Posted on 07/16/2005 12:17:56 PM PDT by jeltz25
O’Connor’s Replacement Comments (38)July 15, 2005 at 1:13 pm. By Erick --> About SCOTUSThe Week Magazine has a brief rundown of “the shortlist” for Supreme Court nominees.
Let me just say that I’m increasingly convinced that O’Connor’s replacement is not on this list. In fact, in the past twenty-four hours, one name has been heard and discussed more than any other. Meet her here.
Congressman Billybob
What practicing Catholics are being considered?
How about a nominee who is a constitutional lawyer, woman, pro-life, pro-second ammendment, who is also young?
Nominate Ann Coulter!
Glendon is very, very shaky.
We could lose ground with her. The New Republic loves her.
Do more research!!!
Other than her age, why is Glendon shaky?
on the age thing, and even if it's a different nominee-wouldn't you rather have say, 10 yrs of a solid, good justice than 20 yrs of a younger souter-like justice. i agree ideally the pick should be younger, but if there aren't any who fit the billi'll take what i can get. also, i don't know that much about her, and the good stuff i saw mostly deals with abortion/family issues-i have no idea about other areas of jurisprudence
Congressman Billybob, what have you heard about Diane Sykes (7th Circuit)? I've been hearing her name floated recently in addition to the tradition women contenders such as Clement and Brown.
Ironically, the betting outlets have better histories of predicting the outcome of political decisions than the pundits who do this for a living. LOL.
Congressman Billybob
Just for starters:
From her web site (via a previous FR post):
Harvard professor ... bad.
Frequent contributor to Chuck Colson's First Things ... good.
Her picture next to a quote from some guy named Lonergan extolling the virtues of centrism ... definitely not good.
Her most recent book is about Eleanor Roosevelt and her proudest achievement: the framing of the U.N.’s declaration of rights ... Yikes!
In 1991, elected President of the UNESCO sponsored International Association of Legal Science
Just a few reasons (besides her age) that she is "shaky."
We would not likely gain any ground with her as the nominee.
good points. here's some others for consideration:
warning: somewhat long, but interesting, nonetheless
42 Mongo Mere Pawn
Posted on July 16th, 2005 at 9:48 pm. About 'O’Connor’s Replacement'.
Glendon is actually an inspired choice, especially because of her age. First, she is a legal heavyweight on both constitutional and comparative law issues, and all will recall that the current vogue among Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, et al., is the comparative law interpretation of the Constitution. Professor Glendon will provide an additional counterweight, with the Chief, and Justices Thomas and Scalia because she actually knows and understands the relative merits of the juvenile death penalty jurisprudence of Mozambique (Roper v. Simmons), but considers it completely irrelevant to a proper interpretation of the text of the Constitution as understood by those who authored and ratified it.
Second, there is a reason the late Pontiff appointed Professor Glendon to lead the delegation of the Holy See against the bureaucratic minions of the feminist NGOs at the Beijing Conference. She is one of the most well-recognized, devout Roman Catholic women in the United States. Further, based upon her writings on abortion, divorce and other family issues, including her seminal first work, Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987), she is the most articulate voice for a traditionalist view of the interrelation between private and public morals. Finally, having admirably handled the PC police at Harvard Law, she is perfectly capable of handling virtually anything thrown at her by the Feminist Left (and their fellow travelers among the Senate Democrats). In fact, she authored a book, Rights Talk, in 1991, specifically arguing against the PC culture and in favor of returning to a balance of individual rights with community obligations and responsibilies.
Although the President would no doubt like to avoid a battle over abortion, the battle will occur. Justice O’Connor was the swing vote in the partial birth abortion decision (Carhart I) and the Supreme Court will consider the propriety of the Eighth Circuit’s recent decision on the second statute, if not this term, then the next, i.e., before the next presidential election. Whoever replaces Justice O’Connor will also be critical in the Court’s decision on New Hampshire’s parental consent statute this upcoming term. Either of those cases present the Left with their primary talking point regardless who the President nominates. Professor Glendon is the most knowledgeable, articulate and, significantly, female individual available to address and educate the American public about the mess Roe has made of our constitutional jurisprudence. She has already undergone stiff cross-examination in the regard when she testified in front of Congress concerning the constitutionality of the first statute.
And this is where her age becomes critical.
This nomination will be more like an election than any other probably in the history of this republic. The key decisions will come in the next two to three years, not in ten or fifteen. Any conservative female nominee the President nominates born less than 18 years before Roe v. Wade will be denigrated by the Feminist Left as a wayward sister who lacks first hand knowledge of the horror of pre-Roe America. In her mid-sixties, Professor Glendon is personally and perfectly aware of the “reproductive health issues” faced by women before Roe and, because of her legal expertise therein, is uniquely qualified to debunk much of what passes as conventional wisdom. She cannot be portrayed as a wayward and uninformed sister. She can do more good in nationally televised hearings than Conservative Women of America has done in the last thirty years because the MSM cannot freeze her out in favor of NOW and NARAL. The American people sense that there is something very wrong with the Court’s libertine jurisprudence. The case must be made and Professor Glendon has the personal and professional gravitas to make it. Another nominee who respectfully declines to discuss the issue that has torn the country apart for the last thirty years will not cut it this time.
Which brings me to Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
Senator Kennedy will be this hearing’s Senator Heflin. A majority of Americans do NOT agree with him or Senator Kerry on most constitutional issues. The vitriol with which Senators Kennedy and Kerry (and Schumer and Leahy) will attack a distinguished and orthodox Roman Catholic professional woman will place that constituancy at the peril or their party, and the attack, being in the open (as opposed to the Pryor hearings) will be the kind of ugly, “Democrats behaving badly” fiasco into which the Wellstone memorial turned for most other Americans.
Add the light of truth the blogosphere will shine, and I’m pretty optimistic about the outcome.
I've read many of your articles with interest, but I don't recall writing directly to you before now.
What do you think the odds would be on changing the Court's moniker from
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
to
Supreme Court, Rulers of the United Metrosexual States (SCROTUMS)?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.