confirm a conservative nominee of Bush's.

[princess leah]

What about a senate insider like Jeff Sessions?

[hunter112]

What about a senate insider like Jeff Sessions?

Nice idea, but I'd hate to see a worthy man like Sessions removed from the Senate, especially if the Rats prevail. In that case, we're going to need people who are politically courageous.

Perhaps another Senator, who had good relations with the Rats? Maybe this is George Allen's calling, or John Ashcroft's, for instance.

[highball]

Can we at least give the President the respect and credit he deserves on Supreme Court and judicial appointments? I am as adamantly opposed to the amnesty bill as anyone, but sheesh, Roberts and Alito were superb picks.

Yes, but let's not forget that Alito was not W's first choice.

W deserves credit for Roberts, but we get the credit for Alito.

[Jim Robinson]

Good idea. Also, but make sure they are conservatives. Continue nominating them one conservative after another as the senate bats them down. If it ties up the senate and or leaves the court with a vacant seat (probably a vacant liberal seat) for a year or more, great!

[hunter112]

Thanks, Jim! In all my years as a FReeper, this was the first post of mine that you responded to, I feel honored!

[William Tell]

hunter112 said: "What if a recess appointment is made of an older moderate who could clear the Senate? "

If the older moderate could clear the Senate, then a recess appointment wouldn't be needed. I would maintain that having the "moderate" on the bench for a lifetime would be far superior to handing the liberals a lifetime appointment of their own. That is, as long as the "moderate" is rabidly pro-Second Amendment.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL

[Notwithstanding]

Click here to smell the Incense at www.PositivelyAveMaria.com