Supreme Court Strategy President Bush should give voters what they want: conservative Justices.

Opinion Journal ^

[Cedar]

Supreme Court Strategy President Bush should give voters what they want: conservative Justices.

The first post-election political skirmish is taking place over the Supreme Court, with President Bush getting lectures that his re-election victory means nothing when it comes to judges. Funny, that isn't what his opponents told us before the election.

Then they warned that the "future of the Supreme Court" for a generation was at stake, that if Mr. Bush won he'd have license to name more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases to the federal bench... So now that they've won, why is Mr. Bush the one who is supposed to appoint different nominees than he named in the first term?

We'd say the President has an obligation, all right, but it's to the voters who elected him. His supporters sent a clear signal about the kind of judges they want nominated and confirmed. The Democrats who filibustered appellate court nominees for the first time in history are the folks who need to rethink their strategy.

To set the proper tone, Mr. Bush could begin his new term by re-nominating every candidate who was filibustered and is willing to go through the process again. All 10 nominees were highly qualified and had enough Democratic support to be confirmed if they hadn't been blocked by a liberal minority from receiving a full Senate vote..

In thinking about possible nominees, it helps first to understand the nature of the current court. Far from being conservative in the judicial sense of that word, today's court is controlled by the swing votes of two justices--Mrs. O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy--who lean left on such crucial issues as racial preferences, church-state relations, property rights, abortion and gay marriage. Especially if the Chief leaves, the court will need another conservative.. to maintain its current balance...

[nanak]

A new David H. Souter = Alberto Gonzales

[meema]

bump

[Cedar]

Go to this link below...it lists Arlen Specter getting $10,000 from a Pro-Abortion (choice) PAC group (read the list):

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pacrecips.asp?Ind=Q15

[Clintonfatigued]

Who Bush nominates to the Supreme Court should be influenced by which justice retires. Nearly everyone agrees that Chief Justice William Rehnquest, a brilliant legal mind, will be the first to step down.

J. Michael Luttig of Virginia, Associate Justice on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, would be the ideal choice. Like Rehnquest, Luttig is a brilliant legal mind with strong conservative leanings. The only problem he would face is a 'Rat filibuster. But Luttig is less likely to face one if it's Rehnquest whom he's replacing.

[mississippi red-neck]

Here's a few more of Specter's supporters--

Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz, a fierce critic of the way Bush was elected, has contributed to Specter in the current and previous election cycles.

--

Harold Ickes Jr., the former Clinton White House aide who runs the Media Fund putting anti-Bush advertising on television, gave Specter $1,000 last year.

-- Richard Ben-Veniste, the high-powered Washington lawyer serving on the independent 9/11 Commission, is a Specter backer. He contributed to Specter in 1997 when Ben-Veniste was representing Terry McAuliffe, now the Democratic national chairman, in connection with the Teamsters scandal. Ben-Veniste is generous to Democrats, but Specter is the only Republican on record as being helped by him.

"Arlen is with us on votes that matter," conservative Sen. Rick Santorum, the other Pennsylvania senator, says in a television ad for Specter. Specter did vigorously support Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation. But he was not "with us" in opposing Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, in failing to support the full Bush tax cut and in voting against President Bill Clinton's removal from office.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a leader in establishing a liberal litmus test on judicial opponents, last year wrote Bush listing Specter among desirable Supreme Court nominees

[Cedar]

Thought I'd post parts of the article (lost to the excerpt) regarding possible vacancies...

"As for the Supreme Court, one or more vacancies seem highly likely in a second Bush term--or even earlier if Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is 80 and seriously ill, retires before Inauguration Day. The nine current Justices have served together for 10 years, a modern-day record. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had health problems. John Paul Stevens is 84.

In thinking about possible nominees, it helps first to understand the nature of the current court. Far from being conservative in the judicial sense of that word, today's court is controlled by the swing votes of two justices--Mrs. O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy--who lean left on such crucial issues as racial preferences, church-state relations, property rights, abortion and gay marriage. Especially if the Chief leaves, the court will need another conservative merely to maintain its current balance. That includes its mini-revival of federalism in the Lopez line of cases.

We assume that Mr. Bush is listening to the warnings from key Democrats, who are already saying that a fight is inevitable no matter what. If that's true, and we believe it is, then Mr. Bush might as well nominate judges worth the battle. Selecting another blank slate like David Souter won't do him any good, because his supporters will object while the liberal opposition will still "Bork" whomever he sends up. Though sometimes said to be a "moderate"--no one really knows--White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzales will be pummeled because he signed off on the famous "torture memos."

So Mr. Bush might as well nominate the judicial likes of Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, Sam Alito, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson, among others, and fight it out. They are all distinguished and in the judicial mainstream. If Democrats defeat one nominee, send up another, and another after that. If Mr. Rehnquist retires early, we'd recommend a recess appointment to forestall an immediate fight and give the new Justice time to establish himself. There have been 12 recess appointments in Supreme Court history. The most modern examples--Earl Warren, William Brennan, Potter Stewart--were all confirmed by the Senate."

[Cicero]

Safire is the last person I'd listen to. He is strongly pro-abortion, among other things.

If you want a woman candidate, then you need someone who is a conservative. I'd suggest Mary Anne Glendon, who is immensely qualified. If you appoint a Catholic, you have to make darned sure it isn't another liberal Catholic. Justice Brennan was a Catholic, and he was the guy who engineered Roe v. Wade from behind the scenes, using Blackmun as his sock puppet.

Clarence Thomas would be a marvellous chief justice.

The top priority is to reverse Roe v. Wade. Even for those conservatives who are not pro-life, this is essential, because it was a tyrannical judicial imposition on our democratic freedoms and a violation of states' rights as well as a violation of the constitutional right to life.

Strict construction would also return to the people the right to keep and bear arms and the right to freedom of religion, which the justices have encroached upon.

I think libertarians can live with the reversal of Roe, even if they support abortion. Those who support abortion should argue for it in the voting booth, not by judicial fiat. That has been disastrous to the balance of powers and the rule of law.

[Cowboy Bob]

I think Bush should appoint a Hispanic Catholic woman to the court. There are about three potential candidates, William Safire discussed the possibility and I think he's right.

While you're at it, why not make her Black, handicapped and gay?

I'd just be happy if the next Justice is Conservative.

[Haro_546]

I hope O'horror retires, her usage of international law to eliminate states rights sent chivers down my spine.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

The fact is, the Democrats are going to dig their heels in and try to fight to the death over ANY and EVERY nominee they think might pose a threat to Roe v. Wade -- a liberal candidate campaign cash cow. Lots of Dem candidates may privately consider abortion wrong but they don't mind the blood money of Planned Infanticide-hoodlums.

The hard fact is, we MUST brace and stand behind the staunch Right-Wing part of the party--the part that doesn't waffle on the moral issues... over the divisive issues--the issues that decided rightly let one look at oneself in the mirror and sleep at night. Political expediency be damned. Let the filibusters go all nine innings, all four years of W's second term...a more Conservative SCOTUS and a free-er Mideast would be a hefty legacy indeed.

Frist's speech indicated his willingness to do whatever it took to break the Dem. stranglehold. He didn't mention the 'nuclear option' nor rule it out....it does sound like it's still very much an option. Where previous Republicans have BLOWN it--has been in letting other Senate business continue despite the gun-to-the-head, "selective filibustering" on the judges...if the Dems filibuster hopefully Frist will make the Dems' efforts bring the entire Senate to a grinding halt and show them as the obstructionists they are. Hopefully since they've lost some key players their will won't be as strong but we must be prepared for a long, hard bitter battle and we must prevail.

Senate Dems = Womb Insurgents

[Cedar]

Ping--thought you might be interested

[StJacques]

Well I'm pro-life Cicero and I want justices to be pro-life, but what I'm focusing on is a scenario in which the Democrats would either have to approve or commit political suicide. Regardless of any individual candidate's suitability, the left is quite capable of "Borking" them. I want to make sure they pay a terrible price for doing so. I think a Roman Catholic, and especially a Hispanic, would be perfect. These were the two constituencies we "turned" to our advantage in the last election. Those Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know that too. And yet I am convinced that even if they do know it, they may be so completely under the thumb of NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and their ilk that they'll blow it for themselves.

[jim35]

Don't hold back. Say what you really mean! :-)

[Cedar]

Found some interesting comments on the "pro-abortion/choice" group embedded in the Republican Party, known as Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. Apparently they keep company with the very liberal Planned Parenthood and Emily's List, etc.

Here are statements about their giving money and large support to Specter:

April 6--In addition to Sen. Arlen Specter's pitch to a Jewish group of Democrats, and the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition's direct-mail campaign urging 20,000 Democratic voters to switch for the primary, a major international union is getting into the game...

April 18-...the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. The Washington group is spending $450,000 for Specter, including 200,000 mailings now going to moderate Republicans, said Jennifer Blei Stockman, the national cochair.

August 23-..Amid those heavy flows of political donations, pro-choice political organizations like Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, EMILY's List, The WISH List and the Republican Majority for Choice are also expected to raise substantial sums during election season of over $50 million to support pro-choice candidates, get out the vote and broadcast advertisements.

Link reference:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:2CEKA1i7lkkJ:www.rpcc.org/data/pdf/pdf22_gl/pdf22_pdf1.pdf+pro-choice+donations+arlen+specter&hl=en

[Cedar]

"Anybody have verifiable knowledge of any Planned Parenthood - type organizations contributing to Specter?"

See also my post #34

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Excellent, thanks for the research. When character doesn't lead...FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[mississippi red-neck]

Thanks cedar.This guy is carrying more baggage than Continental Trailways.

[SirLurkedalot]

Potential 20,000+ post thread alert! LMAO!

[Holden Magroin]

Bush would have to nominate someone relatively young (early to late fourties) so that he or she would be on the Court for thirty years. Also, the nominee should have no paper trail on various issues. Since all but a couple of federal appellate court judges fit this profile, I think Bush would be wise to nominate either a state Supreme Court Justice or a state Attorney General.

[SuziQ]

The Democrats who filibustered appellate court nominees for the first time in history are the folks who need to rethink their strategy.

Especially since their ringleader lost his seat in the Senate to someone who advocated dumping the filibuster and nominating strict constructionists. The lesson, however, will be lost on the Dims.