Posted on 06/11/2005 10:17:13 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - If there is a Supreme Court vacancy this summer, President Bush may look no farther than the Capitol for a member of Congress who can be confirmed quickly. Past presidents have done it, more than two dozen times.
While admittedly long shots, GOP Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas are being talked up by some conservatives as possible nominees for the high court.
Seen as most likely to step down is Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who at 80 is fighting cancer. Retirement also might be attractive option for Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, and John Paul Stevens, 85.
Kyl is a stalwart pro-business conservative and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cornyn is a former Texas Supreme Court justice and state attorney general. Both men have been at the forefront in fighting Democratic filibusters against Bush's federal appeals court nominees.
Like all potential Supreme Court nominees — most lists of would-be candidates have at least 10 judges, lawyers or lawmakers — the senators played down their chances.
"If I was on the president's short list, I think I would have heard about it by now," Kyl said with a laugh.
Cornyn said, "It's flattering, but I like my current job and I'm not looking for another one."
Twenty-six men who served in Congress — 10 only in the Senate, 12 only in the House and four in both chambers — later joined the Supreme Court. The revolving door has turned the other way only once: David Davis resigned from the court in 1877 to represent Illinois in the Senate as an independent.
Bush has looked to Congress when filling federal court vacancies.
He picked Rep. Christopher Cox (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Cox withdrew after California's two Democratic senators opposed him. He is now awaiting confirmation to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Outsiders agree that Kyl and Cornyn are less likely to be selected by Bush for a Supreme Court vacancy if Rehnquist is the first to retire.
"I would be very surprised to see a Republican senator nominated to replace Rehnquist," said Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice. "It would make more sense to nominate a Republican senator like Cornyn to replace Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens."
The president would be expected to replace Rehnquist with a non-Washington conservative because senators know that pick will not change the court's ideological balance, Rushton said.
But if O'Connor or Stevens leaves, Bush could swing the court further to the right by picking either Kyl or Cornyn. Both senators are considered more conservative than O'Connor and Stevens.
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.
Senators have just emerged from a partisan deadlock over Bush's picks for appeals courts. Choosing a conservative senator might be attractive because of "senatorial courtesy" — the idea that senators will not be overly harsh to one of their own during the confirmation process.
The downside is that, for a time, the Republicans' 55-vote majority could shrink if Kyl is a nominee. Arizona's Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, probably would appoint a Democrat to replace him until the 2006 election.
Of course, senatorial courtesy is never a guarantee.
Cornyn, for example, might find himself having to explain comments he made after several violent attacks on judges this year. He said he wondered whether frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."
Critics said his comments could incite violence against judges and the remarks could come back to haunt Cornyn.
Several years ago, former GOP Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina tried his best to scuttle former Democratic Sen. Carol Moseley Braun's nomination as ambassador to New Zealand, until Republican leaders made it clear they would not let him.
Former Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., had a hard time getting past Democratic senators to become Bush's first attorney general. The Senate voted to confirm him 58-42, the narrowest margin ever for an attorney general.
___
On the Net:
Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record): http://kyl.senate.gov
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record): http://cornyn.senate.gov
Sessions would also make a good running mate to a GOP moderate from the north or west.
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.)
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?
Correction, Parkers opponent was Robert Smith
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.
The Senate has never had these Democrats before.
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.
Very creative. You think like a Democrat politically, but not philosophically, thank Goodness.
How 'bout Tom Coburn? lol
I'm pulling for McCain and Hillary... might as well start the revolution sooner rather than later.
(LOL! Just kidding!)
Nominate John Ashcroft ........
Then seat him on the bench.
ROTFLMYKWO! This is one of your best, b.
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
[I've always wanted to do this....]
(((L.Q.C. Lamar mini-ping.)))
See post #35.
You've always wanted to do that? lol Tell me why.
"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.)))"
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.
Actually, that's not correct
Remember, Zell Miller took the seat from Paul Coverdell, so that was an effective party switch for the seat
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.