Senators Mentioned As Possible Justices

AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/11/05 | Jesse J. Holland - AP

[leadpenny]

Sessions would also make a good running mate to a GOP moderate from the north or west.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Exactly, and it would probably be Bud Cramer, who is very much a social conservative, and who is akin to God in north Alabama (meaning it would be harder to defeat him in a state election)

I have to be honest, there are alot of conservative Republicans in Alabama who will not vote for Moore under any circumstances, even if it means we're stuck with Siegelman for another 4.

Now, I used to vote in what is now Mobile County Precinct 52. It is a wealthy area. The presidential vote was 80% for Bush, 19% for Kerry.

Now, when it came down to the Supreme Court race, you did have straight ticket voting, however the result went something like this

Parker (Moore's candidate) 53%, Tom Parker (Dem opponent) 46%

Parker was the only Republican judicial candidate who got less than 65% of the vote in that precinct.

This precinct also voted in favor of Amendment 2 by a comfortable margin.

Roy Moore does not represent all the Republicans in this state, and there are alot of Republicans here who will vote for a Democrat before they vote for anything connected with Moore.

(I should note, Smith will be running for office as a Republican next year.)

[leadpenny]

Thanks, I'll keep and eye on Alabama. I was stationed at Ft. Rucker for flight school in 66 and then in 68 and 69. There was a Sessions Peanut business in Enterprise. Is Jeff Sessions related to those folks?

[AzaleaCity5691]

Correction, Parkers opponent was Robert Smith

[Brilliant]

My first reaction is why on earth would we appoint the guys who've made such a mess of Congress to the Supreme Court? But my second reaction is that they can't be any worse than the idiots who are already on the Supreme Court.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

They both also have the advantage of being members of "the club." The Senate has never rejected one of its own for the high court.

The Senate has never had these Democrats before.

[Redmen4ever]

A few comments:

1. The Democrats will give Bush a "pass" on replacing Chief Justice Renquist (because replacing one conservative with another will not change the composition of the court). Bush will use this opportunity to name a seasoned jurist, of the white male persuasion.

2. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent Bush from replacing any of the liberals on the court with a conservative. This is when Bush will nominate an Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, and make the Democrats go into apopelexy as to whether they will try to fillibuster the nomination (which will be demanded by the hard-left) or hurt themselves with our country's fastest growing ethnic minority group.

3. Senator Kyl is a good guy, but until Arizona elects a Republican governor, he will not be appointed to the Supreme Court. Senator Cornyn, on the other hand, comes from a state with a Republican Governor. Plus, he was state Attorney General before being elected to the U.S. Senate. If, by chance, a second opportunity opens up where Bush can replace a liberal with a conservative, I think the nomination of a U.S. Senator might be a nice way to bypass a fillibuster attempt.

4. With regard to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if the two Democratic Senators from California want to "blue card" nominees from their state, so be it. President Bush can nominate non-Californians. Currently, the 9th Circuit is 2-to-1 dominated by Democrat-appointees. Every other circuit is either roughly balanced, or decidedly tilted to Republican-nominees. This is why the 9th Circuit is routinely overturned by the Supreme Court. It is a rogue Circuit, whose ways have become unsound. If we can't restrain its judicial activism through the course of appointments, we may have to consider other options.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Nominate Sen. Leahy. Delay the vote. Ruin his reputation during the bickering. Make false accusations. Then vote him down. Ruin him. Others too.

Very creative. You think like a Democrat politically, but not philosophically, thank Goodness.

[traviskicks]

How 'bout Tom Coburn? lol

[streetpreacher]

I'm pulling for McCain and Hillary... might as well start the revolution sooner rather than later.

[bourbon]

Lott for SCOTUS!!!

(LOL! Just kidding!)

[dixiechick2000]

ROTFLOL!

[festus]

Nominate John Ashcroft ........

Then seat him on the bench.

[onyx]

ROTFLMYKWO! This is one of your best, b.

[NormsRevenge]

Senators Who Have Served on Supreme Court

By The Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050611/ap_on_go_co/senator_justice_glance;_ylt=Agw9ADDTuIZbk4eHQ8PEB.KyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

----


Senators who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court:


Hugo Black, D-Ala. Senate 1927-37; associate justice 1937-71.

Harold Burton, R-Ohio. Senate 1941-45; associate justice 1945-58.

James Byrnes, D-S.C. House 1911-25; Senate 1931-41; associate justice 1941-42.

Salmon P. Chase, Free Soil/R-Ohio. Senate 1849-55, 1861; chief justice 1864-73.

David Davis, I-Ill. Senate 1877-83; associate justice 1862-77.

Oliver Ellsworth, Pro-Administration/Federalist-Conn. Senate 1789-96; chief justice 1796-1800.

Howell Jackson, D-Tenn. Senate 1881-86; associate justice 1893-95.

Lucius Lamar, D-Miss. House 1857-60, 1873-77; Senate 1877-85; associate justice, 1888-93.

John McKinley, Jacksonian/D-Ala. Senate 1826-31, 1837; House 1833-35; associate justice 1837-52.

Stanley Matthews, R-Ohio. Senate 1877-79; associate justice 1881-89.

Sherman Minton, D-Ind. Senate 1935-41; associate justice 1949-56.

William Paterson, Pro-Administration-N.J. Senate 1789-90; associate justice 1793-1806.

George Sutherland, R-Utah. House 1901-03; Senate 1905-17; associate justice 1922-38.

Edward White, D-La. Senate 1891-94; associate justice 1894-1910; chief justice 1910-21.

Levi Woodbury, Jacksonian/D-N.H. Senate 1825-31, 1841-45; associate justice 1845-51.

___

Source: Senate Historical Office

[bourbon]

[I've always wanted to do this....]

(((L.Q.C. Lamar mini-ping.)))

See post #35.

[onyx]

You've always wanted to do that? lol Tell me why.

[dixiechick2000]

"Lucius Lamar, D-Miss. House 1857-60, 1873-77; Senate 1877-85; associate justice, 1888-93."


HUGE bump!

I got great satisfactiction
in seeing that, myself.

Thanks for the "(((L.Q.C. Lamar mini-ping.)))"

[MARTIAL MONK]

Do you really want Janet Napolitano to have the power to appoint someone to a U.S Senate seat?

Why not? In the first place, the nominee must be OF THE SAME PARTY as the Senator being replaced. Secondly, Napolitano is a very popular Governor up for reelection next year. Her future depends on conservatives staying home. She will not provoke them with an off the wall nomination. Finally, the appointment would be a one year appointment until the next general election, in this case coinciding with what would be the end of Kyl's term. She could use the appointment to preempt a popular challenger for her office. In any case we would likely get a more conservative appointment than if it were a Republican making the choice.

The Democratic nominee will be Jim Pederson who financed Napolitano's election. The more conservative the Republican, the better his chances are.

That said, Kyl will not be selected.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Actually, that's not correct

Remember, Zell Miller took the seat from Paul Coverdell, so that was an effective party switch for the seat